Agenda item

On 4 November 2015 the City Mayor took a decision on working with the city’s Voluntary and Community Sector to support engagement with communities.  The Commission is recommended to note this decision and comment as appropriate.

The Commission was reminded that the City Mayor had taken a decision on 4 November 2015 on working with the city’s Voluntary and Community Sector to support engagement with communities. 

It was noted that this decision was based on the results of consultation carried out across the city with stakeholders representing those with protected characteristics as set out in the Equality Act 2010.  Details of this were set out in the report.

Many community and voluntary organisations had been supported by the Council in their work with specific groups or communities for many years.  However, it had become apparent that a lot of groups representing newer communities were doing good work, but with no Council support.

Of the people responding to the consultation, many had indicated that they preferred not to work through representative organisations and wanted a different approach to be taken.  The decision therefore had been taken to establish a new fund to support activities and projects, which it was hoped would be of benefit to a wider range of communities.  In addition, some funding for contracted provision of advice and guidance services still would be provided, through The Race Equality Council and the Somali Development Service.

Councillor Sood, Assistant City Mayor (Communities and Equalities), addressed the Commission at the invitation of the Chair, reminding Members of her declaration of interest in this item.  She noted that community organisations had established a lot of respect from the community due to their hard work and this should not be lost.  The organisations had engaged with a lot of partners, often with no funding from the Council, leading to Leicester being recognised as an excellent example of a city with multi-cultural and diverse communities. 

Councillor Sood noted that many organisations were upset by the Council’s decision.  Change was always a challenge, so care should be taken to ensure that the work and experience of these organisations was not lost.  Not all organisations were good at completing tender documents, so officer support was needed, (for example, there was still a large proportion of the city’s population that did not access technology and this needed to be taken in to account).

The following points were then made by Members:-

·           Although many communities were mentioned, there was no mention of women;

·           An indication was needed of what services were delivered by the organisations that would no longer receive funding;

·           Would this jeopardise people in need?;

·           A lot of people arriving in the city did not speak English, particularly women.  How would they be helped?; and

·           When community groups supported financially by the council had surpluses at the end of a financial year, was this surplus “clawed back”?

In reply, the Director for Delivery, Communications and Political Governance stressed that this review was an assessment of what needed to be provided in the future, not a judgement on past performance.  It was recognised that it was very important that what was put in place was very accessible, so the consultation undertaken had included an examination of barriers to accessing services. 

Consideration also had been given to what sort of support it was reasonable to provide in the future.  Under the previous contracts, organisations had had a representative role, the impact of which was hard to measure.  It was important that outcomes could be measured, particularly now that the Council was not in a position to maintain previous levels of funding. 

Expected outcomes in relation to the use of the new fund in the future would be monitored, to ensure that the funding provided was being spent on achieving these.  This could lead to further funding being withheld if there was concern that resources were not being focussed on achieving expected outcomes.

The Voluntary and Community Sector Engagement Manager further explained that many organisations previously had had multiple sources of financial support.  It therefore had not been possible to assess what proportion of any surplus funds had been derived from the Council.  For this reason, it had not been possible to “claw back” unspent funding. 

In addition, the way that funding previously had been provided had meant that some organisations had been unable to access financial support.  The way the new fund would operate would enable a wider range of organisations, such as women’s centres, to apply for assistance.

The Director for Delivery, Communications and Political Governance confirmed that the new fund was not live yet.  A short consultation on how it would operate would be undertaken, starting shortly and probably concluding in early 2016, before the fund was launched.

Members expressed concern that a lot of knowledge and goodwill could be lost through the new funding arrangements and an unintentional outcome could be that communities were set in opposition to each other.  The Director for Delivery, Communications and Political Governance reminded the Commission that previously funded organisations were not precluded from applying for funding under the new system.  In addition, other funding mechanisms also were available to these organisations.  The organisations had known for some time that this review was being undertaken and that they could not rely on receiving core funding from the Council indefinitely.

The Commission suggested that Voluntary Action LeicesterShire could become more engaged in community development work.  This could include, for example, a requirement in its contract with the Council that representatives attended Ward Community Meetings.

AGREED:

1)    That the Director for Delivery, Communications and Political Governance be asked to submit details of the consultation on the operation of the Voluntary and Community Sector Engagement Support Fund to the next meeting of this Commission, this report to include any outcomes from the consultation received before the Commission’s meeting;

2)    That the Director for Delivery, Communications and Political Governance be asked to circulate the consultation documents on the operation of the Voluntary and Community Sector Engagement Support Fund to all members of this Commission in advance of the report referred to under 1) above; and

3)    That the City Mayor be asked to note the Commission’s concerns about the potential loss of experience and skills as a result of the new Voluntary and Community Sector funding arrangements.