Download as PDF: Suffolk District Council: Partnerships Database

Abstract:

Suffolk Coastal District Council has set up a database to manage its involvement in external partnerships. The database was developed in response to the identification of partnership working as a potential risk in the Corporate Risk Assessment.

The database records the purpose and status of each partnership the Council is involved with. It identifies the council’s role; the support provided and matches the partnerships work with council priorities.

The database is used for evidence based scrutiny, to inform members and senior officers of the council’s involvement and to mitigate any duplication of effort and investment.

The Issue:

Suffolk Coastal District Council (the council) is involved in a wide range of activity and supports over 50 external partnerships financially, through member involvement, officer support and the provision of meeting spaces and administrative services.

The council was concerned that it was unable to effectively monitor the cost and impact of its commitment to external partnerships. The council also found it challenging to define the link between some partnership activity and its corporate objectives.  Officers and members were unsure which partnerships the council was involved in, what the objectives of these partnerships were, whether they were successful, who the main council contact was, and whether they were delivering value for money. The council was also concerned that it was missing good opportunities to analyse and share experience in managing successful partnerships and to maximise its support the third sector.

The ultimate trigger for action was the Corporate Risk Assessment process. Risk to the council from engagement in external partnership activity was identified as an issue, and the database was developed as a response.

What you did:

The Partnership Database is an internal resource which covers the whole district. It is ‘owned’ by the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Customers and Partners and is managed within the council’s Policy and Performance Team. The database was developed by a project team which included the Cabinet Member, Strategic Director, the senior Knowledge Management officer and the Countryside and Open Space manager (responsible for managing the previous partnership system).

The idea for the solution came from the success that the council has had using internally managed databases and e-forms to increase access to, and the quality of, information. The approach was developed with reference to wider reading around good practice; sources included IDeA Knowledge, ‘Hearts and Minds: commissioning from the voluntary sector’ Audit Commission 2005 and ‘Governing Partnerships – Bridging the Accountability Gap’ Audit Commission 2007.

The project team worked with the council’s in house IT unit and developed the database using established tools (Access database and e-forms) on the internal intranet system. This approach ensured that the system would be easy to maintain and use, remain in complete control of the council and would not be subject to any annual licence fee.

The database is managed by an administration group of 3 people; a representative of the Performance and Knowledge Management team (who also has responsibility for risk management), a representative from the IT team and a designated Partnerships Manager (the Countryside and Open Spaces Manager who had been previously responsible for maintaining the information).

The database hosts an individual report for each external partnership that the council is involved with or supports in any way. Each report records:

• The details of the partnership (name, lead contact, chair, website etc.)
• The aims and objectives of the partnership
• The council’s corporate objective (scorecard reference) and medium term priority for improvement that is addressed by the partnership activity
• Details of the appropriate Head of Service or Strategic Director and the Portfolio Holder
• The ‘type’ of the partnership, using descriptions developed by the council such as ‘goals based coalition’ or ‘shared service delivery’
• The level of resource input from the council in terms of staff, financial (amount and time commitment), in kind support etc
• The supporting member
• Whether the partnership has current Terms of Reference or Memoranda of Association, an annual report or review, and governance documents (identified by a drop down list)
• An assessment of risks associated with the council’s engagement (likelihood of risk and impact of risk)

The database is accessible to all staff and members. The lead officer for each partnership is responsible for updating the records and maintaining the status of each partnership (active, under-review or completed).

The database is used to collate and make available information on partnerships to officers and members. It also allows the Policy and Performance team to monitor how partnerships contribute to the council’s corporate objectives and medium term priorities for improvement, to see which service or geographical area a partnership affects and to keep track on the council’s commitment to external partnerships. Information on the use of resources allows the council to capture the cost to the council of its involvement. The database also helps the council to identify the benefit accruing from its involvement, in terms of resource commitment from other partners and the level of any additional funding attracted.

The impact:

The database took in the region of nine months to develop. It was provided without the need for any additional or dedicated funds. It was built in house, using existing information technology solutions. The database is maintained by council officers as part of their core responsibilities and managed by the Performance and Policy team.

The database has significantly improved understanding of the council’s commitment to external partnerships. Members and officers can easily monitor which organisations the council works with, who the lead officers are and who the partnership contacts are. Access to clear and consistent information on the aims of partnerships and their links to council objectives prevents duplication of effort and investment.

Council officers realise the need to actively manage the council’s relationships with external partnerships, and are aware that it is now easy for managers to review the council’s involvement and any risks associated with it.  The database has not led to any change in member’s responsibilities. It has made their task easier by providing timely and relevant information, allowing each member to be clear about the purpose of the council’s involvement in each partnership, and its contribution.

The database will support regular reporting on involvement with external partnerships to the Community Customers and Partners Scrutiny Committee. This will improve the level of information available to the committee and help them ensure value for money.

The database will allow the council to identify potential savings and benefits and so prioritise its involvement and support for external partnerships more effectively. It will also allow the council to consider its work with partnerships from a strategic perspective, to ensure that its involvement reflects corporate objectives and priorities for improvement, and to ‘map’ partnership activity against the Sustainable Community Strategy and Local Area Agreement.

The database will support the council in evidence based scrutiny of its activity. It will ensure consistency of information about all partnerships in which it is involved. This will allow the scrutiny group to review partnership activity and review the council’s commitments as appropriate.

Lessons:

The need for third party information technology expertise would have meant that money had to be found for the development of the database. The council was able to use an in-house team at no monetary cost.

One of the main challenges encountered during development of the database was the need for engagement from officers beyond the project team from all parts of the council. All those involved in external partnerships were required to provide detailed information on each partnership. This had to be researched and collated and often required some primary research to secure the necessary quality of information.

This challenge was overcome through communication and support, and as a result of the commitment of the member that ‘owned’ the project, and her drive to make it happen. The overt support of the Strategic Management Team was very important, including briefings to the Corporate Management Team to ensure that they recognised the value offered by the database, and would task their officers to use and maintain it.

The project team held training sessions for those officers responsible for inputting and maintaining information. Officers were also supported by three members of the administrative team who provided one-to-one sessions and even completed the first data and document entry.

The database has not been in use that long, but already the need to extract information in a bespoke format (as opposed to define ‘reports’) has meant that the Policy and Performance team have had to become adept at using Access to produce more sophisticated reports for members and senior officers.

The database is used by members to review their involvement in partnerships, to identify links between the partnership and the council’s objectives.  It provides simple access to contacts. It has been used to identify where members sit on partnerships as official council representatives rather than in some other capacity. Strategic Directors have also used the database to review activity and the council’s relationships with other agencies.

Data / evidence:

The Council hopes that implementation of the database will help it to increase its CPA score for use of resources and partnership working from a 3 (2007 and 2008) to a 4.

It will allow the Council to prevent duplication of investment and improve the efficiency of their engagement with the 55- 60 partnerships that they support.  It will also be used to inform decisions around partnership working and service delivery as part of the upcoming strategic review.

Further information:

Alison Matthews

Policy & Performance Manager
Suffolk Coastal District Council

T: 01394 444435

E: Alison.Matthews@suffolkcoastal.gov.uk

Download as PDF: Making Sense of: Community Engagement and Empowerment

Following an increasing policy focus on community engagement and empowerment over the last 5 to 10 years, a new Duty to Involve came into force for all local councils in April 2009. As well as the policy thrust, effective community engagement and empowerment makes sense for councils as it helps to build trust and to improve community relations. Three CAA Green Flag authorities (Lewisham, Wiltshire and East Riding) have been undertaking a range of innovative approaches to develop active citizens, strengthen community groups and improve their partnership working. These have included Area Boards and Local Assemblies, a Resource Advisory Group, long term relationships with the third sector and a Young Mayor programme. As a result increasing numbers of local people and partners have been involved in more devolved budget setting, service planning and agenda setting.

Essential Knowledge – What is community engagement and empowerment?

Community empowerment is the process of enabling people to shape and choose their local services so they can influence the way services are delivered. Community engagement refers to the practical techniques of involving local people in local decisions, especially reaching out to those who feel remote from public decisions. Community engagement and empowerment activities can range from involving communities in the planning, development and management of services to tackling the problems of a neighbourhood such as crime levels, drug misuse or the lack of play facilities for children. By people and government working jointly, community empowerment should result in more people being able to influence decisions about their communities and more people taking responsibility for tackling local problems.

The vision for empowering communities was set out by the then Home Secretary, David Blunkett MP, in two key speeches: the Scarman Trust Forum Lecture on 11 December 2004 and the Edith Kahn Memorial Lecture on 11 June 2003. Furthermore, in 2005 in Strong and Prosperous Communities, the Government set out its vision for local democracy based on the premise that local action by empowered residents and local councillors would improve the quality of local services and provide the foundation for strong and sustainable communities. More recently from 1st April 2009 a new Duty to Involve came into force which required all local councils to embed a culture of engagement and empowerment.

Councils have to get better at engaging with their communities for three reasons. Firstly, under the government’s empowerment agenda from April 2009 councils have a new duty to inform, consult and involve their stakeholders. The comprehensive area assessment (CAA) approach means that councils are judged on how well they work with partners to engage their citizens and improve the local area. All three main political parties share a belief in giving more say and power to local communities. Secondly, engagement can help Councils to improve their reputation and build trust among their residents, to demonstrate that they offer value for money and keep their residents well informed. And lastly, the effective communication that engagement requires is fundamental to promoting better community relations.

There are three key ingredients to community empowerment. Active citizens who are people with the motivation, skills and confidence to speak up for their communities and say what improvements are needed. Strengthened community groups with the capability and resources to bring people together to work out shared solutions. Partnership with public bodies who are willing and able to work as partners with local people.

By being awarded CAA Green Flags Wiltshire Council, East Riding of Yorkshire LSP and the London Borough of Lewisham show exceptional performance in empowerment and engagement to the benefit of their local residents.

What works?

Wiltshire’s Area Boards

The formation of Wiltshire as a unitary authority from 1st April 2009 created a very large rural authority. The bid for unitary status was clear in identifying a concern that such a large authority would require a localised governance structure to avoid the risk of being or being seen as a remote and unrepresentative organisation. As an area Wiltshire already had a very strong track record in disseminating learning through the National Beacon Scheme and through its role as a National Empowerment Champion. In creating 18 Area Boards across 20 areas Wiltshire aimed to:

• Decentralise local decision making to the community level in line with the concept of subsidiarity.
• Help the successful LSP to connect further with the local level which also involved a commitment from the Wiltshire Constabulary to realign their boundaries.
• Engage local people and build a sense of resilience by allowing communities to set their investment priorities for the finite resources

Established by Wiltshire Council but multi-agency in approach, each of Wiltshire’s 18 Area Boards has a Community Area Manager – a senior appointment with a multi-agency remit. With many ways for residents to become involved each Community Area Network has about 500 individual and organisational members signed up. The key policy document is the Area Boards Handbook which draws in recent academic learning on participative democracy and acts as a guide for all those involved in Area Boards. Unlike traditional area committee structures each Area Board operates like a mini-LSP. The Area Boards decide spending priorities with about £5 million devolved from Wiltshire Council over the next two years. The Area Boards also shape and prioritise mainstream service delivery across the public sector.

Each Area Board meeting is attended by a cabinet member and the theme of the meeting is structured around the appropriate members lead responsibilities such as transport or education. The meetings allow cabinet members to learn about local needs and concerns, discuss issues with a wide range of parties and, importantly, to agree publicly when action can and will be taken immediately. The Area Boards and Community Area Partnerships have also been used as a mechanism to consult on the development of local planning policy through their Local Development Framework and on local health priorities through the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment.

The Area Boards bring together relevant local partners to discuss and agree area solutions to the problems. Involving senior officers from organisations such as the Wiltshire Constabulary, NHS Wiltshire, Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Service and the Ministry of Defence, asking the rate payers of Wiltshire for additional funds is generally seen as a last resort. One example of this is the extension of the Community Payback Scheme (offenders undertaking community service sentences) to support local projects linked to local community plans. In using £2.8 million of Local Public Service Agreement (LPSA) Reward Grant to respond to the credit crunch and to tackle LAA priorities at the local level, the Area Boards were challenged to decide what actions they would want to do locally using their multi-agency remit.

The Community Area Managers are developing expertise through training with local authority departments and partners such as NHS, innovative academic partnerships, pilot approaches and development workshops, individual learning and collaboration with equalities and diversity team.

The LSP brings together the statutory agency partners to focus on the local priorities form their integrated intelligence and to set the top down challenge. Joint Strategic Needs Assessments are completed across the 20 Community Areas to help focus on priorities using evidence rather than consultation alone. The Area Boards are supported by an electronic community issue monitoring system which focuses on highlighting more strategic issues like vandalism and graffiti rather than the location of potholes. In this way, over 100 issues a week are referred to the Boards. The approach also helps to identify emerging and widespread themes which demand a more strategic response such as concerns about rural speeding. The online issue monitoring goes beyond normal consultation mechanisms by publicly tracking the response to each individual submission. For example, a review of Area Board structures achieved 1,000 responses in just five days.

Wiltshire’s Speedwatch Scheme

The community issue monitoring system across Wiltshire recorded an increasing level of concern about rural speeding. Rather than each individual approaching the police directly the Area Boards were able to act as the first point of contact. Evidence was collected from the PCT, police and highways authority to look at the nature and extent of the problem. If a MetroCount wire identified speeding problems enforcement action could be taken or a local Speedwatch scheme established. The Speedwatch scheme requires the local Community to have six local volunteers trained by the Neighbourhood Police Team who monitor speeds for two weeks. Warning letters are sent to offenders with the effects then re-assessed and again 12 months later. If necessary a Speed Indicator Device (SID) will be installed. By the autumn of 2009 23 Speedwatch sites had been set up and many other sites assessed. As a result police resources were freed up and additional equipment was purchased through funds from the Local Public Service Agreement (LPSA). Some of the speeding motorists were identified as local residents. In the long term the hope is that the number of lives lost in road traffic accidents, each costing the public purse £1.5 million, will be reduced.

Progress is measured against two national indicators: NI 4 (percentage of people who feel they can influence decisions in their locality) and NI 7 (environment for a thriving third sector). Over 10,000 local people have now signed up to be involved with the work of the Boards through local community area networks and over 6,000 local people have attended Area Board meetings in Wiltshire. This is still less than 5% of local residents and the Council has committed to a programme of public engagement experiments, with each Board challenged to develop new ways of involving local people during 2010/11.

While the Area Boards have only been in operation since June 2009, an earlier 12 month pilot tested the new ways of working. This found that people responded to small things such as being welcomed at meetings, using round tables and having members spread across tables to prevent a feeling of them and us. In the future, there is a desire to take this further by using member visits and videos to connect with residents in their everyday places – sheltered housing schemes, day care facilities, schools, shopping centres for example.

The Area Boards have been used as a mechanism to deal with sensitive issues and hear the views of vulnerable community groups. For example, meetings were held with residents of Wiltshire’s canal networks at a local public house where they raised serious concerns about the way public services responded to their unique needs. As a result of this informal contact, the community felt confident enough to come along and present their views and concerns to the Bradford on Avon Area Board.

Wiltshire Council has given the Area Boards significant delegated powers even if these are within their existing budgets. For some Council officers who were used to making their own decisions it has been a challenge to deliver the culture shift needed to more fully involve the Area Boards in those decisions. As a result Wiltshire Council has adopted a protocol that requires officers to self assess whether a decision should be referred to an Area Board.

The Area Boards have been able to lever in substantial external funding from regional empowerment programmes and the Regional Improvement and Efficiency Partnership. The Boards have also been able to use their delegated to lever local funding, achieving a return of £5 of community investment for every £1 they spend. Staff and support costs are not insignificant, but are believed to be broadly neutral compared to staffing levels under the old two-tier system in Wiltshire.

For the future while public awareness of Wiltshire’s Area Boards has reached 40% there is more to do engage with the remaining 60% of local residents. The Area Boards also have potential to be even more inclusive and involve an even wider cross-section of the community. For issues that run across local boundaries several Area Boards have been developing collaborative arrangements and more fluid governance arrangements and the Council has already reviewed its arrangements to build on the progress that has been made so far.

East Riding of Yorkshire Resource Advisory Group

The Comprehensive Spending Review of 2007 meant that East Riding of Yorkshire had to achieve savings in how they and their partners delivered the challenging new Local Area Agreement priorities set by their Local Strategic Partnership.

In February 2008 the East Riding LSP Board decided to establish a Resource Advisory Group to look in detail at the resourcing of the Local Area Agreement and to develop more robust service planning. The group was to be composed of key public sector chief executives and finance officers. The aim was to develop a shared approach to making efficiency savings, to align financial planning between organisations which have different budgetary cycles and to develop a common understanding of budget setting.

The Resource Advisory Group has an agreed work programme which covers joint area financial planning and value for money reviews for specific service areas. The work programmes have provided a very clear focus on resourcing issues and helped requests for additional funding to be made at the right stage of the budgetary cycle. A joint review of the substance misuse service has been completed. Reviews of the youth offending team and the community equipment service have been commissioned and are progressing.

Resource Advisory Group Review of Substance Misuse Service

East Riding’s Resource Advisory Group initially reviewed their Substance Misuse Service which is delivered by partners including the Council, NHS East Riding of Yorkshire, Humberside Police and Humberside Probation Service. The detailed review looked at value for money performance and ways to offset a predicted 21% reduction in funding. As a result delivery of the service was re-profiled with efficiency savings of £250,000 identified. The approach resulted in a real openness from partners to look at the problem, to identify solutions and to debate alternative service delivery options. Despite these financial constraints East Riding has been improving the impact of this service at a rate of 5% above the national average.

Most of the Resource Advisory Group co-ordination work is completed by the Council and its Principal Partnerships Performance Officer. Particular care is taken in agenda setting and effective minute taking by the Council’s Committee Services. Papers are issued ten days in advance of the Resource Advisory Group meetings to ensure that work is completed between the meetings. There has also been a range of ad hoc seminars involving service managers which has allowed each partner to explain their future financial pressures. This has allowed partners to address what normally would be unintended consequences. For example the fire service felt they would could plan for more home fire safety visits should the local PCT actively look to reduce the length of hospital stays. The Resource Advisory Group has also allowed organisations with different geographical areas of operation to work more closely together.

The Resource Advisory Group reports to the LSP Board and operates within agreed terms of reference which gives the group a clear role. The representative from partner organisations has to be their Chief Executive or key financial officer (e.g. Director of Finance). Meetings take place every six weeks and one week after the main LSP Board meeting.

The Resource Advisory Group has been able to achieve improvements in joint service delivery. All partners’ business plans are now more aligned to the Community Plan so they are more able to jointly support the priorities for the area. There has been more joint commissioning (e.g. of children services) to achieve more impact with fewer resources. Data quality protocols have been agreed between agencies and a joint customer insight project has received Regional Improvement and Efficiency Partnership and Communities and Local Government funding to bring together and analyse data from many partners.

A high level of trust has developed between the partners with good attendance at the Resource Advisory Group meetings. There has been high levels of commitment in terms of the consistency in the attendance of group members (or their substitutes) and by consistently acting as decision makers during the meetings.

In many ways, with its full service review approach, the Resource Advisory Group has been a forerunner of what has been adopted in the total place initiative. The Resource Advisory Group has allowed partners to achieve more with less and sharpened up their targeting of efficiency savings.

Extensive communication and consultation with those on the group has been necessary for the Resource Advisory Group to operate well. All group members are fully consulted and briefed prior to each Resource Advisory Group meeting so there are no surprises at the meetings and progress takes place between meetings. They have also been effective at cascading information and issues back into their own organisations.

A wide range of Council and partner staff have been involved in the Resource Advisory Group. The LSP Manager has been effective at getting good levels of involvement across all seven partner organisations. The Council’s business development team has been responsible for value for money reviews and analysis. The partnership performance group has looked at data sharing issues. The LSP’s communications group has looked at the alignment of campaigns and the pooling of marketing resources. There have been joint approaches to equality issues.

A narrow focus has been important. The Resource Advisory Group’s purpose has been made extremely clear in its terms of reference. This has allowed the group to avoid looking at issues that do not have a financial component.

In the future the Resource Advisory Group has much more scope for developing joint working and service integration. Partners will be able to use the Resource Advisory Group to respond jointly to their financial constraints. There will be more budget alignment and more pooling of resources. With its first service review completed and partners fully on board Resource Advisory Group has now moved centre stage to local delivery planning.

Community engagement and empowerment in Lewisham – Local Assemblies, the Young Mayor and the Third Sector

The London Borough of Lewisham and, since 2001, the Lewisham Strategic Partnership, which is chaired by the executive mayor, have had a long standing commitment to community engagement and empowerment. Over the last twenty years, the Borough has developed various innovative approaches to neighbourhood governance, civic engagement and localised service delivery that has been ahead of policy. With a long history of working with their third sector Lewisham was the first authority to have a compact with their voluntary and community sector. With a directly elected Mayor since 2001, the Borough has been operating a Young Mayor’s programme since 2003. More recently, following a Lewisham Mayor’s Commission which looked at empowering and engaging communities in 2006/7, the Borough created 18 Local Assemblies.

Lewisham’s long term relationship with its Third Sector

Lewisham actively engages with and builds the capacity of its third sector. Lewisham provides £5 million of grants to a local community and voluntary sector made up of about 1,000 organisations. There is also a faith fund for the 200, mainly Christian, faith organisations together with dedicated faith engagement officers. The grants programme was redesigned three years ago. A new monitoring programme introduced as a capacity building tool for organisational development. As well as good practice events training is provided by the community and voluntary sector.

Lewisham a took a conscious decision to split the ‘stronger’ from the ‘safer’ element in their LSP’s ‘safer and stronger’ theme to ensure a strong representation from their local third sector. The stronger partnership is chaired by the Director of the Voluntary and Community Sector and there are five LSP members from the third sector. Lewisham Council also funds two posts in Voluntary Action Lewisham to manage networks and forums and run elections.

Lewisham Council has a social enterprise development fund and operate a school for social entrepreneurs. Sixteen mainly young local people graduated from the social enterprise school on 22 March 2010.

Lewisham’s Young Mayor

In 2003 Lewisham was the first borough to introduce an elected young mayor and this year’s young mayor is 16-year-old Jacob Sakil. With one fifth of Lewisham’s population under 16, the Young Mayor is democratically elected every year through Lewisham’s schools and colleges. The approach has been successful with turnout increasing each year. Each young mayor has about £25,000 to spend on priorities and, by providing a strong voice for young people, is actively involved in the Council’s service planning and marketing activities. The Young Mayor is supported by a Youth Advisors’ Group and a Young Citizens’ Panel which link to the local young people’s forums and networks in addition to the school councils.

Lewisham’s Local Assemblies

During 2006/07, a Mayoral Commission on Empowering Communities and Neighbourhoods with cross party participation reviewed area engagement in Lewisham. One recommendation was to set up a universal offer of engagement through the creation of 18 Local Assemblies to replace the existing Area Forums. Each assembly:

• has the support of a ward co-ordinator, based in the council’s Community Services Directorate, with direct links to the wider strategic aims and executive functions of the council and its partners;
• has a online presence to provide an established means of communication and information sharing;
• can develop their own agenda and set up to five priorities for each ward;
• adopts a ‘Charter’ setting out what the assembly can expect in terms of the Council’s response to issues raised, information about local services and events, the role of local councillors and the administrative support that will be provided. The Charter also describes the Council’s expectations in relation to the extent to which the assembly is representative of the local community;
• is chaired by one of the three ward members and meets up to four times a year and is open to anyone who lives works or learns in the ward; and
• has a coordinating group composed of volunteers from the assembly (which must include one elected member and one representative from a local voluntary and community sector group) which meets to plan assembly meetings, develop agendas and move assembly business on. These groups often have representatives from the safer neighbourhood panels, RSLs and others active in the area.

The operational budget for Local Assemblies is around £670,000 a year excluding ward budgets and involves 13 Council officers. A locality fund of £10,000 per ward is provided with an additional £50,000 one-off grant being made to each assembly during 2008-09 and 2009-10 . The Local Assemblies have focussed on a range of issues including anti-social behaviour, improving green space, highway improvements and improving activities and facilities for young people. The Local Assembly coordinating group volunteers play a key role in co-ordinating groups working with the Councillors to plan assembly meetings. The Local Assemblies Link Officer Group is a group of senior and operational officers from across the council, police and PCT charged with providing assistance to strategic development issues and the delivery of the assembly action plans. The group is a forum to successfully manage assembly expectations in the progress of large and small issues. The group is an essential communication tool helping to raise the profile of assemblies across the council and with partners. Lewisham has also used the Local Assemblies to undertake participatory budgeting in three wards (Bellingham, Blackheath and Evelyn). Participatory voting event methodology is used at all assemblies.

All of Lewisham’s community engagement and empowerment activities are measured against NI 6 (Participation in regular volunteering) and NI 7 (Environment for a thriving third sector). Against NI 7 Lewisham achieved the highest performance in London and the fourth best in the country. In 2008/9 just under 4,200 people attended Local Assemblies with high levels of satisfaction:

• More than 84% of people report that Local Assemblies help them to understand more about local issues.
• More than 56% of people agree that Local Assemblies allow them to influence local decisions.
• More than 73% of people agreed that the Local Assemblies helped to build positive relationships between local people.

Lewisham put their success down to consistent support over a number of years, avoiding being diverted from their engagement focus and ring fencing their grant aid budgets. Lewisham also decided to mainstream programmes after the end of funding programmes such as the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund which focused on the 88 most deprived communities in England between 2001 and 2008.

Lewisham calculate that for every £1 they provide in grant aid to the third sector about £5 of contract value is secured by these organisations from the statutory sector. Lewisham produce a community engagement framework to provide guidance when carrying out community engagement exercises and to ensure it is carried out to a consistently high standard.

Relationships between the Local Assemblies and the Council’s service areas is on the whole strong, with few service areas proving difficult to engage. While engagement with the Safer Neighbourhood’s Team is particularly strong Lewisham would like to increase service based collaborations in the future. While the initial focus of Local Assembles has been on issues about young people, environment, reducing anti-social behaviour and traffic increasingly health issues are now being considered. As the format of Local Assemblies remain less attractive to young people (who make up only 7% of attendees) parallel youth forums have been set up to feed into the Local Assemblies. This is helping to increase young people’s participation.

As Lewisham has been pursuing a wide range of innovative community approaches for many years the ethos is now embedded in the organisation. There is also substantial appetite for involvement beyond the opportunities provided by Local Assembles. While the approaches do provide a platform for community activities and civic amenity groups the relationships have become much more constructive over time. In the future Lewisham would like to further extend engagement of the community beyond priority setting for 2010. There is an on-going challenge in engaging people outside meetings, a format many residents do not want. Online technologies offer part of the solution (e.g. Love Lewisham allows residents to report enviro-crime such as fly tipping through a mobile phone application).

Subject to the same directly elected mayor being returned in the local elections in May 2010, Lewisham expect their commitment to their local third sector and working with residents to co-produce services to continue in the future despite the difficult budget decisions that lie ahead. With all political parties engaged in the concept, Local Assemblies will be a permanent feature in Lewisham in the future. Lewisham will continue to actively consider what further devolution is possible.

Lessons

There are some common themes running across the initiatives undertaken by East Riding of Yorkshire Council, the London Borough of Lewisham and Wiltshire Council to develop active citizens, to strengthen community groups and to make partnerships more financially effective – all the key ingredients for community engagement and empowerment.

Being innovative. All the authorities are explicitly innovative in what they are trying to do. They tend to lead the policy world rather than respond to it. In becoming leading and innovative authorities they have been able to secure discretionary and additional funds from a number of sources.

Getting the small things right. It is important to get the small things right to develop trust and commitment. For engaging residents in Wiltshire this means providing a welcoming and open environment which fully supports the desire for a meaningful dialogue. For partners in East Riding working together to agree budgets and discuss joint service planning this means having well run meetings, clear agendas, professionally minuted decisions and achieving consistent attendance by decision makers.

A clear and action orientated focus. Partnership working around financial issues in East Riding has been successful due to a very clear remit agreed in their terms of reference and the focus on progress taking place between meetings.

The widest range of engagement and a desire to go further in the future. Wiltshire and Lewisham would like to expand their engagement further in the future and reach out to the widest possible community whether it is about involving more young people or connecting to people in sheltered housing. Online and mobile applications are seen as ways of helping with this. East Riding has worked hard to involve a wide range of Council and partner staff in their resource planning and service review activities. Extensive communication and consultation is a common feature.

Wider benefits have been achieved from the engagement approaches. The authorities have been able to use these engagement and partnership structures to experiment with participatory budgeting, engage more effectively with vulnerable community groups such as gypsies, improve joint customer intelligence and consult on local planning policy. Going forward the engagement and partnership structures developed by the three authorities will help with making difficult decisions about budgets and service levels.

Culture is challenged. There are cultural challenges with the development of new empowerment and engagement structures as a degree of power and decision making responsibility has to be given up. For authorities such as the London Borough of Lewisham, with a long standing focus on innovative engagement approaches, the engagement culture is now permanently embedded in the organisation. For newer organisations such as Wiltshire Council they are working actively to manage the culture change required when decisions are increasingly being made by their Area Boards rather than by Council officers.

Strong senior level commitment and consistent resourcing. With an elected mayor since 2001 Lewisham has had a strong champion for community engagement. They have also ring fenced budgets and mainstreamed activity when discretionary funds have come to an end.

Further information

• CLG – Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill (2008)
• CLG – Active Citizens, Strong Communities – progressing civil renewal (December 2003)
• CLG – Civil Renewal: a new agenda (June 2003)
• Evaluating Wiltshire’s Area Boards
• Wiltshire’s Areas Board – The Handbook
• Wiltshire Area Issue Tracking
• You Tube: Wiltshire Ambition (Video)
• East Riding LSP
• Lewisham Young Mayor FAQs
• Lewisham LSP
• Love Lewisham

This case study looks at how Essex County Council involved local partners and local communities in deciding the priorities for its second-generation local area agreement (LAA).

The case study focuses on:

• how public views fed into LAA planning through the Essex Strategy
• how Essex opened up different channels of communication between the county Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) and its partners to both gather and disseminate information about local priorities from around the county
• the benefits of setting district-level baselines and targets for the new LAA, in terms of providing a more appropriate, localised response to local priorities

The study includes the views of Duncan Wood, Head of Community Planning and Public Engagement at Essex County Council, who had overall responsibility for the public consultation aspect of the LAA’s development. It also includes feedback from Kevin Nunn, the Partnership Delivery Manager at Essex County Council, on how the county LSP sought to engage its district partners.

The issue

The first Local Area Agreement (LAA) in Essex was seen, in general, as a top-down process. Those involved in the first LAA at the council have since admitted that this was probably a fair assessment. They blamed – to a certain extent – the rush to finalise the LAA’s development against tight government deadlines to produce something quickly.

One of the main problems with this approach is that Essex is a very large and diverse county – with communities in the Greater London Urban Area and rural communities in much of the north of the county. The broad-brush approach to the first LAA did not adequately reflect the diversity of issues that different communities in Essex face.

When it came to the consultations for the second round LAA (2008 – 2011) the council wanted to try and build in local priorities – from local partners and people – from the outset. This would ensure that the LAA went as far as possible to meet the needs of local communities.

Who was involved

Some of the key partnerships and partnership bodies involved in this work are:

• Essex Partnership. This is the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) for all of Essex. It directs and oversees progress on the local area agreement
• The Essex Partnership Forum. This is the over-arching partnership body that brings together partners and district LSPs from across Essex
• District LSPs. Essex is divided into 12 local government districts – each with their own LSP. These LSPs bring together partners at a more local level, developing Sustainable Community Strategies and working on local-level implementation of the LAA.

What they did

There are two aspects to Essex’s bottom-up process for developing its second round LAA:

• engaging local people
• engaging local partners

Engaging local people

Essex captured a lot of public opinion on priorities for local action in its preparation of the Essex Strategy 2008-18. This sets out the key goals for improving the quality of life in Essex over a ten-year period.

Essex used the public consultations from the Essex Strategy to inform its development of the second round LAA. These consultations included:

• analysis of existing survey data
• focus groups
• online consultation
• public meetings
• consulting the voluntary and community sector (VCS)
• consulting special interest groups

Analysing existing data

While preparing the Essex Strategy, the council already had a large amount of survey data that could be analysed. There was also the local information captured by the sustainable community strategies that many of the 12 district LSPs had prepared. This data gave a good starting point to identify what people across Essex thought were the most important things to make their area a good place to live, and what most needed to be improved.

Focus groups

Focus group work was conducted by external, independent consultants in each district. The focus groups had to be independent to allow people to express their views freely. These sessions asked people what they thought were the most important issues that should feed into the Essex Strategy and the new LAA.

Slightly later in the process, as the Essex Strategy had passed its first draft, there were more focus groups, one held in each of the county’s five primary care trust (PCT) areas. These groups built on previous focus group work and results.

Online consultation

The county council gave residents the chance to fill in an online form to give views about what they thought was important. This resulted in between 600 and 700 additional responses.

These responses represented a growing number of people who will use online techniques and social media to engage with local authorities. In many of these cases, previously these people’s voices and opinions would not have been heard.

Public meetings

A series of public meetings were held around the county to allow people to drop in and express their views. Duncan Wood, Head of Community Planning and Public Engagement at Essex County Council, explained that these sessions varied in quality:

“In truth, many of these sessions were dominated by stakeholders and interested members of the public. But each one looked at a different issue and they were valuable.”

Consulting the voluntary and community sector

To broaden the scope of the consultation, the county council wrote to every voluntary or community sector organisation it could find in the Essex LIFE Database (Local Information for Essex).

This included special interest groups such as the:

• Older Peoples’ Planning Group
• Partnership Network Forum – which represents a coalition of disabled peoples’ groups
• Racial Equality Council
• Essex Equality and Diversity Network

In this way the council used voluntary and community sector groups as a conduit for public views that might otherwise have been missed.

Engaging local partners

One of the key changes to the way Essex developed its second round LAA was the way it encouraged partners across the county – notably the 12 district LSPs to:

• shape which indicators to include in the LAA
• set their own district-level targets

Channels of dialogue between county council and local partners

A website was set up for Essex Partnership to allow it to communicate with its partners (and the public) and keep them updated on progress with both the Essex Strategy and the LAA.

Essex committed to making quick updates to the website so that people had an accurate idea of how the LAA was evolving. For instance, when officers returned from LAA negotiations with the Government Office, decisions on targets would be added to the relevant documents on the partnership website and publicised, often within days.

In addition, Essex prepared a weekly e-newsletter to keep partners and interested stakeholders up to date with progress on the LAA. This newsletter was open to anyone to subscribe to.

Essex set up an email address for all partners to send in their suggestions on indicators and targets for the new LAA. This email was publicised in the weekly e-newsletter and was open for all partners and interested parties to use.

Essex developed a system for logging, sorting and feeding back on all the suggestions it received. Eventually, it published a ‘Response to consultations from the first draft of the LAA’ on the Essex Partnership website, which outlined its reasons for choosing some indicators over others.

The Essex Partnership website

As the second round LAA has evolved, partners have grouped themselves around six key themes:

• Essex Economic Board
• Sustainable Essex
• Children’s Trust Partnership
• London Olympic and Paralympic Games Partnership
• Safer Essex Partnership
• Community Wellbeing and Older People’s Board

Increasingly, Essex have used these thematic partnerships to feed back important information from partners.

Developing local targets

Most baselines and targets in the second round LAA differ from district to district. These represent a radical departure from the first round approach, which had county-wide targets. Local targets mean district LSPs can respond to the direct needs of their population more appropriately – without having to reach county targets that may not bear in mind an individual district’s starting point.

Starting projects early with loaned finance

During the first round LAA, partners had access to ‘pump-priming grant’ from the Government to fund LAA action plans. This grant was not available for LAA2.

Before embarking on the second round LAA, Essex County Council decided to loan Essex Partnership £18 million whilst it waited for the performance reward grant money from the first LAA to come through. This ensured that project work could start as early as possible. This has helped focus partner discussions on LAA action plans and greatly improved partnership working as a result. Partners have been able to discuss plans for action in the knowledge that they have real resources at their disposal.

As Kevin Nunn, Partnership Delivery Manager at Essex County Council, puts it:

“What you’ll find in other LSPs is that they’re now having conversations about how to spend their performance reward grant because they’re about to receive it from the Government, whereas we’re already spending ours.”

The impact

Aside from the obvious impact of making the whole process of LAA planning more transparent – through new channels of communication between council and partners – the major impact has been how local LAA targets have created a more nuanced approach to Essex’s priority issues.

In breaking baselines and targets down district by district, Essex has not only managed to create a more detailed and realistic picture of what’s happening across the county, it has found a way to improve the way it tackles particular problems.

For example, compared to the national picture, Essex as a whole performs reasonably well in regard to young people ‘not in employment, education or training’ (NEET). Nevertheless Essex decided to adopt LAA targets for skills and education, as these issues influence other indicators. In gathering baseline information about NEETs one district – Tendring – stood out as having a high level of young people NEET compared to the rest of the county.

As Kevin Nunn says:

“We were able to say this area has a huge problem and a long history of resources going in and not really tackling the problem, and that’s why we chose to focus on that area in our ‘total place’ work.”

Similarly, consultation around the new LAA process revealed that one primary care trust (PCT) had been very effective with commissioning services to tackle teenage pregnancy, whereas the performance of other PCTs was less effective. Essex has started discussions with the successful PCT on how to roll out a county-wide program to tackle teen pregnancy.

The new approach has meant that districts LSPS have more leeway to tailor local action to local need, which should mean better services for local people.

At a county level, the impact for Essex Council has been improved engagement with partners, which has meant that partners are building indicators and targets around the new LAA into their own corporate plans and targets. The impact being that everyone engaged in the new LAA is starting to work in the same direction.

Barriers, challenges and lessons

Essex encountered several challenges during the new LAA development process. Some of these centred on which voices or opinions to include in the LAA.

Inclusion vs prioritisation

Public priorities were a key determining factor in whether a priority should be included in the LAA. However public priorities often differed from the priorities identified by the Government Office – the latter tending to focus on issues where data showed poor performance.

In deciding on priorities for the second round LAA, Essex Partnership had to weigh up the priorities of central government, through the Government Office, those of the public and those identified by over 50 local partners. Not all proposals could be successful.

In addition, vocal partners on local LSPs made proposals that could not translated into readily available indicators or did not reflect areas of public priority or poor performance.

Essex tackled this by keeping partners up to date at all times with how the LAA was evolving, and why. For instance, when it came to the consultations on which indicators to choose, the partnership published ‘Response to consultations from the first draft of the LAA’, which set out the reasons for the decisions it had taken.

The relationship between the County LSP and District LSPs

In deciding to heavily involve local partners in the planning of the new LAA, Essex still faced the awkward question of how much control the county LSP should have over the partners it distributed grants to.

As Kevin Nun puts it:

“Local authorities are always complaining about central government setting too many controls over money that’s given to local authorities, and you want to avoid the same situation locally where local partners are saying: “Wait a minute! Now we’ve got the money that’s been dished out you’re imposing controls on us.””

Essex tackled this problem by choosing to work with a ‘mature partnership relationship’ approach – with minimal control from county level on local partners’ activities. Once the project has been agreed on, Essex trusted the relevant partners to deliver without requiring detailed monitoring information.

Going forward, Essex envisages two particular challenges it will have to overcome, both of which centre on the high expectations that partners have of this new approach.

Continuing the good work

Essex has set a high standard for engagement of both partners and the public in developing its second round LAA. This has set a precedent for future decision-making around the Essex Strategy. Essex will need to ensure that it continues to involve people just as much if not more in other decision-making processes that affect how the Essex Strategy is put into action.

Limits to what local data can be used for

The new approach to developing the LAA has allowed more localised data than ever before to influence decisions on LAA indicators and targets. However, this has increased demand for the availability of even more granulated data. Going forward, expectations about the availability of local data and its statistical validity will need to be carefully managed.

Conclusion

Essex’s new bottom-up approach to developing its LAA has been described by one partner as the ‘dawn of a new era’. It puts partners and customers firmly at the centre of a cohesive, inclusive relationship across Essex. It also allows more localised data to feed into the LAA planning process, which brings to light district-level issues that might otherwise have been glossed over. The challenge for Essex now lies in continuing this good work and living up to partners’ expectations of continued engagement and an ever more localised articulation of priorities for action.

The police, council and other agencies in Portsmouth have found innovative ways to work with local people to gain their trust, reduce crime and improve the quality of life for residents.

Two districts brought together in a single partnership had different approaches. Lessons have been learnt, especially from the more successful district, about how communication, partnership activity and addressing residents’ immediate needs can lead to residents feeling that they have a voice and can take responsibility for their area, especially in reducing crime and raising aspirations.

The issue

Landport and Buckland are in the heart of Portsmouth. Each area had previously had a Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) project. When SRB funding ended, the areas and the achievements of SRB were reviewed. Part of Landport was identified as being in the bottom three per cent of deprived local areas (known as super output areas) in Britain. Although the SRB partnerships had made improvements, residents felt no sense of lasting change. Some of the residents who had served on SRB boards wanted to build on the achievements in the area and take them further. The Safer Stronger Communities element of the Local Area Agreement (LAA) was able to provide some funding for a neighbourhood project and so the two existing SRB community boards came together to form Heartland Community Voice (HCV) partnership. Although there was little money to spend, board members felt that they could build on the previous partnerships to influence local services and that by joining together their influence would be greater.

The two areas have different kinds of problems. Landport includes part of the shopping area of the city centre and has high levels of reported crime. Buckland has high levels of unemployment and limiting long-term illness. The estimated population for the area is about 10,000. 73 per cent of property in the area is in social ownership. 90 per cent of the population is white and the remainder is ethnically diverse.

The MORI 2006 Crime Survey showed an increase in fear of crime in Buckland and a local survey found that 32 per cent of people were dissatisfied with crime and disorder services. The Police’s beat in the east of the Charles Dickens Ward area of the city fits roughly with the Landport borders. This beat recorded more crimes than any other in 2002-2005 with nearly three times the amount of violent crime, racial incidents and criminal damage than other areas of the city. Compounding this, only 34.9 per cent of people felt they could personally influence decisions made in the area. Local people did not know what services were available to them or who to contact and agencies were not working well together.

What they did

The first priorities for the new partnership were to learn to work together and to gain the trust of the local community. They began doing this by working with local people to define the boundaries of the new partnership. They looked at:

• physical barriers
• existing administrative boundaries
• social boundaries

They consulted residents on what their priorities were and worked on strengthening and renewing relationships with residents and agencies. A series of consultation events culminated in a programme launching the new venture in October 2006.

Some of the problems in the two areas were very different but there was enough common ground to work as a single unit and come together with the agencies in one meeting. Many residents felt that the SRB programmes had not improved their day to day lives. There was a lot of work to be done to build the capacity of the partnership and to gain the trust of local people. The two SRB boards did not link up well with mainstream programmes so mainstream services were not greatly changed by their presence. With this in mind, the focus in the first year was on ‘quick wins’ which mainly tackled crime and grime issues.

Two sub groups were established – a Children and Young People’s Panel and the Community Safety Panel. The Children and Young People’s Panel includes residents and board members and representatives from a wide range of agencies such as the youth service, police and the education services. The Community Safety Panel operates in a similar way and has representatives from the police, housing services, youth service, the local PCSOs and community wardens and others involved in keeping the area safe. Two further sub groups were later added – a gardening club (grow your own zone) and a Friday night youth club.

The Community Safety Panel, which is well supported by the agencies, wanted local people to feel they could discuss issues that concerned them and that action would be taken. They set up an open forum where people can come to talk about issues that affect their daily lives. They are, though, also expected to consider solutions. An example of how this has worked is the play area in Buckland. The area was surrounded by a low fence for the benefit of children playing there. In the evenings, teenagers would gather and sit on the fence, often smoking and drinking. The parks department, community warden and city engineers received constant calls because of anti-social behaviour and damage. Local people suggested that the fence be taken down. The agencies were unsure about this solution as they felt the problem might just be moved elsewhere. HCV knocked on the doors of all the surrounding properties to get the views of the people most affected. The consensus was that the fence should come down. HCV funded the removal of the fencing as a trial project. It was a successful solution and the parks department then covered the funding.

This kind of action began to make residents feel that they were being listened to. The agencies took this on board and shifted some services to become more responsive (for example, bulk waste is now collected within 24 hours).

At the beginning, the emphasis was on enforcement as this is what residents felt was needed. As things began to improve, more emphasis was put on prevention. HCV found that many community safety problems were linked to environment. They undertook a number of pilot activities to try to address this, one of which was CREWS (Crime Reduction and Environment Weeks). The activity brings together all the main agencies in the area including housing, police, community wardens, parking services and health. It is promoted by leaflet drops, direct mail and door knocking and in the neighbourhood newsletter. Open meetings in various locations are held during the week to highlight and act on current issues. Hotspots are identified, there is evidence gathering to tackle specific anti-social behaviour issues, high visibility patrols, checks on school truancy, checks on sale of alcohol and cigarettes to under-age children, home fire safety checks and intergenerational exchanges. The neighbourhood clean ups carried out in these weeks by staff and volunteers have now been mainstreamed.

Residents and local schools have taken part fully in CREWS and local people feel they can contribute personally to improving their neighbourhood. They are encouraged to express themselves and to bring issues to the attention of the agencies. They are encouraged to take photographs to demonstrate physical problems and this has led to new lighting and security cameras being installed in some places.

The community wardens and community link workers funded by HCV have played a big part in getting residents involved in making changes. They provide visual reassurance and can let police and other agencies know about any problems they spot. They have got to know many of the young people in the area and, as well as being able to spot potential trouble, they have encouraged many to train as youth advisors and sports leaders. The youth warden scheme at local schools has enabled some of the most disaffected youngsters to take part in community activities. They have also set up the Friday Night Club. Supervised by staff and a wide range of volunteers, the club regularly attracts 60 or more young people who might otherwise be out on the streets.

The training for young people was part of the change from quick wins to a more sustainable programme which aims to strengthen the local community from within. HCV is investing in the people who live in the area by growing skills and raising aspirations. Low skills levels are one of the reasons for low employment rates. HCV has tried to offer training programmes that meet the needs of their residents. As well as the training for young people, it also offers ‘locality training’ which gives people a chance to train in basic skills in a venue close to their home. Summer fun days offer taster sessions for a whole range of activities related to improving skills and the courses are proving very popular.

Increased trust and community participation has led to a much higher level of local intelligence reaching the agencies. A wide range of engagement strategies have been key to gaining the trust of residents. HCV is keen to keep communication channels open and to keep information flowing so that residents’ concerns can be acted upon. As well as a regular newsletter circulated (by resident volunteers and agencies) to 7,000 households, there is an interactive website (currently being remodelled and passed to the community board) where people can report their concerns. There are good links with schools and a good relationship with the council media team means there is a steady flow of information and good news stories. The open forums give people a chance to discuss issues and they can also speak informally to community wardens, PCSOs and safer neighbourhood teams in the street or in places like the Community Contact Point in the centre of the area which is used by lots of agencies.

The information flow is supported by close working between agencies. As well as the Community Contact Point, the Estate Services office is used as a drop-in for wardens, police and housing officers where they can exchange views and information. There are monthly meetings where reports are swapped between HCV and the agencies and there is firm support from the Safer Portsmouth Partnership.

Structure and funding

Neighbourhood Management forms part of the LAA through the Safer Stronger Communities section and this has provided Neighbourhood Element funding. The Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) initially oversaw the funding but it now goes directly to Portsmouth City Council via the Area Based Grant and is passported to the Neighbourhood Element Steering Group.

The project funds a neighbourhood manager and a community coordinator, two part time community link workers (who are resident in the area) and a project support worker. It also funded four community wardens with supervisory support. The wardens are part of the city wide warden team which means that if the local team loses any of its members, replacements can be drafted in from the bigger team. There is no direct funding from other agencies but they have contributed in kind and by bending and changing services according to the needs of local people. There has also been some money from other initiatives such as the Healthy Towns initiative.

Initial funding was for four years, ending in 2010. Agencies have benefited from the initiative as well as contributing to it. For example, HCV residents have volunteered as ‘recycling champions’ giving information to neighbours about recycling and working with other residents to improve recycling rates. Discussions are currently underway to see if it is possible to extend the initiative when the funding ceases.

The area is covered by two police beats and two different stations. A safer neighbourhoods team was set up in each beat. One has been much more successful than the other. The difference was perceived to be in the level of engagement with their community and their settled, competent team.

The impact

HCV has concentrated on the day to day lives of people in the area and the mainstream services that operate there. As one member of staff put it, “SRB paid for the icing but not the cake”. This concentration on the everyday has paid off. It is hard to make a causal connection but agencies are working better together, there is a free flow of information from residents and this information is exchanged regularly between staff on the ground and the agencies as a whole. Residents are feeling that their concerns are being acted upon.

Local statistics show that reported crime is down more in Landport and Buckland than elsewhere in Portsmouth. In Buckland, reported crimes decreased from 145 in 2006 to 77 in 2008. In Landport, reported crimes were down from 176 in 2006 to 167 in 2008.

There are fewer arson incidents and 999 calls. Bin fires in the partnership area reduced from 154 in 2006 to 135 in 2008.

The area is covered by two police beats. One of the beats (Buckland team) was fortunate enough to be headed up by the Sergeant of the Year in 2007 and it has been very proactive in its work with the community. It has seen results in that there was a 30 per cent drop in reported crime on that beat in 2007/8. Good links have also been developed between the neighbourhood policing teams and mainstream policing, particularly CID and response teams. The neighbourhood policing teams are able to task the response teams – which is not common elsewhere.

There is more community engagement. When HCV began, there were 12 local people actively involved. There are now hundreds taking part in events and about 200 people have said they would like to be more actively involved. There is a much greater cross section of the community taking part, particularly young people, and the amount of volunteering has increased

The uptake of courses and initiatives like the recycling champions indicates that people are feeling more confident and are taking more responsibility for themselves and their community. They are feeding back their concerns and agencies are acting upon them. The local authority housing organisation has, for example, brought in a ‘systems thinking’ approach whereby they try to respond to requests immediately rather than residents having to continually complain and staff having to continually take complaints. If rubbish is dumped it is cleared straight away and repairs are carried out more quickly.

It is now much easier for residents to get information about services and events in the area and the uptake of things like the training initiatives has been good. There seems to be more community spirit. The Housing Service has a fund for residents’ associations to help them to develop and fund small projects. The number of requests to the fund from Landport and Buckland has risen since HCV began. An additional five residents’ groups (covering over 200 households) have been supported and are operating. One group is largely owner occupied and is outside the housing service remit.

There have been other small but significant changes within agencies. The council has changed some recruitment procedures to allow local people to be recruited more easily where this is beneficial. The youth service has funded a worker to supervise the Friday Night Club (matched by an HCV funded worker) and consideration is being given to mainstreaming the club. Rotas are exchanged between all the agencies working in the area so staff know who is working when and where.

The Library service are now supporting literacy projects within schools and, as part of the extended schools agenda, Portsmouth City Council now encourage all staff to assist with youth reading where possible.

Barriers and challenges

People in the area were not confident when HCV started. They did not feel their voices were heard and they felt they were ‘done to’ rather than having an input into their own community. This was a hard thing to overcome and it meant that agencies, particularly the police and housing organisations, had little intelligence about the problems in the area.

It was tackled by engaging local people wherever possible in local forums and other exchanges. But this took time. HCV enrolled local champions (for example, residents associations) who were already trusted within the community to encourage people to take part. Local champions joined the community board and used their own networks to spread the word more widely. The initial ‘quick win’ strategy was employed so that people could see that things were going to get done. The subsequent inward investment strategy has demonstrated the long term aspirations for the community.

As described above, the area is covered by two police beats and two different stations. One of the policing teams was very positive and set itself up to work effectively with the community. The officers embraced community policing and wanted to work with local people. The other team was organised differently and had a number of problems. There was a big turnover of staff and many were less positive about community policing.

A real difference is clear between the local successes of the two teams with the first team performing better in terms of crime reduction. This seemed like a good model for other teams to follow. However, the success of the first team has led to consideration of a cut in resources in order to deploy them in areas where crime is still high. HCV will argue that the first team is a model of good practice that should be shared with other teams but, as with any public organisation, the police will consider its resources in the light of national and local pressures.

After an initial bedding-in period, the Heartlands Community Voice partnership has gone from strength to strength. It has become a company limited by guarantee and is now applying for charitable status. The two previous SRB boards were very independent and it took a long time to break down the barriers and get them to work together. They also had to learn to work very differently, influencing mainstream agencies rather than acting with their own resources. This led to the departure of some of those who had been involved in SRB. However, the emphasis on communication and openness led to new residents coming forward and getting involved and a greater cross section of the community is now represented.

Lessons

The partnership has learnt many lessons as it has progressed. Here are some of things that have been most important in engaging the community and increasing the exchange of information and intelligence.

• Communication and openness have been the biggest agents of change. Use everything at your disposal to communicate with residents (such as emails, newsletters, meetings, forums, drop-ins, chats in the street, events and door knocking)
• Trust: you must be able to show that you will listen to what people say and act upon it. This is particularly important in matters of community safety where people may feel they are putting themselves at risk by reporting things like crime or anti-social behaviour
• It is vital to involve all sections of the community. Everyone must feel that they are part of the community so that they can take responsibility for it
• Commitment from agencies is vital. The success of the neighbourhood policing team is a demonstration of what can be done when agencies actively engage with the community
• Partnership working in its widest sense is vital. Some projects may not be the core business of a particular agencies but their participation is necessary for its success. For example, community wardens help with youth training courses because they know the young people involved and are trusted by them
• You must consider the needs of residents. Some residents need to have their immediately priorities addressed before they are willing to engage with service providers.

Data/evidence

Funding for the project has come through the LAA process and its outputs and outcomes will feed directly back into the LAA targets.

There are direct links to the Safer Portsmouth Partnership Plan, which has the key theme of ‘communities and communication’ and allows for a real emphasis on developing communities in order to reduce crime and disorder.

There have been some notable changes in the way that residents view the area and their safety within it.

Some of the crime figures are given above. In addition, levels of satisfaction with policing in the partnership area have increased from 48 per cent (2006) to 74 per cent (2008) and residents’ satisfaction with the area has increased from 53 per cent (2006) to 80 per cent (2008).

The initiative tackles crime and community safety issues, as well as community participation. The most relevant national indicators are:

• NI 2 percentage of people who feel that they belong to their neighbourhood
• NI 4 percentage of people who feel they can influence decisions in their locality
• NI 5 overall/general satisfaction with local area
• NI 6 participation in regular volunteering
• NI 17 perceptions of anti-social behaviour
• NI 21 dealing with local concerns about anti-social behaviour and crime by the local council and police
• NI 24 satisfaction with the way the police and local council dealt with anti-social behaviour
• NI 27 understanding of local concerns about anti-social behaviour and crime by the local council and police
• NI 33 arson incidents.

Further information

You can find out more about Heartland Community Voice by contacting Nigel Selley:

Neighbourhood Manager
Portsmouth City Council
Charles Dickens Centre
Lake Rd
Portsmouth
PO1 4HA

Telephone: 023 9260 6600

Email: nigel.selley@portsmouthcc.gov.uk