Agenda item

The Director for Culture and Neighbourhood Services and the Director for Delivery, Communications and Political Governance submit a report providing an update following the transfer of the Ward Community Meetings function to the Community Services Section in April 2014.  The Commission is recommended to note the report and comment on the observations contained within it.

The Director for Culture and Neighbourhood Services and the Director for Delivery, Communications and Political Governance submitted a report providing an update following the transfer of the Ward Community Meetings function to the Community Services section in April 2014.

In introducing the report, the Assistant Mayor (Community Involvement, Partnerships and Equalities), thanked all officers who had dealt with community meetings and grant applications over the years and made the following comments:-

·           Some different forms of engagement with communities had been introduced, such as patch walks;

·           There had been 24 community meetings held since April 2014.  The agendas for these varied, due to the different issues in different wards;

·           Ward funds gave invaluable support to a number of groups across the city, with over £172,000 already having been allocated this year;

·           One problem that had been identified was that payments of grants could be received after the event to which they related had taken place.  Community Services therefore were looking at how grant payments could be made more quickly; and

·           It was anticipated that a report would be made to this Commission in March 2015 about the future development of Community Meetings.

The Head of Community Services confirmed that different ways of working with Ward Councillors to improve meetings and grant funding were being investigated.  This would be done in conjunction with consideration of the impact of the forthcoming changes to ward boundaries.

Members expressed the view that they had received high quality support from Democratic Services, when they had responsibility for these services.  Some problems had been experienced when the transfer of responsibility had taken place, but some very good Community Services officers now were in post.  However, some Community Meetings had not been so successful, as attendances were lower than previously.

The Commission expressed some concern at the suggestion that greater use of social media be made to publicise Community Meetings, as many Members and residents currently had little knowledge of social media.  It therefore was suggested that the use of publicity leaflets should not be discontinued until other methods of communication were in place that had proved to be effective.  The Head of Community Services gave an assurance that this course of action would be followed, but noted that there would be a cost associated with this.

Some wards had chosen to use some of their budget to have additional leaflets delivered to advertise Community Meetings and it was suggested that each Community Meeting could provide £500 from its funding to be used for additional publicity.   Other Wards had used their funds to provide a newsletter for residents.

Members noted that insufficient advertising was a recurring problem in some areas, as was advertising being done in a different part of the Ward to where the meeting was being held.  Also, no reference to individual Community Meetings had been seen on the Council’s existing social media.

The importance of holding a meeting to discuss the agenda of each Community Meeting was stressed, as this could be used to identify appropriate local publications for advertising, such as newsletters, and areas of the Ward on which to focus publicity.

In addition, it was noted that posters were displayed in community facilities, such as community centres and SureStart centres, and people were encouraged to provide e-mail addresses by which to receive information on meetings. 

It was suggested that Community Engagement Officers could distribute information in streets from which it was known no residents attended Community Meetings.  There would be significant costs associated with this, so an alternative could be to find local volunteers to make these deliveries.

The Head of Community Services confirmed that work on improving communication was ongoing.  The venues used also could be a significant factor in attendance levels, so Member involvement in discussions on how to attract people to meetings would be welcome.  Members remarked that, if people were not attending meetings, it raised the question of whether the meetings were serving their purpose, so additional expenditure could be needed to attract people.

Issues relating to grant funding also were considered:-

o    Some Wards had a larger number of organisations than others, so received a greater number of applications, but all Wards had the same level of funding;

o    As changes to ward boundaries would come in to effect in May 2015, it was not possible to accurately predict how many applications would be received by each Ward in the future;

o    Some continuous funding could be provided, (for example, for events put on by groups covering more than one Ward), although there was a danger that some small organisations could become dependent on Ward funding to continue to operate;

o    The importance of Ward community funding was recognised, but it was suggested that, if the cost of administering the grants was too high, consideration should be given to whether alternative means of delivering the funding should be introduced, or whether it should continue;

o    It was questioned whether it was fair to give every Ward the same amount of funding, or whether some Wards should get more, to reflect specific economic conditions;

o    The funding should be used for Ward development, not just to support groups, many of which received repeat funding; and

o    A consistent way of considering grant applications across the whole city was needed.  This was particularly important when an application was to more than one Ward, as currently some such applications were supported by one Ward but not the other(s).

In reply to a question, the Head of Community Services reminded Members that reports previously had been made to the Commission on the outcome of the pilot project on Community Meetings.  Efforts had been made to take the lessons learned through the pilot project and apply them across the city and this was reflected in the report under consideration.

The Head of Community Services further noted that all Community Engagement Officers were now in post and they, along with Neighbourhood Development Managers, would continue to support Community Meetings.  However, all Community Services staff would be included in a staffing review anticipated to take place in 2015.

RESOLVED:

1)    That the report be noted; and

2)    That the Director for Culture and Neighbourhood Services and the Director for Delivery, Communications and Political Governance be asked to:-

a)     Consider whether all Community Meetings could each contribute £500 towards additional publicity for those meetings;

b)     Continue the work being done to find improved ways of administering Ward community funding grants;

c)     Note the assurance given to the Commission that, while alternative communication methods are considered, current methods will continue to be used; and

d)     Consider the points recorded above in any review undertaken of Ward Community Meetings.