Agenda item

The Director of Delivery, Communications and Political Governance submits a report that outlines the lessons learnt, final evaluation results, recommendations and next steps following the pilot of the Ward Community Meeting Improvement Project. The Commission is asked to note and comment on the evaluation findings, lessons learnt and recommendations.

The Director of Delivery, Communications and Political Governance submitted a report that outlined the lessons learnt, final evaluation results, recommendations and next steps following the pilot of the Ward Community Meeting Improvement Project.

The Assistant City Mayor for Community Involvement, Partnerships and Equalities presented the report and explained that the pilot project had commenced over a year ago, initially with four wards, before a further 6 wards were included in the scheme.

The Project Portfolio Manager reported that the pilot scheme had received mixed reviews, though had been generally successful in relation to officer involvement.  The Ward Community Project had now transferred to fall within the remit of Community Services.

Members heard that all councillors had been encouraged to complete an evaluation form; these were attached in Appendix A of the report. The response had been mixed partly because the resources within the project team were limited. Members heard that a considerable amount of work had taken place on the ‘toolkit’ and the budget process had been streamlined.  The Head of Community Services reported that he would bring a report back to the scrutiny commission in the autumn.

The Chair expressed disappointment that one of the evaluation forms had been omitted from the agenda and subsequently been tabled at the meeting. She asked for this to be circulated with the minutes.

Members considered the report; their discussion included points as follows:

·         Concerns were expressed at the workload of the Neighbourhood Development Managers.

·         Concerns were expressed regarding errors in the community meetings’ publicity.

·         The Councillor Guide was considered to be useful  for some councillors.

·         The ward meeting patch walks would not be suitable for all the wards. Concerns were expressed that as a multi-agency approach, they required significant staff resources.

·         Some wards were better served with community facilities than others, which made it very difficult to move around different areas within the ward.

·         Some wards had no council facilities in which to hold community meeting.

·         The guidance for councillors was welcome; but every area worked differently and the final decisions in relation to the running of the meeting needed to rest with the ward councillors.  The Project Portfolio Manager agreed and responded that the Neighbourhood Development Managers’ and the Community Engagement Officers’ role was important because they would help to facilitate what the councillors wanted. One of the findings of the pilot project was that the wards were different and one model would not suit them all.

The Chair commented that the commission had previously expressed concerns that councillors’ expectations may be raised by the pilot project. Officers were asked whether they had met with the ward councillors involved in the pilot to ascertain whether their expectations had been met. Officers responded that the Neighbourhood Development Managers would be addressing this issue.

The Chair expressed concerns that if some of the ideas generated with the pilot ward councillors were to be introduced, the process of supporting the community meetings would be more labour intensive and she queried whether the Neighbourhood Development Managers would have the resources to deliver. The Head of Community Services responded that initially no major changes in resources were anticipated, however budget processes were being streamlined and the Community Engagement Officers would be involved in the monitoring and evaluation of funding applications.

The Chair summarised the discussion and asked for the Neighbourhood Development Managers to have a platform to discuss their findings from the first quarter’s community meetings and to share good practice. This should be led by one of the managers who could then feedback to a future scrutiny commission meeting.

The Chair added that the honesty in the report was welcomed and the raw data was appreciated.  In respect of the community meeting action logs; concerns were expressed that some of the actions identified had not been followed through. The Chair also requested that the new community meeting budget guidance be brought to scrutiny and be made available for members of the public to view as well.

RESOLVED:

1)    that the commission note the report and request a further update be brought back in 6 months time;

2)    that further work be carried out in relation to young people’s involvement; and

3)    that the community meeting funding guidance be brought to a future meeting of the scrutiny commission.