Review of Community Empowerment Networks in London

1

• Review of Community Empowerment Networks in
  London
• - Feedback -
• Mike Desborough
• 27th January 2004

2
Coverage of Review

• CEN development and issues
• CEN links with LSPs
• are CENs adding value?
• support needs and how we are addressing them
  and
• can we draw any broader conclusions?

3
Process

• Building on existing knowledge base.
• Questionnaire used as basis for interviews with
  each CEN.
• Meetings with GOL Geog. Teams to compare notes.
• Engaging senior officials in GOL and NRU.

4
CENs Facts Figures 1

• CENs fully established in 15/20 areas.
• About half CENs networks of networks rest
  are networks of organisations with some hybrids.
• 7/15 CENs have elected steering groups that take
  decisions on behalf of the network 5 refer
  decisions to the full membership 3 have a
  mixture depending on circumstances.
• 3/15 CENs have no formal constitution or Terms of
  Reference.

5
CENs Facts Figures 2

• Need to take care when looking at levels of
  membership of CENs.
• About a third of the established CENs have done
  little work to identify marginalised groups in
  their areas.
• Average of 2.8 dedicated staff per CEN (range
  0.5 4.5) difficulties filling some posts.
• Internal communications generally sound, though
  some problems in getting local media interested.

6
CENs Facts Figures 3

• CENs links with LSP support staff ad hoc.
  Links with officials generally good, links with
  Councillors more problematical.
• About a third of established CENs need to
  strengthen influence over Community Chest funds.
• Membership of LSPs is complex, but volcom has
  around 32 of seats on average (24 45).

7
CENs Sub-Regional Characteristics

• East CENs sometimes slower to develop, partly
  because LA-led community engagement structures
  exist CVSs infrastructure sometimes weaker.
• West stronger CVS infrastructure CENs better
  established, with stronger vol. sec. influence.
• North, Central and South mixed?

8
CEN Development Issues

• Variable sector capacity contrast Ealing with
  Wandsworth.
• 3 Ps politics, power, personalities e.g.
  Haringey.
• Complexity of voluntary and community sector.
• VCS overload.
• Demands placed on volunteers.

9
CEN LSP Issues

• Policy guidance vagueness and loose
  terminology empowerment, equal partners
  etc.
• Joining policy up delivery vs. participation
  local governance issues.
• Complexity of LSP structures barriers?
• Local authority leadership.
• Communications between LSPs and CENs.
• CENs inclusivity, skills, approaches and
  tactics.
• GOLs role critical friend?

10
Making an Impact

• Examples collected relate mainly to process
  funds secured, seats on LSPs, consultations etc.
• Some good work on approaches to outreach.
• Some on the ground examples, but fairly
  limited.
• Connections developing beyond LSP e.g. Camden.
• Importance on National Evaluation of CPP in
  gathering evidence that CENs are having an impact
  on the ground

11
on the Ground

• VCS infrastructure in Wandsworth.
• Helping People to Help Themselves
  Westminster.
• Neighbourhood Improvement Fund Ealing.
• theres much more of this out there we need
  to see it.

12
Supporting the CENs

• Currently we
• provide support and guidance through the year,
  with intensive support going to areas with the
  furthest distance to travel
• use SK programme to provide events and
  networking sessions
• influence the policy agenda
• encourage joining up within GOL more consistent
  messages going to CENs and LSPs and
• steer CEN development via PMF assessments.

13
Supporting the CENs

• New actions proposed covering
• defining roles of GOL, CENs and LSPs more
  clearly
• more structured sharing of good practice
  professional facilitation for the regional
  network
• joint work with CENs and LSPs to tackle cultural
  barriers
• encouraging CENs to improve their membership
  diversity and skills/knowledge base
• joining up CP-related policy across Departments
• reviewing the Community Chests.

14
Importance of Context

• Cross-cutting Review of Voluntary Sector
• recognises potential of VCS in delivering
  services
• sets out recommendations that should impact
  significantly on the capacity of VCS
  (futurebuilders, Infrastructure Strategy etc)
• promotes local Compacts
• aims to improve access to funds.
• Implementation through to March 2006 this
  should moderate expectations about what the VCS
  should be achieving now.

15
Main Conclusions 1

• Familiar issues? Not unique to London, but some
  more acutely felt here.
• Most CENs are beginning to help previously
  marginalised communities to shape services in
  their area.
• They also provide a platform for voluntary sector
  service providers to enter into structured
  dialogue with statutory sector partners about
  future service delivery.
• This would not be happening if the CENs did not
  exist.

16
Main Conclusions 2

• Need to keep challenging expectations and place
  community participation in wider context.
• LSPs need help in balancing delivery with
  participation.
• CENs one model for community participation need
  to look at other models (e.g. NDC/NM) to compare
  strengths/weaknesses.
• Must not lose sight of the long-term aspirations
  of NR.

17
What Now?

• Disseminate findings at all levels and get
  feedback.
• Copies of the report and summary in your packs
  will be circulated widely.
• Take forward action points involve CENs, LSPs,
  Govt Departments.
• Track links with National Evaluation and
  influence outcomes.