Agenda item

Community Anchor Network - Update

A report will be submitted which gives an update on progress in respect of the Community Anchor Network.

 

Contact:

Mags Rogerson – Service Manager, Personalised Care

 

Minutes:

A report was submitted which gave an update on progress in respect of the Community Anchor Network Contract.

 

Jill Greenfield the Service Director, Customers and Communities and Mags Rogerson the Head of Service, Local Integrated Partnerships attended the meeting to present the report and answer Members’ questions. The following points were highlighted:

·       The aim was to build a network with strong relationships rather than focussing on specific target-driven outcomes.

·       Partnership working with the social prescribing service across Kirklees.

·       There were fifteen community anchors across Kirklees with a lead anchor in the Huddersfield, Rural, Batley and Spen, and Dewsbury and Mirfield areas.

·       Monitoring of the contract.

·       Engagement had taken place with over 300 community organisations.

·       Each anchor was developing a locality plan in conversation with local communities which would set out priorities, concerns, opportunities and connections. These plans would be widely shared.

·       Promotion of the network and engagement with Ward Councillors.

 

The Panel also welcomed Tom Taylor from Third Sector Leaders Kirklees and Carole Roberts from Huddersfield Mission to share their experience of the project. Third Sector Leaders Kirklees was responsible for co-ordinating and managing the development of the anchors and the network and Huddersfield Mission was one of the local anchor community organisations.

 

Questions and comments were invited from Committee Members, with the following issues being covered:

·       In respect of how the network would grow and support smaller organisations serving different geographical areas; it was explained that the lead anchors were well established organisations with strong infrastructures and the community anchors were very well embedded in their local communities. The lead anchors would provide peer support to smaller groups to aid in their development.

·       Staffing capacity in the lead anchors could be funded, funding for the local organisations was flexible to allow it to be best used to support their needs.

·       From the point of view of a lead anchor organisation this was a different way of working to previously; it had taken some time to develop new relationships and establish aims and boundaries. There was a positive and supportive relationship with the relevant Council officers. At a more local, community level it was considered that partnerships had been strengthened and trust was being built within the sector.

·       The principle of using those ‘best placed’ to address a need was correct; established community organisations had the necessary experience, knowledge and connections. New or struggling groups would be able to go to them for support.

·       Some areas currently had fewer local anchors. One of the five aims for the lead anchors was to reach out to groups and organisations that it did not already have contact with and, if they wished to engage, the local anchor network would respond with help and support as appropriate. This would also be forthcoming if requested by a smaller local group.

·       The level of awareness of smaller local groups about this offer was queried and how would they know that this support was available.

·       Some development of the lead anchors was still ongoing but they were established organisations who could provide the necessary advice, training and support to others.

·       Competition for funding and duplication could be a concern particularly when the resources were limited and it was hoped that this would be discussed with groups.

·       It was considered that this way of working would assist in avoiding competition and duplication, local groups had a much higher level of communication with each other, and a much greater awareness of what others were able to offer, this was backed up by good support from the lead anchors. As the connections developed it had become less focussed on geographical location and more about what skills each organisation may be able to offer to others within the network.

·       The draft locality plans aimed to capture the insight and intelligence from the conversations with local communities about their concerns and difficulties but it was acknowledged that there may be a need to simplify them and align them with other things, such as the Council’s aspirations for youth services.

·       The level of meetings between the lead and local anchors varied depending on the area and what was felt appropriate to ensure effectiveness. It was important that groups were able to focus on their core work. The network as a whole met on a quarterly basis, the lead anchors on a monthly basis, and informal meetings were also an important element.

·       It was considered that this work was an integral part of building resilient communities that were able to respond to the issues affecting them, in partnership with the Council. By enabling communities to do what they wanted to do and to use resources and assets as they considered appropriate this would encourage organisation and inclusion.

·       It was recognised that different areas may need different levels of support; the starting point would be to establish their concerns, assets and skills and support them to build on these. The development of the network would also lead to the sharing of skills, resources and support with other areas of the district.

·       It was important that the geography of the different areas was understood.

·       Anchors should speak to all community groups to ask what they needed and to explain what they could do to assist; this would help to build a stronger network.

·       The locality plans were at an early stage and how they would fit alongside other action plans, ward plans and partners’ priorities was an important point for consideration as they developed, It was hoped that the planned Councillor Workshops would assist in this cross-referencing.

·       It would be a good idea to evaluate why some areas had lower levels of activity and to take learning from areas that were operating more effectively.

·       From the viewpoint of a local anchor organisation, it was considered that this different way of working and mindset; connecting, uniting and supporting community groups, was powerful.

 

Resolved -

1) That the comments of the Committee, as set out below, be taken into account in the further development of the Community Anchor Network:

·       The need to support capacity in local communities.

·       Communication with all community groups and raising awareness of the network.

·       Further development of the locality plans to link in with other plans and priorities.

·       Building capacity and developing the network in places where additional support may be needed.

·       Taking learning from areas where the community groups are operating effectively.

 

2) That the Head of Service be asked to share the locality plans with Members of the Committee in twelve months time.

 

Supporting documents: