Dudley’s MASH Lab facilitating creative collaboration bet ween communities and Dudley Council
The fifth in a series of reports from a MASH Lab event held on 18 July 2012 at INSIGHT House
1.
2.
Background to What is the MASH Lab collaboration?
3. What makes collaboration empowering?
4.
5.
6.
A draft template for collaboration
Community wellbeing outcomes
Feedback, next steps and support
Community Wellbeing Outcomes
We started with 3 community wellbeing outcomes.
Following the action research in the Community Rights Made Real project, the MASH Lab Launch and Appreciative Inquiry interviews, 3 community wellbeing outcomes have been framed for MASH activity. They are around engagement and collaboration leading to:
‣ ‣ ‣
Creative use of existing assets Sustainable commissioning decisions and/or service change Informed and influential individuals (council officers, communities and people)
In the afternoon session, participants each selected an outcome to focus on, and within their groups considered a range of ideas which had been developed in response to issues and suggestions made during action research with community groups and discussed at the MASH Lab Launch and/or arose through the Appreciative Inquiry interviews with council officers and individuals from voluntary and community groups. Participants were also free to ad their own ideas which would work towards the outcome(s). Through discussion, five pilot collaborative projects were identified to take forward. Participants worked in five project groups and used the collaboration template (see report 4 in this series) to ensure that the five community dimensions were considered (see report 3). For the purposes of ongoing work, one of the five projects, around sharing furniture and buildings, has been separated in to two projects, one around sharing furniture, the other around buildings (and land). Thus the six collaborative projects are: Outcome: Creative use of existing assets 1. People as assets 2. Sharing physical assets - buildings 3. Sharing physical assets - furniture 4. Sharing training and learning opportunities Outcome: Sustainable commissioning decisions and/or service change 5. Sustainable commissioning decisions Outcome: Informed and influential individuals 6. Developing Neighbourhood Forums 2
Collaborative project 1: ‘People as Assets’ Community wellbeing outcome: Creative use of existing assets Discussions/early thinking There is a desire to build on the existing Dudley MBC employee volunteering strategy. The group discussed a partnership volunteering strategy which facilitates matching the skills that people have with the skills that organisations want. This would provide networking opportunities and better understanding of how different sectors / organisations work by increasing the knowledge and contacts people have. There was also a discussion about job satisfaction and staff welfare as well as match funding opportunities and the fact that all levels from directors to front line should be involved. Where this idea emerged from - some background Some of the issues which this idea seeks to address, and which were discussed at length during the action research stage of the Community Rights Made Real project include the fact that Dudley MBC officers have skills which local groups can’t readily access and my need only on a one-off or infrequent basis (e.g. networking donated PCs). Proactive matching of council staff to volunteer hosts is missing, and current take up of employee volunteering is low. It was felt by community stakeholders that if council officers supported and/or shadowed voluntary, community or faith groups or organisations through short placements they could far better understand the sector and client groups, and see opportunities for collaboration which could help ease budget pressures. This idea has the following core assumptions at its heart: • As a single agency, Dudley MBC can co-ordinate staff interested in sharing skills. • Voluntary, community and faith groups would welcome specific or general support from officers who have skills to offer. • Dudley MBC officers don’t understand the work of the voluntary, community and faith sector and therefore don’t readily see where savings can be made and/or better outcomes achieved by working together. Explorations of this idea - more background During the Appreciative Inquiry some potential barriers for collaboration around sharing skills were identified and include: • Council finances and loss of staff resources being a restraint to sharing assets rather than a reason to explore opportunities. • Having the time to supervise and monitor progress with volunteering. • Staff reductions and no reduction in workload squeeze the opportunity to volunteer. Many opportunities were also identified, as follows.
3
• Provide opportunities for people to share and enhance their skills, by shadowing, work experience, job placements. Develop skills so those without jobs become more employable. • Shared assets help communities be self sufficient and lower dependency on the council. • Providing volunteering opportunities such as work experience enables people to get into a self-sustainable position regaining life control and better self belief. • The council needs initial people in roles as catalysers, enthusers and enablers - without these commitment will not follow. • Community forum tool which is less officer led and more community led. • Back office staff need to understand realistically what the situation is like for communities so they can design services that are right for communities. Volunteering within communities could help with this. • Update the current Volunteering strategy and look at how managers can support staff to help local groups (staff spend one day a month with a group that contributes to councils priorities). • Working collaboratively with Community Voluntary, Faith Sector helps all to become more effective / efficient and helps reduce the burden on council services by sharing the needs of the borough. • Volunteering helps people learn new skills and gain experience and gain employment which is particularly important for young people. Benefits for those hosting the volunteers would be services are improved, more value for money and improved quality of life for users. • This way of working provides synergy and an opportunity to explore links. • Potential to work with other organisations, providing volunteering opportunities, matching placements, shadowing, ICT support, and training. • Volunteering gives people a sense of civic pride and has added value in expertise and knowledge connections. • Volunteer bank database, something akin to former direct services (catering for those with transport needs, visually impaired etc) • Inter organisational relationships help achieve things. Working together we can achieve more i.e. funding bids, all parties need to understand and contribute for the maximum benefit. Who discussed this and may remain involved? Donna Roberts, Dawn Bonnick, Kate Warren and Marc Carter. Who will lead/support? Donna Roberts, DMBC and Marc Carter, INSIGHT.
4
Applying the collaboration template Dimension
Actions/steps
We are confident
Allow people to identify their skills. Identify the skills of others (PRD’s for DMBC staff) Everyone has something to offer: it may not necessarily be linked to their job Encourage people to ask for help by filling in what they need onto a website Think differently and allow innovation Trust people – match 1 hour of their time with 1hr of work time.
We are inclusive
Leader / councillor buy-in Senior Dudley MBC buy-in Develop a pilot scheme Involve people from Dudley MBC, DCP and Insight and explore Public Health involvement Ensure everyones skills, knowledge, strengths are known
We are organised
Arrange a next step meeting after receiving the buy-in Identify key stakeholders e.g. councillors, Corin Gregory, Shobha Asar-Paul, Dudley CVS (invites to other VCFS) Think about promotion Develop a website Develop a taster session to inform interested parties
We are cooperative
Allocate time throughout the project to evaluate and reflect Evaluate soft outcomes as well as hard (e.g. staff happiness/ productivity/networking opportunities/VCFS being more efficient) All to allocate time for this to develop
We are influential
Lead by example (senior officers to participate and take up this opportunity) Buy-in and support needs to be top down We need to develop an agreed vision, strategy and goal
Opportunities / next steps: Develop an agreed volunteering strategy for the borough amongst partners based on an agreed vision and goals. Explore what kind of information a website would need to hold Identify assets that people have and are willing to offer and add them onto a partnership website for sharing Identify assets that are in demand and that people require. Encourage networking and the opportunity to uncover potential areas for improvement / redesign. Think differently and allow innovation and creativity. Ensures peoples strengths, skills, knowledge is known and shared to provide opportunities to access experts or to ensure the correct people are collaborating. Evaluate soft outcomes as well as hard, explore the effect volunteering has on an individuals productivity, motivation, happiness, attendance. 5
Collaborative project 2: Sharing physical assets - buildings Community wellbeing outcome: Creative use of existing assets Discussions/early thinking The group discussed building on the existing work mapping public sector buildings. They considered how local VCFS organisations can contribute to maximising building use or the potential of co-location. This would maximise building use and result in cross-sector learning and service development. There is also the potential to collaboratively develop a joint Asset Management Policy as part of this work. Where this idea has emerged from - some background During the action research stage of the Community Rights Made Real project participants were made aware that Dudley MBC are writing policy and guidance around asset transfer in relation to building and land assets which they have control of. The group demonstrated a desire for a variety of approaches to be included, not just transfer; including different types of leases and lease renewal, meanwhile leases, cross-sector/ organisation co-location (to support cross-sector learning etc), building ownership transfers, and the register of assets of community value. This thinking was tested and borne out in the final survey of the Community Rights Made Real project, which 96 people from community groups, clubs, societies and voluntary sector organisations responded to, providing the following information about their interest in different uses of buildings and land. Are you interested in any of the following options in relation to building/ public spaces?
Responses
%
Access to space - renting rooms, sports pitches etc. Access to public spaces for community events etc. Sharing premises with another voluntary/community group to save costs Sharing premises with another a currently voluntary/community group so that you can work together with them Upgrading a building your group already has Taking on the responsibility or ownership of land or buildings currently owned by the council (this is known as asset transfer) Sharing premises with council or other public sector staff to save costs 'Meanwhile use' of a currently empty/ underused building Sharing premises with council or other public sector staff so that you can work together with them Long term leases None- we are satisfied with our current situation in relation to physical assets Short term leases Buying a building
36 35
49% 48%
29
40%
25 25
34% 34%
22
30%
21 20
29% 27%
18 15
25% 21%
12 10 10
16% 14% 14%
Table 1: Responses to a question around interest in use of buildings and land in Dudley’s Community Rights Made Real project final survey, April 2012. 6
This above highlights the fact that community groups and organisations face issues in relation to having under-used space or not having space. Benefits of co-location - sharing space with Dudley MBC which groups identified include co-design and co-production opportunities and a real understanding of each other’s operations. They liked the idea of mixed use buildings where office and public contact staff are based together to reduce the gap between office workers and members of the public receiving services. It was hoped that existing work mapping public sector use of buildings in Brierley Hill and Dudley Town Centre asset management work could be developed by considering how local VCFS organisations can contribute to maximising building use and to result in crosssector learning and service development. An issue has been raised in relation to the criteria for Assets of Community Value, which is that it is important to develop a shared understanding of what the term means and what the criteria are in order to gain relevant nominations and have an agreed procedure for nominations. Explorations of this idea - more background During the Appreciative Inquiry some potential barriers for collaboration around sharing buildings were identified and include: • Sometimes the council is too focused on the asset (is it a liability) and fail to see the community perspective. • Competition between voluntary groups and commercial businesses. • The capacity and understanding to cover legislation for example - health and safety, CRB, human resources. • Member tensions could become a barrier if they become excluded from the process. • Financing the buying and repair of these buildings is a big obstacle which restricts CVFS. • There is a concern that large organisations will take advantage of asset transfer and buy buildings at the determent of the local community. • There is an information gap, we need to know what buildings are available, who owns them and there usage. Opportunities around sharing buildings were highlighted by interviewees: • Having access to a wider variety of buildings can have a positive effect on groups, (for example youth groups using drama studios or town halls to host shows). • Inter-organisational relationships help achieve things. Working together we can achieve more e.g. funding bids, all parties need to understand and contribute for the maximum benefit. • We need to use our assets more effectively and to their full potential. There are around 30 community centres and half of them are not used or need to be used more widely • We need to find a way to ensure buildings are in good repair, explore repairing one building a year? Explore funding opportunities. • We need to be more flexible in how we use assets for example libraries would make an amazing opportunity to expand into community hubs. • Need to tap in to unused resources and look for potential, unused units, short term leases, support to start something new. 7
• Physical assets that are not in use should be opened up to wider groups to maximise the use of the space we have. Awareness needs to be raised that this is possible as groups assume that it isn't possible. • We could run a pilot scheme through Dudley CVS explaining the space we have available and what groups need to do if they want to use it and also what space groups have that we can use. There is the potential to have an online portal to store this information. • The potential to have community hubs - physical spaces 10,000 sq ft to develop an incubatory approach, through joining up several different concerns or enterprises (community café, food training, sports club, job clubs, foodbank etc.) • Co-locating services gives customers more options and they can access more services in one place. They also get face to face contact so that staff get to see real situations that effect peoples lives and get a wider perspective. • Potential to dispose of buildings as a result of transforming our workplace programme. • Physical assets that are not in use should be opened up to wider groups to maximise the use of the space we have. Awareness needs to be raised that this is possible as groups assume that it isn't possible. Who discussed this and may remain involved? Andy Wright, John Cheadle, Martin Baines and Wendy Fryatt (NB. These individuals were involved in a wider discussion around sharing buildings and furniture) Who will lead/support? Andy Wright DMBC, Martin Shaw, DMBC (tbc), Caroline Webb, DCVS (tbc) Applying our collaboration template: Dimension
Actions/steps
We are confident
Recognise when we have something to offer and when we do not Innovation -see mistakes as opportunities; Are we confident enough to take the risk?
We are inclusive
Caveat: prioritise benefit to Dudley Borough (as opposed to interest in furniture from people and organisations outside the borough) Ensure everyone's knowledge, skills and strengths (assets) are used appropriately
We are organised
Mapping - identify structure for making decisions around supply and demand for the asset Build a proposal based on a real example such as Pensnett School or a general business model
We are cooperative
Consider creative ways of working and pooling resources Collective use of a resource Look at good practice/models
8
Dimension We are influential
Actions/steps We know that what we do makes a difference to individuals, organisations and communities Strong and clear vision Influence the actual beneficiaries
Opportunities / next steps: Recognise that asset mapping only takes us so far – the intelligence is only useful if we can match it with real examples of community need. However in terms of mapping, Dudley MBC probably need to add to what they know about their physical assets (occupation details, spare capacity etc) The Pensnett school site could offer a potential focus and pilot based around developing a community hub around the anchor activity of the Food Bank: • Find out future options for re-use of that site (including actually when it ceases its function as a school) • Have discussions involving Children’s Services, Property, officers from the Asset strategy to assess potential, risk and so forth • Hook in more potential viable users • Build a proposal for the re-use of the asset that is acceptable to the Council
9
Collaborative project 3: Sharing physical assets - furniture Community wellbeing outcome: Creative use of existing assets Discussions/early thinking The group discussed building on the pro-active activity already undertaken by one council directorate to share unwanted furniture, fixtures and fittings so that there is a council wide approach and equal access for groups. There may be potential to bring in other organisations who have offers of equipment and finding a way to manage supply and demand for used items. Where this idea has emerged from - some background This idea addresses practical problems that local groups face in acquiring equipment and furniture and issues that Dudley Council have disposing of furniture and equipment due to office moves and closures etc. It also addresses a concern around equity - the offers shouldn’t be down to who has contacts. Examples of local organisations in need or equipment were given during the Community Rights Made Real project action research. Explorations of this idea - more background Potential barriers for sharing furniture etc. identified during the Appreciative Inquiry included: • • • • • • •
The process of passing on furniture needs to be auditable Budget tightening can create entrenchment rather than a willingness to act together for mutual benefit. We need to know and understand the potential demand to share resources, although demand can often materialise once supply has been created. Risk of flooding the market with free or low cost supply which could impact adversely on other concerns income streams. Groups need to have a way to ensure information or use of website is kept up to date Items not being available due to demand or borrowing equipment that they do not have the skills to use (insurance risk) The disposal of items needs to be handled carefully to minimise the perception that the council wastes resources.
However interviewees also felt that this activity: • Reduces risks of useful items being thrown away. Linked to sustainability / carbon footprint. • Provides the potential for community groups to unite, or become co-affiliated in order to borrow from each other; be a stronger entity; and hook in others. • Needs a transparent and open system as a key to success so that people understand what is available and what is being used by whom to stop the perception that one group is favoured over another. 10
• Could provide a website / portal where people can access assets that are available. This means it would not matter where things are from as long as people know where to look to find them and who to contact, which means it is accessible to all. • Needs good communication - make links for organisations to loan out equipment, venues, and people. • Could distribute items that are 'called for' throughout networks of groups. • Needs a corporate, planned approach to reusing redundant office equipment. • Has the possibility for a social enterprise handling the supply and demand flow. Does one already exist? • Could support organisations which may require furniture for their volunteers to work on to enhance their skill base. • The council save costs of disposing of items which may have a benefit to others. Who discussed this and may remain involved? Andy Wright, John Cheadle, Martin Baines and Wendy Fryatt (NB. These individuals were involved in a wider discussion around sharing buildings and furniture) Who will lead/support? Martin Baines DMBC, Menna Flavell, DMBC Applying the collaboration template (similar to project 2 as both were discussed together): Dimension
Actions/steps
We are confident
Recognise when we have something to offer and when we do not Innovation -see mistakes as opportunities; Are we confident enough to take the risk?
We are inclusive
Caveat: prioritise benefit to Dudley Borough (as opposed to interest in furniture from people and organisations outside the borough) Ensure everyone's knowledge, skills and strengths (assets) are used appropriately
We are organised
Furniture re-use project Council - harness release of furniture/equipment for distribution Dudley CVS - support distribution
We are cooperative
Consider creative ways of working and pooling resources Look at good practice/models
We are influential
We know that what we do makes a difference to individuals, organisations and communities Strong and clear vision Influence the actual beneficiaries
Opportunities / next steps: re-use – rather than disposal to landfill – of office associated furniture and ‣ Imaginative equipment 11
for Council to show it is a wise user of assets; ‣ Opportunity We already have basis of a system arranged with DCVS – we need to discuss what ‣ might be done tothe get it onto a better community or 3 sector-led basis; Need to agree who inputs to this (current risk of MB diverting a lot of time to managing ‣ things) rd
12
Collaborative project 4: Sharing training and learning opportunities Community wellbeing outcome: Creative use of existing assets Discussions/early thinking The group discussed the possibility of attending training sessions that were cross partnership so that we are all learning a consistent approach and understanding the same ethos - an example given was safeguarding training or first aid training. Initially the discussions in the MASH Lab focused on a corporate, traditional, top down model of providing training for people in communities and voluntary groups who are perceived to be in need of such training. This is often referred to as a deficit approach to communities. It was challenged by a facilitator, who asked: • How is this collaborative? • How is this empowering? • How does this use existing skills and abilities of all involved? • How does this see all people as assets? The group continued their discussion, grappling with this different approach. They agreed that training and learning could be provided by the voluntary sector or the public sector. It could also include online training or a percentage of places on a course being open for participants outside the organisation. There might be opportunities to use voluntary sector facilities to host training sessions. The benefits of understanding a different perspective and networking with different sectors or organisations through joint training was also discussed. The discussion in this group highlighted the difficulties of taking an empowering collaborative approach. It is hard to value such an approach when it is unfamiliar and you don’t understand it perhaps because of how you’ve learned to view communities (as being in need of services) or because the current way of doing things ins’t broken - so why change? Where this idea has emerged from - some background This idea had emerged from the Appreciative Inquiry process, primarily in an interview with Dudley MBC officers from HR and Training teams. They shared the following: • • •
When on training it can be really good to have people from other perspectives. When we set up Dudley Council Plus we had discovered that the Samaritans do active listening training, so we worked with them. Also, while Dudley Council Plus officers had equalities training through our central team, we worked with some disabled people [from Access in Dudley] on a practical personal level - drop in sessions for a day. Those things stay in your mind. Actually having customers in front of you explaining how it feels for them. You would need to do things like this in bite sized chunks - people won't give a day to do training but might spend 10 mins with someone and be able to ask things would be too scared otherwise. 13
• •
Aquarius run effective training on drugs - I remember their briefcase! There are opportunities for collaboration around learning including E-learning - voluntary organisations would have similar requirements, on legislative stuff, etc. we could share this, and the voluntary sector may have things to offer that the council don't Developing things jointly about working together Facing the Future - support programme for people at risk of redundancy - involve people from voluntary organisations? Sharing books and that kind of resources Sharing training facilities, e.g. the council might struggle to find a venue in Halesowen, but a group could offer one. Draw in delegates from different organisations and groups on courses - offer spaces on courses to people outside the organisation providing the training
Who discussed this and may remain involved? Dennis Hodson, Louise Clarke, Menna Flavell, Who will lead/support? Sarah Traneer, DMBC (tbc), Jody Pritchard, DPCT, Andrea Petkevicius, DMBC and Jayne Emery, Dudley CVS Applying our collaboration template: Dimension
Actions/steps
We are confident
We have assets/resources
We are inclusive
The voluntary, community and faith sector traditionally relates to parts of the community which others find hard to reach or involve
We are organised
At start of meeting ask: How do you feel about this – is collaboration working?
We are cooperative
We know what we can bring to collaboration. Plan joint training: DMBC and voluntary sector as trainers Private Sector as speakers?
We are influential
We know that what we do makes a difference, to individuals, organisations and communities.
Opportunities / next steps:
‣ ‣ ‣ ‣ ‣
Plan joint training between DMBC, voluntary, community, faith sectors, and the private sector. Create opportunities to explore training that VCFS can deliver or who would be an appropriate speaker at an event or course. Investigate opportunities to open up places on DMBC courses to the VCFS. Explore other stakeholders having access to Dudley MBC’s online training. Find out if Dudley CVS could explore the nature of demand for training and also let both sectors know what training / public speaking / venue opportunities are available. 14
‣
There is an opportunity to explore what training is missing, and how might the VCFS fill that gap, an example of this is a bid-writing course which Dudley CVS delivered.
15
Collaborative project 5: Sustainable commissioning decisions Community wellbeing outcome: Sustainable commissioning decisions and/or service change Discussions/early thinking The majority of those interviewed in the Appreciative Inquiry process described their aspirations for commissioning as a whole process, which engaged provider and service user in from start to finish. However both voluntary and statutory sector participants described the current approaches as one off processes, closer to procurement procedures than a commissioning model. In terms of collaborative approaches to commissioning a variety of experiences were demonstrated, some closer to a collaborative approach than others. Some of the positive examples given not only demonstrated a collaborative approach, but also provided evidence of services emerging through this process which were more customer focused and where staff were more fulfilled in their role. What became apparent was that both the voluntary sector and statutory sector interviewees saw both the challenges in the current approaches and the opportunities which could manifest through doing things differently. Some of the opportunities which came forward included: • building on current practice of utilising the voluntary sector to undertake service reviews. These reviews were felt to take on board the needs and views of the customer more than in the past and the findings need to be fed into the commissioning processes. • Utilise the Dudley Innovation Fund to develop alternative approaches. These could build on ‘organic capacity’ allowing a more proactive approach where commissioner engages more with community. • Utilising ‘Dudley CVS’s Building Blocks resources and activities to inform any redesign of commissioning models. Where this idea has emerged from - some background During the action research stage of the Community Rights Made Real project in Dudley the following issue were discussed at length: • What is measured by Dudley MBC in relation to services and activities which local organisations are contracted to deliver is often in conflict with what has impact and is valued. • There is a need for a process for Dudley MBC to respond to the Right to Challenge. • There is a need for clarity and guidance on when EU procurement directives do and don’t apply. E.g. For grants and small-value contracts, EU procurement directives do not apply. From 1 January 2012, the threshold at which service contracts attract EU procurement directives is £173,934. The EU Regulations divide services into so called Part A or "priority" services and Part B or "residual" services. Only Part A services above the threshold are caught by the full procurement directives. 16
• John Polychronakis, Chief Executive of Dudley MBC said when he met the Our Society: Our Solutions group that he is interested in commissions/services being broken down in to smaller chunks to enable local groups to deliver them. • Of the 86 respondents to the end of project survey carried out as part of the Community Rights Made Real project, 13 identified service areas that they would like to be involved in designing changes to, and a similar number would like to jointly deliver services with the council. 10 mentioned services that they would like to be contracted to deliver, and local groups are interested in taking over 4 service areas in their entirety: Adult & Children Disabilities Projects or delivery of services Specialised carer support Transport Youth Work / Young Adults Other issues that emerged through the action research which are closely related to this outcome are around consultation and user forums, and budget A related issue discussed during action research was that consultation doesn’t work effectively. It is always carried out in relation to the demands of service provider. A more collaborative approach around service change is desired - making user forums something more - a coming together of people to explore things around service issues etc. This idea could also incorporate the design of a new online (and possible offline) process for inviting suggestions from citizens and VCFS for service changes and co-production. The final survey of the Community Rights Made Real project indicated that a number of individuals from local groups and voluntary organisations would like to be more informed about and involved in discussions about changes to services. Explorations of this idea - more background The majority of those interviewed in relation to commissioning through the Appreciative Inquiry process described their aspirations for commissioning as a whole process, which engaged provider and service user in from start to finish. However, a few, from both voluntary and statutory sector, did describe it more as a one off process which was closer to a procurement approach. This could be due to lack of experience and opportunity to understand boarder commissioning approach. Also, those who were in a policy or strategic role found it difficult to give examples – but did see that they had a role in shaping the way teams in their organisation approached commissioning and procurement of services. A collaborative approach to commissioning? When actual experiences of commissioning were described a variety of experiences were demonstrated, some closer to a collaborative approach than others. Some positive examples were given, largely in the adult and social care arena (e.g. developing the personalisation model for adult learners – this was described by two different people in separate interviews). Besides demonstrating a collaborative approach to commissioning these also provided evidence of services emerging through this process which were more customer focused and where staff were more fulfilled in their role, than previously. 17
What became apparent was that both the voluntary sector and statutory sector interviewees saw both the challenges in the current approaches and the opportunities which could manifest through doing things differently. Some of the concerns around current approaches to procuring and commissioning services were: • Sometimes consultation on need feels tokenistic or can come too late/ early in the process – needs to be ongoing. • Where services are currently funded there is often an expectation that they will do more for what currently being paid. • When look at value for money – often yard stick is who can do it cheapest, not necessarily who can do it best. • ‘Transparency’ was raised a number of times in a number of contexts. Particular concern around processes – i.e. knowing what they are, and around ‘expectations’ for delivery. • Some services tend to go to who they know to help develop then deliver them. (this was raised by organisations who had been asked to develop them and got the contract, as well as those which hadn’t) • Regarding the above, voluntary sector recognised that the organisation doing scoping and analysis on need and expectations could /should just be contracted for that part of the process and then go to open tender for delivery. • When tenders go out, some organisations seem to be notified whilst others aren’t. (links to transparency). • All sectors identified the need to change current approach if going to meet diverse range of need across the borough (unsustainable and unresponsive to some areas of need). • Need to connect better with communities to understand them – voluntary sector and other sectors (businesses) often closer to community. • Social care providers all recognized that managing risk impacted on current and potential new approaches. • ‘leadership – need to allow people to be brave’ • Some community organisations believed to in a stronger or ‘more robust’ (C4) position to take on services. • Not always recognised (or acknowledged) the type and level of support organisations need to take on services and maintain and develop. • Some statutory bodies prefer to stick to ‘traditional way’ • Acknowledged that where initiatives have been developed collaboratively in past then they are more effective and often more efficient. Opportunities were identified to build on: • Adult and social care is beginning to change the way the approach commissioning. Most examples given were around processes which were used to develop new policy frameworks (e.g. personalisation). • There were also examples of how they were using the external sector to undertake independent reviews – which would feed into the services they commissioned. These reviews appear to take on board the needs and views of the customer more than in the past. • Dudley Innovation Fund could be used to develop alternative approach. This could build on ‘organic capacity’ and more proactive approach where commissioner engages more with community. • Could also look at building on Building Blocks toolkit and offer. • Could look at developing more collaborative approach in some leisure areas. 18
Who discussed this and may remain involved? Bridget Brickley, Kate Green, Mike Wood, Brendan Clifford, Kat Lafferty, Matt Smith, Tony Laycock Who will lead/support? Bridget Brickley, DCP and Kate Green, Dudley CVS Applying the collaboration template: The group didn’t undertake this activity as they were discussing wider, systemic issues and there wasn’t yet a specific project to consider in relation to collaboration. Opportunities / next steps: There was a lot of discussion around what sustainable means and consensus around this was built. Interagency training was raised, but the group pulled back from this as they first need to work on principles of what the project is and discuss the idea more widely. Whilst there was generally consent around the issues it was difficult to gain commitment form those who have participated in the process so far to engage in a strand of work which examine this in more detail, with a view to developing an alternative approach to commissioning. Opportunities therefore exist to approach organisations who have expressed an interest or concerns in commissioning through other forums. Bridget and Kate will bring people together to develop the thinking further and pin down some tangible opportunities.
19
Collaborative project 6: Developing Neighbourhood Forums Community wellbeing outcome: Informed and influential individuals (council officers, communities and people) Discussions/early thinking This project was suggested because of activity being driven through the council to renew Area Committees. It looked likely that there would be opportunities for communities to be involved in the design of the new forums. It would be an opportunity to explore communication networks. The conversation raised the question with marketing and communication officers around Dudley’s communication strategy – how do we keep communication flow going - how do we co-ordinate strategically? There was a discussion around communicating with individuals in and not in organisations. There needs to be more open discussions about budgets and service change and how much influence communities and individuals have regards the outcomes, and is it an empowering experience?. The issue was raised regarding how the council embraces this change given the really tight timescale of October to December? Where this idea has emerged from - some background The issue that this idea seeks to address, raised during the action research stage of the Community Rights Made Real project, is that community groups often struggle to find someone in the local authority who is willing to discuss their ideas and/or concerns and who is able to offer relevant information and/or support. Potential solutions have been mooted, such as a named person who receives all suggestions from community groups, or a champion in each directorate. It was the feeling of Our Society Planning Group members that such solutions might look OK on paper, they are unlikely to work in practice. They could be overwhelming for individuals, and don’t share responsibility or knowledge. Instead networks which draw on and develop the skills of people who are good at navigating between services and organisations can take advantage of and enhance knowledge which is already there among Dudley MBC officers, elected members, voluntary and community sector officers and volunteers and more. Involvement in such networks should involve Dudley MBC officers being trusted to use social media and communicate online, facilitating high quality and responsive communications. During the Community Rights Made Real project action research it was highlighted that the council’s website is structured in silos, and content varies between Directorates. Toplevel information can be difficult to find, users find it difficult to identify officers who can help with things, and they can’t find policies and procedures for some Directorates. More broadly than the website, social media use feels patchy, as does face-to-face communication. 20
An opportunity was identified to link Dudley MBC communications to the Dudley Community Partnership’s empowering approach to engaging communities (engaging together), as communications underpin all engagement activity and could serve to dramatically improve engagement. This could include a refreshed complaints process which includes an approach to engagement. There are also opportunities for Dudley MBC to signpost to positive community-hosted online spaces (e.g. Community First Panel pages/sites) and to celebrate strengths in our communities which are being mapped through various activities e.g. East Coseley Big Local work. Developing Neighbourhood Forums may also facilitate Dudley MBC to become more open, and undertaking a wider enabling role, allowing and/or helping communities to manage the effects of reduced services/changes to council services. An outcome desired would be a process of discussions which would begin 12-18 months in advance of final budget decisions which open up space for exploration of collaborative and/or alternative (perhaps voluntary sector led) solutions to the issues services face in the pressure of ongoing budget cuts. Explorations of this idea - more background Relationships between elected members and communities emerged in a number of interviews exploring engagement and communication. Ideas and reflections included: • We need to engage with community members more and have Planner and Ward Councillor surgeries that focus on land matters. • The council is criticised for doing to, not doing with communities. • Need to go out into communities and engage fact to face. Have community surgeries where people can talk about issues and voice ideas • The council needs to act as an enabler and help things to happen, communities want to be involved. • There is the potential opportunity for transformation by replacing a structure with an alternative that is more effective as a community forum tool - less officer led and more community led. • Communication and promotion is key to gelling with communities. • Supporting forum members is labour intensive but enables organisations to gain a real, true perspective. • User involvement to shape council systems. • The council needs better understanding of co-design and service improvement. We need to be a more 'cooperative council'. We need to listen to ideas and innovation. • Communication is key to building better relationships and helping all parties to understand each others pressures and ways of helping each other. The council needs to be brave and not be afraid to show faults and not be too risk adverse. • Citizen Leadership and working in partnership is key. Citizen leadership is equipping people to take a lead in how they want to live their lifes and influence things which affect it. Organisations need to behave differently. We need more equal partnerships. • We tend to find an issue and go out and find people to talk to about it. We should start with their issues which would be more useful. Who discussed this and may remain involved? Geoff Thomas, Gillian Lloyd, Melissa Guest, Lorna Prescott, Simon Manson, Jason Whyley, Chris Morrey 21
Who will lead/support? Geoff Thomas, DMBC, Gillian Lloyd, DBIN, Lorna Prescott, Dudley CVS Applying our collaboration template: Dimension
Actions/steps
We are confident
A formal proposal of support from communities to members around revising the make up of community forums. Involve everyone / officers and elected members from the beginning.
We are inclusive
Enabling communities to have dialogue and involvement with decision making. Benefit from shared learning existing / energy successful forums
We are organised
Create a project plan that would become a structure for making decisions that fits with existing time constraints (Autumn)
We are cooperative
Ensure buy in top down – bottom up Engagement at every level with every participant.
We are influential
Provide case studies of people who don’t currently engage but who would like to have a voice / have their voices heard!
Opportunities / next steps: proposed a networking event for scrutiny chairs. ‣ Geoff Gillian offered engagement from faith groups. ‣ Lorna offered involve other networks and promote widely to community centres. ‣ Link to Inspiringto Democracy involve changes and start to shape a way to come ‣ together usefully with elected- members shaping a new process Lorna to share existing research in in Dudley around influence, engagement, Inspiring ‣ Democracy, and Take Part Gillian and Mel to work with VCFS and support and prepare them as required to ‣ Lorna, work with, talk to, write to elected members - but involve officers from DMBC so that
‣ ‣ ‣
stays in collaborative space Approach Cllr Dave Tyler to explore ways of linking in with him on this project Mel can support with case studies: Get strong examples from communities of what really works that would be fantastic to give to elected members and open up the debate with elected members - focus on the positive, e.g. how you feel you influence things types of things you want to influence. An asset approach. This year the group involved in the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment want to incorporate community assets, working towards as Joint Strategic Assets Assessment. Think of ways to collect and present assets in Dudley.
22
23
Appendix: Project ideas arising from action research and appreciative inquiries Project ideas developed in response to issues and ideas discussed during Community Rights Made Real action research.
‣ Idea 1: Develop communication networks with effective navigators
To take a bottom-up, collaborative process to develop communication networks (including online) across and between organisations which people take responsibility for, feel confident about and trust using which offer real dialogue, and change (results/ outcomes).
‣ Idea 2: Collaboratively develop a Dudley MBC Communication Strategy
To collaboratively develop a Communication Strategy which has a focus on how people from local groups engage, have dialogue and find out what they need to know, as well as enable local group to share positive activities they are involved in or know about.
3: Collaboratively develop a corporate Dudley MBC Employee Volunteering ‣ Idea Strategy
To develop an employee volunteering strategy which facilitates the matching of Dudley MBC staff to opportunities in local groups where the skills of staff can be harnessed to the benefit of council service users and citizens, and the experience can increase the knowledge and contacts of council employees.
4. ‘Front loaded’ open discussions about budgets and service change to ‣ Idea enable collaborative/alternative solutions
To develop a process of discussions which would begin 12-18 months in advance of final budget decisions (e.g. start this summer for 2013/14 budgets) which open up space for exploration of collaborative and/or alternative (perhaps voluntary sector led) solutions to the issues services face in the pressure of ongoing budget cuts.
5: Refreshed or new collaborative forums / stakeholder groups ‣ Idea (collaboration rather than just consultation)
To develop new groups or change the processes used with existing groups so that Dudley MBC can involve VCFS groups and citizens in understanding pressures on services and explore sustainable solutions, to result in alternative service provision / service transformation. Specific areas of interest identified to date include children’s disability services, support to carers, housing, adult social care, planning and waste reduction
6: Collaboratively develop a policy which better enables contracting, ‣ Idea commissioning and grant giving to local voluntary organisations, social enterprises and community and faith groups
To bring together commissioners with officers and volunteers from local VCFS organisations (including social enterprises) to design a policy/revise an existing policy which better enables contracting, commissioning and grant giving to local VCFS organisations. 24
‣ Idea 7: Collaboratively develop a comprehensive joint asset management policy To build on a process which is beginning in Dudley MBC and lead to collaboration rather than consultation in relation to a policy for building and land assets which Dudley MBC have control of, or which local groups which to add to the register of assets of community value.
8: Find ways to identify opportunities for co-location of Dudley MBC and ‣ Idea VCFS organisations To build on existing work mapping public sector use of buildings in Brierley Hill and Dudley Town Centre DMBC asset management work by considering how local VCFS organisations can contribute to maximising building use and to result in cross-sector learning and service development.
9. Develop a Council-wide policy and mechanism for passing on unwanted ‣ Idea fittings, furniture etc. to local groups To build on pro-active activity already undertaken by one council directorate so that there is a council-wide approach and equal access for groups, perhaps bringing in other organisations who have offers of equipment, and finding a way to manage supply and demand for used items. Opportunities identified through Appreciative Inquiry interviews: further opportunities to build on the volunteer strategy through a ‣ Exploring collaborative approach – a skills bank/time bank … MBC leadership training – Identifying collaborative projects and potential ‣ Dudley leaders on good practice which has evolved through social enterprise initiatives (e.g. ‣ Building Adult Learning Initiatives) ‣ Dudley MBC Customer Insight work ‣ Improving Communication networks and mediums through more collaborative design web based & e-alert information linked to Dudley Libraries Community ‣ Proactive Information Directory training and learning between voluntary and statutory sector (e.g. places on ‣ Shared courses) buildings (e.g care taker on St Thomas’s Network, Civic Hall, Netherton ‣ Shared Campus, Pensnett School Hub, geographically based)
25
MASH Lab participants We are grateful to the following for their participation in the MASH Lab Andy Barry Brendan Bridget Chris Dawn Dennis Dick Donna Faye Geoff Gillian Jason John Kate Kate Katriona Lorna Louise Marc Martin Matthew Melissa Menna Mike Ruth Simon Sue Tony Wendy
Wright Hutchinson Clifford Brickley Morrey Bonnick Hodson Jeavons-Fellows Roberts Conroy Thomas Lloyd Whyley Cheadle Green Warren Lafferty Prescott Clarke Carter Baines Smith Guest Flavell Wood Heeks Manson Haywood Laycock Fryatt
Dudley MBC Dudley MBC Dudley MBC Dudley Community Partnership Dudley Community Partnership Dudley MBC Dudley Community Partnership Stourbridge Rugby Dudley MBC Dudley Community Partnership Dudley MBC Dudley Borough Interfaith Network Dudley Council Dudley Table Tennis League /Bromley TT Club Dudley CVS Public Health, NHS Dudley DMBC Community Safety Team Dudley CVS Dudley MBC INSIGHT for Carers Dudley MBC Dudley MBC Dudley CVS Dudley MBC Dudley MBC Autism Outreach Service Dudley Council Dudley MBC - Community Safety Team Stourbridge Hub & Social Transformation Black Country Foodbank
The event facilitators were: Sal Hampson and Jill Bedford from changes and Nick Bird
26