Meeting documents

  • Meeting of Bucks Strategic Partnership Board, Wednesday 23rd September 2009 2.30 pm (Item 5.)

·         Update on Tackling Disadvantage Partnership Programme: Trevor Boyd (Head of Commissioning and Service Improvement, Adults and Family Wellbeing, Buckinghamshire County Council) will update the Board on the work of the Programme, and ask the Board to comment on the scope of its work and the strategic approach proposed for tackling disadvantage in its widest sense across Buckinghamshire.

·         Feedback on consultation with seldom-heard groups: Trevor Millard and Alison Bond, Halo Works, will discuss with the Board the findings of the consultation with seldom-heard groups undertaken as part of the Sustainable Community Strategies development.

 

Decision to be taken:

·         Comment on feedback from Halo Works consultation,

·         Agree the scope of the Tackling Disadvantage Partnership Programme,

·         Agree future input from BSP Board.

Minutes:

Trevor Boyd (Head of Commissioning and Service Improvement, Adults and Family Wellbeing) gave a presentation on the Tackling Disadvantage Partnership Programme.

 

During the presentation, Trevor Boyd made the following points:

·         Tackling disadvantage in Buckinghamshire was a priority in the Sustainable Communities Strategies and in the Local Area Agreement (LAA).

·         Eight neighbourhoods in Buckinghamshire fell into the lowest 30% of deprivation nationally. Four localities had been defined which covered these eight areas (Oakridge and Castlefield, Disraeli, Quarrendon and Southcourt). Projects were being carried out in these areas to tackle disadvantage, and this was monitored by a Programme Board. The aim was to engage a community organisation or local residents to take ownership of work carried out.

·         There was no single cause for deprivation, and the best approach was a partnership approach, as the causes were multi-faceted.

·         Tackling disadvantage should be about empowering and raising aspirations, rather than developing dependency. A Partnership Programme had been set up to tackle the problem of disadvantage in Buckinghamshire. The programme had two workstreams, the first of which included a Community-led approach; the creation of a Vulnerable Localities Index (being produced by the Fire and Rescue Service); and a Childhood Poverty Programme (which would be linked to the work of the Children’s Trust).

 

Members then asked questions, and these are summarised below.

 

You mentioned a Community-led approach – do you include local Councillors (County, District and Parish)?

Yes – this is crucial to the work. We have already engaged with Local Members and we will continue to do so.

 

Can you give more details about the projects being carried out in the four identified areas?

Examples of short-term projects: Providing an Adaction Outreach Worker; providing an additional Youth Worker to the Youth Offending Service for the Oakridge and Castlefield area; Community Fun days.

Examples of medium-term and long-term projects: Play activity; Cardio-vascular screening programmes; addressing take-up of quality childcare places.

Not all the above are new schemes, - some of the work is about intensifying existing schemes.

 

By the next meeting of the Programme Board local indicators need to be defined for the four identified areas, as well as National Indicators. This will be discussed with the High Wycombe Local Community Partnership.

 

Are there examples of areas which have moved out of disadvantage?

Some Unitary Councils in the Midlands have done this, such as Coventry City Council. However they had large financial investments, which we do not have. The challenge is to unlock investment already made, in a creative way. There is not much new funding available.

 

Is there an approach which is transferrable through different communities?

Acorn data is being used to break down information almost by individual streets. However this is a test approach.

 

Trevor Millard and Alison Bond (Halo Works) then gave a presentation on the feedback from consultation with seldom-heard groups.

 

During the presentation, the following points were made:

·         By their very nature, seldom-heard groups were difficult to reach for consultations.

·         The Sustainable Community Strategies were the theme of the Consultation. The groups identified by the local authorities commissioning the Consultation were: BME, the elderly, disability groups and young people. Focus groups were used.

·         In the main, the Strategy had come through the Consultation unscathed and was seen to have the right messages and priorities for local people.

·         The people involved felt they had suffered a lot from financial cuts and efficiency savings.

·         Those questioned felt that the Strategy had been written for Central Government, and not for them.

·         Voluntary organisations provided extremely important support, and when these services were cut, it could be devastating for people, especially the disabled and elderly.

·         Targets in the strategy needed to be ‘win-win’ and should not rely on the failure of another area or body.

·         The Strategy had to develop at a very local level.

·         Milestones needed to be placed between now and 2026, and targets should be absolutely focused on residents.

·         Practical everyday issues for the people consulted were not necessarily included in the Strategy, e.g. the issue of overhanging vegetation on pavements for residents with sight impairment.

·         People are ‘slipping through the net’, and many of those consulted were not aware of schemes such as the Age Concern Befriending Scheme or the prescription delivery scheme.

·         Isolation was a huge issue, and was driven by a number of factors including economic hardship (which was found to include people living in large houses on fixed incomes, perhaps whose children had moved away); and death of a partner (service provision was needed for when this occurred, to support the bereaved person and help them to re-integrate into the Community).

·         There was no criticism of one organisation – those consulted tended to see public services as one large body.

·         Regular phone-calls were seen to be a very effective way of reducing isolation, such as those made by befriending schemes.

 

Following the presentation, Members made the following comments on the information:

·         Residents wanted to help each other but were not sure how to go about this. One possibility would be to adapt the existing Neighbourhood Watch. Meetings could be held at the home of a resident who felt isolated.

·         A balance was needed between state intervention and self-help.

·         People needed to be seen as a resource, rather than a problem.

·         The responses were very interesting, but the number of people in each group consulted was very low (e.g. one group interviewed was of two people).

 

Paul Tinnion said that Neighbourhood Watch was originally an American concept. To some extent it had lost momentum in the UK. The Police supported Neighbourhood Watch, but it was a community-led initiative which was separate from the Police.

 

Alison Bond said that the size of the groups consulted was very small compared to those in the Place Survey. However it was dubious whether quantitative research was the right method for hard-to-reach groups. The feedback from the Consultation was consistent across the County, which showed that it reflected issues of concern.

 

RESOLVED

 

The Board:

·         Commented on feedback from the Halo Works consultation,

·         Agreed the scope of the Tackling Disadvantage Partnership Programme,

·         Agreed future input from BSP Board (feedback to be provided to the Board twice a year)

Supporting documents: