1. law, govt and politics
2. government

Public Document Pack
Safer Stronger Communities Select
Committee
Agenda
Monday, 20 April 2015
7.00 pm, Committee Room 2 - Civic Suite
Civic Suite
Lewisham Town Hall
London SE6 4RU
For more information contact: Timothy Andrew (02083147916)
Part 1
Item
Pages
1.
Confirmation of the Chair and Vice-Chair
1-2
2.
Minutes of the meeting held on 10 March 2015
3 - 10
3.
Declarations of interest
11 - 14
4.
Select Committee work programme 2015/16
15 - 44
5.
Voluntary sector accommodation
45 - 62
6.
Main grant programme funding
63 - 96
7.
Draft VAWG review report
97 - 118
8.
Items to be referred to Mayor and Cabinet
Members of the public are welcome to attend committee meetings. However, occasionally, committees
may have to consider some business in private. Copies of agendas, minutes and reports are available
on request in Braille, in large print, on audio tape, on computer disk or in other languages.
Safer Stronger Communities Select
Committee
Members
Members of the committee, listed below, are summoned to attend the meeting to be held
on Monday, 20 April 2015.
Barry Quirk, Chief Executive
Thursday, 9 April 2015
Councillor Pauline Morrison (Chair)
Councillor David Michael (Vice-Chair)
Councillor Andre Bourne
Councillor Brenda Dacres
Councillor Colin Elliott
Councillor Alicia Kennedy
Councillor Pat Raven
Councillor Luke Sorba
Councillor Paul Upex
Councillor James-J Walsh
Councillor Alan Hall (ex-Officio)
Councillor Gareth Siddorn (ex-Officio)
Agenda Item 1
Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee
Title
Confirmation of Chair and Vice Chair of the Safer Stronger Communities
Select Committee
Contributor
Chief Executive (Business and Committee Manager)
Class
Part 1 (open)
1.
Item 1
20 April 2015
Summary
Further to the Annual General Meeting of Council on 26 March 2015, this report
informs the Select Committee of the appointment of a Chair and Vice-Chair of the
Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee.
2.
Purpose of the report
To issue directions to the Select Committee regarding the election of their Chair and
Vice-Chair.
3.
Recommendations
The Select Committee is recommended to:
(i)
Confirm the election of Councillor Pauline Morrison as Chair of the Safer
Stronger Communities Select Committee
(ii)
Confirm the election of Councillor Pat Raven as Vice-Chair of the Safer Stronger
Communities Select Committee
4.
Background
4.1
On 26 March 2015, the Annual General Meeting of the Council considered a report
setting out an allocation of seats on committees to political groups on the Council in
compliance with the requirements of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.
4.2
The constitutional allocation for both chairs and vice-chairs of select committees is:
Labour: 6
5.
Financial implications
5.1
There are no financial implications arising from this report.
6.
Legal implications
6.1
Select Committees are obliged to act in accordance with the Council’s Constitution.
Page 1
Background papers
Council AGM Agenda papers 26 March 2015 – available on the Council website
http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/ or on request from Kevin Flaherty, Business and
Committee Manager (0208 3149327)
If you have any queries about this report, please contact Timothy Andrew, Scrutiny
Manager (020 8314 7916)
Page 2
Agenda Item 2
MINUTES OF THE SAFER STRONGER
COMMUNITIES SELECT COMMITTEE
Tuesday, 10 March 2015 at 7.00 pm
Present: Councillors Pauline Morrison (Chair), David Michael (Vice-Chair), Andre Bourne,
Colin Elliott, Alicia Kennedy, Pat Raven, Luke Sorba, Eva Stamirowski, Paul Upex and
James-J Walsh
Also present: Paul Aladenika (Policy and Partnerships Manager), Timothy Andrew
(Scrutiny Manager), James Bravin (Principal Policy Officer), Gary Connors (Strategic
Community Safety Services Manager), Liz Dart (Head of Culture and Community
Development), Barrie Neal (Head of Corporate Policy and Governance), Graham Price
(Chief Inspector) (Metropolitan Police Service, Lewisham), Antonio Rizzo (Library and
Information Services Manager), Stewart Snellgrove (Principal Policy Officer) and Geeta
Subramaniam-Mooney (Head of Crime Reduction and Supporting People)
1.
Minutes of the meeting held on 3 February 2015
Resolved: to agree the minutes of the meeting held on 3 February as an accurate
record.
2.
Declarations of interest
None.
3.
Violence against women and girls review
This item was considered after item six on the agenda.
3.1
Geeta Subramaniam-Mooney (Head of Crime Reduction and Supporting People)
introduced the report; the following key points were noted:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Committee had previously received information about action being taken
to tackle violence against women and girls in Lewisham.
In response to the Committee’s request for information about work in schools,
an overview of awareness-raising and prevention activities had been provided.
At the last meeting representatives from the Safer London Foundation had
provided information about work taking place across London.
Building on past initiatives, such as the Met Police’s Heart programme – the
Council sought to support the development of healthy relationships work in
schools.
Work was also being carried out to further understand the impact of early
childhood trauma on young people.
The Safer Lewisham Partnership also supported efforts across the criminal
justice system to secure convictions against perpetrators of abuse and
exploitation.
The Council and its partners were in the early stages of developing an
approach to online protection.
A major project had recently been initiated to engage in an online conversation
with children about being safe online.
Page 3
•
3.2
Innovative work was also taking place in the borough with parents to help
young people to stay safe. The ‘parents standing together’ project was
supported by the Cabinet Member for Community Safety.
Geeta Subramaniam-Mooney (Head of Crime Reduction and Supporting People)
responded to questions from the Committee; the following key points were noted:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Council intended to engage with its partners in the future to further
understand the issues of online grooming and exploitation experienced by boys
and young men.
Officers from the Council’s Community Services Directorate worked with
officers from Children and Young People directorate as well as the police to
deliver support to schools when it was required.
There was pressure on the school curriculum from a variety of different sources
to deliver a range of different initiatives and activities.
Officers in Community Services worked with all heads in the borough to
support the Prevent (prevention of extremism and terrorism) programme.
Take up and support from schools for the Prevent programme had been good.
This approach to work in schools had demonstrated that professionals had to
be empowered to have conversations with children and young people about
difficult issues at any time.
The Council would not lead on every agenda – but it could signpost teaching
staff and schools to specialist support and advice, when it was required.
The Council would also continue to bid for external funding to deliver training
for professionals in schools.
Building the resilience of children and young people – so that they could
recognise risks and seek support – was a fundamental part of awareness
raising and prevention work.
It was recognised that the rapidly changing nature of online communication
made all young people vulnerable.
The more people who were able to engage in conversations with children and
young people about staying safe, the better.
The work that was currently being developed around online safety would also
engage with children in primary school.
Conversations would take place with whole families about the range of issues
raised by online safety.
A number of the initiatives highlighted in the report were available in Lewisham
schools. Funding had been received to deliver Growing Against Gangs and
Violence training in all Lewisham secondary schools.
Rape Crisis sessions were not currently being delivered in Lewisham schools –
but there was a programme in place and funding from London councils had
been secured.
Education on gang violence and sexual exploitation was not included in
personal social health and economic education (PSHE) as standard.
There were no national requirements for PSHE. Each school was required to
develop and deliver its own programme.
The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime was trying to ensure that awareness
raising and prevention activities were made available on a consistent basis to
schools across London. The Head of Crime Reduction and Supporting people
sat on the group to represent local authorities.
The mayor’s office for policing and crime intended to use Home Office
innovation funding, if successful in its bid, to deliver a ‘menu of support options’
to schools that required specialist provision in future.
Page 4
3.3
The Committee discussed the pressures facing schools to deliver PSHE on a
range of topics and agendas. Members also discussed the possibility of inviting a
head teacher from a borough secondary school to talk about the difficulties of
developing and delivering a broad PSHE curriculum, in the context of competing
pressures from different agendas.
3.4
The Cabinet Member for Community Safety advised the Committee that it would
be problematic to ask a head teacher in the borough to attend a meeting of the
Committee because of the difficulty of asking a single teacher to give an overview
of general experiences in the borough. She recommended that Members engage
with schools in their wards about the scope of their PSHE curriculum.
Resolved: to receive the information presented at Committee for the review.
4.
Comprehensive equalities scheme - monitoring and update
4.1
Stewart Snellgrove (Principal Policy Officer) introduced a presentation; the
following key points were noted:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The 2010 equality act brought together previous equalities legislation. It also
created new duties for public bodies, which required them to have due regard
to the need to:
o Eliminate unlawful discrimination, victimisation and harassment.
o Foster good relations between those who share a protected characteristic
and those who do not.
o Advance equality of opportunity between those who share a protected
characteristic and those who do not.
Lewisham’s comprehensive equalities scheme (CES) was developed using a
wide range of data and analysis as well as engagement with stakeholders.
The Council’s intention was that all parts of the organisation should be
responsible for fairness and equality in the delivery of services.
The CES set out the Council’s intention to:
o Tackle discrimination, victimisation and harassment
o Improve access to services
o Close the gap in outcomes
o Increase mutual understanding and respect
o Increase citizen participation and engagement
The CES update was a cross cutting and high level analysis of progress in the
past year.
The objectives in the CES were met through the day to day delivery of Council
services, or ‘business as usual’. Examples included:
o Safeguarding the wellbeing of vulnerable children and adults.
o Raising educational achievement for all pupils.
o Providing social homes for priority homeless people.
o Implementing the London Living Wage across all new council contracts.
o Supporting local voluntary and community groups through the council’s
grants programme.
o Supporting citizen engagement through local assemblies.
o Taking forward the young mayor scheme into an eleventh successive year.
The presentation also highlighted good practice and areas of note, including:
o LGBT history month
o The creation of London’s first Trans and non-gender conforming swimming
club at Glass Mill leisure centre.
o Be Active, which provides concessionary use of leisure facilities in the
borough.
Page 5
o The development of Lewisham Health and Wellbeing strategy and recent
data on life expectancy
o Work with the community and voluntary sector.
o Hate crime reporting
o Work to tackle violence against women and girls
o Educational attainment
o Apprenticeship and employment schemes
o Work to improve literacy
o The work of neighbourhood forums
o Future challenges, including demographic change.
4.2
Stewart Snellgrove (Principal Policy Officer) and Paul Aladenika (Policy and
Partnerships Manager) responded to questions from the Committee; the following
key points were noted:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Committee would be consulted on the development of the new
Comprehensive Equalities Scheme.
The previous equalities schemes had reported on a wide range of data sets;
actions and targets.
A decision was taken as part of the development of the new scheme to reduce
the level of monitoring required.
The scheme would be revisited in 2016 – at which point the monitoring
process; the use of data and the scheme’s targets could be reviewed.
It would be over simplistic to look only at the CES in order to define the
Council’s approach to equality; there were strategies, plans and interventions
across a range of Council functions which contributed to the delivery of the
equality objectives.
Officers would provide a ‘digest of progress’ against key equalities groups to a
future meeting of the Committee.
People were asked to fill out monitoring forms at assembly meetings; this could
not capture information about the activities that happened outside of meetings.
The monitoring did not record the socio economic background of attendees.
Officers would provide additional information about measuring illiteracy
following the meeting.
People who required support with literacy were regularly identified by libraries
staff.
Officers would continue to work together closely to deliver the main grants
programme funding, in line with the objectives of the CES.
Officers would provide a further demographic breakdown of educational
attainment.
The employment scheme being developed in partnership with Lambeth and
Southwark would seek to help 3000 people into work. However, the
programme’s target would not necessarily be split equally across the three
boroughs.
Further information would be provided following the meeting about disability
hate crime.
Resolved: to note the report; and to request that the Cabinet Member for
Community Safety consider how best to share the information in the report with all
members.
5.
Library and information service
5.1
Antonio Rizzo (Library and Information Service Manager) introduced the report;
the following key points were noted:
Page 6
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
5.2
Delivery of the library service was a statutory function.
The performance of the Lewisham library service had been assessed by
CIPFA (Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy), which
indicated that the service was performing well.
The library service cost approximately 38 pence per week per resident.
Expected visits to the 13 libraries would be up by 1.5% this year.
The borough’s most successful library was in the Deptford Lounge. Recent
attendance had increased from 31 thousand visits per month to 36 thousand
visits per month, which made it one of the most successful libraries in London.
There had been a recent 6% reduction of book issues.
Previous falls in the number of book issues had been recorded prior to staffing
reorganisations; given the pending reorganisation the fall in issues was not
unexpected.
Visits to community libraries were up four per cent.
New Cross library had been refurbished using crowd funding.
Libraries continued to act as focal hubs for local activity and events.
Antonio Rizzo (Library and Information Service Manager) and Liz Dart (Head of
Culture and Community Development) responded to questions from the
Committee; the following key points were noted:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The staffing reorganisation had been agreed as part of the delivery of the
Lewisham Future Programme.
A restructuring of management positions and the business development unit as
well as the deletion of vacant posts would create £240k of savings.
The reorganisation would have no effect on the number of libraries or their
opening hours.
Work was taking place to continually improve libraries services.
The service would also work to develop its commercial opportunities.
Libraries staff worked with all library users, including children and young people
to ensure that services were comfortable and accessible for everyone.
If any user was creating a problem, library staff would take appropriate action.
Work was taking place to publicise Access to Research, the national initiative
that offers free access to research papers and journals. This national
programme was launched at the Deptford Lounge.
The service had software which enabled officers to see which books were the
most popular in different parts of the borough.
In Forest Hill the library was working with the occupants of Louise House to
engage with the local community.
In Forest Hill visits were up by 14% in comparison to the previous year.
Every library had a social media presence.
More initiatives and activities could be carried out online.
Resolved: to note the report.
6.
Safer Lewisham strategy monitoring and update
This item was considered after item two.
6.1
Geeta Subramaniam-Mooney (Head of Crime Reduction and Supporting People)
introduced the update on the 2014-15 plan; the following key points were noted:
•
•
The report provided an update on performance in the previous year.
A draft version of the 2015/16 plan was included with the report as an
appendix.
Page 7
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
6.2
Performance over the previous year had generally been good however, there
had been an increase in incidents of violence with injury.
The increase in reporting was, in part, the result of changes in the recording of
different crime types.
The Safer Lewisham Partnership had carried out a number of coordinated,
intelligence led operations to target recognised problems; this included the
work carried out as part of the Metropolitan Police Service’s (MET or MPS)
Operation Equinox, which coordinated efforts across local authority services
and the police to reduce violent offending.
Domestic violence continued to be a serious concern. Lewisham previously
had the highest levels of recorded domestic violence in London. The volume of
crimes had reduced over the past few years, but there were still a high number
of incidents.
In the past year there had been a 19% increase in domestic violence.
In contrast, serious youth violence had reduced by 38% in the past year.
Five years previously, serious youth violence had been a problem in
Lewisham.
Work had taken place to tackle knife and gun enabled crime and the reduction
in violence was a positive development.
Work continued through the domestic violence multi-agency risk assessment
conference (DVMARAC) and the youth multi-agency risk assessment
conference (Youth MARAC) to tackle the most serious cases of domestic
violence and youth violence.
Both MARACs demonstrated significant and sustained reductions in repeat
offending.
The Committee had requested a breakdown of types of anti-social behaviour
across wards (a chart providing details of cases reported to the Council was
presented to Members at the meeting)
Work to develop the anti-social behaviour trigger (discussed previously at
Committee) had been carried out and a process was now in place.
Geeta Subramaniam-Mooney (Head of Crime Reduction and Supporting People),
Gary Connors (Strategic Community Safety Service Manager) and Graham Price
(Chief Superintendent, MPS Lewisham) responded to questions from the
Committee; the following key points were noted:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
There had been a change in the recording of incidents of violence with injury,
which accounted for the increase in the figures. There hadn’t been any major
changes in recording of crime types which would have resulted in improved
performance figures.
There was nothing to indicate why there had been an increase in the level of
domestic violence.
It was intended that the new VAWG (violence against women and girls) service
would create a single streamlined approach to reducing domestic violence and
supporting victims.
The central focus of the service would be on domestic violence, but it would
address a range of issues, including violence against men and boys.
The new service would also provide a central point of information, advice and
signposting to other services.
There had been a change in the law to include younger victims of domestic
violence in the figures, but this did not in itself account for the recent increase.
A review of the Lewisham force’s crime recording procedures had been carried
out by the Home Office.
Data from the MPS computer aided despatch system had been compared to
records from the crime reporting information system (CRIS); this had helped Page
8
•
•
•
•
•
6.3
Members of the Committee questioned the reliability of the data presented by
officers about anti-social behaviour. It was noted that individual Members of the
Committee had personally reported more incidents of anti-social behaviour than
were recorded in in the figures presented to Committee.
•
6.4
Officers committed to checking the figures.
Geeta Subramaniam-Mooney (Head of Crime Reduction and Supporting People)
introduced draft 2015-16 plan; the following key points were noted:
•
•
•
•
6.5
the police service in Lewisham to improve the way in which different crimes
were recorded.
Figures fluctuated for different reasons – and it was not straightforward to draw
causal links between actions and data.
The anti-social behaviour (ASB) figures circulated to the Committee only
included incidents reported directly to the Council
Where Members had specific concerns about anti-social behaviour they should
bring them to the attention of the police.
The service described by Members as a ‘methadone prescription service’ in
Catford, was in fact a drug rehabilitation centre commissioned by the Council.
Members should contact the police either in the case of an emergency
involving ASB or via their neighbourhood inspector to report problems in their
ward.
The partnership was required to develop a strategic needs assessment and a
crime reduction annual plan. It set priorities each year to deliver the plan.
The Partnership was required by the Mayors Officer for Policing and Crime
(MOPAC) to focus on seven key crime types (the MOPAC 7):
o
Violence with injury
o
Robbery
o
Burglary
o
Theft of a motor vehicle
o
Theft from a motor vehicle
o
Theft from the person
o
Vandalism (criminal damage)
The Safer Lewisham Partnership incorporated the MOPAC priorities into
priorities for the borough: reducing key violent crimes (including serious youth
violence and violence against women and girls) and tackling issues of greatest
concern to residents.
Work in the coming year would build on previous good practice in prevention,
intervention and enforcement.
Geeta Subramaniam-Mooney (Head of Crime Reduction and Supporting People)
responded to questions from the Committee, the following key points were noted:
•
•
•
•
The probation service was still in the process of developing its approach to
community pack back operations following the reorganisation of the service.
Police cadets were also involved in supporting community activities in the
borough.
Data about detections and convictions could be provided to the Committee.
Conviction rates did not fall within the responsibility of a single organisation or
a single borough, which might make it difficult to track issues from beginning to
end.
Page 9
•
•
•
•
•
It was important to review conviction rates and policing confidence taking into
account all parts of the criminal justice system.
Case failures were problematic for a range of reasons; failure in one part of the
criminal justice system reduced confidence in the system as a whole.
Officers would bring the strategic action plan to a future meeting of the
Committee.
Grooming of young people, in person or online, played a central role in all
types of child exploitation.
In response to a specific request - further information would be provided to
Members about parents’ right to know the location of their children if they were
taken into protective custody.
Resolved: to note the update.
7.
Select Committee work programme
The Committee did not discuss this item.
8.
Items to be referred to Mayor and Cabinet
There were none.
The meeting ended at 9.35 pm
Chair:
---------------------------------------------------Date:
----------------------------------------------------
Page 10
Agenda Item 3
Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee
Title
Declaration of interests
Contributor
Chief Executive
Class
Part 1 (open)
Item 3
20 April 2015
Declaration of interests
Members are asked to declare any personal interest they have in any item on the
agenda.
1.
Personal interests
There are three types of personal interest referred to in the Council’s Member
Code of Conduct:
(1)
(2)
(3)
2.
Disclosable pecuniary interests
Other registerable interests
Non-registerable interests
Disclosable pecuniary interests are defined by regulation as:(a)
Employment, trade, profession or vocation of a relevant person* for profit or
gain
(b)
Sponsorship –payment or provision of any other financial benefit (other than
by the Council) within the 12 months prior to giving notice for inclusion in the
register in respect of expenses incurred by you in carrying out duties as a
member or towards your election expenses (including payment or financial
benefit from a Trade Union).
(c)
Undischarged contracts between a relevant person* (or a firm in which they
are a partner or a body corporate in which they are a director, or in the
securities of which they have a beneficial interest) and the Council for goods,
services or works.
(d)
Beneficial interests in land in the borough.
(e)
Licence to occupy land in the borough for one month or more.
(f)
Corporate tenancies – any tenancy, where to the member’s knowledge, the
Council is landlord and the tenant is a firm in which the relevant person* is a
partner, a body corporate in which they are a director, or in the securities of
which they have a beneficial interest.
(g)
Beneficial interest in securities of a body where:
(a)
that body to the member’s knowledge has a place of business or land
in the borough;
Page 11
(b)
and either
(i) the total nominal value of the securities exceeds £25,000 or 1/100 of
the total issued share capital of that body; or
(ii) if the share capital of that body is of more than one class, the total
nominal value of the shares of any one class in which the relevant
person* has a beneficial interest exceeds 1/100 of the total issued
share capital of that class.
*A relevant person is the member, their spouse or civil partner, or a person with
whom they live as spouse or civil partner.
3.
Other registerable interests
The Lewisham Member Code of Conduct requires members also to register the
following interests:(a)
(b)
(c)
4.
Membership or position of control or management in a body to which you
were appointed or nominated by the Council
Any body exercising functions of a public nature or directed to charitable
purposes, or whose principal purposes include the influence of public
opinion or policy, including any political party
Any person from whom you have received a gift or hospitality with an
estimated value of at least £25
Non registerable interests
Occasions may arise when a matter under consideration would or would be likely
to affect the wellbeing of a member, their family, friend or close associate more
than it would affect the wellbeing of those in the local area generally, but which is
not required to be registered in the Register of Members’ Interests (for example a
matter concerning the closure of a school at which a Member’s child attends).
5.
Declaration and Impact of interest on members’ participation
(a)
Where a member has any registerable interest in a matter and they are
present at a meeting at which that matter is to be discussed, they must
declare the nature of the interest at the earliest opportunity and in any
event before the matter is considered. The declaration will be recorded in
the minutes of the meeting. If the matter is a disclosable pecuniary interest
the member must take not part in consideration of the matter and withdraw
from the room before it is considered. They must not seek improperly to
influence the decision in any way. Failure to declare such an interest
which has not already been entered in the Register of Members’
Interests, or participation where such an interest exists, is liable to
prosecution and on conviction carries a fine of up to £5000
(b)
Where a member has a registerable interest which falls short of a
disclosable pecuniary interest they must still declare the nature of the
interest to the meeting at the earliest opportunity and in any event before
the matter is considered, but they may stay in the room, participate in
Page 12
consideration of the matter and vote on it unless paragraph (c) below
applies.
6.
(c)
Where a member has a registerable interest which falls short of a
disclosable pecuniary interest, the member must consider whether a
reasonable member of the public in possession of the facts would think
that their interest is so significant that it would be likely to impair the
member’s judgement of the public interest. If so, the member must
withdraw and take no part in consideration of the matter nor seek to
influence the outcome improperly.
(d)
If a non-registerable interest arises which affects the wellbeing of a
member, their, family, friend or close associate more than it would affect
those in the local area generally, then the provisions relating to the
declarations of interest and withdrawal apply as if it were a registerable
interest.
(e)
Decisions relating to declarations of interests are for the member’s
personal judgement, though in cases of doubt they may wish to seek the
advice of the Monitoring Officer.
Sensitive information
There are special provisions relating to sensitive interests. These are interests the
disclosure of which would be likely to expose the member to risk of violence or
intimidation where the Monitoring Officer has agreed that such interest need not
be registered. Members with such an interest are referred to the Code and
advised to seek advice from the Monitoring Officer in advance.
7.
Exempt categories
There are exemptions to these provisions allowing members to participate in
decisions notwithstanding interests that would otherwise prevent them doing so.
These include:(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Housing – holding a tenancy or lease with the Council unless the matter
relates to your particular tenancy or lease; (subject to arrears exception)
School meals, school transport and travelling expenses; if you are a parent
or guardian of a child in full time education, or a school governor unless
the matter relates particularly to the school your child attends or of which
you are a governor;
Statutory sick pay; if you are in receipt
Allowances, payment or indemnity for members
Ceremonial honours for members
Setting Council Tax or precept (subject to arrears exception)
Page 13
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 14
Agenda Item 4
Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee
Title
Select Committee work programme 2015-16
Contributor
Scrutiny Manager
Class
Part 1 (open)
Item 4
20 April 2015
1.
Purpose
1.1
To ask Members to discuss and agree an annual work programme for the Safer
Stronger Communities Select Committee.
2.
Summary
2.1
This report:
1. Informs Members of the meeting dates for this municipal year.
2. Provides the context for setting the Committee’s work programme.
3. Invites Members to decide on the Committee’s priorities for the 2015-16
municipal year.
4. Informs Members of the process for Business Panel approval of the work
programme.
5. Outlines how the work programme can be monitored, managed and developed.
3.
Recommendations
3.1
The Select Committee is asked to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Note the meeting dates and terms of reference for the Safer Stronger
Communities Select Committee.
Consider the provisional work programme at appendix B.
Consider adding further items to the work programme, taking into consideration
the criteria for selecting topics; information about local assembly priorities and
items already added to the provisional work programme.
Note the key decision plan, attached at appendix F, and consider any key
decisions for further scrutiny.
Agree a work programme for the municipal year 2015-16.
Review how the work programme can be developed, managed and monitored
over the coming year.
4.
Meeting dates
4.1
The following Committee meeting dates for the next municipal year were agreed at
the Council AGM on 26 March 2015:
•
•
•
•
20 April 2015
14 May 2015
1 July 2015
16 September 2015
Page 15
•
•
•
•
21 October 2015
30 November 2015
19 January 2016
9 March 2016
5.
Context
5.1
The Committee has a responsibility for scrutinising Lewisham’s approach to
improving equality of opportunity for all citizens. It also examines work to improve
community safety and tackle anti-social behaviour. The Committee’s full terms of
reference are set out in appendix A.
5.2
The Committee regularly scrutinises the work of Lewisham’s Community Services
directorate, which includes teams responsible for Community Education Lewisham,
the Libraries and Information Service, Broadway Theatre, events team; the grants
programme, Local Assemblies and arts. The Committee is also responsible for
scrutinising the delivery of the Safer Lewisham Strategy.
6.
Deciding on items for the work programme
6.1
When deciding on items to include in the work programme, the Committee should
have regard to:
• items the Committee is required to consider by virtue of its terms of reference;
• the criteria for selecting and prioritising topics;
• the capacity for adding items;
• the context for setting the work programme and advice from officers;
• suggestions already put forward by Members.
Page 16
6.2
The following flow chart, based on the Centre for Public Scrutiny (CfPS) advice for
prioritising topics is designed to help Members decide which items should be added
to the work programme:
Page 17
7.
Different types of scrutiny
7.1
It is important to agree how each work programme item will be scrutinised. Some
items may only require an information report to be presented to the Committee and
others will require performance monitoring data or analysis to be presented.
Typically, the majority of items take the form of single meeting items, where
members:
(a) agree what information and analysis they wish to receive in order to achieve
their desired outcomes;
(b) receive a report presenting that information and analysis;
(c) ask questions of the presenting officer or guest;
(d) agree, following discussion of the report, whether the Committee will make
recommendations or receive further information or analysis before summarising its
views.
7.2
For each item, the Committee should consider what type of scrutiny is required and
whether the item is high or medium/low priority (using the prioritisation process).
Allocating priority to work programme items will enable the Committee to decide
which low and medium priority items it should remove from its work programme,
when it decides to add high priority issues in the course of the year.
In-depth review
7.3
Some items might be suitable for an in-depth review, where the item is scrutinised
over a series of meetings. Normally this takes four meetings to complete:
•
•
•
Meeting 1: Scoping paper (planning the review)
Meetings 2 & 3: Evidence sessions
Meeting 4: Agreeing a report and recommendations
7.4
If the Committee wants to designate one of its work programme items as an indepth review, this should be done at the first meeting of the municipal year to allow
sufficient time to carry out the review. A scoping paper for the review will then be
prepared for the next meeting.
8.
Provisional 2015-16 work programme
8.1
The Scrutiny Manager has drafted a provisional work programme for the Committee
to consider, which is attached at appendix B. This includes:
•
•
•
•
•
•
suggestions from the Committee in the previous year;
suggestions from officers;
issues arising as a result of previous scrutiny;
issues that the Committee is required to consider by virtue of its terms of
reference;
items requiring follow up from Committee reviews and recommendations;
standard reviews of policy implementation or performance, which is based on a
regular schedule;
Page 18
8.2
The Committee should also give consideration to:
•
•
issues of importance to Local Assemblies
decisions due to be made by Mayor and Cabinet (appendix F).
Suggestions from the Committee
8.3
The Committee was advised that, during the consideration of bids for grant funding,
it would not be possible to invite organisations bidding for funding to present to the
Committee. Because of this, two items from the 2014-15 work programme were
moved to the provisional 2015-16 programme:
•
•
8.4
Implementation of the volunteering strategy
Provision for Lewisham’s LGBT community
These suggestions have been incorporated into the draft work programme at
appendix B.
Suggestions from officers
8.5
The following are additional suggestions from officers:
•
•
•
8.6
The Council’s employment profile
Voluntary sector accommodation
The development of the new comprehensive equalities scheme
The medium term financial strategy reported to Mayor and Cabinet in July 2014
estimated that £85m of savings were still required for the period 2015/16 to 2017/8.
In order to achieve savings, the Council has embarked on a series of thematic and
cross-cutting reviews to fundamentally review the way it delivers services. This will
mean that savings will be delivered over longer periods and will need to be agreed
and taken as and when they are identified. Officers have committed to regular
interactions with Members in order to facilitate scrutiny of the specific savings
proposals arising from the major change programmes. The Select Committee will
need to retain capacity in its work programme to consider these as is necessary.
Issues arising as a result of previous scrutiny
8.7
At the end of 2014, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee established a time limited
working group to review savings proposals for Public Health. One of the Group’s
recommendations was applicable to the Committee:
•
8.8
The impact of the reduction in funding on VCS organisations needs to be
monitored and it is suggested that the Safer Stronger Select Committee reviews
this at the end of September 2015.
This suggestion has been incorporated into the draft work programme at appendix
B.
Page 19
Issues that the Committee is required to consider by virtue of its terms of reference
8.9
As single item has been added to the provisional work programme under this
heading:
•
Implementation of the Safer Lewisham Partnership Plan
8.10 This has been incorporated into the draft work programme at appendix B.
Items requiring follow up from Committee reviews and recommendations
8.11
During the Violence Against Women and Girls: awareness raising and prevention
review, the Committee indicated that it intended to carry out further scrutiny into the
issue of Personal, Social and Health Education curriculum (PSHE) in schools.
Members indicated a specific interest in understanding the competing priorities
facing schools in deciding on allocation of time and resources to different
community safety and health initiatives.
Standard reviews of policy implementation or performance, which is based on a
regular schedule
8.12 In previous years, Members of the Committee have agreed to consider the following
items on a regular cycle:
•
•
•
•
Libraries and information service annual update
Comprehensive equalities scheme annual update
Main grants programme
Probation service updates
Decisions due to be made by Mayor and Cabinet
8.13
Members are asked to review the most recent notice of key decisions (at appendix
F) and suggest any additional items for further scrutiny.
Consideration of issues of importance to Local Assemblies
8.14
A list of assembly priorities is included at appendix D. Members are asked to
consider whether there are issues of importance arising from their interactions with
their ward assembly that should be considered for further scrutiny. Assembly
priorities include a number of issues that may be of importance to the Committee,
specifically:
•
•
Almost all of the ward assemblies have community cohesion, events or
community activities as priorities;
More than half of the assemblies have crime or anti-social behaviour as a
priority issue of concern.
8.15 At its meeting on 3 February 2015, the Committee scrutinised an annual update
from officers about the assemblies programme. Members received the following
breakdown of assembly funding for local projects:
Page 20
Projects Funded
16
Young People
7
4
47
Environment
Older People
Community incl Events
Health & Wellbeing
46
17
Training & Development
Other
13
8.16
It is up to the Committee to agree the provisional work programme, outlined at
appendix B and decide which additional items should be added.
10.
Approving, monitoring and managing the work programme
10.1
In accordance with the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure rules outlined in the
Council’s constitution, each select committee is required to submit their annual work
programme to the Overview and Scrutiny Business Panel. The Business Panel will
meet on 28 April 2015 to consider provisional work programmes and agree a coordinated Overview and Scrutiny work programme, which avoids duplication of
effort and which facilitates the effective conduct of business.
10.2
The work programme will be reviewed at each meeting of the Committee. This
allows urgent items to be added and items which are no longer a priority to be
removed. Each additional item added should first be considered against the criteria
outlined in section 6.2. If the Committee agrees to add additional items because
they are high priority, it must then consider which medium/low priority items should
be removed in order to create sufficient capacity. The Committee has eight
scheduled meetings this municipal year and its work programme needs to be
achievable in terms of the amount of meeting time available.
10.3
At each meeting of the Committee, there will be an item on the work programme
presented by the Scrutiny Manager. When discussing this item, the Committee will
be asked to consider the items programmed for the next meeting. Members will be
asked to outline what information and analysis they would like in the report for each
item, based on the outcomes they would like to achieve, so that officers are clear on
what they need to provide.
Length of meetings
10.4 Provision is made for Committee meetings to last for two and a half hours. If the
items scheduled for the meeting are not completed within this time the Committee
may decide suspend standing orders. The Council’s constitution also provides the
option for meetings to be adjourned by the Chair until a later date (with limitations).
Page 21
The suspension of standing orders and any decision to adjourn a meeting are
matters for Members of the Committee and the Chair.
10.5 The length of each item at Committee meetings will vary based on a number of
factors – including the complexity of the subject under scrutiny; the number of
issues identified by Members and the range of questions put to officers/guests.
The number of items scheduled for each meeting
10.6 The terms of reference of the Committee are broad and there are many issues the
Committee could scrutinise. The prioritisation process set out above (at paragraph
6.2) is designed to help the Committee decide whether it should add items to its
work programme.
10.7 Where the committee identifies issues of interest that are low priority because:
•
•
•
they are not due to be reviewed by the Council;
there are inadequate resources available to carry out the scrutiny effectively;
the issue has recently been reviewed by others;
Members may wish to make a request to receive a briefing – or task the relevant
scrutiny manager to identify sources of further information for circulation to the
Committee in order to provide context for future discussions.
10.8 It is for Members of the Committee to decide how many items should be scheduled
for the meeting. However, giving consideration to the time available and the length
of previous meetings of the Committee, Members may wish to schedule three items
for each meeting, leaving space available in the programme for responses to
consultations, savings proposals and other urgent business.
11.
Financial implications
There may be financial implications arising from some of the items that will be
included in the work programme (especially reviews) and these will need to be
considered when preparing those items/scoping those reviews.
12.
Legal implications
In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, all scrutiny select committees must
devise and submit a work programme to the Business Panel at the start of each
municipal year.
13.
Equalities implications
13.1
The Equality Act 2010 brought together all previous equality legislation in England,
Scotland and Wales. The Act included a new public sector equality duty, replacing
the separate duties relating to race, disability and gender equality. The duty came
into force on 6 April 2011. It covers the following nine protected characteristics: age,
disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and
maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.
13.2
The Council must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to:
Page 22
•
•
•
eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other
conduct prohibited by the Act
advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected
characteristic and those who do not.
foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and
those who do not.
13.3
There may be equalities implications arising from items on the work programme and
all activities undertaken by the Committee will need to give due consideration to
this.
14.
Crime and disorder implications
There may be crime and disorder implications arising from some of the items that
will be included in the work programme (especially reviews) and these will need to
be considered when preparing those items/scoping those reviews.
Background documents
Lewisham Council’s Constitution
Centre for Public Scrutiny: The Good Scrutiny Guide
Appendices
Appendix A – Committee’s terms of reference
Appendix B – Provisional work programme
Appendix C – CfPS criteria for selecting scrutiny topics
Appendix D – Local assembly priorities
Appendix E – How to carry out reviews
Appendix F – Key decision plan (April – July 2015)
Page 23
Appendix A
The following roles are common to all select committees:
(a)
General functions
To review and scrutinise decisions made and actions taken in relation to executive and
non-executive functions
To make reports and recommendations to the Council or the executive, arising out of such
review and scrutiny in relation to any executive or non-executive function
To make reports or recommendations to the Council and/or Executive in relation to matters
affecting the area or its residents
The right to require the attendance of members and officers to answer questions includes
a right to require a member to attend to answer questions on up and coming decisions
(b)
Policy development
To assist the executive in matters of policy development by in depth analysis of strategic
policy issues facing the Council for report and/or recommendation to the Executive or
Council or committee as appropriate
To conduct research, community and/or other consultation in the analysis of policy options
available to the Council
To liaise with other public organisations operating in the borough – both national, regional
and local, to ensure that the interests of local people are enhanced by collaborative
working in policy development wherever possible
(c)
Scrutiny
To scrutinise the decisions made by and the performance of the Executive and other
committees and Council officers both in relation to individual decisions made and over time
To scrutinise previous performance of the Council in relation to its policy
objectives/performance targets and/or particular service areas
To question members of the Executive or appropriate committees and executive directors
personally about decisions
To question members of the Executive or appropriate committees and executive directors
in relation to previous performance whether generally in comparison with service plans
and targets over time or in relation to particular initiatives which have been implemented
To scrutinise the performance of other public bodies in the borough and to invite them to
make reports to and/or address the select committee/Business Panel and local people
about their activities and performance
To question and gather evidence from any person outside the Council (with their consent)
Page 24
To make recommendations to the Executive or appropriate committee and/or Council
arising from the outcome of the scrutiny process
(d)
Community representation
To promote and put into effect closer links between overview and scrutiny members and
the local community
To encourage and stimulate an enhanced community representative role for overview and
scrutiny members including enhanced methods of consultation with local people
To liaise with the Council’s ward assemblies so that the local community might participate
in the democratic process and where it considers it appropriate to seek the views of the
ward assemblies on matters that affect or are likely to affect the local areas, including
accepting items for the agenda of the appropriate select committee from ward assemblies.
To keep the Council’s local ward assemblies under review and to make recommendations
to the Executive and/or Council as to how participation in the democratic process by local
people can be enhanced
To receive petitions, deputations and representations from local people and other
stakeholders about areas of concern within their overview and scrutiny remit, to refer them
to the Executive, appropriate committee or officer for action, with a recommendation or
report if the committee considers that necessary
To consider any referral within their remit referred to it by a member under the Councillor
Call for Action, and if they consider it appropriate to scrutinise decisions and/or actions
taken in relation to that matter, and/or make recommendations/report to the Executive (for
executive matters) or the Council (non-executive matters
(e)
Finance
To exercise overall responsibility for finances made available to it for use in the
performance of its overview and scrutiny function.
(f)
Work programme
As far as possible to draw up a draft annual work programme in each municipal year for
consideration by the overview and scrutiny Business Panel. Once approved by the
Business Panel, the relevant select committee will implement the programme during that
municipal year. Nothing in this arrangement inhibits the right of every member of a select
committee (or the Business Panel) to place an item on the agenda of that select committee
(or Business Panel respectively) for discussion.
The Council and the Executive will also be able to request that the overview and scrutiny
select committee research and/or report on matters of concern and the select committee
will consider whether the work can be carried out as requested. If it can be
accommodated, the select committee will perform it. If the committee has reservations
about performing the requested work, it will refer the matter to the Business Panel for
decision.
Page 25
The following roles are specific to the Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee:
(a) To fulfill all overview and scrutiny functions in relation to the discharge by responsible
authorities of their crime and disorder function as set out in Sections 19 and 20 Police &
Justice Act 2006, as amended from time to time, and all other relevant legislation. This
shall include the power:
(i) to review or scrutinise decisions made, or other action taken, in connection with
the discharge by responsible authorities of their crime and disorder function,
(ii) to make reports or recommendations to the local authority or the executive with
respect to the discharge of those functions; and
(iii) to make reports and/or recommendations to the local authority with respect to
any matter which is a local crime and disorder matter in relation to a member of the
authority. A local crime and disorder matter in relation to a member means a matter
concerning crime and disorder (including, in particular, forms of crime and disorder
involving anti social behaviour or other behaviour adversely affecting the
environment), or the misuse of drugs, alcohol and other substances, which affect all
or part of the electoral area for which the member is elected or any person who
lives or works there.
(b) make proposals to the Executive to promote equality of opportunity within the borough,
including issues of discrimination based on race, ethnic origin, gender, disability, sexuality,
age and/or class;
(c) to recommend to the Executive, the Council or an appropriate committee proposals for
policy development in relation to equalities issues;
(d) to analyse policy options as necessary to inform the proposals to be made to the
Executive or other appropriate committee;
(e) to advise the Executive or other committee on all matters relating to equality of
opportunity both in terms of policy, service provision, employment and/or access to public
services;
(f) to enhance and develop existing and innovative consultative and/or advisory work for
equality of opportunity and to consider issues of inequality and discrimination across the
borough;
(g) to consider and recommend to the Executive, ways in which participation by
disadvantaged and under-represented sections of the community might be more
effectively involved in the democratic processes of local government;
(h) to pilot methods of consultation and involvement and to report back to the Executive or
appropriate committee on their effectiveness with recommendation if appropriate;
(i) to establish links with and liaise with external organisations in the borough which are
concerned with the promotion of equality of opportunity.
(j) Overview & Scrutiny functions (excluding call-in) in relation to library provision.
Page 26
Appendix B - Provisional Work Programme 2015/16
Strategic
priority
Delivery
deadline
Work item
Type of item
Priority
Lewisham Future Programme
Standard item
High
tba
Election of the Chair and Vice-Chair
Constitutional
requirement
N/A
tba
Select Committee work programme
Standard item
High
tba
Main grant programme funding
Standard item
High
tba
Apr
VAWG review report
In-depth review
High
tba
Apr
Voluntary sector accommodation
Policy
development
High
tba
Apr
(space for additional item)
tba
tba
tba
May
Probation service update
Standard item
Low
tba
May
In-depth review
In-depth review
High
tba
May
Provision for the LGBT community
Standard review
Medium
tba
Jul
Implementation of the volunteering
strategy
Standard review
Medium
tba
Jul
Council employment profile
Standard item
Medium
tba
Jul
(space for additional item)
tba
tba
tba
Sep
Impact of the Public Health savings
proposals on the Community and
Voluntary Sector
tba
tba
tba
Oct
(space for additional item)
tba
tba
tba
Nov
Medium
tba
Jan
Medium
tba
Jan
Medium
tba
Mar
Medium
tba
Mar
Local Assemblies
Library and information service
Page 27
Safer Lewisham Plan - monitoring and
update
Comprehensive Equalities Scheme monitoring and update
Performance
monitoring
Performance
monitoring
Performance
monitoring
Performance
monitoring
Ongoing
Apr
Apr
20-Apr
14-May
01-Jul
16-Sep
Budget
21-Oct
30-Nov
19-Jan
09-Mar
Shaping Our Future: Lewisham's Sustainable
Community Strategy 2008-2020
Corporate Priorities
Priority
Priority
1 Ambitious and achieving
SCS 1
1
2 Safer
SCS 2
2
3 Empowered and responsible
SCS 3
3
4 Clean, green and liveable
SCS 4
5 Healthy, active and enjoyable
6 Dynamic and prosperous
Community Leadership
Young people's achievement
and involvement
CP 1
CP 2
CP 3
4
Clean, green and liveable
Safety, security and a visible
presence
SCS 5
5
Strengthening the local economy
CP 5
SCS 6
6
Decent homes for all
CP 6
7
Protection of children
Caring for adults and older
people
CP 7
8
9
10
Active, healthy citizens
Inspiring efficiency,
effectiveness and equity
CP 4
CP 8
CP 9
CP 10
Page 28
Appendix C – Criteria for selecting topics
The Centre for Public Scrutiny (CfPS) has developed a useful set of questions to help
committees prioritise items for scrutiny work programmes:
General questions to be asked at the outset
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Is there a clear objective for scrutinising this topic – what do we hope to achieve?
Does the topic have a potential impact for one or more section(s) of the population?
Is the issue strategic and significant?
Is there evidence to support the need for scrutiny?
What are the likely benefits to the council and its customers?
Are you likely to achieve a desired outcome?
What are the potential risks?
Are there adequate resources available to carry out the scrutiny well?
Is the scrutiny activity timely?
Sources of topics
The CfPS also suggest that ideas for topics might derive from three main sources: the
public interest; council priorities; and external factors. These are described below.
Public interest
• Issues identified by members through surgeries, casework and other.
• Contact with constituents.
• User dissatisfaction with service (e.g. complaints).
• Market surveys/citizens panels.
• Issues covered in media
Internal council priority
• Council corporate priority area.
• High level of budgetary commitment to the service/policy area (as percentage of
total expenditure).
• Pattern of budgetary overspend.
• Poorly performing service (evidence from performance indicators/ benchmarking).
External Factors
• Priority area for central government.
• New government guidance or legislation.
• Issues raised by External Audit Management Letters/External Audit reports.
• Key reports or new evidence provided by external organisations on key issue.
Criteria to reject items
Finally, the CfPS suggest some criteria for rejecting items:
•
•
•
issues being examined elsewhere - e.g. by the Cabinet, working group, officer
group, external body;
issues dealt with less than two years ago;
new legislation or guidance expected within the next year;
Page 29
•
•
no scope for scrutiny to add value/ make a difference;
the objective cannot be achieved in the specified timescale.
Page 30
Appendix D – Assembly priorities
Bellingham
•
•
•
•
Children and young people.
Older people's issues
Community events and festivals
The promotion and development of
Bellingham as a community
Blackheath
•
•
•
•
Environment and Community.
Provision for Older people, Young
People and Children
Parking, Streets and Waste.
Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour
Brockley
Downham
•
•
•
•
•
Crime and ASB
Youth Provision
The Environment
Provision for the Elderly
Adult Education
Evelyn
• Young people and children.
• Provision for older people.
• Community support on anti-social
behaviour, crime and drug issues.
• Housing issues/developments.
• Community capacity building.
Forest Hill
•
•
Creating a high-quality living
environment – improving our local living
environment and making Brockley a
safer, cleaner and greener place to live,
work and learn
Connecting communities – bringing
Brockley residents together and fostering
a sense of community spirit, mutual
understanding and respect, through
community projects, events and activities
Catford South
•
•
•
•
•
Streetscape and environment (litter, dog
fouling, fly tipping, street furniture).
Developing local opportunities for
children (aged 16 and under) and young
people (aged 17–25)
Increase opportunities for older people
Improvements to shopping hubs
Community cohesion
Crofton Park
•
•
•
•
•
Streetscape (litter, dog fouling, fly
tipping, street furniture).
Roads and pavement maintenance.
Traffic and parking issues.
Youth provision.
Community cohesion.
• youth engagement and provision
• making Forest Hill more attractive
• community events and publicity
Grove Park
•
•
•
•
•
Traffic congestion.
Community communication.
Neighbourhood security.
Cleaner and better environment.
More activities for the young and elderly
Ladywell
•
•
•
•
•
Environment and landscape.
Antisocial behaviour and crime.
Local shops.
Lack of youth and community facilities.
Traffic.
Lee Green
•
•
Safe healthy living – improving health
services, crime reduction, improved
environment, provision of outdoor spaces
/ exercise spaces, promote measures to
reduce air pollution / promoting cleaner
air.
Roads and streets – road safety and
traffic calming measures, road
maintenance, cleaner streets, tree
Page 31
•
•
planting, rubbish collection, improved
road use, provision of cycling tracks,
addressing parking and CPZ issues.
Leisure and amenities – improved parks
and open spaces, more meeting spaces /
community centres, provision of cycling
tracks, improved shops, Leegate,
provision of more local events.
Services and infrastructure – better
social housing, provision of jobs locally,
more services for the elderly and young
people, increased use and access to
local use for recreational activities, more
school spaces.
Lewisham Central
•
•
•
•
•
Improving health and well-being.
Cleaner, better environment.
Better access to activities and facilities
for young people.
Better access to training and
employment for all inhabitants of the
ward.
Promoting and improving community
cohesion.
Rushey Green
•
•
•
•
•
activities for children, young people or
older people
community cohesion (including the
Rushey Green Festival)
culture and the arts
development of a Rushey Green
Community Hub
local streetscape, environment and
ecology
Sydenham
•
•
•
•
•
Bringing the community together –
intergenerational and intercultural
activities.
Health, wellbeing and community safety
– increasing wellbeing including
supporting people who cannot get out as
much.
Vibrant high street.
Clean and green – helping to keep
Sydenham streets clean and appealing.
Transport improvements
Telegraph Hill
New Cross
•
•
•
•
•
•
Unemployment.
Child poverty and young people.
Community facilities.
Environment.
Community cohesion and engagement.
Crime and antisocial behaviour.
Perry Vale
•
•
•
•
•
The environment.
Roads and traffic.
Activities for younger people.
Antisocial behaviour and crime.
Activities for the whole community.
•
•
•
•
•
Safety, crime and antisocial behaviour.
Youth activities and support projects.
Traffic calming and transport.
Community activities.
Cleaning up dirty streets.
Whitefoot
•
•
•
•
•
Crime and ASB
Lack of Community Facilities
Activities for Children and Young
people
Roads and Traffic
Lack of Community Spirit
Page 32
Appendix E
Page 33
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 34
FORWARD PLAN OF KEY DECISIONS
Forward Plan April 2015 - July 2015
This Forward Plan sets out the key decisions the Council expects to take during the next four months.
Anyone wishing to make representations on a decision should submit them in writing as soon as possible to the relevant contact officer (shown as number (7) in
the key overleaf). Any representations made less than 3 days before the meeting should be sent to Kevin Flaherty, the Local Democracy Officer, at the Council
Offices or kevin.flaherty@lewisham.gov.uk. However the deadline will be 4pm on the working day prior to the meeting.
A “key decision”* means an executive decision which is likely to:
(a)
result in the Council incurring expenditure which is, or the making of savings which are, significant having regard to the Council’s budget for the service or function to which the
decision relates;
(b)
be significant in terms of its effects on communities living or working in an area comprising two or more wards.
Page 35
FORWARD PLAN – KEY DECISIONS
Page 36
Date included in
forward plan
Description of matter under
consideration
Date of Decision
Decision maker
Responsible Officers /
Portfolios
December 2014
Annual Lettings Plan
Wednesday,
25/03/15
Mayor and Cabinet
Kevin Sheehan,
Executive Director for
Customer Services and
Councillor Damien Egan,
Cabinet Member Housing
February 2015
Deptford Green School Transition to a Normally
Constituted Governing Body
Wednesday,
25/03/15
Mayor and Cabinet
Frankie Sulke, Executive
Director for Children and
Young People and
Councillor Paul Maslin,
Cabinet Member for
Children and Young
People
September 2014
Deptford Southern Sites
Regeneration Project
Wednesday,
25/03/15
Mayor and Cabinet
Kevin Sheehan,
Executive Director for
Customer Services and
Councillor Damien Egan,
Cabinet Member Housing
February 2015
Discharge of Homeless Duty
into the Private Rented Sector
Wednesday,
25/03/15
Mayor and Cabinet
Kevin Sheehan,
Executive Director for
Customer Services and
Councillor Damien Egan,
Cabinet Member Housing
June 2014
Housing Strategy 2015 - 2020
Wednesday,
25/03/15
Mayor and Cabinet
Kevin Sheehan,
Executive Director for
Customer Services and
Councillor Damien Egan,
Cabinet Member Housing
February 2015
Governing Bodies
Reconstitution
Wednesday,
25/03/15
Mayor and Cabinet
Frankie Sulke, Executive
Director for Children and
Young People and
Councillor Paul Maslin,
Consultation Details
Background papers /
materials
FORWARD PLAN – KEY DECISIONS
Date included in
forward plan
Description of matter under
consideration
Date of Decision
Decision maker
Responsible Officers /
Portfolios
Cabinet Member for
Children and Young
People
Page 37
February 2015
Instruments of Government
Multiple Schools
Wednesday,
25/03/15
Mayor and Cabinet
Frankie Sulke, Executive
Director for Children and
Young People and
Councillor Paul Maslin,
Cabinet Member for
Children and Young
People
February 2015
Local Support Scheme Update
Wednesday,
25/03/15
Mayor and Cabinet
Kevin Sheehan,
Executive Director for
Customer Services and
Councillor Joan Millbank,
Cabinet Member Third
Sector & Community
February 2015
Proposal to enlarge Turnham
Primary School to 3FE
Wednesday,
25/03/15
Mayor and Cabinet
Frankie Sulke, Executive
Director for Children and
Young People and
Councillor Paul Maslin,
Cabinet Member for
Children and Young
People
November 2014
School Admissions
Arrangements 2016-17
Wednesday,
25/03/15
Mayor and Cabinet
Frankie Sulke, Executive
Director for Children and
Young People and
Councillor Paul Maslin,
Cabinet Member for
Children and Young
People
February 2015
Contract Award for
Wednesday,
Frankie Sulke, Executive
Consultation Details
Background papers /
materials
FORWARD PLAN – KEY DECISIONS
Date included in
forward plan
Page 38
Description of matter under
consideration
Date of Decision
Decision maker
Responsible Officers /
Portfolios
modifications at Horniman
Primary School
25/03/15
Mayor and Cabinet
(Contracts)
Director for Children and
Young People and
Councillor Paul Maslin,
Cabinet Member for
Children and Young
People
December 2014
Pay Policy Statement
Thursday, 26/03/15
Council
Kevin Sheehan,
Executive Director for
Customer Services and
Councillor Kevin Bonavia,
Cabinet Member
Resources
December 2014
Contract Award Launcelot
Primary school
Wednesday,
08/04/15
Overview and
Scrutiny Education
Business Panel
Frankie Sulke, Executive
Director for Children and
Young People and
Councillor Paul Maslin,
Cabinet Member for
Children and Young
People
December 2014
Asset Management Strategy
(Highways)
Wednesday,
22/04/15
Mayor and Cabinet
Janet Senior, Executive
Director for Resources &
Regeneration and
Councillor Alan Smith,
Deputy Mayor
February 2015
Building Control Review of
Fees and Charges
Wednesday,
22/04/15
Mayor and Cabinet
Janet Senior, Executive
Director for Resources &
Regeneration and
Councillor Alan Smith,
Deputy Mayor
February 2015
Determination of Applications
to Establish Neighbourhod
Wednesday,
22/04/15
Janet Senior, Executive
Director for Resources &
Consultation Details
Background papers /
materials
FORWARD PLAN – KEY DECISIONS
Date included in
forward plan
Description of matter under
consideration
Date of Decision
Decision maker
Responsible Officers /
Portfolios
Forum and Designate
Neighbourhood Area for
Corbett Estate
Mayor and Cabinet
Regeneration and
Councillor Alan Smith,
Deputy Mayor
Page 39
February 2015
Section 75 Agreement between Wednesday,
CCG and Council
22/04/15
Mayor and Cabinet
Aileen Buckton,
Executive Director for
Community Services and
Councillor Chris Best,
Cabinet Member for
Health, Wellbeing and
Older People
February 2015
Voluntary Sector
Accomodation
Wednesday,
22/04/15
Mayor and Cabinet
Janet Senior, Executive
Director for Resources &
Regeneration and
Councillor Joan Millbank,
Cabinet Member Third
Sector & Community
March 2015
Appointment of Operator
Lewisham Enterprise Hub
Wednesday,
22/04/15
Mayor and Cabinet
(Contracts)
Janet Senior, Executive
Director for Resources &
Regeneration and
Councillor Alan Smith,
Deputy Mayor
February 2015
Award of Contract for the
enlargement of St George's
Primary School
Wednesday,
22/04/15
Mayor and Cabinet
(Contracts)
Frankie Sulke, Executive
Director for Children and
Young People and
Councillor Paul Maslin,
Cabinet Member for
Children and Young
People
February 2015
Award of Design and Build
Contract Phase 1 Grove Park
Public Realm Project
Wednesday,
22/04/15
Mayor and Cabinet
Janet Senior, Executive
Director for Resources &
Regeneration and
Consultation Details
Background papers /
materials
FORWARD PLAN – KEY DECISIONS
Date included in
forward plan
Description of matter under
consideration
Date of Decision
Decision maker
Responsible Officers /
Portfolios
(Contracts)
Councillor Rachel
Onikosi, Cabinet Member
Public Realm
Page 40
September 2014
Award of Street Advertising
and Bus Shelter Contract
Wednesday,
22/04/15
Mayor and Cabinet
(Contracts)
Janet Senior, Executive
Director for Resources &
Regeneration and
Councillor Alan Smith,
Deputy Mayor
November 2014
Procurement of the School
Kitchen Maintenance Contract
Wednesday,
22/04/15
Mayor and Cabinet
(Contracts)
Frankie Sulke, Executive
Director for Children and
Young People and
Councillor Paul Maslin,
Cabinet Member for
Children and Young
People
March 2015
Procurement of Occupational
Health and Employee
Assistance Programme
Provider
Wednesday,
22/04/15
Mayor and Cabinet
(Contracts)
Janet Senior, Executive
Director for Resources &
Regeneration and
Councillor Kevin Bonavia,
Cabinet Member
Resources
February 2015
Variation of Contract with
Bailey Partners Provision of
Services to Primary Places
Programme
Tuesday, 28/04/15
Overview and
Scrutiny Education
Business Panel
Frankie Sulke, Executive
Director for Children and
Young People and
Councillor Paul Maslin,
Cabinet Member for
Children and Young
People
February 2015
Variation of contract for works Tuesday, 28/04/15
at Forster Park Primary School Overview and
Scrutiny Education
Frankie Sulke, Executive
Director for Children and
Young People and
Consultation Details
Background papers /
materials
FORWARD PLAN – KEY DECISIONS
Date included in
forward plan
Description of matter under
consideration
Date of Decision
Decision maker
Responsible Officers /
Portfolios
Business Panel
Councillor Paul Maslin,
Cabinet Member for
Children and Young
People
Page 41
December 2014
Catford Town Centre CRPL
Business Plan 2015/16
Wednesday,
13/05/15
Mayor and Cabinet
Janet Senior, Executive
Director for Resources &
Regeneration and
Councillor Alan Smith,
Deputy Mayor
March 2015
Leathersellers Federation of
Wednesday,
Schools Academy consultation 13/05/15
Mayor and Cabinet
Frankie Sulke, Executive
Director for Children and
Young People and
Councillor Paul Maslin,
Cabinet Member for
Children and Young
People
March 2015
Licensed Deficit Application
Sedgehill School
Wednesday,
13/05/15
Mayor and Cabinet
Frankie Sulke, Executive
Director for Children and
Young People and
Councillor Paul Maslin,
Cabinet Member for
Children and Young
People
June 2014
Surrey Canal Triangle (New
Bermondsey) - Compulsory
Purchase Order Resolution
Wednesday,
13/05/15
Mayor and Cabinet
Janet Senior, Executive
Director for Resources &
Regeneration and
Councillor Alan Smith,
Deputy Mayor
March 2015
Allocation of Main Grants
Programme
Wednesday,
13/05/15
Mayor and Cabinet
Aileen Buckton,
Executive Director for
Community Services and
Consultation Details
Background papers /
materials
FORWARD PLAN – KEY DECISIONS
Date included in
forward plan
Description of matter under
consideration
Date of Decision
Decision maker
Responsible Officers /
Portfolios
(Contracts)
Councillor Joan Millbank,
Cabinet Member Third
Sector & Community
Page 42
September 2014
Prevention and Inclusion
Framework Contract Award
Wednesday,
13/05/15
Mayor and Cabinet
(Contracts)
Aileen Buckton,
Executive Director for
Community Services and
Councillor Chris Best,
Cabinet Member for
Health, Wellbeing and
Older People
March 2015
Adoption Statement of Purpose Wednesday,
2015-16
03/06/15
Mayor and Cabinet
Frankie Sulke, Executive
Director for Children and
Young People and
Councillor Paul Maslin,
Cabinet Member for
Children and Young
People
March 2015
Fostering Statement of
Purpose 2015-16
Wednesday,
03/06/15
Mayor and Cabinet
Frankie Sulke, Executive
Director for Children and
Young People and
Councillor Paul Maslin,
Cabinet Member for
Children and Young
People
February 2015
ICT Service Review
Wednesday,
03/06/15
Mayor and Cabinet
Kevin Sheehan,
Executive Director for
Customer Services and
Councillor Kevin Bonavia,
Cabinet Member
Resources
December 2014
Catford Town Centre CRPL
Wednesday,
Janet Senior, Executive
Consultation Details
Background papers /
materials
FORWARD PLAN – KEY DECISIONS
Date included in
forward plan
Page 43
Description of matter under
consideration
Date of Decision
Decision maker
Responsible Officers /
Portfolios
Business Plan 2015/16
24/06/15
Council
Director for Resources &
Regeneration and
Councillor Alan Smith,
Deputy Mayor
March 2015
Housing Strategy
Wednesday,
24/06/15
Council
Kevin Sheehan,
Executive Director for
Customer Services and
Councillor Damien Egan,
Cabinet Member Housing
February 2015
Local Development
Framework: Revised Local
Development Scheme (version
7)
Wednesday,
24/06/15
Council
Janet Senior, Executive
Director for Resources &
Regeneration and
Councillor Alan Smith,
Deputy Mayor
January 2015
Waste Strategy Consultation
Wednesday,
15/07/15
Mayor and Cabinet
Kevin Sheehan,
Executive Director for
Customer Services and
Councillor Rachel
Onikosi, Cabinet Member
Public Realm
November 2014
Award of Highways Public
Realm Contract Coulgate
Street
Wednesday,
15/07/15
Mayor and Cabinet
(Contracts)
Janet Senior, Executive
Director for Resources &
Regeneration and
Councillor Alan Smith,
Deputy Mayor
February 2015
Review of Licensing Policy
Wednesday,
21/10/15
Mayor and Cabinet
Aileen Buckton,
Executive Director for
Community Services and
Councillor Rachel
Onikosi, Cabinet Member
Public Realm
Consultation Details
Background papers /
materials
FORWARD PLAN – KEY DECISIONS
Date included in
forward plan
Description of matter under
consideration
Date of Decision
Decision maker
Responsible Officers /
Portfolios
February 2015
Review of Licensing Policy
Wednesday,
25/11/15
Council
Aileen Buckton,
Executive Director for
Community Services and
Councillor Rachel
Onikosi, Cabinet Member
Public Realm
Consultation Details
Background papers /
materials
Page 44
Agenda Item 5
Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee
Title
Supporting Voluntary and Community Sector with Council assets
Contributor
Head of Culture and Community Development
Class
Part 1 (open)
Item 5
20 April 2015
1.
Purpose
1.1
The Council commenced a three month consultation in Jan 2015 on the way
in which council assets, such as community centres, sports grounds and
other buildings, will provide support to the voluntary and community sector
(VCS) in the future.
1.2
The purpose of this report is to provide feedback on responses to the
consultation and invite members of the select committee to add any
additional feedback prior to the consultation outcomes being reported to
Mayor and Cabinet on 22 April 2015.
2.
Policy context
2.1 The Sustainable Community Strategy sets out a commitment to creating a
borough that is “Empowered and Responsible: where people are actively
involved in their local area and contribute to supportive communities”.
2.2 This is reflected in Lewisham’s Corporate priorities: “Community leadership
and empowerment: developing opportunities for the active participation and
engagement of people in the life of the community”.
2.3 Lewisham has a strong history of working with the third sector and empowering
residents and communities. Lewisham is fortunate to have a strong and thriving third
sector which ranges from very small organisations with no paid staff through to local
branches of national charities. The third sector includes charities, not for profit
companies limited by guarantee, faith organisations, civic amenity societies as well
as social enterprises. What all these organisations have in common is their ability to
bring significant additional value to the work that they do through voluntary support
and raising funds from sources not available to other sectors such as charitable
trusts.
3.
Background
3.1 Currently the Council supports a number of VCS organisations to access
certain facilities (i.e. Council owned assets). There are currently 41 Council
assets within the community premises portfolio including 23 community
centres, 3 sports grounds and 15 buildings housing VCS organisations. In
addition there are other properties that are used as community libraries and
early years provision, as well as a range of other services commissioned
from VCS organisations that are not part of the community premises portfolio
but are within the Council’s estate.
Page 45
3.2
Across these assets occupancy levels vary greatly, though the average of
approximately 30% occupancy within the community premises portfolio,
shows that there is real potential to manage usage more effectively.
Additionally there are currently a wide range of different lease and
management agreements for occupants. This situation is potentially
inequitable for organisations and makes the management and maintenance
of these assets more complicated.
3.3
As part of the council’s fundamental review of all its budgets, it has been
looking at the costs of maintaining its range of assets and the potential
income that these assets could generate for the council that could be used
to fund other services. In order to release substantial revenues savings and
therefore safeguard frontline service delivery, the council is in the process of
reducing its public buildings. This work has already commenced with the
transfer of staff working in the Catford complex into Laurence House, and
the closure of the Town Hall.
4.
Content of consultation
4.1
In November 2014 Mayor and Cabinet agreed to consult on a proposed new
approach to using council assets to support the voluntary and community
sector. The consultation document is attached at Appendix A.
4.2
The council recognises that being able to access property at affordable rates
is very important to the continued success of VCS organisations. This
needs to be balanced with the need to make the best use of the Council’s
assets, and ensure an open and transparent allocation of limited resources.
4.3
In considering how best to use council assets to support the voluntary and
community sector we have developed the following principles:
• It is recognised that the demand for subsidised space will always
outstrip the available resources it is therefore essential to have a
process for allocating support that is open and transparent.
• Lease and hire arrangements should be equitable.
• Council Assets used by VCS organisations need to be fully optimised to
ensure the council is achieving best value for it’s residents.
• The overall cost to the council of assets used by VCS organisations
should be reduced in order to release savings.
• The model for the use of council assets to support VCS organisations in
the future should allow some flexibility for changing needs.
• The model should support the councils partnership approach
• Enabling VCS organisations to access council assets is a way of
supporting the sector.
• The model should help the sector to help themselves by optimising the
use of their resources.
4.4 The consultation document looked at three possible options two of which were not
considered suitable as they did not meet the principles outlined in section 4.3 above.
The first of these options was to continue with the existing arrangements. Although
this would have the advantage of causing no disruption it would not address
underutilisation of assets, release any savings or address the issue of transparency
and flexibility in allocating assets. The second option was to adopt a full cost
Page 46
recovery model for use of assets. Although this option would release savings and be
equitable it did not meet the objective of providing some affordable premises.
4.5 The final option that was proposed was rationalisation with a transparent allocation
system. This option would see the council adopt a set of four categories that would
inform the allocation of space within a reduced number of Council assets to VCS
organisations. The proposed categories are set out below.
1) Sole occupancy of a building (not at full market rate) – This would be a building,
wholly utilised by one VCS organisation. In order for an organisation to have
sole occupancy of a building it would need to demonstrate a need for specialist
facilities that could not be provided elsewhere and/or within a shared facility. The
organisations would need to demonstrate that they can’t afford full market rate.
The organisations would also need to be delivering services that meet our
priorities.
2) Voluntary and Community Sector Hub – This would be a shared building with all
inclusive affordable rents. This would be the preferred category for
organisations that are providing services that meet our priorities (and cannot
demonstrate the need for specialist facilities above). The Hubs will provide
office and meeting space. Activity space where appropriate and possible may
also be provided, otherwise this would need to be hired elsewhere.
3) Community Centre – This would be a neighbourhood based facility with activity
space that is predominantly geared towards providing services at a
neighbourhood level. Community Centres currently have a range of different
terms and conditions, some are on full repairing leases, some directly provided
and others managed by Premises Management Organisations (PMOs) but with
Repairs & Maintenance provided by the council. Many community centres are
currently underutilised and we would be looking to rationalise the number of
centres taking into account what other community facilities are available in the
area. As the number of centres is reduced we would work to reduce the overall
financial burden to the council and put in place equitable arrangements across
the portfolio.
4) Sole occupancy of a building at full market rate – This would be for larger VCS
organisations that can afford to pay full market rates or for those that are not
delivering services that meet our priorities. These organisations would still be
able to access buildings (where available) on the council’s standard terms and
conditions.
4.6 The advantages of this approach are that it should ensure optimal usage of facilities,
help increase collaborative working between organisations and assist with the
Council’s wider asset rationalisation programme. It would also provide an open and
transparent way of allocating resources and the hubs would be designed to offer
flexibility. The disadvantages are that there would be disruption for organisations that
needed to relocate as a result of moving to the new model. Some underutilised
community centres would close. This approach was set out as the council’s preferred
option and was the main focus of the consultation.
5.
5.1
The consultation process
Following agreement by Mayor and Cabinet to consult on a new approach to using
council assets to support the voluntary and community sectors, a consultation pack
was made available on the council website and widely publicised through local
networks. A consultation event was held on 4th February 2015 and the consultation
Page 47
was discussed at the meeting of the Stronger Communities Partnership Board on
11th February 2015.
5.3
There were 28 attendees at the consultation event and four written responses (which
are included at appendix B).
6.
Consultation outcome
6.1
The overall outcome of the consultation was support for the proposed approach.
Individuals agreed that the third option was the best way forward and did not have
any other suggested options that the council should consider. However, there were
numerous comments on how the policy should be implemented.
6.2
A key area of concern was the future arrangements for repairs and maintenance of
buildings with organisations reporting increasing difficulties with current
arrangements. It was accepted that reducing the number of buildings within the
community premises portfolio would make it more sustainable to maintain the
remaining assets. It is clear that the agreements around repairs and maintenance
will be a crucial element of the implementation plan.
6.3
A number of respondents raised the need to ensure that there was a geographical
spread with the assets that are retained and that the plan would need to consider the
longer term needs rather than just respond to a short term financial imperative. The
implementation plan will take these comments into account.
6.4
There were comments about the period of notice that would be required to enable
organisations to be able to plan and prepare for change. The idea of allowing
organisations to bid to take on buildings that they were currently occupying through
community asset transfers was raised and there was a request for further
information about the running costs of buildings to be provided. It is proposed to
take a phased approach to the implementation and this will be detailed in the
implementation plan. In relation to community asset transfer this would not be ruled
out but would need to be considered alongside the overall strategic assets plan for
the borough including the urgent need for space for housing and schools places.
The ability of the organisation to be able to maintain the asset and for it not to
become a liability would also need careful consideration. The role of community
asset transfer will be further explored within the implementation plan.
6.5
The idea of creating VCS hubs bringing a number of organisations together to share
office space, was supported. One respondent commented that encouraging these
organisations to hire activity space in other buildings would help with financial
sustainability. A suggestion was made that protocols for sharing space and
resolving disputes would be needed.
6.6
Some organisations used the consultation process to make the case for the
continued use of the asset that they currently occupy. A number of factors were
raised including listed building status, the current cost to the council of the asset,
levels of usage etc. These comments will be taken into consideration in developing
the implementation plan.
6.7
At the consultation event there was a discussion about the changing role of
community centres and what type of facility was needed. There was some
Page 48
discussion about the appropriate size of space and the need for digital access. It
was also suggested that the role of social housing landlords in the delivery of
community centres should be further explored.
7.
Equalities implications
7.1 There were no specific equalities implications raised during the consultation process
in relation to the proposed policy approach. However, it was raised that
consideration would need to be given to the impact on different protected
characteristics as part of the implementation plan. Particular concern was raised
about the impact on older people by Lewisham Pensioners Forum.
8.
Conclusion
8.1 The overall response to the consultation gave support for the proposed approach to
using council assets to support the voluntary and community sector. It is intended to
seek approval for this approach at Mayor and Cabinet on 22 April 2015 and then to
develop an implementation plan which will provide a list of which buildings will be
retained, timescales for implementation and further detail on the terms and conditions
for different forms of occupancy.
Page 49
Appendix A – Consultation Document
__________________________________
London Borough of Lewisham
Consultation: Future support of
the Council’s Community Assets
to the Voluntary and Community
Sector.
__________________________________
January 2015
Cultural and Community Development Service
2nd Floor, Laurence House
1 Catford Road, London SE6 4RU
Community.Enterprise@lewisham.gov.uk
Page 50
Part 1 – About this Consultation
Topic of this consultation
1.
This consultation is asking for your views on the way in which council assets, such as
community centres, sports grounds and other buildings, will provide support to the
voluntary and community sector (VCS) in the future.
Audience
2.
The consultation is aimed at voluntary and community organisations that provide
services in London Borough of Lewisham, particularly those that currently use
Council facilities or have an interest in using Council facilities in the future. We would
also welcome the views of other public or private sector partners who work with the
voluntary and community sector in Lewisham.
Duration
3.
The consultation will be open for until 30 March 2015, this is the deadline for
responses.
How to Respond
4.
There are several ways to respond to this consultation:
• By e-mail to: Community.Enterprise@lewisham.gov.uk
• By post to: Grants and Information Team, 2nd Floor,
Laurence House, 1 Catford Road, London SE6 4RU
• By attending the consultation event
There will be consultation meetings on:
4 February 2015 at 7pm in the Council Chamber, Civic Suite, Catford SE6 4RU
Places at this consultation event must be booked in advance by emailing
Community.Enterprise@lewisham.gov.uk . Due to the size of the venue
places may need to be limited to one person per organisation.
After the Consultation
5.
Once the consultation has closed all responses will be considered and a summary of
responses included in a report going to the meeting of Mayor and Cabinet Contracts
in April/May 2015. This report will seek approval for the proposed approach to using
council assets to support the voluntary and community sector. There would then be
additional individual consultation with organisations that are directly impacted by any
of the recommended changes.
Page 51
Part 2 – Background
Background
6.
Currently the Council supports a number of VCS organisations to access certain
facilities (i.e. Council owned assets).
7.
Since May 2010 the council has cut £82 million from its budget. Lewisham Council
needs to make a further £85 million reduction to its controllable budget over the next
3 years. This equates to approximately a 30% reduction of the controllable budget.
For this reason the council has been undertaking a fundamental review of all its
budgets. This includes looking at the costs of maintaining it’s range of assets and the
potential income that these assets could generate for the council that could be used
to fund other services.
8.
In order to release substantial revenues savings and therefore safeguard frontline
service delivery, the council is in the process of reducing its public buildings. This
work has already commenced with the transfer of staff working in the Catford
complex into Laurence House, and the closure of the Town Hall.
9.
There are currently 41 Council assets within the community premises portfolio
including 23 community centres, 3 sports grounds and 15 buildings housing VCS
organisations. In addition there are other properties that are used as community
libraries and early years provision, as well as a range of other services commissioned
from VCS organisations that are not part of the community premises portfolio but are
within the Council’s estate.
10. Across these assets occupancy levels vary greatly, though the average of
approximately 30% occupancy within the community premises portfolio, shows that
there is real potential to manage usage more effectively. Additionally there are
currently a wide range of different lease and management agreements for occupants.
This situation is potentially inequitable for organisations and makes the management
and maintenance of these assets more complicated.
Rationale for using council assets to support VCS
11. The council recognises that being able to access property at affordable rates is very
important to the continued success of VCS organisations. This needs to be balanced
with the need to make the best use of the Council’s assets, and ensure an open and
transparent allocation of limited resources.
12. In considering how best to use council assets to support the voluntary
and community sector we have developed the following principles:
• It is recognised that the demand for subsidised space will always outstrip the
available resources it is therefore essential to have a process for allocating
support that is open and transparent.
• Lease and hire arrangements should be equitable.
• Council Assets used by VCS organisations need to be fully optimised to ensure
the council is achieving best value for it’s residents.
• The overall cost to the council of assets used by VCS organisations should be
reduced in order to release savings.
• The model for the use of council assets to support VCS organisations in the
future should allow some flexibility for changing needs.
Page 52
•
•
•
The model should support the councils partnership approach
Enabling VCS organisations to access council assets is a way of supporting the
sector.
The model should help the sector to help themselves by optimising the use of
their resources.
Part 3 – The Proposed Methodology
13. In considering how to use council assets to support the Voluntary and
Community Sector in the future, the council has looked at a number of
options:
14. We could retain the current arrangements - Continue with the current
arrangements and agreements with those organisations that are
already hiring or leasing council assets. Seek to encourage increased
usage of these assets whilst working around the current
arrangements.
Pros: Minimal disruption for current occupants.
Cons: The ability to address underutilisation would be limited if
needing to work around existing agreements. This option would have
limited ability to release savings as the number of buildings would
remain the same. It does not address the lack of transparency in
allocating council asset support or offer any future flexibility.
Given the lack of transparency, difficulty to maximise usage and limited
ability to release savings this option has been dismissed.
15. We could ensure ‘Full Cost Recovery’ on any assets that were
leased/hired – A number of councils have started to implement a
process of full cost recovery on assets. This would move all VCS
organisations onto lease and hire agreements paying full market rents
and covering the full costs of the asset.
Pros: Equitable arrangement with all organisations being treated the
same. Would release savings for the council. Would not require the
closure of any existing assets.
Cons: Would not meet the objective of providing some affordable
space for VCS and as a result could increase pressure on the grant aid
budget and/or cause organisations to cease operating. This option
does not address the underutilisation of some assets.
Whilst equitable this option would not help support VCS
organisations to access affordable space, and could have a
negative impact on the sector with organisations folding or
struggling to be able to effectively deliver their services. It also may
not ensure that all assets are effectively utilised. As such this
option has also been dismissed as it doesn’t meet our rationale
outlined above.
Page 53
16. Rationalisation with a transparent allocation system - With this
option we would adopt a set of four categories that would inform the
allocation of space within a reduced number of Council assets to VCS
organisations.
The four proposed categories are as follows;
5) Sole occupancy of a building (not at full market rate) – This would be a building,
wholly utilised by one VCS organisation. In order for an organisation to have
sole occupancy of a building it would need to demonstrate a need for specialist
facilities that could not be provided elsewhere and/or within a shared facility. The
organisations would need to demonstrate that they can’t afford full market rate.
The organisations would also need to be delivering services that meet our
priorities.
6) Voluntary and Community Sector Hub – This would be a shared building with all
inclusive affordable rents. This would be the preferred category for
organisations that are providing services that meet our priorities (and cannot
demonstrate the need for specialist facilities above). The Hubs will provide
office and meeting space. Activity space where appropriate and possible may
also be provided, otherwise this would need to be hired elsewhere.
7) Community Centre – This would be a neighbourhood based facility with activity
space that is predominantly geared towards providing services at a
neighbourhood level. Community Centres currently have a range of different
terms and conditions, some are on full repairing leases, some directly provided
and others managed by Premises Management Organisations (PMOs) but with
Repairs & Maintenance provided by the council. Many community centres are
currently underutilised and we would be looking to rationalise the number of
centres taking into account what other community facilities are available in the
area. As the number of centres is reduced we would work to reduce the overall
financial burden to the council and put in place equitable arrangements across
the portfolio.
8) Sole occupancy of a building at full market rate – This would be for larger VCS
organisations that can afford to pay full market rates or for those that are not
delivering services that meet our priorities. These organisations would still be
able to access buildings (where available) on the council’s standard terms and
conditions.
Pros: This approach should ensure optimal usage of facilities, help
increase collaborative working between organisations and assist with
the Council’s wider asset rationalisation programme. It would also
provide an open and transparent way of allocating resources and the
hubs would be designed to offer flexibility.
Cons: There would be disruption for organisations that needed to
relocate as a result of moving to the new model. Some underutilised
community centres would close.
On balance we believe that this categorised approach is the best way in
which we can achieve our rationale in a transparent fashion whilst also
helping to play a part in the wider council asset rationalisation
programme. As such it is upon this approach that we seek your views.
Page 54
Part 4 – Key Dates
17. Key dates:
16 January 2015 consultation opens
30 March 2015
consultation closes
April/May 2015
Mayor and Cabinet approval of proposed Community Asset
Support methodology.
May/June 2015
Consultation with individual organisations on the impact of the
agreed Community Assets Methodology.
Part 5 – Consultation Questions
18.
We are happy to receive responses to this consultation in any format
and we are particularly keen to hear your views on the following:
a. The council wishes to retain its commitment to supporting the Voluntary and
Community Sector through utilisation of it’s buildings. Our rationale for this is laid
out in paragraphs 11 and 12 above. Do you agree that access to Council
buildings for VCS organisations is important? Is there anything missing from the
rationale?
b. Within this document you can see that we have discussed and then dismissed
two approaches (paragraphs 14 and 15 above), do you agree with our
reasoning? Are there any other options that we should have considered?
c. Our categorised approach (paragraph 16) is our proposed way forwards. Do you
feel the suggested categories are the right ones, will they work for the VCS? Do
you have any suggestions about how this might be done differently?
d. Do you think that the proposed methodology of reducing the number of
buildings, and bringing organisations together to share space/buildings where
possible is appropriate and fair? If not, why not? How else could this be done?
e. Regarding Community Centres, how should the council look to operate these?
Should they be Council run? Should they be operated by a VCS organisation on
a lease? Somewhere in between?
f. We are undertaking an equalities assessment of the proposed methodology. Do
you feel that the proposed changes would have a negative or positive impact on
Lewisham residents on the basis of their race, gender, faith/religious belief,
disability, age, sexual orientation, gender assignment or marital status? Please
provide comments on the impact you feel the proposed methodology could
have, which groups you feel may be affected and any action you feel we could
take to mitigate any potentially negative impact.
g.
Do you have any other views on the content of this consultation paper, not
covered by the above?
Page 55
Appendix B – Consultation Responses
Four individual responses were received from the following organisations:
1. Grove Park Community Group
2. Lewisham Pensioners Forum
3. Lochaber Hall Management Committee
4. The Midi Music Company
1. Grove Park Community Group
Please find below the response by Grove Park Community Group to point 18 in the
Council’s Community Assets Consultation:
a) We do agree that VCS organisations should have access to Council buildings. We do
not feel there is anything missing from the rationale.
b) We agree with your reasoning for dismissing 14 and 15, and we cannot think of any
other options that could have been considered.
c) We feel that the suggested categories are the right ones for the VCS, however, we
wish to point out that in the case of Grove Park Community Group managing the Ringway
Centre as well as the nearby Children and Family Centre, does not benefit from any repair
or maintenance provided by the Council.
d) We think that the proposed methodology of reducing the number of buildings, and
bringing organisations to share space/buildings where possible is appropriate and fair.
We have no other suggestions.
e) We do not think all Community Centres can necessarily be operated in a similar way.
We believe all three options may be necessary.
f) Provided all facilities are accessible to all people, there should be no impact by the
proposed methodology.
g)
We have nothing to add.
Page 56
2. Lewisham Pensioners Forum
RESPONSE From Lewisham Pensioners Forum to Lewisham Council’s COMMUNITY CENTRE CONSULTATION
By email to: community.enterpise@lewisham.gov.uk
Part 5 – Consultation Questions
a. The council wishes to retain its commitment to supporting the Voluntary and
Community Sector through utilisation of its buildings. Our rationale for this is
laid out in paragraphs 11 and 12 above. Do you agree that access to Council
buildings for VCS organisations is important? Is there anything missing from the
rationale?
LPF Response: Agree 11 and all bar one on 12 (bullet point 4) which is selling off or
mothballing costs in another. Assets which may release savings now but deliver
greater costs in years to come when places to meet will be badly needed and could
increase costs in other budgets as social isolation has knock on health impact. We
fear a cut in one area leading to greater spending in another.
b. Within this document you can see that we have discussed and then dismissed
two approaches (paragraphs 14 and 15 above), do you agree with our reasoning?
Are there any other options that we should have considered?
LPF Response: Agree with LBL’s reasoning – we cannot see any other options that
you should have considered.
c. Our categorised approach (paragraph 16) is our proposed way forwards. Do you
feel the suggested categories are the right ones; will they work for the VCS? Do
you have any suggestions about how this might be done differently?
LPF Response: Here at the Saville Centre, an initial suggestion would be a category
that is a combination of one and two. Offices remain upstairs for groups who do not
have wider accessibility issues. Accessible activities and Forum offices remain down
stairs keeping the kitchen.
Do you think that the proposed methodology of reducing the number of
buildings, and bringing organisations together to share space/buildings where
possible is appropriate and fair? If not, why not? How else could this be done?
LPF Response: Despite the caveat about reducing buildings if that goes ahead there
will be a need to support orgs to work together and have protocols for dispute
resolution etc. Delivering for competing needs not always easy bedfellows – need for
understanding and tolerance.
Page 57
d. Regarding Community Centres, how should the council look to operate these?
Should they be Council run? Should they be operated by a VCS organisation on
a lease? Somewhere in between?
LPF Response: A definition of ‘what is’, and ‘what is not’, a Community Centre would
facilitate a more informed response to this question.
e. We are undertaking an equalities assessment of the proposed methodology. Do
you feel that the proposed changes would have a negative or positive impact on
Lewisham residents on the basis of their race, gender, faith/religious belief,
disability, age, sexual orientation, gender assignment or marital status? Please
provide comments on the impact you feel the proposed methodology could
have, which groups you feel may be affected and any action you feel we could
take to mitigate any potentially negative impact.
LPF Response: In terms of EIA if the Saville Centre no longer provided a meeting and
activity point for older people from across Lewisham then we would consider that there
would be:•
•
•
•
•
Direct impact on older people both locally and across Lewisham with the loss of
what is regarded as a recognised accessible central resource here at the Saville
Centre.
Direct impact on those older people who might no longer be able to, or be
encouraged to, attend wellbeing and social activities that help combat loneliness
and isolation
Loss of the resource of older people who contribute to the community in the delivery
of voluntary and other innovative projects that bring older people together and also
serve the wider community.
Loss of opportunity to run popular community events, such as community Book
Sales
Loss of a valuable resource that has the potential to respond to the challenges
faced by older people who are often excluded because of age but also doubly
marginalised because of other circumstances and impairments including: hearing
and visual impairment, caring responsibilities, and the impact of loneliness on
lesbian, gay older people, those dealing with dementia and seeing friends drop
away, bereavement, poverty, race. There are other transition points too that can
make people vulnerable to becoming lonely, retirement, relationship changes,
decline in health, redundancy.
We would therefore urge the Council to have regard to how the loss of established and
accessible community resources could potentially impact on older people.
g. Do you have any other views on the content of this consultation paper, not
covered by the above?
LPF Response: If the Council is of the view that groups in the voluntary community sector
should be invited to indicate their interest, or assess the reality of sole occupancy of a building
or involvement in a Hub,then core data covering running and maintenance costs should be made
available in advance to interested groups so that they in turn can make informed decisions. For
Page 58
example what is the Lewisham market rent for such buildings? What are the current costs to keep
buildings open etc including water/heating/lighting/security repairs etc.
Page 59
3. Lochaber Hall Management Committee
Response to the Consultation on the Future support of the Council’s Community
Assets to the Voluntary and Community Sector
Lochaber Hall, Manor Lane Terrace SE13 5QL
Lochaber Hall, a Grade 2 listed building, is a vitally important venue for local
organisations who run classes for diverse groups in the local community. It has a high
usage rate throughout the week with regular classes and one off bookings for parties and
community groups.
There are two halls, one large and one small, to suit the needs of the people who use the
facility.
Occupancy/Usage: the average occupation rate (9am - 10pm Monday - Saturday) is 70%
each week. Given the high levels of use of both Halls there is limited scope for more
groups to use the Halls. We receive enquiries from potential new users on a regular basis
but often are not able to accommodate them due to the Halls already being used at the
required times. The large Hall is also used as a polling station at local and national
elections.
Diversity: Lochaber Hall is used by a wide variety of people. There are many classes and
activities throughout the week for children of all ages, along with educational and sport and
fitness classes for children and adults. The hall is used on a regular basis by older
members of our community, for social gatherings and ballroom dancing. The
Mangalapathy Temple group use it for their weekly service and their annual festival. It has
recently been used on many occasions by Remark Community (a support group for deaf
teenagers) and by a support group for Afghan women. The Hall is also used most
Saturdays for children’s parties or table sales etc and for many other social and community
purposes.
Lochaber Hall is self funding and does not rely on Council resources for anything other
than external and statutory maintenance. All other maintenance and expenses are paid for
out of the income received by the Lochaber Management Committee from booking fees. It
has been run successfully for the last 34 years by a dedicated committee of local
volunteers.
The consultation questions (Part 5 of the consultation document) are largely addressed
above. However please note the following points.
The occupancy rates for both Halls would give limited scope for further use but this would
not be significant given the current high usage rates. Such added occupancy would be
more feasible outside of term time when some of the classes do not take place but that
would not work for people who require regular slots.
A key positive for Lochaber Hall is that it is an important facility for the area in that it
ensures that the balance of commercial use and non profit use is in favour of the non profit
use. This enables disadvantaged and low paid people to be able to take advantage of the
wide range of classes and events that take place there.
The above submission is made by the Management Committee of Lochaber Hall.
Page 60
4. The Midi Music Company
The Midi Music Company Response
LBL Consultation: Future support of the Council’s Community Assets to the Voluntary and
Community Sector – January 2015
The Midi Music Company has reviewed the consultation document with specific feedback from the
Executive Director, Wozzy Brewster OBE, Chair, Gordon Williams, and Premises Coordinator,
including input from staff, volunteers and clients.
In relation to the Council’s rationale for supporting the Voluntary & Community Sector through the use
of its buildings we agree with the overall principles, but feel that the Council does have a responsibility
to maintain the fabric of its buildings; bricks, mortar, windows, boilers, alarm systems, fire systems
and other statutory requirements; PAT testing, Legionnaires testing etc.
Any withdrawal of maintenance expenditure should be negotiated with each building and tapered,
giving organisations sufficient time [up to 1 year] to assess the cost implications to their budgets and
create options for future-proofing affordability of the maintenance costs.
The Corporate Assets Team has already issued a notice that any maintenance above the statutory
requirements would cease with effect from 4th February 2015, prior to completion of this consultation –
this is unrealistic considering that there are quite a few buildings with outstanding repairs, including
our site in Watsons Street.
It is understandable that the Council needs to reduce its budget and buildings cost money, but it
should not be to the detriment of the ability of the Voluntary & Community Sector to deliver their
services in a clean, safe and healthy environment because just doing the ‘minimum’ does not always
meet the requirements of partnership.
In order for VCS organisations to help themselves to optimise their resources, particularly premises,
any changes should be planned over a specific timescale to give them the best chance of success.
The geographic location of resources must also be considered when looking at any potential closures
of sites, ensuring that there are sufficient community resources across the borough.
We agree with the Council’s reasoning for not retaining the current arrangements for community and
voluntary use of building assets in the long-term, but believe that short-term arrangements should be
put in place so that VCS organisations can consider their options.
We agree with the Council’s reasoning for not proceeding with full cost recovery for any assets that
were leased or hired because this would have a detrimental impact on their affordability for VCS
organisations, thereby impacting on the level of provision for the community in the borough. A similar
approach taken with the Creekside development has meant that some of our most outstanding
creative and cultural industries organisations have re-located outside of the borough, impacting on the
level of opportunities for work placements, internships, apprenticeships, employment options and
enterprise development within the borough.
The rationalisation with a transparent allocation system is a logical approach. The four categories will
cover a range of VCS organisations:
Sole Occupancy: non-market rate
Voluntary and Community Sector Hub
Community Centre
Page 61
Sole Occupancy: market rate
With regards to Sole Occupancy non-market rate consideration needs to be given to the possibility of
changing priorities for the Council in the future and how this may impact in the long term. If the VCS
organisation is still making a positive contribution to the local community it will still add value and bring
benefits to the local area.
The development of Voluntary and Community Sector Hubs is a good idea, but needs to be
considered geographically so that access to resource is fair across the borough, plus encouraging
VCS organisations to utilise external activity spaces, where necessary, will contribute towards the
local economy for sustaining other community premises managed or used by VCS organisations and
utilise spaces in their ‘downtime’ when other programmes are not delivered on site in these external
spaces outside of the Hubs.
If there is identified need from the local communities surrounding under-utilised Community Centres
then they should be given the opportunity to bid and raise funds to take over assets of community
value, which would enable local communities to keep sites in public use and contribute to the local
need and economy, as outlined in the Localism Act – this would require a re-think of the proposed
schedule for changes in community asset support.
The Council should run the Community Centres that have not been taken over by local residents,
where appropriate.
The Sole Occupancy at full market rate could be quite extortionate for VCS organisations, and the
charges need to reflect the scale of the organisation – will it be implemented at a particular budget
level i.e. £500k+, or start at £1million+ or will cost be determined by staffing structure, or both.
The Voluntary & Community Sector has already been hit quite severely over the past seven years,
with avenues for financial investment heavily oversubscribed. Careful consideration needs to be given
to how ‘larger’ VCS organisations are classified as ‘larger’, and rental charges determined, with clear
and transparent methodologies.
The future of the VCS should also impact on the reasoning of charging full market rates, otherwise we
will hinder growth and development of our organisations, affecting future employment and service
delivery, losing the Council’s original investment, if relevant, to outside of the borough.
Community Asset Transfer has not been mentioned in the consultation document, and although time
is limited, this should be offered as an option under the Localism Act. Perhaps, there could be a way
of tapering off the support for community buildings over a period of three years so that sufficient time
is given to VCS organisations to develop strategies and partnerships.
It is hard to determine what impact any future changes will have in relation to the Council’s equality
assessment without reviewing a full list of the buildings, target service users and programme – a
comparison document would need to be circulated for comment.
Page 62
Agenda Item 6
Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee
Report title
Main grants programme 2015-18
Ward
All
Contributor
Head of Cultural and Community Development
Class
Part 1
Item 6
20 April 2015
1.
Purpose
1.1
The purpose of this report is to outline recommendations for the allocation of the
Main Grant Programme 2015 – 18 . The report details the recommendations that
Mayor and Cabinet (Contracts) will be asked to agree at their meeting on 13
May 2015 as well as the appeals process for organisations unhappy with officer
recommendations.
2.
Recommendations
It is recommended that Members of the Safer Stronger Select Committee note:
2.1
the proposed approach for agreeing the grant allocations.
2.2
the proposals to fund voluntary and community sector groups, as set out in
Appendix 1, for the financial years 2015/16 – 2017/18 unless otherwise stated.
3.
Policy Context
3.1
Lewisham’s Sustainable Community Strategy 2008-2020, ‘Shaping our Future’,
sets out the borough’s ambitions to encourage development, enable citizens to
live healthy lives and to empower Lewisham’s communities to prosper. It has six
strategic priorities, including a commitment to creating a borough that is
“Empowered and Responsible: where people are actively involved in their local
area and contribute to supportive communities”.
3.2
The empowered and responsible strand of the strategy highlights the importance
of the community and voluntary sector in all areas of public life. It recognises that
the sector plays a significant part in Lewisham’s ongoing success.
3.3
This is reflected in Lewisham’s corporate priorities: “Community leadership and
empowerment: developing opportunities for the active participation and
engagement of people in the life of the community”.
3.4
Lewisham has a strong history of working with the voluntary and community
sector and empowering residents and communities. Lewisham is fortunate to
have a strong and thriving sector which ranges from very small organisations
with no paid staff through to local branches of national charities. The sector
includes charities, not for profit companies limited by guarantee, faith
Page 63
organisations, civic amenity societies as well as social enterprises. There are
estimated to be around 800 community and voluntary sector organisations in the
borough.
3.5
What all these organisations have in common is their ability to bring significant
additional value to the work that they do through voluntary support and raising
funds from sources not available to other sectors such as charitable trusts. In
addition they often provide services that the Council cannot easily provide;
create links between communities and people; and give people a voice.
3.6
As well as being directly involved in delivering services to citizens in the
borough, third sector organisations also provide the essential infrastructure to
allow the sector as a whole to develop and support individual citizens to be able
to play an active role within their local communities.
3.7
Lewisham was the first London Borough to develop a compact with the third
sector in 2001. The compact seeks to support a positive relationship between
the sector and key statutory partners. It includes expectations around the
management of grant aid as well as broader partnership working principles. The
compact was further developed in 2010 with the addition of guidelines for
commissioning with the third sector in recognition of the important contribution
that the third sector should play in identifying needs as well as potentially
delivering service solutions.
3.8
Although the third sector’s role within the commissioning of local public services
continues to grow (over £30m worth of services were commissioned from the
third sector in 2013/14), the council recognises that there continues to be a need
for grant aid investment for the following reasons:
• a recognition of the importance of maintaining an independent sector that
can act as a critical friend to challenge public sector policy and delivery.
• a recognition of the key role that the sector plays in building civic
participation, providing a voice for seldom heard residents and providing
community intelligence.
• a recognition of the great diversity of the sector and the need to engage
with small and emerging groups as well as large established organisations.
• a recognition of the sector’s potential to take risks and innovate which does
not always sit easily within commissioning frameworks.
• a recognition that third sector organisations have been key delivery partners
for a wide range of targeted short term initiatives. Grant aid provides a level
of security for organisations ensuring that there is a strong sector ready to
work in partnership with us.
4.
Current Grants Programme and changes to budget
4.1
The current main grants programme was agreed by Mayor and Cabinet
Contracts in July 2011. Funding was provided over four themes; Children and
Young People, Building Social Capital, Gateway Services and Communities
Page 64
that Care. Funding was awarded to 73 organisations in October 2011 and,
following two subsequent extensions, is due to expire at the end June 2015.
4.2
As such it has been necessary to review the current grant criteria to ensure that
they are fit for purpose and reflected changes in the political and policy
landscape since 2011.
4.3
In addition, as part of the overall reduction in Council’s budget, the funding
available for the grants programme has been reduced from around £5,889,000
in 2014/15 to £4,389,000 – a reduction of £1,500,000 or around 25%.
4.4
An element of the remaining funding has been ring-fenced for the London-wide
London Councils Grants scheme and the Small and Faith Grants in Lewisham
leaving an annual budget of £3,880,248 for the Main Grants programme.
4.5
In order to ensure that as many organisation as possible were able to receive
funding the Council has earmarked reserve funding to cover projects that will
only be grant funded for 2015/16, and transferred approximately £70,000
additional grant funding into the main programme. Lewisham CCG has also
agreed that it will contribute £100,000 per year to the programme to support
projects which support vulnerable older people.
4.6
This means that there is an available budget of £2,936,411 for July 2015 –
March 2016 which is recommended for allocation as detailed in Appendix 1.
Funding for 2016/17 and 2018/19 will be increased to a pro rata annual figure
unless otherwise indicated.
5.
Agreeing the Grants criteria for 2015 – 2018
5.1
Given the length of time since the last programme and the scale of reduction in
funding the Mayor and Cabinet agreed for a full public consultation on the
revised framework for the Main Grants programme. In line with the Council's
Compact with the voluntary and community sector, a three month consultation
period was agreed.
5.2
The consultation was open to all and written submissions on the proposed
criteria were sought from across the borough. To support the call for written
responses two formal meetings with voluntary and community sector
organisations took place in July and September 2014 led by the Cabinet
Member for the Third Sector and the Executive Director for Community
Services. 120 individuals attended the two meetings in total, consisting of
voluntary sector organisation senior officers and trustees.
5.3
In addition to the two general meetings, specific themes within the Main Grants
programme were discussed with organisations in the following areas:
• the advice sector
• Communities that Care organisations (e.g. community centres)
• transport
Page 65
•
•
•
•
organisations undertaking investment funded projects, focusing on the
integration of community-based social care support
organisations expressing an interest in undertaking community
development work
sports organisations
arts organisations
5.4
In total there were 173 attendees at consultation meetings organised by the
Council and a further 60 individuals were involved in the consultation at
meetings organised by the VCS and attended by council officers. Officers also
met with a number of organisations individually during the consultation. In
addition to these discussions, two articles on the consultation were included
within Voluntary Action Lewisham's magazine, Grapevine. The consultation
was also available on the Council's online consultation portal.
5.5
Feedback from the 233 attendees at the consultation meetings and 21
individual written responses led to a number of changes in the proposed criteria
including:
• recognition of the need for a coordination function for equalities work
across different protected characteristics.
• more emphasis on quality and the track record of currently funded
organisations
• a recognition of the need for support from borough wide infrastructure
• organisations around new ways of using and sharing premises.
5.6
It was confirmed as part of this process that a number of areas previously
funded through the grants programme would no longer be included in the
criteria. These included employment and skills and youth activity and work
which could be funded through schools. Employment and skills provision was to
be provided through locally held Job Centre Plus budgets and related regional
commissioning activity. The focus for youth activity within the main grants
programme was confirmed as cultural provision as the Youth Service through
both its direct and commissioned services provides for generic youth work. The
importance of very grass roots responses to youth activity was recognised
through the inclusion of youth activity within the Neighbourhood Community
Development Strand.
5.7
Another key element of the consultation response was the overwhelming
feedback that if a 25% reduction had to be achieved it would be more
effective to fund fewer organisations better than try to apply a cut across the
board and fund the same number of organisations. Only one respondent
suggested reducing equally across the board.
5.8
The consultation response was reported to Safer Stronger Select Committee on
3 November 2014. The committee expressed concern about the lack of grass
roots LGBT activity in Lewisham and requested that the criteria be amended to
encourage better engagement with Lewisham residents by strategic equalities
organisations.
Page 66
5.9
The criteria were amended to reflect this and the final version were agreed by
Mayor and Cabinet (Contracts) on 12 November 2014.
5.10
In summary the criteria invited applications relating to one or more of 4 broad
themes:
•
Strong and Cohesive Communities – this theme seeks to develop and
maintain strong communities and build a more inclusive and cohesive borough.
It is divided into two strands, one to support Borough-wide provision and the
other to fund a network of neighbourhood community development projects.
With the reduction in statutory resources, residents and communities are being
asked to do more for themselves. This theme seeks to ensure that there is an
infrastructure across the borough that can encourage and capitalise on active
citizenship, supporting grass roots activity. The theme will also fund services
that provide equalities support to ensure equal access to services.
•
Communities that Care – the overall intention of this theme is to fund a range
of organisations that together provide support to vulnerable adults to assist
them in accessing services, prevent their needs from escalating, reduce the
burden on statutory services and provide links between statutory services, VCS
and communities in relation to working together to support vulnerable adults.
The activities funded through this theme form an important part of the
borough’s preventative strategy.
•
Access to Advice Services – the advice sector provides an essential service
to some of the borough’s most vulnerable residents. Advice organisations
provide independent, high quality advice to individuals to ensure that they
receive the benefits they are entitled to, are supported to manage debts,
address financial exclusion and deal with housing issues. Statutory services
work closely with the advice sector as addressing these issues are of mutual
benefit.
•
Widening Access to Arts and Sports – this theme seeks to ensure that the
rich and diverse contribution that the borough’s Arts and Sports organisations
make to the quality of life of residents is maintained. The Arts and Sports
sectors are adept at attracting resources from external funding, earned income
and volunteers. However, the sectors still require a level of core funding to
enable them to continue to attract these resources that would otherwise be lost
to the borough. The focus of our support will be on increasing participation
particularly by those who are less able to participate due to disability, economic
disadvantage and age.
5.11
In addition to the main criteria it was recognised that in the areas of adventure
playgrounds and counselling and psychological therapy services to adults with
mental health needs the Council will be reviewing its provision during 2015/16.
For this reason it was agreed by Mayor and Cabinet that funding for
Somerville Adventure Playground and The Cassel Centre would be
recommended, at an appropriate rate, despite not meeting the grants criteria
Page 67
with provision reviewed in line with the overall service area during 2015/16.
During the course of the evaluation it became apparent that the Lewisham
Bereavement Counselling service also fell within the scope of the counselling
and psychological therapy review so short term funding is also
recommended for that service outside of the agreed criteria.
6.
Application process for the 2015-2018 round
6.1
In November 2014 LB Lewisham issued the application process for its main
grants programme with the priorities to be assessed across the four themes
outlined in paragraph 5.10 above.
6.2
117 applications were received requesting annual funds of £8,940,0896 against
an available budget of £3,880,248. This represents a subscription rate of 230%
- for every £1 available there were requests for £2.30.
6.3
The requests for funding were not evenly distributed across the themes with
Communities that Care receiving applications for funds totalling 2.5 times the
amount requested under the Access to Advice theme.
6.4
In order to ensure an equitable distribution across the themes based on
identified need and corporate priorities rather than simply organisational
funding demand a broad theme allocation was determined as set out in the
table below.
6.5
When the applications were allocated against these allocations it again showed
the Communities that Care theme as the most over subscribed but with the
Widening Access to Arts and Sports theme also having a significant level of
oversubscription.
Theme Area
SCC
CtC
AtA
WatAS
Total
6.6
Total requested
- annual
2,008,727
3,726,882
1,485,394
1,719,083
8,940,086
Total available annual
963,104
1,250,000
1,003,862
663,282
3,880,248
Subscription
209%
298%
148%
259%
230%
A three stage assessment process was used to assess each application. The
first was an assessment of how well an application met the partner profile.
This assessed the organisation’s readiness to work with the Council as active
partners and what they can bring to such a partnership against the following
categories:
• Local Intelligence - the level of understanding of local need.
• Transformation - the ability to transform the ways of working to better
meet needs.
• Collaboration - track record of working in partnership.
Page 68
•
•
•
Resources - track record of attracting resources both financial and
volunteer time. This section allows organisations to demonstrate their
financial sustainability.
Shared Values - commitment to London Living Wage, Equality,
Environmental Sustainability
Quality and effectiveness – how well an organisation has performed in
the past and how it measures its success
6.6
These assessments were then quality assured by a manager leading on each
of the four themes. The manager then assessed the proposed activity and
considered how well it met the published criteria and proposed to meet the
need in the borough. The assessment of the proposed activity to be funded by
the grant was the key element in the assessment and it was therefore possible
that an organisation who had scored highly on the partner profile might not be
recommended for funding if their proposal for specific deliverables was weak or
failed to meet the stated criteria.
6.7
Having considered all the applications across the theme the manager prepared
recommendations ensuring a spread of provision across the different aspects of
the area. These recommendations were then considered by a senior officer
panel which provided a challenge function and again checked for consistency
and quality of assessment before agreeing the draft recommendations.
6.8
Given the level of oversubscription a number of ‘working principles’ were
adopted in the allocation of funding to ensure value for money and to avoid
destabilising current provision:
•
•
•
•
6.9
Currently funded organisations would receive growth on their current
allocation only in exceptional circumstances
Organisations would not simply be funded because they have received
funding in the past, however where bids of equal value were received in
similar areas those already in receipt of funding were prioritised to
ensure continuity of provision and organisational stability
Where alternative sources of council, or other, funding were available
grants would not be agreed unless the provision was distinctly different
to areas funded through other means
Where the council had taken a corporate decision to decommission an
existing service grant funding would not be used to replace that funding
like for like
Based on the objective assessment of all the applications and guided by the
above principles 62 applications are recommended for funding with 55 not
recommended.
Recommended
62
Not recommended
55
Page 69
6.10
This reflected the overwhelming view during the consultation that the council
should fund fewer organisations at a higher level rather than try and maintain
the current number of organisations at a lower funding level. The recommended
number of 62 organisations represents a 17% reduction on the currently funded
level of 75.
6.11
Of the 62 organisations recommended for funding 48 are currently in receipt of
grant funding. Of the 48 organisations recommended for on-going funding 35
(73%) are receiving at least 80% of their current funding and 27 (56%) are
receiving at least 90%. 19 organisations are recommended to receive funding
at or above their current level:
Currently Funded
48
6.12
New Organisations
14
Of the 55 not recommended for funding 24 were currently funded
organisations while 31 were applying for new funding:
Currently funded –
not recommended
for funding
24
Not currently funded
– not recommended
for funding
31
6.13
Overall these figures indicate that the grants programme was available for
access to new entrants but that organisations with a track record of effective
delivery who still met the revised criteria were slightly more likely to be
recommended for funding.
6.14
The details of the allocations under each individual theme are explored in more
detail below. To avoid confusion these have, as far as possible, been grouped
under the primary theme despite the fact that many organisations applied under
multiple themes.
6.15
This report intends to give an overview of the rationale for the decisions taken
and the organisations recommended for funding but does not detail each and
every recommendation – a full breakdown of the proposed allocations is
contained in appendix 1 and the full assessment documents are available at
appendix 2.
7.
Theme 1 – Strong and Cohesive Communities. Strand 1a - Borough wide
7.1
Theme 1a was designed to support borough wide infrastructure for the
voluntary sector. The criteria for the theme stated that the Council would fund a
group of organisations that would adopt strong and collaborative approaches
in sharing resources and minimising duplication.
7.2
Ten strands were identified to this work which grouped into three main areas:
•
General organisational infrastructure support, eg networking, policy
development, facilitating collaboration
Page 70
•
•
Equalities, aimed at increasing inclusivity, reducing marginalisation and
identifying over-representation of particular communities requiring
support
Promoting volunteering and brokerage services and working with
community organisations to access volunteers and provide advice on
volunteer recruitment, supervision and management
7.3
A wide range of bids was received from organisations already funded by the
Council as well as those not currently funded. In some cases proposed services
overlapped.
7.4
In the case of infrastructure support, there was a degree of misunderstanding
as a number of organisations simply indicated that they would operate direct
delivery services on a borough-wide basis rather than offering the infrastructure
support described in the grant application guidance. Voluntary Action Lewisham
(VAL) was the only organisation whose application fully addressed the
application criteria.
7.5
In the case of Equalities, a number of organisations applied to deliver
programmes or services which officers considered under the umbrella of the
Council’s Comprehensive Equalities Scheme (CES).
7.6
The CES requires all organisations to give regard to 9 protected
characteristics. It was never intended that this focus should be of equal
emphasis across all characteristics and the recommendations for funding
reflects this.
7.7
The CES has 5 key objectives which themselves reflect the national legislative
framework:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Tackling victimisation and discrimination
Improving access to services
Closing the gap in outcomes for different citizens
Increasing mutual respect and understanding in communities
Increasing participation and engagement
7.8
The Council is looking to a number of public sector partners as well as itself to
deliver against these objectives and is co-ordinating the use of a number of
funding streams to assist this process.
7.9
Voluntary sector grant aid is just one of these resources and the
recommendations reflect where it is considered important that the voluntary
sector take a leading role in representing the views of those with a particular
protected characteristic.
7.10
Two applications – a VAL-led consortium and The Metro Centre – sought to
establish a borough-wide Equalities partnership which was welcomed but
neither fully captured the breadth required in delivering this approach and it is
Page 71
therefore proposed to provide this co-ordination through the Stronger
Communities Partnership Board led by VAL and the Council.
7.11
The role of this partnership would be to coordinate the work of those leading on
the specific areas of the CES. Appendix 3 details how the council will work with
the Voluntary Sector to deliver against the specific objective of the CES. In
preparing the recommendations for funding under this theme officers have
made certain assumptions:
• Culturally specific services will not be funded unless there is a clearly
defined reason why these services cannot be accessed elsewhere
• All organisations are required to have an equalities plan that looks at
how due regard will be paid to the protected characteristics
• There is a need to offer training and support to organisations to develop
and deliver effective comprehensive quality plans
• It is essential to ensure that individual residents have access to
information and advice to help them challenge victimisation and
discrimination
• That neighbourhood community development will also focus on
delivering equality outcomes.
7.12
In order to ensure that all of Protected Characteristics are covered within this
theme, further analysis of equalities impact assessments is being undertaken
and will be reported to Mayor and Cabinet (Contracts) with the full
recommendations.
7.13
An application was received from Equaliteam which aimed to establish a
“critical friend” and equalities awards programme.
7.14
Equaliteam was established in 2012 as “a single focused race equality body,
with due regard to all equality areas. This would be achieved by having a
coordinated approach through a consortium with all other voluntary
organisations and especially those providing equality and advocacy support
services for other disadvantaged groups of people on grounds of sex,
disability, age, sexuality, religion and belief”
7.15
The organisation appointed its first staff members in the summer of 2013.
However, it has experienced a number of difficulties which have delayed its
development. At its annual monitoring visit in May 2014, the organisation was
advised that delays in developing its service delivery offer were concerning and
the organisation was asked to prioritise this work. However, although the
organisation has undertaken a number of stakeholder events, it is yet to start
any direct service delivery. As a result of the lack of service delivery, the
organisation has accrued a significant grants underspend of £184,634.
7.16
It should be noted that, although the organisation was initially established to
provide “a single focused race equality body”, in 2014 it reviewed its
priorities and decided that work with African and Caribbean communities would
be its priority for the immediate future. In light of this decision, Equaliteam’s
Page 72
Main Grants application in 2015 was particularly focused on the African and
Caribbean communities rather than an overarching equalities offer. Given the
level of underspend, the Council will discuss the possibility of Equaliteam
delivering part of their proposed programme using the previously underspent
grant to develop its offer. No further funding is recommended under the current
Main Grants application round.
7.17
An application was received from Lewisham Ethnic Minority Partnership
(LEMP). The service proposed in this application is not being recommended for
funding because the programme proposed did not provide detail of a service at
a sufficiently strategic level to address the theme requirements and to have an
impact in this important service delivery area.
7.18
Applications to provide Volunteering infrastructure were relatively limited.
Volunteer Centre Lewisham’s application focused on volunteer training,
development and capacity building and also offered a borough-wide volunteer
brokerage service. A VCL consortium also submitted a proposal to work with
Local Assemblies to recruit volunteers to organise activities specifically around
the Big Lunch.
7.19
In total, 33 bids were received for funding under Theme 1a. Of these 15 were
ruled out because it was clear that Theme 1a had been indicated in error –
these were sports organisations and organisations representing specific
minority communities offering direct delivery of very specific services. The
panel also agreed that sub-sector second tier organisations would not be
funded and, as a result, the Pre-School Learning Alliance’s application was not
recommended for funding. Of the remainder, 6 have been recommended for a
funding award, with 11 failing to meet the application process requirements. All
but one recommended organisation is already funded by the Council, with the
Stephen Lawrence Centre being the new entrant.
7.20
The quality of bids received varied widely. Most organisations addressed the
partnerships section of the application well, explaining current services and
working arrangements clearly and with commitment. However, when it came to
detail of the programmes that they intended to deliver, organisations tended to
be less specific.
7.20
VAL will be asked to provide a leading role in supporting voluntary and
community sector organisations. In addition to VAL, a proposal from
Bellingham Community Project to develop work with voluntary and community
sector organisations in the south of the borough is being recommended. The
other organisations being recommended for funding under the Equalities strand
are:
•
•
•
•
Metro Centre
Stephen Lawrence Centre
LRMN
Lewisham Pensioners’ Forum
Page 73
7.21
Volunteer Centre Lewisham’s main application will be funded, but the Big
Lunch consortium did not meet application criteria. Volunteer Centre
Lewisham’s offer will also represent a reduction in their existing grant. It is
recognised that the proposed reduction, along with loss of other grants funding
may have a significant impact on the organisation and further discussion will
take place with them regarding premises support and possible collaboration
with other organisations.
7.22
The following organisations are not recommended for funding under this theme:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Action Family Centre
AFC Lewisham
Dynamo Youth FC
EqualiTeam Lewisham
Indo-China Refugee Group
Inspiring Your Imagination
LEMP
Lewisham Polish Centre
Lewisham Volunteering Consortium
Pre-School Learning Alliance
Tamil Academy of Language and Arts
Young Lewisham Project
Contact a Family
C of E Parish Church of St. Mary the Virgin Lewisham
Forest Hill Football Club
Hub Arts Map
Teachsports 2010 CIC
7.23
A number of organisations that support a specific community are not
recommended for funding under this theme. Similar organisations are also not
recommended for funding under other themes. In order to facilitate the use of
mainstream services all advice agencies are required to make their services
accessible to all and the Lewisham Multilingual Advice Service is
recommended to receive the full amount they applied for – a 65% increase on
their current allocation.
8.
Theme 1 – Strong and Cohesive Communities, strand 1b –
Neighbourhoods
8.1
Within the Neighbourhood strand of the Strong and Cohesive Communities
theme officers were hoping to fund (indicative £24k/ward/year) a network of
organisations that will work in designated ward(s) alongside the Local
Assembly to deliver Community Development. This would include:
• Practical support to build strong and cohesive communities
• Strengthening local area partnerships by bringing organisations in an
area together to work collectively for and with residents in that
neighbourhood, a local level infrastructure provider
Page 74
•
•
•
•
Harnessing skills and volunteer time to develop strong and resilient
communities
Facilitating involvement of residents in the issues which affect their
lives; and supporting collective action to deliver change
Identifying gaps in youth and community provision in the ward
Delivering activities to meet gaps where possible and raise additional
resources through volunteers and fundraising to extend provision
8.2
Under this new strand a total of 19 applications were received. Even if funding
was agreed for all19 this would not achieve full coverage across all the
Lewisham Wards and even within the 19 the quality of the bids varied
significantly.
8.3
As such officers have taken the pragmatic approach and only recommended
funding for bids that were considered to have a strong chance of delivering the
objectives outlined in paragraph 8.1. This means that 9 organisations are
recommended for funding, covering 8 individual Ward areas, plus Teatro Vivo
a Borough Wide engagement resource available to the Local Assemblies.
as
8.4
The 9 applications recommended for funding are:
• Ackroyd Community Association – Crofton Park
• Bellingham Community Project – Bellingham
• Corbett Estate Neighbourhood Forum – Catford South
• Goldsmiths Community Association – Whitefoot
• Grove Park Community Group – Grove Park
• IRIE! – New Cross
• Lee Green Lives – Lee Green
• Somerville Youth & Play Provision – Telegraph Hill
• Teatro Vivo – Engagement support, all wards.
8.5
These 8 ward focused organisations, plus Teatro Vivo, give a reasonable
geographical spread across the Borough, with only the South West of the
Borough particularly under resourced.
8.6
The remaining funding will be used to maintain the Community Connections
work, whilst officers monitor and review this new strand to see what works well,
and what doesn’t.
8.7
The intention is for officers to assess how this piece of work ties in with the
Community Health Improvement Networks as they come on stream, alongside
the need for the Community Development work through Community
Connections, to ensure that all these elements are integrated and are not
duplicate resources. The aim is to achieve an equitable spread of Community
Development across all 18 Wards.
Page 75
8.8
As this piece of work moves forwards, the Council will ensure that all 9 funded
organisations, plus Community Connections work together as a Community
Engagement Network.
8.9
Organisations not recommended for funding under this theme are:
• The Albany
• Creekside Education Trust
• Downham (Wesley Halls) Community Association
• The Grove Centre
• Honor Oak Community Centre Association
• Hub Arts Map (South London Art Map)
• Inspiring Your Imagination
• Lewisham Irish Community Centre
• Rushey Green Time Bank
• Young Lewisham Project
9.
Theme 2: Communities that Care
9.1
The overall intention of the Communities that Care theme is to fund a range of
organisations that together provide support to vulnerable adults to assist them
in accessing services, prevent their needs from escalating, reduce the burden
on statutory services and provide links between statutory services, the VCS
and communities to work together to support vulnerable adults. The theme is
split into 5 strands:
• connecting and supporting
• transport
• advocacy
• provision for vulnerable adults
• support for families with disabled children and young carers
9.2
This was a very popular area with 53 organisations applying directly under
this theme and a further 5 making reference to it in their application. The theme
was nearly 3 times oversubscribed with £2.98 requested for every available £1.
9.3
The organisation often applied under more than one of the 5 strands and more
often than not the Connecting and Supporting strand merged with the Provision
for Vulnerable Adults and these were assessed together considering both
overarching and individual client group approaches.
9.4
The criteria for the Connecting and Supporting/Provision for vulnerable
adults strands included the delivery of a volunteer befriending service for
vulnerable adults who are experiencing social isolation and a network of
timebanks across the four integrated health and social care neighbourhoods.
9.5
These categories also split between bids that provided for services across all
vulnerable people and those providing for individual client groups (covered
Page 76
individually in paragraphs 9.7 – 9.16). The below organisations are
recommended for funding to deliver a range of activity including community
development, coordinating timebanks across the borough, running an online
system to enable people to secure personal assistants and a range of other
provision:
• Albany (also see Older Adults)
• Age UK – Community Connections
• Rushey Green Timebank
• Greenwich Carers Centre
• Parent Support Group
• Noah’s Ark
• Voluntary Service Lewisham
9.6
A number of organisations were not recommended for funding under this strand
for a range of reasons including not meeting the criteria as set out, alternative
funding streams being available, poor application forms or poor value for
money. These were:
• Volunteer Centre Lewisham – the Volunteer Centre is being funded
through the SCC theme
• Lee Fair Share
• Lewisham Access on Mediation Project
• Refuge
• Nar
• Marsha Phoenix
• Federation of Refugees from Vietnam in Lewisham (FORVIL)
9.7
The criteria for the Older Adults strand was to combat isolation, increase
independence, reduce or delay the need for statutory services and offer an
alternative to day centres. Services for older adults should consider how they
are able to accommodate adults with dementia and identify what steps they
would need to take in order to achieve this.
9.8
This was a very popular strand and funding is recommended for a range of
provision on the proviso that the organisations work together to provide a
network of service co-ordinated by Age Uk and Eco Communities. The
network would be made up of:
• Ackroyd Community Association
• Age Exchange
• Age UK Lewisham & Southwark
• Ageing Well in Lewisham
• Deptford Methodist Mission – Disabled People’s Contact
• Eco Communities
• Entelechy Arts/Albany
• The Grove Centre
• Lewisham Elders Resource Centre (Seniors)
• Sydenham Garden (see also Mental Health)
Page 77
9.9
Applications not recommended for funding generally offered similar services to
those above but were less well developed, provided less clarity on their
outcomes or were extremely close to a more positive bid. These are:
• 2000 Community Action Centre
• 60 Up CIC
• Bexley Crossroads Care
• Deptford Action Group for the Elderly (DAGE)
• Greenwich Association of Disabled People
9.10
The criteria for the Adults with learning disabilities strand was to extend the
range of available day activities, provide access to social activities in a safe
environment.
9.11
This strand had 5 applicants listing it as their primary focus with HeartnSoul,
Mencap, Lewisham Speaking Up (also see Advocacy) and Wheels for
Wellbeing all recommended for funding and only Providence Linc United
Services not recommended for funding as their application was to directly
replace funding previously provided through commissioning channels.
9.12
The criteria for Mental Health service users was to offer cost effective activity
programmes that support mental health service users and reduce their
dependence on statutory services.
9.13
Again there were relatively few bids aimed exclusively at Mental Health issues
and both of these, Sydenham Garden and Bromley and Lewisham MIND, are
recommended for funding. A application from Family Action for a floating
support service is not recommended for funding as a similar service was
recently decommissioned by the council through another process.
9.14
The criteria for the Adults with complex social needs required organisations
to demonstrate that they would deliver positive activities for adults with complex
social needs that support them to build their self-esteem and be actively
engaged with their local community.
9.15
Both the 999 Club and Deptford Reach were able to do this effectively and are
recommended for funding under this theme although Deptford Reach are not
recommended for funding under the Advice theme which they also applied as it
was felt it was more appropriate that this be delivered by specialist
organisations with the infrastructure required to deliver this service at scale.
9.16
The opposite is true of the 170 Community Project who are recommended for
funding under the Access to Advice theme (see section 10 below) but are not
recommended for extra funding under this theme to make their service
accessible for vulnerable groups as it is expected that this is part of their core
offer. A further bid for the 170 Project leading a consortium of employment and
training providers is also not recommended for funding as employment support
Page 78
has been removed from the criteria for this round of the Grants programme
(see paragraph 5.6). The final bid in this section was from CRI and offered to
develop a social enterprise business for vulnerable adults. The bid had some
interesting elements but represented very poor value for money.
9.17
The Transport strand was seeking an organisation or consortium of
organisations that will deliver an integrated community transport service that
complements existing provision such as taxi card, dial a ride etc and
incorporating group transport, individual journeys and support to access other
mainstream transport in order to reduce social isolation and increase access to
services for vulnerable adults.
9.17
Complementary applications were received from Lewisham Community
Transport Scheme and Voluntary Services Lewisham to continue to deliver and
develop their Access Lewisham and related services. These met the criteria
well and are recommended for funding.
9.18
The third application in this area from the Shopmobility service providing
scooters and wheelchairs fro hire out of Lewisham Shopping Centre is not
recommended for funding as it is felt that commercial sponsorship could be
sought to replace the current grant.
9.19
Only one application was received under the Advocacy strand and it is
recommended to fund Lewisham Speaking Up who submitted a very positive
application and have a strong track record of providing advocacy services in
people with learning disabilities in Lewisham.
9.20
The final strand under this theme was Support for families with disabled
children and young carers which looked for organisations which reduced
social isolation and improved access to services and decision making forums.
9.21
Under this strand funding is recommended for Noah’s Ark who provide a
getaway service for a range of vulnerable people and groups in Lewisham that
include young people’s services and Contact a Family who support families
with disabled children.
9.22
Under this theme funding is not recommended for Carers Lewisham as while
the application meets the criteria services providing Young Carers support will
be provided through the London Borough of Lewisham's Carer's funding. This
funding allocation is currently being reviewed to ensure that it meets the
statutory requirements within the Care Act 2014 and the Children and Families
Act 2014. For similar reasons a secondary bid from Family Action is also not
recommended for funding.
9.23
Funding is also not recommended for Lewisham Opportunity Pre-School
as some years ago the Council made a decision that it would no longer be a
provider of subsidised child care. Following this decision the council took steps
to close/transfer the Council providers at Amersham, Ladywell, Rushey
Page 79
Green and Honor Oak. The latter two are now successful social enterprise
organisations operating in the market without Council subsidy which is the
model recommended for other provision.
9.24
Finally a number of organisations that highlighted Communities that Care as a
second or third theme were considered under their main application theme
and are referenced elsewhere in this report. These are:
• Grove Park Community Group
• Indo-China Refugee Group
• Lewisham Irish Community Centre
• Lewisham Disability Coalition
• Tamil Academy of Language and Arts and Downderry Primary
School After School Club
9.24
Overall, while some very difficult decisions had to be made given the funding
constraints, it is felt that the recommendations under the Communities that
Care theme represent positive coverage across the borough in all of the
required areas.
10.
Theme 3 - Access to Advice Services
10.1
Theme 3 required applicant organisations to be Lewisham-based voluntary
sector advice organisations, delivering social welfare advice and information
services, particularly to vulnerable residents such as older people, disabled
people and people from newly arrived communities.
10.2
Applicants were asked to identify consortium and partnership working to
support a value for money approach and to offer innovations in terms of digital
technology to support local people in addressing their own advice needs. Key
areas of social welfare advice to be covered were: welfare, debt and money
advice, housing, immigration, employment. The theme was broken into three
key advice type areas as follows:
• Generalist
• Client specific
• Specialist
10.3
There was an additional specific application area focusing on partnership
building and support, aimed at coordinating and developing the work of all
funded advice providers.
10.4
A relatively low number of bids were received from organisations not currently
funded. Of these, many failed to address the specification, stating that they
offered advice but not demonstrating that they could provide services to the
standards required. Of the eight currently funded organisations, six of the bids
were deemed to be of good or excellent quality, with the remaining two being
satisfactory but failing to address some of the key requirements.
Page 80
10.5
In making the funding recommendations officers emphasised that further
discussions would be required with all successful organisations to ensure that
services offered were not being duplicated elsewhere and that organisations
established effective mutual referral arrangements. This was to ensure that
individuals were offered a coherent programme of support which retained a
single point of contact throughout.
10.6
In arriving at the allocation for CAB, officers took account of the organisation’s
loss of £148,000 Public Health grant to provide services within GP practices. A
condition of the award to the CAB would be that they re-design the GP service
to work with Community Connections and organise the service on a community
hub basis.
10.7
Other awards have taken account of the geographical spread of provision. With
regard to specialist providers, it was agreed that further discussion would take
place to ensure that their services were not delivered in isolation and that there
was close collaboration with other providers to maximise the level of service
being received by individuals. For this reason all allocations for Advice
provision are for 2015/16 while work is undertaken to improve this coordination
as some reallocation of resources may be necessary to meet specific needs
and organisational circumstances.
10.8
Organisations recommended for funding:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
10.9
170 Community Project
Lewisham Citizens’ Advice Bureau (including Advice Lewisham)
Age UK
Evelyn 190
Lewisham Disability Coalition
Lewisham Multilingual Advice Service
Lewisham Refugee and Migrant Network
Organisations not recommended for funding:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Contact a Family
Indo-China Refugee Group
Deptford Reach
Teachsports
Greenwich Association of Disabled People
Nar (funding request under this theme not specified)
Lewisham Mencap (funding request under this theme not specified)
Tamil Academy of Language and Arts (funding request under this theme
not specified)
Page 81
11.
Theme 4: Widening Access to Arts and Sports
11.1
The intention of this theme is to fund organisations or consortiums of
organisations that will take a strategic approach to increasing the number of
people who participate in the arts and sport in Lewisham. This will particularly
involve addressing barriers and providing opportunities for those who are less
able to engage. Applications were expected to demonstrate how they will:
a. Increase participation, particularly including people who are less able to
participate due to disability, economic disadvantage and age (young people
and older people).
b. Nurture talent and provide progression pathways, including developing
outreach links into other settings such as schools.
11.2
The theme is split into two strands:
A. Widening Access to Arts
Through this theme the expectation is to fund a network of organisations that
will deliver activities that:
• Provide opportunities for people of all ages to engage with the arts as
active participants and members of an audience
• Provide opportunities for people of all ages to explore and develop
their creativity and acquire new skills
• Increase awareness and enhance the reputation of Lewisham as a
place to spend leisure time
• Capitalise on funding and other support opportunities from regional
and national bodies.
B. Widening Access to Sports
Officers recommend that the Council works with a range of voluntary sports
clubs and organisations to develop a more coordinated and partnership driven
approach to sports provision in the borough in order to make the best possible
sporting offer available to the residents of Lewisham. In this context we expect
to fund partnerships or single organisations that will take a lead in facilitating
partnerships to develop & deliver borough wide, development plans for specific
sports. Applications will be expected to show how they will meet the general
criteria for this fund (a and b above) and also respond to the following
questions:
• Can you demonstrate high levels of demand or growing demand for
your sport within Lewisham?
• How will you make the best use of the borough’s current and emerging
facilities?
• How will you capitalise on funding and/or other support opportunities
from regional and national bodies?
• How will you provide activities that encourage people to participate in
recreational sport and physical activity?
11.3
Within the Arts strand 35 applications were received, with a large number of
good submissions that strongly addressed the criteria. In addition a large
Page 82
number of bids from community organisations (particularly youth organisations)
that use art as part of their methodology but were not primarily arts
organisations and did not fully address the criteria.
11.4
A number of applications were for relatively large sums of money but with little
track record of delivery and the remainder were made up of small grant type
applications with good ideas around increasing participation but which only
partially addressed the criteria.
11.5
Generally bids were weak in terms of real collaboration and instead tended to
broadly address the partnership requirements.
11.6
The recommendations are based on a strict application of the funding criteria.
Given the volume of bids, only those that fully meet the criteria have been
recommended. This means that where generic youth organisations or
community organisations have applied to deliver art based activities or one off
art courses, they have not been recommended because there is no evidence of
their track record in nurturing talent or providing development pathways.
However, a large proportion of applications that are recommended for funding
are from youth arts organisations and so will naturally deliver services targeting
young people.
11.7
There is a reasonably good geographical spread of organisations and activities,
although the north of the borough is over represented.
11.8
Organisations recommended for funding under the Widening Access to Arts
theme:
• The Albany
• Deptford X
• Greenwich & Lewisham Young People’s Theatre
• Heart n Soul
• IRIE!
• Lewisham Education Arts Network
• Lewisham Youth Theatre
• The Midi Music Company
• Montage Theatre Arts
• Second Wave Centre for Youth Arts
• Sydenham Arts Ltd
• Teatro Vivo
• Trinity Laban Conservatoire of Music and Dance
11.9
Organisations not recommended for funding under the Widening Access to Arts
theme:
• Bellingham Community Project Ltd
• Blackheath Conservatoire of Music and the Arts Ltd
• C of E Parish Church of St.Mary the Virgin Lewisham
• Community Youth London Frameless Arts CIC
Page 83
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Grove Park Community Group (GPCG)
Harts Lane Studios
Honor Oak Community Centre Association
Hub Arts Map (South London Art Map)
Inspiring Your Imagination
Lewisham Young Womens Resource Project
MakeBelieve Arts
Mobile Media Interactive
Olympus Playgroup
Platform1/Forest Hill Youth Project
Prince’s Trust (The)
Tea Dance for Little People/Creative Homes
Young Lewisham Project
Youth, AID Lewisham
11.10 Across the Sports strand 14 applications were received including 3 strong
collaborative bids involving a number of clubs alongside the national or
regional governing body. In contrast weaker bids tended to seek funding for
the running costs of individual clubs.
11.11 Given the limited budget it has only been possible to recommend support for
five sports. Three of these are the collaborative bids mentioned above.
11.12 Organisations recommended for funding under to Widening access to Sports
theme:
• London Amateur Boxing Association
• London FA on behalf of Lewisham Football Network
• London Thunder
• Saxon Crown Swimming Club
• South East London Tennis (Lewisham Tennis Consortium)
11.13 Organisations not recommended for funding under to Widening access to
Sports theme: :
• AFC Lewisham CIC
• Catford Wanderers Cricket Club
• Double Jab A.B.C.
• Dynamo Youth FC
• Forest Hill Park Football Club
• Royal London Society for Blind People (RLSB)
• S Factor Athletics Club
• Teachsport 2010 CIC
• Wheels for Wellbeing
11.14 All recommended applications include both recreational/physical activity
opportunities as well as opportunities for competitive sport and are assessed as
being able to deliver borough wide development plans for their sports
Page 84
12.
Next steps and appeals
12.1
All organisations were written to on Monday 30 March to inform them of the
draft recommendation of their funding level. This letter also acted as three
months notification of a change of funding for all current grant recipients. The
letters informs the organisations that unless otherwise stated the recommended
award is for 2.75 years until 31 March 2018. The letter also highlights that all
council expenditure is subject to annual review in light of central government
cuts to LB Lewisham but any changes to grant funding will be subject to
formal consultation.
12.2
As part of the main grants process organisations are given the opportunity to
appeal against officers’ recommendations. The organisations were given until
15th April to write to the council disputing their funding recommendation with
officers to respond by the end of April. Both the appeal and the response letter
will then be considered at a special meeting of Mayor and Cabinet (Contracts)
on Monday 11th May where organisations also have the opportunity to present
their case in person.
12.3
The outcome of this meeting will then be fed into the subsequent meeting of
Mayor and Cabinet (Contracts) on Wednesday 13 May where the final
allocation decisions will be taken.
13.
Rent grants
13.1
There is a varied pattern of occupation and management agreements for a
number of council owned premises occupied and run by community groups.
The council provides support to organisations in a number of different ways,
including providing repairs & maintenance, rent grants, main grant funding,
peppercorn lease arrangements and so on.
13.2
Outside of the main grants programme there are currently four organisations
receiving rent grants: Ackroyd Community Association, Lewisham Young
Women's Resource Centre (LYWRC), The Midi Music Company and
Downham Community Association (Wesley Halls). These grants are to
cover the cost of rent charged by the Council and are not linked to specific
outcomes.
13.3
Two of these organisations Ackroyd Community Association and The Midi
Music Company are recommended for continued Main Grants funding while the
other two, Lewisham Young Women's Resource Centre (LYWRC), and
Downham Community Association (Wesley Halls) are not recommended for
ongoing funding.
13.4
The consultation on the Council’s Community Assets Strategy has only recently
closed and, as such, it is recommended that the current rent grants are
extended for 9 months until the end of March 2016 to allow for the conclusion
of this work.
Page 85
14.
Financial implications
14.1 This report recommends award of grants totalling £3,173,239.25 in 2015/16,
£4,091,952 in 2016/17 and £4,091,952 in 2017/18 as set out in appendix 1.
14.2 The available main programme budgets are shown in the following table ::
2015-16 Budget.
2014-15 Revised Budget
Less
Savings - COM5 15-16
Reserves - once of funding from earmarked reserves for Investment Fund
2015-16 Budget
Budget Allocation
London Councils - London Boroughs Grants Scheme
Small and Faith Grants
6,121,500
-1,125,000
-232,100
4,764,400
303,800
100,000
April-June 15 - Extension Funding - Delegated Authority Exec Director for
Community Services 4.2.15
Main Grants
Investment Fund
1,179,473
173,181
Grant Funding - July 15 - March 16 - available for allocation part year
Somerville Youth and Play Provision
2,936,141
71,805
2015-16 Budget
4,764,400
2016-17 Budget.
2014-15 Revised Budget
less
Savings - COM5 15-16
Savings - COM5 16-17
Reserves - once of funding from earmarked reserves for Investment Fund
2015-16 Budget
Budget Allocation
London Councils - London Boroughs Grants Scheme
Small and Faith Grants
6,121,500
-1,125,000
-375,000
-232,100
4,389,400
303,800
100,000
Grant Funding - April 16 - March 17 - available for allocation full year
Somerville Youth and Play Provision
3,889,860
95,740
2015-16 Budget
4,389,400
Page 86
14.3 In addition to these main budgets the following sums available :
2015/16
CCG funding for community developments
£75,000
Cassel centre – underspend
£85,000
Lewisham Bereavement Centre – underspend
£19,000
Allocation of other Cultural Development funding
£62,500
£241,500
2016/17
CCG funding for community developments
£100,000
Allocation of other Cultural Development funding
£ 83,300
£183,300
This increases the funding available to £3,177,651 in 2015/16 and £4,073,160
in 2016/17.
14.4
The proposed allocations in appendix 1 therefore represent a small underallocation (£4,402) in 2015/16 and a small over-allocation (£18,792) in 2016/17.
This 2016/17 risk will be addressed through allocation from the directorate’s
non-pay inflation allocation.
15.
Legal implications
15.1
Under S1 of the Localism Act 2011 the Council has a general power of
competence to do anything which an individual may do unless it is expressly
prohibited.
15.2
The giving of grants to voluntary organisations is a discretionary power which
must be exercised reasonably taking into account all relevant considerations
and ignoring irrelevant considerations.
15.3
In relation to any consultation exercise sufficient reasons must be given for any
proposal, adequate time must be given for consideration and response and
the outcome of the consultation must be conscientiously taken into account by
the decision maker.
15.4
The Equality Act 2012 (the Act) introduced a new public sector equality duty
(the equality duty or the duty). It covers the following nine protected
Page 87
characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil
partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual
orientation.
15.5
In summary, the Council must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard
to the need to:
•
•
•
eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other
conduct prohibited by the Act.
advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected
characteristic and those who do not.
foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic
and those who do not.
15.6
The duty continues to be a “have regard duty”, and the weight to be attached to
it is a matter for the Mayor, bearing in mind the issues of relevance and
proportionality. It is not an absolute requirement to eliminate unlawful
discrimination, advance equality of opportunity or foster good relations.
15.7
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has recently issued Technical
Guidance on the Public Sector Equality Duty and statutory guidance entitled
Practice”. The Council must have regard to the statutory code in so far as it
relates to the duty and attention is drawn to Chapter 11 which deals particularly
with the equality duty. The Technical Guidance also covers what public
authorities should do to meet the duty. This includes steps that are legally
required, as well as recommended actions. The guidance does not have
statutory force but nonetheless regard should be had to it, as failure to do so
without compelling reason would be of evidential value. The statutory code and
the technical guidance can be found at:
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/legal-and-policy/equality-act/equality-actcodes-of-practice-and-technical-guidance/
15.8
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has previously issued
five guides for public authorities in England giving advice on the equality duty:
•
•
•
•
•
15.9
The essential guide to the public sector equality duty
Meeting the equality duty in policy and decision-making
Engagement and the equality duty
Equality objectives and the equality duty
Equality information and the equality duty
The essential guide provides an overview of the equality duty requirements
including the general equality duty, the specific duties and who they apply to. It
covers what public authorities should do to meet the duty including steps that
are legally required, as well as recommended actions. The other four
documents provide more detailed guidance on key areas and advice on good
practice. Further information and resources are available at:
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance/public-sectorequality-duty/guidance-on-the-equality-duty/
Page 88
16.
Crime & disorder implications
16.1 There are no direct crime and disorder implications arising from this report.
Some of the recommended main grant organisations deliver services and
projects which help to reduce the fear of crime.
17.
Equalities implications
17.1 A mini Equalities Analysis Assessment (EEA) was undertaken on each of the
recommendations within this report highlighting mitigating actions where
required – these are detailed in the individual assessment forms attached as
appendix 2.
17.2 An overall EEA across the programme will be completed for consideration by the
meetings of Mayor and Cabinet (contracts) on both 11 and 13 May.
18.
Environmental implications
18.1
There are no environmental implications arising from this report.
19.
Conclusion
19.1
The Council recognises the important part the voluntary and community sector
play in the lives of our residents and the main grants programmes seeks to
support this provision. The continued awarding of main grant funding to 62
organisations in 2015-18 will enable these organisations to continue to deliver
much needed services across the borough.
For further information on this report please contact James Lee, Head of Cultural and
Community Development, james.lee@lewisham.gov.uk, 020 8314 6548
Appendix 1 – List of recommended allocations for main grant funding
Appendix 2 – Full assessment forms for all applicants to the main grants programme
(available online at http://tinyurl.com/macq6ld and by request)
Appendix 3 – Voluntary Sector role in delivering CES 5 Key Objectives
.
Page 89
Appendix 3 – Voluntary Sector role in delivering CES 5 Key Objectives
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Tackling victimisation and discrimination
Improving access to services
Closing the gap in outcomes for different citizens
Increasing mutual respect and understanding in communities
Increasing participation and engagement
Objective 1: Tackling victimisation and
discrimination
Funding
Provider / delivery programmes
Across the advice sector but work required on coordination
of activity to ensure specialisms such as immigration,
language support and translation are open and available to
all.
1a: For the individual resident:
•
Access to information, advice,
advocacy and representation
Grant aid to the advice sector with some
specialist advice e.g. immigration/legal advice
•
Easy access to report victimisation and
discrimination
As above plus VCS grant aid to ensure
mechanisms are in place and working, i.e Hate
Crime, Stop and Search Group
1b: Ensuring that patterns of discrimination and
victimisation are fed from the grassroots (groups
and residents) into the appropriate forums and then
into the partnership board
Grant Aid and mainstream Funding
VCS representation on Hate Crime forum, Stop and
Search Group. Outcomes to be agreed with these forums.
Disability Forum
Disability Coalition
Stephen Lawrence and LRMN
Pensioners Forum and Ageing Well Council*
Metro – model for capturing views from grassroots to be
developed
Violence against Women and Girls (VAWG) Forum
Refuge*
Page 90
Objective 2: Improving access to services
Funding
Provider / delivery programmes
Ensuring that grassroots organisations can access
training and support to develop deliverable equality
plans
Organisations with development programmes
focused on individual organisations
Objective 3: Closing the gap
Funding
Provider / delivery programme
Tackling health inequalities – Healthwatch LA
contract
Bromley and Lewisham Healthwatch*
Other public sector providers to resource
relevant partnership boards
Membership of Stronger Communities Partnership board to
be reviewed.
Objective 4: Increasing mutual respect
Funding
Provider / delivery programme
Helping organisations to work together at
neighbourhood level.
Prevent funding
Programme 2015/16 to be finalised
Faith funding
To be allocated 2015/16
Stephen Lawrence Centre
Disability Coalition
Metro
VAL
Equaliteam (using unspent grant from previous years)
Pensioners Forum
Ensuring that forums have an infrastructure to work
in partnership with public sector providers
Page 91
Neighbourhood development funding
Ackroyd Community Association
Bellingham Community Project
Corbett Estate Neighbourhood Forum
Goldsmiths Community Association
Grove Park Community Group
IRIE!
Lee Green Lives
Somerville Youth & Play Provision
Teatro Vivo
Age UK Southwark and Lewisham
Objective 5: Increasing participation and
engagement
Funding
Provider / delivery programme
Influencing all organisations
Mainstream grant aid
Neighbourhood community development
money
All
* - Mainstream rather than grant funded
Page 92
Page 93
Organisation Name
170 Community Project
170 Community Project -(Employment and Training Consortium (ETC)
2000 Community Action Centre
60 Up C.I.C
999 Club
Ackroyd Community Association
Action Family Centre
Advice Lewisham bid - Lewisham CAB
AFC Lewisham CIC
Age Exchange
Age UK Lewisham & Southwark
Ageing Well in Lewisham-LCC
Albany
Bellingham Community Project Ltd
Bexley Crossroad Care Ltd(t/a Crossroad Care SEL)
Blackheath Conservatoire of Music and the Arts Ltd
Bromley & Lewisham Mind
C of E Parish Church of St.Mary the Virgin Lewisham
Carers Lewisham
CASSEL Centre, The
Catford Wanderers Cricket Club
Community Youth London (in partnership with Three Point New Media)
Contact a Family
Corbett Estate Neighbourhood Forum
Creekside Education Trust
CRI (Crime Reduction Initiatives)
Deptford Action Group for the Elderly
Deptford Methodist Mission – Disabled People’s Contact
Deptford Reach (DR)
Deptford X
Double Jab A.B.C.
Downham (Wesley Halls) Community Association
Dynamo Youth FC
Eco Communities
Recommended
Allocation (£)
July 2015 - April
2016
£98,000.00
£0.00
£0.00
£0.00
£7,500.00
£36,750.00
£0.00
£39,150.00
£0.00
£24,375.00
£324,000.00
£22,690.00
£236,568.00
£23,925.00
£0.00
£0.00
£26,179.00
£0.00
£0.00
£85,000.00
£0.00
£0.00
£53,640.00
£18,000.00
£0.00
£0.00
£0.00
£5,438.00
£15,000.00
£7,500.00
£0.00
£0.00
£0.00
£30,000.00
Annual
Recommended
Allocation (unless
otherwise advised)
2016/17 & 2017/18
£130,667
£0
£0
£0
£10,000
£49,000
£0
£52,200
£0
£32,500
£432,000
£30,253
£315,424
£31,900
£0
£0
£34,905
£0
£0
£0
£0
£0
£71,520
£24,000
£0
£0
£0
£7,251
£20,000
£10,000
£0
£0
£0
£40,000
Comments
Funding initially for 2015/16 only
Funding initially for 2015/16 only
£72,000 initially for 2015/16 only
Page 94
Entelechy Arts
EqualiTeam Lewisham
Evelyn 190 Centre
Family Action
Federation of Refugees from Vietnam in Lewisham (FORVIL)
Forest Hill Park Football Club
Frameless Arts CIC
Goldsmiths Community Association
Greenwich & Lewisham Young People’s Theatre
Greenwich Association of Disabled People (operating as GAD Lewisham)
Greenwich Carers Centre
Grove Centre, The
GROVE PARK COMMUNITY GROUP (GPCG)
Harts Lane Studios
Heart n Soul
Honor Oak Community Centre Association
Hub Arts Map (South London Art Map)
Indo-China Refugee Group (Community School & Self Help Project)
Inspiring Your Imagination
IRIE! (trading as IRIE! dance theatre)
Lee Fair Share
LEE GREEN LIVES
Lewisham Action on Mediation Project
Lewisham Bereavement Counselling
Lewisham Citizens Advice Bureau Services Limited
Lewisham Community Transport Scheme
Lewisham Disability Coalition
Lewisham Education Arts Network
Lewisham Elders Resource Centre (Seniors)
Lewisham Ethnic Minority Partnership (LEMP)
Lewisham Irish Community Centre
Lewisham Mencap
Lewisham Multilingual Advice Service
Lewisham Opportunity Pre-School
Lewisham Pensioners Forum
Lewisham Polish Centre
Lewisham Refugee and Migrant Network
Lewisham Shopmobility Scheme
Lewisham Speaking Up
£30,000.00
£0.00
£155,000.00
£0.00
£0.00
£0.00
£0.00
£18,000.00
£60,653.00
£0.00
£35,000.00
£14,625.00
£18,000.00
£0.00
£51,751.00
£0.00
£0.00
£0.00
£0.00
£36,679.00
£0.00
£18,000.00
£0.00
£19,275.00
£375,695.25
£36,000.00
£77,500.00
£28,500.00
£34,224.00
£0.00
£0.00
£30,000.00
£30,750.00
£0.00
£30,000.00
£0.00
£65,940.00
£0.00
£65,000.00
£40,000
£0
£206,667
£0
£0
£0
£0
£24,000
£80,871
£0
£46,667
£19,500
£24,000
£0
£69,001
£0
£0
£0
£0
£48,905
£0
£24,000
£0
£0
£500,927
£48,000
£103,333
£38,000
£45,632
£0
£0
£40,000
£41,000
£0
£40,000
£0
£87,920
£0
£86,667
Funding initially for 2015/16 only
Funding initially for 2015/16 only
Funding initially for 2015/16 only
Funding initially for 2015/16 only
Funding initially for 2015/16 only
Page 95
Lewisham Toy Library
Lewisham Volunteering Consortium - (Lead Agency VCL)
Lewisham Young Womens Rescource Project
Lewisham Youth Theatre
London Amateur Boxing Association
London FA on behalf of Lewisham Football Network
London Thunder - Lewisham
MakeBelieve Arts
Marsha Phoenix Memorial Trust
METRO (The Metro Centre Ltd)
Midi Music Company, The
Mobile Media Interactive
Montage Theatre Arts
Nar
Noah's Ark Children's Venture
Olympus Playgroup
Parent Support Group (PSG)
Platform1/Forest Hill Youth Project
PLUS (Providence Linc United Services)
Pre-school Learning Alliance Lewisham
Prince’s Trust (The)
Refuge
Royal London Society for Blind People (RLSB)
Rushey Green Time Bank
S Factor Athletics Club
Saxon Crown (Lewisham) Swimming Club
Second Wave Centre for Youth Arts
Somerville Youth & Play Provision
South East London Tennis (Consortia SELT)
Stephen Lawrence Charitable Trust
SYDENHAM ARTS LTD
Sydenham Garden
Tamil Academy of Language and Arts
Tea Dance for Little People/Creative Homes
Teachsport 2010 CIC
Teatro Vivo
Trinity Laban Conservatoire of Music and Dance
Voluntary Action Lewisham
Voluntary Service Association (Access Lewisham)
£0.00
£0.00
£0.00
£32,357.00
£15,000.00
£18,750.00
£18,750.00
£0.00
£0.00
£25,000.00
£39,024.00
£0.00
£7,500.00
£0.00
£32,000.00
£0.00
£3,780.00
£0.00
£0.00
£0.00
£0.00
£0.00
£0.00
£67,500.00
£0.00
£10,000.00
£39,843.00
£18,000.00
£22,250.00
£30,611.00
£7,500.00
£29,337.00
£0.00
£0.00
£0.00
£26,000.00
£68,000.00
£139,216.00
£73,650.00
£0
£0
£0
£43,143
£20,000
£25,000
£25,000
£0
£0
£33,333
£52,032
£0
£10,000
£0
£42,667
£0
£5,040
£0
£0
£0
£0
£0
£0
£90,000
£0
£13,333
£53,124
£24,000
£29,667
£40,815
£10,000
£39,116
£0
£0
£0
£34,667
£90,667
£185,621
£98,200
Voluntary Services Lewisham
Volunteer Centre Lewisham
Wheels for Wellbeing
Young Lewisham Project
Youth, AID Lewisham
TOTAL ALLOCATED
Minus
Cassel Centre (underspend funded)
Lewisham Bereavement Counselling (underspend funded)
Health Money
Allocation of other Cultural Development funding
Allocations against mainstream Grants Budget
Unallocated funds
£69,264.00
£70,000.00
£25,600.00
£0.00
£0.00
£3,173,239.25
£85,000.00
£19,000.00
£75,000.00
£62,500.00
£2,931,739
£4,672
£92,352
£93,333
£34,133
£0
£0
£4,091,952
£100,000
£83,330
£3,908,622
Page 96
Agenda Item 7
Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee
Title
Draft Violence Against Women and Girls: awareness raising and prevention
review
Contributor
Scrutiny Manager
Class
Part 1 (open)
Item 7
20 April 2015
1.
Purpose of paper
1.1
As part of the work programme for 2014/15, the Select Committee agreed to carry
out a review of violence against women and girls, focusing on awareness raising
and prevention.
1.2
The attached report presents the evidence received for the review. Members of the
Committee are asked to agree the report and suggest recommendations for
submission to Mayor and Cabinet.
2.
Recommendations
Members of the Select Committee are asked to:
•
•
•
3.
Agree the draft review report
Consider any recommendations the report should make
Note that the final report, including the recommendations agreed at this
meeting, will be presented to Mayor and Cabinet
The report and recommendations
The draft report attached at Appendix 1 presents the written and verbal evidence
received by the Committee. The Chair’s introduction and the executive summary
will be inserted once the draft report has been agreed and the finalised report will
be presented to a Mayor and Cabinet meeting at the earliest opportunity.
4.
Legal implications
The report will be submitted to Mayor and Cabinet, which holds the decision making
powers in respect of this matter.
5.
Financial implications
There are no direct financial implications arising out of this report. However, the
financial implications of any specific recommendations will need to be considered in
due course.
6.
Equalities implications
There are no direct equalities implications arising from the implementation of the
recommendations set out in this report. The Council works to eliminate unlawful
discrimination and harassment, promote equality of opportunity and good relations
Page 97
between different groups in the community and to recognise and to take account of
people’s differences.
For more information on this report please contact Timothy Andrew, Scrutiny Manager on
020 8314 7916.
Page 98
________________________________________
Overview and Scrutiny
Violence Against Women and Girls: awareness
raising and prevention review
Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee
Spring 2015
________________________________________
Membership of the Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee in 2014/15:
Councillor Pauline Morrison (Chair)
Councillor David Michael (Vice-Chair)
Councillor Andre Bourne
Councillor Colin Elliott
Councillor Alicia Kennedy
Councillor Pat Raven
Councillor Luke Sorba
Councillor Eva Stamirowski
Councillor Paul Upex
Councillor James-J Walsh
Page 99
Contents
Chair’s introduction
2
1.
Executive summary
3
2.
Recommendations
4
3.
Purpose and structure of review
5
4.
Gangs and gang association
7
5.
Work to tackle violence against women and girls
12
6.
Awareness raising and prevention
15
7.
Monitoring and on-going scrutiny
18
Sources
20
Page 100
Executive summary
To be added
2
Page
101
Recommendations
The Committee would like to make the following recommendations:
To be agreed
3
Page
102
3.
Purpose and structure of review
3.1 At its meeting on 15 July 2014, when deciding on its annual work programme, the
Committee discussed its concerns about the prevalence of violence against women
and girls. Members of the Committee highlighted information published in the national
press (and reported by the Safer London Foundation1) about the dangers posed to
women and girls by gangs2. Members were alarmed at these reports and sought to
further understand the actions being taken by Partner organisations in Lewisham to
protect women and girls from gang violence.
3.2 In response to the Committee’s concerns, officers provided additional information
about the development and delivery of Lewisham’s Violence Against Women and
Girls (VAWG) strategy at the Committee’s meeting on 10 September 2014. The
Council’s Head of Crime Reduction and Supporting People and the Lead Police
Sargent for Lewisham’s gangs unit also answered questions about the Safer
Lewisham Partnership’s approach to tackling violence against women and girls,
including its work with gang associated women and girls.
3.3 After consideration of the information provided and questioning of officers, the
Committee resolved to carry out a review into the issues facing gang associated
women and girls in the borough, which would focus on preventative work, awareness
raising and early intervention.
Meeting the criteria for a review
3.4 At its meeting on 3 November 2014, the Committee received a scoping report for the
review, which set out the background, proposed key lines of enquiry and suggested
key questions for the review.
3.5 It was agreed that a review of prevention work for gang associated women and girls
would meet the criteria for carrying out a scrutiny review, because:
• it was a strategic and significant issue
• it affected a number of people living in Lewisham
• the Council was in the process of tendering a service for the provision of services
to prevent, and reduce the impacts of, violence against women and girls
• the Council was required to make a major reduction to its budget, which would
reduce resources available to community and voluntary organisations, public
health, supported housing, youth offending and schools improvement services.
Key lines of inquiry
3.6 In order to successfully complete this review, the Committee agreed that it would
seek answers to the following questions:
• What data is available about the extent of issues affecting gang associated girls
and women in Lewisham?
1
Gangs draw up lists of girls to rape as proxy attack on rivals in the Guardian (19-07-14), accessed online at:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/19/gangs-rape-lists-sex-assault
2
Sexual Violence in parts of UK as bad as warzones, thttp://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/26/gangs-sexual-violencewarzones
4
Page
103
• What services exist to prevent women and girls from becoming associated with
gangs?
• What is the pattern of take up of prevention services?
• What is the current level of resource for prevention services in Lewisham?
• Are there examples of effective practice in other areas?
• What are the future challenges to delivering successful prevention and awareness
raising work?
Review questions:
• How do Lewisham and its partner organisations work to prevent women and girls
from becoming associated with gangs?
• What could be done to enhance the effectiveness of work in this area?
3.7 Issues agreed to be outside of the scope of the review:
•
Dealing with individual cases or casework
Timetable
3.8 The review was carried out over a series of meetings:
10 September 2014
• The Committee heard from the Head of Crime Reduction and Supporting People
about the process of developing and delivering the borough’s Violence Against
Women and Girls strategy. A senior officer from the Metropolitan Police in
Lewisham, the Strategic Community Safety Services Manager and Lewisham’s
Violence Against Women and Girls Coordinator were also present.
3 December 2014
• The Head of Crime Reduction and Supporting People provided information about
prevention services in the borough, including work with girls and gangs.
22 January 2015
• Representatives of the Safer London Foundation presented information about the
Empower programme.
10 March 2015
• Lewisham’s Head of Crime Reduction and Supporting People provided information
about work taking place in schools to raise awareness and prevent violence
against women and girls.
20 April 2015
• (The Committee considered its draft final report and agreed recommendations)
5
Page
104
4. Gangs and gang association
4.1 The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) accepts the Centre for Social
Justice definition of a gang as:
‘A relatively durable, predominantly street-based group of young people who (1) see
themselves (and are seen by others) as a discernible group, (2) engage in a range of
criminal activity and violence, (3) identify with or lay claim over territory, (4) have
some form of identifying structural feature, and (5) are in conflict with other, similar,
gangs.’ (Centre for Social Justice 2009, p21)
4.2 Data used to develop the Mayor of London’s ‘strategic ambitions for London on
gangs and serious youth violence’ notes that the Metropolitan Police believe that
there are 224 recognised gangs in London made up of about 3495 people3.
4.3 Some commentators (see Runneymede Trust 2008, Rethinking Gangs) believe that
the difficulty in developing an enduring definition of a gang stems from a fundamental
failure to understand the significance of the involvement of young people in violence
and anti-social behaviour. This interpretation is built on the idea that the usual
explanations for gang and group behaviours erroneously merge young people’s
associations, behaviours and peer groups indiscriminately.
4.4 There are differing definitions for gangs, groups and criminal networks. Their
activities, their membership and their areas of operation may change over time.
Researchers, policy makers and practitioners may use differing definitions, leading to
differing policy approaches to tackling gang violence, exploitation and anti-social
behaviour.
4.5 At its meeting on 10 September 2014, officers reported that there was no
straightforward definition of a gang. The Committee also heard that there had been a
shift in Lewisham from street gangs of school age children (who fought over territory
and status) to looser groupings of young adults that operated as ‘criminal cliques’. It
was reported that these loser groupings of young adults focused primarily on running
drug businesses and that they used violence to support their businesses as part of
their association with wider criminal networks. (Safer Stronger Communities Select
Committee, 10 September 2014).
4.6 The complicated nature of gangs and groups was highlighted in evidence to the
Committee about recent and on-going enforcement action in Lewisham. Officers
provided an update on the work being carried out to disrupt drug dealing by criminal
organisations operating from the borough to deliver drugs outside of London. The
information provided to the Committee concerned on-going police operations so the
discussion and the detail made available was limited for reasons of secrecy.
Nonetheless, the discussion with officers and representatives of the police
demonstrated the changing nature of gang activity in the borough.
4.7 MOPAC has developed a strategic framework4 in London for responding to violence
against gang associated women and girls. The framework sets out the strategic
3
Mayor of London (2014) – Gangs and Serious Youth Violence :
http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Strategic%20Ambitions%20for%20London_%20Gangs%20and%20SYV%202014_0.pdf
4
MOPAC strategic framework for responding to gang associated women and girls (2013):
http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Gangs%20and%20girls_strategic%20framework.pdf
6
Page
105
direction for London Boroughs to tackle the dangers faced by gang associated girls
and women across the city. Its aim is to:
‘...support London boroughs and agencies in devising their strategic and operational
responses to young women and girls involved in or associated to criminal gangs.’
4.8 The Framework builds on the Centre for Social Justice definition of gang activity by
interpreting the territorial element of the definition to include economic territory. It also
recognises that gangs need not be street based. The Framework draws on the
4.9 Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) definition of a gang member as someone
who:
• Identifies themselves as being a member of a gang and this is corroborated by
information from more than one independent source
• Is identified as being a member of a gang and this is corroborated by information
from more than one independent source
Gang associated women and girls
4.10 All of the available information about gang membership demonstrates that, by most
definitions, gangs are almost all entirely made up of boys and men. However, at the
Committee’s meeting on 10 September, it was reported that there had been an
increase in the numbers of women associated with gangs as perpetrators. Officers
stated that the changing activities of gangs indicated a point to a more prominent role
for female members:
‘Lewisham mirrors a trend across the capital where drug dealing, mostly outside
London, is supplanting conflicts over territory and vulnerable females have a high
value as couriers.’ (Report to Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee, 10
September 2014)
4.11 The Committee did not consider any published data about the demographics of gang
members. However, it was reported that recent work indicated that gang members
were increasingly using girls and young women to safe house drugs and weapons. It
was also reported that gangs involved in so called ‘County Lines’5, drug dealing were
using young women and girls who may previously not have had any contact with the
local authority or the Police. It was recognised that this made it exceedingly difficult to
predict the numbers of girls and women involved in gang related activity.
4.12 MOPAC recommends that community safety partnerships (in Lewisham this is the
Safer Lewisham Partnership) should adopt the ACPO definition of gang-associated
women and girls to assist with the identification and assessment of women and girls
at risk. The definition is as follows:
‘...a woman or girl who is a family member of or in an intimate relationship with a
gang nominal’. (MOPAC 2013, p6)
4.13 This definition is important because of its scope. The initial information and reports
discussed by Members at the start of the review noted that there was evidence that
5
County lines drug dealing describes the practice of London drug dealers selling drugs outside of London, where London drugs might
be perceived to be more valuable.
7
Page
106
women and girls affected by gang violence may be unaware family members (or
men/boys they were associated with) were involved in gang related activity. In the
evidence reviewed by the Committee about the scale of the situation in Lewisham,
Partner organisations were using this definition to identify women and girls
associated with principal gang members or ‘nominal’. Further information about this is
included in the sections below.
4.14 Gang association can be defined in a number of different ways, at the Committee’s
meeting on 3 February 2015, representatives of the Foundation drew on the Office of
the Children’s Commissioner’s Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Gangs and
Groups (2013) to describe the different risks faced by gang associated women and
girls as well as the different gangs and groupings that were thought to be involved
violence against women and girls. The presentation from the Safer London
Foundation highlighted the following distinctions between sexual exploitation,
victimisation and abuse by gangs, groups and peers:
•
Gang-associated sexual exploitation, victimisation and abuse
Involves one or multiple perpetrators, who are themselves gang-associated and takes
place as a form of intra or inter gang-related violence.
Sexual exploitation is not the main reason why a gang is formed
•
Group sexual exploitation, victimisation and abuse
Carried out by multiple perpetrators who are connected through formal or informal
associations or networks between themselves or between victims. ‘Group’ refers
specifically to the numbers of perpetrators involved in the violence.
Group exists in person or online for the purpose of sexual exploitation
•
Peer-on-peer sexual exploitation, victimisation and abuse
Exploitation of children and young people by other children and young people; in some,
but not all, cases the children and young people who perpetrate this abuse are exploited
by adults to do so.
The dangers of gang association
4.15 It was reported by representatives of the Safer London Foundation that there were
common features to the pattern of sexual violence and exploitation by gangs.
•
•
•
Perpetrators are predominantly male, victims predominantly female;
Takes place between people who are known to each other;
Used as a means of boys and young men exerting power and control over girls
and young women.
4.16 There have been a number of pieces of research which detail the negative impacts of
violence and exploitation on gang associated women and girls. In 2012 a study by
Bedfordshire University6 found that violence, rape and sexual exploitation were
common place in gangs. The study detailed the disordered relationships that are able
to develop between gang members and gang associated women and girls. The
research drew on accounts from women and girls to highlight the destructive and
violent behaviours, which appeared commonplace in gangs and came to be accepted
as the norm. The Committee received some of the key pieces of information from the
study when planning the scope of the review.
6
Beckett, H with Brodie, l; Factor, F; Melrose, M; Pearce, J; Pitts, J; Shuker, L and Warrington, C. University of Bedfordshire, 2012
8
Page
107
4.17 MOPAC’s strategic framework for responding to gang associated women and girls
reports on the Bedfordshire University study, highlighting that both inside and outside
of gangs the patterns of violence are similar, in that women and girls are most often
the victims of sexual violence and exploitation and that the perpetrators are most
often, if not always, men. The Framework highlights the following areas of particular
concern in the context of gang associated women and girls:
pressure to engage in sexual activity;
engagement in sexual activity due to fear of force, violence (physical and/or
sexual) and intimidation;
• the recording and distribution of images of sexual activity via mobile technology;
• sex as initiation into the gang;
• sex in return for (perceived) status or protection;
• sex as a means of achieving material gain;
• young women “setting up” people in other gangs; and
• cases of rape (single and multiple perpetrator) and other sexual assaults – as
punishment, a weapon in conflict and/or for sexual gratification
(University of Bedfordshire, cited in MOPAC 2013, p17)
•
•
4.18 At the Committee’s meeting on 3 February 2015 Members heard some stark and
disturbing descriptions of the violence and trauma inflicted on gang associated
women and girls. As reported in the initial newspaper articles identified by Members
of the Committee, information collected by the Safer London Foundation indicates
that girls and women associated with gangs are at risk of being targeted for sexual
assault as a means of conflict between boys/men in rival gangs. It was reported that
some gangs operated in a perceived culture of impunity because of the low arrest
and conviction rates for sexual assault.
4.19 The Committee also heard about the following common situations of exploitation and
violence experienced by gang associated women and girls:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Line –ups – forced or coerced oral sex carried out by multiple perpetrators
Women who are expected to have sex with many members of the same gang,
called battery chicks
Multiple perpetrator rape
Sexual activity in return for (perceived) status or protection
Sexual assault as a weapon in conflict and retaliation
Young women ‘setting-up’ people in other gangs
Establishing a relationship with, or feigning sexual interest in a rival gang
member, ‘entrapment’
(Office of the Children’s Commissioner child sexual exploitation in gangs and groups,
Interim Report 2012; reported by Safer London Foundation to meeting on 3 February
2015.)
4.20 Case work and research reported by the Safer London Foundation demonstrated that
some women and girls were viewed as being inferior to others. The Committee heard
that some victims were viewed as having lost their rights to withhold consent to
sexual activity. The disturbing implication of the information provided to the
Committee was that sexual violence and abuse were normalised in some situations
9
Page
108
to the extent that the girls and women, as well as boys and men, involved came to
view threats of violence and abuse as everyday occurrences.
4.21 Members also questioned Council officers about the sexual exploitation of young
men and boys by gangs and groups. The Committee was particularly concerned
about the dangers to young men and boys posed by online grooming. It was reported
that further work needed to take place to understand the dangers of online grooming.
Representatives of the Safer London Foundation reported that information about
violence against boys and men was even less readily available than information
about violence against gang associated women and girls.
4.22 Officers also recognised that further work needed to take place to develop raise
awareness of the dangers of online grooming and exploitation of vulnerable young
men, women, girls and boys. The recurrent issue in all of the information and
evidence gathered by the Committee was that of underreporting. This was
recognised by officers, representatives from the Safer London Foundation and in all
of the reports to the Committee.
The situation in Lewisham
4.23 The Committee was informed that the data surrounding gang associated women and
girls was not in the public domain and that therefore, it would not be possible for
officers of the Council or for the Police to disclose the details of their current
intelligence. However, the process of identifying and supporting gang associated
women and girls was reported to the Committee.
4.24 Each London borough maintains a gangs/serious violent offending matrix (list of key
violent individuals) collated by the Met Police Trident Gang command. Officers
reported that this list provided the key focus for police and partnership interventions
in relation to gang activity.
4.25 The Committee heard that this list of principal gang Members (or gang nominals) was
focused on risk and did not provide a comprehensive collection of all of the people
involved in gangs and groups in the borough. It was also reported that intelligence
provided from this source about women and girls tended to highlight women and girls
involved in offending behaviour rather than those at risk from sexual exploitation,
abuse and victimisation.
4.26 In the report to the Committee on 3 December 2014, Members heard that, whilst the
gang and serious violent offending matrix provided the basis for action, work was
also undertaken by officers to identify women and girls at risk of sexual exploitation
and violence as part of their broader risk management approach. The Council’s Head
of Crime Reduction and Supporting People told the Committee that Lewisham’s
Serious Violence Team and Trilogy Police officers collated sibling information for
gang members, identifying further female family members under 18 who were of
concern. The Committee heard that Lewisham’s partnership approach allowed these
names to be shared in order that future safeguarding notifications could be
prioritised.
4.27 Officers reported that, apart from those identified as at risk through the Serious
Violence Team process, it would be difficult to speculate on numbers affected by
sexual violence, victimisation and abuse by gangs, not least owing to the secretive
10
Page
109
nature of this world and the under-reporting of sexual violence. The Committee
discussed the low levels of reporting and the hidden nature of violence against
women and girls in all its forms. It was recognised that the level of risk posed to
potential victims was a significant barrier to improving disclosures and securing
convictions against perpetrators.
5.
Work to tackle violence against women and girls
5.1 The Mayor of London has committed that, as part of its work to reduce youth
violence, the London Crime Reduction Board will ensure that by 2017:
‘Access to prevention programmes in all London state schools and educational
establishments will be available, enabling children and young people to make
positive life choices. Every ‘at risk’ child will receive targeted support for a positive
transition to secondary school Troubled Families, Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hubs
and other family support and safeguarding mechanisms should understand and
address gang issues’
(Mayor of London; strategic ambitions for London (2014); gangs and serious youth
violence, p26)
5.2 The MOPAC strategic framework for responding to gang associated women and girls
recommends that services in boroughs for girls and women affected by gang violence
should include:
• Prevention work/healthy relationships that covers gang-association and violence
against women and girls (VAWG) delivered in schools, pupil referral units and in
out of school youth-based settings.
• Early intervention and diversionary work such as mentoring and peer support to
support young women on the peripheries of gangs.
• Crisis support such as advocacy, exit provision that is safe and provided by
women that addresses the holistic needs of young women and girls (as above).
• Longer-term support such as specialist counselling to support young women and
girls to overcome the trauma of gang-associated VAWG. Counselling services
should be specialised as inappropriate responses can exacerbate the effects of
sexual violence as they can damage the victim’s positive sense of self or lead to
higher levels of psychological symptoms and poorer recovery.
• Interventions to promote self-esteem and confidence.
• Education, training and employment opportunities tailored for young women and
girls. A women-centred approach to education, training and employment should be
about ensuring young women and girls have access to a broad and diverse range
of opportunities and that appropriate systems and support are put in place to
address their specific needs.
Lewisham’s violence against women and girls strategy
5.3 The Committee reviewed the implementation of Lewisham’s violence against women
and girls strategy. Officers reported that previously, violence against women and girls
services operated in a fragmented way, with potential problems of overlap or gaps in
service provision. The Safer Lewisham Partnership’s new coordinated VAWG plan
set out four objectives for action, these are:
• To develop a better understanding of VAWG and its impact in Lewisham;
11
Page
110
• Early intervention and prevention of VAWG
• To ensure an improved access to the support and protection services offered to
women and girls in our borough;
• To hold perpetrators to account.
5.4 The strategy was subject to consultation with stakeholders between November 2013
and January 2014.
• The consultation sought to obtain the perspectives of women and girls on their
experiences of accessing support services across the voluntary, statutory and
community sector, how current services could be improved and recommendations
for how VAWG should be tackled in the future.
• Consultation with professionals and partners through Lewisham’s local violence
against women and girls professional networks.
• An on-line consultation with professionals and service users
5.5 49 women and girls were consulted, a quarter of whom were young people between
the ages of 13 and 25. One of the recommendations from the consultation with local
women and girls was that Lewisham should consider a single combined co-located
service, where women and girls could access a variety of needs such as counselling,
outreach support or crisis management.
5.6 Targeted work was also carried out to develop a greater understanding of the
experiences of survivors. Further information about this targeted consultation work is
set out below.
5.7 The Council has commissioned a single violence against women and girls service to
develop a coordinated approach to violence against women and girls in the borough.
The service will provide a single point of contact for services in the borough. The
ambition is that this increased level of coordination will improve the following
outcomes:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
An increase in the number of referrals to the service.
Increasing the number of victims and families made safe and who stay safe.
A reduction in repeat reports of domestic violence and abuse.
Increased interventions and therefore reductions in risk and cases of significant
harm.
Successful work with perpetrators, such as change in the behaviour of
perpetrators and an awareness of the impacts of their behaviour.
Improving outcomes for individuals and groups in other areas of their lives.
Increased and improved service user involvement
5.8 Lewisham’s new combined violence against women and girls service will begin in
April 2015. The intention is that the service will increase the number of referrals and
work to develop Lewisham’s approach to early intervention. At its meeting on 10
September 2014, the Committee heard that some of the broader expected outcomes
of the new VAWG service might include;
•
•
•
Reduced repeat victimisation.
Reduced repeat perpetrators and positive changes in perpetrator behaviour.
Increased reports and criminal justice outcomes e.g. sanction detections
12
Page
111
•
•
•
Increase in the number of referrals to the service for support.
Improved safety for children and young people
Reducing the risk of children and young people becoming a future victim /
perpetrator of domestic abuse
Multi-agency work in Lewisham
5.9 At the Committee’s meeting on 10 September 2014, Members heard that the Safer
Lewisham Partnership ensured that there was information sharing and advice
between the different agencies to deal with violence against gang associated women
and girls.
5.10 One of the key ways in which Lewisham partners identify and protect girls and
women at risk of sexual violence and exploitation is through the Youth MARAC (Multi
Agency Risk Assessment Conference) which receives referrals about youth (under
25) victims of serious violence, including girls involved with gangs. The MARAC is
made up of more than 30 relevant partner organisations.
5.11 Of the referrals in the year preceding the report to the Committee it was identified that
three-quarters of the cases to the Youth MARAC had been highlighted in relation to
Sexual Exploitation, drug dealing or involvement with those known to lead a gang
lifestyle. The Committee heard that all of the people identified through the MARAC
process had been offered a range of support. It was reported that youth MARAC
officers attended case conferences, strategy groups and Child Sexual Exploitation
meetings as required.
5.12 Lewisham’s Youth MARAC also combines referrals from Lewisham Hospital A&E and
Kings College Hospital A&E departments for a variety of issues relating to violence,
although not always gang related. The Committee heard that a number of these meet
the criteria to go to MARAC conference. Those which are known to be involved in
gang related activity are referred to Serious Violence Multi-agency Team, and others
are passed directly to Children’s Social Care or other officers as appropriate.
5.13 Officers noted that Lewisham’s Ending Gang and Youth Violence team was working
with the Youth MARAC to develop good practice in strategic and operational
planning. Members also heard that the Serious Violence Team worked with the Early
Intervention Child Sexual Exploitation leads to ensure that there was a uniform
approach by school safeguarding leads in responding to the needs of gang
associated girls7.
5.14 Numbers of women and girls supported by the Council’s current multi-agency work,
were not available for analysis by the Committee. Nor was it clear what proportion of
women and girls were currently being reached by Lewisham’s approach. It is
recognised in Lewisham’s VAWG strategy that there may be gaps in the information
available about issues of violence against gang associated women and girls in
Lewisham. The VAWG strategy highlights this as an area for future consideration by
the Safer Lewisham Partnership, noting that it should:
7
Report to Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee, 10 September 2014:
http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/documents/s31046/04%20Violence%20against%20women%20and%20girls%20100914.pdf
13
Page
112
‘...consider commissioning a piece of research to address any evidence gaps to
better understand the extent, profile and needs of gang-associated girls in
Lewisham.’ (Lewisham VAWG plan 2014-17)
6.
Awareness raising and prevention
6.1 Representatives of the Safer London Foundation reported increasing concerns about
sexual exploitation, victimisation and abuse in schools. As well as the vulnerability of
school age children inter gang conflict between boys and men. The Committee heard
about the Safer London Foundation’s work across London to tackle issues of sexual
exploitation, violence and abuse. ‘Empower’ is a programme delivered by the Safer
London Foundation to support women and girls affected by gang violence. Members
heard that the Foundation had officers embedded within multi-agency teams in local
areas, e.g. Community Safety, Children’s Social Care, Youth Offending Teams in
order to:
• provide consultation, advice and guidance to professionals who had concerns for
young people through consultation ‘surgeries’ and over the phone.
• work closely with the Metropolitan Polices’ Child Abuse Investigation Team units,
Sapphire Unit, Missing Persons Units, borough gangs teams & Trident Command.
6.2 The Committee was supportive of the approach taken by the Safer London
Foundation to build the resilience of women and girls. It was noted that the Empower
programme engaged young women on their own terms at and where they are safe. It
was a voluntary programme that enabled women and girls a stable basis to access
other services and support. The Committee heard that the Safer London Foundation
utilised a holistic support model to deliver confidential, non-judgemental and service
user led support.
6.3 The Committee was interested to understand how women and girls were enabled to
escape from situations of abuse and violence. It was reported that removing women
and girls from their circumstances was not always the best approach. Rather, the
Foundation worked to create resilience and end violence in the lives of women and
girls.
Schools
6.4 Home Office guidance on addressing youth violence and gangs8 in schools and
colleges states that (for Ofsted inspections): ’In order for a school to be judged
‘outstanding’, all groups of pupils must’:
•
•
•
feel safe at school all the time;
understand very clearly what unsafe situations are; and
be highly aware of how to keep themselves and others safe.
(Home Office 2013, p4-5)
6.5 The guidance highlights the importance of assessing the likely effectiveness of
prevention programmes and recommends varied approaches to delivering
preventative work and carrying out targeted activity.
8
Home office (2013) addressing youth violence and gangs: practical advice for schools and colleges:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/226293/Advice_to_Schools_and_Colleges_on_Gangs.pdf
14
Page
113
6.6 As noted above, there is limited information available about violence against gang
associated women and girls. The Committee did not hear how many women and girls
might be expected to be affected by violence and exploitation by gangs.
Nonetheless, the Committee recognised that as part of the agenda to tackle violence
against women and girls, awareness raising and prevention were important parts of
the approach to early intervention.
6.7 As part of the consultation into the new strategy, the Council commissioned Imkaan
to work with women in order to develop a more coherent picture of their experiences.
The review, ‘a consultation with survivors on Lewisham’s approach to addressing
violence against women and girls’ by Imkaan made a number of recommendations
for improvements to Lewisham’s approach to tackling violence against women and
girls.
‘Lewisham should develop an integrated prevention strategy for consistent work in
schools, further education and other youth based settings and which also recognises
the need for embedding prevention-based targets across health and social care’
(Imkaan 2014, p6)
6.8 The report also recognised the importance of developing whole school approaches to
awareness raising and prevention that would reach all young people. This would be
designed to improve understanding or violence against women and girls, as well as
informing young people about their rights and providing direction to sources of
support and advice.
6.9 The Safer London Foundation advocates a whole school approach to awareness
raising and prevention of sexual exploitation and violence, which incorporates work
with professionals, parents and community leaders. Initiatives which are delivered
across all school year groups are designed to engage boys and girls in consideration
of issues about consent, health relationships and sources of support, information and
advice.
6.10 At its meeting on 10 March 2015 and in the report to the Committee, officers provided
evidence about work taking place in London schools:
Safer London Foundation:
•
•
This is commissioned by the Home Office. The early intervention group work
programme from years 8 and/or 9 is creative, interactive and flexible. Over the
course of 10 weeks, the group programme aims to provide the participants with
the skills and awareness to make informed decisions and to give them practical
tools to enable them to stay safe, understand their behaviour and potentially
change it in the long term. Sessions focus on topics including healthy
relationships, risk management and consent, gangs and crime and self-esteem
and aspirations.
In addition to the 10 week programme the service offers one-off sessions for
whole school years groups on consent and healthy relationships.
Tender Arts:
•
Commissioned by London Council’s to deliver to one primary school in every
borough in London. The Healthy Relationships Primary Schools Project is a two
15
Page
114
•
day project with one form of Year 6 students (approx 25-30 students) who will
become Ambassadors for healthy relationships within their school. Their aim is to
help students develop skills for building healthy and respectful relationships,
through open, creative workshops that explore the healthy and unhealthy aspects
of friendships, empowering students to consider their attitudes and behaviour in
an age appropriate way.
The culmination of the two day project is a presentation, where students can
share their knowledge to their peers from year 4, 5 and 6 (approx 180 students),
with the support of two facilitators. The project can also include a 1 hour CPD
accredited Staff INSET training session for 20 or more staff, enabling them to
become more confident around these issues and the safeguarding practice
surrounding these topics.
Safe Date:
•
This Project has an emphasis on Domestic Violence, covering young people's
own relationships, including LGBT relationships, and also parental and familial
violence. Hate Crime and VAWG issues feature, including female genital
mutilation and forced marriage. The issues are approached sensitively to
encourage young people to seek help whether as victim, perpetrator, witness or
friend.
Growing Against Gangs & Violence (GAGV):
•
Growing Against Gangs and Violence (GAGV) is an early intervention and
prevention partnership with London’s Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). GAGV
delivers police inspired gangs resistance education to young people with three
goals: (a) to reduce gang membership and association, (b) to reduce serious
youth violence, and (c) to improve confidence of young people in police. As of
July 2014, GAGV had been delivered in 15 London boroughs to more than 70,000
young people, in over 400 schools. This equates to over 250,000 pupil hours of
positive, academically prepared and evaluated preventative engagement.
•
GAGV is unlike other gang resistance education and training programmes
•
Sessions are universally delivered to everyone within the school year group
•
Delivery of GAGV does not imply a school has a “gang problem”, but rather the
school is committed to tackling gang culture and building community cohesion. It
does not pick and choose who goes through the programme, alienating and
labelling already vulnerable “at risk” youth. Instead, it educates and informs the
widest population possible to achieve the “tipping point” at which overall school
climate and culture can change. For the vast majority of young people who will
never be involved in gangs and serious youth violence, exposure to the
curriculum simply provides the confidence necessary to collectively reject gang or
rape myths and apply positive peer pressure to support others around them to not
become gang involved.
•
Specially trained facilitators, many with backgrounds in education and youth work,
support accredited uniformed police officers in delivery, thus ensuring lessons are
engaging and messages are effectively and meaningfully delivered. Sessions are
dynamic and incorporate adaptable drama, debate, and discussions, which
16
Page
115
educate and inform. Key messages throughout the curriculum are supplemented
and reinforced by bespoke visual media— including live action drama and
documentary style interviews with academics, bereaved families, and leading
practitioners in the field.
Rape Crisis Centre:
•
Deliver sessions in schools around London in relation to Consent, self-esteem,
trust etc. This is a 6 weekly programme and is funded by the London Mayor’s
Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC).
CLAY – Cyber Learning and Attitude for Youth:
•
Deliver sessions in school regarding cyber bullying; funded externally for delivery
in a number of boroughs in London.
6.11 Members heard that prevention and awareness raising work in schools relies on the
amount of time available in curriculum and is dependent on the priority that this work
is given over other issues related to health and wellbeing. Reflecting on the
information provided by officers, the Committee highlighted its concerns about the
availability of resources; the multiple demands on schools and the hidden nature of
violence against gang associated women and girls.
6.12 It was recognised that whole school approaches to building resilience, educating
about healthy relationships and supporting professionals were all important parts of
protecting young people and children against the risks of gang violence, sexual
exploitation and abuse. Nonetheless, the Committee could not identify a consistent
approach to tackling issues in schools and it was concerned about the variable levels
of support available from external sources to support this work.
6.13 In the report to Committee on 10 September 2014 the potential future pressure on
the budget was also identified. The Committee was concerned about the potential
reductions in external funding. Given the reliance on grant funding for the delivery of
a number of the on-going initiatives in schools and youth settings, the Committee was
concerned about future levels of provision.
15/16
16/17
17/18
Total value £678,877 £678,887 £485,887
Potential
Reduction of
£192,990 in
external funding
7.
Monitoring and on-going scrutiny
7.1 The Committee intends to carry out a follow on review about VAWG awareness
raising and prevention work in schools. Members will seek to determine what the
barriers are to developing a comprehensive offer to schools in the borough and will
invite a head teacher to give their views about the barriers to delivering effective
awareness raising and prevention work through the school curriculum.
17
Page
116
7.2 As with all scrutiny reviews, the Committee will review the implementation of its
recommendations six months after the receipt of this report by Mayor and Cabinet.
Sources
Beckett, H with Brodie, l; Factor, F; Melrose, M; Pearce, J; Pitts, J; Shuker, L and
Warrington, C. (2012). Research into gang-associated sexual exploitation and sexual
violence. University of Bedfordshire:
http://www.beds.ac.uk/news/2013/november/research-highlights-extent-of-gangrelatedsexual-violence-towards-children-and-young-people
Practical Prevention
http://www.preventionplatform.co.uk/media/Practical-Prevention.pdf
End Violence Against Women factsheet for schools
http://www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk/data/files/Factsheet_on_VAWG_for_Schools.
pdf
Centre for Social Justice (2009):
http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/publications/dying-to-belong
Claire Hubberstey on gangs & sexual violence in ‘The Observer’, Safer London
Foundation, accessed online at: http://www.saferlondonfoundation.org/news/?p=445
Imkaan (2014) Creating Safe Spaces: A Consultation with survivors on Lewisham’s
approach to addressing violence against women and girls (executive summary:
http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/documents/s31047/Executive%20Summary%20%20A%20consultation%20with%20survivors%20on%20Lewishams%20approach%20to%
20addressing%20VAWG.pdf
Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Gangs and Groups (2013), The Children’s
Commissioner, online at: http://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/info/csegg1
Mayor of London; strategic ambitions for London (2014); gangs and serious youth
violence:
http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Strategic%20Ambitions%20for%20London_%2
0Gangs%20and%20SYV%202014_0.pdf
MOPAC (2013); strategic framework for responding to gang associated women and girls:
http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Gangs%20and%20girls_strategic%20framewor
k.pdf
Runneymede (2008); rethinking gangs:
http://www.runnymedetrust.org/uploads/publications/pdfs/RethinkingGangs-2008.pdf
Background papers
Available at:
http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/ieListMeetings.aspx?CId=189&Year=0
18
Page
117
Violence against women and girls including girls and gangs report, Safer Stronger
Communities Select Committee 10 September 2014
Minutes of the meeting of Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee held on 10
September 2014
Gang associated women and girls – prevention and awareness review:
scoping paper, Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee 3 November 2014
Gang Associated Women and Girls – prevention and awareness report, Safer Stronger
Communities Select Committee 3 December 2014
Minutes of the meeting of Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee held on 3
December 2014
Violence Against Women and Girls including Girls and Gangs: schools information report,
Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee 10 March 2015
Minutes of the meeting of Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee held on 10
March 2015
19
Page
118