The Council’s Corporate Policy & Strategy Committee considers the Council’s review of Grants to Third Parties at a busy meeting on Tuesday 25 February.

How the Council funds Third Parties is being considered ‘in the round,’ not only to ensure value for money (VfM) for the Council (and, thus, for taxpayers) but also to ensure that the Council’s investments are working as hard as possible to meet Council and Partnership objectives.

Those who want to understand the detail of this work will – of course – want to look at the paper (referred by the Council’s Communities & Neighbourhoods Committee,) but for those of you looking for a quick overview here are a few key points.

In February 2013 a Coalition Motion at the Budget Meeting agreed to “… a review of the grants to third parties process during 2013/14, conducted in partnership with third sector stakeholders, to ensure financial stability for organisations and value for money for the Council.”

The Review is now expected to fully report in April 2016.

The Communities & Neighbourhoods Committee agreed recommendations to:

align grants to meet council priorities; approve transfer of responsibility for developing grant programmes and making grants to executive committees and policy development sub-committees; note that the review will be developed as part of the Council’s BOLD (Better Outcomes Leaner Delivery) programme; note that the Committee will receive annual reports on ‘the health of the third sector, cultural and sporting bodies’.”

The Council will measure success against the following criteria:

grant agreement objectives improve; satisfaction with grant funded services improves; satisfaction with the Council’s grants to third parties arrangements improves; Council governance arrangements improve; and recipients of grants to third parties are increasingly sustainable.

The Committees note as key drivers for change:

demographic shifts; the need to adapt to changing Council priorities, pledges etc; a projected funding shortfall within the Council; and the need for a more equitable pattern of investment.

We can expect the review to proceed along the following themes:

• Three-Year grant funding as the norm; Five-Year funding for a few Strategic Partners;
• Improved Corporate Coordination; an Identification of the financial value of all forms of Council support to third parties;
• a further encouragement for third parties to be resource efficient, to diversify their income and to adopt Council policies.

The review – we are reassured – will be taken forward in line with Compact Principles, and the overarching theme: In Equal Respect.

Key contacts within the Council include:

• Cllr Maureen Child (Convenor, Communities & Neighbourhoods Committee);
• Nick Croft (Corporate Policy & Strategy Manager);
• Euan Renton (Corporate Policy & Strategy Team)

And in the Third Sector:

• Ella Simpson (EVOC Director);
• Milind Kolhatkar (Compact Secretariat) in the first instance.

My name is June Dickson and I have recently taken up the post of Development Worker for Community Planning at EVOC.

My role sees me working closely with Milind Kolhatkar, the Senior Development Officer to deliver a range of Community Planning outcomes.

My Background

I have over 15 years’ experience working in the Third Sector which has given me the privilege of working with various groups within communities in Edinburgh ranging from young parents, BME communities and older people.

My introduction to Edinburgh’s Third Sector was through my first post as Development Worker with the Leith Under 5’s Forum which eventually became the Dr Bell’s Family Centre.

I have developed a great admiration for the Sector, having witnessed such great passion, drive and determination over the years.

I’ve held various roles from Community Development Worker to Business Support Manager mainly within the Children and Families area, but most recently within the Mental Health arena.

I enjoy helping Voluntary Organisations to meet new practices and systems as the Third Sector landscape evolves.

During my time in the Sector, I have provided support and care to people experiencing various needs ranging from mental health issues, discrimination, parenting issues, fuel poverty, domestic abuse and poor literacy.

Social inclusion and Social Justice are just two issues that are very important to me. I am encouraged to see the ways the Third Sector has worked for many years, now formally recognised as Co-Production.

When we strip away the jargon and the academic analyses, I find we are left with what really matters – interpersonal relationships, people helping others, and people coming together to make our lives recognisably better than before.

And that’s what I’m here to help you with.

My Role at EVOC

I look forward to engaging with and supporting Third Sector participation with Edinburgh’s Neighbourhood Partnerships, and developing and sustaining positive relationships with individuals and organisations.

Together, we aim to encourage co-production at all levels – especially between Third Sector and Public Sector organisations. My main remit will be representing Third Sector interests and supporting Third Sector representatives.

I would appreciate the opportunity to meet and discuss the needs and hopes of those involved to find out how I can be of assistance to Third Sector and other Community Planning Partners to encourage and enable participation.

Please contact me by email [email protected] or on 0131 555 9114 to arrange a time to have a discuss your needs and hopes.

There is much within the draft Community Empowerment Bill that should be welcomed – not least the explicit recognition that (most) communities need support in order to play a full and active role within the wider socio-politico-economic context.

There is still, however, quite some way to go – in our opinion – and, as is so often the case, the devil is indeed in the detail.

Overarching themes will nonetheless still hold, and EVOC – on behalf of Edinburgh’s Third Sector – would want to concentrate minds on such themes as the interplay between CoProduction and Empowerment; just how Empowerment will reduce inequalities; and the role of Scotland’s Third Sector (and Third Sector Interfaces.)

THE impending Community Empowerment & Renewal Bill (short title: Community Empowerment Bill) is the latest staging post in Scotland’s journey towards more active, engaged and empowered communities.

In September 2011 the Scottish Government announced its intention to develop a Community Empowerment & Renewal Bill, and invited initial ideas.

EVOC prepared a submission on behalf of Edinburgh’s Third Sector, taking as its key themes: an explicit, expanded role for Scotland’s Third Sector in the journey towards greater community empowerment; a strong desire to shift from representative democracy towards more participative democracy; the firm belief that CoProducing policies, services and budgets will enable empowerment; and the clear understanding that since not all ownership is empowering, community influence over public assets is just as valuable as ownership.

In conclusion the submission suggests (among other things) that ‘the Third Sector seeks to move… towards an approach that meaningfully puts people and communities (their needs and assets) at the heart of service design and delivery.’

ONE year later EVOC and Edinburgh’s TSSG (Third Sector Strategy Group) provided a formal submission in response to the Scottish Government’s formal consultation.

Key themes in this submission were:

• The Role of Legislation in bringing about societal change ‘Legislation can be a powerful influence for good… (but) it is in the application of the law that real change will take place… (and) it must be recognised that different communities… can have differential access to the application of (or protection under) the law.’
• The ‘…evident appetite to move from representative democracy towards participative democracy.’
• The potential impact of such ground-breaking legislation in reducing inequalities.

It is encouraging that the themes above, and the ‘top three’ responses to the question ‘Which of these will most support Community Empowerment?’ do appear to have been taken account of in drafting the most recent legislation:

1. An Overarching Public Sector ‘duty to engage,’
2. Strengthening Community Planning, and
3. A Public Sector duty to apply the National Standards for Community Engagement.

Which brings us to the present context, where the Scottish Government has brought forward a range of proposals – some better defined than others – intended to deliver empowered communities across Scotland.

The Government’s current proposals are set out in three groups:

a)      Proposals on which draft legislation has now been published;

b)      Detailed policy questions on issues that have not quite reached the draft legislation stage; and

c)       New policy ideas on wider issues, on which Government is seeking responses.

You will find the following briefing notes published by Third Sector colleagues very useful, informative, and well-researched:

• GCVS
• SCDC
• The Alliance

For my part, I have three points to share:

1. Just ‘bestowing’ upon us the ‘right’ to engage with, or improve public services is no guarantee that anyone will access or exercise this right. We must ensure that the rights in this legislation are exercised, and exercised equitably across communities.
2. The draft legislation presumes certain inherent goods, which decision-makers are to take into account in agreeing or refusing community requests. These are: economic development, regeneration, public health, social wellbeing and environmental wellbeing. It appears that the minister and the bill team are minded to also include ‘reducing inequality.’ To my mind three aspects of inequality should be particularly targeted – reducing gender inequality, reducing health inequalities, and reducing what we might call ‘participation inequality,’ linked to the ‘democratic deficit.’
3. Finally – we’ve recognised all along that Legislation is ‘just’ an enabler. For this legislation to actually deliver the desirable impact, we must also have Capacity, Opportunity, and Motive.

This draft legislation is welcome, and is very encouraging. It is only half the story, though, and how the legislation is applied, used, and realised is bound to be much more exciting in the months and the years to come.

The Scottish Government has announced its intention to bring to Parliament a new piece of legislation – designed to ensure that communities have more of a say in the factors which affect our lives.

The Community Empowerment & Renewal Bill has been discussed, in various forms, since Autumn of 2011. An initial pre-consultation drew significant interest from across Scotland. EVOC submitted a response on behalf of the city’s Third Sector.

Now a formal consultation has been launched, with a deadline of Friday 24th January 2014.

EVOC would like to encourage you to feed your thoughts in by all or any of the following means:

• Respond to the formal consultation: https://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/11/5740/downloads

• Join us for a Breakfast ThinkSpace session on Thursday 16th January 2014 – 0830 for 0900 to 1100. The morning will include brief explanations and an opportunity for facilitated small-group discussions – Book Now with Dianne Morrison

• If you’re unable to attend, please do send us your thoughts

• Engage with other groups, such as the Scottish Community Development Centre (SCDC) in their work to gather views to feed in to the Government as the Bill progresses

• Contact the Bill Team directly, by emailing: [email protected], or via Twitter @CommEmpower

The Draft Bill envisages a pivotal role for Scotland’s Third Sector, so we are very keen to gather your views to inform our submission to the Scottish Government.

UPDATE – Monday 13th January – new blog published, with links to briefing papers: Eternal Optimists will Love the Community Empowerment Bill

To discuss any of this, or to feed your views in, please contact Milind Kolhatkar at EVOC on 0131 555 9100 or @evoc_milind

Canny wi’ Cash older people’s Participatory Budgeting project

RECOGNISING that older people are the true ‘experts’ on their needs, the Canny wi’ Cash Participatory Budgeting project invited older people themselves to make decisions on small grants for work with, by and for older people.

Participatory Budgeting projects have been run in Edinburgh before – think ‘£eith Decides’ for example – but they have always involved groups ‘pitching’ their project ideas to people who gather at one place at one time.

The unique Canny wi’ Cash process saw a team of facilitators reaching out to older people where they were – at lunch clubs, art groups, and sheltered housing complexes across Edinburgh over a ‘voting fortnight’ – gathering their views on which projects they wanted to support.

All these votes were gathered together, analysed, and the results collated. Approximately half the 100 project ideas which were submitted were successful, with slightly over £55,000 being allocated. The bids ranged from funding for quilting materials to a tutor to take older people through gentle exercise. You might find this alphabetical list of organisations offered funding of interest.

To celebrate the success of the project, and to recognise the brilliant work that small groups do, we are planning a get-together at the end of January 2014. Successful groups will be invited to a reception hosted by key City of Edinburgh Councillors.

Cllr Maureen Child is the council’s Third Sector Champion and chairs the Communities & Neighbourhoods Committee, while Cllr Ricky Henderson is convenor of the Health, Social Care & Housing Committee.

This event will provide an opportunity for groups to come together, to share notes and anecdotes, and – hopefully – to build links that could generate new ideas for pieces of work that will benefit Edinburgh’s community of older people.

Working with older people, rather than doing unto them is at the heart of co-productive relationships; relationships which are equal and respectful, trusting and purposeful; relationships which enable people – wherever they might be – to have agency and voice, and to help shape the systems and processes which affect their daily lives. You might find this brief paper on co-production of interest.

Watch this space for more news and a full report on the Canny wi’ Cash Participatory Budgeting project.

THE second series of ThinkSpace discussion breakfasts started on October 15th with guests Alan Sinclair and Eileen McHale, the City of Edinburgh Council’s Benefits chiefs.

Thanks to all of you who joined us on day one, and made it a success.

We promised to share information about the availability of Discretionary Housing Payment and the Scottish Welfare Fund. The Scottish Government has issued a press release encouraging people in need to apply for DHP to help with housing-related costs.

The City of Edinburgh Council has published its Discretionary Housing Payment policy – which includes eligibility criteria – that you (or the people you work with) are sure to find useful.

Another source of support for people struggling to get by is, of course, the Scottish Welfare Fund. The best place to start looking for information on the Council’s approach is on their Welfare Reform pages. A useful ‘frequently asked questions’ is also available for download.

Please do book for the following ThinkSpace breakfast sessions on October 22nd and 29th and November 05th by calling 0131 555 9100.

 

 

 

It can seem, to people ‘at the sharp end,’ that circumstances beyond their control are just not on their side. Government spending on Public Services is under threat across the board; the cost of living consistently rises; and even Social Security, the ‘safety net,’ the refuge for those who simply have nowhere else to turn, is under constant threat. Politicians and polemicists (at times it’s hard to tell the difference) tell us that Welfare costs too much, that people claiming Welfare are undeserving of society’s support, that everyone – regardless of the opportunities we’ve had – should just ‘get on yer bike’ and find work (or More work, if you’re stuck on poverty pay!)

It must seem, to some people, that they’re in the Wrong place at the Wrong time.

In the confusing welter of conflicting messages, claims and counter-claims it can be difficult for the Third Sector to speak up effectively for the communities we serve. EVOC wants to help create the space for voluntary organisations to articulate their needs and the needs of their service-users, to speak truth directly to power, and to gather together for shared understanding and joint action.

Join Us at Series Two of our EVOC ThinkSpace Experts @ Breakfast discussion sessions at EVOC. 0830-0930 on consecutive Tuesdays from 15th October to 5th November as below. Places are Free, but you Must Book by emailing Dianne Morrison, saying which session(s) you’d like to attend.

• Tuesday 15 October – Alan Sinclair and Eileen McHale of the City of Edinburgh Council
• Tuesday 22 October – Olive Hill of the Scottish Government
• Tuesday 29 October – Kate Burton of the NHS Lothian
• Tuesday 05 November – Ruchir Shah of the SCVO

Bring your ideas and your enthusiasm – together we can find the best solutions for the vulnerable people we serve.

Biggest of All Big Issues

WHAT’S your view on that biggest of all big issues – the Council Budget (for 2014/15)? The City of Edinburgh Council wants to know just what you think. Expecting to have to make savings of £36m on a budget of about £950m (2013/14 was £936m and 2014/15 would be £976m if the Council continues to provide services as it currently does.) The projected savings needed rise to £120m by the year 2017/18. This is, of course, IF the Council continues to provide services as it currently does.

The question we are all being invited to consider is: how could the Council provide the same (or improved) services differently, so it can save the 3.7% needed?

This is not some arcane question for people who eat shredded spreadsheets for breakfast, it is a matter that impacts significantly on the Third Sector – and on the people we serve. The Third Sector can often be an important part of an alternative model of service delivery; the Third Sector is, itself, often significantly dependent on Council grants; and the communities the Third Sector serves are – typically – precisely those communities most dependent on Council services.

EVOC will continue to make the case that investing in the city’s Third Sector is a wise move – preventing costs rising in the long term, and building strong social fabric across Edinburgh’s communities.

You need to make your voice heard as well!

On July 5^th CEC Health and Social Care Dept launched its Market Shaping Strategy.  Essentially an outline of a commissioning strategy for health and social care services it is the Dept’s response to Self Directed Support legislation and public procurement guidance, in a context of public funding which directs resources away from social care, despite acknowledged demographic pressures and social change.

The following is not a guide to the strategy and assumes some knowledge of it but does not try to cover all the very pertinent issues providers will have.  Rather it poses some questions of a general nature as a means to stimulate thinking and contribute to the event EVOC is hosting on August 6^th to capture views and comment on the draft strategy.

The document represents a significant shift by CEC.  A few years ago a tender for care and support services was recalled in the face of organised action by people affected but not consulted on the changes.  From that defining moment many lessons have been learned and we now have an open consultation on how best to organise for SDS options and the provision of services by third parties.

At the same time CEC has been espousing a more open and engaging approach to working with the people of Edinburgh.  So we now hear things like ‘we’re all in this together, we need to work together, to cooperate and find joint solutions to common problems’ (to paraphrase).  Indeed a Team has been established: Corporate Policy and Strategy Team – Third Sector, which is looking at ways to develop more cooperative approaches with the third sector and communities of the city.

Alongside a more cooperative council there are moves towards co-producing services (a recommendation from the Christie Commission).  Co-production appears to mean that all stakeholders will be involved in the commissioning and delivery of care services (in this context).  Co-produced services are promulgated as a means to make services more responsive and inclusive (and most likely if not cheaper then demonstrably of better value).

Cooperation, working together and co-production are all ideas and practices the voluntary sector has been familiar with since its inception.  Now however the challenge is to uphold these values and principles in a market environment where vulnerable adults become customers and competition pits one company/association against another.  An overarching question about the market shaping strategy particularly for voluntary agencies is the extent to which the strategy enables a market accessible and profitable, whilst allowing for development, quality provision and the best outcomes possible.

The strategy outlines new market opportunities:

• Jobs in health and social care provide an attractive choice for workers
• Opportunities for social enterprises in meeting a “growing demand for self funded help with household and garden safety and maintenance tasks” (page 6)
• Voluntary and community groups which “help people better understand the costs of growing old… will benefit from the changes [CEC] is making to its procurement arrangements” (page 6)

and a number of others.  The question here might be does this section help providers understand new market opportunities; can a strategy do more to create new opportunities and if so, how?  One consideration here might be to think about the range of services open to market players and how demand may be extended.  Which is in one sense a question about the structure of the market – which services are in, which out, why and what are the implications of a market skewed towards one provider (who is the most expensive and also the purchaser)?

The strategy goes on to describe the nature of the market and how it may develop over the coming years ie what Health and Social Care Dept thinks may be the nature of need over the short and medium term.  The information is detailed and helpful covering geography and the variety of need and demand among different populations.  In this the strategy finds its feet and allows providers to consider where they sit now and what else and other may need to be done to respond to demographic and economic change.

The statistical evidence (at population level) gives a picture but cannot offer a comprehensive account of need.  Local voluntary agencies have long had a finger on the pulse of the communities they serve and a purchaser would do well to include that intelligence.  The risk in this respect comes from a shift in provision which precludes the smaller local provider and so risks losing their intelligence, their histories and the very means for building community resilience. What does the strategy offer in mitigation, and more, how does it actively promote co-produced local provision which elements of the sector have a strong track record in?

Much is made of the need to reduce demand on expensive services which meet higher level needs and a prime means of doing so is to enhance the role of preventive services. The sector has long occupied this market segment and now faces a challenge to grow into an expanded market and maintain its lead role in prevention.  To do so requires new approaches one of which would appear to be social media – for many the jury is still out on the role of social media in addressing social care needs; the strategy needs to make a stronger case with a more explicit evidence base for its recommendations in this respect, and more generally across the piece.

One way of looking at the changes sees two markets – one for services that are free at the point of delivery, and another (for people on individual payments) which are not.  Given the agenda for integration of health and social care this question assumes a place at the centre of how care provision will look in future, and may be a question more for an audience concerned with integration.  However the dual nature of a user experience poses questions not only of presentation but may become a driver for behaviours with the potential to de-stabilise the market and threaten sustainability. 

CEC’s market shaping strategy is the first of its kind in Scotland we are told.  Just our luck perhaps?! More though the strategy appears as a genuine attempt to get to grips with some thorny issues and the opportunity to make it as good as it can be is very much welcomed.

And if you’re thinking this is all very well but what about procurement, where is procurement in all of this, and how will that part of the commissioning cycle be carried out, the strategy offers nothing.  A variety of procurement methodologies are available and it is fair to say that tendering exercises across the piece show a lack of strategic vision and coherence – experience shows that some models are used at some times while different methodologies are employed at other times and little that is clear in determining which is used and when.  The strategy may not talk about procurement but the voluntary sector needs answers to these kind of questions of resource allocation.

 

The news media are so full of reportage about George Osborne’s Spending Review of Wednesday 26th June (like in the Guardian newspaper, The Telegraph newspaper, or BBC News or Channel 4 online or  that anyone could be forgiven for thinking that government departmental spending is to be slashed by up to 10 per cent tomorrow. That is not the case. The Spending Review published on 26 June is for the year 2015/16 and is (as has been reported) at least as much politics as economics – the Conservative party particularly seeking to paint the Labour party into a corner.

Be that as it may, the politics described by the economics within both the document and the Chancellor’s speech deserve our attention, outlining as they do an approach to people, society, and the state.

The full document laid before Parliament describes a range of changes to both the AME or Annual Managed Expenditure (expenditure on items which are primarily demand-driven such as debt interest, pension payments, and welfare spending – among other things) and the DEL or Departmental Expenditure Limits (spending on such things as defence, health, education, etc – which are more easily predictable over a three-year spending review cycle.)

The ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ tell their own tale: These departments (among others) can expect a near-10 per cent cut – Cabinet Office, Communities & Local Government, Energy & Climate Change, Environment & Rural Affairs, Justice, and even the Treasury; while other departments have been earmarked for cuts closer to 5 per cent – Business and HMRC. It is telling, on the other hand, that the Defence budget is to expect a 2 per cent reduction, while the Intelligence Agencies MI5, MI6 and GCHQ are to expect a 3 per cent increase.

Politics, as the politicians remind us at every turn, is about making choices.

Talk of an AME of £745bn overall, or cuts of £11.5bn across Whitehall understandably makes ones eyes water. Perhaps the impacts on people make more sense. The Treasury has helpfully, therefore, published a report on the distributional impacts on households by income quintile.

This report demonstrates that while the greatest impact will, indeed, fall on the richest fifth (those with the broadest shoulders,) the next-hardest-hit is the poorest fifth of the population. Much more dependent on ‘benefits in kind’ (such as public health or education,) it is those at the bottom of the income distribution who (will) suffer most from public spending cuts.

Anticipating some of the impacts of the spending review, the Resolution Foundation published a deeply discouraging report ‘Narrowed Horizons’ on ‘the fiscal choices.’

Politics are, indeed, a matter of choices. Some may be more difficult than others, and some may be more obvious than others. Let’s not pretend, however, that all politicians – of whatever hue – are the same.

They make their choices, and we have to make ours.

As the G8, the Group of the 8 most industrialised nations, gathers in Northern Ireland the chilling reality of food poverty in Britain begs the question: Is this what life in a ‘wealthy’ nation looks like?

Walking the Breadline, a searing report published recently by Oxfam and Church Action on Poverty, puts beyond any reasonable doubt the case that more and more people, families, even children in the UK suffer from food poverty; that this blot on our conscience is avoidable; and that they identify clamping down on aggressive tax avoidance as the best way to prevent more people falling into food poverty.

The report estimates that over half a million Brits rely on food aid (food banks and food parcels) and that this number is likely only to rise – unless action is taken now.

While the causes of food poverty are bound to be complex, the researchers found clear evidence that a significant part of the increase in reliance of food aid was due to growing underemployment, low incomes (in and out of work) and rising food and fuel prices.

Information collected by the Trussell Trust (the best-known provider of food banks) shows clearly that ‘changes to the benefits system are the most common reasons for people using food banks.’

These include delays in payments, inadequate levels of benefits, and benefits sanctions.

All of this is frighteningly reminiscent of the news back in February of this year that the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food Olivier de Schutter was ‘alarmed’ that the UK Government was not reliably discharging its duty to protect citizens’ fundamental human right to food.

Mr de Schutter said then that a nation’s welfare system should be the ‘safety net,’ but that inadequacies in that system was forcing people to rely on a safety net beyond that legal protection.

A mere four months later we find that the UK’s Welfare system is consistently failing people, and that more and more people, families and children have to rely on a hand-out.

In what we’re often told is the seventh-richest country on the planet, is this what we’d expect? Is this what we’ll accept?

You can add your voice to those calling for change now. Visit Church Action on Poverty’s ‘speak out’ page.

 

Come together with others of like mind, to find out more about Welfare Reforms at EVOC’s ‘Experts at Breakfast’ series of ThinkSpace events – Fridays from June 28th to July 19th. 08.15 – 09.30am at EVOC.