Review of the residents and business membership of the Neighbourhood Partnership and future options – September 2011

The Neighbourhood Partnership agreed to review its membership by December 2011. The following options have been developed for consultation and consideration by the Neighbourhood Forums in September 2011. Up to 3 options will be presented to the next Neighbourhood Partnership meeting on the 5 th October. There are lots of unanswered questions about numbers and the processes. This detail will come. The question at this stage is which general approach do you prefer? Which 3 options should be presented to the Neighbourhood Partnership? Once this has been decided there will be further work on the detail between October and December 2011. A key issue for the Neighbourhood Partnership going forward is the involvement and representation of young people which ever option is agreed by the NP. The process for involving community and voluntary sector will also be considered in the coming weeks.

What has informed these options?Between March and May 2011 we asked residents to give us feedback about the current membership of the neighbourhood partnership. We spoke to people one to one, sent out a questionnaire to over 500 residents by email and set up a survey monkey. Key messages were:

1. Most people think the partnership is the right size (for this reason we have not proposed any options which significantly reduces the residents attending the NP).2. Most people think the partnership should represent the defined neighbourhoods of the area, for example, Redcliffe, Redfield and Montpelier AND the diverse population. 3. The people on the NP need to represent and be accountable to the communities it serves. 4. No preference about residents being elected with equal numbers for and against (this is where there are formal ‘one person, one vote’ elections. 5. Most people did not think residents should be nominated from existing groups (albeit with a small margin).

OPTION MEMBERS RISKS PROBLEMS BENEFITS CONCLUSION Option 1Do nothing

6 ward members25 residents 8 community/vol groups5 public service providers 2 businesses2 young people 1 equalities rep

Decision making can be difficult in large groups but decisions are being made and the meetings are well managed. This risk is therefore negligible currently.

In practice rarely is everyone present.

Little opportunity for people who haven’t been involved to get involved. Appears ‘closed’ to people who are not involved.

Based on community partnership structures which do not reflect the whole area.

Seems unclear to people not already involved.

Some geographic communities are better represented than others.

Inconsistent levels of accountability to and involvement in the Neighbourhood Forums (because current members people were not elected by the NF)

Process for joining the NP is

Large diverse group reflecting different sectors, ages, geographic and ethnic communities.

Builds on what existed before and benefits from collective knowledge and expertise.

Initial consultation suggested residents want to be well represented.

Not sustainable in its current form but would make sense to sustain the level of involvement. Problems could be addressed with some minor changes (see option 2)

The issues of accountability to the NF can be addressed by applying and monitoring membership rules agreed by the NP.

1

OPTION MEMBERS RISKS PROBLEMS BENEFITS CONCLUSION unclear.

Option 2Make minor changes to increase representation from under represented areas

Increase numbers (to be determined) of residents from under-represented areas - St Werburghs, Montpelier/St Andrews, Redcliffe by electing residents at the Neighbourhood Forum. Increase businesses to reflect different sectors e.g. traders, construction. Vacancies are increasingly filled with residents who are elected at the Neighbourhood Forum.

Decision making can be difficult in large groups but decisions are being made and the meetings are well managed. This risk is therefore negligible currently

Inconsistent levels of accountability to and involvement in the Neighbourhood Forums.

Tackles under-representation of some geographic communities.

Continues to benefit from the commitment and knowledge of existing members.

Opportunity for new people to get involved.

Continues to reflect a diverse group

Addresses the main problem with ‘Option 1’.

The issues of accountability to the NF can be addressed by applying and monitoring membership rules agreed by the NP.

Option 3Reps elected by the Nhd Forum

In addition to the 6 ward Councillors, Equalities rep and young people and statutory partners residents elected from each ward (number to be determined ) by the Neighbourhood Forums with some places allocated to ‘neighbourhoods’ and other places for different communities e.g.13 places per ward:6 representing neighbourhoods3 representing different ethnic communities 2 representing age groups. 1 business1 community and vol. sector.

Lose current involvement which is diverse with no guarantees of filling the places.

Continues to be a large group and so meeting preparation and strong chairing is essential.

Links to existing neighbourhood groups is lost e.g. St Pauls Unlimited, Easton & Lawrence Hill NM, St Werburghs Neighbourhood Assn.

There is limited staffing capacity to carry out development work. Would largely be relying on people being self motivated. It would be possible to target under-represented communities once initial elections had taken place.

‘new start’ – opportunity to involve new people and ‘level the playing field’.

Representatives are accountable to the Neighbourhood Forums.

If this was the preferred option it would need to be developed further – number of places, how to secure diversity of representation.

OPTION 4 The resident NP membership is made up of a) nominations from existing neighbourhood groups:Ashley (8)

The NP membership will be as strong as the neighbourhood organisation – i.e. It relies on organisations being accountable

No guarantees the membership will reflect the diversity of the area.

Local organisations make the decisions about who attends and ensures accountability.

2

OPTION MEMBERS RISKS PROBLEMS BENEFITS CONCLUSION St Pauls UnlimitedSt Werburghs Neighbourhood AssnMontpelier St Andrews ParkEaston & Lawrence Hill (16) Easton & Lawrence Hill Neighbourhood Management Redcliffe ForumPLUS: Existing NP wide groups organised to represent communities of interest

to the communities they serve.

Relying on established networks could make it harder for new people to get involved.

Some kind of ‘quality checking’ may be possible such as groups constitution, meetings being openly advertised,

Was not supported in the initial consultation.

Maintains current connections with active groups in the area.

It recognises existing local organisations/activists, invests in them and utilises their knowledge and expertise

More likely NP makes decisions informed by people active/involved.

Next steps:a) Feedback from Forums, emails lists & websitesb) 3 options to be presented to NP on 5th October c) NP determines which option to be developed in detail in consultation with the NF’s for approval at the December NP.d) Implementation in 2012

Penny Germon Neighbourhood Manager

3