Written evidence submitted by Voice4Change
England and Urban Forum
(LOCO 095)
1. ABOUT VOICE4CHANGE
ENGLAND AND
URBAN FORUM
1.1 Voice4Change England (V4CE) is a national
support organisation for the Black and Minority Ethnic voluntary,
community and social enterprise sector (BME VCS). It is the leading
voice in the formation of public policy and practice that has
a direct effect on the development, delivery and impact of BME
voluntary, community organisations and social enterprises (BME
VCS organisations). It supports the sector to build its capacity,
secure resources and to provide an informed and authentic voice
for the BME VCS, at a national, regional and local level, in order
to increase its ability to meet the needs of disadvantaged communities.
It aims to develop a mutual understanding between the BME VCS
and government to ensure policies are responsive to BME communities'
needs and aspirations.
1.2 Urban Forum is a national membership charity,
with a membership of 700 local voluntary and community sector
(VCS) organisations. Urban Forum carries out policy development
and research to help communities and local VCS organisations to
have more of a say in what happens in their local areas.
2. ABOUT OUR
RESPONSE
2.1 Our response focuses on three areas for investigation
set out in the terms of reference for the Inquiry—devolution
of power, decentralisation of services, and accountability. We
have provided a number of recommendations for action for the Government
to consider under each area. We also look particularly at the
ways in which the BME VCS can be supported and recognised to take
forward the government's localism agenda.
2.2 Our response also draws on evidence from
consultation exercises V4CE has carried out to inform its response
to CLG's consultation on Tackling Race Inequalities and the Office
of Civil Society consultation on the Government Action Plan. In
addition we have used findings from V4CE's Shared vision for
the future of the BME VCS (2010). This included
analysis of over 100 online survey responses as well as thirteen
in-depth interviews with leaders in the BME VCS.
2.3 Our response also draws on the findings from
a number of pieces of research carried out by Urban Forum: Citizens
and Local Decision-making: What drives feelings of influence?
(2010); Involving Communities. A Legal Duty? (2010); Where
are the Women in LSPs? (2008); BME representation in LSPs
(2006). It also draws on emerging findings from current research
on community governance, and improving communication between local
councillors and communities. Lastly, it draws on evidence from
a series of Big Society briefing events held by Urban Forum around
the country.
3. DEVOLUTION
OF POWER
Devolution to communities
3.1 Devolution of power from central to local
government is welcome and overdue. Equally as important is that
devolution of power goes further than merely devolving power from
Whitehall to the Town Hall.
3.2 As we move into a new era of civic engagement,
the central question we need to answer is how we can ensure all
communities can hold services and local government to account,
and can play an active role in shaping priorities and services
in their neighbourhoods. Furthermore, we need to determine how
to do this in a way that tackles existing inequality rather than
exacerbates it.
3.3 To do this, we need a framework for organisation,
resourcing and decision-making at a local level that can support
community action in a socially just way. It needs to support the
growth of new civil initiatives that promote community resilience
as part of our local economies—using ideas such as community
co-operatives and community shares. It also needs to enable communities
to exert an influence over decision-making through reformed and
new forms of local and neighbourhood governance structures. In
short, there needs to be a real devolution of power economically
and politically to the community, taking a bottom-up approach.
Communities' influence on local politics and economics
3.4 The public's feeling of influence over
decisions that affect them locally is low, and is declining.[41]
Research carried out by Urban Forum in partnership with the University
of Manchester and Ipsos Mori[42]
found that a principal driver of feelings of influence is people
believing that they are being consulted, being listened to, and
having their views acted upon.
3.5 Conversely, experiences of poor consultation
were shown to significantly undermine feelings of influence. Previous
efforts to empower and involve communities have been hampered
by a managerialist approach, dealing with the question of community
empowerment as a performance issue, subject to measurement (National
Indicator 4). For localism to truly devolve power it needs
to provide genuinely new opportunities for citizens to influence
what happens in their area, and a clear set of rights. Retention
of targets and measures relating to the promotion of equality
and human rights is essential to target inequality in a local
area.
3.6 Local people are experts in their own neighbourhoods
and communities and their own needs. Devolution to the community
requires more avenues, and reinvigorating of avenues through which
communities can influence local decision-making, both at the neighbourhood
and local authority level.
3.7 In some areas, neighbourhood-level engagement
is viewed by public bodies as time intensive for little increase
in public involvement. However, evidence by organisations such
as Action with Communities in Rural England (ACRE) shows us that
models of neighbourhood governance that devolve real power, such
as neighbourhood councils and community led planning, can generate
high levels of participation and renewed local interest in the
future of the community. Urban Forum is one of a number of organisations
currently looking at how these models can be adapted for urban
settings. The project is following the progress of a number of
pilots, including in Hereford where plans are being developed
at a neighbourhood level, and brought together to form a sustainable
communities plan for the whole of the local authority area.
3.8 Stronger neighbourhood governance needs to
be clearly linked to strategic level decision-making at a local
authority level—including Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs),
and Local Economic Partnerships (LEPs) so that strategic decisions
are made based on community needs and aspirations. LEPs need to
use the Regional Growth Fund to support transformative change,
including development of new forms of community based enterprise,
not just plug the gap in local authority budgets.
3.9 Some of the commitments in the Liberal Democrats'
2010 manifesto to reform the economy are key ingredients to devolving
power to the local level—these include an overhaul of the
tax system, allowing for a local income tax and Regional Stock
Exchanges, and providing the infrastructure for local economic
development. This has the potential to expand and support community
ownership of facilities and services. They also make explicit
commitment to improving the balance between large and small retailers,
and the introduction of local retail development plans to protect
the high street.
3.10 The significance and potential of local
VCS activity in civil society and the local economy needs to be
reflected in governance structures—both as the enablers
of social action in economic activity and co-ordinators of it.
An increase in self-help activity by citizens and community groups
is critical to the building of a Big Society, and specific commitments
backed up with resources will be necessary to make this a reality.
Equality of influence and resources?
3.11 In developing improved systems of local
governance, we need to learn the lessons from what has occurred
before. There is clear evidence that BME communities and women
are seriously under-represented on Local Strategic Partnerships
(LSPs).[43]
Lack of representation is particularly acute for minority groups
in rural areas and suburbs. If decision-making is to be devolved
to all communities, the mechanisms by which this happens must
be more representative, and more importantly we need to develop
and stimulate participation linked to these structures that involve
all sections of the community.
3.12 Furthermore, there is some risk that funding
communities to organise services themselves—through anticipated
proposals for community right to buy and a community right to
bid, and new "free schools"—could exacerbate inequality.
Those with money, expertise and resources are better equipped
to use their assets to organise themselves more effectively than
those that do not, and this could lead to a redirecting of public
money to affluent areas and away from where they are needed most.
On the other hand, initiatives that put power and resources into
the hands of deprived or otherwise marginalised communities to
organise themselves can be a powerful antidote to disaffection
and alienation. The VCS and the public sector both have key
roles to play in providing the support, expertise and resources
to bridge this asset gap, to ensure devolution of power is implemented
in a socially just way. They can only do this if they are provided
with the resources to do so.
3.13 In terms of setting priorities for local
spending and allocation of resources, it is right that there is
improved consultation with residents, and referenda could play
a role in this. It is essential at the same time to ensure that
minority interests—for example people with disabilities,
or lesbian and gay residents—are safeguarded. Too often
policy-making and priority setting will favour those with the
most resources to lobby in their own interests. VCS organisations
(including BME VCS organisations) have an essential role to play
in reaching communities who are under-represented in decision-making
due to inequality, poverty and social exclusion. The VCS and
the public sector needs to be supported to continue to play a
key role in advocating on behalf of marginalised groups, and supporting
communities to both have their say, and organise in their own
interests.
Recommendations for Devolution of Power:
1. Local government and civil society leaders
need to work together to develop new forms of local governance
at the neighbourhood level, with clear links into wider strategic
decision-making bodies.
2. This should include an aspiration for Community
Led Planning to become the norm at a neighbourhood level.
3. Thought needs to be given to how increased
levels of participation in co-production and social action can
address inequality rather than exacerbate it. Both local authorities
and the VCS have clear roles to play in this, and consideration
needs to be given to what the VCS needs are to enable them to
play this role. Recognition of the role BME VCS organisations
have to play in advocating for the interests of marginalised communities
must be acknowledged and active effort to recruit BME VCS organisations
on to policy tables should be taken.
4. Government should ensure appropriate funding
options and resources are available for small organisations as
part of the Big Society programme.
4. DECENTRALISATION
IN SERVICE
DELIVERY
Performance measure
4.1 It is widely acknowledged that the focus
on top down targets in recent years produced some unintended negative
results. A shift in focus to outcomes from the point of view of
the service user, and targeting of resources to meet local needs
is extremely welcome. A new framework for performance management
needs to be in place where service providers are answerable to
local citizens and service users, rather than to national government;
that safeguards against service failure and against discrimination;
and where citizens have a clear understanding of what they can
expect, and what to do when things go wrong. Monitoring of
standards to assure quality should be done through involvement
of service users, residents and peer review. The VCS has a role
to play in this to involve service users in evaluating services.
4.2 This is not to say that there need not be
accountability to central government. Central government's
role in this new framework should be to provide minimum standards
in core areas, and ensure regulatory compliance, including equality
and human rights requirements in law and robust use of Equality
Impact Assessments to ensure decisions about resources and policy
development are made with consideration of the needs of all sections
of the community, including the most disadvantaged and marginalised.
4.3 Placed Based Budgeting (and evidence from
the Total Place pilots) provides an opportunity for public services
to be shaped around an assessment of local need as well as inducing
efficiency savings. In order for the Total Place agenda to work,
it needs to take a bottom-up approach to achieve desired social
outcomes.
4.4 The Commission on 2020 Public Services From
social security to social productivity report[44]
suggests three significant shifts in how public services are delivered.
Firstly, a shift in culture to one where public services engage
communities, families and enterprises is necessary to achieve
better outcomes. Second is a shift in power—so that public
services are co-designed with communities, and citizens control
more of the money spent on services as well as neighbourhoods
being able to commission their own services. The third is a shift
in finance, so that the financing of public services is more open,
transparent and understandable. We support this approach and believe
that all three shifts need to happen at the same time for there
to be the necessary transformation.
Making Community Right to Bid support localism
4.5 Rather than thinking in terms of the limits
of localism, the question we believe needs to be addressed is
what parameters need to be put on public service reform in order
to further a localism agenda? This seems in keeping with the introduction
of the General Power of Competence for local authorities. Whilst
localism and devolution of power to communities can support public
service reform, it is not a given that public service reform supports
localism. If proposals on opening up public services are not
managed properly then it is not local business or charities that
will take over services, but large corporations.
4.6 Thought needs to be given to two areas. First,
how new legislation such as the Community Right to Bid is constructed
and implemented, so that local community organisations really
can be involved in the co-production of services, and that decisions
are not made on the basis of cost alone, but also the social return
on investment and added community benefits, including keeping
resources and finance within the locality. Second, thought needs
to be given to what support and resources are needed by local
voluntary and community organisations to move into new areas of
service delivery—for example start-up funding through economic
reforms, training, access to shared IT resources and physical
assets.
Meeting minority needs through decentralised services
4.7 Particular attention should be given to how
the needs of minority communities are met through the decentralisation
of services and public service reform. BME-specific services have
been developed in response to the failure of mainstream services
to meet the needs of BME communities. They provide services sensitive
to cultural, religious and linguistic needs that mainstream services
often overlook and reach communities that other providers label
"hard to reach". V4CE's consultation participants particularly
felt that those from disadvantaged ethnic minorities would go
to their own communities for help and support. V4CE's case study
report[45]
on BME specialist services demonstrates their value in terms of:
meeting local needs; empowering users; creating bridging social
capital; and a wider contribution to social cohesion:
"Cultural sensitivity, understanding and
flexibility is not always available through other agencies. Because
the organisation is needs-led, the client/customer always feels
their needs come before the running of the service i.e. we fit
in with them wherever possible!"
Participant at V4CE Cohesion Guidance for Funders
consultation event, Manchester, March 08.
4.8 The ability of BME VCS organisations to tackle
equalities and be more effective in meeting the needs of the VCS
as a whole is endorsed by research conducted for the Joseph Rowntree
Foundation.[46]
4.9 However, recent years have seen a general
trend to "mainstream" equality and move away from self-determination
and empowerment of BME VCS organisations where marginalised communities
come together and develop their own solutions to the discrimination
they face. Instead preference has been given in commissioning
and procurement to large generic service providers. BME VCS organisations
specifically and smaller VCS organisations generally have been
shown to face particular barriers to winning public contracts.[47]
4.10 BME-specific services such as those delivered
by Southall Black Sisters and the Asian People's Disability Alliance
have developed in response to the failure of generic services
to meet the needs of BME communities. V4CE's case study report[48]
found that specialist services meet local needs, empower users,
create bridging social capital, and contribute to social cohesion.
Monitoring arrangements to ensure adherence to legal requirements
needs to include explicit understanding that equalities legislation
sometimes requires the development of BME-specific services, and
other services specific to minorities.[49]
Recommendations for the decentralisation of services:
5. A new framework for performance management
needs to be devised giving service deliverers consistent, clearly
set out standards, expectations, and mechanisms for dealing with
poor services communicated to the public. Thought needs to be
given to the role of service users in overseeing service delivery,
as well as peer review. Thought also needs to be given to the
continuing central role in enforcing common core standards, and
adherence to legal requirements.
6. The Community Right to Bid and other measures
to reform Public Services need to be devised so that local charities,
community groups and social enterprises can scale up and have
pathways into new areas of service delivery if they want to. This
has implications both in how new legislation and guidance is formulated,
and resourcing the support that needs to be given to local VCS
organisations to move into new areas of work for local neighbourhoods.
7. Local government should work with all equality
groups to identify gaps in services at a local level, and use
Equality Impact Assessments to come to decisions.
8. Government should ensure equality and Compact
duties are an integral part of commissioning and procurement processes.
9. Public sector contracts should include criteria
for social return on investment, and wider community benefits
as well as value for money and allow for flexibility in
how contracts are delivered so that community needs can best be
met.
10. Commissioners should consider opening up
opportunities for smaller providers by putting in sub-clauses
that prime contractors will work with small providers who may
not have the track record required of the prime contractor.
11. Place based budgeting should be responsive
to local needs around areas such as employment, housing and social
care and health. Thus thorough area assessments of need must be
carried out in local areas to prioritise services. Local government
should work with the BME VCS to help facilitate this process.
12. Government should ensure it follows a set
of principles, especially a compact way of working, in relation
to all parts of the local VCS in implementation of cuts.
13. Government should ensure Equality Impact
Assessments are conducted robustly and in accordance with the
law on all proposed policy changes and funding cuts.
14. Government should explore ways of providing
a strong national steer on equality and human rights objectives
whilst allowing local authorities to be responsive to local needs.
5. ACCOUNTABILITY
WITHIN PUBLIC
SERVICE REFORM
5.1 Local public services need to be accountable
to the public who use them and ultimately (as tax payers and council
tax payers) pay for them. In the context of public service reform,
introducing many more providers of services from VCS and private
sector, this means new and better mechanisms to hold service deliverers
to account.
5.2 Local councillors, local community organisers
and service users all have a role to play in overseeing services,
and need to have the power to hold public investigations and inquiries
into any aspect of public service delivery. To achieve this,
local council scrutiny functions need to transformed, looking
beyond work carried out by councils to all public service provision
in the local area, and made open to the public, with service users,
civic leaders and VCS organisations playing a central leading
role alongside elected councillors.
5.3 Local councillors also have an essential
role as part of their democratic mandate to protect minority interests,
and mediating between the different interests within communities.
They also have an essential role to play in maintaining a strategic
overview. Planning is a good example of this. While greater public
involvement in planning is greatly welcomed, in some instances
local authorities should make unpopular but essential decisions
about land use (eg for Gypsy and Traveller sites). Forthcoming
proposals on the Community Right to Build also need to consider
this in formulation, so that the local authorities have a duty
and power to consider wider impact of development beyond the immediate
locality.
Recommendations on accountability of public services:
15. Scrutiny by local authorities needs to be
transformed, so that it is a shared process of overseeing by councillors
working with service users, civic leaders, and community groups,
in a way that has power, is public, and is investigative.
16. Scrutiny and local government generally,
has an explicit role to play in protecting minority interests,
and making decisions on priority where there are competing interests
within communities.
October 2010
41 Declining from 44% of the
population in 2001 to 37% at the end of 2009. (Citizenship Survey) Back
42
Citizens and local decision-making: What drives feelings of Influence?
(Newton, Pierce, Richardson and Williams, Urban Forum, 2010) Back
43
Where are the Women in LSPs? (Urban Forum, Oxfam, Women's
Resource Centre, 2008); BME representation in LSPs (BTEG
and Urban Forum 2006, for CRE, now EHRC) Back
44
From Social Security to Social Productivity: a Vision for 2020
Public Services (Commission on 2020 Public Services, 2009) Back
45
Discussion Paper 3: Evidencing the value of the BME Third Sector
(Voice4Change England, 2008) Back
46
Black and Minority Ethnic Voluntary and Community Organisations:
their role and future development in England and Wales (Mcleod
M, Owen D & Khamis C., 2001, Policy Study Institute for Joseph
Rowntree Foundation). Back
47
Evaluation of the National Programme for Third Sector Commissioning:
Consultation with BME Third Sector Organisations (Shared Intelligence,
2008) which found that BME VCS organisations experienced many
of the same barriers as small local VCS organisations generally,
but also experienced limited understanding of communities needs,
and lack of trust of Black VCOs amongst commissioners, institutional
racism, lack of engagement with BME VCOs at the early stages of
the commissioning process. Back
48
Discussion Paper 3: Evidencing the value of the BME Third Sector
(Voice4Change England, 2008) Back
49
An Independent Legal Analysis of the Compact Code of Good Practice
on Relations with "BME" Voluntary and Community Organisations
(Monaghan, K, 2008, for the Commission for the Compact) Back
| 
