Agenda item

To receive an update in relation to the review of the Cohesion Strategy.

Contact: 

Carol Gilchrist, Head of Communities and Ali Amla, Cohesion and Integration Manager, Tel: 01484 221000

The Committee received a report which provided an update on the development of the Cohesion Strategy, focusing on findings from analysis of the 50 focus groups held to inform the vision and strategy.

Carol Gilchrist, Head of Communities and Ali Amla, Cohesion and Integration Manager were in attendance for the item.

The Panel were advised that the Cohesion Strategy had been developed with co-production principles at its foundation.  The next stage of development was a partnership event in January to which all councillors had been invited.  This would enable the drafting of the vision and strategy which would go out to further consultation before formal adoption. 

The key areas of the Panel’s discussion and responses to questions are summarised below:

-        With regards to whether communities across the whole of Kirklees had been consulted, the Panel were advised that focus groups had been varied and a place based approach had been taken throughout the process.  All local areas had been covered including Huddersfield, Mirfield, Batley and Spen and rural communities.  It was acknowledged that there were some gaps within the engagement, but it was believed that there was a fairly representative voice at this point to create a broader vision and strategy and gaps that had been identified would be addressed through local planning and development.

-        The Committee referred to the findings of the Casey Review of 2016 which highlighted the need to bring communities together and asked what work was being undertaken to build on previous work around cohesion as well as current working practices.  In response, it was noted that the Casey Review was a national review and the policy never came to light through government. The Cohesion Strategy review was more localised and would tie in with current Council policies around place based working. 

Since 2016 the offer within the Cohesion Team had changed in that they were now a smaller team comprised of 6 officers.  Some of the work being translated through the Strategy was that work should not just be led by officers and elected members, with an asset based approach being taken to developing cohesion. 

-        With regards to research, it was planned to triangulate and integrate communities work and consult across the Council, which was a data rich organisation.  More in Common were currently doing a piece of research across Batley and Spen and it had been intended to align with this work, but unfortunately there had been delays due to the general election.  Reference was also made to new academic research emerging in the field of cohesion and integration.

-        The new vision would be aligned to the Council’s commitment to Intercultural Cities with the incorporation of key recommendations to complement existing action plans.  It was clarified that Intercultural Cities was working broadly across the Council and cohesion was one aspect.  It was agreed that the report would be shared with the Committee.

-        It was important to create a shared vision with communities and partners and review the whole council approach, rather than focusing on one service.  With regards to day to day operation, it was intended that work would evolve into locally place based action plans which would include further engagement and work with partners as to priorities within specific localities.

-        In terms of demonstrating and recording work that had been carried out by the Cohesion Team to bring communities together, it was noted that the implementation and development of the cohesion framework would include an evaluation matrix and measurements to evaluate the impact of work and determine what was working and to consider any changes that might be required to make more impact.

Examples of work included the administration of small grant funding opportunities to a number of grass roots community organisations of up to £500 to assist in innovation as well as a series of up to 30 events that had been facilitated during Inter Faith Week which had brought together approximately 2,800 residents.

-        Hate crime was not used as a measurement of cohesion as reporting could rise as a result of awareness raising work carried out in an area. One measurement used was the CLIK Survey, which was completed by residents and measured perceptions of cohesion across the district and another was the Police and Crime Survey.

-        The Cohesion Review and Strategy would be broader than being sat within one department and viewed as everyone’s business.  It would be aligned to work done through the Democracy Commission, place based working and the Council’s vision of people, partners and place.  There was a desire to engage broader partners to enrich the data obtained and this included workshops and elected member engagement.

-        In response to questions as to the consultation carried out and whether 250 people was a representative sample of the population of Kirklees, the Committee were advised that work had started with 20 focus groups and there had been an iterative process to identify gaps in order to ensure that voices were captured.  It was noted that Kirklees had a unique footprint and it was important to engage more widely eg with rural communities and young people and recognise other diversity factors such as disability.  Staff networks had also been utilised, as 80% of staff lived and worked in Kirklees and this was a valuable insight.  The Committee were informed that this was not the end of the journey.

The Place Standard had been delivered in 11 areas to date and up to 600-1,000 residents could be engaged in a geographical area.  These findings would also be integrated into this work.

The Committee were advised that this was an initial analysis of data for strategy development purposes and it was hoped to collaborate with the University to do more.  It was also noted that at the outset of the process, focus had been on consultation and engagement, rather than research.  However, through discussions with More in Common and the University, there was going to be a piece of statistical research specifically around cohesion within the Batley and Spen area.  As previously mentioned, it had been hoped that it would form part of this report but there had been a delay to external factors.  The research would include a door knocking survey as well as other types of academic research and would focus on what impact More in Common’s cohesion work had made across the area. 

In terms of lessons learned, it was acknowledged that there could have been more focus  on representative sampling and liaising with the Council’s Data and Intelligence Team at an earlier stage.

-        The next stage of development was important, as once the framework had been developed, work would move into developing localised action planning.

-        Members questioned whether the consultation demonstrated voices across the locality, recognised the multitude of community groups across Kirklees, involved schools and the Youth Council and reached out to those who were not part of community groups.

The Committee were advised that consultation data had not been included within the report due to GDPR challenges, in that it had not been possible to data cleanse to the extent where it could be shared in the report.  Members were informed that consultation included 89 primary, secondary and further education establishments, 44 teachers and 5 focus groups involving 53 individuals which incorporated a spectrum of voices across the age groups.  Volunteers, generational family groups, women’s groups, refugees and asylum seekers, faith groups, volunteers and young offenders had also been consulted and feedback had been received from individuals to say that this had been their first interaction with local authorities.  Officers had also gone out to communities and attended large events such as carnivals and Pride.

In response to a question regarding the action plans and the outcomes, outputs and measurements therein, it was noted that this was still in development and the partnership event in January would be part of this and officers were keen for elected Members to be part of the working groups who would set the place based action plans.  The Committee asked for further information as to how the action plans would evolve.

Resolved:  The Committee:

1.    Wished to see further information as to how the action plans would evolve;

2.    Required further details as to the engagement carried out; and

3.    Recommended that the Strategy timeline be paused to ensure that the base for the vision was robust and based on a representative sample across Kirklees.