1

Making a contribution: Big Society in action

Be Birmingham

Summit report 18th March 2011

Contents page Introduction......................................................................3

The Right Revd The Lord Bishop of Birmingham, David Urquhart............................................................................5

Lord Wei ...........................................................................7

Good practice examples .................................................8

Action groups summary of questions and next steps11

Key themes from the discussions and the final plenary session ...........................................................................16

Next steps.......................................................................18

Action group reports.....................................................19 Action group 1 ............................................................................................19 Action group 2 ............................................................................................21 Action group 3 ............................................................................................23 Action group 4 ............................................................................................25 Action group 5 ............................................................................................28 Action group 6 ............................................................................................30 Action group 7 ............................................................................................33 Action group 8 ............................................................................................35 Action group 9 ............................................................................................38 Action group 10 ..........................................................................................40 Action group 11 ..........................................................................................42 Action group 12 ..........................................................................................44 Action group 13 ..........................................................................................47 Action group 14 ..........................................................................................50 Action group 15 ..........................................................................................53 Action group 16 ..........................................................................................55

3

Introduction Be Birmingham’s eighth summit, Making a Contribution: Big Society in Action, took place at the Muath Trust premises, The Bordesley Centre, on 18th March 2011. This report summarises the presentations given and the discussions held on the day.

Be Birmingham was delighted that Lord Wei, the Government’s Chief Advisor for Big Society, was able to attend and address the summit which was chaired as usual by The Right Reverent David Urquhart, Bishop of Birmingham. The summit was also addressed by the Deputy Leader of Birmingham City Council and Chair of Be Birmingham, Councillor Paul Tilsley.

Representatives from three organisations gave presentations on their work as good practice examples. These were designed to stimulate discussion during the summit, most of which took place in 16 action groups which were held during the morning. A table summarising the questions addressed by each group and the next steps drawn from the discussions appears on pages 11 to 15 with a full summary of each discussion included on pages 19 to 55. The summit was attended by over 200 people (almost 48% from the public sector, 44% from the voluntary, community and faith sectors and almost 8% from private sector organisations). For the first time a Be Birmingham summit was run in conjunction with another event. This was a Resident University seminar entitled Co-producing the Big Society which ran at the same venue on the afternoon of the 18th and all day on 19th March.

4

The following is taken from the on-line evaluation of the event:

28 per cent of the attendees who responded to the survey were “very satisfied” and 52 per cent “fairly satisfied” with the summit overall.

The summit received positive feedback about the keynote speakers, programme content, market place, venue and action groups.

Some of the specific comments made were:

o “The action groups worked well and perhaps because of the enthusiasm.” o “The most useful part of the summit was the community speakers. Overall

they were quite inspiring.” o “The question for our group was ambiguous - who are '"we" - statutory

sector, voluntary sector, individual officers, organisation leaders, politicians, etc.?”

o “Timed well with the marketplace opportunity and good that there was an afternoon event that followed on.”

o “Have more community/residents input. They need to be involved more in deciding on the future of the city.”

o “The market place was too crowded to get around but otherwise this was a very informative summit.”

o “Roving reporters didn't feed back all that was discussed and did not show case some great ideas.”

o “Short and sweet, but with a bitter pill!” o “I thought the event was very well organised and the duration was most

appropriate, in terms of the overall content and messages conveyed to the audience.”

5

The Right Revd The Lord Bishop of Birmingham, David Urquhart The Right Reverend David Urquhart, Bishop of Birmingham, began his opening address by welcoming all the participants and noting with pleasure the large number of attendees. He referred to the positive messages in the Big Society agenda but also noted the challenges of scarce resources. He felt the latter would be a short-term issue but that the Big Society agenda presented opportunities to move forward, emphasising the responsibilities that everyone has, the importance of acting with compassion and of ensuring that the most vulnerable in society are catered for. He also referred to what he felt was a challenge to the faith community with the Big Society agenda to show they can work together effectively.

6

Cllr Paul Tilsley Chair of Be Birmingham and Deputy Leader, Birmingham City Council The Deputy Leader said that central to the city’s sustainable community strategy Vision 2026, is the strategic outcome, Making a Contribution. Making a Contribution is about citizens, organisations and businesses taking personal and collective action to improve communities. He spoke about the need to encourage citizens to take responsibility for their own lives rather than relying on the state to solve their problems. He emphasised that it is not just about money - evidence shows that individuals are happier if they have control over their own lives and have a stake in society. He also stressed the importance of making the best use of the available resources to protect and support the most vulnerable in our city. The private sector has a role to play in Big Society, said Cllr Tilsley, and it is also important that the city council rises to the challenge. The council needs to operate as efficiently as possible and prioritise budget spend against priority outcomes. It needs to become a more enabling and empowering council, willing to work side-by-side with communities to find solutions to local problems, to explore new models of service delivery and, for example, make commissioning easier and less bureaucratic.

7

Lord Wei   Government Adviser for Big Society Lord Wei recognised that Birmingham was already actively taking part in the Big Society through its civic history but, even here, there is still work to be done. He emphasised that the journey will be long and tough, but through working together we will get there. Big Society, Lord Wei stressed, is not a cover for cuts and it’s the government’s job to make things fair. Encouraging local budgeting is one way to proceed and he highlighted the fact that Birmingham is leading on Community Based Budgeting. He spoke about the need to encourage people to give, for councils to devolve further in to neighbourhoods, for employees to be innovative, for example by forming mutuals, and for the voluntary sector to focus on their core activities and explore ways of working collaboratively. Lord Wei outlined a three layered approach enabling Big Society by: ensuring everyone knows each other’s name; building a strong neighbourhood watch; and ensuring strong resources on the ground. Clarifying the need for the Big Society approach, Lord Wei said the country’s demographics are changing as people are getting older and less tax is being paid. Our economic challenge is to be creative with how we use resources as some challenges will be harder to solve than others. He pointed out that the Public Services Reform White Paper will give communities the powers to pool budgets. How do we know that Big Society is working? His visualisation is that there will be more active citizen groups; more fairness and social justice; general well being in people’s lives including how connected we are with each other; and a reduction in the gap between expectation and reality, with people having control over their lives.

8

Good practice examples

Birmingham is overflowing with good examples of Big Society-type working in practice. One of the purposes of the summit was to bring existing practitioners together to share their examples and identify ways in which such activity can be developed. In order to stimulate discussion in the action groups short presentations were given about three such examples. Witton Lodge Community Association, Perry Common, Linda Hines MBE Witton Lodge Community Association (WLCA), based in a tough estate in the north of Birmingham, was an early pioneer in the development of community-led estate transformation. With more than 10 years’ experience, residents know how to build a sustainable community anchor organisation based on community-owned assets. They have learned about the development of mixed communities. They can demonstrate how to build community confidence, to grow their own community champions and establish resident-led coordinated neighbourhood management. Witton Lodge has been recognised as a Guide Neighbourhood and the residents’ journey from adversity to achievement provides important lessons for other neighbourhoods. Karis Medical Centre and Neighbour Scheme, Dr Ross Bryson Set up in the 1980s Karis Neighbour Scheme (KNS) provides whole person health care for the poor and disadvantaged in North Edgbaston and Ladywood, with a team of over 100 Birmingham trained doctors and volunteers. Offering practical help, in the form of transforming homes, gardens and giving food to homeless people this creates a sense of family and community, providing functional support such as free child care and English classes.

9

The centre has doctors and nurses with differing specialist skills, from physiotherapists to health trainers, but the centre was the first to extend its service by having a community health care chaplain to help build bridges with local faith community leaders, leading to a steering group which became a registered charity – Karis Neighbour Scheme.

In Birmingham, there are thousands of people from different ethnic origins, who have the same source of inspiration to make a difference in their neighbourhoods. By accessing this potential resource communities can regenerate and fulfil the needs of their own area. Birmingham Ethnic Education Advisory Service (BEEAS), Najma Razaq A registered charity established in 1984, based in Handsworth, the main purpose of BEEAS is to improve the life chances of some of the most disadvantaged communities in the city. The organisation provides formal and informal language classes, along with education and training, guidance and advice. Other services include signposting to members of the community and assisting in enhancing employability and access to training. BEEAS has a number of community learning champions that provide informal learning circles which are initiated by the community. By enabling different providers to operate at venues such as sheltered housing schemes, owned by the city council and close to where the community lives, these activities, which are also supported by Joseph Chamberlain College, help provide important services at significantly reduced costs.

10

Market place In addition to these short presentations the summit programme included a market place of displays, stands and pods showcasing a much wider range of good practice examples. The following groups/activities were included:

o Birmingham Guide Neighbourhoods o BVSC Services o Chamberlain Forum & Community Network 4 Birmingham (CN4B) o ChangeKitchen o Comm:Pact o Digital Birmingham o INLOGOV, University of Birmingham o ISE Shop for Change o Karis Neighbour Scheme o Lozells Faith Forum o SIFA Fireside o Strengthening Communities - Community Asset Transfer o Textiles by St Annes o The Be Heard and Be Involved databases o The Sweet Project o Worth Unlimited

11

Action groups summary of questions and next steps The table below presents a summary of the questions considered by each of the 16 action groups and the next steps drawn from the reports of the discussions.

Action group Next steps from the discussions 1. How can Birmingham develop a new Citizen University to build the skills citizens need to make neighbourhoods better places to live?

In summary, the group was in favour of piloting the Citizens’ University in Birmingham but that it should be implemented in partnership with existing groups and initiatives, building on the strengths in the city and creating a steering group that would ensure that its implementation reflects the diversity in the city and is based on an understanding of where it could make the most difference and where one neighbourhood could support another.

2. What do we need to do to make better use of digital media and open data so that people can get more effectively involved in planning and delivering public services?

That Be Birmingham ensures that all its web content meets open data criteria.

That discussions continue between those attending this session and others as appropriate with the aim of encouraging greater access to, and use of, open data by individuals and community groups across Birmingham.

Partners to promote understanding of open data

3. What part does formal volunteering play in the Big Society? What should we do to promote it?

Be Birmingham partners and BVSC to ensure the two-year Volunteering Plan for the city: ‘Make this the Year you Volunteer’ is implemented.

4. How do community networks (including social media) help people take action? What can we do to enable them?

Promote community networks through social media tools which can be facilitated by existing surgeries run by organisations such as Podnosh

Promote the use of systems such as time banks to strengthen links between community networks and the public and voluntary sectors

Promote the use of the Be Involved and Be Heard databases

Encourage membership and use of the CN4B website/resources

5. How can partners work together to ensure support is available to community groups and voluntary organisations to assist them to be as effective as they can?

There is a need for a mapping exercise in relation to support to VCOs that could be provided by the public and/or private sectors

There are opportunities for greater sharing of resources e.g. skills, expertise and facilities, which need to be tapped into

Existing mechanisms that support good practice e.g. the Compact need to be publicised and utilised better

12

6. What are the lessons from neighbourhoods where things have got better – and stayed better? How can we share these lessons with other neighbourhoods?

In the succession from neighbourhood working that was undertaken during the WNF period the following were highlighted:

Seeking opportunities to share lessons learned and for this to be done in an open and honest way: what worked well and what did not - the difficulty of achieving this in practice was noted

Importance of not re-inventing the learning pool

Utilise the assets and resources that are already within neighbourhoods and work towards increased ownership of neighbourhood working where it is successful

Avoid going backwards in the drive to save money i.e. not re-centralising but continuing the process of control by service providers being given up from the centre

7. What part does business play in the Big Society and how can we help it to do more?

Voluntary and community sector infra-structure agencies to encourage joint working between the private and voluntary and community sectors to encourage businesses to discharge their corporate social responsibility - not necessarily by providing funding but in kind

Use existing channels (e.g. the Local Enterprise Partnership) to encourage businesses to be more engaged and discharge their corporate social responsibility in ways that support local priorities

Encourage more joined-up working within the public sector 8. Does owning and managing assets help voluntary and community groups do more for the community? What can we do to enable it?

For the city council:

Promote asset transfer more pro-actively e.g. further development of the website www.communityassettransfer.com

Aim at greater flexibility in terms of governance and act with less risk aversion – assume success rather than failure

Ensure wide-spread understanding of the Valuing Worth Methodology and that it is rolled out and embedded in a consistent way.

A revenue stream within the local authority needed to support and enable the process of asset transfer (e.g. mainstream or bid to Lottery ‘Reaching Communities’ programme)

For community organisations considering asset transfer:

Ensure asset transfer is a viable option before proceeding - business planning, governance and finance needed.

Support to community organisation considering asset transfer of third sector infrastructure organisations necessary

Jointly:

Relationship building must be seen as an important part of the process – clear, consistent information and process, communication and use of language, honesty

Both sides sitting round the table together at the beginning and factor in the use of independent neutral facilitators/ negotiators

13

Huge culture change required on both sides, particularly the local authority - a more relationship based than transactional approach.

Need for further joint generic training on improving communication, engagement, negotiation, influence, two way dialogue i.e. Voice, Echo and Structured Dialogue etc

9. What ideas do we have for new ways of delivering public services? How can we test them out?

In summary, the group came up with several options for new ways of delivering public services. Some suggestions focused on improving existing mechanisms for service delivery, such as supporting community and voluntary organisations to understand the strategic landscape and language of commissioners, and vice versa: that local authorities and private organisations understand the monetary value of the social capital they bring to the city. Maximising opportunities of existing partnerships and networks to share national learning and adapt processes to benefit Birmingham’s communities was also mentioned as a way to test new ways of working. Our community leaders also need to be equipped to enable them to drive elements of community regeneration.

Some suggestions focused on new ways of working, for example, a review of the overall benefits of performance-based pay models with private and community and voluntary sector, and that a less strict and hierarchical relationship between commissioner and delivery agent could increase risk taking, therefore developing new innovative approaches that could yield more effective and efficient outcomes. Improving cross-sector and cross-agency relationships by working towards shared objectives through joint ventures was also thought of as crucial.

10. Will moving to new models of service delivery and backing social innovation lead to inequality across the city? If it does, then what can we do about it?

The following actions were agreed by the group:

A further discussion needed to take place regarding the Old Bank and Mobile Community Outreach Project;

Identify a clear equality framework to ensure that inequality did not happen by default or design through commissioning and procurement.

Take forward the creation of different models of community hubs: designed and rooted in communities - taking into account the success of the Mobile Community Outreach Project;

The development of digital inclusion to consider ways of becoming more inclusive of the diverse needs of communities across Birmingham when sharing information; and

Supporting social innovation through social enterprise sector such as community interest companies.

14

11. What action at individual, neighbourhood and community levels could improve our city’s health?

Those with responsibility to make a difference must be accountable

Personalised budgets must be seen as an opportunity for those holding them to improve things for themselves in an holistic way – the importance of people being informed how they can be used was noted e.g. using the money for bikes not medicines. It was also mentioned that by pooling budgets things could be improved jointly

Wider application of the non-clinical aspects of health are important in improving prevention

People acting collectively can make a difference – there is a need to identify the keys that will bring people together and what will make them passionate about addressing an issue

12. How do we reach out to people who are isolated and excluded, including them in the Big Society and make them part of the solution?

The following were the key points that need to be built into future action and programmes:

Build more social capital and develop the skills to do so e.g. good listening (see suggested questions for council to consider above.)

The creation of effective networks can help address isolation including those that are unusual

Ensure we build legacy and build on experience e.g. the lessons of Total Place

Where there is consultation there needs to be feedback and action as a result – otherwise consultation process becomes discredited

People should be consulted where they are (bus stops, supermarkets etc) rather than being expected to come to those doing the consultation

Where commitments are made there needs to be delivery – those that make commitments need to be held to account

The city council needs to change it culture e.g. more open including breaking out of nine to five culture e.g. officers need to be more accessible for consultations /engagement

13. What does the Localism Bill mean for communities in Birmingham?

Partners to consider piloting the Bill or elements of the Bill in one or more areas – some of these are likely to be incorporated into existing pilots on Community Based Budgets and Small Area Budgets

Partners to consider the implications of the Bill in more detail including: whether the existing Neighbourhood Forums in the city are fit for purpose in terms of the Bill; how the public sector will need to change as a result of the Bill when it comes into force; and to consider potential negative consequences

15

14. What part do clean and safe neighbourhoods play in encouraging more people to get involved in looking after an area? What can we do to encourage pride in the neighbourhood?

Identify ways to share and replicate good practice e.g. with the Safe Haven summer inter-generational project

There is more potential for engaging positively with schools and local opportunities need to be sought to so this. Engaging with and involving children at primary level is particularly important

There are groups on the ground in communities that already exist and can assist

15. How can we make people who are disaffected with society want to be part of Big Society solutions?

In response to the question it is as much about the things without which the Big Society will not happen – the group came up with the following list: Belonging Involvement in society Goal orientated Strategic Operational Continually communicated Interdependency Evolutionary Trust Yielding results

16. What will success look like, how will we know what is working and that a difference is being made?

The discussion points above will be fed in to wider discussions about performance arrangements for Vision 2026. In particular, the work nationally on measures for “happiness” or well-being connect very closely to the issues raised in this discussion – linking both community-owned and appropriate performance measures with the concept of broader and different measures of success. Further details on how this might be developed are expected later in the year. Alongside that more transparent and easily-accessed performance information will be published.

16

Key themes from the discussions and the final plenary session The outcomes from the discussions that took place in the 16 action groups and particularly the proposed next steps have been captured in the table on pages 11 to 15 and in the group reports on pages 19 to 55. Drawn from the group discussions, the following were recurring themes from the discussions:

One of the purposes of the summit was to acknowledge and share good practice and, based on the market place, the presentations and the discussions; there is an abundance of examples. There were a number of points made stressing the need to build on these good examples, learn from our successes and aim to replicate good practice rather than re-invent the wheel

Birmingham is a large and diverse city: what works in one area will not necessarily work everywhere

A number of points were made about services and activities being insufficiently joined-up and the importance of working together and building relationships was emphasised

The need for culture change in the council and other public agencies was highlighted but also the need for the voluntary and community sector to step up and grasp the nettle

The need to explore new models and different ways of delivering services came out of a number of discussion

There was cynicism expressed about the Big Society agenda itself and many related it to the current position with public finances

In addition, four ‘roving reporters’ had moved between a number of groups and gave their impressions of the deliberations to the final plenary session. The four reporters were:

Jackie Mould – Director, Be Birmingham together with Lord Wei Ifor Jones - Birmingham City Council, Director of Constituency Services Brian Carr – Chief Executive, BVSC Paul Slatter – Director, Chamberlain Forum

The following points capture their comments:

People have got power but do not yet know it; people need support to learn from what others have done to document and share good practice and, thereby, use existing resources to benefit residents

17

We need to replicate what is already happening Little society will make Big Society work – the small things that will make a

difference The Castle Vale example of local residents controlling assets and utilising the

resources towards sustainability; to build local capacity; to consult; to provide leadership

Business needs to step up to contribute more: o Big business need to do Big Society: we need big business to devolve

decision making themselves; o We need to assist businesses with local engagement and collaborative

working; o Need to stimulate enterprise in local areas and generate jobs o Need for a strong self employed sector in Birmingham

It’s also about individual taking more action Very encouraged by the opportunities that the Big Society idea offers. It’s

clear that policies, procedures, documents, institutions etc have a role to play, but the real change will come in the development of mature relationships and risk-taking. We need to challenge each other to do more!

Despite what the keynote speaker (Lord Wei) intimated, the economic crisis can’t be solved by Big Society alone. We must not let the government off the hook. What about social justice? What about regulating the bankers more effectively?

Need to remember that the partner to Big Society is Small State. Government needs to make good on that promise

It’s great that government is taking such an interest in the concept of Big Society. However, they should not make the mistake of thinking it’s in any way a new idea. Big Society has been alive and well in Birmingham for years (let’s not forget that one of our key Big Society examples on the day of the summit was a 25-year-old project!), and it still is. As well as developing “new” Big Society initiatives, we must not be distracted by the need to collectively rally, support and celebrate the huge range of existing Big Society successes: the voluntary organisations, community and faith groups, public servants, private businesses, and local activists who don’t come dressed in shiny new political clothes, but who nonetheless make a great contribution. If we do not do that, we run the risk of losing them forever, and that would be nothing short of a tragedy

Look at those people who are doing it for themselves and incorporate the positives – encourage use of the internet to share good practice

Open data is becoming a reality: rather than resisting we need to look at ways that this can be a positive development

18

Next steps

Following on from the deliberations at the summit, a report has been prepared for the Be Birmingham executive board containing recommendations on the priorities for partnership action in relation to the Big Society agenda. Each partner agency will also be considering the opportunities and implications of the agenda and be planning its own responses. The next steps from each of the action groups will be taken forward as set out in the table on pages 11 to 15. The July 2011 Be Birmingham summit will be designed to take forward some of the key aspects of the agenda.

19

Action group reports

Action group 1 Group question: How can Birmingham develop a new Citizen University to build the skills citizens need to make neighbourhoods better places to live? To stimulate discussion, colleagues from the Young Foundation gave a short introduction to the Citizen University project. The Young Foundation (YF) has been tasked with piloting the idea of a Citizens’ University in three settings: an urban one, a suburban one and a rural one. Birmingham was likely to be the urban pilot. The target was to train up 1% of the population through the Citizens’ University. A ‘catalyst for action’ approach was being developed and a national curriculum was being developed. Six modules have been formulated so far; each of a length of two hours with the last 20 minutes focused on what to do next, each to be delivered by trained volunteers. The idea is to use learning as a platform to develop skills quickly but the process was also one of stimulating citizens’ activity. The following points were made during the discussion:

There was general consensus that it was a good idea and something that should be implemented in Birmingham. Some participants had worked with similar approaches and believed it is effective in stimulating citizens’ activity.

Important that it was embedded in Birmingham and owned by local community groups and service deliverers. Perhaps it should not be branded as Citizens’ University but be given a more local name.

Idea of imparting practical skills quickly in an informal setting was welcomed. It also needs to be a pathway to learning without being a gatekeeper project. Perhaps it should be piloted in areas where similar things have not been done before although there needs to be some sort of community infrastructure in existence.

Good way of promoting access to learning and similar initiatives had happened in Birmingham before. Access had been good but progression had been more difficult. However it was recognised that this was not primarily an initiative to promote learning but more one to promote citizenship and volunteering.

Could the initiative be linked to English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) provision?

Some thought that the use of a national brand would be a good thing as it would signify quality.

There is a danger that the initiative could be hindered by past frustrations. These need to be acknowledged and overcome.

There is a need for strategic overview of such an initiative and ensuring that it benefits the diversity of the city.

20

Parachuting in would not go down well in local communities as there were already alliances in many places delivering initiatives with related outcomes. Also, the last thing people want to see is a short course and then nothing else. Follow up and training mentors is important – there is a need to train community champions and train trainers to deliver the Citizens’ University on a voluntary basis.

Need to use the strength in one area to help adjacent areas where there is less social capital and community organisation.

Next steps: In summary, the group was in favour of piloting the Citizens’ University in Birmingham but that it should be implemented in partnership with existing groups and initiatives, building on the strengths in the city and creating a steering group that would ensure that its implementation reflects the diversity in the city and is based on an understanding of where it could make the most difference and where one neighbourhood could support another.

21

Action group 2 Group question: What do we need to do to make better use of digital media and open data so that people can get more effectively involved in planning and delivering public services? The discussion started with a general recognition that sharing data is important and can lead to significant efficiencies. For example, the Be Heard database can prevent duplication in consultation: one instance has demonstrated a saving of £24,000. There was general consensus that open data can be defined as data which is published in a way which facilitates, rather than inhibits, its free re-use by others. This includes using the data within commercially developed applications which are sold for profit. Open data is characterised by the presence of an open licence which explicitly allows re-use or waives copyright to the data, and publishing of the data in an easily downloadable format e.g. csv spreadsheets. Currently much data that is thought of as open data isn’t really, and use of it can run the risk of legal action particularly where it is then used by applications sold commercially. Practical examples include the development of an app that uses Transport for London data to track buses and trains relative to users’ locations, and using council road gritting data to produce maps of gritted roads and routes that stick to gritted roads only. Attendance for this group was low relative to other groups and there was some discussion as to why this was. It was felt that a title along the lines of ‘Helping communities find the information they really need’ might have stimulated more interest. However the group felt that the main issue is that open data needs to be promoted more effectively as a really powerful resource, not just for ‘armchair auditors’ to hold public services to account, but also to enable residents to better understand what is really happening in their area and how data can be used in creative and imaginative ways to bring communities together, meet needs, and improve quality of life – how this can be done needs further consideration. It was noted that the perception of risk amongst public services is an issue in relation to open data but in practice it can help mitigate against misinterpretation of data, inaccurate media coverage and so on by making key information freely available which citizens can use to check the facts themselves, write rebuttals etc. The requirement to adhere to the Data Protection Act obviously still remains. It was also noted that there is a great deal of data ‘out there’ but what is lacking is meaningful analysis of it that is of real use to people. Open data can be a major tool for changing this (at virtually no cost to the public sector). Examples of uses could include better access to suitable sources of finance for projects, identification of jobs

22

within 10 minutes by public transport of where a resident lives, putting all Freedom of Information Act responses online (Birmingham City Council) is currently looking at doing this). The availability of the right open data can have an enormous empowering effect on local community groups. However there needs to be a continuing dialogue between key public services and such groups to make them aware of the opportunities available and help them to take advantage of them. Next steps:

That Be Birmingham ensures that all its web content meets open data criteria. That discussions continue between those attending this session and others as

appropriate with the aim of encouraging greater access to, and use of, open data by individuals and community groups across Birmingham.

Partners to promote understanding of open data e.g. through: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/

http://openlylocal.com/

http://lab.linkeddata.deri.ie/2010/star-scheme-by-example/

23

Action group 3 Group question: What part does formal volunteering play in the Big Society? What should we do to promote it? The discussion commenced with an exchange of views about Big Society generally which began without a high level of understanding being expressed: The group discussed the many potential models for the Big Society

(entrepreneurship, community action etc) but agreed that the Big Society concept is an enduring concept which should always concentrate on the ‘people’s model’.

Discussion arose around the definition of a Big Society model within the context of a multi-faceted and diverse city such as Birmingham. It was acknowledged that Birmingham deserved its own unique Big Society model, with a multi-dimensional approach to its concerns.

The general movement toward a culture of change was cited as a problem, as many of the institutions traditionally associated with community sector delivery have shown themselves historically resistant to the type of dynamism that may be required if the rhetoric of the Big Society is to be transferred into reality – it was suggested by some around the table that an increased role for the private sector would be important in achieving this.

The group felt that there is a public perception that the Big Society is a cover for cuts. However, the group noted that in previous governments there had been moves toward greater decentralisation of services.

In addressing the group question, the following points were made: In terms of defining formal volunteering, it was agreed that training was necessary

for the development of a formal volunteering programme. It was felt that issues such as health and safety were important and that therefore an informal approach toward most aspects of volunteering was unsuitable. This, however, is not to undermine the importance of informal volunteering networks when dealing with different perceptions of what makes an activity distinct – some aspects of sports coaching were cited as an example of this.

The point was made that there is a stigma attached to jobs that were previously paid being passed over to the voluntary sector and wages removed. The potential negative impact on credibility should failing services be transferred from local authorities to the voluntary sector was also mentioned. However, the importance of changing perceptions of public services more generally was an accepted point and, in particular, the increase in local participation and people power were seen as important.

24

In addition, the importance of social enterprise and private entrepreneurship was highlighted by some as an essential way forward in the renewal of public services.

The voluntary sector was urged to be more ambitious in its expectations of what form its part in the reform to public services may take. Instead of saying “can we get volunteers to maintain what was there before?” we need to be more ambitious and look at how capacity can be increased.

A debate around unemployment began, with the view that unemployment breeds a cycle of self-perpetuating problems which cannot be reduced to a single solution. The benefits of volunteering in supporting such people must acknowledge the mutually beneficial aspects of the work, while breeding a sense of the value of a work culture, which many long term unemployed people lack. The point was made that what volunteers actually do is more important than the statistics or the costs involved.

Next steps: Be Birmingham partners and BVSC to ensure that the two-year volunteering plan for the city, Make This The Year You Volunteer, is implemented.

25

Action group 4 Group question: How do community networks (including social media) help people take action? What can we do to enable them?

In addressing the first part of the question, “How do community networks help people take action”, the group generated the following points: Community hubs have organised events to bring organisations together to talk

and network so that participants are more aware of what services are available to them. Sessions can be used to highlight sensitive issues creatively and engage audiences to stimulate discussion through the use of art and culture.

Karis Centre provided a good example of a community hub – sharing space/ socialising/making use of community assets but others were also mentioned e.g. a mentoring programme specific to violence against women and children

Coalitions of leaders (key movers and shakers) can be formed across the private, public and voluntary sectors to look at the key issues impacting on them as organisations as well as individuals.

Networks benefit individuals through trust and by providing a central source for sharing information and cross referral of services (e.g. weekly bulletin to share information and circulate widely).

Participants are increasingly less interested in training courses but are looking for practical steps/tools/support. Networks provide a central place to share ideas; information is updated and not static

Networks provide an opportunity to meet and find ways to o collaborate with other organisations to achieve economies of scale (e.g.

share administrative resources, venue costs) o identify better ways to work together to achieve the benefit of the expertise

that exists within the network o Open up opportunities for funding through consortia which can provide a

more attractive proposition to donors.

In considering the opportunities presented by social media for facilitating networking the following points were made: People and technology provide a powerful combination for networking; linking

social media to social networks to boost and grow existing networks can make them more powerful.

Social media channels (Facebook/blogs) provide opportunities to widen and mobilise networks.

Concept of social capital o Operating outside of governmental institutions bringing into the arena new

participants and partners to support causes that previously would not have been part of the network because of, for example, geographical boundaries

26

o Community networks can traditionally be fairly insular but social media are

helping extend boundaries of networking, creating more powerful networks that can have greater influence - can provide a more powerful voice for influencing policy (e.g. hyper local websites) and share common issues previously restricted to a geographical area

Vulnerable people can engage online without needing to leave their own home;

allows anonymity and overcomes geographical distance. Networks usually happen at community level but can fragment society; social

media can help extrapolate and transcend these community boundaries to widen impact and open up more opportunities; Social media can enable entry into other communities previously out of reach.

Technology is altering the way that we network and this is changing rapidly Need to understand the demographics / profile of networks and the use of the

most appropriate channels to reach and engage audience (online and offline that will best engage them). This will guide the choice of channel – e.g. Twitter, Bebo, #tag, apps

Lot of places where people meet and network are now online Community networks and social media go hand in hand BUT need to remember that a large part of the community is not online

In considering the second part of the question, “What can we do to enable them”, the following points were generated: Important to recognise the skills that already exist within networks – there is a

need to utilise these more effectively Create online as well as offline networking opportunities to widen membership and

support Use social media tools to promote community networks and widen engagement –

use of the community to share skills (‘digital champions’) Recognise use of different channels – mobile; smart phone; apps to engage with

audiences through their preferred channel of choice; digital TV (Birmingham’s Looking Local channel) - provide networking opportunities through people’s preferred channel of choice

Social media surgeries, for example Podnosh, bring together volunteers to share ideas and understand how they can use free social media tools to widen engagement and networking

There are huge gaps in bringing community networks together and linking them to the public and voluntary sector – opportunities to enable this could be through the concept of time banks (e.g. Southwark Circle/West Bromwich example) – could help to recapture the neighbourhoods and build community capacity

Be Involved is an online route map of how individuals can get involved to influence decisions e.g. the Be Heard database of consultations

27

Need to develop the skills and widen opportunities for people to engage online

and access support and information particularly those isolated and at risk – making it easy to get connected

Next steps: Promote community networks through social media tools which can be facilitated

by existing surgeries run by organisations such as Podnosh Promote the use of systems such as time banks to strengthen links between

community networks and the public and voluntary sectors Promote the use of the Be Involved and Be Heard databases Encourage membership and use of the CN4B website/resources

28

Action group 5 Group question: How can partners work together to ensure support is available to community groups and voluntary organisations to assist them to be as effective as they can? The discussion opened by considering how the infrastructure capacity of voluntary and community organisations (VCOs) can be maintained and what is needed. The group discussed the role the public and private sectors play, or could play, by offering commissioning opportunities, partnerships, pro bono support and agreed that a mapping exercise of all sectors and the opportunities available was needed to find out who is out there and what is on offer in the locality. It was also felt an analysis of skills and gaps for groups with a focus on priorities should be undertaken. It was felt that if a local and central depository: people, main players etc was available, its existence could be communicated - knowledge is key to sharing. It would also help break down the barriers between sectors. However, there would need to be agreement on ownership and strategies to share and update. There was some discussion about community groups being clear about their mission and not drifting, however, there was also acknowledgement that groups have needed to diversify in the past because of lack of funding. It was noted that there was a drive for infrastructure needs from outside the sector i.e. from those who want to engage/partner. The group discussed: How do we find different ways of working together? How do we support and make things happen? Is it realistic to support individual organisations? How do organisations work well together in light of decommissioning? How do we get more for less? The priorities need to be shared on a wider level so that groups can help achieve outcomes for the community and society. This is difficult as all sectors are budgeting resources and are at risk. We need to get the synergy right, work with partners, make that work and decide on what is the focus? All sectors should come together to agree priorities/values and let each other know what they can bring to the table. Local networks need to be used and joint strategies developed as to what the network can do. Then resources can be targeted to most at risk. Services such as frontline advice, use of facilities, use of HR, marketing expertise could be made available and knowledge shared about where these are available free of charge for community benefit. Expect businesses to be responsible partners. Perhaps have ‘champions’ to put actions where people’s thoughts are. Existing funding should be used effectively - an example of where this had not happened was the Asda square mile project.

29

What should drive relationships/partnerships are the needs of the community rather than the needs of the partners. We need to build structure – all partnerships need to be long-term. We need to invest in an area, and be aware of the agenda behind some of the offers i.e. is the offer to support the community or to improve PR and have a hidden agenda? Whilst the private sector has for example excellent marketing skills and knowledge to market new products and succeed we should self guard, defend independence and identity and not be sucked into schemes. There was some acknowledgement that small VCOs and community groups do not have the time to ‘knock on doors’ and that they would need a facilitator/ match maker to help them engage. We need to ensure neighbourhood groups are supported properly to meet the Big Society agenda in light of budget cuts e.g. through asset transfer. They may need to share, collaborate and merge thinking but in a way that does not lose identity. They could for example take part in peer learning. They need to be clear about what the needs are e.g. through a skills analysis. We should empower people to do local mapping, map their own organisations and support and engage at a local level to do it for themselves. Community action starts at ground level. Big Society is the vehicle but it will need to be resourced properly to be effective and fair. There was a brief discussion about the Compact – who knows about it? Who uses it? Decisions being made, not legally binding – Good practice. Behavioural vs. Practical issues

We need to build on existing skills among people and communities, develop new and existing platforms/networks to improve collaboration and for them to be more effective. We need to help those with ideas and talent to grow and develop the work they do.

Next steps:

There is a need for a mapping exercise in relation to support for VCOs that could be provided by the public and/or private sectors

There are opportunities for greater sharing of resources e.g. skills, expertise and facilities, which need to be tapped into

Existing mechanisms that support good practice e.g. the Compact need to be publicised and utilised better.

30

Action Group 6 Group question: What are the lessons from neighbourhoods where things have got better – and stayed better? How can we share these lessons with other neighbourhoods? The workshop began with a summary of the issues colleagues wished to cover and to get out of the session: How to make the best use of existing resources within communities Community empowerment and learning from others Documenting our learning and good practice Comparing different neighbourhood models Colleagues from Castle Vale then summarised the ‘Castle Vale story’ as follows: A period of ‘utopia’ during the 1960s when the estate was new and functioning

well A period of ‘decline’ through the 1970s and 1980s A period of ‘transformation’ from the mid 1990s to the mid 2000s A period of ‘sustaining’ from 2005 to 2010 An anticipated new period of ‘transformation’ from 2010 onwards, with an

improved schools offer and an improved skills offer It was suggested that this model and timeline could be applied to almost all neighbourhood situations and that there was much that could be learned if areas were not to slip backwards into periods of ‘decline’ The key lessons were summarised as: Do things with people – leadership Keep assets within communities – financial resources Support a strong infrastructure of community organisations There was a discussion about where ‘leaders’ are found in communities and a suggestion that they are there in what might be termed the ‘little society’ – the small, everyday contributions which people might start to make as they develop greater confidence in the local area. The difficult thing was to ensure that a structure was in place for leaders to engage with. Colleagues from Witton Lodge then summarised the Perry Common story as follows:

31

Perry Common was essentially transformed on the back of a crisis – but a crisis can be turned to advantage and there are all sorts of sparks which can ignite a local ‘crisis’. A key factor had been the huge investment which Birmingham City Council had made in the local people of the area. This investment had enabled the negative passions of anger and resentment to be turned into positive forces for change. The workshop moved into a discussion about the significance of resources and it was suggested that resources are not the answer – that many big programmes did things ‘to’ people rather than ‘with’ them. It was felt that small amounts of money can be stretched to go a long way within small community organisations. The key to success was in developing good practice around partnership working and then sharing that between neighbourhoods. There was some discussion about how to change the fact that in most places only a small number of people tend to get actively involved with local issues. It was noted that in Witton Lodge the new community hall was having a positive impact on the levels of participation in neighbourhood activity. However, it needed to be recognised that if people had a ‘cause’ to ‘fight for’ this would generally have a mobilising/galvanising effect. There was some discussion about the different issues in different types of neighbourhoods. For example, schools were a big issue in some places. In other areas populations were very transient and this made it difficult to invest in long term leadership capacity within the area. There was a discussion about whether neighbourhood managers should be local people. It was felt to be better if this was a ‘locally grown’ person. There was also some discussion about the role of potential community organisers and a feeling that this needed to linked to community hubs. There were questions about how the initiative would work in practice – and whether it would be focused on some neighbourhoods or spread more widely across the whole of the city. The role of neighbourhood policing was praised for creating better links between local residents and police/PCSOs. However, it was felt that Community Watch schemes filled a crucial missing link and needed to be maintained.

32

Next steps: In the succession from neighbourhood working that was undertaken during the Working Neighbourhood Fund (WNF) period the following were highlighted: Seeking opportunities to share lessons learned and for this to be done in an open

and honest way: what worked well and what did not - the difficulty of achieving this in practice was noted

Importance of not re-inventing the learning pool Utilise the assets and resources that are already within neighbourhoods and work

towards increased ownership of neighbourhood working where it is successful Avoid going backwards in the drive to save money i.e. not re-centralising but

continuing the process of control by service providers being given up from the centre

33

Action group 7 Group question: What part does business play in the Big Society and how can we help it to do more? The following general points came out of the initial discussions: Big Society is a big challenge – attitudes are very different now to how they were. The Big Society seems to be more directed at the social sector – is there much

appetite within the business sector to be involved? How do we incentivise them? Businesses feel they have been doing their version of the Big Society and making

a contribution for years. Need to think about what more they can do, scaling up their support and bringing other businesses on board.

How will the relationship work – who will hold the power? Who will make the decisions?

There is an expectation that business is there as a source of finance but money is tight so may have to take or want a different role. How do we harness their goodwill? Sharing time and skills as a win-win is a more realistic ask.

In terms of a win-win, must recognise the skills that third sector organisations already have – don’t assume they don’t possess any or that they have nothing to offer private sector as this is not the case. They have many skills and capacities that would benefit business e.g. the way they come together to make something out of nothing. Many businesses now recognise that they function better when run as small communities – the voluntary sector can assist with this.

How do we preserve the expertise of third sector organisations that may have to fold when funding is withdrawn? Don’t want to lose ‘organisational knowledge/history’ as this prevents people repeating mistakes.

Overwhelming view was not to force partnerships between the sectors as these will naturally happen, just need more facilitation. Where are the fora needed to facilitate discussion between the sectors and to enhance understanding of the dynamics? Needed quickly. May need to take place at lots of different places and in lots of different ways.

The discussion focused on the question generated the following that has been summarised in relation to various sectors: Public sector Corporate social responsibility (CSR) policies needed e.g. around volunteering

34

Stop silo working – driven by funding focused on issues. (Results in organisations not talking to one another and creates a ‘my issue, not yours’ attitude). Need to think horizontally rather than vertically.

Too focused on quantitative results rather than qualitative long-term outcomes. Still need a strategic overview – Be Birmingham good for this but must be

accountable to ‘on the ground’. Do we also need something more local? Third sector Values and principles exist in the community. Need to lever in time and skills from the private sector. Need to influence private sector recruitment practices; to employ the

unemployable e.g. ex-offenders or to grow and incubate entrepreneurs (could follow a time-bank approach).

Role to nurture self-responsibility, family-responsibility and community responsibility.

Necessity will drive partnership working either directly or via Business in The Community (BITC) and BVSC.

Private sector Need businesses to work more collaboratively on a community issue. National companies need to be encouraged to engage in both national and local

issues. Can decision making be encouraged to be devolved on CSR so businesses can have a more local connection – is it an issue that decisions re CSR are taken at head office which may not be located locally or even within the UK?

Can they have a role in influencing consumers to take responsibility? Challenge recruitment practices. Jointly Network and facilitate connections to decision makers. Partnerships will need to form organically but may need some initial support.

Again BITC and BVSC and others can play an active role in partnership here, if required.

Next steps: Voluntary and community sector infra-structure agencies to encourage joint

working between the private and voluntary and community sectors to encourage businesses to discharge their CSR - not necessarily by providing funding but in kind

Use existing channels (e.g. the Local Enterprise Partnership) to encourage businesses to be more engaged and discharge their CSR in ways that support local priorities

Encourage more joined-up working within the public sector

35

Action group 8 Group question: Does owning and managing assets help voluntary and community groups do more for the community? What can we do to enable it?

As an introduction to the discussion the facilitator reported that a revised protocol and a new way of working in relation to community asset transfer (CAT) had been approved by the city council i.e. a consistent corporate pathway from an initial expression of interest to the point of transfer of land and/or property to third sector organisations plus the introduction of Valuing Worth methodology. Colleagues from Norton Hall and Witton Lodge Community Association then shared their recent experience of asset transfer and the lessons they had learned: Norton Hall: Community asset transfer focused the organisation to have a clear

vision on its future – developing a clear idea about its relationship with its surrounding community, why it was doing what it was doing and what the impact would be. Asset transfer opened doors to further funding opportunities and a greater sense of community ownership of the building – sense that it belongs to the community.

Witton Lodge: Ownership of building gave the organisation a visible presence in the community and space to grow and expand. Employment opportunities were created within the organisation and the building catalysed the running of outcome based programmes.

Both emphasised that organisations need to think very carefully before undertaking asset transfer as, although there are benefits as detailed above, it is a time-consuming and costly process. Both experienced frustrations in dealings with the local authority - “Demands seem to be one way”, and community groups must have a clear understanding of what it means to take over land and/or buildings. Importance of relationships between community organisation and council officers.

The key points from the discussion are as follows: Community sector suspicious of the council – that council going to “screw over”

over community group ACTION – Even more important that relationship building is seen as an important part of the process – clear, consistent information and process, communication and use of language, honesty

Buildings central to the heart of the community and reflect soul of community - important as part of strengthening communities aspiration

ACTION – Local authority to take a more proactive approach to the promotion of asset transfer as a positive action re social regeneration, social enterprise and entrepreneurship.

36

Importance of the right asset for the right reason for the right group ACTION – Asset transfer is not for everybody and it is not enough to just have a good idea. Need sound business plan, governance and finance. Asset transfer should enable viability not liability. Need honesty and realism on both sides

Legal support – avoid letting solicitors doing all the negotiating as this can make the process unnecessarily adversarial and costly

ACTION – Both sides, including solicitors, sitting round the table together at the beginning and factor in the use of independent neutral facilitators/ negotiators

Negotiation of lease – can be very frustrating and inflexible. If aim of the local authority is to improve the quality of life for citizens then simplifying the process and improving ways to enable community groups to manage open spaces and/or buildings should be to their advantage

ACTION - Rather than community organisation fitting into local authority governance there should be more flexibility, less risk averse behaviour by the local authority – assume success rather than failure

Need to develop personal relationships between community organisations and council officers and reduce level of mutual mistrust

ACTION – Huge culture change required on both sides, particularly the local authority. Move away from transactional based management to valuing a more relationship based approach. Need for further joint generic training on improving communication, engagement, negotiation, influence, two way dialogue i.e. Voice, Echo and Structured Dialogue etc

The local authority must recognise the value of active citizens and groups ACTION – As part of new CAT protocol there is the introduction of the Valuing Worth methodology, developed to work out value of community organisations undertaking asset transfer and used to offset economic rent. Valuing Worth is a qualitative tool that acts as an incentive for good practice. Important that Valuing Worth is clearly understood by officers and community organisations and rolled out and embedded in a consistent way.

Develop new ways of engaging and enterprising behaviour to positively exploit opportunities in delivery

ACTION – Importance of local third sector infrastructure organisations in supporting community organisations and responsibility of the city council to signpost and that information should be open and accessible to as many people as possible (e.g. further development of existing website)

Skills base – appropriate people need to have capacity building support around the area of asset transfer e.g. managing an asset, new ways of working etc. Real concern that the local authority seems to be reducing the amount of community support officers at a time when it is needed the most around enabling the Big Society vision

ACTION – Learning is key to enable successful transfers and a “win win” situation for the local authority and community organisations. Needs to be a small but significant revenue stream within the local authority to support and

37

enable the process of transfer (suggested mainstream or possible city council bid into Lottery ‘Reaching Communities’ programme)

Next steps: For the city council: Promote asset transfer more pro-actively e.g. further development of the website

www.communityassettransfer.com Aim at greater flexibility in terms of governance and act with less risk aversion –

assume success rather than failure Ensure wide-spread understanding of the Valuing Worth methodology and that it

is rolled out and embedded in a consistent way. A revenue stream within the local authority needed to support and enable the

process of asset transfer (e.g. mainstream or bid to Lottery ‘Reaching Communities’ programme)

For community organisations considering asset transfer: Ensure asset transfer is a viable option before proceeding - business planning,

governance and finance needed. Support to community organisation considering asset transfer of third sector

infrastructure organisations necessary Jointly: Relationship building must be seen as an important part of the process – clear,

consistent information and process, communication and use of language, honesty Both sides sitting round the table together at the beginning and factor in the use of

independent neutral facilitators/ negotiators Huge culture change required on both sides, particularly the local authority - a

more relationship based than transactional approach. Need for further joint generic training on improving communication, engagement,

negotiation, influence, two way dialogue i.e. Voice, Echo and Structured Dialogue etc

38

Action group 9 Group question: What ideas do we have for new ways of delivering public services? How can we test them out? To stimulate the discussion, Gateway Family Services CIC provided an overview of their innovative approach to service delivery. Evolving from an NHS-led initiative, the service is now much more accessible, and has a community-led way of working. Representatives from other innovative organisations provided overviews of their approaches to delivering public services: Coventry Museum for Communities, New Deal for Communities programmes and Castle Vale Regeneration Services. The Muath Trust was cited as an apt example of good practice in community service delivery. The following themes were identified around the question: The need to ensure that services are set up in a way that can be accessed and

deliver appropriate outcomes The need to transform ‘public services’ into community joint services The need to invest in social capital The discussion raised the following points: If we want to find new ways of working, then risks will need to be taken. A new

form of state investment is required - one that does not only pay for success, but supports organisations to learn how to improve and learn from underperformance. This could generate more open and honest discussion, building better relationships between all sectors.

National shared learning should be encouraged in order to reduce replication, and adapt models/processes of good practice for use in our communities. Lessons would be learned from projects/models that have not worked so well. This would save time and money.

While it is possible to transfer good practice, it is not possible to transfer the energy and passion individuals have to improve their local area. Therefore more recognition and support is required for our community leaders/ active citizens, who act as a catalyst for neighbourhood regeneration.

Community and voluntary sector organisations need to be further supported in diversifying their income streams to ensure their longevity, rather than relying on one commissioning agency, e.g. PCT. Some could benefit from Social Impact Bonds. Organisations that do not have a physical asset especially need support to ensure their sustainability. This will help to grow these organisations, giving the community they serve a more powerful voice, and support them to continue to meet their local needs.

39

Large private firms (and VCOs) could further support communities (especially in

priority neighbourhoods) by providing specific employment opportunities for local residents. This would have a huge positive impact on a range of outcomes including economic, health and quality of life.

The local authority needs to move away from responsive and reactive led services and become better at long term budgeting in order to move from an intervention culture to one that prioritises prevention. Money is wasted on short-term initiatives that do not have progression routes to continue to support the beneficiaries who have been targeted. Cross-agency long-term planning will make better use out of the public investment in individuals at their different life stages.

Benefits of joint ventures need to be recognised: stronger relationships between the private, public and community and voluntary sector will bring about more efficient and effective change.

Community and voluntary sector should continue to be supported with capacity and strategic network building through relevant new and existing forums, so they are informed and equipped with the language of their commissioners. This will ensure commissioners appoint the best organisation to achieve service outcomes, and continue to support the communities they serve.

Next steps: In summary, the group came up with several options for new ways of delivering public services. Some suggestions focused on improving existing mechanisms for service delivery, such as supporting community and voluntary organisations to understand the strategic landscape and language of commissioners, and vice versa, that local authorities and private organisations understand the monetary value of the social capital they bring to the city. Maximising opportunities of existing partnerships and networks to share national learning and adapt processes to benefit Birmingham’s communities was also mentioned as a way to test new ways of working. Our community leaders also need to be equipped to enable them to drive elements of community regeneration. Some suggestions focused on new ways of working, for example, a review of the overall benefits of performance-based pay models with private and community and voluntary sector, and that a less strict and hierarchical relationship between commissioner and delivery agent could increase risk taking, therefore developing new innovative approaches that could yield more effective and efficient outcomes. Improving cross-sector and cross-agency relationships by working towards shared objectives through joint ventures was also thought of as crucial.

40

Action group 10 Group question: Will moving to new models of service delivery and backing social innovation lead to inequality across the city? If it does, then what can we do about it? The action group focused on the Mobile Community Outreach Project which was part of Aston Pride’s New Deal for Communities programme to tackle worklessness and improve community cohesion. The project was set up following the disturbances in Lozells in 2005 and became operational in 2008. The project is made up of two buses, one single and one double decker, equipped with computers, television and seating and is used for partnerships to deliver services including information to adults and young people supporting their engagement in accredited learning and ultimately employment. The project was designed to act as a link between providers and the communities/ individuals they were seeking to empower. There is currently no cost to the service provider or the individual as the programme is funded through Birmingham City Council’s Equalities Division. However, the service is expensive to run and it is unclear how long it can continue to be free. Consideration needs to be given to how the project can be delivered in the future. Summary of discussion Alongside the Mobile Community Outreach Project, work is being carried out on the Old Bank in Lozells which is intended to be a community hub. Consideration needs to be given to the cost of running the Mobile Community Outreach Project which was more in line with the requirements of the community as opposed to the Old Bank which does not have the ‘buy in’ of the local community. We need to ensure that communities and neighbourhoods are given the opportunities to shape and access services that meet their needs rather than ‘one size fits all’. Citizens should be able to access to top quality information in order to innovate. New models of service delivery need to be considered in light of the massive collapse of public services. Social enterprises can potentially meet the gaps in service provision through social innovation. This sector could be supported by providing rent free accommodation to community start up enterprises. This activity has already been trialled in Handsworth ward. Governance arrangements need to be carefully considered to ensure that they do not bring about inequality although not intended to do so.

41

Some neighbourhoods have been successful in introducing different service delivery models such as neighbourhood management and community housing associations as a result of high levels of social capital, whilst neighbourhoods with low of levels social capital have seen little progress, consequently building a strong argument for targeted intervention. However, there is a need to be careful that targeted support is not seen as inequality. The commissioning of new services needs to have a standard set of criteria to ensure that information is available and accessible to wider audiences. Digital Birmingham is developing activities to ensure accessibility to digital media is inclusive. However, not all communities have access to digital media as a means of sharing information. There is a need for digital information to look much further ahead. The delivery model for Jobcentre Plus needs to move away from the old Department of Health and Social Security (DHSS) model to that of an advocacy model designed to fit within differing needs. There is no lack of will to explore new models of service delivery by public servants. However, the capacity for the public sector to deliver new models will diminish as funding is reduced. Next steps: The following actions were agreed by the group: A further discussion needed to take place regarding the Old Bank and Mobile

Community Outreach Project – is there a need for both. The Assistant Director Revenues and Benefits agreed to be responsible for taking forward this issue;

Identify a clear equality framework to ensure that inequality did not happen by default or design through commissioning and procurement.

Take forward the creation of different models of community hubs: designed and rooted in communities - taking into account the success of the Mobile Community Outreach Project;

The development of digital inclusion to consider ways of becoming more inclusive of the diverse needs of communities across Birmingham when sharing information; and

Supporting social innovation through social enterprise sector such as community interest companies.

42

Action group 11 Group question: What action at individual, neighbourhood and community levels could improve our city’s health? The group began by sharing their ideas and experience related to the question with the following being the main points: It was noted that not many in the group had heard about the Karis Neighbourhood

Project which suggested a need for more effective sharing of good practice. The need for joined up services that worked for service users was emphasised. In order to disseminate information those who hold it need to be more available.

The use of community radio stations as a means of disseminating information was also noted.

It was noted that not all good practice from an area can be replicated in another area.

Resources for preventative, longer-term work need to be protected. The ‘Youth Space’ initiative was an example of holistic, preventative work with

young people with mental health problems. The approach did not just focus on mental health but engaged people in things in which they are interested through which support can be provided on issues that need to be tackled. Special intervention comes only when needed but this needs to be backed up by public health campaign.

The importance of agencies working together to share expertise was emphasised – the example was St. Basils dealing with a lot of people with mental health problems and needing expert input in some instances.

The way the Fire Service had changed to focus more on prevention and the subsequent reduction in deaths was noted.

A number of points were made about adopting healthier life-styles: some simple steps like walking more can have a big effect; there is a need to encourage motivation as some people still did things, for example, smoking that they knew were bad for their health; some people smoked and took drugs to ‘escape’ other negative things – it is not just about increasing life expectancy but about improving the quality of life.

There were feelings expressed that PCTs and the council had not been effective enough at a time when they both had well-paid staff.

The problem with short-term funded projects was mentioned. In discussing what could be done the following were the main points made: The disparity in access to facilities in different parts of the city was highlighted and

concerns expressed that available funding was not targeted effectively –

43

groups and activities funded only because they had been in the past. There is a need for the intended beneficiaries of any activity to be involved in the design e.g. neighbourhood level services.

The need for things to be done differently was emphasised and it was pointed out that the new health white paper encourages this.

Personalised budgets must be seen as an opportunity for those holding them to improve things for themselves in an holistic way – the importance of people being informed how they can be used was noted e.g. using the money for bikes not medicines. It was also mentioned that by pooling budgets things could be improved jointly.

People acting collectively can make a difference – there is a need to identify the keys that will bring people together.

There were strong feelings expressed that there were no hard to reach groups only officers that did not try hard enough or work in the right ways. There is also a need for greater accountability.

The facilitator, in agreement with the group, listed the key points:

a) There is a need to make people passionate about the issue b) Ensure accountability c) Non-clinical aspects of health are important in improving prevention d) Establish pathways e) Short-term funding can inhibit sustainability f) Loss of knowledge base and continuity can inhibit progress g) Build on existing good practice, apply Occam’s Razor (avoid re-

inventing the wheel) and do not over-complicate h) Progress should be driven locally i) Find out what brings people together

Next steps: Those with responsibility to make a difference must be accountable Personalised budgets must be seen as an opportunity for those holding them to

improve things for themselves in a holistic way – the importance of people being informed how they can be used was noted, for example, using the money for bikes not medicines. It was also mentioned that by pooling budgets things could be improved jointly

Wider application of the non-clinical aspects of health are important in improving prevention

People acting collectively can make a difference – there is a need to identify the keys that will bring people together and what will make them passionate about addressing an issue

44

Action group 12 Group question: How do we reach out to people who are isolated and excluded, including them in the Big Society and make them part of the solution? The group considered a series of questions/issues in responding to the main question. The first was: ‘How do we reach people?’ and the points raised were as follows and mainly concerned consultation processes. The group did not reach a consensus with some expressing cynicism about whether consultation was effective and some feeling that more fully-engaging consultation was necessary: It was generally held that the city council could be better at consultations - one

participant felt that most city council consultations were not real as there was only one possible answer.

Community groups often do not just have one location – an example was gay and lesbian groups operating from a specific locality but not feeling themselves confined to it.

The blind can be excluded from consultations. Loneliness was cited as the biggest problem for the city. Examples were given of how hard it is for foreign nationals to integrate into the

community. The point was also made that when you have a personal interactive relationship

with people you don’t need to consult as you are dealing directly with them and can implement their needs immediately.

Suggestions for questions the city council could they consider helping to improve its methods of consultation were:

How can it give the isolated a voice? What is the best method to consult with young people? How they can personalise service, develop community and improve the capacity

to listen? How do we measure success? After a consultation how does the council feedback the outcomes of the

consultation and can this be done quicker? In considering the question of what people need the following points were made:-

The group felt that there was a need to create/build social capital and teach the skills of doing this.

The importance of networks was raised with the following points being made o It was felt that the most vulnerable already have networks.

45

o The homeless were cited as a group who had good networks but that these

did not fit into the norm or those recognised by the council/society so were ignored.

o Hard to reach people are often excluded from networks o Networks can be cliques o There is a notion that networks need to produce something however

networks are a product/outcome in their own right - breaking isolation by binding people together.

o No matter what is done it is salutary to remember that not everyone will want to be involved

There was a view expressed that Total Place had been a positive initiative but had not continued which led to a discussion on the importance of legacy and the need to achieve long-term change. The tendency for projects to be ‘parachuted in’ rather than building on legacy was mentioned and the need for evaluation was stressed. The view that a culture change in the council is needed was expressed by many. It was felt there was too much bureaucracy and that the council needed to be more flexible. There were views expressed that ‘the suits’ were too much in control, some present felt that this was reflected in the summit as well. Those participants, who did not work in the statutory sector, felt that they should be able to hold those that do more to account. The discussion then focused on reviewing these issues in the light of the work roles undertaken by those present. The following points were made: Change needs to be led by the people for the people We need to be wary of the ‘professionalisation’ of children. We need to be realistic about what we can achieve We need to able to hold organisations and people to account We are over process oriented We need more advocacy Those at the strategic level of businesses/organisations need to be up skilled i.e.

to understand what the people on the ground really want. We need certain skill sets to deal with people Participants discussed Lord Wei’s speech with the following comments being made: We can’t carry on in the same way We don’t seem to have a clear blueprint for going forward. Those present seemed to struggle to know what the Big Society was. We need a strategic approach to outcomes (someone mentioned Vision 2026 at

this point) We need to encourage people to build networks We need to have passion and to do things at a local level We need to build ownership

46

Next steps: The following were the key points that need to be built into future action and programmes: Build more social capital and develop the skills to do so, for example, good

listening (see suggested questions for council to consider above). The creation of effective networks can help address isolation including those that

are unusual. Ensure we build legacy and build on experience, for example, the lessons of Total

Place. Where there is consultation there needs to be feedback and action as a result –

otherwise consultation process becomes discredited. People should be consulted where they are (for example, bus stops,

supermarkets) rather than being expected to come to those doing the consultation.

Where commitments are made there needs to be delivery – those that make commitments need to be held to account.

The city council needs to change its culture, more open - including breaking out of nine to five culture: officers need to be more accessible for consultations/engagement

47

Action group 13 Group question: What does the Localism Bill mean for communities in Birmingham? The facilitator referred to the Essential Guide to the Localism Bill as a contextual piece which described six steps to the Big Society and commented that the Localism Bill contributed to these steps. In the ‘Essential Guide’, the six steps to Big Society are described as: Lifting the burden of bureaucracy Empowering communities Local control of finance (especially housing planning) Diversity of service provision Open government (transparency) Stronger accountability to local communities. The Localism Bill includes both ‘key measures’ and ‘social action or public sector reform’. The key measures are: Community right to buy and list of assets Neighbourhood planning Referendums on local issues (councils will have to respond, an ‘issue’ is

described as anything the community can influence) Community right to challenge (right to take over local services) The role of neighbourhood forums and parishes (potential issue because these

are unelected bodies which can comprise as few as three people) The ‘social action or public sector reform’ issues are: The Bill is more about community empowerment than local government. Bill will be complemented in terms of wider localism by:

o Resources Review o Constitutional Change o Support given to service redesign.

David Cameron said (21/2) “Plans to devolve power from Whitehall and modernise public services are more significant aspects of Big Society than social action”.

The following general issues on the Bill were generated through discussion: The cost of neighbourhood planning – councils will have a duty to support

community groups. Will there be sufficient resources? Most communities have little or no expertise in planning.

Is localism good for democracy or exclusive and divisive? All communities or just the better off?

48

What will the take up be? Will these powers remain unused on the statute books? What does the term ‘neighbourhood’ mean to communities? Several different

means of defining boundaries in use in Birmingham with greater or lesser community input. Also ‘communities of interest’ which cut across geographic boundaries.

What is the balance between community empowerment and public sector reform? Is the shift proposed sufficient to change the way the public sector operates?

The Bill envisages the potential transfer of public services over to the third sector – but how free is the market? Will the third sector realistically be able to compete?

Above may be exacerbated by the ability of the private sector to ‘loss lead’. This would effectively freeze out the third sector.

What about products which will never attract funding because they are unprofitable? Will the public sector have a duty to continue provision?

What will be the impact on the NHS and social care? Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) should underpin community work but will communities understand this and who will bear the risks – the Health and Wellbeing board?

The Localism Bill does not include a coherent vision of public sector reform. It was felt that it had possibly been drafted too soon.

The following points were made in considering the implications and way forward for Birmingham: Not clear how the Bill will impact at present. There is the potential to test it within

an existing programme such as the Small Area Budget area and test what it means at the neighbourhood level. Potential also to test it in an area such as Bournville with the input of the village trust available. (What happens if the community there want to build a pub?)

The city council is setting up ‘sustainable urban neighbourhoods’. How will these relate to neighbourhoods that might spring up organically? How much consultation has there been over boundaries?

Neighbourhood forums have previously been about holding services to account rather than planning or service provision. Forums are not well understood but have been identified by Whitehall as suitable vehicles for localism. Bill proposes to change their remit – raises a number of issues:

o Forums have different starting points and are at different stages of development. Some will need capacity building – What are the resource implications?

o Castle Vale is an example of a defined community – albeit artificially created – what about Sparkbrook – number of possible definitions based on geography, religion, ethnicity etc. Some may be contradictory.

Some neighbourhoods (e.g. on Birmingham/Sandwell border) cut across local authority boundaries.

49

What will happen in the most dysfunctional neighbourhoods? The public sector needs to give more support to these areas but without money! Support requires very local knowledge, time and connections within communities. Possible use of community champions and local businesses.

A large number of people are leaving public services at present. Unless action is taken to capture their knowledge and experience it will all disappear?

Agencies will need to change from service provision to enabling service provision. This will require a change management process to ensure the message is coherent.

Next steps: Partners to consider piloting the Bill or elements of the Bill in one or more areas –

some of these are likely to be incorporated into existing pilots on Community Based Budgets and Small Area Budgets

Partners to consider the implications of the Bill in more detail including: whether the existing neighbourhood forums in the city are fit for purpose in terms of the Bill; how the public sector will need to change as a result of the Bill when it comes into force; and to consider potential negative consequences

50

Action group 14 Group question: What part do clean and safe neighbourhoods play in encouraging more people to get involved in looking after an area? What can we do to encourage pride in the neighbourhood? The group began by brainstorming on post-it notes – the points made were then grouped under the following headings: cohesion, cost, crime and culture (it was noted that some related to more than one): Cohesion: Sense of pride and belonging; wanting to help each other to keep a

neighbourhood nice - feeling safe means people will get involved Having physical stake in locality = ownership and stewardship Will prevent people from feelings of isolation and disconnectedness Area pride = community cohesion Can make people feel connected and cared about There are tensions in communities between those who ‘do’ and those who ‘don’t’

[get involved] There are sometimes misconceptions about cultural behaviour towards things like

waste disposal, which leads to cohesion issues Stereotypes create negative thoughts, feelings, outlook, attitude Need to tap into what is already there – residents’ groups, faith groups etc. A focal point for coming together generates other outcomes to build stable

communities Cost: Clean = virtuous circle = lower cost and more to invest in community infrastructure Make people believe that their council tax is spent on the places where they live Half the battle has been won and we can build upon already clean and safe area Visible value for money for local taxation encourages participation Clean and safe is a practical vehicle for people to make a tangible contribution

plus saves money Crime: Safe = 24 hours a day = vibrancy Appearance of place dictates behaviour, informs visitors of the community’s

behaviour / tone, identifies vulnerabilities and magnifies them Young people feel better able to share open spaces without fear Feel less frightened of potential crime and criminal acts Clean and safe can be the key to inspiring trust and confidence and the hook /

common purpose to gain buy-in

51

A run-down area encourages more crime, anti social behaviour etc (broken windows effect)

Need more effective interventions against those who will not stop taking part in anti social behaviour / criminal activity

Need better links to all public sector organisations in an area – schools, health, local authority, police, fire

Safe neighbourhood = cross generation working Culture (behaviour): Develop a ‘‘contract of responsibility’’ between statutory services and residents This agenda is absolutely crucial – place has an enormous effect on people and

their mental health (which in turn affects the way they conduct their lives) People can talk about where they live and feel proud of their neighbourhood Set the tone / vibe of the area, impacts on well-being, feelings, attitudes and

outcomes More likely to report fly-tipping and other problems that may arise Helping people to help themselves Focus on bad areas to get them up to a better standard and close the gap – this

will encourage those who want to get involved The following points came out of the ensuing discussion: Inter-generational issues are key, for example, children wanting to play in an area

covered in “No Ball Games” signs. Tensions between generations are very real and a greater tolerance is needed, as

well as a greater understanding. Fear is critical. Adults can find it very hard to understand young people and how they choose to

communicate with each other and how they decide their priorities. Not all older people are nice people! They can often exacerbate the problems!

This is a real issue when we have an ageing population – we need to get them ‘on board’.

We need to do a maximum amount of work in a cross-generational way and there are many examples of where this has been done well (e.g. Safe Haven intergenerational summer programme in Quinton 2010 – reduced anti social behaviour and complaints significantly).

Other e.g. of good practice – Junior Warden Scheme in Wychall Farm Estate and Kings Norton Nature Reserve – that has passionate people keeping it going;

All issues / agendas (discussed at the summit today) need to be tackled collectively as every one impinges on the other.

Local authority has a big role to play as they set the agenda (but less capacity to do so now).

Fractured families are rife and other people in the community need to step in and help.

Schools can be disconnected from their communities with the group feeling that secondary schools were particularly difficult to engage.

52

The group then focused on what could be done to encourage pride in neighbourhoods with the following main points being made:

Catch them young – keep them teenage! Very young people in primary school

are very interested and engaged and this can sometimes be lost as they move into secondary school and other things become more important /relevant to them.

Education is the common denominator of every young citizen in this country. This isn’t just about state education but also about parenting. Community activists often start up in response to a trigger, for example,

prostitution. There are worries, however, particularly with community organisers proposed by

the government, that this will lead communities to become exclusive and intolerant e.g. driving out communities they don’t like – the challenge is ensuring inclusivity.

Need social entrepreneurs locally to nurture those, as neighbourhood managers have done? There are too few leaders and role models in the community;

Some communities, though, can feel very disconnected from their local ‘activists’ and feel isolated from them and think they are just looking out for their own interests;

Also, not all local groups e.g. neighbourhood forums are supported by their communities – there can be drawbacks if these are the groups involved in consultations;

There are examples of areas improving and that improvement being sustained when young people have been involved in, say the design of a park;

There might be a period of pain (where areas decline) before people can be mobilised.

Next steps: Identify ways to share and replicate good practice e.g. with the Safe Haven

summer inter-generational project There is more potential for engaging positively with schools and local

opportunities need to be sought to so this. Engaging with and involving children at primary level is particularly important

There are groups on the ground in communities that already exist and can assist Local inter-agency working and involvement of residents to address issues

holistically is still vital

53

Action group 15 Group question: How can we make people who are disaffected with society want to be part of Big Society Solutions? The facilitator began by summarising the current work of Bringing Hope and Young Disciples. They work with a consortium to engage young people from the hardest end of society, that is, those involved in drug or gangs and those excluded or at risk of exclusion from school and/or in educational crisis. In addition, the Lighthouse Group provides training for behaviour coaches and mentoring in schools. The programme is being replicated around the country and three new centres are due to open in 2011. The initiative is growing despite the recession; it is based on a business model and not reliant on grant funding. The aim is to bring young people back into society. The groups then considered what is meant by disaffection and what contributes to it with the following points being made:

It is a negative term Marginalised young people are disempowered their voices are not heard Mainstream society doesn’t reflect their reality, we must listen to them prior to

trying to build bridges Young people think that it’s society not them that’s disaffected Lack of father figures contributes to disaffection Gang members tend to be educational underachievers Flaws within society contribute to disaffection Families and their behaviour patterns are factors Young people feel they have no voice and that there are too many restrictions to

participating They have no sense of belonging or involvement in society The police can create disaffection by an authoritarian attitude that removes

empowerment and creates disaffection The word youth is not positive terminology it creates a stereotype Criminalisation by police and criminal justice system creates an epidemic of young

people choosing a way of life that they don’t need to Young people need a diversion from crime not antisocial behaviour order (ASBO)

and criminal antisocial behaviour order (CRASBO) 70% of Home Office statistics promote a negative view of young people Need for society to address the underlying issues of what it means to have

children and the responsibility of child rearing needs to be a part of the Big Society solution. Parenting classes are already happening but the groups now excluded are the next parents

Work with young people is only as good as work with parents and guardians The voice of young people is absent at Be Birmingham summit

54

A real life scenario was introduced about two armed young guys who come to kill a young guy and the following questions considered: Are they disaffected? How do we use the Big Society model to deal with this? It was felt that they must form part of the solution. It was felt that no-one is sure what Big Society is: we are asking people to define something but we don’t know what it is. We can’t assume that everyone buys into the same reality as us; we need a debate with them to make this tangible. Society treats young people like kids not young adults, we need to change our view, young people have lots to say and we should let them be who they really are. Young people excluded from school are often good entrepreneurs and need to be supported and encouraged to set up their own businesses. Young people’s concerns are the same as ours, we have to find out what they are engaged with, relationships are important and intergenerational initiatives are often key to success. An example of good practice was given: grandmothers providing a role as surrogate parents to replace the blocks that are missing from young peoples lives and to evoke a vital sense of identity and belonging. Supporting the child, being ‘on their side’ and challenging the general negative view of the child in a society where greed and materialism rule. Next steps: In response to the question it is as much about the things without which the Big Society will not happen – the group came up with the following list: Belonging Involvement in society Goal orientated Strategic Operational Continually communicated Interdependency Evolutionary Trust Yielding results

55

Action group 16 Group question: What will success look like, how will we know what is working and that a difference is being made?

What are we measuring?

Big Society is a means to an end and is not in itself the ‘measure of success’. The term is ill-defined, like improving ‘well-being’ or ‘quality of life’. Tracking improvements within these broad concepts is difficult often obscuring the direct cause and effect linkages. There is a danger Big Society will do the same thing

Success depends upon your stand point whether you work in the community, are the community or are part of that community. So perspective is important. It is clear that the focus of any measure needs to be based on the effect upon the resident and the community.

Success will be in the approach rather than totally in the end achievement. The personal and the strategic come together to make the Big Society work

There is perhaps a case for developing a performance or accountability mechanism which reflects that residents and communities have a key role to play in the Big Society – one which holds agencies such as Birmingham City Council to account for putting in place measures to support the Big Society. This might mean committing to reduced bureaucracy, devolving budgets and decision-making to local neighbourhoods or the transfer of assets from agencies to local communities.

Do we currently have any measure that will help us?

We have a collective vision for the city, set out in the Birmingham 2026, Sustainable Communities Strategy [SCS]. However, with the ending of many reporting, target or outcome frameworks there is also an opportunity to develop a more local set of success factors relevant to residents and the city.

At the top of the SCS – in other words the sum total of all of the other measures – sits the idea of “well being”. This remains ill-defined but seems likely to include some form of survey of residents. This type of measure – rather than the more traditional measures like economic output, life expectancy or rates of crime – was seen as very helpful in the context of the Big Society.

Working hypothetically?

As the term Big Society is very broad, working through a hypothetical example of what this means to a particular public services was useful. Housing was given as an example. The measurements of success had been defined previously as inputs or outputs e.g. the amount of rent collected (income target) and these had no connection with improving local areas or resident experience. A more appropriate measure would be resident satisfaction with their neighbourhood.

56

What the example illustrated was measures need to be set at a very local level, with community involvement. Measures should be owned by communities who then hold businesses, agencies and authorities to account.

Who’s in charge?

Therefore the challenge is empowering local people to hold service providers to account whether they are public, private or third sector. Local people must set policy and agreed outcome measures. It is this ‘ownership’ which is important, more bottom up than top down. This is a challenge for all and means very localised approaches

We are all in this together?

Some things work well currently other things do not. We all must continue to work better together across sectors and organisations. This is not just a public sector issue. More importantly there needs to be better engagement, dialogue and collaboration with and through the residents of the city. Next steps: The discussion points above will be fed in to wider discussions about performance arrangements for Vision 2026. In particular, the work nationally on measures for “happiness” or well-being connect very closely to the issues raised in this discussion – linking both community-owned and appropriate performance measures with the concept of broader and different measures of success. Further details on how this might be developed are expected later in the year. Alongside that more transparent and easily-accessed performance information will be published.