CS.82.08 - Community Support Review Public.pdf

Note: in compliance with section 100d of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985the report has been prepared in part from the following papers: CS 68/08 & CS 79/08

1

REPORT TO EXECUTIVE

PORTFOLIO AREA: HEALTH & COMMUNITIES

Date of Meeting: 17 November 2008

Public

Key Decision: Yes Recorded in Forward Plan: Yes

Inside Policy Framework

Title: COMMUNITY SUPPORT REVIEWReport of: Director of Community ServicesReport reference: CS 82/08

Summary:To consider the feedback from Community O&S meeting on 6 November on theCommunity Support Review. The draft Minute is attached together with the ExecutiveSummary of the report.

Recommendations:

It is RECOMMENDED that the Executive considers the recommendations of this reviewand requests the Director of Community Services in conjunction with the PH for Health &Communities to develop an action plan to progress these.

Contact Officer: Mark Beveridge Ext: 7350

2

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The attached report was considered at a Special Community O&S on 6th November.The SOLACE report itself formed the basis of their discussion and that report waspreviously considered by the Executive (CS 68/08).

2. CONCLUSION

2.1 The SOLACE report contains a number of recommendations for the service and forthese to be implemented it is necessary to devise an action plan for CommunitySupport based on whichever recommendation the Executive agree.

2.2 It is anticipated that this action plan will in turn determine the future direction of theCouncil’s Community Support Team. In turn through the development andmonitoring of the plan it will be possible to engage with Members and stakeholdersmuch more than has been the case previously.

Final Report by Andrew ChatterjeeSOLACE Enterprises

August 2008

Service Review -

Carlisle City CouncilCommunity Support

Unit

Page 2

Contents

Introduction p. 3Exec Summary p. 4Key Recommendations p. 8What is Community Development? p. 17Scientific Approach to Community Development p. 19

The Local Context p. 22

The Community Service Unit (CSU) p. 26The Budget p. 26Comparing Spend with nearest neighbours p. 29Marketing & Communications p. 32Children & Young People p. 33Events p. 37Community Engagement p. 40Benefits Advice p. 44External Advice & Advocacy p. 48

The Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) p. 50Housing & Homelessness p. 52

Carlisle Housing Association p. 52Cumbria County Council p. 54Primary Care Trust p. 56Parish & Rural p. 58Performance Management p. 59Menu of Opportunities for Community Involvement p. 62Conclusion p. 66

Figure 1: CSU Service Costs p. 27Figure 2: 3D Pie Chart of Service Costs p. 28Figure 3: Key Achievements p. 31Figure 4: Employment Status Benefits Advice Claimants p. 48

Appendix 1 – National Policy Context p. 68Appendix 2 – Neighbourhood governance arrangements p. 73Appendix 3 - Benefits Advice Service selection of feedback slips p. 76Appendix 4 - List of Interviewees p. 77Appendix 5 - Community Engagement Team: Work Areas Audit p. 79Appendix 6 - Children & Young People Team: Work Areas Audit p. 92Appendix 7 - Benefits Advice Team: Work Areas Audit p. 96Appendix 8 - Members' Workshop notes p. 99

Page 3

Introduction

SOLACE Enterprises was commissioned by the client to review the role and function ofthe Community Support Unit (CSU). A specific objective of the Review is to appraisethe strategic relevance of Carlisle’s approach to community support and to evaluate itsimpact and effectiveness on internal and external stakeholders, particularly in relationto neighbourhood working, community cohesion/empowerment issues raised in theWhite Paper and in tackling social exclusion. Specifically the client wished to betterunderstand how the work of the CSU was contributing towards the council's strategicobjectives – Carlisle Renaissance; Cleaner, Greener, Safer and the Learning City. Atthe same time the client is conscious that all of the services CSU provides arediscretionary. It has identified efficiencies it wants to make and has requested that anumber of proposed savings options be identified and appraised.

This report presents the findings of the review. It builds on and incorporates initialresearch included of the baseline report of May 2008. The report includes somedetailed factual information, background and history of the service and, whilst somereaders may be well acquainted with these facts, others for whom this report isintended, will not be. These may include for instance, the newer elected members. Itis important this context is provided. In the absence of context analysis is stripped ofmeaning and erroneous judgements may be arrived at.

This Review takes place at a time when talk of community empowerment abounds andwhen local government must rise to challenges from central government to devolvemore power and authority to localities in ways that improve service outcomes anddeliver social benefits. The whole thrust of government policy is towards empoweringpeople to give them a greater say in how key services are delivered and give themopportunities to shape these services and their neighbourhoods.

Community development practitioners will be the conduit for channelling local ideas,energies and ambitions upwards into the Civic Centre and brokering a dialoguebetween the two worlds. To properly fulfil the function the new policy and legislationdemands of them community practitioners will themselves need to be valued andempowered by their own authorities. The emphasis is also very much on improved co-operation and partnership working – practices which are redefining organisationalbehaviours, boundaries and calling for 'outside the box' thinking.

As ever times are lean in local government and the need to deliver continuousefficiency savings features tempers everything councils do. How can these imperativesbe balanced? Solutions to both challenges may be in finding more imaginative andinnovative ways of joining up services at the local level and finding ways of workingtogether more effectively with partner organisations in ways that allow services to beshared. To do this requires trust, vision and the preparedness of some bodies torelinquish control and resources for the greater good.

For ease the term Community Development (CD) is used interchangeably withcommunity support / community empowerment. Hereafter Community Support Unitwill be referred to as CSU.

Page 4

Executive Summary

The Government wants to give citizens and communities a bigger say in the servicesthey receive and in shaping the places where they live. There is a political consensuson this across all the main parties. Carlisle Council has set out its stall. It wants todeliver Carlisle Renaissance, Learning City and Cleaner Greener Safer. The CorporateImprovement Plan has acknowledged the new best value duty to involve local peoplein decision-making on policies, and to inform them about how the authority isperforming. Community development is at the heart of this work – the catalyst thatsecures local 'buy-in' and activates strategies and policies, translating them into realaction. The current wave of government reform presents a huge challenge tocommunity development to deploy its methods more fully than ever before. One ofthe key constraints on the council’s ability to fulfil its new statutory duties to involve,and its own ambitions to empower, local people will be the availability of capacity-building, support and training to enable local people to actively participate in civicaffairs in a meaningful way.

The CSU has been under internal review since 2006 and its component services, suchas Benefits Advice and Events, have been under periodic review on and off for anumber of years. There is a clear need to ensure that the work undertaken by theCSU is more effectively understood. Community development work is often hiddenfrom view and difficult to measure directly, but it is clear from an examination ofBeacon council best practice in this area that local authorities who have acknowledgedthe contribution of community development have found that its practice generallyadds value and supports the delivery of wider corporate objectives. Communitydevelopment is not a traditional council service that fits nicely into one box but ratheran approach to service delivery that should be employed across the council by all itsemployees. It is a hybrid skill-set, a way of working, part social work, part customerrelationship management, part education, part health, part planning... it is a squarepeg in a round hole. A council that inculcates all its employees with a communitydevelopment culture will reap the benefits for years to come. The report includessome proposals to make this happen.

This Review has delved deeply into the work of the CSU and found concrete andtangible evidence that it is contributing towards key council objectives both directly (interms of particular outcomes) and indirectly (by creating and sustaining a localenvironment in which strategic priorities can flourish). It finds also that the CSU'swork has strategic relevance and fits with the both the local and national policycontext. The Review finds that the CSU provides a valuable service that enables andfacilitates other council services to deliver on corporate priorities in ways that wouldnot be possible without their support. It recognises also that there are areas forimprovement and that the responsibility for these rests with all parties - the unit itself,the Executive and with elected members. It also considers some intermediate outputsand looks at a performance framework which will demonstrate that the unit isperforming effectively.

The council, in line with national policy and best practice, wishes to take a localityworking approach – devolving provision and governance down to an area level tocreate more locally responsive and accountable services. Other partners also share

Page 5

this ambition and are actively considering how they can achieve this. Againcommunity development is the vital ingredient – engaging with local people to involvethem in the process, 'do it with them - not to them' as the maxim goes. The reportgives some thought to potential service models for locality working and associatedarea governance arrangements which have been applied in other areas.

The Review asserts strongly that a strategic local approach to the provision ofcommunity development neighbourhood regeneration in Carlisle is urgently needed.Work needs to be effectively and efficiently co-ordinated between the key providers inthe city – the City Council, Cumbria County Council, PCT Carlisle Housing Associationand the VCS. The Local Strategic Partnership is the only vehicle that has the remitand reason and whose Executive has the clout, to do this. If the political will existsthis is the right time to get LSP partners on the Executive to consider pooling all theirresources to create a shared community development and neighbourhoodregeneration service for Carlisle, working to a jointly agreed Stronger CommunitiesStrategy and Community Empowerment Action Plan.

At a wider level improved local collaboration through sharing community developmentservices offers clear advantages – a team greater than the sum of its parts, morestaff, more experience, greater flexibility, increased staff satisfaction from jobvariation and unity of purpose, a seamless service experience for Carlisle residents,better support to councillors, improved capacity, better networking and cross-referral,opening up more funding opportunities, more detailed and accurate intelligence, datacollection and performance management, greater efficiencies, sharing of risk andbenefits, better outcomes for all. The Review has identified that Community supportis a service area in which the city council is held in high regard by partners andservice users. It must continue to provide this function if it is to fulfil its new statutoryduty to involve local people and in order to deliver on corporate priorities. The citycouncil already provides children and young peoples services on behalf of the countycouncil – a service area with potential for further growth. If partners agree aworkable shared service model will need to be found. It is therefore proposed that thecity council might wish to put itself forward as the most appropriate and best placedorganisation to lead and host a shared service in Carlisle.

The Review has highlighted that community development activities are oftenundertaken in a range of different teams within the organisation, therefore it is feltthat efficiencies could be gained from more efficient integration. Such reconfigurationwill improve the unit's effectiveness, achieve more joined-up working internally, avoidduplication and combat the issues of silo working which the report has identified. Ifthe council and its partners on the LSP agree on establishing a shared communitydevelopment service this will make the council's CSU a more appealing 'marriageprospect' for its partners.

How would this work in practice? The Review considers the mechanics and possiblemanagement arrangements for such a set up which will allow for co-operative localityworking and looks at how the potential stumbling blocks and obstacles might beovercome. A matrix management approach in which council staff from other front-lineservices trained in community development techniques would allow officers to beassigned to specific geographic areas and contribute towards project work in a more

Page 6

co-ordinated and cost efficient way. This would add value and allow the council'svarious service teams to better interface with members of the community and eachother. If a shared service model were adopted with partners this approach wouldhave even greater potential, as the pooled resources would be much greater. The roleof the LSP at all stages will be integral. The report looks at a number of differentoptions such as a totally integrated community development team for Carlisle; a pilot,partially integrated city council run team with staff seconded from partnerorganisations; commissioning and contracting out arrangements.

The funding of community development is a key issue for the council. The need todeliver service efficiencies has been considered separately in Section Two, whichconsiders a number of specific savings options the client may wish to consider. Inbroader terms this review recommends that a cultural change is needed, consistentwith corporate efficiencies, which recognises the reliance that other Directorates andpartners have on community development methods for the successful delivery of theirown initiatives. National best practice suggests that all policies which invokecommunity empowerment or rely on community engagement for their implementationshould have a built-in margin of their budget allocated to community development /capacity building.

Carlisle Renaissance will rely heavily on community development if it is succeed notonly in its ambitious physical regeneration plans for the city centre but also for theimplementation of its economic strategy 'Growing Carlisle'. The CSU will have animportant part to play in delivering this. The Learning City ambition comes with nonew money but with an opportunity to influence other partners and budgets. Insupporting the Cleaner, Greener, Safer agenda CSU will be increasingly relevant inensuring local participation and engagement in neighbourhood liveability initiatives,perhaps through promoting resident service champions and in encouraging communityownership of small scale urban greening and environmental schemes. Any otherservice that needs community involvement, be it consultation, organising workshopsor events, should first make use of the resource and expertise that exists in-house(and via the CSU their extensive local network). Re-charges should be leviedaccordingly. The Unit for its part must do more to sell its services both internally andexternally to generate income.

The CSU is scrutinised in detail. The overall cost of the service is broken down byeach discrete work area (Children & Young People, Events, Community Involvement -Community Centres / Equality & diversity, Benefits Advice & Grants to externalproviders). These are evaluated to understand

• impact on corporate priorities and strategic relevance• impact on service users• levels of partnership working internal and external• limiting factors• areas for improvement• effectiveness of communicating with service users, partners, stakeholders• evidence based approach to service planning and delivery

Based on information that was available an analysis of the shared work and resource

Page 7

input of partner organisations including Carlisle Housing Association, Cumbria County,and CVS is made. The Review also looks closely at the LSP. It found that the strongerelement of 'Safer and Stronger' block has been subsumed by the 'Safer' work andconsequently was not being adequately addressed. Community Developmentoutcomes lacked sufficient profile, which may have limited what can be achievedthrough dedicated community development support for the implementation ofinitiatives and interventions directed from the partnership.

The report gives careful attention to the new policy and legislative agenda which ischanging the landscape of local government and which has pushed the profile of CD tothe forefront. The key points of the Community Empowerment White Paper,forthcoming Community Empowerment, Housing & Economic Regeneration Bill, LocalGovernment and Public Involvement in Health Act, Sustainable Communities Act andQuirk Review are appraised. The report also considers the implications of policytrends such as commissioning, asset transfer and of relevant agendas such aslocalism, active citizenship, devolution, personalisation and looks at ways to futureproof the council and refers the reader to some valuable resources for best practiceand networking.

Finally, as requested, this report contains a separate section outlining a number ofproposed savings options as the client requested. An attempt has been made toindicate the pros and cons of each option and estimate the likely impact on overallservice levels, affect on the community and council's public relations.

There is a great deal of detailed information about the CSU's actual work areas in thetables in the Appendices. It is suggested that if the reader really wants to see thesort of day-to-day work the unit does, and to understand how it contributes to corecouncil priorities, that these sections deserve attention. Additionally the reader willnote that throughout the report references appear in the footnotes indicating sourcesof further and better particulars for important issues.

Page 8

Key Recommendations

Problem: Lack of an explicit Community Development policy and vision (endorsed bythe Executive and strategic partners) and an appropriate LSP mechanism to co-ordinate community development work in Carlisle

Fact: None of the council's corporate priorities or LSP targets can be achievedwithout CD, yet there is no definitive policy statement which acknowledges this fact orwhich sets out a context for CD work in Carlisle. No where in the 2007 CommunityPlan is community development / empowerment explicitly mentioned. There is asentence noting an intention to 'work on developing strong community networksthrough devolved decision making' but it does not say how this ambition will beachieved. The Safer & Stronger priorities focus entirely upon Safer priorities.* TheCDRP's own Partnership Plan report acknowledges that the CDRP needs to embracethe stronger as well as the safer elements (see this report, para 99 LSP section p.51)for more details) and recommends this issue be addressed via a CDRP LeadershipGroup. But is this the appropriate body? In the eyes of officers, members, partnersand the public community empowerment will be perceived and associated with crimereduction – when in fact it is about much more than this.

Solution: A shared vision and strategy to deliver stronger communities in Carlisle.This will be underpinned by a mechanism to deliver 'Stronger Communities' betweenpartners, allowing for more effective and efficient co-ordination and collaboration onCD work. This mechanism should recognise that CD cuts across and supports the keyLSP priorities – health, children and young people, economic, environmental. Thework with the County Council on the Community Empowerment Pilot may be a starton a more co-ordinated approach but an agreed, clear and coherent contextualframework for future CD work is still required.

Recommendation 1: Firstly an explicit, Executive endorsed, internal (city council)policy statement recognising the contribution of CD in contributing to overarchingcorporate objectives. This statement should clarify the council's intentions for work inthis area and set the context by identifying and clarifying the broader policy andstrategic framework in which the community support service will operate. Secondly, aStronger Communities /Community Empowerment Action Plan borne out of by aRefreshed Sustainable Community Strategy developed, published and driven by theLSP. There is no point in Carlisle producing a separate strategy, as it simply doesn'thave the capacity to deliver core community empowerment objectives alone, nor isthis desirable, since responsibility lies with all partners – not just the city council. TheAction Plan will focus partners' attentions on defining and planning the nuts and bolts– the who, what, where and when needed to deliver Stronger Communities in Carlisle.It may also serve as a precursor to sharing services in this area (see nextrecommendation).

* The Refreshed Community Plan (Summer 2008) appears to have recognised this gap. It

acknowledges the LSP's commitment to empower communities to have a greater influenceof decisions and identifies community planning as a way of addressing this. It states that“Difficulties remain with the formation of an effective mechanism to address 'StrongerCommunities' issues... Task and Finish groups will be established to focus efforts in theseareas.”

Page 9

****************

Problem: Community development underpins the strategic objectives of all thepartners on the LSP, but the CSU team have to prioritise what they can achieve withthe existing resources. A more joined up and efficient way of delivering this serviceneeds to be found which avoids duplication of effort and maximises the resourcesavailable.

Fact: The city council are one of the main practitioners of CD in Carlisle with manyyears of experience. Other partners have similar teams with overlapping roles e.g.Carlisle Housing Association’s Neighbourhood Investment Team, Cumbria CountyCouncil’s Neighbourhood Development Officers, PCT’s Health Development workers.More efficient use could be made of these staff by integrating and pooling human,information and financial resources. Properly harnessed and directed, this expertiseand knowledge will better help the council and its partners deliver on their crosscutting objectives. It will also improve service delivery for the end user by offering aseamless service. For the most part the public does not understand the reason formechanised and stratified public service delivery where workers from differentagencies or departments operate independently of each other, yet apparently to thesame end. This is extremely confusing to the service user and often leads to thecomplaint levelled at councils and other statutory bodies that the right arm doesn'tknow what the left is doing.

Solution: A shared services model. It is wasteful of resources in a relatively small citylike Carlisle to have three or four separate agencies undertaking neighbourhooddevelopment and community support functions. This presents a very strong case forsharing services. A holistic approach is needed that maximises and pools all partnerresources, including staff, budgets and information in a formal and sustainable way.

Recommendation 2: Create a new, improved Community Development Service forCarlisle. Better integrate the existing CD resources within the CSU team. Eithersecond or wholly transfer key staff from partner organisations. There will then beenough staff to take a locality working approach (see Recommendation 8). This isnow a reconfigured, multi agency team working in a co-ordinated way to a jointlyagreed work plan designed to deliver the Refreshed Carlisle Sustainable CommunityStrategy. In this model the city council would act as the lead authority. The unitarydebate is now over and there is now sufficient stability, aided by an emphasis on, andan enthusiasm for, working through partnerships, to achieve this. The grass-rootsworkers from different organisations all work well with each other currently so it isissues of accountability and management that would need to be resolved. It will beessential to ensure that sufficient thought is given to the arrangements proposed forleading and managing this extended team in order to empower the members of it towork positively and cooperatively under the auspices of the LSP.

If this option is favoured, a programme of work would need to be undertakenincluding, for example: preparatory development work and presentations to partnerorganisations to establish their support and build consensus together with thepreparation of a full independent feasibility to consider and evaluate the potential ingreater detail:

Page 10

• The specific objective of the proposal• All potential alternative service models• An outline analysis of the business case including:

o The capital and revenue expenditure needed to achieve the start up ofthe shared service and the payback period.

o The difference in the cost of the shared service at the end of the paybackperiod compared to the current cost.

o An estimated quantification of the improvement in service quality, costreduction and efficiencies.

o Where in the supply chain the greatest improvement of the sharedservice will be achieved (i.e. will it be service improvement or reductionin cost or another benefit?)

o How the potential gain for each partner is proportionate to that partner’sshare of the service.

• The governance arrangements proposed (i.e. to whom will the service beaccountable e.g. the LSP or a separate Board or Committee?)

• The management arrangements proposed (i.e. will one organisation manageand deliver the service for its contractual partners or will their be sharedresponsibilities?)

• The potential impact on staff• Preparation of a Project Initiation Document demonstrating how partner

organisations will be involved and how this will work.

****************

Problem: Joint working within the city council could be improved to be moreeffective and efficient. Current CSU capacity limits its effectiveness and undermines itsvalue to the organisation and to external partners.

Fact: There are council officers in other services who would be better placed to deliveron their own service's and on corporate priorities, if they worked much more closelyand effectively with the CSU. It is also true that the CSU would be much better placedto deliver on corporate priorities if their role and the expectations of them, were madeclearer. If the shared services option was seriously on the table the other partnerswould want to buy in to a service which comes better resourced and equipped thanCSU presently does - one which has a cross section of staff with multi layeredexperience which will better complement their own teams.

Solution: There is a strong business case for an internal re-alignment of some postsinto CSU anyway. An expanded CSU team would be better placed to explore LocalityWorking / Neighbourhood Management pilot. If shared service goes ahead it will beeven better, demonstrating to partners the council is thinking progressively. Jointogether disparate posts to expedite this.

Recommendation 3: Consider integration of officers with relevant functions fromHousing, CDRP, Rural Support, Economic Development, Greenspace, GIS Team,Carlisle Renaissance to add value to CSU team. See page 67.

Page 11

****************

Problem: Need to cascade CD skills to all front-line staff to better enable them towork better with the public. There is also haziness around the nature and role of CDwork that needs clearing. Many council staff have a limited view of what colleagues inthe CSU actually do and how it relates to, and can support, their own work.

Fact: Local authorities are under increasing pressure to demonstrate communityinvolvement, yet they can't do this without CD work. It underpins a lot of council workareas but is not being used as effectively as it might be. Community working is thejob of all council employees. The recent Community Empowerment White Paperreasserts this and sets out plans for an “Empowering the Front-line Taskforce” to rununtil 2010 which will work on ensuring that front-line council staff are able to respondto a more empowered public.1

Solution:

1) CD workshops, facilitated by the CSU should be run to inform employees /members and raise awareness of CD practice.

2) CD training should be made available for all staff as part of employees'professional development.

3) All staff delivering on key corporate priorities should shadow CSU workers to gaininsight into CD skills and work areas.

4) A Job Swap day should be organised across the council to give employees aninsight into how different parts of the organisation work and how each isdelivering on corporate priorities. This would lead to greater understanding, co-operation, and clarity of purpose. To be organised by Corporate HR, ChiefExecutives and CSU

Recommendation 4: this proposal to be implemented without delay

****************

Problem: Poor service engagement with members. The Review has found thatworking relationships with members are patchy and ad hoc. Few members have beenable to attend events organised by CSU to promote their work and therefore mayhave a limited perception of the CSU's remit, work and capacity.

Fact: A desire for greater locality level working and recent Government proposalsmean that front-line councillors are now expected to assume stronger communityleadership and advocacy roles at ward / neighbourhood level. At present, there is noformal mechanism for communicating with and briefing members about the work CSUis engaged in and how it relates to their wards. Presently CSU team members do notattend neighbourhood forums, which are serviced instead by Cumbria CountyNeighbourhood Development Officers (NDOs). As a consequence, the NDOs have amuch closer working relationship with their CC members than the city council's CSUofficers have with their city council members. 1 Communities in Control, DCLG, July 2008 p.29

Page 12

Solution: A more robust, regular and direct working relationship with members. TheService must work much more closely with ward councillors. It is imperativemembers are well briefed and supported to understand what the CSU team are doingin each area, why they are doing it, and what outcomes are expected. This willbenefit members, the CSU and the community.

Recommendation 5: the communication links between the CSU and members arestrengthened to provide for a regular formalised reporting and feedback structure.Democratic Services should be involved to support this. Furthermore as CD is sointegral to overarching priorities and affects all wards in the city it is suggested theoutcome and recommendations in this Review must not drop off the member's agendaand for this reason they require further consideration via a Task and Finish Group. Inaddition a series of best practice visits for members to authorities in other towns andcities that have well established mechanisms for neighbourhood and area communityengagement ought to be considered.2

****************

Problem: Increasing public expectations of high performance from councillors oftenmismatched with what councillors can actually deliver. Officers and memberssometimes also have different expectations of each other. Challenge is for bothofficers and councillors to support each other do their job professionally and moreeffectively in. Many backbench councillors also feel distanced from council decision-making and struggle to engage with LSPs and other structures set up to influencedecisions about mainstream service allocation (the members' workshop in Carlislecertainly confirmed this).

Fact: National research has identified concern among councillors, officers andcommunity groups about the scale and complexity of the future ward member role.The vital community leadership and advocacy role of ward councillors has beenreasserted by the empowerment agenda. A locality / area working approach willentail more responsibility for local decision decision-making. The trend is towards ahigher profile role - more visible community engagement from members. Allcouncillors will need to respond to these expectations. A cultural change in officer-member-communities relations is therefore urgently needed.

Solution: Councillors Compact3. A voluntary, two-way agreement between the counciland elected members which sets out the council’s expectations of the ward councillorrole, encouraging basic minimum standards of activity and performance. Compact alsoclearly sets out the council’s commitment to provide minimum levels of support,training and remuneration for members to enable them to fulfil their role effectively.

2 Consultant would be able to recommend suitable authorities, organise and facilitate these

visits.3 Councillor Compact was a recommendation in the Joseph Rowntree Foundation Report

"Ward Councillors and Community Leadership: A Future Perspective”. See p.47http://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/2125-local-government-councillors.pdf

Page 13

Recommendation 6: That the Council Executive give serious consideration to aCouncillor Compact and initiate dialogue between senior officers and members toconsider proposal. Suggest involvement of Communities Directorate, DemocraticServices and external support as necessary in drawing up compact for consideration.

****************

Problem: Marketing and communication by CSU could be improved.

Fact: There is scope for improving communication. The Review has found that a largenumber of internal colleagues are completely unaware of the good work that CSU do.CD work is often hidden from view as it takes place away from the centre. Howeverlack of knowledge about the team's work and its potential is now hindering it. Thereis a desire from the Corporate Comms team to provide more support to communitydevelopment activities which support and deliver strategic priorities.

Solution: Enhance CSU communication internally and externally.

Recommendation 7: Explore new and more effective ways of promoting the council'sand partners' community work e.g. short advertising / promotional campaigncomprising road shows, regular e-bulletins to members and interested parties;engaging marketing and comms professionals to raise awareness of participationopportunities. The internal Communications team should be used in the first instance.

****************

Problem: Getting to grips with devolution and area based arrangements. Developingbetter locality working is particularly challenging in Carlisle within a two-tier/ county-district structure. Carlisle is low on the citizen participation ladder. An effective areagovernance structure is needed, with an area forum model that galvanises localinvolvement and which ensures greater service provider responsiveness andaccountability.

Fact: Both district and county councils are considering improving their locality workingapproach. The County is actively exploring devolved service delivery and new areagovernance arrangements through a high level 'White Paper Working Group'. The citycouncil needs to be in a position to respond to this. The majority of CSU's work iscentred around informing, advising, supporting and consulting. The big exception wasSure Start Carlisle South – which represented a significant step up the ladder tocitizen control. CHA have progressed further with devolved budgeting (see p.45) andlessons can be gleaned from this. However in general the community cannot becomemore empowered and the CSU cannot facilitate this process because there arecurrently no suitable area / neighbourhood governance structures to allow formeaningful delegated citizen power, devolved budgeting etc. The existingNeighbourhood Forums represent the most basic form of tokenistic participation.

Solution: New multi agency area governance arrangements such as local partnershipboards / public service boards which provide opportunities for sustained involvementin local decision making, greater service provider accountability and devolved power

Page 14

through participatory budgeting and resourcing. Such bodies can only be establishedwith the agreement and commitment of all partner agencies.

Recommendation 8: City council to initiate discussions with key public sectorpartners. Commission an independent evaluation of neighbourhood forums andreview of potential locality working models and neighbourhood governance structuresin Carlisle.

****************

Problem: CSU not seen as contributing towards key objectives.

Fact: CSU has a key role to play in involving communities in the decision- makingaround the economic, social and environmental future of the city. Both the 'GrowingCarlisle' strategy and the Strategy for Sustainable Cumbria identify a host of localinvolvement opportunities which the CSU can broker. There are also new work areasto explore which would contribute further towards both Learning City and Cleaner,Greener, Safer priorities.

Solution: CSU support a series of interventions with clear performance outcomestargeted around corporate priorities.

Recommendation 9: Begin discussions with relevant services regarding specificproject work listed in this report.

****************

Problem: Rural areas / parish council reps complain of feeling sidelined by corporatepreoccupation with urban areas. They are concerned about apparent lack ofconsultation around proposed Community Empowerment Pilot in Longtown andinadequate LSP representation. Parish Plans have not been implemented. In additionthere are issues around parish council membership and the effectiveness of localrepresentation.

Fact: The parish council system, Parish Charter and closer, more cohesive ruralsociety, together with strong representative associations may expedite CDinterventions and allow for some rural 'quick wins' that would restore confidence, buildlocal capacity and tackle rural exclusion. A new well being power for parish councils isanticipated in the forthcoming Community Empowerment Bill (see this report p.70).

Solution: The Community Empowerment pilot in rural areas is developed incollaboration with rural stakeholders. A series of targeted interventions supported byCSU / Rural Support officers and partners will garner public support. Work withDemocratic Services to improve the quality of parish council membership. Newcommunity planning exercises must not be paper exercises producing parish planswhich are never realised and sit on the shelf.

Page 15

Recommendation 10: Further research and development work required. TheCommunity Empowerment Pilot must build on best practice4.

****************

Problem: Events requires greater co-ordination

Fact: Events run by CSU clearly deliver outcomes beyond CD – particularly inpromoting Carlisle

Solution: A more structured approach to planning and organising Events, whichwould enable a pooling of ideas, skills, resources (both internal and external) that canbe used more effectively and efficiently.

Recommendation 11: New Events group comprising key internal and externalpartners. A feasibility study into a social enterprise events company.

****************

Problem: Council needs to respond to Sustainable Communities Act 2007

Fact: The Act represents the biggest opportunity for many years for councils and localpeople to reverse community decline and enhance the social, economic andenvironmental fabric of the city.5 Community participation and involvement is arequirement in formulating proposals that are sent to the Local GovernmentAssociation for consideration. The important point is that this legislation is about localgovernment and local people telling central government what they need to makeCarlisle more sustainable. Central government has a legal duty ‘to assist localauthorities in promoting the sustainability of local communities’. So by ‘opting in’councils are signing up to receive that ‘assistance’.

Solution: Opt-in to the process. Conduct triple bottom line sustainability audit forCarlisle (social, economic, environmental) Following DCLG guidelines establish localpanels and begin public consultation. The role of CD will therefore be crucial inestablishing local panels and in encouraging understanding and awareness of theprocess. This represents a significant community empowerment opportunity in itself.

Recommendation 12: Accept the invitation from Secretary of State to opt-in to theprocess immediately. Task CSU with establishing consultative panels ofrepresentatives of local people in accordance with government guidelines. CouncilExecutive request a sustainability audit and preparation of a Carlisle SustainableCommunities Action Plan to develop ideas and suggestions related to the matterslisted in the Schedule (Section 2 of the Act: see http://www.localworks.org/?q=node/44)When local consensus on sustainability proposals has been established, the Executive

4

http://www.acre.org.uk/DOCUMENTS/communityengagement/Empowerment%20through%20Community%20led%20Planning.pdf

5 http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/681480.pdf

Page 16

must sign off final proposals and send to the Local Government Association forconsideration.

****************

Problem: 'Feedback frustration'

Fact: Consultees regularly complain that consultation is often nothing more than atick box exercise for the council and that their views, once garnered, are ignored. Thismakes their participation seem pointless.

Solution: Let people know their views are valued. Implement the corporateconsultation policy.

Recommendation 13: A list of all the consultations with local communities should bekept on the council website and incorporated into new service plans. The list shouldalso state clearly what changes have been made to services as a result, thusenhancing the credibility of the local authority in terms of responding to acommunity’s views and needs.

****************

Problem: Ensuring consistent and high standards of service delivery for communitycentres.

Fact: A recognised national standard / quality mark exists for community centresknow as the VISIBLE Communities standard.6

Solution: VISIBLE Communities standards. Certification opens up new opportunities -access to networking, new funding, improved management, precursor of readiness forcommunity ownership of assets.

Recommendation 14: Support all centres to sign up to VISIBLE standards. Createperformance target based around this work.

****************

6 http://www.visiblecommunities.org.uk

VISIBLE – Community centres should be a: Voice for local concerns. Independent andpolitically neutral. Service provider for local people. Initiator of projects to meet locallyidentified needs. Builder of partnerships with other local organisations and groups. StrongLocal network of people and organisations. Way to Engage local people to become active intheir communities.

Page 17

What is Community Development?

1. Community development can be broadly defined as encouraging and empoweringpeople to gain control over the conditions in which they live, supporting peopleand changing social alienation into engagement. The key purpose of CD is tocollectively bring about social change and justice, by working with communitiesto identify their needs, opportunities, rights and responsibilities and to plan,organise, take action to improve local circumstances.

2. Community Engagement can be described as the process whereby public bodiesfacilitate citizen and community participation in order to incorporate their viewsand needs into decision-making processes. Community Empowerment, which isdescribed as passing more and more power to more and more people, is thedesired outcome, the end result of CD work.

3. Major national studies into the sector e.g. “The Community DevelopmentChallenge” and “Community Development at Work: A Case of Obscurity inAccomplishment” have found many in the sector are left scratching their headswhen it comes to CD, wondering what they are getting for their money from aservice that is, after all, discretionary. It is an inescapable fact, however thatmajor reforms in local government and other major public services that dependon involving local people are unlikely to work without CD. A DCLG report into thesubject notes that all too often CD is an afterthought:

“The role of community development is often overlooked at the higher levels ofpolicy, although there is wide reliance on its methods at the level ofimplementation. This reliance is largely hidden from view because it takes place indetailed local situations. Community developments own ethos of stressing its rolein providing background support rather than leadership reinforces this lowprofile.”7

4. Community Empowerment has shot up the government's agenda. The 2006Strong and Prosperous Communities White paper has become law with thepassing of the 2007 Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act.This enacts the ‘new duty to involve’ which will come into force in April 2009.Best value authorities will have a statutory duty to involve, inform and consultlocal people in decision-making.

5. This new duty should not be seen as a chore. The majority of service providersalready involve their service users to a great or lesser extent in the design,delivery and provision of those services having realised that there is clearevidence this produces a wider beneficial impact – improving services andcustomer satisfaction, cost effectiveness, increasing volunteering, buildingcapacity, enhancing community cohesion. From this perspective it is in council'sself interest to involve the public. A recently published report by think tankDEMOS into public perceptions of local government, has found significant publicmistrust of local councils. It notes however, that this can be remedied, and that

7 http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/153241.pdf

p.3 'The Community Development Challenge', DCLG 2007

Page 18

the personal interactions between council staff and the public of the sort whichCD practitioners have every day, are the key to building trust and bridging thedisconnect between decision-making and the public. It proposes that trustbuilding would have significant benefits for local government. These includefostering greater public willingness to engage with the council, greater confidencein its decisions and services, and greater public acceptance that ‘mistakeshappen’ so long as they are acknowledged and rectified.8

6. In July 2008 the government produced the Community Empowerment WhitePaper 'Communities in Control: Real People: Real Power'9 which aims to devolvemore power to local people to strengthen local democracy and shift responsibilityaway from the state to ordinary citizens. In many ways the new laws and thepolicies they originate from - active citizenship, localism and communityempowerment have breathed new life into the CD profession. Once viewed asmarginal and discretionary CD has become increasingly mainstream and anacceptance of its value and contribution is growing. A recent report by the LocalWellbeing Project has shown that community empowerment leads to happiercommunities.10 A strong evidence base exists for CD work – generated throughevaluation of key government regeneration programmes such as New Deal forCommunities, Neighbourhood Management pathfinders, The GuideNeighbourhoods Programme11 and the Evidence Annex of the CommunityEmpowerment White Paper.12

7. The question now for many authorities seems not whether we should do CD at all,but how can we do it more effectively and efficiently? How far do we want to go?and What resources are we able to commit to it?

What does empowerment mean for us?

8. The term community empowerment is a phrase that can mean many things tomany people. For instance in Carlisle the 'Save our Lonsdale' group organisedthemselves, produced draft plans and successfully lobbied and petitioned thecouncil to secure funding for a feasibility study into the future of the Lonsdalebuilding. However, communities might also take a stance contrary to that of theauthority and make demands that authorities cannot fulfil or do not agree with.For instance the residents of Rickergate who have formed 'Save our Streets'campaign could be said to be exercising 'people power' as they have organisedthemselves into a lobby group in an attempt to influence planning decisions.

8 http://www.demos.co.uk/files/Trust_web_ALL%20_032.pdf

State of Trust: How to build better relationships between councils and the public, DEMOSJuly 2008

9 http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/886045.pdfCommunities in Control: Real Power, Real People, DCLG July 2008

10 http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=8428462

11http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/changeneighbourhoodsreport.pdf12http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/886123.pdf

Page 19

9. The fact is that some communities may go through a stage of becoming morearticulate in their grievances against whatever authorities they have to deal. It isthe authority’s response to this that is vital. They can either take people withthem or work against them. All big regeneration schemes face these problems –the difference is the successful ones choose to work through the problems withstakeholders. To come out the other end takes a wise and farsighted councilcommitted to CD work. The research evidence notes that:

“In mature CD theory and practice there is a well recognised journey frompowerlessness through blame and protest to confidence, responsibility,negotiation and partnership.” 13

10. Often CD work can be difficult and extremely demanding. In many cases it isoften about managing expectations, telling people what the council is not able todo as much as what it is able to do. It is often about explaining the limitations ofpower and authority and the processes of local government to people. But inmediating in this way the CD practitioner is taking the time to fulfil an importantfunction. If the processes and practicalities are explained to them the communitymember will at least feel that they have been listened to. In the future they willbe more inclined to engage with and trust the local authority, to volunteer and toseek active participation in civic life as a way of addressing their concerns.

A Scientific approach to Community Development

11. It is known that a small percentage of individuals in the community are whatevolutionary biologists call 'selfless altruists' – these people exhibit remarkablesocial behaviours in that will give up their own time and invest their own energyfor social good when there is no obvious benefit to themselves. They will worktirelessly, unpaid and against the odds for their community. These are thevolunteers who run local groups, organise charity work and generally putthemselves out for others. They also have key knowledge about localcircumstances and context that are invaluable to service providers. As such theyrepresent a real asset and should, in fact, be nurtured.

12. A larger group of individuals at the same end of the scale are reciprocal altruistswho will help others for something in return. For many a return on their socialinvestment may simply be creating a better more liveable neighbourhood forthem and their families to live in, which will ultimately benefit them in terms offeeling safe and secure. Others may do good deeds in the community in theexpectation of gaining work experience and furthering their own careers or simplyto get a return in terms of social interaction.

13. However, there are ground rules for reciprocal altruism. Helping behaviours areoften conditional – conditional upon that good deed being reciprocated. In thecase of working with the council- the altruist may well expect the council toreciprocate their good deeds. Take the case of community centres. The council'sinput is lease of premises, plus a grant per centre and officer support time. In

13 The Community Development Challenge, DCLG 2007 p.31

Page 20

return this produced a volunteer contribution in 2007/08 worth an estimated£123,110.14 If the council's input is withdrawn or reduced too much thevolunteers who give their time for the community will feel exploited and themutuality may well be eroded. As it is centres find it hard to recruit volunteersand the focus group held with volunteers confirmed that many already feel theircontribution is undervalued. Community development practitioners have the mostexperience in identifying these individuals and importantly, understanding theirindividual motivations and manipulating them to produce a social benefit.

14. A report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation: 'Community Participation: WhoBenefits?'15 recommends a new approach to community participation- the 1%solution. It is based on detailed research, which suggests that communityparticipation invariably tends to be dominated by a small group of people. Itsuggests ways in which formal participation arrangements could more effectivelyengage with informal every-day social networks. The report is important readingfor councils who are keen to develop an approach to CD that provides VFM andworks with, and not against, the grain of human nature.

15. At the other end of the scale are the small percentage of people who arediametrically opposite to the altruists. These are the selfish individuals whoactively cause problems in their community, take everything and give nothingback, free-riders who fly tip, cause neighbour nuisance, crime and ASB. ThePolice have known for years that a small minority of individuals cause adisproportionate amount of criminality. It is estimated that approximately 10%of the active offender population is responsible for half of all crime and that avery small proportion of offenders (0.5%) are responsible for one in tenoffences.16 In addition to this alarming statistic there is also evidence that CDRPsnow employ a specific strategy to deal with the problem - the Prolific and PriorityOffender (PPO) strategy. This takes a 3 pronged approach:

i. Prevent and Deter - is to work intensively with those young offenderslocally identified as being on the 'cusp' of becoming PPOs. It requiresearly identification of those children and young people most at risk ofbecoming involved in criminality so that they can be provided with multi-agency support to positively influence their lives and divert them from anoffending lifestyle.

ii. Catch and Convict - A managed multi-agency approach to tackle theoffending behaviour of those individuals locally identified as committingmost crime and causing most harm to their communities.

14This can be calculated by multiplying total annual volunteer hours for community centres by

the median part-time annual national average hourly rate (£7.27). Based on the medianfull-time hourly earnings rate (£11.34) the value of community centre volunteer time wouldbe even higher - £192,031. Source: National Statistics Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings 2007

15 http://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/1802-community-network-governance.pdfJoseph Rowntree Foundation 2006

16 http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/ppo/ppominisite01.htm

Page 21

iii. Rehabilitate and Resettle - Multi-agency work providing supportiveinterventions to stop identified PPOs re-offending and integrate intosociety (Source: Home Office)

16. Scientists are only beginning to understand what causes individuals to act ineither extremely selfish or extremely selfless ways. An area of the brain hasbeen found which appears to be responsible for altruistic behaviour and there iscertainly a strong genetic component for both behavioural traits. It seems thatmost humans have the capacity for altruistic behaviour hard-wired into theirbrains and that the activation of this potential depends on environmental factorssuch as upbringing, education and so on. The same may be true of extremeselfishness.

17. It is imperative therefore, for CD practitioners to continue to work intensively withchildren and young people. The potential is there for either behaviouralcharacteristic to be actualised during children's formative years when they areextremely susceptible to a wide range of influences from family, peer groups,authority figures. This is time when they could swing either way depending ontheir own predisposition and strength of positive / negative environmentalinfluences and acquire personality traits and behaviour patterns that will stay withthem for life. One of the key aims of CD work is therefore social engineering –attempting to mitigate the selfish impulses and to nurture and later harness thealtruistic ones to create healthy, participative, well-balanced communities.

Page 22

The local context

18. Carlisle does not receive any Neighbourhood Renewal Funding. There is thereforeno government required Community Empowerment Network (CEN) (bodies set upto ensure community participation in local decision-making) as in other areas. Inaddition Carlisle does not qualify for the new 'Working Neighbourhoods' fundingstream. As part of Cumbria it does however fall within a CommunityEmpowerment Pilot area. Cumbria is one of 18 Community EmpowermentChampions nationally that are suppose to drive the community empowermentagenda and demonstrate good practice in devolving power. The empowermentchampions will encourage other areas and councils to devolve more power bydemonstrating the results that they have achieved across a diverse range ofneighbourhoods.

19. This is very important. Carlisle must seize the opportunity this status offers andwork much more closely with the county council to do some really innovative andimaginative approaches to community empowerment. It should not afraid to beexperimental and to put itself forward as a laboratory for this work. ACommunity Empowerment Pilot is planned in partnership with the County, whichaims to develop a model for engaging with communities to give real power toshape the places where they live and the public services they receive. Twoproposed pilot areas have been selected, Longtown and Harraby. The plannedwork is to trial techniques for engaging with the community, to support the ParishPlanning process in Longtown, and to develop a business case for NeighbourhoodManagement in Harraby. The communities themselves have yet to beapproached about becoming pilot areas.

The ladder of participation

Where is Carlisle?

20. The diagram below is the classic Ladder of Participation, produced in 1969 bySherry Arnstein. It illustrates the various levels of community participation. Thegovernment's devolution and empowerment agendas envision council's helpingtheir communities climb to the top of the ladder. It is not easy to show exactlywhere Carlisle Council presently sits on the ladder as there are particularapproaches and interventions that would place it much higher, whilst other factsmeans it features somewhat lower in facilitating meaningful participation.

8 Citizen Control. Have-nots handle the entire job ofplanning, policy making and managing a programme e.g.neighbourhood corporation with no intermediaries between itand the source of funds

7 Delegated power. Citizens holding a clear majority of seatson committees with delegated powers to make decisions.Public now has the power to assure accountability of theprogramme to them.

6 Partnership. Power is in fact redistributed throughnegotiation between citizens and power holders. Planningand decision-making responsibilities are shared e g through

Community CentresSure Start

Page 23

21. The council has transferred its community centres to local managementcommittees which are now leased and run independently of the council. Here thecouncil is clearly facilitating community participation by ensuring there are goodquality, accessible local venues run by local people who have a majority of seatson local committees. It ensures internal maintenance equality standards throughan SLA, guarantees external repairs and actively supports the centres bothfinancially and with training. The majority of the community centres wouldprobably not survive with the continued support of the council. In return for itssubsidy the council gets local services run by local people, most of themvolunteers. This partnership appears to work well and means that citizens areempowered as they have meaningful delegated power and control over theircentres. If the circumstances were right it seems the council would certainlyconsider full asset transfer i.e. community ownership.

22. The council was one of the lead players in setting up the Carlisle South Sure Startscheme- an award winning, and nationally recognised, partnership model which isnow run by Barnardos from one of the council's own community buildings inPetteril Bank. This initiative represents several steps up the participation ladderfor local people who were given the ability to sit in partnership on localcommittees and to influence and shape their futures. The Botcherby HealthyLiving Initiative (HLI) can be seen as another example of citizen empowerment.

23. However, as both Sure Start and Botcherby HLI were local vehicles for nationalinitiatives they received substantial external funding. In the absence of externalregeneration money to catalyse public programmes the journey up theparticipation ladder may be somewhat slower. In Carlisle there have not yet beenany concerted efforts to devolve wider power, core budgets and decision-makingdown to local people and no area arrangements presently exist to do this. Ingeneral the council has not moved in any substantive way beyond the tokenistic –informing, supporting, advising and consulting. Carlisle Renaissance has notmoved citizens further up the ladder and it seems that local community groupsand some members appear to have concerns over the board's accountability andcomposition. For these reasons Carlisle's position on the ladder in this regard islower.

24. The DCLG report 'Firm Foundations: A Government Framework for CommunityCapacity Building'17 identifies five factors that need to be in place atneighbourhood, parish or small town level to ensure that communities canfunction cohesively. The table below considers how Carlisle fits into theserecommendations:

Firm Foundations Recommendations How does Carlisle fit?1. A meeting space or base (sometimes

called a hub) which is available,welcoming and accessible to all...

Yes. City council provides 15community centres and guaranteesaccess to all.

2. Access to seedcorn funding, most oftensmall grants or community chests...

Yes. The council currently grant fundsthe Community centres. It provides a

17 http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/152480.pdf

Page 24

small Grants for Leisure fund. But,given the need for efficiencies can itcontinue to provide this?

3. Access to support provided by workerswith CD skills (and) ...values. Thecritical element is ...to start from thegoals and needs that communities andgroups define for themselves...

Yes. It currently provides some CDworkers. But staff have been cut backand current efficiency savings mayjeopardise this.

Yes. There is evidence that theseworkers take a bottom up approachand respond to community needs

4. A forum or network that is deliberatelyinclusive, open and participatory,owned by and accountable to thecommunity...

Yes. There is a Voluntary & CommunitySector network. The city councilsupports the Carlisle branch of the CVSwith core funding. But can it continueto provide subsidy?

5. Learning opportunities to equip peoplefor active citizenship andengagement...’

Yes the city council encourageslearning opportunities. But these arelimited not only by resources but alsoby the availability of volunteers.

25. In light of the above the key decisions for the council will be:

• how far does it wish to take citizens up the ladder of participation? Does itconsider this to be a worthwhile objective?

• What level of resources is it prepared to allocate to facilitate this process?

Page 25

The Community Support Unit

CSU – Service Background

26. As a result of a series of internal re-organisations the CSU team has shrunkconsiderably from what it once was. Following various Organisation StructureReviews since 2000, the following staff posts have been moved from CommunitySupport to other operational Units within the Council.

• Community Safety Officer x 1 (moved to Policy & Performance)• Advice Services Co-ordinator x 1 (moved to Policy & Performance)• Rural Support Officer x 1(moved to Economic Development)• Community Involvement Officer x 1 –(currently vacant for 15 months pending

outcome of review)• Community Support Officer x 1 (urban) deleted from establishment• Community Liaison Officer x 1 (seconded to work SRB regeneration in Raffles

– not replaced)

27. The Unit has previously been based in the Leisure Department and EconomicDevelopment Unit. It moved into its current place in Community ServicesDirectorate as a result of Organisational review in 2007. Some years ago acorporate decision was made to bring CSU staff back to the Civic Centre. Therewere more grass roots workers employed by CSU and individual communityliaison officers were attached to community centres.

The budget

28. Figure 1 shows a breakdown of CSU costs. These figures were producedspecifically for this report by apportioning costs to discrete service area headingsin order to better illustrate where the monies are spent. Figure 2 represents this

Page 26

information in a pie chart. It can be seen that the total cost of the service was£1.49m in 2007-08, of which almost one-fifth was internal council recharges.

29. The core budget has seen incremental reduction totalling £700,000 over the lastten years, mainly through reduction in staff numbers, although his has beenpunctuated by occasional capital investments in community buildings, such as the£355,000 this year for building refurbishment work at Greystone and Belah.

Figure 1: Service Costs for Community Support Unit 2007-08

Service Cost 2007/08 (£)Children & Young People e.g. staff 141,000Project development materials etc. 41,600Holiday Playschemes 13,146Travel 3,200Total 160,846

Income 38,100

Community Events

Event costs e.g. artists, equipment, advertising 89,073

Events management 31,300

Total 80,310

Income 40,063

Community EngagementStaff salaries 62,600Project development budget 20, 127% Comm Engagement Manager 9,000Total 91,727

Community CentresCentre grants 356,420Building R&M 101,400% Comm Engagement Manager 26,700% Admin support 4260Renewals, project development 16460Horticultural maintenance 8,100Insurance 22,200Total 529,568

Income 5,972

Community Grants

Grants for Leisure 10,800

Advice & Advocacy

Benefit Advice Service 119,800

Law Centre grant 82,900

CAB grant 50,200

CVS grant 33,100Anchorage Pensioners Centre 28,500Total 314,500

Management, Admin and OperationalComm Support management 44,600Admin support 27,640

Vehicles, travel and renewals 16,500

Storage costs 900

Total 89,640Subtotal spend 1,277,391

+ Internal Recharges at 17% 217,156Total service cost 1,494,547

Page 27

Figure 2: 3D Pie Chart of service costs

30. As part of the ongoing Community Development Service Review in 2007, CNResearch was commissioned to question five local authorities about levels of CDprovision. The results are summarised very briefly below (Table 1). Theyillustrate the difficulty of comparing like-for-like CD service provision and inobtaining relevant financial data from other authorities. The italicised column onthe far right is a basic analysis of the data. We can see that Carlisle spendsconsiderably more in some areas such as community centre provision, but alsoconsiderably less in other areas such as community grants. The exercise in manyways reveals the limitations of VFM comparison work. Without detailedbackground information on specific local contexts in each authority only a verygeneralised picture can be painted.

Table 1: Adapted from Community Development Review Questionnaire, CN ResearchAugust 2007.

Service Area Provision Spend Carlisle 2006-07

CommunityDevelopment /Engagement

All 5 2 – no answer3 – between £18,600 to £97.800

£129,000 - More thanaverage

Community Events 4 out of 5 5 answers – between £30,000 to£350,000

£90,000 – Less thanaverage

Children & YoungPeople

4 out of 5 1 answer - £204,000 £159,500 – Less thanaverage

Community Centres 3 out of 5(councilssupport an

1 answer - £148,787 £465,000 – More thanthe 1 authority whichresponded. Carlisle

COMMUNITY SUPPORT EXPENDITURE 2007-08

Children & Young People Community EventsCommunity EngagementCommunity CentresCommunity GrantsAdvice & AdvocacyManagement, Admin and OperationalInternal Recharges at 17% of total budget

Page 28

average of 6communitycentres)

supports 13 centres –twice as many as theother authorities

Benefits Advice /Anti-poverty

4 out of 5provide

No answers £332,000 – comparisonnot possible

Leisure andCommunity Grants

All 5 4 answers - From £10,000 to£450,000

£14,500 – Less thanaverage

31. As part of the annual Use of Resources assessment, the Council conducted aValue for Money (VFM) Self Assessment covering all service areas. This exercisewas completed in July 2008 by the Community Development Manager. A 2007/08Service Cost profiling exercise carried out internally revealed that as in previousyears many of the council's services were n the upper middle to top quartile forcost. For the purpose of VFM profiling Community Development was combinedwith Economic Development. The internal estimate based on combined spend perhead for these two services in 2007/08 was £20.75 - £15.45 per head forCommunity Development, £5.30 per head for Economic Development. In2006/07 the cost was £13.39 per head for Community Development and £3.26per head for Economic Development.

32. Based on figures available given to the consultant and based on a population of103,30018 spend per head of population on Community Development equates to£12.36 (excluding central recharges) or £14.47 (including recharges).

Comparing spend with nearest neighbours

33. As part of this Review an exercise was undertaken to compare Carlisle's levels ofprovisions and spend on community support with those of its 15 nearestneighbour authorities. The exercise proved of limited usefulness for severalreasons. Firstly the overwhelming majority of authorities were unable / unwillingto provide figures. Secondly it quickly became clear that the types of servicesprovided varied wildly making a VFM comparison of like for like servicesimpossible. Thirdly some councils have a specific CD service which is specificallyresourced, whilst others undertake what they consider CD but organised acrossdifferent Directorates e.g. as part of cross-cutting work on regenerationinitiatives, neighbourhood management etc. and cannot easily attribute specificservice costs to it.

34. For example one of the nearest neighbours, Bury St Edmunds council, appears tohave a relatively small budget of £281,655 for Community Development onwhich, in 2007-08, it spent £192,000 or 68% on two Citizens Advice Centres. Itspent £39,000 or 14% on grants to four of its six community centres, grants thatare repaid to the council as rent. Other work that is considered to fall under thelabel Community Development such as local events and youth work appears to befunded by other departments and figures were not available.

182006 figures from Cumbria County Council

http://www.cumbria.gov.uk/elibrary/Content/Internet/536/673/1757/3931893510.pdf

Page 29

35. We can deduce from these experiences that as a tool to judge the value formoney of a service comparisons with other authorities are not very particularlyhelpful. Aside from the problem of comparing like-for-like services withoutdetailed information on what social benefit / outcomes these services deliver onecan never know what each council is really getting for its money.

The local policy context

36. The lack of an explicit CD policy or strategy has meant that the service has had todevelop an approach to delivering a service which contributes to the Council's keypriorities which prevail at the time. At one time or another most members havebeen involved in some of their work e.g. Community Centre ManagementCommittees, community projects, external partnerships etc. Whilst there iscurrently no specific policy context endorsed by the Executive that covers all ofthe work CSU does, it has become clear during the course of this Review that theteam's interventions have clearly impacted positively on the Council's keyobjectives. For specific examples of this see Figure 3, Appendices 5-8 andinformation listed in detailed analysis of each separate service area. A keyrecommendation of this report is that the strategic focus of CD work in Carlisleshould be strengthened, but that this ought to be done through a collaborativeand co-ordinated approach with key partners in the form of a SustainableCommunity Strategy, driven, endorsed and produced by the LSP.

Figure 3: CSU - Key achievements:

• Over £300,000 in grant aid for community centred initiatives gained bycommunity groups whom officers have supported, since 2005

• Over 77 awards amounting to over £60,000, to local groups through Grantsfor Leisure Scheme, enabling projects worth over £300,000 to be completed.

• Over £3,250,000 in benefit gains since 2005• Over 3,100 welfare benefit clients seen since April 2005• Introduced advanced new technology in benefits case recording system

(WROSES)• Enabled and facilitated a range of informal learning courses in community

buildings, including Money Management, IT courses, Teaching Assistants,Crèche Workers, Healthy Eating, Charity Management

• 70 people have undertaken accredited (NCFE Level 3) courses/learningopportunities since April 2006

• Completed the process of transferring community centres to Trustee leases

Page 30

• Enabled over 150,000 people to enjoy an events programme, including theFireshow which was nominated in 2006 in the top 5 events in the country

• Maintained and developed the annual youth exchange programme, enabling awider range of young people to attend

• Developed Service Agreements with the Law Centre, the CAB and the CVS• Developed a closer working partnership with the County Council's

Neighbourhood development team• Developed the original Partnership and Bid and continued to support the

Carlisle South Sure Start Programme as Lead Body to help them achievenational award winning status

• Negotiated the successful transfer of Carlisle South Sure Start Programme toBarnardos

• Negotiated an agreement with the Youth Work in Cumbria Partnership toprovide additional services for young people

• Achieved the highest level (4) in the YWiC standards Assessment• Developed a successful bid to the Big Lottery Fund for a £220,000 investment

in CYP services• Developed a Play Strategy and Policy• Facilitated and enabled the development of the Carlisle Play Partnership which

has representation from over 20 agencies and community groups• Introduced new face2face mobile unit to help develop services for young

people in remote locations• Supported and enabled the development of 19 new community groups e.g.

HLI, Friends of Chances Park (this group was awarded a £1m grant in May2008 to refurbish the Park) etc. since 2005 etc.

• Developed and facilitated the Carlisle Equality and Diversity Partnership• Developed the Festival of Nations programme to include up to 40 workshop

session in schools and community venues, enabling over 1000 children andyoung people to discuss the issues of equality, race etc.

• Enabled and facilitated the development of the Carlisle Advice Forum• Led a successful programme of consultation exercises, particularly with CYP

for the Carlisle Renaissance Project• Developed a closer working relationship with other 'internal' services e.g.

Sports, Countryside, Housing, Renaissance etc.• Organised holiday play scheme sessions in 40 venues, attracting over 6000

children, since 2005• Enabled the development of a comprehensive IT service, including a website

service for all community centres

Marketing and Communications

37. The Review has found that marketing and communications could be improved.There have been many comments from stakeholders that service does some verygood work but that it sometimes 'hides its light behind a bushel' and could dobetter at promoting itself and the work the staff are actively involved in. CSUused to produce a comprehensive annual report each year but this was stoppedsome years ago. There may be a resource issue. A DVD film was produced in2007 with the participation of many service users and other stakeholders. Thefilm provided an interesting and informative glimpse into the work of the team. It

Page 31

is important, given the new emphasis on community empowerment, that the CSUtakes every opportunity to market itself and stay 'on message' by utilising allavailable medias including local press, and electronic medias such as emailbulletins, blogspots etc. It seems that each service area has volunteer 'e-champions' who volunteer to upload information onto the council intranet andinternet. It is clear that this mechanism needs looking into with a view toimproving it.

38. How the CSU keeps members informed is of particular importance. Thereappears to be no formal mechanism to ensure a regular dialogue with members.CSU used to report to a Community Development and Young peoples subCommittee on 6 weekly basis. This was stopped 8 years ago. However it seemsthat this relatively effective communication structure was not replaced withanything formal that allows for regular dialogue and information sharing withmembers. Recommendations 5 and 6 are suggested to improve this situation.Cumbria CC are members of IdeA's front-line councillor in neighbourhoodsnetwork. A focus on member development / support provides them with betterintelligence on local views. Incorporating IdeA / LGA guidance support forcouncillors on Councillor CcfA responsibilities may clarify roles, strengthencommunication and enhance effectiveness. Also see Recommendations 5,6 & 7.

39. A national report commissioned by the DCLG into Corporate Communicationsentitled 'LG07' by Karian and Box consultants revealed that lack of awarenessabout CD is also a widespread problem nationally. The report found that:

• 32% of senior council communicators had not heard of the recently publishedGovernment White Paper on community engagement and consultation ‘Strongand prosperous communities’

• 31% said they were not involved in community engagement activity• 49% cent said that community engagement activities were of little or no

interest for them.

40. ‘Connecting with communities' (CwC) recognised that local authorities mustcommunicate effectively if they are to increase citizen awareness, interest andengagement in local government. Today's councils use a range of media– theinternet, 24-hour access, newsletters, digital television, mobile phone messaging.Effective communication means making the most of all these channels.19 It saidthat councils should "involve the communications professionals in order to ensurea well developed approach to community engagement".

41. Carlisle Corporate communications are keen to ensure that this Review and itsfindings are communicated effectively and a Strategy has been produced to thisend. A key outcome is that the council needs to manage public expectations ofwhat the CSU team can provide with the resources that are available to it.

Community Support Unit

19 http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=7844318

Page 32

42. The unit's work is divided into 5 main areas:

• Children & Young People• Events• Community Involvement / Community Centre support• Benefits Advice / Support for External Advice / Advocacy Services• Grants for Leisure

Each area and its impact and effectiveness will be considered in turn:

Children & Young People

Team:

• Youth Officers x 3• Play Development Officer x 1• Face2Face Co-ordinators x 5 (30 hours per week)

Function: to work in partnership to ensure that all children and young people haveaccess to quality opportunities, activities and environments. A list of the team'scurrent activities can be found in Appendix 6.

43. CYP is the only area of CSU that has an officially endorsed strategy-the PlayStrategy 'Play for TODAY, Play for TOMORROW' which was adopted in 2007 by thecouncil and the Play Partnership - the result of a collaboration of more than 50stakeholders from across Carlisle.

44. Besides its main objectives of developing better play facilities importantly itspecifically seeks to encourage the participation and active involvement ofchildren and young people in decision-making opportunities. The Review hasfound that the team have embraced this work enthusiastically and withdemonstrable success:

• In 2007 they involved young people in consultation on Carlisle Renaissanceregeneration plans about city centre regeneration plans. In a 3 monthprogramme of consultation exercises the team used modern interactivemethods, running workshops at 4 youth clubs, engaging with young people inskate parks and sending questionnaires to schools. This work was celebratedas best practice and featured in 'RENEW' North West Practice paper.

• Having a Play Strategy was a pre-requisite to applying for external fundingopportunities. A successful bid for £220,000 from the Big Lottery Fund in2007 has enabled the development of enhanced play provision in the City,through the recruitment of two face2face Play Co-ordinators for 3 years andthe development of a Play Trail through Bitts Park to the City Centre. Thisbrings the face2face team up to 5 staff on 30hpw.

• Play Partnership. The team facilitates the Partnership. This brings togetherkey players round the table and ensures joined up working and co-ordination.

Page 33

Co-operative work with East Cumbria Countryside Project and onenvironmental education themed play trails shows best practice. The structureis allowing the Police to deliver on their crime reduction targets better and canbe evidenced through ASB reductions monitored through Operation GRIP(Gradual Intervention Programme) and allows Police to explore newapproaches to youth diversion and integrated youth support services. ThePolice believe that by giving children and their parents the context to engagechildren in positive activities an enforcement route can often be avoided.

• The Local Children's Planning Board is a county led initiative set up throughthe LAA. Multi agency support teams help support young people at risk ofoffending through the common assessment framework referrals.

• Youth Exchange scheme broadens cultural horizons of a 15 young people andallows them to visit Carlisle's twin towns.

45. It has been suggested in prior reviews that the team's interventions could betargeted in a more sophisticated way – e.g. by at risk, vulnerable, low income,rural areas. The Review has found that, in fact, the team and its partners areworking with hard to reach groups and targeting resources in areas of multipledeprivation. In addition the Play Strategy undertook an audit of children' servicesand hotspot areas and looked where the need and service gaps were. It involvedchildren and parents plus outside agencies. An intelligence led approach is beingtaken. An up to date GIS system would certainly add value and allow thePartnership to map activity and plan resource allocation. The effect on individualyoung people can be measured by the team's own evaluation methods e.g. the‘wheel’, questionnaires, session plans. Quarterly reports are sent out to CumbriaCC, which are also shared at director level. If the Performance Team requireregular reporting the team are able to provide this information.

46. The team do target specific areas, but they are constrained by what they candeliver in terms of detached / outreach / evening work because of staff capacityand resource limitations. The team cannot do this alone and in developing thePlay Partnership they are heading in the right direction and placing the council inthe best position to deliver against new challenges such as those in outlines inSection 6 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (which came into force in Jan2007) in which all local authorities are required to:

• secure access for young people to ‘positive activities’, including youth clubs,sports facilities and art projects

• take account of young people’s views on activities and facilities currentlyavailable to them as well as any new ones they would like to see in the area

• publicise these to young people, and to keep the information up-to-date.

47. Through the Play Partnership the team are doing vital work to support otheragencies. The importance of this work cannot be emphasised enough. Itcomprises:

• intensive face-to-face work with young people

Page 34

• working with police to identify people at risk offending• target the right people and ensure that a menu of local solutions are

considered• restorative justice work

48. Many of the young people they work with on a detached basis have emotionalproblems, relationship difficulties and poor 'life-skills'. Team members report theyoften want someone outside their peer group to talk to and they often act as defacto counsellors. There are certainly a proportion of young people who wouldbenefit from referral to specialised counselling services. However it appears thataccess to professional counselling in Carlisle is limited in availability andunaffordable for young people. It is suggested that this is an area that requiresmore attention.

49. It is recommended that the CDU approach of Face-to-Face work as set out in thePlay Strategy might be further enhanced by better co-ordination with educationalpsychologists. A University department specialising in this field might add value totheir work by through an action research project and / or student placements.This would ensure that the team has availed itself and its service users of thelatest techniques. The University of Cumbria runs a whole range of relevantundergraduate courses e.g. Child & Family Studies; Education Studies with Child,Family & Young Person; Person Centred Therapy; Interpersonal Skills andProfessional Development; Health Improvement & Social Change; Psychology;Social Science; Working With Children & Young People; Youth & CommunityDevelopment Work; Youth Studies.

50. It is recommended that the Youth Homelessness Worker, from the Housing Teamshould be seconded into the Children and Young People's team. They already dosome joint work and this would enable greater collaboration around areas such asthe planned John Street hostel.

Relations with Cumbria CC Children's Services

51. The county do not have an in house youth service (it was abolished in April 2001)therefore they commission youth provision from other agencies. There are 15providers in Carlisle of which Carlisle's CYP team are one. The current contractwith the city council to deliver youth programmes is worth £35,000. In 2009/10a different commissioning cycle will take effect. The county plan to reduce thenumber of main providers down to three organisations. They believe that CarlisleCYP team would be in a good position to tender for this work.

52. Cumbria has a County Wide Commissioning Board and below this Local PlanningGroups (LPG), which reports to the Children's Trust. The Carlisle LPG is chairedby Rev. Richard Pratt from the LSP. A new Local Area Plan for Carlisle needs to beproduced. The Children’s Trust is seeking to align all available resources againstthe desired / planned for outcomes.

Page 35

53. The Corporate Director of Children's Services at the County felt that relationshipsand better planning are the key to further improving, avoiding duplication,increasing customer / outcome focus and maximising efficiencies. She is of theview that agencies need to give up some direct control over their resources andpool / apply them in ways that can achieve most overall. It is recommended thata joint working group between county and district council is set up to considerissues raised in greater detail.

54. The following is a list of factors that currently limit the CYP team:

• team is under-staffed and under resourced – members want more youthworkers in their wards but the team cannot cover all these areas and don'thave a budget to procure detached youth work in evenings and at weekends.

• difficulty in finding and retaining qualified youth workers• lack of central meeting place for young people from across Carlisle to feel

welcome• no formal facilities for projects to take place- community centres are not

always accessible. Sands centre is expensive• negative portrayals of young people in press due to actions of a minority• some youth clubs in community centres deny access to over 12s which means

older teenagers in some areas have no where to go• no sounding board from councillors• tied into a structure which only allows council to exchange with its official twin

cities, when actually there may be much more cultural, environmental andsocial benefit if it could extend the programme to other countries or evenactually exchanges within this country e.g. Bradford, Leicester.

• council website does not appeal to young people. An interactive link to amore user friendly website would help communication.

55. The following is a list of potential new areas for future consideration:

• annual residential for al young people who have used their services• may be more value in running youth exchanges based around specific

interests of young people• peer mentoring would add value to the existing work programme of the CYP

team by helping the young people to better influence and shape servicedelivery

• Life-skills drop in centre for young people (run as social enterprise – teachingcooking, managing finances, relationship advice, and education counsellingservice). The new Central Academy will have a separate youth zone, whicharchitects are currently designing. In addition Morton Academy may haveDance Centre but will this meet the needs identified by the CYP team andyoung people?

• develop the Aim Higher programme to encourage more young people tocontinue in education. Organise visits to University

• elected member to become a Children Young People Service Champion• challenge is to ensure statutory targets e.g. Every Child Matters link with local

agendas- in essence trying to combine what kids need with what the nationalpolicy says they need.

Page 36

• Carlisle Renaissance needs to provide better feedback to consultees• A link to best practice appears below20

56. The Review concludes that this team has positively impacted on service users andother agencies, and in so doing has also contributed in a clear way to thecouncil's corporate priorities as evidenced by points in Para 44 above. A keychallenge for the service will be to build on this work and secure a contract fromthe County Council under the new commissioning arrangements, to deliver, inpartnership with other players, a range of provision and services which satisfy theneeds of young people in Carlisle.

Events

Team: Community Events Manager x 1

Function: To organise Community Events. The purpose of Events is to encourage:

• individuals/community groups to get involved in organising and participatingin events.

• learning through participation• Social inclusion• a feel good factor, sense of pride and community ownership

57. The main events are: Fireshow, Upperby Gala, Festival of Nations, Spring Show.Support has also been provided for Christmas lights switch, organising partner forConcert in the Park and for local gala events e.g. Morton Gala, Longtown Gala,and Brampton Gala. The events programme has continued to grow in popularitywith the first two events of 2008 (Spring Show and Upperby Gala) attractinglarger crowds than in the past 3 years. Since 2005, more than £50,000 has beenattracted in sponsorship for the Community Events programme.

58. The ostensible reason the Unit puts on Events is to achieve a communityempowerment outcome, but in doing so the success and popularity of the someEvents like the Fire Show are hitting other outcomes such as tourism as theyattract people from outside the City. This is a win win situation. It also meansCarlisle Renaissance, which has a specific remit for 'Promoting Carlisle', ought tobe making a substantial financial contribution to these events.

59. An internal Review of Events was undertaken in 2007. Comparisons were madewith other local authorities, which showed that relatively Carlisle spends a similaramount as other authorities. It noted that the organisation and management ofevents, the links with partners, Health & Safety were all of a high standard. Asubjective attempt was made to assess the contribution and impact each eventmade to corporate priorities, value for money, community cohesion, communitysafety, promoting Carlisle, environment, accessibility. The Review concluded that:

20 http://www.beacons.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=7599275

Page 37

• efficiencies and greater consistency could be achieved by managing all eventsthrough one source, rather than spread across the authority (5.2.1)

• for commercial events the council should charge for its time (5.2.2)• businesses engagement in City Centre events is poor. The council has taken

city centre events as far as they can go - they should be moved forward byother partners/ private partner (5.2.3)

• the existing programme of events and level of support they receive should bereviewed and the potential for events focused on a particular theme should beconsidered (5.3.1)

• future of Spring Show should be reviewed commercially and the potential toincrease the number of events within the community should be explored.(5.3.2)

• a coherent sponsorship strategy is needed to replace the current piecemealapproach

60. This Review generally concurs with these findings but makes the followingobservations. The internal review noted the difficulty of finding accurate andconsistent performance measures. Satisfaction surveys, attendance data andother information is collated and used to give some indication of success, but inreality the 'feel good' factor that comes from putting on events is an intangiblethat cannot be measured. Re: “efficiencies and consistencies could be achievedby all events being managed through one source rather than spread across theauthority” - There certainly seems to be a case for events organised throughoutthe Council to be better co-ordinated, but it is not clear whether managing themthrough one source would, at this time, offer much benefit as some functions andspecialisms may be lost in the process. Firstly who would the one source be? Theinternal review identified that in many of the city centre events local businesseswere not getting involved and recommended these be stopped.

61. It is proposed that at this time what is certainly needed is a more structuredapproach to planning and organising Events which would enable:

• a pooling of ideas, skills, resources (both internal and external) which can beused more effectively and efficiently to

• open up new funding opportunities• secure greater corporate ownership of events which promote the city• hit more Carlisle Renaissance, Learning City and Cleaner, Safer, Greener

outcomes

To this end it is recommended that a formal 'Events Group' should be establishedwith CSU as lead, comprising:

• Community Support• Carlisle Renaissance• Tourism• Marketing and Communications• Outside agencies

Page 38

62. It is additionally recommended that if the council wishes to be really forwardthinking it considers carefully exploring the establishment of a social enterprise'not for profit company' to run events in the city. There is a precedent for thisapproach. In 2004 the Unit funded a 3-year pump priming budget of £45,000 torun music concerts. At the end of the 3 years, the organisation and managementof the event was transferred to a locally based private Company who investedfurther in it (over £400,000) and it is now firmly established in the eventsprogramme for the City, attracting an audience of over 16,000 in 2007. A similarscheme could pump prime a social enterprise events company. Examples ofsuccessful schemes of this kind include Whitby's Musicport - a not for profitcommunity enterprise promoting live music and music education. It now puts onethe UK's largest indoor world music festival, which in fact has become successfulin attracting people it has had to move to Bridlington. Carlisle InternationalSummer Festival appears to be run by a company with charitable status. If thisoption were of interest consultancy support could be used to develop it.

63. Re: “potential to increase the number of Events within the community should beexplored”. An initial scheme to test the water using a community group to runBrampton Live is under consideration at present. Depending on the success ofthis, it may be wise to invite expressions of interest. Re: Spring show.Paradoxically the Spring Show, despite having arguably the least relevance interms of CD outcomes is the only show that generates a small surplus, whichgoes back in to subsidise other events. It seems to have had something of arenaissance this year and it seems likely to continue albeit in an amended format.Re: Lack of a coordinated or themed programme. The new Events Group shouldaddress this. This Review makes the following suggestions:

• Historical themed events. Given Carlisle's rich history this one is obvious.Roman legions, recreations of Roman life and culture. Include info and re-creations of progressive aspects of Roman culture such as under floor heatingwhich the Romans made use of but which is sadly missing from modernhousing development - seek sponsorship from under floor heating companies.History gives opportunity for schools and colleges to get involved hittingLearning City targets

• Sustainable Living event, perhaps at Talking Tarn. Themed on Greenfields atGlastonbury. Environmental issues are high on the agenda. Seek sponsorshipfrom environmental industries (some utility companies, eco-build etc.).Include music, arts and entertainment and examples of alternative / nomadiclifestyles and living, bushcraft etc. Invite Ray Mears.

Community Engagement

Team:

Community Support Manager x 1Community Engagement Manager x 1Community Involvement Officers x 2

Function:

Page 39

• To deliver, and help, other council services deliver on key corporate priorities• To help build capacity in the local community by supporting community

groups and providing, advice, information, learning and training• To support the development of a strong community network with

contributions from all residents

64. The Review has found that the team currently fulfil a range of community needswhich no other agency in the city can currently fill. From interviews conductedwith a cross section of community groups and community centre staff none hadanything but praise for the work of the team. Many of these groups most havelittle or no contact with the council – the Civic Centre is an impenetrable andbureaucratic world far removed far their daily reality. The team therefore are avital link between worlds who are able to give wider context and meaning to thework undertaken in the community.

65. In addition to the guidance described above the team are the one source inCarlisle of up to date relevant advice on a range if issues, including

• Fulfilling legal requirements, including constitutions, payroll, charity returns,terms of reference, forming community group, licensing

• Funding - both advice and assistance in completing applications, monitoringand evaluation, budget projections etc.

• Community development – including training, workshops, capacity building,risk assessment, health & safety etc.

66. By supporting and partnering such events as the annual funding fair, the teamare able to facilitate local groups in securing grant aid, to support a range oflocal projects, which builds community capacity. In the last year they havehelped local groups draw down approximately £150,000 of funding and £100,000for training courses.

67. CSU made significant contribution to setting up and sustaining the Sure Startprogramme. CSU's knowledge of local community organisations allowed SureStart to link into existing networks, which facilitated the high level of inter-agency partnership working which characterises the programme. Petteril Bankwon a national award Children's Centre of the Year Award. CSU played a crucialpart in delivery of Petteril Bank extended school site. Training for parents,increased their ability to access services. If CSU had not been involved therewould be no point of contact. Sure Start is an excellent model of partnershipworking and an example of what can be achieved by working together. Thepoint is, however, that these success stories do no happen overnight – it takestime, and considerable behind the scenes partnership building, networking,advice, guidance, support, confidence building to get to this stage. The CSU laidthe foundations for Sure Start and built the organisation up to what it hasbecome today. It has a revenue budget of £750,000 and a capital programme ofmore than £1m. The council had a clear exit strategy from this scheme which isperhaps something that will prove useful and instructive for other initiatives.Now it will be run by Barnardos, as the final staff are TUPE'd over.

Page 40

68. The CSU undertake a range of Equality and Diversity work, which no othercouncil department currently picks up. An application to the North West LocalAuthority Employers Organisation, submitted for the first time in 2007, wasshort-listed for their annual 'Equality Award'. The Application was based aroundthe work on the Festival of Nations and developing the Equality and DiversityForum.

69. Significant Community Development Training outcomes have been achieved.Since 1997, it is estimated that over 40 people who originally volunteered toassist at an activity or attend an informal learning session arranged by theCommunity Support team have since developed their skills or continued intoaccredited training as a result and found permanent employment in 'communitywork', including 7 members of staff currently employed by the City Council aswell as Community Centre support workers/managers, development workers,housing workers, playgroup workers, youth workers, play workers. Below are afew case studies of actual trainees:

Case Study – Person B

Person B started as a parent and volunteer for SureStart. The CSU team encouraged her to take up a 9month work placement with them to gain experienceand learn CD skills. She did an NVQ in training anddevelopment. The CSU team inspired her to get

Case Study – Person C

Eight years ago CSU officers enabled Person C to attendvideo and photography training courses. Since then,

Case Study – Person A

Ten years ago Person A first started attending meetingsas a parent at her local school and community centrePetteril Bank. There she met Carlisle city councilcommunity support workers who encouraged her to getmore involved in things that were happening and toconsider going on training courses to improve her skills.

Page 41

70. Concerns have been raised that perhaps community groups rely too much onCSU support and have actually become too dependent on this help and advice,particularly in making funding applications to the exclusion of other avenues ofpotential support such as the CVS. From the limited evidence available it is notpossible to make a clear judgement on this. If that were true a strong utilitarianargument could be made that the wider social and community benefits accruingfrom securing external funding with the team's help significantly outweigh anyinvestment in time made by several council officers whose raison d'etre it isanyway. Certainly the importance of supporting community organisations withfunding has been highlighted in national reports. 'Removing Barriers toCommunity Participation' noted that:

“The end of a funding stream can mean the end of a community organisation.This means that community organisations and, particularly, community ‘anchororganisations’ have to spend significant amounts of time chasing new fundingopportunities. Instead of focusing on what needs doing within the community,they have to place a great deal of attention on survival.” 21

71. Another mitigating factor is that there is currently no other agency in the citythat fulfils these needs. Other outside agencies, i.e. Cumbria County Council,CHA, & CVS cover various elements of the above, in a very limited capacity, butat this time, only the CSU seems to have the funding expertise and knowledgethat smaller voluntary groups require. CVS, themselves reliant on both thecounty and city councils for core funding are overstretched and unable torespond to all calls for advice and assistance on funding issues, and refercolleagues to the CSU help. They offer no hands on support for communitygroups wishing to undertake consultation and apply for grant funding or followup service in terms of monitoring and evaluation.

72. It is important to make a distinction between funding for CD and grant fundingfor the community sector. The two cannot be substituted. Grants to groups andorganisations generate the multiplier effect- for the modest amount the funderputs in it gets much more back in terms of volunteer time and social outcomes.But they need CD support work to get the grants in the first place and thenafterwards to help manage them, maintain funding eligibility and develop newwork areas. CD is the catalyst in this process - without their support thereaction in most cases the reaction would not happen at all. A government reportinto this notes that:

“...funding of community groups, even if it were done much more adequately andsystematically, would still remain a tiny charge on the public purse comparedwith the cost of any mainstream public service. For this very reason, funding ofcommunity groups is often regarded as the most marginal and expendable line ina public authority’s budget. Yet it is by far the most economical way for societyto ensure high levels of social capital. Considering the role of these groups in

21 Removing the Barriers to Community Participation, National Community Forum, 2006. p10

Page 42

meeting needs which could otherwise impact much more expensively onmainstream services, the withholding of such grants is a wholly false economy.”22

73. This said it is important to ensure that every effort is made to ensure thatcouncil interventions have a clear exit strategy and the community themselvesare encouraged to become self sustaining in securing external funding. If a co-ordinated approach is taken through a joined CD service delivery with otherpartners this is more likely to be an achievable goal.

Conclusion

74. The Review has found that the CSU's approach of building both communitycapacity and supporting organisational development is making significant andtangible contributions to corporate priorities. Levels of partnership working aregood (but could be significantly improved along the lines of Recommendations 1,2 & 3), staff are highly motivated, enthusiastic and competent and the teamappears to have a good understanding of how their work underpins broaderstrategic policy goals, both locally and nationally.

75. The majority of the work the service delivers is through the Community Centres.Whilst the centres remain a key delivery vehicle for CD work it is also importantto develop work in a variety of alternative settings through outreach anddetached approaches that allow for engagement with different groups people.

76. If the recommendations to undertake more effective partnership working andmore efficient integration with key players are taken on board this will lead toimproved outcomes across the city which will benefit all partners and theirservice users. If this does not happen and further cuts are made, the team'scapacity to deliver a service, which meets the challenges of the White Paper andCommunity Empowerment agenda, may be limited. The council needs to decidewhere it wants to be and accept that its ability to deliver on these agendas andon corporate priorities will be affected by the budgetary decisions made.

77. Community development is a sector which is recognised to suffer from uneveninadequate investment nationally. However, councils that have achieved Beaconstatus for their work with Communities such as South Somerset District Councilhave done so by investing in specialised CD staff, which ultimately saved moneyby enhancing the quality of the decision-making process throughout the wholecouncil.23

Benefits Advice

Team:

Team Leader x 1Advice Workers x 3 22 p.33 The Community Development Challenge (DCLG 2007)23 Getting Closer to Communities Case Studies, IDEA, Beacon Scheme http://www.beacons.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=5098352

Page 43

Clerical support x 1

Function: to provide free confidential benefits advice to all residents of Carlisleregardless of income. Aims to improve benefits take up, make people better off,improve living standards, reduce social exclusion and improve health.

78. The service contributes to key priorities in the following ways:

• Carlisle Renaissance: Sustainable Community vision / Tackling Worklessness• Learning City: Advice and referrals can enable socially excluded people to

take up education and learning. Once financial circumstances are stabilisedpeople can make positive life choices.

• Safer: A reduction in poverty will reduce criminality.• Corporate Plan: “to work in partnership to alleviate poverty and social

exclusion”.

79. The government estimates that billions of benefits go unclaimed each yearbecause people do not know about their entitlement and / or are put off by thecomplexity of claiming. Older people especially often struggle to understandtheir rights and are failing to claim benefits such as pension credits and counciltax rebate.24 Unlike other welfare rights groups the team can help anybody whoapproaches them. This is an important difference and makes them distinct fromother organisations whose funding streams and remit mean they can onlysupport specific target group’s e.g. older people, homeless or ex Armed Forces.Figure 4 shows the employment status of the service's clients.

80. Facts: It takes on average 18 months to train the Advice Workers who have anextremely detailed knowledge. This makes them the most skilled welfare rightsteam in the city

• their work has been commended by the Child Poverty Action Group• an electronic case management system has recently been introduced• multiplier effect means benefit revenue raised goes back into the local

economy as people have more disposable income to spend in local shops andservices

• 32% of referrals originated from within Carlisle City Council and 68% ofreferrals from external agencies. (January to December 2007)

• Approximately 80% of clients referred to the Benefit Advice Service havesome form of health problem.

• Benefit Advice Service internal referrals have increased from 13% in 2005 to32% in 2007. Factors that may have contributed to this increase include:

24 Age Concern said that around £4.6bn in benefits was going unclaimed every year as peoplestruggle to understand their rights. Council tax benefit remains the least claimed benefit byolder people. The charity's research suggested that more than 60% of older homeownersthought they would not be eligible for the benefit. However, almost the same percentage oflower-income homeowners who would be eligible are also failing to claim. An estimated 2.2million pensioner households are missing out on £1.4bn by not claiming the benefit.

Page 44

o positive outcomes for clients, which can also enable the referringdepartment to

o other services meeting their own targets in this are.o raised awareness of the service, including promotional days in the

Civic Centre foyer and presentations to Revenues & Benefits staffo increased accessibility due to being based in the Civic Centre.

• more than 30% of referrals came for the council's own Housing Benefitssection

• the team run outreach services in the following community centres: Belah,Greystone, Morton, Petteril Bank, Longtown, and Brampton. In addition theydo home visits for people who cannot make it to the Civic Centre

• The service is increasingly involved on Homelessness due to Local HousingAllowance (replacement of Housing Benefit)

81. The Benefits Advice Centre (BAC) used to be housed outside the Civic Centre inthe Old Post Office Court, which is now the base for the CAB. It moved to theCivic Centre because (a) the lease on the old premises was due for renewal andthe premises did not fully comply with the DDA and the estimates for bringing itup to standard were not viable and (b) after the floods the council took theopportunity to re-design accommodation in the Civic Centre and it was seen asan opportunity to bring the BAC back into the fold.

82. The Benefits Advice service was the subject of a separate internal review sometime ago. This Review looked at several options for the future of the serviceincluding contracting out and merging with other advice agencies. A letter wasreceived from the CAB stating that they would not be in a position to deliver theadvice services cheaper than the council. It was concluded by the Executive thatit was most appropriate to keep the service in-house and based in the CivicCentre. This Review believes that this was the correct decision. A centrallocation and dedicated outreach has improved service accessibility and usertake-up.

83. The Review found that clients were from a wide variety of backgrounds and farfrom encouraging a dependency culture in many cases, advice about WorkingTax Credits and other incentives actually helped to keep people in employment.In some cases clients were able to escape the benefits trap altogether and werereferred on to other agencies for intensive help and support to get them back ontheir feet as functioning members of the community. A small sample of feedbackforms that tell the human story filled in by clients appears in Appendix 4.

84. The Review also found that the team are best placed to deliver a high qualitywelfare benefits service which supports and gives added value to what otheragencies do. They are currently working on a funding bid for an Older PersonsAdvice Worker and on an advice folder for Advice Agencies. There is potential forthe team to develop and strengthen links with the PCT and health community aparticularly on issues around mental health.

Page 45

85. It is recommended that better integrating the Homelessness Advice Workers tothe BAS would make sense and would help develop the links between the twoservices. There is already a relationship between the two.

86. The table below shows where the majority of referrals to Benefits AdviceServices originate. It is clear from this information that the highest proportion ofreferrals are from inside the council.

Source of referrals, by percentage, to the Benefit Advice Service:

Referral Source Percentage(%)

InternalRevenues & Benefits 16Homeless 8Council Tax 7Customer Contact 1ExternalOccupational Health 14Carlisle Housing Association 11Cumbria Action for Social Support 7

Page 46

Citizen’s Advice Bureau 6Social Services 6Community Psychiatric Nurse 6East Cumbria Family Support 5Christians against Poverty (debt) 3Deaf Vision 2Age Concern 1Macmillan Nurses 1Impact Housing 1Credit Union 1Job Centre 1Law Centre 1District Nurses 1Councillors 1

Page 47

Figure 4

External Advice & Advocacy Services

87. The Law Centre

Grant: £85,200. Terms set out in Service Level Agreement. Originally set up asa Member led Council initiative. The Law Centre is emerging, under newmanagement and Board leadership, from a period of relative stagnation into apotentially vibrant organisation which provides specialist legal advice that noother agency in the City provides. They are also now providing a valuable sourceof training and experience for students from the University. Like the CAB (below)they lead a pretty hand to mouth existence and although they do own theirpremises, they have some legal difficulties about raising finance against itbecause the purchase was part funded by the Lottery. They suffered a cut ofaround 25% from their Council grant which was taken over a 3-year period.Contribution to corporate priorities: Difficult to indicate in these terms. Certainlysocial exclusion and social sustainability. No direct or quantifiable contribution toother priorities

88. The Citizens Advice Bureau

Grant: £50k. They are hard pressed financially. They do have a contract with thecounty to deliver money advice. Currently looking for new premises (theirbuilding isn't fully accessible for disabled clients). They have also lost othergrant income this year. The council helped out with some small additional funds.The SLA contains a clause which states that if council's contribution reachesmore than a certain percentage their total income, it would want to review thesituation. Both CAB and Law Centre have been involved in supporting somequite high profile cases recently e.g. migrant workers exploitation. Contributionto corporate priorities: As above.

89. Cumbria Council for Voluntary Service (CVS)

Employed Full Time Employed Part Time Self employed Retired Sick or Carer Unemployed0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Employment status of Benefits Advice Clients

April 2007 to March 2008

Employ ment status

Perc

enta

ge

Page 48

Grant: £34k. Facts: Employs 14 staff, 4 of which are dedicated to Carlisle.Recently merged with five other local CVSs to form a Cumbria wide CVS as aresult of a review of the CVSs in the County. Although there was some concernamongst Councillors that the service might get watered down as a result, theystill retain a similar remit to provide Carlisle-centric services as they did whenthey were 'independent'. In addition the SLA requires them to use the council'sgrant only to benefit residents of the electoral district of Carlisle City. The CVSenjoy a very good working relationship with CSU, the terms of which are set outin a 3 year Service Level Agreement (running 2006-2009). This outlines detailsof what the council expects of the CVS in return for its grant funding of £34k peryear. The other major funder of the CVS is Cumbria County Council who haverecently contracted them to deliver Local Improvement Networks (LINKS) onbehalf of the county. Possible implications of council grant cut: VolunteerService Centre closure.

90. The HUB - funding bid failed. No suitable available location has been identified.Good quality shared premises with core tenancies of established organisationsand incubator space for smaller groups. Council helping in search for site viaProperty Audit (ongoing). Possibility of Riverside development location butpreferred site is City Centre. Funding Fair – running for last 6 years. Jointinitiative with City Council, Voluntary Action Cumbria and County Council toensure local groups access funding opportunities. More than 200 organisationsfrom Carlisle attend. Roughly 25 funders have stalls. Event includes workshops,presentations, and training events. Has raised about £1.5m annually. Every 6months evaluation questionnaires are given to attendees.

91. Partnership in Public Services Agenda- CVS run training workshops fororganisations considering tendering for delivering public services. Health andsocial care, children and family services are possible areas.

• Equality & Diversity – opportunities for more work in this area e.g. Supportingmigrants

• Training- CVS provide lots of training – Community Support Service Teamrecommend community centre people for training.

• Events- CVS assist CSU in promotion and marketing of events. CVS havestands at events.

92. The 'Cumbria Compact' sets out shared principles, commitments, proposedpartnership and working arrangements between statutory and third sectororganisations in Cumbria. Thus far the county council and a number of NHSTrusts have adopted it.

93. It is recommended that the council review the level of these grants. It currentlymakes significant grants to a range of organisations and needs to questionwhether, given the efficiency savings that have been identified, this is best use ofresources.

Local Strategic Partnership

Page 49

94. The Review has found that CSU are having an important impact on delivering onsome LSP objectives, mainly contributing Children & Young people and Healthyliving. The LSP has not yet got to grips with the Stronger part of Safer andStronger Communities. Thus far interventions through the CDRP have focusedvery much on the 'Safer' part to which the CSU have made a significantcontribution. There is considerable scope for the CSU to get more involved in theEconomic Development group. A key challenge will be ensuring that 'peopleprojects' which underpin VCS development are not lost out to high profilephysical regeneration projects led by Carlisle Renaissance (whose Board is madeup purely of business reps).

95. The LSP must address the new community empowerment agenda in a joined upway. All LSP partners need to explicitly acknowledge the importance of CD.There are no explicit targets (or even mention of) CD in the Community Plan,despite the fact that local participation and community involvement are central tothe successful implementation of nearly all partnership objectives. Partners mustagree to pool their CD resources to create a multi agency team and set out, in ajoint strategy and action plan, how they will then use this resource to delivertheir key objectives. The LSP Exec have recently asked for an evaluation of theLSP - an internal review will be undertaken by the Partnership team to assesshow its progressing. This would be an opportune time to press home theimportance of CD and build consensus on the need for a joint CD strategy and ashared services approach.

96. For LSPs to work effectively they must understand, and be able to respond to,the specific needs of the communities they serve. For example local people inBradford involved in deciding how £300,000 allocated through the LSP was spenton environmental improvements. However it must be pointed out that oftenthese pilots have been paid for by external regeneration funding from centralgovernment and that when the funding has dried up, many authorities areunable to mainstream these pilot schemes.

97. Another example would be to give local people the powers to scrutinise localservices and make decisions themselves on local spending throughneighbourhood budgets. When a workable locality approach is taken its areagovernance structures, be they Area Partnership Boards or Urban Parish councilsmust link into the structure of the LSP in order to ensure that local issues areeffectively fed into at both a Thematic and Executive level. In Carlisle theexisting CSU service has a crucial role to play by acting as the bridge betweencommunities and the LSP. If sensibly resourced it could deliver a lot more.Currently it has the capability but not the capacity.

98. What is important to remember is that for the vast majority of ordinary people –most will have not even heard of the LSP. One of the key roles of the CSU istranslating partnership policy into action, engaging with the people on theground to make it happen. Without this work all the policies remain as words ona page. The CSU team should be at the vanguard of this work. Partners need to

Page 50

recognise this and commission the service to deliver for them on specifictargeted interventions.

99. Safer and Stronger Communities: The 'Safer' element is being well looked afterby the CDRP. The Stronger element is not being adequately addressed in a co-ordinated or strategic way that links input from all providers, statutory,independent and VCS. The CDRP Partnership Plan has stated:

“There is recognition that the CDRP needs to embrace the ‘stronger’ elements ofthe Local Area Agreement and ensure its projects lead to more cohesivecommunities, as well as safer ones. The CDRP Leadership Group has, therefore,agreed that progression to ‘Neighbourhood Management’ is a route that will allowit to achieve these aims, and has initiated a process to identify pilot areas inwhich to commence this work”. 25

The DCLG's own research paper states:

“The stronger communities element in Safer and Stronger Communities shouldbe seen as a distinct component affecting all issues, not merely a sub-issue of‘safer’, and agencies working on all social issues should contribute to theempowerment of communities.”26

100. The CDRP work with CSU on specific, 'on the ground' projects e.g. Skate Park.CSU play a very specific and subtle role in acting as a bridge between the worldof officialdom and the young people on the street. The CDRP has developed aSafer Schools Partnership – in which police officers posts have been ring-fencedand put into the Richard Rose Academy (which amalgamated with St Aidan's andNorth Cumbria Technical College). There are plans to roll out this to the otherparts of the city. ASB in North Cumbria down 18% in last year. There were3,380 less 'calls for service'. The CSU have helped a great deal in a number ofkey areas with the LSP such as with the engagement of young people in theproduction of Children's Locality Plan and helping with Migrant WorkersAssistance Programme. The Partnership has relied strongly on CSU who are thefirst port of call when engagement is required with community.

101. The Partnership has good cross section of partners. There appears to be verygood buy in from private /commercial sector e.g. Carlisle United, H&H, Pirelli,Lanes Consortium. CEOs gave 20 days per year of their time to the Partnership.This business expertise might be put to use in working with community centresto diversify income streams.

Housing and Homelessness

102. There are clear areas of work which overlap between CSU and internal Housingteam. Housing services have the biggest capital programmes in the council.There seems to be a strong case for integrating the Homelessness AdviceWorkers currently in Housing service into the Benefits Advice Team and attaching

25 CRDP Partnership Plan 2008-201126 p.40 he Community Development Challenge (DCLG 2007)

Page 51

the Youth Homelessness post to the Children and Young People team. Closerworking would benefit both services, for example: housing require supporttaking homelessness applications; a new £3.9m purpose built ‘Centre ofExcellence’ hostel near to the John Street Hostel is being considered. This willprovide new opportunities for joint working with CSU. The many vulnerablepeople and their families that will be sheltered her will need targeted supportfrom Benefits Advice and CYP, who can work together with county council socialworkers to get the people back on their feet. A dedicated advice worker fromCSU could be based there.

103. Gypsy & Travellers. There are a number of opportunities for greater joint workinghere. The Equalities worker from CSU is making valuable contribution via aCommunity Leadership Project improving access to services and supportingmembers of the gypsy community in management of campsites. A link to bestpractice in this area can be found below.27

Carlisle Housing Association

104. CHA have a team dedicated to regeneration and community / neighbourhooddevelopment comprising:

• Head of Growth & Development x 1• Economic Development Manager x 1• Development & Regeneration Manager x 1• Neighbourhood Regeneration Officers x 4 (Neighbourhood Investment Team)

They also employ a number of other staff who are involved in CD work. Theseincluding Tenant Participation Officers, Enterprise Managers, Project Officers andadmin staff. Several 'Innovation Co-oridnators' are employed across theorganisation with a remit to encourage innovation and ensure best practice isemployed.

105. CHA invest £400,000 each year in community projects through their CommunityInvestment Fund, of which: £20k Community Grants Scheme & £80k Devolvedbudget, £300k Core budget.

• Since stock transfer in 2002 a total of £2,879,194 has been invested• The CIF and Environmental Project Funds are used to address five main

themes: Environment; Community Safety, People & Places; EmploymentTraining & Learning; Devolved Budgets.

• £80,000 has been devolved from the fund to a form of Participatory budgetingin which local community representatives sit on panels with CHA staff andexternal partners and allocate grants

• CHA operate community based regeneration schemes e.g. “BringingRegeneration Back Home” - training and employment initiative/ courses forpeople to get back to work (office set up in Petteril Bank).

27 http://www.beacons.idea.gov.uk/idk/aio/5373184

Page 52

• An evidence-based approach to community investment is taken, based oninformation from the Sustainability Index, which ranks each Neighbourhoodaccording to different criteria (see Baseline report).

• A detailed Review of Regeneration and Community Investment was producedin March 2008 to appraise the impact, success and shortfalls of communityinvestment and to make recommendations

• A sophisticated performance management model has been adopted based onimpact assessments of their community investment work. They look at whatoutcomes were anticipated from an initiative, what was delivered, resultingchanges and identifies areas of best practice & difficulties.

106. CHA produced Neighbourhood Action Plans for 18 neighbourhoods in Carlisle.Data was mapped using GIS. Local services where identified and mapped andeach of the Neighbourhoods ranked using a number of indicators, IMD, no ofVoids, Turnover Rate, Crime statistics, Unemployment statistics. An Action Planfor each Neighbourhood was then prepared outlining the problems of the area,intervention options and partners that would need to be approached. AMasterplan was produced for Raffles.

107. Neighbourhood Agreements have been negotiated and put in place in Currock &Upperby and Morton. Two others are in the process of being negotiated, one inBrampton – SMART (which is a TMO), and one in Belah. There is a possibility ofa further agreement being negotiated in Petteril Bank.

108. A recently produced Regeneration Policy focuses attention on four themes

• Worklessness• Financial Inclusion• Liveability• Neighbourhood Management

It also sets out commitments to providing a broad range of engagementopportunities (e.g. open days, postal, telephone and door to door surveys,informal/formal meetings and special events) to tenants and other stakeholdersto understand neighbourhood issues & aspirations and inform projectdevelopment and impact assessment. A community development toolkit isplanned to assist with this process with a view to making CHA projects moreautonomous and less reliant on CHA officer support.

109. A Partnership Agreement has recently been signed between CHA and CarlisleCity Council to provide a framework for stronger partnership working. An ActionPlan sets out the details, roles and responsibilities i.e.

• City council to nominate a representative to participate in the CIF approvalpanels

• Neighbourhood / ward walks to be better co-ordinated• Co-operation on crime reduction, including development of Anti-Social

Behaviour Unit, multi agency partnership working through CHA, informationsharing

Page 53

• Raffles Vision work to continue in partnership• City council support for CHA neighbourhood initiatives

110. It is not clear to what extent the CSU have been involved in the development ofthe Partnership Agreement as the work was led by the Housing Department.What is clear from the above information that CHA are a key player incommunity regeneration in Carlisle and make a significant investment in terms ofstaff input, financial and information resources. There are clear advantages formuch closer working and co-ordination between CHA and CSU in general CDwork and in particular areas such as in new project development, localityworking approaches e.g. neighbourhood management, participatory budgeting,performance management and evaluation, joint database/ GIS system. Theexisting partnership agreement can be used a springboard to sharing services inthis area as outlined in Recommendation 2. Further material containing detailedinformation from CHA is available from the consultant.

Cumbria County Council – Community

111. Cumbria County Council employ a community team comprising

• Carlisle Area Support Manager x 1• Neighbourhood Development Officers x 3• Admin support x 4

112. The Community Engagement Framework 'Listening & Learning' was approved inMarch 2008. It will be implemented through a Cumbria LSP 'CommunityGateway' group (to be established). Cumbria CC feels strongly that as anationally recognised Community Empowerment Champion and DCLG accredited'Civic Pioneer' it is very much ahead of the game in responding to thegovernment’s agenda and that other authorities seek its advice and guidance oncommunity engagement. In many ways this status obliges it to ensure acommitment to joined up working and a more co-ordinated and consistentapproach in its district areas. It is a stated commitment in its Community UnitService Plan to strengthen key local partners including councils and the ThirdSector. Copies of the Community Unit's Service Delivery and Improvement Plan2008 have been passed to the client.

113. The Community Unit is based within Safer and Stronger CommunitiesDirectorate, reports to Dominic Harrison (Corporate Director) and Gary Strong(Cabinet Member for Community Development and Safety). It is responsible forleading the County's partnership based approach to:

• community empowerment and engagement• development of capacity of local councils and Third Sector• development of capacity of local communities through community grants

(including neighbourhood forum grants)• building consistent local management arrangements and support for

delegated executive functions of local committees

Page 54

• aspects of council's support for socially excluded communities e.g. moneyadvice, pathways to youth employment, rural inclusion

• delivery with councillors, colleagues and other LSP / CDRP partners on LAAstronger outcomes

114. A recent internal service improvement plan28 appraises the service in detail. Acopy has been provided to the client. It acknowledges that inter-servicecollaboration, local performance management and community engagementoutcomes are all service areas requiring improvement. The County Council istaking forward Local Involvement Networks (LINKS), which have beencontracted out to Cumbria CVS. The Area Support Team works with Carlisle LocalCommittee. The Committee comprising of 17 local county councillors manages anumber of county council services locally. These include highways, youth, earlyyears and neighbourhood Development.

115. Neighbourhood Forums. The County organises and runs quarterlyNeighbourhood Forums across Carlisle and administers an annual communitygrants programme of £80,000 – a budget that equates to about 80p per head ofpopulation. The CSU appear not to be directly involved in the Forums, insteadthe City council represents itself through other Officers. It is clear fromdiscussions with a number of stakeholders that Forums are not functioning aswell they might and that the Neighbourhood Forum 'brand' as hardly capturedthe public's attention in any substantive way. The importance of having effectiveformal area based public participation structures that facilitate dialogue, robustconsultations and foster collaborative working with local communities isparamount in achieving community empowerment outcomes. It is suggestedthat a separate independent study examining the effectiveness of neighbourhoodforums is considered.

116. It is recommended that, as with CHA above, a shared service approach with theCounty's Neighbourhood Development Team would certainly improve overallefficiency and effectiveness. The development of a joint Sustainable CommunityStrategy for Carlisle would be a good starting point and focus each partner'sattention on the opportunities for pooling available resources to achieve thedelivery of shared goals.

Primary Care Trust - Health

117. CSU officers are involved in some important health advisory work in partnershipwith Cumbria PCT. The PCT believe that the Unit plays a key role in drivingforward the 'Communities for Health Programme' tackling health inequalities andimprove access to services amongst hard to reach groups. An example of this isthe work the team as been doing to support the Botcherby Healthy LivingInitiative. The CSU team provided the foundation for to many of the projectsthat are still running today and continue to play an active role in supporting thegovernance of the partnership, increasing local participation and in developing

28 Cumbria County Council: Community Unit Service Delivery and Improvement Plan 2008

(Pre Publication Draft)

Page 55

community led projects. Another example is promoting health advice to gypsytraveller communities. The PCT see the CSU as a valuable tool to making inroadsinto communities which traditionally find it difficult to access mainstreamservices and which require a great deal of direct face to face work.

118. Collaborative working has increased take up of services such as breakfast clubsin Sure Start areas. Community centres are another place where CSU supportthe PCT in providing the links into local communities, facilitating meetings andsignposting local people to health outreach services e.g. smoking cessation,health promotion etc. Again, because the CSU are well known, local opinionleaders they are in a unique position to provide this access to local groups andpeople that the PCT believe adds tremendous value.

119. There is scope for more co-operation between CSU and the PCT particularlyaround health messaging work. Under budgetary pressures themselves, the PCTare increasingly looking to shift their resources more to direct patient care andaway from health promotion / messaging work which can be provided by otheragencies. From the PCT's perspective having partners with links into thecommunities is valuable and they seek a closer relationship with services likecommunity support. Elsewhere in Cumbria the PCT have staff working alongsideother service providers on neighbourhood management programmes inWorkington and Whitehaven.

120. The CSU team work on targets for the Healthier Communities group, which willestablish greater local authority ownership over health improvement,programmes in the city. For their part the PCT provide health training andsupport for various initiatives. The centres have a responsibility to encouragehealthy eating for their users, on order to combat obesity and other healthproblems in the community and, whilst the city council continues to grant fundcentres its should input a clause in all SLA obliging centres to implement theabove policy. Supported by the CSU the PCT can provide training on the policyand advise on its implementation in each centre. It is therefore recommendedthat the city council insist that organisations and bodies it supports conform toall health policies.

• Community Centres - should all sign up to the PCT's Healthier Catering andHospitality Guidelines. Currently there is no standard of the catering andfood provided in community centres. In some centres the food served doesnot conform to healthy eating guidelines. Junk food and sweets offeringlittle nutritional value is readily available in come centres to the exclusion ofbeneficial healthy foods.

• All centres should operate 'Cook and Eat' programmes. Research hasshown that many young people have little understanding of basic homeeconomics and how to source affordable produce, prepare cheap nutritiousmeals for themselves or their families. As a consequence many rely uponexpensive ready meals or fast food take-always. Cook and eat programmesoffer users practical lessons in food growing, healthy eating, budgeting andmeal preparation. They also afford opportunities for intergenerational work,environmental education. 'Green gyms' have proved effective and popular

Page 56

elsewhere. Some centres e.g. Botcherby, Petteril Bank, Brampton havesmall allotments and some already run food co-ops offering affordableproduce.

In addition there are small measures that CSU can support and develop whichwill have both community empowerment and health outcomes e.g.

• Health Walks – to promote active lifestyles. These walks could be combinedwith existing ward walks and extended with interest groups such as localhistory etc. to increase engagement and participation.

• Health Trainers programme- this scheme engages people from localcommunities to train people as local support to address a range of healthissues e.g. obesity, drugs/alcohol, smoking. The scheme already operates atLevel 1 in some community centres but there is potential to run Levels 2 (6week in depth intervention work) and Level 3 (which requires attendingUniversity of Cumbria and is certificated). Individuals who complete thecourse would be qualified health trainers, which would hit skills andemployment targets.

• World Health Organisation 'Healthy Cities' accreditation. This will raise theprofile of Carlisle. A public health impact assessment is required. The CSUTeam could be involved in this, assessing what needs to be done.

121. As the PCT move towards a commissioning approach to health prevention andpromotion work in communities there may be opportunities for establishedproviders like CSU. As part of neighbourhood management initiatives elsewherein Cumbria the PCT fund dedicated officers to tackle health inequalities. In anypotential shared service arrangement the PCT would be an importantstakeholder.

Parish / Rural Issues

122. About 30% of Carlisle's population live in rural areas. Discussions withrepresentatives of Cumbria Association Local Councils revealed that there is asense of frustration that rural areas do not receive the support and attention thaturban areas do and lack adequate representation on the LSP. It is clear howeverthat the approach taken towards parish planning and governance through parishcouncils in rural areas may offer important lessons for more effective localityworking and place shaping in the urban areas. A Community Empowerment Pilotis planned in Longtown might offer an opportunity for cross fertilisation of workand techniques with urban areas, providing it is first able to demonstrate localrelevance and galvanise participation. In the course of this Review a number ofrelevant and important rural issues came to the fore such as parish / community

Page 57

planning which there is not time to explore here but which need to be resolved,perhaps through a separate review. See Recommendation 10.

Performance Management

123. The nature of CD work means it cannot easily be measured directly. Onecommentator notes, “The benefits of empowerment are notoriously difficult toquantify. Yet, just because you can't fully quantify the effects of successfulempowerment doesn't mean that it is has no definite value or impact. Thisgovernment does indeed recognise the invaluable quality of empowerment, butnevertheless persists unsuccessfully in attempting to quantify it.” 29 It may bepossible to measure quantitatively indications that empowerment may havetaken place e.g. by recording attendance at public meetings, levels ofvolunteering but establishing that citizens have been 'empowered' as a result ofstrategic interventions is a different matter. This relies upon qualitative

29 http://www.involve.org.uk/index.cfm?fuseaction=main.viewBlogEntry&intMTEntryID=3130

Page 58

perception based indicators that themselves are inherently flawed because oftheir very subjectivity. In designing a suite of performance indicators it is alsoimportant to choose indicators that are not onerous to collect and analyse. Inthe new national indicator set the government recently reduced the number ofperformance indicators local authorities must collect from 1200 to 198 for thisvery reason.

124. The Stronger Communities National Indicator set contains the followingindicators:

NI 1 % of people who believe that people from different backgrounds get onwell together in their local areaNI 2 % of people who feel that they belong to their neighbourhood PSA 21NI 3 Civic participation in the local area PSA 15NI 4 % of people who feel they can influence decisions in their locality PSA 21NI 5 Overall/general satisfaction with local area CLG DSONI 6 Participation in regular volunteering CO DSONI 7 Environment for a thriving third sector CO DSONI 8 Adult participation in sport DCMS DSONI 9 Use of public libraries DCMS DSONI 10 Visits to museums or galleries DCMS DSONI 11 Engagement in the arts DCMS DSONI 12 Refused and deferred Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) licenseapplications leading to immigration enforcement activity HO DSONI 13 Migrants English language skills and knowledge HO DSONI 14 Avoidable contact: The average number, of customer contacts perreceived customer request

125. Whilst the high level outcomes judged by these national PIs above may havesome value for the council overall, specific local measures are needed whichdemonstrate that the CSU is performing effectively. These must be related tolocal objectives and expectations of how the CSU will contribute. Cost measureswill be an aspect of this. The CSU have already done this. A full list of PIs andaccompanying targets were included in the CSU's 2007/08 Team Plan. It is notclear whether the performance data, which appears to be very detailed isevaluated by the Performance and Efficiency Teams. Obviously there needs tobe in place a performance reporting and feedback system – there is no usecollating all this data if is not independently appraised and evaluated. If such asmechanism is not already in place it is strongly recommended that one be put inplace. The existing PIs are shown in the table below. The PIs in blue are newproposals for consideration.

Service Area Performance IndicatorCommunity Engagement /Involvement

• Number of groups assisted with external funding applications• Amount drawn down as a result• Number of community grant applications supported• Ration of added value of grants awarded• User satisfaction with services offered by Community Section• Number of and variety of training courses offered to voluntaryand community groups

Page 59

• Number of participants taking up learning opportunities• Number of participants gaining recognised accreditation• Number of training course hours organised

• % of community centre bookings neighbourhood related.• Number of health promotion related initiatives• Number of local environmental initiatives• % of current statutory plans which have been written withcommunity involvement

• Number of residents involved in neighbourhood managementactivity

• Number of people on Sustainable Communities Act local panel• Community associations and citizen groups per capita (Numberof associations available for community involvement)

• Number of social enterprises / cooperatives• Community crime prevention groups (Are citizens involved inensuring the safety of the community)

• Voter registration rate (The new Community EmpowermentWhite Paper places much emphasis on the need to increase voterparticipation)

• Registered votes by age distribution and diversity (Are the votingrates consistent with community age and ethnic diversity)

• Number of Voter education programsChildren & Young People • Number of young people involved in Speak Up groups

• Satisfaction levels of young people and parents with activitiesorganised for young people

• 1-1 contact with young people (ages 13-19)• Number of young people who gain accredited outcomes as aresult of attending organised sessions

• Number of visits by C&YP to play and youth schemes• Number of C&YP participating in consultation

Events • % earned income as proportion of total events budget• Level of customer satisfaction with Events

• Amount of sponsorship raised• Number of events based social enterprise referrals

Benefits Advice • Number of cases dealt with BAS• Number of benefit appeal cases supported• Amount achieved on behalf of benefits claimants

• Number of clients supported to stay in employment as a result ofbenefits advice

• Number of pensioners supported

126. If a shared service approach is to be adopted it makes a performancemanagement system must be agreed in co-operation with key partners. BothCHA and the County have their own approaches and indicators.

127. As well as allowing an evaluation of progress and achievements towards service,corporate and national targets performance management is a vital tool forinforming resource allocation and improving service efficiency. A Cumbria Area

Page 60

Profiling tool has been developed following initial meetings of the CumbriaIntelligence Observatory Board. The challenge is to use this data to inform andshape service delivery, and then prove that the council have done so and makeuse of detailed ward profiles to target activity and renew impact of services.

128. The county publish a citywide performance report for Carlisle. Carlisle LocalPerformance Plan collects performance data on LP06103 – NeighbourhoodForums Engaging with the Community and LP06104 – Public/CommunityOrganisation Attendance at Forums The desire is for local performance reportingto be developed and for more council services to be included, and ward andneighbourhood level reporting to be expanded. The county has a performanceframework to assess the value of its community work. Despite this itacknowledges itself it scores low on number of residents who can influence localdecisions and recognises the need to better engage communities in improvingperformance. Cumbria Constabulary produces an interactive map which allowsusers to access up to date information by ward.30

129. Newcastle and Gateshead Councils have produced a much more sophisticatedinteractive neighbourhood vitality system. This is used to:

• understand the needs of neighbourhoods• rank neighbourhoods using 6 groups of indicators – crime, health,

unemployment, housing, education, income• enable council to target resources where they are needed most

130. Carlisle is already half way there. It has data aggregated down to ward level inthe ward profiles. If now needs to collate all relevant information from partneragencies especially the Police /CDRP, Carlisle Housing Association, the Countycouncil and the Voluntary Sector. This information then needs to be spatiallymapped using GIS to create interactive ward maps. In April 2009 councils willbe expected to undertake a New Place Survey – a detailed questionnairedesigned to test peoples perceptions of where they live.31 The information fromthis survey can be used to inform policy and strategy.

131. A Resource Mapping Exercise would contribute to more informed and evidencebased policy-making, resource allocation and service delivery by giving thecouncil a better understanding of the nature and level of resources going intoeach ward i.e. where is it really making a difference? To external partners andstakeholders it would demonstrate a commitment to transparency and greateropenness as regards how public sector resources are being allocated and theindividuals/groups that are benefiting from these resources. It would alsoprovide an opportunity for a fresh look at local needs, views and aspirations inlight of the new infrastructure developments such as Academies.

MENU OF OPPORTUNTIES FOR COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

30 http://www.cumbria.police.uk/howwearedoing_3674.htm31 http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/612732.pdf

Page 61

Enhancing CSU's Contribution to Corporate Priorities through TargetedIntervention Work

Cleaner, Greener, Safer

1. Greener element - recommend thrust towards community based environmentalprojects across the city. Ring-fence funding to deliver these projects. Examplesinclude - Local food growing. Mix with Healthy Living Agenda e.g. local foodproduction, Green Gyms, Community Gardening. These are practical projectsthat bring communities together, offer opportunities for intergenerational work,raise environmental awareness, teach new skills (Learning City), improve localenvironmental quality, improve health, neighbourhood beatification.

2. The Sustainable Communities Act represents a huge empowerment opportunityand providing a process for making a lasting difference to Carlisle's social,economic and environmental well-being and for local action to help achievesustainable development in the wider world.

3. Safer element- being well looked after by CDRP, Play Partnership etc.

4. Cleaner element - Cleaner seems well taken care of. Street cleansing needsminor tweaking. Improved co-ordination between CHA, Cumbria CC. The CSUcan organise Neighbourhood Clean Up days. The city council recently won a LocalGovernment ward for effective communication of environmental initiatives

5. Liveability issues – recommend exploring community safety audits, rapidresponse hotline, street cheque book system redesign of green spaces, localparks - establishing Friends of Performance Reporting. Cumbria publishes acitywide performance report for Carlisle. Community street audits - evaluate thequality of streets and public spaces from the viewpoint of the people who usethem. Enhances walkability and accessibility

Carlisle Renaissance

6. In most people's minds it is associated with city centre public realm plans, asjust another 'top-down' regeneration initiative. To be successful it needs buy-infrom local people most of whom do not live in the City centre. Aspects of it needto be 'bottom up' and demonstrate relevance to local people. CarlisleRenaissance needs to be seen delivering something in the neighbourhoods to getlocal people behind their main plans. It should endorse and co-fund aprogramme of small-scale environmental projects in each neighbourhood. Theseprojects are relatively cheap and have a wider impact – it shows that CarlisleRenaissance has not forgotten the local areas and they would be a practical wayof aligning economic and environmental agendas (Growing Carlisle section 4.11)A city wide programme of local environmental projects can be commissionedthrough the CSU and delivered through existing community networks. Marketingand communication are vital to this process – let people know what they aredoing.

Page 62

7. People are a central plank of the Economic Strategy – connecting deprivedcommunities better with job opportunities and with the rest of the City. CSUhave already contributed to this agenda by training individuals to becomeCommunity Development Workers, Crèche workers and Health Advice Workers.

8. Community Allowance - enables unemployed people on Incapacity Benefit andJSA to undertake part time work that strengthens their neighbourhood without itaffecting their benefit. It is estimated that 80 part time jobs could be created onevery estate if it was introduced. The Community Allowance groups are currentlylooking for pilot areas...32

9. Revitalising Communities – Carlisle South & Rural service centres Brampton/Longtown, Section 5.8.2 ‘Growing Carlisle’ (“these initiatives will also recognisethe need for targeted local delivery in key urban and rural communities andindividual projects will be ‘proofed’ to ensure there are as few barriers aspossible to participation.”) and 5.8.7 (“Government policy and the emergentLocal Area Agreement places significant emphasis upon the development ofstronger more inclusive communities. Recent experience from the success of theLongtown MTI has also shown that a strong Community Development Trust canmake significant impact on economic regeneration of a wide rural area.Development of this model will enable local communities to identify their localeconomic challenges and determine sustainable local solutions.”)

• assist in Preparation of urban and rural accessibility plans in 2008/09('Connections' Theme Growing Carlisle)

• 5.10.2 “Opportunities arising from Community Asset transfers explored andacted upon where appropriate”

• assisting in future public consultation exercises e.g. city centre public realmimprovements.

10. Explore potential of idea raised in (example 3, Asset Management Plan p.11) asCouncil as property developer, but with a community twist. Could the CityCouncil go into partnership with a local third sector organisation e.g. CHA orcommunity group/ development trust or national social enterprise propertydeveloper and act as a developer to buy, refurbish and sell on and / or manageas community assets, distressed buildings in the city which are very run downand blight the neighbourhood? It would be like a Local Asset Vehicle (but therapacious private developer would be a civic minded social enterprise propertydeveloper). The surplus could be shared between local council and communitygroup and reinvested.

11. Local Community groups could do an audit of run down properties as part ofCleaner, Safer Greener campaign. There are many distressed propertiesespecially around Botchergate (south side) and doubtless in other areas of thecity. These contribute to an air of dereliction that taints the whole area and putsoff potential private investors. The whole neighbourhood would be benefit. Ithas potential to tackle worklessness, create jobs/ stimulate investment. TheScheme could be financed by Carlisle Renaissance and delivered by Corporate

32 www.communityallowance.org

Page 63

Asset Management Group and CSU. In this example a partnership withGreystone Community centre would be most appropriate. The council canexercise its well being powers to do this. Advantage of a partnership is that therisk would be shared and community / social benefit can be maximised. N.B.where derelict publicly owned (and in some case private) property is a problemcitizens have recourse to action in the from of their PROD (Public Request toOrder Disposal) powers (1980 Local Government Planning & Land Act) to literally‘prod’ public agencies to force sale/ disposal of publicly abandoned / out of usedpublicly owned property

Learning City

12. Many different parts of the council deliver on the Learning City agenda but thesedisparate interventions are not adequately joined up and cannot be captured.One simple proposal is to bring together all the parts of the council who areinvolved in learning activity a few times a year for a learning forum. This wouldenable best practice and new ideas to be shared and would also help withworkforce development as the council could look at new government initiatives,legislation etc. that would impact on learning for children, young people andadults.

Planning

13. There are clear opportunities for building on the existing good work andinvolving local people in Carlisle in neighbourhood planning. Statutoryobligations to involve local people in the production of local plans already existand the council has a Statement of Community Involvement which commits it toinvolving, empowering and enabling local people to participate in the planningprocess. Local people were involved in the production of the Denton HolmeDesign Statement, Urban Design Public Realm Framework and in Parish Plans forthe rural areas such as Burgh by Sands. There is future potential to activelyinvolve many more people in the development of the specific plans set out in theLocal development Scheme such as St Nicholas Botchergate South Area ActionPlan (scheduled August/September 2009) and in Designing Out Crime, ParishDesign Statements. Of course the biggest challenge to is to secure meaningfulcommunity engagement in, and ownership of, the Carlisle Renaissance physicalregeneration plans.

14. There is also great potential for local Action planning - local communitiesworking together to produce a local plan for particular schemes e.g. the redesignof a local park, home zoning etc. Local Action Planning has the followingbenefits:

• promoting increased participation, both by encouraging activists and leaders,and by involving participants in surveys e.g. Planning for Real exercises.

Page 64

• involving local people in identifying and prioritising local needs and engagethem in the designing and shaping of individual local public services.

• stimulating local involvement in the development and ownership of localprojects to meet needs and provide a case to support fundraising.

• Influencing wider priorities in service delivery and the allocation ofresources, including the provision of private sector services, such as thesiting of a supermarket.

• contributing to the growth of neighbourhood governance by generatingbetter local intelligence, and by helping to create community-owned forumsthrough which local people can express their views.

Conclusion

To improve the Council’s strategic approach to community development a CarlisleSustainable Community Strategy and Action Plan driven and produced by an LSP'Stronger Communities Board' is needed. This will also provide a clear and coherentpolicy framework for the existing service to operate in, link efforts across sectors inCarlisle and ensure that team's energies are focused on negotiated areas of work withagreed and defined “exit” strategies. It will also provide official acknowledgement ofthe reliance all agencies place on CD work for implementing policy and validate theteam's role and contribution in delivering wider objectives. In addition it will alsofocus partners attention on the benefits of much closer working and co-operationthrough a shared CD service for the city, which ought to be the ultimate goal.

In order to ensure that resources are effectively targeted at the areas of greatestcommunity development need a collaborative approach with other organisations,based on a shared information system is needed. A rigorous multi agency resourcemapping exercise would inform this process and also galvanise opinion on the virtuesof a shared service agenda. To measure the strategic impact of the Service theadoption of some new performance indicators and better internal performanceevaluation system is suggested. To develop a really robust information tools forservice planning /resource allocation and duplication of effort, a consideration of ashared geographic information system with the key partners is stronglyrecommended. The model for this might be a public interactive neighbourhood vitalityindex.

Page 65

To ensure the service continues to support and assist the Council’s communityleadership and place-shaping role by delivering high quality community engagement amuch more effective relationship with members is required, based on mutual support,member training and improved dialogue, the terms of which should be set out in theform of a Councillor Compact. Further work will certainly be needed to develop thisarea. In order to cascade CD skills throughout front-line staff and raise awareness ofcommunity empowerment and new best value duties to involve a series of internaltraining programmes and other skills transfer methods run by CSU will be needed

As regards funding of community development work it is strongly suggested that thecouncil considers carefully recommendation 3 in the DCLG's 2006 report 'TheCommunity Development Challenge' that “all policies which invoke communityempowerment or rely on community engagement should have a built-in margin oftheir budget allocated to CD/ community capacity building.”

As an interim measure there is a need to reconfigure the service in-house with regardto the efficiency findings. Pending the creation of a shared community developmentservice for Carlisle a new interim internal structure is proposed (below). Importantlythis will support progress on future governance arrangements and a locality workingapproach by allowing staff to form 'virtual teams' under a matrix management systemand improve resource allocation on specific target geographic areas. It will also allowfor increased engagement with citizens beyond normal participation avenues likecommunity centres, promote the Council’s community leadership role and improvelinks within the city council departments. Internal reconfiguration may also diversifyjob roles and open up more career opportunities for existing staff.

To achieve all of the above and implement recommendations set out in the beginningof this report continuing support is available. It has become clear during the course ofthis Review that there are a number of areas which require separate attention e.g.

• A review of neighbourhood forums / area governance arrangements andsupport with locality working

• Sustainable Communities Act• Community Centre Asset Transfer• Development of the Councillor Compact and elected member support• Community planning and place shaping• Rural issues

CSU internal reconfiguration

Existing post (section) Community Support sub serviceYouth Homelessness Officer (Housing & HealthServices)


Homelessness Officer (Housing & HealthServices)

Benefits Advice

Greenspace Development Officer Community InvolvementCDRP (Policy & Performance) Community InvolvementGIS Officer (Development Services) Generic (mapping CD activity)Carlisle Renaissance Officer Events / Marketing & Comms

Page 66

(required as necessary)Rural Support Officer (Economic Development) Community Involvement / rural areasExternal Funding Officer (EconomicDevelopment)

Generic

CSU External Seconded Staff

Post (partner organisation) Community Support sub serviceNeighbourhood Regeneration Officer (CarlisleHousing Association)

Community Involvement

Innovation Co-ordinator (Carlisle HousingAssociation

Generic - best practice transfer(required part-time)

Neighbourhood Development Officer (CumbriaCounty Council)

Community Involvement

Administration Officer (Cumbria CountyCouncil)

Generic– to help with Marketing &Comms

Rural / parish specialist (Cumbria CountyCouncil)

Generic / rural areas

Officer (Cumbria CVS)Volunteer (Cumbria CVS)

Generic

Parish Liaison Officer / volunteer (CumbriaAssociation of Local Councils)

Generic / rural areas(part time)

Health Development Worker (PCT) Community Involvement / Health

Appendix 1: National Policy Context - Community empowerment,devolution and decentralisation.

They all want to do it and for the most part, for similar reasons. New Labour wants todo it 'to reinvigorate local democracy' and 'to shift power, influence and responsibilityaway from existing centres of power into the hands of communities and individualcitizens.' The government is aware that civic institutions participation and voterturnout has been steadily declining since the war. It wishes to promote 'activecitizenship' and to reinstil respect and a sense of civic responsibility to a country inanomie. It envisages the state's role diminishing and the role of and responsibilitiesof individual citizens increasing, as services become increasingly 'personalised' anduser driven. Rolling back the power of the state and stressing the values of selfreliance and individual responsibility is also traditional Conservative territory. TheLiberal Democrats 'want to see local governing boards, made up of people who uselocal services, working with their councils to make decisions over the management ofthose services. We also want to see more parish, town and community councilsmaking decisions, rather than bureaucrats in Whitehall.'33

33 Liberal Democrats – The Power to be Different Policy Paperhttp://www.libdems.org.uk/media/documents/policies/The%20Power%20to%20beerent%20PRINT.pdf

Page 67

'Communities in Control’ - The Community Empowerment White Paper, July2008. Its stated aim is to pass power into the hands of local communities.34 Amongst the proposals are:

• The introduction of a duty on the part of Councils to promote democracy, toinvolve local people in key decisions and to respond to petitions

• An encouragement to improve the information available to local citizens, tointroduce Participatory budgeting and to set up more Neighbourhood Councils

• A raft of suggestions on making public officials more visible includingincreasing the accountability of local police and health services

• An increase in the number of people helping to run or own local services andassets and to transfer more of these assets into community ownership

• Encouraging Councils to create Alderman/Alderwoman (a recommendation ofthe Councillors’ Commission).

• a commitment to consult on a new £7.5 million empowerment fund fornational organisations helping local communities turn key proposals in areassuch as community leadership, involvement in planning, and social enterpriseinto practical action on the ground.

• the announcement of a new £70 million ‘Community builders fund’, focusedon investing in and building community organisations.

• support for the Community Allowance scheme which seeks to address thechallenges faced by benefit claimants in being more actively involved.

• a new ‘Take Part’ local pathfinder programme, to identify and support localauthorities working in partnership with the VCS and business to develop localprogrammes of activity on active citizenship.

• a proposed new duty on local authorities to respond to petitions on localissues will give residents in all areas of England a right to a response if theysign a petition.

The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (formerlythe Strong and Prosperous Communities White Paper). Key points

• 'duty to inform, consult and involve' - a new statutory duty on best valueauthorities to involve local people in decision-making on policies, and toinform them about how the authority is performing. It aims to strengthenaccountability and ensure that assessment and inspection are more reflectiveof and responsive to, local citizens’ and services users’ views. This duty isexpected to be implemented from April 2009. For interesting perspectives onhow councils are responding to this see Portsmouth Councils' seminar noteson the subject35 and analysis by The Young Foundation Why involve and whatare the outcomes?’36

• aims to improve opportunities for community governance, by extending thepower to ‘promote economic, social and environmental well being’ to parishcouncils, and by devolving power to principle local authorities to carry out

34 http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/886045.pdf35 http://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/media/dutytoinvolve-website.pdf36 http://www.youngfoundation.org.uk/files/images/Why_involve____outcomes.pdf

Page 68

‘community governance reviews, to assess the feasibility of introducing parishor town style community governance structures.

• power for overview and scrutiny committees to review and scrutinise theactions of key local public service providers, as well as establishing newpowers empowering councillors to raise issues with overview and scrutinycommittees in the ‘councillor call for action’. This is a new power for localcouncillors to insist that an issue they feel strongly about is reviewed by thecouncil’s overview and scrutiny committee (introduced in the LocalGovernment and Public Involvement in Health Bill. The law extends CouncillorCalls for Action to all local government services enabling more citizens to gettheir community concerns addressed through their councillors. Some lobbyingorganisations have called for the power to be extended to communitiesthemselves, but Government has not agreed this.

• section 236 allows councils to make arrangements so that individualcouncillors can exercise more power in their ward to enable councillors toassist their constituents in a way that sees quick and direct results, givinglocal councillors powers to get things done.

The Community Empowerment, Housing and Economic Regeneration Bill isexpected later in 2008 which will harness 'petition power' and enable local people totrigger action and influence decisions on local services and important issues in threenew ways:

• A new right to ask for a stronger say on spending decisions that affect themor their communities e.g. asking councils to direct more money from multi-million pound budgets on tackling drug dealing on estates, more communitywardens and facilities like more skateboard parks or youth clubs.

• A new right to ensure councils consider the sale or transfer of under-usedproperties, lands or parks to local community groups, co-ops and socialenterprises. So a disused shopping or community centre could be handedover to local people to ensure publicly owned assets properly benefit localpeople rather than just being left redundant.

• A new right to force a debate on specific local issues onto the council agenda.So if local people are unhappy with the closure of a local swimming pool orthe standard of local housing they can hold their council to account by forcinga debate to get action on the issue.

The Community Empowerment Bill is central to the government's 'devolution' agendaintended to devolve more power to the communities and also a reflection of the so-called 'personalisation' agenda, which seeks to increase the personalisation of localservices by giving people a greater say and influence on decisions. Carlisle needs tobe in a position to respond to this Bill when it comes into force. If local people dobegin to petition the local council about such issues then the CSU will be needed tofacilitate this process, enabling local voices to be heard and acting as an intermediary.

Proposed 'Parish Power': The Bill also includes separate powers for parish councilssuch as:

Page 69

• Plans to make it easier to bring in local experts onto parish councils to helpdrive key priorities and shape services. Parishes will be able to temporarilyappoint local experts as additional councillors to advise on issues within theirfield of expertise, such as teachers on schools or businessmen on finance.

• A new 'wellbeing' power for eligible local parish councils, designed to shiftmore power locally, so eligible parish councils can freely make decisions aslong as they are in their community's interest and promote the wellbeing ofits area. This might be for example, local town centre development, supportfor a community rail service, or new initiatives to create jobs. The wellbeingpower is currently only applicable to Local Authorities.

Participatory Budgeting

• Local authorities could be compelled to respond to local petitions forparticipatory budgets - where local people vote on how public money shouldbe spent Every local authority will give people a say over budgets by 2012 . Aconsultation is currently underway.37

• Community Kitties, which are created from existing council budgets ratherthan central government funds, give communities the opportunity to spendmoney on tackling those issues they believe are most important to their ownneighbourhood. Thus far 22 areas are piloting the scheme. There are plans toestablish resident-controlled community kitties in every local authority area,and to give young people more of a say on youth services budgets. The DCLGhas said it will provide £35 million over the next three years to back theplan's proposals.

• A bigger say for young people in spending decisions: By 2010, localauthorities will be able to devolve up to five percent of their youth servicesbudget enabling young people to decide how to spend the money. By 2018,young people could be shaping decisions on one quarter of these budgets.

Councillors Commission- The report38 sets out 61 proposals to transform localcouncils as well as encourage greater participation in local elections including loweringthe voting age to 16 and creating regional Local Government Days when all seats forauthorities in those areas are contested on the same day. Key proposals include:

• new duties to include explaining and promoting the role of the councillor tothe public

• utilising councillor-led scrutiny to enable councillors to interact with theircommunities

• explaining the role of the councillor and the selection processes to the public• seeking new ways to engage the electorate, using schemes that encourage

voting• promoting the role of councillor, using a range of communication tools and

publications, such as council newsletters.

Community Power Pack

37 http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/communities/participatorybudgeting38 http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/583990.pdf

Page 70

The Community Power Pack from the Department Communities and Local Governmenthelps local groups to organise and facilitate discussions on the topic of empowerment.The pack contains suggestions for the format of the meeting, advice for facilitatorsand organisers as well as detailed information about key empowerment issues.

Lifetime Neighbourhoods

The UK has an ageing population. Certain wards in Carlisle such as Morton in theWest have high populations of older people. This poses a particular challenge to localcouncils. Issues of access to amenities and local services, physical access, spatialdesign, engagement in decision making, social participation, crime and security,transport are all-important. The council must increasingly consider how these will beaddressed and older people's needs are considered.

LINKS

The Local Government Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 created a statutory dutyfor best value authorities to inform, consult and involve local people through LocalInvolvement Networks (LINKS) which have replaced Patient Forums. Carlisle CVS hasbeen commissioned by Cumbria CC to run the LINK. It is important that the citycouncil stays involved and active in this network, through initiatives like BotcherbyHealthy Living Initiative and others.

Sustainable Communities Act 2007

The Sustainable Communities Act became law in October 2007. It provides a statutoryframework for councils and community organisations to put forward proposals fordecentralisation and reconfiguration of public services, and changes to the pattern ofpublic spending, which would contribute to sustainability. The main provisions of theSustainable Communities Act are:

• The Secretary of State should publish local spending reports, statementsshowing the scope of public spending by all bodies exercising publicfunctions in the area

• Local proposals from councils can be put forward to the Secretary of State,which will improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of thearea, including the participation in civic and political activity

• This can include proposals to transfer functions from one organisation toanother

• Councils should develop proposals through wider community consultation,using some kind of panel of local people

• In developing proposals, councils should have regard to a range ofsustainability issues such as local production of goods, local food, transport,energy use, and others

• The local proposals should be considered and short-listed by a ‘selector’representing the interests of local government, before being put to theSecretary of State for a response

Page 71

• The Secretary of State should publish an action plan in response to this, andshould report annually to parliament on progress made as a result of thisAct.

Appendix 2: New area governance structures

Effective locality working will require new local partnership arrangements andgovernance structures. The detail is beyond the scope of this Review but if this is anarea the client wishes to explore in more detail additional work can be undertaken todevelop a model with partners in Carlisle. As an example of current developments inthis field see below.

1) Area Partnership Boards

Area Partnership Boards (APB) or Public Service Boards which bring together keypublic, private, community and voluntary representatives with the aim of deliveringbetter, more joined- up public services are developed in other areas to facilitatecollaborative area working. They are designed to meet the needs of individualneighbourhoods to improve the quality of life for all residents. All resources that gointo the area are channelled through these partnership boards. They are chaired bylocal councillors.

Advantage of constituted multi-agency partnership board comprising local serviceproviders and interest groups are:

√ developing localised agendas tailored to each area - focus is on finding localsolutions for local problems therefore they are more responsive andaccountable and decision making devolved down to Area Level

√ provide a framework within which the mutual accountability of partners for thedelivery of improved outcomes for their area can be played out.

√ set out priorities, objectives and targets and responsibilities for theirachievement in a way that will strike a balance between the top-down directionbeing provided by the borough-wide local area agreement and the bottom-uppressure to deal with issues identified at neighbourhood level

√ a capacity to take ownership of key development and issues affecting theirrespective areas

√ provide oversight of a collective approach to community engagement in theirareas including the establishment of Partnership Engagement Teams,

Page 72

Neighbourhood Networks, Community Challenge events and whereappropriate, the use of Neighbourhood Forums

√ responsibility for ensuring appropriate communication channels are establishedat area and neighbourhood level

√ bridging the gap between borough-wide and neighbourhood level perspectivesand underpin the role of Area Partnership Board as “mini-LSP’s” acting as theagent of the broader partnership at area level

√ activities must be clearly delivery focused. Each Area has a NeighbourhoodAgreement / Neighbourhood Action Plan (“mini LAA”) which are similar toParish Plans. Each plan is tailored to meet particular local needs and issues – abusiness plan signed off by local communities and partners.

√ act as an effective means to manage the performance of partners in their jointefforts to improve people’s lives in their neighbourhoods whilst contributing toimprovements in overall borough performance.

The most disadvantaged areas should be targeted first. Local Action plans areformulated for each area. To begin with focus can be on cleaner, safer, greener and asboard’s mature start tackling other issues such as health, education, etc.The recommendation to develop multi agency public service boards have much widerimplications beyond this service review and offer the potential to radically improveservice delivery in Carlisle. It is suggested that the Health and Communities Overviewand Scrutiny committee approve a special Task and Finish Group to further exploreand develop these ideas. Linking area governance structures into the structure of theLocal Strategic Partnership ensures that local issues are effectively fed into the widerpartnership at both a Thematic and Executive level. The diagram below shows the LSP- partnership board relationship at Knowsley Borough Council which has developedAPBs to manage a borough split into with six areas.

Page 73

For the purposes of explanation Carlisle might be divided into 5 areas – North, South,East, West and Central each comprising a number of wards /parishes. Carlisle SouthSure Start is testimony to the success of such an approach locally. Regionally goodmodels can be found in Neighbourhood Management schemes in South Workington,Whitehaven. Nationally there are a great number of partnership board models wherepublic services have been reconfigured to area based / locality working.

Potential Structure:

• Chair (Ward Councillor - revolving chair)• Vice Chair (Ward Councillor)• Councillor• Business / Private Sector Rep• Children & Young People Partnership• Community and Voluntary Sector Representative• Health & Social Care Representative• Jobcentre Plus• Housing Associations• Fire & Rescue• Police• Faith group rep• (as appropriate parish council reps)

2) Parishing of Urban Areas

Page 74

Rationale: the parish council model is tried and tested and works well in rural areas –but it could have enormous potential as a governance model for larger, more complexurban setting.

The urban areas would be split into a number of parishes, which would then receive aPrecept allocated from all mainstream service provider budgets. Neighbourhood orArea Plans would replace parish plans. Like parish charters, neighbourhood charterswould set out the framework for the relationship between parties and establish viableprotocols for co-operation and joint working.

Appendix 3 – Benefits Advice Service: selection of feedback slips

Page 75

Appendix 4 – List of interviewees

Page 76

Name Role & OrganisationMark Beveridge Head of Culture and Community ServicesRob Burns Community Support Team ManagerDave Trussler Community Engagement ManagerNed Kemp LSP ManagerGillian Martin Efficiency ManagerSteve Clinton AccountantMyrna Hill City Council Social Inclusion Policy and

Partnership OfficerKaren Osborne City Council Benefits Advice Team LeaderPaul im Thurn Manager, Community Law CentreAndy Auld Manager, Citizens Advice BureauInspector Andy Shaddock CDRPLynne Hutchinson Cumbria CVSMaggie Mooney Chief ExecDavid Beatty Head of Economic, Property & Tourism

ServicesZoe Sutton Rural SupportJoanne King Cumbria Youth ServicesSimon Taylor Housing & Health Services ManagerCllr Ray Knapton Wetheral wardCllr Mike Boaden Leader Labour GroupCllr Prof Joe Hendry Yewdale WardCllr Olwyn Luckley Castle Ward (Portfolio holder Health &

Communities)Cllr Trevor Allison Dalston ward (Leader Liberal Democrats)Greg Stephenson Corporate CommunicationsJoanne Osborne Corporate CommunicationsStuart Pate Head of Community, Cumbria County

CouncilPhil Gray Head of GreenspaceRichard Lewis Head of Sports DevelopmentLes Tickner Head of Environmental ServicesManagers & staff (site visits) Morton, Raffles, Denton Holme, Petteril

Bank, Harraby, BotcherbyCommunity Centre Focus Groups Belah, Botcherby, Currock, Denton Holme,

Petteril Bank, Greystone, Harraby,Longtown, Raffles Yewdale,

Rhianne, Lindsay, Ian Youth Team

Pam Graham Community Involvement OfficerSteve Dunn Community Involvement OfficerCarolyn Curr Policy & Performance ManagerPaul Taylor Carlisle Housing Association, Head of

OperationsAnne Quilter Carlisle Housing Association, Enterprise

ManagerTracey Andrews Carlisle Housing Association,

Neighbourhood Regeneration Officer

Page 77

Mike Battersby Director Community ServicesIan McNichol Carlisle Renaissance DirectorAlan Eales Head of PlanningJason Gooding Deputy Chief ExecBob Allan & Mike Goderidge Brampton Community CentreVarious Reps Play PartnershipJane Muller Cumbria PCTEmma Titely Learning City ManagerSteve O'Keefe Policy & Performance ManagerLinda Marks Carlisle South Sure StartRepresentatives Botcherby/Harraby Health PartnershipMaggie Moorhead Sure Start Development OfficerSarah Cowing Sure Start Development OfficerLynda Hassall Carlisle South Sure Start ManagerCllr Stewart Young Cumbria County CouncillorCraigh Nicholson Carlisle Parish Councils AssociationJocelyn Holland Carlisle Parish Councils AssociationClive North Carlisle Parish Councils AssociationMoira Swan Director Children's Services, Cumbria CC

Page 78

Appendix 5 - Community Engagement Team Projects

Ward Date Activity Partners Reason for intervention City’s objectives

Belah 0ngoing

August2007

June 08 butprojectstarted in2006

Belah Community Centre - various levels of support to the communitycentre managing trustees and centremanager on a range of issues

successful funding applications for summerplay-schemes, assistance with financialplanning and writing up accounts for nurseryand youth group.

Community development with otheragencies, bringing together a variety ofservices,

Assisting the centre with its temporaryrelocation of premises, due to the new build

• Children’s Services• County Council

NeighbourhoodDevelopment Officers(NDO’s)

• Workers EducationAssociation (WEA)

• County Council YouthDevelopment

The centre has very limited staff resourcestherefore the community support team hasassisted with the centre's redevelopmentplans and with funding, charity law,accounting and other statutoryrequirements.

Involvement was requested by WardCouncillors

Safer & Stronger Learning City EconomicDevelopment 'Place'Priorities -RevitalisingCommunities


Page 79

Botcherby Ongoing

since 2003

early 2005-ongoing

2007-08ongoing

Late 2006 ongoing

Various levels of support to the managingtrustees and the centre manager on a range ofissues

Botcherby & Harraby Health partnership - continued support on various projects,advice on funding etc. Alternate chairingmeetings

Botcherby & Harraby Newsletter - development work on steering groupincluding hands on assistance on printingdeadlines, checking content, submittinginformation, delivery, and ongoing funding,political correctness etc.

generally secure funding for this project.

Botcherby Community Centre - delivering Money Management course inpartnership with the WEA.

Lip Service film – support for fundingapplication Oct 07Funding applications for gym project – TudorTrust, Cumbria Waste Management,business plan. 07 / 08 ongoing

Distribution of 9,000 Polish leaflets

Botcherby Healthy Living Initiative - Working in partnership on a new gymproject to be built at Botcherby CommunityCentre.

Advice and support on funding applications,consulting with the wider community onvarious issues relating to the project.

• Sure Start,• County Council,• Botcherby Community

Centre• Harraby Community

Centre• Primary Care Trust• CADAS• Botcherby HLI• Botcherby Community

Centre• Harraby Community

Centre• Cumbria County Council• Botcherby HLI

• WEA• Botcherby Community

Centre

• Botcherby HLI• Cumbria County Council

NeighbourhoodDevelopment Officers(NDO’s)

• Cumbria LINKS (VCS)• City Council Sports

Development

Effective partnership networking with otherorganisations to deliver a range of healthrelated services.Identified by the community by means of apartnership survey. Both City & Countymembers involved

strengthens community development andwork with and empowers volunteers, in anon-political environment.Resulted from initial community surveytraining and identified community need forempowering residents to manage theirfinancial affairs more effectively, keep outof debt, avoiding loan sharks etc.

Identified by Credit Union and by the Policy& Partnership Officer of the City Council

Working effectively in partnership toimprove the health and quality of life forresidents in Botcherby and Harraby.Providing affordable, quality and easilyaccessible services to the local community.Community initiative identified fromcommunity survey

Healthy Communitiesand Older people


Social Inclusion Learning City Social Inclusion

EconomicDevelopment 'People'priority

Social Inclusion


Cleaner, Greener,Safer

Page 80

Currock ongoing Support and advice to the managing trusteesand centre manager on a range of issues

General help and support to the CommunityCentre, including funding support e.g. Biffaapplication for CCTV equipment. Assistance tothe community over a range of issues includingemployment advice etc.

• County Council• CHA• Credit Union

Community Capacity building Social Inclusion

Castle Nov 2007 -ongoing

Assistance to the newly formed communitygroup at based at Holy Trinity HallSupport and advice with funding, constitutionaland charity advice.Support to organise and deliver fun eventsOngoing advice to community groups

• Carlisle HousingAssociation (CHA)

• County Council• Sport Dept.• Police• Fire Service• Children’s Services

Request for support came from localparents and community groupsThere is little current provision in Castleward.Request for input by Ward CouncillorDevelop community cohesionEnhancing learning in the community

Cleaner, Greener,Safer communities

Learning City

CarlisleWest

mid 2005ongoing

Carlisle West Children’s Centre - (NewtownSchool, Living Well Trust, Play Raffles & MortonFamily Centre)

Active member on both the steering groupand the finance sub group.

Proactive in assessing funding applications,budget management, delivery of servicesi.e. 5 outcomes of the Every Child MattersFramework.

Supporting volunteers with training needs,mentoring etc.

Member of the financial sub-group. Assess and allocate the budget for projectsand ‘on the ground’ service delivery

Conference Day – promotion of Children’sCentre Aug 06

• CHA• Living Well Trust• Newtown School• Play Raffles• PCT• Morton Family Centre• County Council Library

Services• Children’s Services –

Cumbria County Council• Job Centre Plus• County Council NDO’s

City Council needs to be a strong partneron the Children’s Centre programme andNational Extended Schools Programme.Identifying and delivering relevant coursesand training for the community of CarlisleWest, best possible services for the familyas identified under the national Every ChildMatters Framework


Social Inclusion

Page 81

City wide April 2005ongoing

Community Learning Forum – Facilitating the meetings Information sharing about training, coursesetc.

Identify training needs and deliver coursesaccordingly.

Link with LSP, Carlisle College etc.Community Centres and all grass rootsorganisations currently delivering trainingand educational needs to the widercommunity.

• County Council –Library Services,NeighbourhoodDevelopment &Children’s Services

• WEA – WorkersEducational Association

• Tullie House• Adult Education• Sure Start• CDC’s• Carlisle Renaissance

To bring together all training servicedelivery, identify training needs within thecommunity and support effective learningnetworks with the local LSP, colleges,schools etc.

Learning City

DentonHolme

March 2006ongoing

Denton Holme Community Centre - Support and advice to the managingtrustees and the centre manager on a rangeof issues

Help and support with funding applications,summer playschemes, and nursery.Ongoing support and advice to committee,and around other issues.

Green group – environment group Community Family Event – May 08 Future in Their Hands – Implementation ofCommunity Plan, which covers all aspects ofDenton Holme community and services(Ongoing process, however without anyfunding in place. The powers and capacity ofthis group is very limited.)

Supporting DVD made via Lip Service

• Children’s services• County Council

NeighbourhoodDevelopment Services

• Impact Housing

Money Management course offered (limitedby availability of rooms)

Environment group set up at the request ofWard Councillors

Cleaner, greener,safer

Learning City Social Inclusion Environmentalobjectives

Downagate Since early2007

Downagate Community Centre- Youth ProjectAssisting and supporting the youth project inthe following ways:

Draw down funding Assist setting Up Income & Expenditureaccounts

Form a steering group Find a solution to the staffing crisis Forge good partnerships between the

• County Council• CHA• Local Police• Downagate Community

Centre• YWCA• Brampton Youth Project• University of Cumbria

To give the young people of WarwickBridge a strong and effective youth club,financial support and to provide access topositive activities.To alleviate anti social behaviour, raise theyoung people’s profile, self esteem andopen up new opportunities for them.Involvement requested by Ward councillorPartnership agreement drawn up for youth


Social Inclusion

Page 82

community centre / youth project, and alsowith many other organisations such asConnexions, CADAS etc.

project / management committeeVarious funding applications submitted -£2,500 secured£7,500 pending

Greystone(St Aidans)

Ongoing

For newbuild sinceAugust2006

Greystone Community Centre Support and advice to the managingtrustees and centre manager on a range ofissues

Assistance with large projects i.e. the newannex to the building (youth facilities)

Numerous other funding applications over arange of services, youth funding, buildingprocurement etc.

Support to the Green Group (environmentissues)

Money management course & IT coursedelivered in partnership with City Counciland WEA

Support and work with the mobile crècheunit, Greystone tiny tots

• County council• Impact Housing• CDRP• Children's Services• WEA• Local Community• Sure Start

Currently assisting with large fundingapplication to the Tudor Trust, three yearfunding package for staff salary’sOther support to building extension ongoing

Social inclusion Children & YoungPeople

Harraby Ongoing

Early 2006

Mid 2005

Harraby Community CentreSupport to managing trustees and centremanager on a wide range of issues

Various support work: assist / draw down funding for kitchen, mailhall ceiling and other funding matters.

Input with the Botcherby and HarrabyNewsletter

• Harraby CommunityCentre

• County Council• Pennine Way CDC• CHA• Sure Start

Improving all levels of service provision forthe community and offering choice, andsafe good facilities.

Fun day for all community centres Aug07

£5,000 Biffa fund grant secured forsuspended ceiling May 08

Funding from Lloyds TSB Foundation –kitchen refurbishment

'You, Food and Health' coursecommencing Sept 08, WEA identifiedthrough HLI project

Social Inclusion Environmentalobjectives

LongtownAndBrampton

Ongoing

Nov 2007

Support to the managing trustees and centremanagers on wide range of issues.Asset management with Longtown andBrampton network groups

• Carlisle City Council• County Council• Parish Council• Library• Local Schools• Children Services• Capita

Improving services to the communityoffering good safe provision.

Asset management came about by closureof school/business sites.

Asset ManagementStrategy

CommunityEmpowerment Pilot

Page 83

Morton Ongoing

early 2006

Started2004Ongoing

Early 2005

Morton Community Centre -Support to the managing trustees and centremanager on a wide range of issues:

gym plans/refurbishment - completedapplication for first stage submission toReaching Communities programme (BigLottery).

Produced business plan for Morton aroundgym/exercise, which will be needed forlottery submission or any other largefunding programme.Other help and support as and when neededover a variety of issues.

General advice and assistance with funding– ongoing

Morton Community Partnership – mainly now a support group for the MortonCommunity Newsletter. As with Botcherbydeveloping the newsletter, obtaining funding(application to the Coop Dividend pending).Overseeing content, advertising, deliveryetc.

Friends of Chances Park – support the group with the bid, anddevelopment plans for Chances Park.

funding applications - projects includesecuring funding to install security fencingaround the park and the drainage of thefootball pitch. Total funding package -£37,000

• County Council• CHA• CDRP• Friends of Chances Park

Group• Green Spaces• East Cumbria

Countryside Agency• Carlisle Works• Morton Community

Centre• TRAMP – Tenants

residents associationMorton Park

• Morton Family Centre• Children’s Services• PCT• All schools in Morton

area

To improve local facilities, in both the parkand the community centre for thecommunity. To support the development ofgood local services catering for all ages, acleaner safer park environment to beenjoyed by all and improve and enhancequality of life. Interventions requested bythe local community group and themanagement committee

Two Teaching Assistants courses –spanning 2006-08 at NCFE Level 3accreditation. Total cost of both courses(£38,000) funded through City CouncilEconomic Development and needidentified at the City Council sponsoredFunding & Employment Fair

Lip Service – DVD made to supportGym application and also bid forfunding to tackle anti social behaviourand graffiti.

'Keep Warm, Keep Safe' campaign –Packs given out to every resident inMorton Dec 07 – identified by the CityCouncils Policy & Partnerships Officer &funding through Healthy Communitiesand Older People


Learning city EconomicDevelopment 'People'priority

PetterilBank

September2005Ongoing

Petteril Bank Community School -Support and advice to the managing trustees,centre manager and the executive groupresponsible for the whole site.Various levels of support including:

Advice and development with the GreenGroup, funding etc.

Funding Workshop – training and advice on

• County Council• Children’s Services• WEA• Brownies• Sure Start• School• Nursery

To support all services which cuts across allof the community. Work in partnership withSure Start to offer community basedtraining identified directly from thecommunity.

Requested by Local community group andsupported by ward councillors


EnvironmentalObjective

Page 84

drawing down funding, packs given out.Money Management course offered,unfortunately no recruitment.

StanwixUrban

No work carried out in this area • No capacity withinexisting teamframework

Raffles(Belle Vue)

Mid 2006to present

Raffles Group -Support to the steering group on theredevelopment of the annexe, fundingapplications, other specific advice regarding riskassessment, health & safety etc.

• County council• CHA• Lovells• Carlisle Works• City Council - sports

development parks,works Dept.

• Children’s Services

To give the local young people a dedicatedbuilding of their own and qualified youthworkers to assist the running the club. Tocontribute to the decline of anti socialbehaviour on the estate and raise self-esteem and confidence in the young peoplethrough a series of initiatives, workshopsetc.Requested by Local Community GroupSpecific help with Health & Safety and RiskAssessment in the Annexe. June 08Numerous funding applications – spanning06/08 refurbishment and youth funding


Social Inclusion Safer & Stronger Cleaner, greener,safer

Yewdale Ongoing Yewdale Community Centre -Support and advise to managing trustees and tothe centre manager

Funding advice, in particular for youth project,and nursery extension.

Money Management course offered –refused lack of room availability, andrecruitment.Funding assistance requested by wardcouncillor

EconomicDevelopment

Page 85

City wide October2007ongoing

Training -Offer various courses as a direct result of thelevel of need through consultation with thecommunity.

Recent courses have included a level 3 NCFECrèche Workers course, Play Workerscourse, and two Teaching Assistantscourses.

Offer other shorter, fully funded courses,currently Money Management course to bedelivered in Botcherby, St Aidan’s, PetterilBank and Denton Holme.Deliver training in partnership with the WEA.

Secure the funding to deliver the courses,recruit students, organise and plan all thecrèche provision.

Undertake all the CRB check and workplacements.

Training event for community centres – tohelp them access funding through theChildren in Need programme, and toimprove their skills with future Big Lotteryapplications. Help with planning andorganisation of repeat outdoor fun-days,Play schemes

• Training needs areidentified in thefollowing ways:

• Through discussion withthe County CouncilNeighbourhoodDevelopment Officers,

• Ward Councillors,Community Groups,and through the twiceyearly City Council JobsFair and Funding Fair.

Objectives for delivering training are toempower and offer training for thecommunity to help assist people back intowork, in a safe environment whichultimately also boosts the local economy.

Planned courses for 2008 are aroundHealthy living (resources permitting)

Learning city Children & YoungPeople

EconomicDevelopment 'People'priority

August2007

Miscellaneous - 2 fun days organised at Belah and HarrabyCommunity Centres.

Funding drawn down through grants forleisure

A great deal of enquiries for general adviceregarding funding issue, training,constitutional advice etc. is issued directlyfrom community groups, ward councillorsand the County Council NeighbourhoodDevelopment Officers.

To offer a safe, fun environment forchildren 8 – 13 to attend, play in thetraditional sense and take part in teamgames. Centres participating wereGreystone, Denton Holme, Petteril Bank,Harraby, Botcherby and BelahApprox. 180 took part.


Collated in2007

Funding packs to and funding assistance to - Norman St School

EconomicDevelopment 'People'

Page 86

Brickyard Gillford Centre Petteril Bank Community School Upperby Parish Hall Longtown CDC Wigton Rd Methodist Church Carlisle West Children’s Centre Carlisle North Extended School Cluster

priority Learning city

October2006ongoing

Equality & Diversity Partnership -The Partnership is made up of various serviceproviders & community representatives. Itcreates a platform for sharing good practice,enhances communication and develops strongerlinks with the broader community

Promotion of the 6 strands of E&D by: Hosting cultural & educational eventsHosting welcome events for Migrant Workers

Producing an Information Map in English &Polish

Encouraging all partners to reassessresources (regarding translation)

Hosting Cultural workshops Supporting Asian Women’s Group, PolishForum & Russian Association

Creating a platform to enhance communityconfidence & communication

Future work: Develop Multi Cultural CommunityPartnershipSet up a Multi Cultural Centre in Carlisle (forwhole community)Through partners create a Citizenship modelaround Equality & Diversity

Provide more opportunities for communitycohesion

• Police• Community Law• Cumbria Voluntary

Service• Citizens’ Advice Bureau• AWAZ• Russian Speaking

Friends• Polish Forum• Asian Women’s Group• Carlisle Multi Cultural

Group• Tullie House• Fire Service• Neighbourhood

Services• One World Centre• University of Cumbria• Carlisle Diocese• Action For Blind People• Impact Housing• Adult Education• Library Services• Local Strategic

Partnership• Carlisle Housing

Association• NHS• Primary Care Trust

Carlisle is culturally growing & needs toassess community & economic needA collective problem solving andopportunity making partnership will makeservices more accessible to every memberof the community by

improving communication, sign posting& networking

Positively challenge negative social &cultural stereotypes

Address gaps in provision Co-ordinate service response Educate and raise awareness Carlisle’s economic strategy highlightsthe need for an advice & informationcentre for people who are new to thearea

The E&D Partnership was formed inOctober 2006 and works in line with theCity Council corporate group & policy andperformance team

Equality andDiversityCommunity cohesion

Safer & Stronger

Page 87

Ongoing Community Partnerships -There are many variations in the ways the teamworks through community partnerships - withgroups individually and as collectives throughdifferent projects and initiatives e.g.

Networking & sign posting Advice on constitutions and legal matters Promotion Translation of documents Help with events

The Future: Gain more community group reps Community driven events & workshops

• Asian Women’s Group• Carlisle Multi Cultural

Group• Russian Speaking

Friends• Polish Forum• Police• University of Cumbria• Carlisle College• One World Centre• Pride In North Cumbria• Carlisle Diocese• Carlisle Against Racism• Gay Cumbria• Community Centre’s• Music Links• Theatre By The Lake• Community Law• Cumbria Voluntary

Service• Carlisle Housing

Association• Impact Housing• Carlisle United• Fire Service• Cumbria Multi Cultural

Service

There has never been a cultural communitypartnership in the areaAims are to:

Enhance consultation Gain greater trust and deeper links Promote community cohesion

Learning cityCommunity Cohesion

Equality & Diversity Cleaner, Greener &Safer

Safer & Stronger

August2005ongoing

Playfair -Playfair promotes healthy living and goodcitizenship, using Carlisle United as an incentiveand sport & informal talks as a vehicle. Since2005 the team has worked with over 500 youngpeople

The Future: Housing associations are going to usePlayfair as a tenants reward scheme

Extend to schools and holiday clubs. The Football league are now consideringsponsorship of the scheme

• Carlisle United• Police• Fire Service• Rural Regeneration Unit• Carlisle Glass Youth

League

Promote tolerance & respect, personalsafety & healthy livingEnhance partnership working



Page 88

Startedearly 2005

Ongoing

Lip Service –Educational documentary films

Enhanced funding bids by submitting a filmas evidence

Raised awareness and educated One film was used as a study tool at theUniversity of Lancashire

Hosted presentations and events using film

The Future: Continue to work with a broad variety ofpartners

Use as educational tools throughschools and community groups

• Crime & DisorderReduction Partnership

• Let Go project• Police• Trinity School• Newman school• Sure Start• Morton Community

Centre• East Cumbria Health

Authority• Connexions• Carlisle United• M-Unit• Longtown Youth project• Fire Service• Generate trust• Greystone Community

Centre• The Anchorage• Brampton Community

Association• NACRO

Enhance communication betweencommunities & service providersPositively challenge negative perceptions orsituationsEducate and raise awarenessEnhance consultation and networkingopportunities


Learning City

Page 89

Mid 2005 Men’s Network -

Supported people working with men Hosted conferences Held town centre events Sign posted/networked Promoted healthy living and health checks Attract more men to jobs in certain sectors

The Future: Offer support to those working withmen

• Sure Start• Neighbourhood

Services• Children & Family

Services• Cumbria Volunteer

Service• Connexions

Men are under represented in certainpublic sectorsMen are a difficult group to attach withIssues relating to health, attitude &behaviour need a partnership approach

HealthierCommunities

EconomicDevelopment

Learning City

Page 90

Appendix 6 - Children's & Young Peoples Team Projects

Project Date Purpose Partners Corporate Objectives

Play Policy & Strategy 2007 ongoing To work in partnership to ensure that allChildren and Young People have access toquality play opportunities, activities andenvironments.

• CDRP• East Cumbria Countryside Project,• Carlisle Housing Association• County Council: Neighbourhood

Development, Children’s Services,Children’s Centres, Extended Schools

• CVS• Parish Council Association• Greens Spaces, Sports

Cleaner, Safer, Greener Learning City Carlisle Renaissance

Skatepark

City Play TrailBIG portfolio

2007ongoing

Objective OneTo develop unsupervised provision for allChildren and Young People to meet andplay safely, in a range of inspiring,stimulating and challenging environments,both natural and created.

• Renaissance• Parks• County Council: Highways, Children’s

Services• Police• Connexions• CABE space• Play England


Page 91

Activity ClubsTerm time only/various venues

PlayschemesHolidays only/various venues,currently predominantly rural

Park schemesTerm time & holidays/variousvenues

Forest SchoolsTalkin Tarn

Detached youth workCastle WardBelah Ward

Town Twinning YouthExchange

Specialist Youth Projectse.g. Arts, film, music

Face project

Making Time 4 Play

1985 ongoing

1985 ongoing

2007 ongoing

2006 ongoing

20042007 ongoing

1970’s ongoing

2005 ongoing

2008-2011

2004 ongoing

Objective TwoTo develop supervised provision for allChildren and Young People to meet andplay safely, in a range of inspiring,stimulating and challenging environments,both natural and created.

• Community Centres• Parish Councils• BIG Lottery• Talkin Tarn• Tullie House• Sport and Rec.• County Council: Road Safety, Libraries,

Schools, Children’s Services,Neighbourhood Development

• Connexions• Police• Youth Groups• Soundwave• University of Cumbria• Aim Higher• Carlisle Housing Association• Connexions• Living Well Trust

Cleaner, Safer, Greener Learning City

Play Trail

CYP consultations e.g.Making Time 4 Play

Face2face project

ongoing

2008-2011

2005 ongoing

Objective ThreeTo seek the views of all Children and YoungPeople, encouraging them to participateand become actively involved in decision-making processes that affect them.

• County Council: Schools, ExtendedServices, Library Services

• Connexions• Police• Community Centres• Environmental Agency


Page 92

Youth Participation Projectse.g. Carlisle Joint School Council

City Youth GroupTAG

2007 ongoing

2006National Playday

Play PartnershipTo ensure a strategic approachto fulfilling the five Play Strategyobjectives

Playful Ideas

Support & advice to buildcapacity

1998 ongoing

2007 ongoing

2007 ongoing

1985 ongoing

Objective FourTo provide an infrastructure of support toensure the development of partnerships toaffirm the benefits of play and buildcapacity amongst key stakeholders,including local communities.

• County Council: Library Services,Children’s Centres, Extended Services,Family Learning, NeighbourhoodDevelopment, Children’s Services, RoadSafety, Schools

• Play England• Carlisle Housing Association• Tullie House• Rural Development• Connexions• Sport & Recreation• Green Spaces• Army• Sands Leisure• Border City• Wheelers• Vol. Organisations• Living Well Trust• CDRP• Play Raffles• PSLA

Cleaner, Safer, Greener Learning City

Playful Ideas

Play & Youth work traininge.g. summer programmeconferences

face2face project:Volunteer recruitment & support

2007 ongoing

2008-2011

Objective FiveTo secure a skilled, diverse and motivatedworkforce which will help develop local playopportunities for Children and YoungPeople.

• County Council: Children Services• Police• Sports & Recreation• East Cumbria Countryside Project• Carlisle Housing Association• Community Centres• Connexions


Page 93

Appendix 7 - Benefits Advice Service Team Activities

Activity Additional information Corporate objectives

Provision of free confidential welfare benefit advice,irrespective of income or other demographics, to theresidents of Carlisle and District.

Method of service delivery:

• Telephone Advice• Civic Centre appointments• Urban outreach surgeries• Rural outreach surgeries• Home visits• Appeal representation up to

Social Inclusion

Safer & Stronger

Learning City


Page 94

• and including Social• Security Commissioners.

Healthy Communities & OlderPeople

Introduction of WROSES (welfare rights on-line secureelectronic system).

The introduction of WROSES is the initial phase of a projectthat will eventually enable Benefit Advice Service clients todirectly access on-line information that relates to them.

1. Introduction of a dedicated Telephone Advice line2. Expansion of Home Visiting service3. Increase in outreach surgeries to include the urban

area.

Delivering the Benefit Advice Services to those who arehardest to reach, including those in more deprived or remoteareas and increasing accessibility.

Social Inclusion Healthy Communities & OlderPeople

Corporate Priorities SA3 &

Carlisle Advice Forum Partners:Action for the BlindAge ConcernCitizen’s Advice BureauDisability Association of Carlisle & EdenLaw Centre

Working in partnership toalleviate deprivation andsocial exclusion.

Social Inclusion Safer & Stronger Learning City Children & Young People Healthy Communities & OlderPeople

Delivery of Welfare Benefit training. Recipients have included:

• General Practitioners,• St Martin’s College Student Advisers• Homelessness advisers

Followed up, in the case of the Homelessness and Studentadvisers, by ongoing telephone & face-to-face welfare rightssupport.

Learning City Social Inclusion Children & Young People Healthy Communities & OlderPeople

Page 95

Light Bulb Campaign A campaign in partnership with Powergen in which wedistributed energy saving light bulbs to households receivinga disability or a low-income benefit.

Cleaner, greener, safer.

Keep Warm – Keep Safe Campaign In partnership with Age Concern, Health Partnership (CityCouncil), TRAMP, CHA, and Energy Efficiency.

Cleaner, greener, safer Healthy Communities & OlderPeople

Social InclusionActive events:

• Cumbria Initiative Benefit Open Day• Carlisle Advice Forum’s Money Matters Road Shows• Money Matters Roadshow visits the Neighbourhood

forums• Face to Face at the Cumberland Show• World Mental Health Day

Events in which the Benefit Advice Service has taken anactive role in the organisation and/or of the event, as well aspromoting the work of the Benefit Advice Service and on theday provision of welfare advice.

Working in partnership toalleviate deprivation andsocial inclusion.

Safer & Stronger Learning City Children & Young People Healthy Communities & OlderPeople

Participatory events:

• Cumbria Drug and Alcohol Services Open Day• Jobs, Skills & Training Fair• The Welcome Partnership and Community Event• Fresher’s Week• Upperby Gala• pop2thepark• Brampton Community Association Open Day

Events at which we have promoted the work of the BenefitAdvice Service and provided preliminary basic welfareadvice.

Working in partnership toalleviate deprivation andsocial inclusion

Social Inclusion Learning City Children & Young People Healthy Communities & OlderPeople

Talks

• Radio Cumbria Advice Sessions• Rukba• Access Group• Independent Age• Carlisle South Community Association• East Cumbria Family Support• James Rennie• Carer’s Association

Talks are usually at each individual organisation’s behest. Social Inclusion Learning City Children & Young People Healthy Communities & OlderPeople

Page 96

Referral Initiative The Benefit Advice Service referral system was formalisedand then actively promoted to appropriate individuals andorganisations.

This has resulted in a year on year increase in referrals:75 ~ (Jan 05 to Dec 05)124 ~ (Jan 06 to Dec 06)167 ~ (Jan 07 to Dec 07) Current estimates suggest that for2008 referrals are likely to be in excess of 200.

Working in partnership toalleviate deprivation andsocial inclusion

Social Inclusion Healthy Communities & OlderPeople


Appendix 8 - Member workshop notes 30th June 2008

Page 97

General observations

Partnership

Rural areasArea forums / governance

Neighbourhood

Shared services

LSP

PerformanceFunding

Other

• General consensus that their needs to be more joined up working and better communication internally betweencouncil services. Fair point. I have come up with some ideas to improve awareness of Community Developmentwork - such as CSU putting on training sessions for ALL council staff on CD techniques. Also job swaps perhapsonce a quarter to give staff a flavour of work in other areas (Cllr Luckley keen on this also). Also allowing staffand members to 'shadow' CSU team for a day to see what they do.

• More partnership working externally. Again a fair point.• Rural areas - poor lines of communication - more needs doing (Cllr Earp)• Neighbourhood Forums - consensus was they're not working, despite what County says and attendance is poor -

people only turn up to get the cash. A separate independent review is required.• Neighbourhood Champions - some councils have resident service champions - others have office champions. It

should be the councillors who need to stand up and articulate the issues (CSU can help in this with the doorknocking / surveys etc)

• Sharing Community Development services with CHA, CVS, County, PCT - directed through the LSP via a StrongerCommunities Board- this seemed to be accepted in principle, especially as everyone wants to go downlocality/neighbourhood working but there aren't enough of CSU to split into Area Teams and make a significantimpact.

• LSP - many were dismissive of it- certainly it hasn't got a grip of 'Stronger' work only Safer through CRDP. MakeCommunity empowerment the next big issue for the LSP. The Exec need to agree to develop a joint SustainableCommunities Strategy for Carlisle which integrates the social, environmental, economic issues.

• Performance indicators - need to develop local PIs for each area and communicate.• Less Central Recharges. Broad agreement on new funding approach to CD - that all policies/ service areas which

invoke community empowerment or rely on community engagement should have a built-in margin of theirbudget allocated to CD/ community capacity building. So Carlisle Renaissance etc must top slice small percentageof their budgets to fund CD work from which they will benefit

• Placements from University. do more.

Page 98

Members involvement • More engagement with members - it was striking how many members didn't have the faintest idea what CSU hasdone, is doing and will do in their wards, they would like more info in advance if CSU are doing interventions sothey can get involved etc. How can this be addressed? Explore formal regular mechanism for briefing membersthrough O&S for information items / monthly e-bulletins from CSU to members with summaries of any activitiesof interest in their wards.

• Councillor Compacts – personal opinion is these would be incredibly useful for everyone to clarify roles,responsibilities, and expectations. Agree with Mike B's view that the councillors are the natural leaders for theirneighbourhoods and start stepping up a bit more and fulfilling the role the White paper envisages. If thecouncillors could be offered a single point of contact through designated officer it would help them.

• Suggest this is a crucial area which needs separate and thorough review

Community centres • phased grant reduction and redirection of funding from some facilities to others.• Will new Academies have rooms for community use? If so will this reduce need for current facilities? No

conclusions. More work needed.• Re discussion around CSU helping community centres etc with funding applications. Cllr Jessica Riddle thought

the VCS should do more on this rather than CSU. Some councillors thought it was time that CSU took a stepback - that the council can't keep helping them fill forms in and that they had to learn to do it for themselves -basically that the staff have become too dependent on CSU support and will never learn for themselves,thereby freeing CSU up to concentrate on other things.

Benefits Advice • Cllr Trevor Allison thought a single team would help (not reducing existing council staffing levels) but addingCAB advice workers and housing them all in a city centre building. The lack of adequate space was raised-other Cllrs pointed out the Hub is still on ice.

Events • one team thought CSU should pull back from events like Fire Show (get the Fire service to take over) andconcentrate on more community events like Upperby gala. The other wanted to continue doing them but withproviso there was exit strategy and more sponsorship from private sector.

Children & Young People • General assessment that more youth provision was desirable. More organised activities and MUGAs. More co-ordination and provision of play activities especially in rural areas

• Youth Zone needs considering separately.Grants for Leisure • Seemed to be some agreement that although laudable these could be cut as it wouldn't be the be all and end

all for local groups.

CS.82.08 - Community Support Review Public.pdf

Documents

Transcript of CS.82.08 - Community Support Review Public.pdf