THE BLACKPOOL

LOCAL AREA AGREEMENT

THIRD SECTOR REVIEW

Final Report
By David Burnby
Neighbourhood Renewal Adviser

Blackpool Sustainable Urban Renewal Federation a Company Ltd by Guarantee

Registered office: 39 Springfield Road, Blackpool FY1 1PZ
Telephone 01253 749657 Fax 01253 753578
Registration no. 5372011 England
Charity No. 1116153

www.blackpoolsurf.org

1
Introduction
Blackpool SURF would like to thank all those that contributed to the Blackpool
Local Area Agreement third sector review.

The Review process commenced with the establishment of a task group involving
both SURF and CVS members who met between January and March 2007 to plan
the process. The task group submitted a request to Government Office North West
for Neighbourhood Renewal Adviser support. This was granted and the task group
selected David Burnby to carry out the work.

Four focus groups were proposed for April 2007 to discuss and analyse in some
detail the experience of voluntary and community sector engagement in the LAA and
to discover the extent of the knowledge of the LAA that existed. The focus groups
were themed according to the ‘blocks’ of the LAA; Children & Young People,
Healthier Communities & Older People, Economic Well-being, and Stronger & Safer
Communities.

Voluntary and community groups on the SURF and Blackpool Council joint database
were circulated with a briefing document on the LAA and were invited to attend the
most appropriate themed focus group. For those that could not attend a focus
group, there was an option to complete a specially designed questionnaire
(Appendix One – pg 15). A specially designed questionnaire (Appendix Two – pg
18) was also sent to the public sector officers directly responsible for leading on each
‘block’.

The focus groups took place in April and the findings were presented at a
Conference held on May 10th at the Blackpool Football Club entitled “What is the
LAA – The routes to greater involvement and participation”. Participants at the
Conference were encouraged to attend a workshop led by officers from each ‘block’.
The workshops strived not only to review the experience of involvement in the LAA
to date – but crucially – to look at how that experience might be improved in the
future.

Each focus group and the Conference were facilitated by David Burnby. The
Conference workshops were independently facilitated by people nominated by the
Blackpool Local Strategic Partnership.

The following report represents a more detailed overview of this process and
contains a series of conclusions; observations and recommendations. The report
will be fed-back to the third sector via Conference attendees, SURF, CVS , BCVYS
and Blackpool4me. It will be formally submitted to the LSP Assembly for
consideration. It is intended that it will provide a means for all LSP partners to
achieve improved practice in Blackpool regarding voluntary and community
engagement in the LAA.

Ray Duffill

2
Network Manager
June 2007
The Blackpool Local Area Agreement
Review of Voluntary and Community Sector Engagement
May 2007 v2

This report constitutes an overview of the Voluntary and Community Sector’s (VCS) input
to the Blackpool Local Area Agreement (LAA). It was prompted by the publication of the
Blackpool LAA Six Month Review and concern from some members of SURF (the Community
Empowerment Network for Blackpool) about the lack of VCS engagement in the LAA
process and a failure to recognise fully its potential contribution as a key strategic
partner. It has not been possible in the scope of the review to conduct an in depth
evaluation of the VCS engagement in the LAA process and the conclusions drawn are based
on the views and opinions of those VCS organisations who have chosen to attend the focus
groups and LAA review conference. Whilst these views are not necessarily representative
of the very broad and diverse voluntary and community sector in Blackpool, there was a
significant consensus across the process in the views expressed.

The author would like to thank SURF, Blackpool, Fylde and Wyre CVS, Blackpool Council
and the many voluntary and community sector representatives that took part in the
process for their frankness, enthusiasm and patience and also for making his visits to
Blackpool so enjoyable and hospitable.

Background and Context

Chapter 1:2 of the Six Month Review (‘Partnership’) recognises that:

“partner, organisational and stakeholder engagement is an area where there will always
be more that we can do”.

Specifically, the report indicates:

“the involvement of the Community and Voluntary Sector and local people in the LAA
requires strengthening”

The sentence that follows caused particular consternation amongst VCS representatives,
stating:

“Unlike some other areas in the UK we do not yet have the benefit of a flourishing third
sector. This area has traditionally been challenging for Blackpool.”

The Six Month Review goes on to indicate that a Community Engagement Framework is
underway, (a draft of which (dated March 2006) was tabled at the LAA Review Conference
which took place on May 10th) and recognises the role of SURF in bringing VCS
representation to the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP)

LAA Focus Workshops

In order to obtain a detailed view on VCS engagement in the LAA process to date, SURF
convened a series of four, independently facilitated themed workshops corresponding to
the four blocks of the LAA:

3
 • Children and Young People
• Economic Well Being
• Healthy Communities and Older People
• Safer and Stronger Communities

A total of 17 organisations were represented across the four workshops by a total of 21

individuals (some organisations sent different representatives to more than one
workshop). This was by no means a representative sample of VCS organisations in
Blackpool and it is difficult to draw firm conclusions from such a small sample. There were
however recurrent themes across the four workshops which were echoed in the LAA
Review Conference.

The workshop format was based on a questionnaire which was drawn up by SURF and
modified by the author following consultation with the Blackpool LSP Manager.

Awareness of LAAs in general was poor. Only individuals with a direct connection to the
Local Strategic Partnership (LSP), either as SURF representatives or through an LSP
commissioned project, were aware of the LAA and very few could confess to anything
other than a tacit understanding. Attendees at the workshops were invited to indicate on
a scale of 1 to 10 their level of knowledge about LAAs (where 1 equals no knowledge at all
and 10 equals good knowledge). The graphic below illustrates the response:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
       
No knowledge Some knowledge Reasonable knowledge Good knowledge

62% of the sample declared they had either no knowledge or were limited to “some”
knowledge (scoring between 1 and 3 out of 10).

Workshop participants were also invited to comment on their understanding of a range of

LSP supported projects and initiatives. These were:

• Alcohol Harm Reduction Groups

• Alternate
• Falls Strategy Groups
• Operation Counteract
• Positive Steps into Work
• Predict and Prevent
• Reassurance Plus Neighbourhoods
• Senior Voice
• Shiver
• Smoke Free Blackpool
• Sport Nutrients and Physical Activity Alliance
• Springboard

Again, knowledge about these groups and initiatives was limited to LSP representatives
(who recalled agenda items about some of the groups) and a handful of representatives
who had first hand experience (particularly of Reassurance Plus) either as a community
representative or as a service providing agency. The majority of participants in the sample
had not heard of any on the list.

4
Where there was knowledge of the LAA, there was confusion around the LSP’s thematic
partnerships and how these linked into the four blocks of the LAA. Those who were
involved in partnerships were sometimes confused about its name (it was unclear if the
“Older Peoples Forum” and “Senior Voice” were the same thing, for example. One LSP
representative was confused about how the Children’s Trust fits into the Children and
Young People’s Block of the LAA).

In contrast, general awareness of the existence of the Compact was much higher across
the representatives, though many were unclear about its relevance to the LAA and/or
unsure of its status as a ‘live’ document. Mention was made of the Compact Plus launch,
though participants were unsure of subsequent progress.

The statement from the LAA Six Month Review that Blackpool did not have “a flourishing
Third Sector” provoked strong reaction from participants as numerous examples of
voluntary and community activity and service delivery were cited. Many conceded
however that information about VCS activity in Blackpool is limited and uncoordinated and
it is therefore difficult to make an accurate assessment about capacity levels.

Linked into this discussion was the lack of adequate infrastructure support locally for the
sector. Participants were aware of the troubled history between Blackpool, Fylde and
Wyre CVS and SURF which had split the sector making it difficult to achieve any kind of
coherent and accountable representation. Participants acknowledged the progress that
has been made of late in healing old wounds, in particular, the much improved working
relationship between VCS and SURF was noted, but it was evident that there are still
factions within the sector reluctant to work with others. As long as these divides exist,
and disagreements stay in the public domain, then the sector will struggle to gain
credibility with statutory sector partners.

It was recognised that efficiently disseminating information about the LAA is a challenging
task given its inherent complexity. Some participants acknowledged that they’d received
information, but disregarded it, as it seemed too dense and irrelevant to day-to-day
operations.

It became apparent throughout the Review that there were deep-seated and historic
tensions between representatives of “voluntary” and “community” organisations. This
could be a significant driver of the friction between the Area Forums in particular, and the
broader VCS. Many representatives from the Area Forums that sit on the LSP are not
necessarily accountable back to bona fide community groups which means that the extent
to which information “trickles down” is limited. Similarly, the opportunity to
communicate issues and priorities from communities to inform the Community Strategy
and the LAA’s local priorities are also limited.

Some participants in the workshops were critical of what they described as “the usual
suspects” representing the Area Forums on the LSP. Because lines of accountability are
unclear, their status as bona-fide representatives is called into question and it is
suggested that many bring their own personal views rather a representative view of the
communities they represent.

The LAA Questionnaire

A questionnaire drawn up by SURF and modified by the NRA following consultation with
the Blackpool LSP Manager was circulated to those SURF members who had expressed an
interest in the Focus Groups, but were unable to attend. Unfortunately, responses to the
questionnaire were poor with only 13 being returned representing just 7 organisations,
three of which were also represented at the workshops. Responses to the questionnaires

5
were consistent with the issues raised in the themed workshops, but represented too small
a sample to draw any firm conclusions.

The Block Leads Questionnaire

To help inform the review process, six questionnaires were sent to the Block Leads for the
LAA covering the four main block themes with Healthier Communities & Older People and
Children & Young People split into separate block leads. Three questionnaires were
returned: Health, Children and Older People.

The three Block Leads were positive about how the LAA is working. The Children Block
Lead cited key areas of success in reductions in teenage pregnancy rates, improved
educational attainment at Key Stage 3, improvements in social care core assessments
completed within timescales and improvements in school attendance. It was recognised
by the Health lead that further work is still needed on funding priorities and streams.

The Health lead cited the greatest level of VCS engagement through subgroups of the
Health Inequalities Partnership including representation and stakeholder events. These
included:

• Accidents (Age Concern/Consultation with Senior Voice)

• Tobacco Control (Regular stakeholder days, last stakeholder Day 8 December 2006)
• Warmer Homes (Advice Link/Operation Counter Attack Launch)
• Sexual Health LIT (Body Positive, Heal, Drugline/Stakeholder event with Youth
Council)
• Alcohol Harm Reduction Partnership (ADS/Stakeholder event)
• SNPA Alliance (CVS, Sporting Associations, Residents Association/Consultation Events
– youth forum, area forums)

The CVS and PPI on Health Inequalities Officers Group and Partnership were also cited as
sources of representation, and the VCS was credited with delivering various services
including health trainers, sexual health, sport, activity and nutrition and breast feeding.

The Children’s Block Lead explained the commitment to VCS engagement in some detail
and stressed Blackpool Council’s commitment through its LAA and Children and Young
People’s Plan (C&YPP) to work more effectively with the Voluntary, Community and Faith
Sector. It was noted that the VCS was consulted on the Children and Young People’s Plan
and that SURF provided “some very useful and comprehensive feedback”, however, the it
was noted that VCS were consulted on a draft of the plan and were not involved in its
early development.

It was explained that the 9 priorities of Blackpool’s Children and Young People’s Plan, and
the aligned LAA Children’s Block outcomes are owned by Blackpool Children’s Trust, a sub-
group of the LSP. It was noted that there are three VCS agencies linked to the Trust:
Barnardos, NSPCC and the CVS and that one of the themes for the Trust meetings has been
the engagement of the voluntary sector.

The Older People Block Lead cited Services Users and Carers, Age Concern, Senior Voice
Forum and the PPI Forum as VCS engagement in the LAA, noting that Age Concern is part
of the delivery programme.

When asked about the perception of the VCS’s capacity to engage in the LAA process,
either as strategic partners or as deliverers of services, only the Children and Young
People block responded in any detail. The Lead’s comments are re-produced below:

6
“There is currently a perceived lack of capacity within the VCS to delivery the services
that the C&YPD would like to commission and work needs to be done to help grow the
sector by increasing activity, finances and membership. Numbers of volunteers in the
town are well below the national average, although it is recognised that in Blackpool
there is still work to be done on how members of the public who volunteer are counted.
There are also not the same numbers of VCS agencies working in Blackpool compared with
our neighbours across the North West.

While it would be fair to say that the Voluntary community and faith sector is active in
Blackpool, there would be benefits form a greater degree of coordination across the
sector. The Children’s Trust has undertaken a volunteer involvement questionnaire
across services to identify where volunteers are engaged within the statutory sector.

The C&YPD has commissioned an audit to establish the capacity of the CVS to deliver
services on behalf of the C&YPD and to liaise with the sector to identify the skills
required for a full time worker to act as a link/development worker between the sector
and the C&YPD. Connexions and the Blackpool Council for Voluntary Youth Services
(BCVYS) have taken forward the funding of a post to help build capacity in the CVS to
supporting young people Not in Education, Employment or Training (NEET)”

The Health Lead shared the perception of VCS lack of capacity.

When invited to comment on the challenges faced in dealing with VCS organisations,
either as strategic partners, consultees or service providers, again, only the Children and
Young People’s Lead responded in any detail (reproduced below):

“The recent audit undertaken on behalf of the C&YPD identified the need to work closer
with the VCS to enable them to build capacity to enable longer term joint working
between the two sectors i.e. voluntary and statutory. The feed back from the VCS, albeit
from just over half of the VCS agencies that work with the C&YPD, was fairly positive
regarding their experience of joint working but clearly identified some of the barriers to
effective working currently in place, these included:

• Short term contracts restricting longer term planning

• VCS viewed as the poor relation and therefore lack of recognition as to the benefits
they can bring

• Lack of involvement in strategic planning

• Misinformed perceptions regarding both the Statutory and VCS from both sides

The C&YPD are committed to employing an officer who will work closely with the VCS to
help overcome some of the barriers to joint working.”

The Health and Older people Block Leads did not identify any challenges, though the
Health Lead made the observation that community views often differ from the national
evidence (informed by national and international research).

In terms of applying the National Compact to the LAA process, of the four options offered:

• 1 block lead felt a code should be developed or adapted on sector involvement in

the LAA

7
 • No one felt the Compact should be clearly linked with the LAA
• 1 considered that there should be an annual review of LAA involvement in the LAA
and
• 1 supported the appointment of a person with authority on each block theme as a
champion for VCS engagement

The LAA Review Conference

The LAA Review Conference convened jointly by SURF, Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde CVS and
BCVYS (the Blackpool Council for Voluntary Youth Service) took place at the Blackpool
Football Club on 10th May 2007 and was attended by 84 people representing 47
organisations. Most of the delegates stayed with the conference for the full day.

The conference aimed to both raise general awareness of the LAA and provide an
opportunity for statutory sector partners to review the LAA process to date. The morning
sessions featured a panel of speakers who participated in a “Question Time” style session,
joined by Joel Tagg from GONW, to respond to participants’ questions to conclude the
morning session. The speakers were:

• David Burnby (NRA) General Introduction to LAAs

• Kate Housden (LAA Project Worker, NAVCA)
The national experience of VCS engagement in LAAs
• Annabel Hammond (Blackpool LSP manager)
Progress to date with the Blackpool LAA
• Martin Honeywell (NRA) Experience of developing the Compact in the West
Midlands

In the afternoon, there were four independently facilitated workshops mirroring the four
block themes of the LAA, each featuring input from the LAA Block Leads (the officers
charged with writing the respective themed chapters of the LAA). A fifth workshop
facilitated by Annabel Hammond featured an introduction to LAAs for those less
experienced in the four themed blocks.

Much of the output from the workshops echoed that of the focus groups prior to the
conference. Recurrent themes included a lack of trust between the VCS and the Statutory
Sector and lack of accessible information about the LAA process including issues around
use of language and acronyms.

A specific idea that emerged from the Children and Young People workshop was to stage a
community/voluntary awards evening for young people and volunteers to celebrate what
has been achieved and highlight what the sector can offer. It was suggested such an
evening could attract private sector sponsorship.

Three conclusions were shared by all the workshops and warmly received during the
plenary feedback sessions:

• The VCS must speak with a single, united voice

• Voluntary and Community Sector representation to the LSP and in the LAA process
should be co-ordinated through a single Infrastructure Support Organisation that has
the confidence of both the wider VCS and statutory sector partners
• The Compact needs enacting and applied to the LAA process

8
Community Engagement Framework for Blackpool
A particular focus has been made on this draft framework, as it is potentially pivotal to
future VCS representation in the LAA. The Local Government White Paper published in
March 2006 reinforces the importance of community engagement in the Sustainable
Community Strategy, the LAA and the Local Development Framework and calls for
“... [a] comprehensive engagement strategy which captures the planned community
engagement requirements of the individual partners and, where possible, combines
activity.”1

Blackpool Council has compiled a community engagement framework, the first draft being
published in March 2006. It was authored by the Blackpool Council’s Community
Development Unit, and in its rationale states that

“..structured community engagement and involvement systems will be at the core of the
agreements”

The document was tabled at the LAA Review Conference, and it was noticeable that
knowledge of the draft was very limited. The document places the lead role of community
engagement in the hands of the Council’s Community Development Unit stating, in the
proposed terms of reference, that it will “lead on all matters relating to community
development and engagement”. There is scant reference to the voluntary and community
sector throughout the draft, though there is a proposal included to create a “Triangle
Partnership between CVS, CDU and SURF”, one of only two references to SURF or CVS in
the strategy (which both appear in the appendices as actions). To date there has been no
progress to establish this partnership.

The Strategy describes community engagement as a process to be brought into play,

triggered by a series of considerations listed as “Criteria for Community Engagement”. In
the “Terms of Reference for Community Engagement”, the first phase (“Analyse the
Issues”) suggests that a decision should be made whether or not to engage the community
following a risk analysis of not doing so. This places the community as a passive player in
the policy making process, responding from time to time to issues considered of sufficient
interest or sensitivity through varying levels of consultation. This is at odds with the
philosophy of community empowerment that mainstreams community representation at
the heart of the strategic development process as equal partners in developing vision, key
outcomes and priorities.

The role of the Community Empowerment Network is to facilitate this process, yet the
virtual absence of reference to SURF (and CVS) as key partners in the community
engagement process is symptomatic of how their role and the role of the VCS appears to
have been marginalised. (See conclusions and recommendations)

A Standard for VCS Representation

The need to establish a standard for VCS representation has been recognised by
Government in the Local Government White Paper (Strong & Prosperous Communities). It
states that

“We will also work with national third sector umbrella bodies to establish a standard by
which local third sector bodies should organise themselves to be effectively represented
on LSPs.”2

1
Strong and Prosperous Communities, paragraph 5.61, Page 110 (DCLG 2006)
2
Strong and prosperous communities, paragraph 5.20, page 98 (DCLG 2006)

9
Research from the Second Round of LAAs however identified the difficulties:

“The VCS is increasingly involved in LAA governance structures, but although many in the
VCS are aware of the LAA, understanding of what the LAA means in practice does not
seem to run very deep and effective engagement of the VCS is in many locations impeded
by the sector’s fragmentation and lack of capacity…this is also, in some cases, used as an
excuse for failing to involve them.”3

As a third sector umbrella body, NAVCA is currently working on a national standard for VCS
representation and, in laying out some basic principles, suggests that Local Infrastructure
Organisations (such as CVS or SURF) should ensure the local VCS:

• is well informed
• reflects the diversity of the local community
• identifies needs and solutions
• meets and communicates well
• collaborates
• is involved planning and policy making
• contributes to partnerships
• understands partnership roles & responsibilities

In principle, a national standard should ensure that local statutory sector partners are:

• informed about changing needs in the local community

• aware of the sector’s role, expertise and value
• able to engage with all communities
• connected to the most excluded communities
• prepared to buy-in to a partnership of equals
• willing to resource the Standard

Overall, NAVCA suggests that the proposed National Standard must:

• be owned by the VCS and deliver real improvements for local communities.
• enable VCS and statutory partners to meet halfway
• not become a bureaucratic straightjacket
• enable wider and deeper community engagement

Conclusions, Observations and Recommendations

• VCS involvement in the design of the LAA has been limited. Where there has been
VCS representation through the LSP, it has been fragmented and not necessarily well
coordinated or accountable back to the wider sector. The language used in the
workshops suggests that the VCS does not see itself as a partner in the renewal of
Blackpool, but more a critic of the statutory sector. This suggests that the status of
the partnership between the VCS and statutory sector agencies is somewhat tenuous.
• General awareness of the LAA is very low in the VCS. Whilst this in itself may be
inconsequential in terms of the LAA as a technical process, it is important that VCS
organisations are aware that they have the opportunity through the sector’s
representatives on the Blackpool LSP to influence local priorities and outcomes. A
3
Source LAA Research: Round 2 Negotiations & Early Progress in Round 1

10
 basic “Understanding LAAs” document written in user friendly language would help,
featuring a clear “road map” of VCS routes into the process. This should include the
routes between various working groups or forums and the LSP thematic partnerships,
and in turn, each block of the LAA. It should be clear who the sector’s
representatives are, to whom they are accountable and how they can be influenced.
• Fragmentation in the Blackpool VCS and poor standards of representation in the past
have damaged the sector’s credibility as a partner in the LSP. Some quarters of the
VCS have the capacity to engage as equal partners in the LSP at both a strategic and
service delivery level. Others, in the majority, have little capacity and lack the
skills, knowledge and experience to engage effectively. The LSP recognises there is a
capacity building need, yet the VCS support infrastructure in Blackpool is extremely
weak and lacks the resources to deliver.
• A group of organisations as diverse as the VCS will inevitably have differences of
opinion, particularly when organisations are drawn into competition with one
another for scare resources. Nevertheless, to retain credibility, the sector must
debate differences of opinion constructively with a view to reaching consensus on
key issues. Processes must be inclusive and transparent so that representatives are
accountable to their peers and can speak authoritatively around the partnership
table with a single voice.
• There is a pressing need for an adequately resourced, Blackpool focussed generic
Local Infrastructure Organisation (LIO) which incorporates the existing SURF network
as part of a single organisation. The organisation should be owned and managed by
the sector itself with a representative governing body elected by its members.
Whilst there is likely to be longer term savings on overheads by merging SURF into a
new, Blackpool focussed organisation, the driver should not be cost, but the creation
of a single, accountable voice for the sector that can speak with authority. NAVCA
(National Association of Voluntary and Community Action), the national body for
LIOs, publishes a Performance Standard which outlines five core functions:
o The organisation pro-actively identifies needs in the local community
and facilitates improvement in service provision to meet those needs
o The organisation assists local voluntary and community organisations to
function more effectively and deliver quality services to their users,
members or constituents.
o The organisation facilitates effective communication or networking and
collaboration amongst local voluntary and community groups.
o The organisation enables the diverse views of the local voluntary and
community sector to be represented to external bodies, developing and
facilitating structures which promote effective working relationships and
two-way communication.
o The organisation enhances the voluntary and community
sector’s role as an integral part of local planning and policy-making.
As a rule of thumb, NAVCA recommends that the minimum core budget for a LIO is
£200,000 per annum (which does not include a Community Empowerment Network or
Volunteer Centre) which is significantly more than the existing CVS receives to
service three local authority districts. Without this level of investment, it is difficult
to see how the infrastructure support needs of the sector can be met and its
potential realised. It is recommended that any service level agreement negotiated to
fund a LIO along these lines should have a requirement that the organisation works

11
 towards achieving the NAVCA performance standard (independently audited) within
two years.
• Once a generic LIO is in place, VCS representation to the LSP should be drawn
exclusively through the Community Empowerment Network to ensure that
representatives are accountable back to the broader sector and are properly trained
and supported in their role. Given the historic tensions between community groups
(represented by volunteers) and voluntary organisations (represented by paid
workers) it is legitimate to differentiate between the two when deciding
representation across the LSP. Both have their role to play and each brings a
different perspective. Paid workers in voluntary organisations work in communities
and have specialist skills and knowledge. Volunteers in community groups have first
hand experience of their communities as residents or as part of the community of
interest they share. It would do no harm to create places across the LSP for both
Voluntary and Community representatives, both co-ordinated through the SURF
network, to ensure both perspectives are maximised.
• There are no hard and fast definitions for “voluntary organisations” and “community
organisations”. CENs that differentiate between the two for representation purposes
will generally ask groups to define their own status when joining the CEN, subject to
challenge by the broader membership if it is felt the organisation is misrepresenting
its status. As a broad rule of thumb:
- Voluntary organisations will be accountable through formalised voluntary
governance, will most likely (though not necessarily) employ paid workers
to further its aims and objectives and will typically be involved in service
delivery in exchange for grant funding or a contractual arrangement
- Community Organisations will represent either a geographical community
or a community of interest and will tend to be governed on a less formal
basis with limited funding. They will be less likely to employ paid workers
or be involved in formalised service delivery.
• A Learning Plan is needed, drawn up by the LSP in partnership with the VCS to
identify gaps in skills and knowledge and propose a range of learning opportunities
for voluntary and community organisations looking to engage in the LSP and the LAA
process. There are models of learning that have developed out of the Government’s
“Learning Curve” strategy (first published in 2002) designed to bridge the skills gaps
necessary for successful neighbourhood renewal. Many Community Empowerment
Networks across the country have commissioned excellent learning programmes such
as “How Your City Works” courses covering local governance issues and broadening
awareness of the roles and contributions of partner agencies. The capacity within
the VCS locally to deliver training should not be underestimated. Council Members
and Officers could also benefit from training designed to create a greater awareness
of local VCS functions, support needs and potential.
• More innovative ways of disseminating information about the LAA need to be
developed which don’t rely exclusively on the written word. Where documents are
circulated by SURF, they should feature a précis focussing on the most relevant
points and written in accessible language. Where acronyms are used, they should be
defined in a glossary of terms. Developing appropriate filtering mechanisms for
information on the LAA is a skill SURF needs to develop further. One approach is to
ask organisations what level of information they require. Some groups will feel they
need to receive detailed information on all aspects of the LAA. Others will only want
to see information relevant to their group or sub-sector. The SURF web site is a good
resource which could be further developed to provide a more comprehensive data

12
 base of information, including the basic “road map” discussed elsewhere in this
report.
• The appointment of a senior Councillor as “Champion” for the VCS in Blackpool
would help streamline communications between the Council and the VCS, and keep
issues on the agenda, perhaps supported by a Senior Officer with a specific brief to
support VCS development and community engagement
• The draft Community Engagement Framework signals a clear intent by Blackpool
Council to consult with relevant communities over particular issues, but fails to
address some fundamental community empowerment principles. It is suggested that
the LSP takes on the task of moving the Framework on to produce a Community
Engagement Strategy as proposed in the Local Government White Paper which
includes community engagement standards and related indicators embracing the
basic principles outlined by NAVCA. The document should address in clear language
how communities will engage in the LAA process as equal partners at a strategic and
operational level. The task of preparing the first draft in consultation with key
stakeholders would fall naturally within SURF’s remit that could be given the lead on
behalf of the LSP, thus ensuring VCS ownership from the start of the process.
• A significant investment has been made in drawing up the Compact, but general
awareness and understanding within the VCS appears to be limited, both within the
VCS and amongst other partners. The Compact agreement has the potential to
harmonise the working relationship between the VCS and statutory sector partners,
yet it has failed to achieve buy-in across the sector and many VCS representatives
appear ambivalent and, in some cases, hostile towards it. VCS representatives have
also complained about lack of progress on implementing and monitoring progress on
the Compact since its launch. The Compact needs to become a central feature of the
LAA negotiations and delegates have signalled a desire to see the LAA “Compact
Proofed”. The production of a Compact Implementation Strategy is recommended.
It should be a permanent agenda item on LSP and SURF agendas so it becomes a
development agenda rather than a static document. VCS ambivalence and hostility
towards the Compact needs to be surfaced, understood and addressed as it requires
total buy-in on both sides (voluntary and statutory) to become an effective tool and
generate constructive dialogue and improved practice. Progress with the Compact
may be assisted by appointing a senior Champion within the LSP to co-ordinate the
statutory side of the agreement and liaise directly with the VCS.

David Burnby
Neighbourhood Renewal Advisor
May 2007

13
Glossary of Acronyms used in the Report

ADS Alcohol and Drugs Service

BCVYS Blackpool Council for Voluntary Youth Service

C&YPP Children and Young People’s Plan

C&YPD Children & Young People’s Department (Blackpool Council)

CDU Community Development Unit (Blackpool Council)

CEN Community Empowerment Network

CVS Council for Voluntary Service

GONW Government Office for the North West

ISO Infrastructure Support Organisation

LAA Local Area Agreement

LIT Local Implementation Team

LSP Local Strategic Partnership

NAVCA National Association of Voluntary and Community Action

(Previously the National Association of Councils for Voluntary Service)

NEET Not In Education, Employment or Training

NRA Neighbourhood Renewal Advisor

Members of a national panel of neighbourhood renewal specialists supported by the
government’s Neighbourhood Renewal Unit and available to advise local
neighbourhood renewal projects, commissioned by local government offices.

PPI Patient and Public Involvement

SNPA Sport Nutrients and Physical Activity (Alliance)

SURF Sustainable Urban Renewal Federation (the Blackpool CEN)

Third Sector
Used as an alternative to the VCS as a general term embracing voluntary,
community, and faith groups as well as social enterprise

VCS Voluntary and Community Sector

14
Appendix One - Local Area Agreement Review – Questionnaire
The purpose of this questionnaire is to seek the view of voluntary, community and faith
sector groups in Blackpool (referred to as “The Sector”) about the Blackpool Local Area
Agreement (LAA). It is designed to help identify how future revisions of the LAA can best
engage The Sector to ensure better outcomes for the people of Blackpool. Comments will
not be attributed to individual organisations. References to “Themed Issues” relate to the
four themes or ‘block’s of the LAA, i.e.

 Children and Young People

 Economic Well Being
 Health and Older People
 Safer and Stronger Communities

1. Please indicate, by placing a cross along the line below (over the numbers), the level
of your knowledge about the Blackpool Local Area Agreement, where 1 equals no
knowledge at all and 10 equals good knowledge

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
No knowledge Some knowledge Reasonable knowledge Good knowledge

2. Have you ever received specific information about LAAs from the LSP or SURF?

Yes – Good information Any comments about this?

Yes – Some Information

No – No information

3. Does your organisation have experience of, or involvement in any of the four themes
that may be of relevance to the LAA? (please indicate all that are relevant)

Children and Young People Economic Well Being

Health and Older People Safer and Stronger Communities

4. Does your organisation have involvement in any of the following projects? (please
indicate all that are relevant)

Springboard Positive Steps into Work

Reassurance Plus/Neighbourhoods Alternate
Shiver Predict and Prevent
Operation Counteract Alcohol Harm Reduction Groups
Smoke Free Blackpool Falls Strategy Groups
Sport Nutrients and Physical Activity
Senior Voice
Alliance

15
5. What has been your organisation’s involvement in the LAA theme?
(please tick all that apply)

I have been consulted at the design/development stage of the LAA

I have been consulted in connection with the delivery of the LAA

I am a strategic partner in the LAA theme

I am a strategic partner in the LSP Assembly, Executive

or a thematic partnership*

We are delivering services contributing towards LAA outcomes

I attended the Blackpool Debate

* i.e. Children’s Trust, Stronger Communities Partnership, BSafe, Health Inequalities Partnership,
Older Peoples Commissioning Group, Economic Partnership.

6. Please describe any difficulties you have experienced in getting/staying involved in the
LAA process or projects

7. What would help you and/or your organisation get (or stay) involved in the LAA
process or projects?

8. Do you feel The Sector needs to change in order to contribute more effectively towards
the LAA? And if so, how?

16
9. What are you views on this review of The Sector’s involvement in the LAA?

 Should it be an annual event? YES / NO / DON’T KNOW

 Should The Sector develop its own strategic action plan covering engagement and
service delivery?
YES / NO / DON’T KNOW

Any Other Comments

Completed by:

Organisation:
Appendix Two - LAA Review – Block Leads Questionnaire

17
The purpose of this questionnaire is to inform workshop discussions at the forthcoming
Local Area Agreement Review conference and help to promote constructive voluntary and
community sector engagement in the LAA. It is intended that the completed
questionnaires are circulated to conference delegates in advance of the conference and it
is therefore requested that this is completed and returned to SURF to arrive no later than
Monday 30th April 2007.

LAA Block Theme

Completed By (Block Lead)

1. From your experience and evidence to date, is the LAA working as you anticipated? If
not, could you highlight the aspects that have failed to live up to your expectations?

2. What is your experience of Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS) engagement in the
LAA to date? Please could you cite specific examples of roles in:

 Strategic Planning and Design

 Information provided for the VCS
 Consultation exercises undertaken with VCS Groups
 Other forms of VCS participation in the design and/or delivery of the LAA

18
3. What added value (if any) has the VCS brought to your LAA theme?

4. What arrangements (if any) were made to liaise or brief VCS organisations in your Block
theme (e.g was specific information sent out to VCS organisations?) In making any
arrangements, did you refer to the Compact?

5. Can you approximate the percentage of services delivered (in value terms) by VCS
organisations under your themed block of the LAA

19
6. Is there a cost of community engagement or community involvement factored into your
block?

Yes No

7. What is your perception of the VCS’s capacity to engage in the LAA process, either as
strategic partners or as deliverers of services?

8. What challenges do you face in dealing with VCS organisations, either as strategic
partners, consultees or service providers?

20
9. Have you any thoughts on what could address the challenges indicated above?

10. The following approaches are recommended in the National Compact in relation to
working with VCS organisations. Which (if any) do you think are feasible for Blackpool?
(please tick as appropriate)

• Develop or adapt a code on sector involvement in LAA

• Link Compact clearly with LAA – ‘Compact proof’ the LAA

and ensure it is Compact compliant

• An annual event to review sector involvement in LAA,

using Compact as guiding tool

• The appointment of a person with authority on each

block theme to ‘champion’ sector involvement.

Any other comments?

21