Thursday 16 th of September, 2010 Duncan McLaggan, Project Officer Community Network Phone:

Transcription

1 Islington Community Network support for Islington Strategic Partnership voluntary sector representatives and the future of Islington s strategic engagement Thursday 16 th of September, 2010 Duncan McLaggan, Project Officer Community Network Duncan.mclaggan@vai.org.uk Phone:

2 Islington Community Network members and relevant Islington Strategic Partnership representatives who contributed to this report: Islington Refugee Forum Islington Homelessness Forum Older Peoples' Voluntary Network Voluntary Sector Health Network Islington Environmental Forum Islington Faiths Forum Camden and Islington Providers' Forum Islington BME Forum Sport Islington Islington Advice Network Community Investment Group of IHG Mildmay Community Partnership Islington Disability Network Children's Board Introduction This report addresses the support received by the Islington Community Network (ICN) representatives on the Islington Strategic Partnership (ISP). It also addresses the role of the ICN and how members have viewed that support in the past. Importantly this report offers a vision for the future of voluntary sector engagement in an environment of lower funding, and perhaps greater need, for vulnerable residents in Islington. ISP representatives and ICN members from 14 of the network s 18 members took part in a thorough and broad ranging interview with the ICN Project Officer through August These interviews were based around the following questions, and were semi-structured in that issues outside of these questions could be raised. The process, along with gathering important feedback for both Voluntary Action Islington and the Council, acted as an excellent method to promote the potential range of support available to networks through the Project Officer and Voluntary Action Islington. It also highlighted the often positive views of representative s roles in the ISP and regarding partnership working with other voluntary networks, the Council and other statutory partners. It is a relationship that networks want to secure and develop in the future. 2

3 The Findings ISP representatives were asked to identify what support they had valued in the past from the ICN, supported by Voluntary Action Islington. As can be seen from their responses, several key areas of support were highlighted: supporting the practical administration of the Islington Community Network Committee (ICNC), facilitating information sharing between networks, coordinating a collective voice for the network on the ISP and with statutory sector partners and, finally, providing capacity building support. ICN members also raised the following areas in which they value support from the Islington Community Network: Providing important networking opportunities through meetings and events. Training and workshops offered through Voluntary Action Islington and promoted by the ICN have been taken up and are valued. Found work with the development team on reaching quality marks, and EC1 coordination useful. The ICN helped to facilitate the relationship between the sectors and the work of the Environment and Sustainability Board on the ISP. Provision of briefing and background information for network and ISP meetings has been very useful. Generally good personal response from staff at Voluntary Action Islington for information requested about issues relevant to the networks. 3

4 A positive aspect of networks and forums involvement in the ISP and the ICN is the way in which it maintains contacts with other networks and representatives which can foster improved partnership working. Many representatives stated that they have ongoing relationships with other networks and/or the Council, and have taken part in joint projects with them. The support of the ICN can help to encourage partnerships across thematic networks, and also facilitate strong partnership working with the Council. Partnership work identified includes: [Network] undertook a joint funding application for work with unaccompanied minors, and joint Family Week event with another network. They also work across boroughs with Hackney, and pan-london organisations. [Network s] Garden project involved work with St Lukes Community Centre. They also worked with another ICN forum on a befriending project. [Network] has done events work with the NHS / PCT and work with the Council on community safety. [Forum] has been closely involved with two other forums through Improving Reach and also with the Council for Black History Month and other events. [Forum] has also been in partnership with other organisations for events, such as Capacity Global. [Network] has worked with Islington People's Rights, Help on your Doorstep, and undertaken capacity building work with the Council. [Network] has worked with the council on the Energy Doctor scheme and organising a youth opportunity fair with LBI Youth Services and Culture & Heritage. 4

5 A number of ways in which both the ICN and Voluntary Action Islington could assist networks to cope in the new funding environment were highlighted. Key areas which could be developed through the ICN include coordinating a stronger collective voice for the network, work on greater assistance in facilitating partnership working, and improving the flow of communication both between members, but also critically between the Council and the ICN. This would be of advantage to both the Council and the ICN, and aim to increase partnership working, share best practice and experience, and reduce duplication through joint efficiencies. Other ways in which members and representatives felt support could be developed are shown below. Those which are currently being addressed are labelled actioned : Maintaining strong coordination to keep the network functioning. More support with a designated coordinator is helpful - especially for organising meetings etc. [actioned] Lobbying on behalf of ICN members on key issues - giving voice. [actioned] Helping to organise meetings for the Network, and such assistance for networks who do not have dedicated development workers. [actioned] Guidance about who's who in the Council, both officers and councillors; making sure the council is aware of the ICN; need to know what's happening outside of attending ICN meetings. [actioned] 5

6 In all these areas identified above the new ICN Project Officer has started work on improving these, including assisting with ICN representation through the Fairness Commission process, assisting networks with coordination of events, and keeping members regularly informed about issues impacting the network outside of ICN meetings. Attitudes regarding the need to be paid expenses to attend ISP meetings were mixed. While many said they did not require the current level of expenses, and could attend without expenses, they recognised that many other networks would require such support. Payment of some kind of expenses would likely be an appreciated recognition of the costs incurred to organisations in attending and pre-reading for meetings. 6

7 It is clear that a strong majority of ICN members and ISP representatives want to see ICNC meetings continue and see them as a good forum for information sharing. However they highlighted areas in which these meetings could be improved in order to be more productive. Comments from members highlighted the areas below for change. Areas which are already being addressed are marked actioned : Meetings need to focus on action and outcomes - what can we as a group do? The Network needs to look at lobbying and collective voice, with regards to support for forums. [actioned] More background information for agenda items would be useful. [actioned] The Community Network is a good forum for sharing information, understanding the "big picture" in the Borough and for other networks but they don't always get through the agenda. Meetings benefit from structured agendas which are planned and circulated ahead, and stuck to in the meetings. [actioned] An intranet site with updates on happenings and reminders would be useful outside of meetings. Agendas for the meeting need to be stuck to, and meetings more focussed and strategic. Actions need to be followed up. [actioned] 7

8 Most ISP representatives felt that the support they have received from both the ICN and the ISP management has been adequate, however many highlighted ways in which that support could be improved. A few members felt that they were not well supported and their issues are being addressed by the ICN Project Officer. Representatives highlighted the following ways in which ISP support could be improved: A better induction process with less people per session would be good. The structure of the ISP / ICN could be made more clear, and having a clear point of contact for the ICN (as there is now). Having a dedicated ICN Project Officer earlier would have been good for coordination and structure. ISP theme group support was generally good. At the beginning of membership, shadowing ISP representatives in meetings would be useful. Better strategic briefings, and more of an idea of the voluntary sector's agenda. 8

9 Most ISP representatives agreed that the current structure through the networks, the ICN and up into the ISP is an effective way of facilitating the flow of information from the grass-roots up, and vice versa. They did feel that there were ways in which this structure could be made more efficient and effective. ISP representatives made the following comments on how the ISP structure could be developed. Those which have or are currently being addressed are labelled actioned : The structure works as long as the ICN member groups recognise the grass-roots organisations and they facilitate and value their contribution. This needs strengthening. There needs to be more action from ICNC meetings, such as the "call to action" from the meeting on the 22nd of July. More ideas should be brought in to the network from grass-roots and frontline workers, and their contribution valued. [actioned] The structure needs to work more effectively in facilitating the flow of information between the ISP, the networks and on to the grass roots organisations. The ISP and community network structure needs to be coordinated so that no individuals or groups monopolise the thematic representation. This should be managed by a co-ordinator, not have to be done by the reps in order to keep it from becoming political. Coordination and support for the network is required through a "secretariat". More of this would have helped in the past, and will help in the future, esp. to engage with [network]. Direction of communication has been too one-way (statutory to grass-roots). There needs to be more follow up support on action points. [actioned] Although supposed to be, it doesn't really feel "representative". Often agendas are put out too late, and are agendas actually motivated by local needs or national policy agendas? Is it fully representative? Also hard to gauge the success of information feeding through the 9

10 structure. The structure appears a little bureaucratic, however with the right representatives it could be an effective system. A good feedback loop is critical. More resources to facilitate relationships across the networks (e.g. an 'away-day' or similar) would be useful. [actioned] Depends on the level of facilitation and quality of support. The ICNC needs to be more open and outward looking. [actioned] It needs related support e.g. voluntary sector involvement on the Children's Trust Board only addresses concerns at the grass-roots if there is effective communication between the Board and the relevant forum. That forum needs to be properly resourced and supported for it to continue to engage with a broad range of groups at the grassroots. This support is currently under threat due to funding cuts. An important outcome of the interviews with the Community Network members is that they are almost unanimous in their view that such supported engagement, as with the ISP structure, needs to continue. The representatives were asked to highlight what the advantages of this relationship are, especially to the Council and the voluntary sector: Provides valuable dialogue and promotes relationships which help both the voluntary sector AND the council. It contributes solutions to strategic issues and need in the borough. Fills knowledge gaps in council officers regarding community issues. Networks are advantageous to the council in regards to their breadth of ideas and expertise. Promotes mutual understanding. 10

11 The system makes two way communication between the voluntary sector and statutory organisations easier, and that flows in and out of the grass roots organisations. It is important for the coordination of engagement, joint events and information sharing. Offers the opportunity to have groups voices heard especially ones that might not otherwise be heard. Facilitates consultation and makes it easier for the council to classify issues and perform equalities impact assessments. The relationship helps by providing added value, and supports vulnerable residents through providing tailored services. Leads to better informed choices being made by the statutory bodies and creates honesty between the sectors - it is more democratic. It is a potentially less bureaucratic structure than other models. The current structure helps to manage the negotiation of cuts and other issues where the council needs to be seen to be fair and accountable to residents - Networks can facilitate and help the council achieve that accountability and fairness. If Big Society takes off the voluntary sector will be more important. Opportunities for collaborative working particularly now that public sector funding is reducing so dramatically. There will need to be more creative and innovative approaches to meeting local need and voluntary groups may well be able to provide experience and knowledge in this. Understanding local need and engaging with local communities. The sector plays a vital and irreplaceable role in this area Opportunities for income generation. Again, with less public sector money voluntary groups who are working in areas of social enterprise or who provide services using other sources of income are vital 11

12 The aim of this question was to look at how the representatives and ICN members view the future of community engagement if the current ISP structure was to be removed. Most respondents felt that any future structure would be best focused around thematic networks, and those that selected other mostly felt that the structure could be a hybrid of the thematic structure and one of the other options, such as ward or a voluntary forum. Thematic networks can play a vital strategic role in representing across equalities areas and vulnerable groups in the borough. This thematic structure has already been of assistance to the Council in areas such as developing the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment and the Sustainable Community Strategy, and would be an asset for the future also. Representatives made the following comments on any future engagement structure: [Network] is concerned about ward representation as thematic issues cut across the whole borough and are more strategic. Thematic groups are also more accountable as they have to represent more than just individuals. Areas for partnership working are more easily advanced through thematic work and networks. It needs development to promote better grass-roots involvement - such as neighbourhood and residents voices. But essentially the thematic groups are important to ensure needs based groups are not ignored. The loss of thematic representation would be difficult for many people in need. For example in a ward or residents group system this may disadvantage a homelessness hostel and their service users. However, ward based organisations meeting up to address issues would be good, if this was also supported broader thematic representation. The current structure is more efficient and focused on need, than would be ward / neighbourhood groups (which would be difficult to get thematic based concerns raised). I don't 12

13 want to see a loss of voice for thematic groups and thus individuals in need. [Network] could see a thematic network working in tandem or fused with neighbourhood or ward representation, however thematic representation at ward based level would be difficult. Neighbourhood representation can be difficult to organise and make development difficult - for example how would you link the thematic issues? While many networks felt that they could attend ISP meetings without expenses being paid, this was not the case for ongoing involvement in the ICN. As this requires administration, development and related support and coordination, members felt that ICN involvement would require either financial support and/or staff support to continue, as exists now. Importantly many members stated that this coordination needed to be managed by a third party, and have a coordinator who could independently facilitate between the partners that could be managing relationships between networks, or between networks and statutory bodies. Basically this supports the style of management that exists now, with a Project Officer hosted independently, in this case by Voluntary Action Islington. Respondents made the following comments about such support: Independent co-ordination of the network is important to make the representation effective and accountable. 13

14 There needs to be support in terms of coordinating the network (staff). While [network] does not need financial support specifically, [network] recognises that other organisations may need it to participate. Coordination, organisation and follow up on ISP or Community Network actions needs a role of coordinator / officer. Internal network coordination runs risks, and external coordination is more helpful in order to achieve action. The experience of being supported by staff has been beneficial and [network] would like to see it continued. Support for coordination of the network through staff and financial support promotes better chance of success, and avoids politicking. At least staff support to coordinate effective representation, monitor attendance etc, would be needed. Any such network needs a coordinator, externally organising the network. Internal coordination is not likely to be effective. Without coordination support (and funding) the community network structure would be less sustainable. It would probably be more cost effective to coordinate externally (e.g. having the Project Officer role) as this provides better economy of scale and a better overview of issues than if coordinated internally. Issues facing networks and their member organisations An important opportunity through this interview process was to identify the key issues facing networks member organisations. This provides important information for Voluntary Action Islington, the ICN and the Council, highlighting where need exists and areas in which communication could be targeted and improved. Key issues facing members organisations were: Fundraising: adapting to the new environment, how to fund core costs, esp. Forums, providing and maintaining sustainability. Premises Governance: strategy, communication e.g. new media, HR. Improving the network s relationship with the Council. Funding - esp. re working in partnership for bids; sustainable funding. LA strategy - e.g. Rough Sleeping Strategy and Homelessness Prevention Strategy Governance - improving / developing policy and procedures for small organisations. Knowing the impact of cuts in council and NHS funding 14

15 Staff / personnel changes in statutory bodies makes communication on projects difficult, especially in this time of restructuring - hard to know who is responsible for what. The question of how at risk are their services and anxiety over how the NHS will deal with contracts, not convinced that they will stick to the Compact. Lack of clear and effective systems regarding commissioning, and concern for the future of small group commissioning Marginalisation of minority groups in access to health, will equality issues be addressed? Is there a downgrading of environment and sustainability issues in the Borough? If so we fear a degrading of the local environment due to downgrading of the issues and cuts to the sector. The Future - regarding funding, what services will exist in the future, where do members move strategically? Looking at collaboration and partnership, possibly mergers and how that can develop. Access to leisure facilities for specific groups - e.g. youth and sports clubs esp. regarding cost and availability; funding - implications of cuts. Funding - Case work, Legal Services Commission is removing inner city funding and shifting it to other areas; removal of ISP funds means capacity will fall from April; funding cuts will impact on the ability to signpost and create pressure on community groups. Demand - the impact of the recession has lead to an increase in demand, which will likely get worse with public sector cuts. Trainee workers - programme run by the Legal Services Commission is being cut meaning it will be difficult for new solicitors and advice workers to get on the job experience. Cuts in local funding and uncertainty regarding the impact across the membership. Understanding the approach and direction of the new council. Changes to benefits, especially housing benefit and Disability Living Allowance are putting pressure on disabled people; What will be the impact of cuts in services in the voluntary sector? How to reduce social isolation. For questions or further information regarding this report or the Islington Community Network please contact: Duncan McLaggan Project Officer Community Network Voluntary Action Islington T E duncan.mclaggan@vai.org.uk 200a Pentinville Road, London N1 9JP Mike Sherriff Chief Executive Voluntary Action Islington T E mike.sherriff@vai.org.uk 200a Pentonville Road, London N1 9JP 15