Third Sector Representation on LSPs - Connectors not representatives

view the discussion document

Summary of response

The universal view of community organisations in our membership is that the framework set out by CLG is fundamentally wrong and is a backwards step. It is dishonest to use the term representation in this way.

No-one in the community sector can nor should use this term to describe their role, and LSPs and other partnership bodies should never require us to act as representatives. It is an invidious and untenable position, and by definition cannot succeed.

We contribute to participative not representative democracy, and perhaps, as Archbishop John Sentamu has suggested, the term ‘connector’ is more honest and useful.

Community anchor organisations have a valuable part to play in engaging with LSPs, particularly given CLG’s intention to invest in community anchors as set out in its third sector strategy.The framework fails to address this.

We therefore ask CLG to abandon this proposed framework and to start afresh.We have provided an outline, and we would be very happy to work further with CLG on this.

1.Our evidence

This response draws on evidence and experience of some of the most successful and experienced community organisations in the country, following a national consultation exercise in January 2008. A list of those who submitted written evidence is at Appendix A.

2.Development trusts

There are currently 306 development trusts in England.Development trusts are community enterprise organisations: community-owned and led, using self-help, trading for social purpose, and ownership of buildings and land, to bring about long-term social, economic and environmental benefits in their community.

They operate in both urban and rural areas, often in neighbourhoods which have experienced the worst economic decline. They are independent, but work with the public sector, private businesses, and other community groups.They are community ‘anchor’ organisations, delivering services and facilities, finding solutions to local problems, and helping other organisations and initiatives succeed.

The overwhelming view of those who work in development trusts is that it is a grave mistake to use the concept of representation as a basis for community engagement with the LSP.

One pointed out that the word representative has many senses and that some (eg ‘typical example’) may be more helpful than others.But nearly everyone we consulted felt that it would be better to abandon the term altogether.Many expressed their views in robust terms:

It is naïve nonsense to think that a ‘community’ – even at a neighbourhood level – can be represented by one group or individual

How does anyone ever prove they are being truly representative?

It is nonsense to expect any organisation to claim 100% representation- we do not demand that of our democracy? It also enables those Council’s with whom third sector organisations have fraught or difficult relations to use this as a weapon for disengaging and claiming that the sector is not representative.

I would argue that the term representative actually belies the fact that one is not dealing with homogeneous groups of people. Many issues cross boundaries and individuals take different stances on different issues.

It is clear, from how our members explain their role, that we need a new set of terms and a different approach than that set out in the proposed framework.Community organisations in our movement are not interested in elaborate processes to allow someone to claim representative status, but are very interested indeed in how to bring people together, to find solutions, and to make things happen:

I see our role in the community as a connector, intermediary, catalyst, and 'honest broker'. I don't believe that we are (or want to be) truly 'representative' of a wide range of single-focus groups. Our role is more about helping the different groups to work together for the benefit of the town by bringing their different ideas and strengths to bear on a range of issues and opportunities.

Allowing voices and views to be heard in places of power is certainly an important task, but even in that sense the proposed framework fails to convey a true sense of how the community sector can operate:

I would claim for my organisation that we represent the local community only in so much as we are aware or make ourselves aware of matters that need representing.It would be more honest for us to say that we create situations for the community which allows them to engage in issues or discussions about matters that will affect them thus the term 'connectors' or enablers is more true.

There is widespread support for the use of a term such as ‘connector’ (as has been proposed by the Archbishop of York John Sentamu, during the Treasury/ Cabinet Office Review of the Role of the Third Sector in Social and Economic Regeneration).One development trust said:

My view having been to an LSP meeting this morning is that the idea of 'connectors' or what I call conduits is crucial. You cannot have everyone represented, nor can any one person 'represent' all the views. However - being a conduit requires resource and the capacity to draw a consensus of views and a spectrum of views together.

Many people share the view that such work should be properly valued and rewarded:

It is important that 'voices' are recognised as qualitative data and that if the government want quantitative information they should either pay 'connectors' to go out and get it or get it themselves.

Our members do understand that it will be difficult to come up with a single term that strikes the right note, and which can be used to express a set of activities that are enriching and build strengths within the community.One expressed doubts about the term ‘connector’:

I am not sure that the word connector is right also. To me it conjures up thoughts of ‘hands off signposting’ which to me can be interpreted as cold, I prefer our organisation to be though of as a ‘conduit’, somewhere where a group or an individual with lesser experience can be continually supported along the right path to achieve an aim or a goal.

But whatever term is used, it is clear that the mood of those working in some of the most highly regarded and successful organisations in the community sector, is that the whole approach as set out in the proposed framework is mistaken.

Most development trusts are keen to contribute to the work of LSPs, and many already do.But there is widespread dismay at the inefficiency of existing engagement models, which discourage can-do people in the community sector:

LSP’s need to become much more visible to local communities and make their paperwork much more digestible if they really want to engage the community, otherwise you get a situation with LSP being 95 % agency professionals and a small 5% from the community

We fear that the proposed framework will do nothing to overcome that problem – on the contrary it will exacerbate it, by focusing on process not action: as one of our members says, ‘what we need from government is more delivery and less process.’

There will always be a tendency for the community sector, with fewer resources and less power, to become marginalised around the LSP table.The way to overcome this is not to develop elaborate procedures and structures for representation, but rather to develop a framework that identifies and respects the ‘added value’ that those from the community sector can bring:

If the third sector is going to bring anything extra to the table of borough-level LSPs it is because of their experience with specific communities or with their knowledge about delivery of specific services, or because of their general ability to implement projects or facilitate partnership working.

The CLG Third Sector Strategy recently identified community anchor organisations as a priority for the coming years, and a CLG investment programme in community anchors is due to be announced shortly.We are therefore surprised that there is no reference in the proposed framework to the central and productive role that community anchors can play in respect of LSPs.As one of our members said:

Increasingly both central and local government are using the term ‘community anchor organisations’ within the context of a community/third sector group having the capacity/infrastructure/governance to represent the community perspective or to deliver a required action within a partnership/LSP role. It would therefore perhaps be appropriate for the term ‘community anchor organisation’ to be specifically used within this section. This is suggested in the knowledge that in the real world many third sector organisations are not strong enough, or do not have the capacity to engage meaningfully at a strategic/LSP level; whereas, a ‘community anchor organisation’ does.

An effective community anchor organisation constantly generates and refreshes links and alliances across different parts of the community, and between the community and the state.Community anchors are unusually well placed to assist the work of the LSP, not least by improving the prospect that specialist knowledge and insights from across the wide array of community activity is available to the LSP.

Taking account of the evidence and views set out above, we ask CLG not to proceed with the framework which is currently out for consultation, but rather to take a fresh look.

We suggest, for discussion, that the following elements might provide the basis for a more honest and productive relationship:

• The LSP should appoint individuals from the community sector, not as ‘representatives’, but rather as ‘connectors’ and ‘enablers’.
• They should be selected according to their ability to perform such functions.Criteria and expectations should be set out, and appointments should be made following a process of open recruitment.
• Where community anchor organisations exist, they should be appointed to the LSP (subject to the same selection criteria).
• The contribution of the community connectors/enablers and community anchor organisations should be paid for by the LSP at consultancy rates.
• The agenda of LSPs should focus as much as possible on problem-solving, in other words allowing front-line concerns and aspirations from the community level to be heard, and applying the strengths of the LSP to achieve a solution.

We would be very happy to work further with CLG, and colleagues in LSPs and the community sector, to develop a framework along these lines.

Glenn Arradon
Policy Officer
Development Trusts Association
33 Corsham Street
London N1 6DR
0845 458 8336
www.dta.org.uk

February 2008