POLICY UPDATES & BRIEFING

Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic and Refugee (BAMER) Communities in London Borough of Enfield particularly hard hit by the shift to commissioning approach

BAMER Communities in the London Borough of Enfield have been particularly hard hit by the switch from Grant based funding to the commissioning regime which came into effect in October 2007 says Ade Adeshina who is Enfield Strategic Partnership Board BME Representative, and Chief Executive of O”-Bay Community Trust. In October 2007 Enfield Council announced its decision to fully implement the commissioning approach to funding local initiatives, resulting in a cut of funding to a significant portion of BME frontline Voluntary and Community groups who had previously had a grant funding relationship with the council.

The borough of Enfield has had over six BME youth deaths incidents within a short period and this heightens the local BME community’s fears of funding cuts to local BAMER organisations. A number of BAMER groups in Enfield have formed an alliance; the Council for Enfield Black Asian and Minority Ethnic (CEBAME) which is in dialogue with Enfield Council. It has made a presentation to Enfield Strategic Partnership Management group, and has also had a meeting with the Greater London Authority (GLA), to raise its concerns. The Mayor of London has appointed a member of his team to work with CEBAME. They have also held a consultation which aims at better informing the Mayor of London of the situation in Enfield.

In a letter dated 1st November 2008 Ade Adeshina the Enfield Strategic Partnership Board BME Representative & Chief Executive of O”-Bay Community Trust stated that the BAMER voluntary and community organisations, “recognise the importance of Local and Regional decision making process and would very much like to be included.” He added however that BAMER organisations “have not as of yet been resourced, supported, and empowered to engage, to be involved or to be included in the Borough decision making process. A change is needed so that the Enfield Community Empowerment Network (ECEN), Enfield Strategic Partnership (ESP), Greater London Authority (GLA) and our BME organisations can co-operate cohesively to build a better future for local residents in Enfield.”

He continued that ‘while BME groups are trying their best to attend some meetings - their focus and energy these days are more channelled into seeking external resources and support to ensure the survival of their organisations, so as to enable the continuation of the provision of services as frontline organisations to BAMER communities, beneficiaries, local residents and our members.

BAMER community groups take on a full work load in representing and engaging on strategic partnerships, providing double value for their funding, and thus their double role is threatened by any cut in resources for their frontline services.
He said that London Borough of Enfield and The Enfield Strategic Partnership Board have so far not displayed a recognition of the need for resourcing BAMER Voluntary and Community Sector groups to enable them in addition to carrying out their frontline duties, perform the crucial function of representing their communities and ensuring effective BME group’s involvements and inclusion in the Borough and regional Decision-Making Process.

The next Enfield Local Strategic Partnership meeting (December 08) will discuss the issues raised by BAMER organisations in the borough. An update of the situation will be included in subsequent BNRRN newsletter. Please visit www.cebame.org.uk for more information on Council for Enfield Black Asian and Minority Ethnic (CEBAME). See CEBAME’s website for more information http://www.cebame.org.uk/ or contact Ade Adeshina by visiting www.o-bay.org for details.


Participatory Budgeting: A national strategy; giving more people a say in local spending

Every year public money (whether raised through council taxes, income tax, parking charges, the licensing of local businesses or many other ways) is spent on local services to benefit local people for instance investment in libraries, public parks, health centres, invested on traffic improvement etc. Participatory Budgeting is a way of enabling local people decide how specific pots of such public money should be spent. Participatory budgeting fits with governments wider and repeating theme of ‘participatory democracy’, in which local people are fully involved and consulted in making local decisions.

With participatory budgeting, the pot of money is allocated to the community and they are facilitated through the process in which they discuss, vote and finally prioritise how the money should be best spent.

Government wants Participatory Budgeting to be used in every local authority by 2012

A Participatory Budgeting Unit has been set up and it has developed a number of publications and resources in order to issue consistent advice to local authorities. The publication “Participatory Budgeting: Values, Principles and Standards’, in particular highlights the key standards such as accessibility, transparency, inclusiveness and ensuring proper deliberation.

How Participatory Budgeting fits in with other government initiatives-
The concept and principle of Participatory Budgeting has already been applied throughout England in such areas as Neighbourhood Renewal Funding and New Deal for Communities also with local area committees. Participatory Budgeting is being highlighted as a useful mechanism for fulfilling the ‘statutory duty to involve’ which comes into effect from April 1st 2009. Communities could also potentially use ‘call to action’ to encourage councils to use Participatory Budgeting (The government white paper ‘Communities in Control’ talks about government plans to introduce the ‘call to action’).

The key elements of the national strategy-
The current national strategy on Participatory Budgeting contains the following four elements:
• Promoting awareness
• Creating opportunities
• Providing guidance and support
• Learning from evaluation and research
Regular evaluation is planned by the Participatory Budgeting Unit which will also assist in national performance indicators around Participatory Budgeting. The Participatory Budgeting Unit is very keen to hear from organisations or individuals that are interested in promoting participatory budgets in their areas. They can be contacted at:

Participatory Budgeting Unit
c/o Church Action on Poverty
Central Buildings
Oldham St
Manchester M1 1JT
UK
Office Tel: 0161 236 9321
Also visit: http://www.participatorybudgeting.org.uk/


Transforming Places; changing lives: a framework for regeneration
Introduction-
The framework for regeneration is set out to shape the way regeneration will be carried out in the future in England. The new approach and direction is as a result of the learning that has been achieved so far of what works for local communities, the aim being to provide value-for-money regeneration investment.

The case for regeneration has already been made and it was reiterated in the framework, that in a current competitive world it could hardly be afforded for communities to fall behind, be left out of rising levels of prosperity and success or for people to have their talents wasted because of lack of skills, information or access to work. The implication is that there is need for a redoubling of efforts to regenerate those parts of the country that are still having challenges of deprivation and worklessness and improving the effectiveness of support to local areas.

The framework contains a renewed focus on regeneration from tackling the core issue of economic challenges to increased social mobility.

The regeneration measures proposed are-
• To ensure that regeneration investment is co-ordinated and prioritised in the right places, with all sectors (public, private, and third sector organizations) working together in the same places towards a common vision
• devolving of power with decisions about where to invest made as locally as possible, so as to align investment behind local and regional regeneration priorities
• focus regeneration investment on tackling the underlying economic challenges that hold back deprived areas, in particular supporting people to get a job and get on in the labour market and boosting levels of enterprise in those areas.
The framework sets out proposed new expectations of local government; sub-regional partnerships and central government. It is aimed at developing a shared vision between community and neighbourhood organisations; local government and other members of the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP); sub-regional partnerships; Regional Development Agencies; the new Homes and Communities Agency; Urban Regeneration Companies; Urban Development Corporations as well as the private sector, the third sector and Central Government departments (including their delivery agencies and non-departmental public bodies).

There are four chapters to the framework-
•Chapter one sets out what should be different about regeneration in the future. It talks about the nature of deprivation in England and considers what holds places back from reaching their potential.

•Chapter two makes the case for future regeneration to be defined by the outcomes it achieves, rather than the process it follows. This signals a move away from output measures towards the underlying sustainable outcomes.

•Chapter three sets out proposals for a common approach to targeting any investment for regeneration.

•Chapter four sets out proposals for how these changes might impact on the way different agencies work if they were implemented in full.

Transforming Places; changing lives: a framework for regeneration was produced as a draft for consultation and included a series of consultation questions (the consultation period ended on 31 October 2008).

For more on the framework see Urban forum’s briefing:
http://www.urbanforum.org.uk/pdf_files/draft%20framework%20for%20regeneration%20briefing%202008%2010.pdf