[WiLT] Cohesion Guidance for Funders Consultation - Summary of responses

[WiL Admin]

Cohesion Guidance for Funders Consultation - Summary of responses

“ … we have concluded that guidelines from central government are not
the way forward. Instead, we look to local leaders to show a measured
approach, drawing on their knowledge of what’s happening in their
neighbourhood: taking tough decisions if necessary and being prepared
to explain and answer for them: and using all their ingenuity to bring
people from different backgrounds together. … “


Forward

Cohesion – how we all live together in a diverse society – is one of
the most important issues of our age.

In June 2007 the independent Commission on Integration and Cohesion
produced a series of recommendations on what more government, both
central and local, could do to create a sense of shared belonging in
every neighbourhood.

In February 2008 the Government set out its response, a series of
practical actions to help people from different backgrounds come
together.

One of the most sensitive issues raised by the Commission was what is
known as “single group funding.” They recommended that local councils
and other public bodies should avoid funding “single identity” groups
aiming exclusively or primarily to support a particular community
“unless there is a clear reason for capacity building.” The Commission
also suggested that a condition of funding for any single groups might
be that they were encouraged to take steps to promote interaction with
others.

We have consulted widely on this issue. As you will see, it has
generated passionate comment. This document summarises the submissions
we received. On one hand, some respondents have argued that single
group funding is vital to support organisations that are particularly
helpful to some of society’s most vulnerable and marginalised people.
They argue that these groups also play a vital role in supporting
cohesion, because they help people from a specific group develop the
confidence to play a more active role in the wider community. The
Government agrees that in some cases single group funding can be an
effective use of resources. Indeed, this idea underpins our own work
on the REACH programme to raise the aspirations of young black men and
boys.

On the other hand, some respondents argue that the principle
identified by the Commission is sound – that funding specific groups
can create resentment among others when the body providing funding is
not prepared to communicate its decision clearly and take
responsibility for it. The Government agrees that proper transparency
about funding decisions is vital to capture the confidence of the
wider public.

It is clear that there is often a delicate call to be made about
single group funding. Based on the evidence we have received, we
consider that it is only local leaders who can properly understand the
context, assess the local circumstances, and be in a position to make
a truly informed choice. Therefore we have concluded that guidelines
from central government are not the way forward. Instead, we look to
local leaders to show a measured approach, drawing on their knowledge
of what’s happening in their neighbourhood: taking tough decisions if
necessary and being prepared to explain and answer for them: and using
all their ingenuity to bring people from different backgrounds
together. We will say more about ways local areas can take positive
steps to promote meaningful interaction in guidance shortly

Getting this right is even more important at a time when communities
are dealing with the new demands and strains of the global financial
crisis. But as this document shows, no-one has more expertise or
passion than local leaders, and I am confident that they can make it
happen.

Hazel Blears


Executive summary

This document summarises responses to Communities and Local Government
’s consultation on draft Cohesion Guidance for Funders, which ran from
February to May 2008.

Of the 98 responses received to Communities and Local Government’s
consultation on the draft Cohesion Guidance for Funders, two thirds
were from the third sector, and most of the remainder came from local
authorities. Half of the total number of responses came from third
sector organisations supporting a specific client group, and the
largest proportion of those groups were defined by ethnicity. We had
fewer responses from other community workers, community bodies or
funders who have raised issues about aspects of single group funding
outside the formal consultation process.

The consultation revealed limited support for the proposed guidance –
with just over half of respondents agreeing with the underpinning
principles to some degree, and just over a third supporting the key
questions for funders to some extent. However some respondents were
critical of having guidance, or specific elements of it, in this form.
Around 10 per cent of respondents – including some representing a much
larger membership – thought that the guidance should not be published
and advocated a range of alternative approaches centred on developing
a closer relationship with the voluntary and community sector.

Support was greatest for Communities and Local Government’s
recognition of the clear link between equality and cohesion, the
principle that the guidance should apply to mainstream groups as to
single groups, and for the emphasis on decisions being based on the
local context.

However many respondents were critical of the tone of the guidance
which they considered appeared to:
• promote cohesion at the expense of equality
• misrepresent single groups and reinforce negative stereotypes
• make selective use of the evidence base and case studies
• rely on theories and concepts perceived to be flawed or poorly
explained
• be inconsistent and incompatible with other relevant government
policies, the legislative framework and Compact Codes, and
• challenge the independence of the third sector.

Some felt that, while mainstreaming might be the ideal, we were a long
way from achieving it, and that single groups were crucial to making
progress. Many organisations used their response to enumerate the
perceived implications of the guidance as drafted, key among these
being the perception that it could be used by funders to justify
cutting funding to single groups, reducing access to services and
thereby increasing inequality and hampering cohesion. It was not
however clear how widely the definition of “single group” was intended
to be drawn. A substantial minority felt strongly that funders were
already using the draft guidance to justify cutting funding to single
groups.

The key questions around implementation of the guidance concerned how
the extent and effectiveness of its application could be measured and
monitored, and how funders would ensure accountability and
transparency around all funding decisions, not just those perceived to
be potentially controversial. Some felt that the question of certain
parts of the community resenting the allocation of funding to others
was handled poorly by the guidance.

If funding applicants were to be able to demonstrate their
contribution to cohesion effectively in future project plans, they
would need guidance from funders. The requirement to articulate future
plans and to broaden single group activity to contribute to community
cohesion would need to be proportionate to the size of the
organisation and the grant available, and staged in recognition of the
time taken to introduce bridging activity alongside bonding. Funders
would be expected to exercise judgement in making individual
decisions.

While some funders were confident that they had the right information
and resources to enable them to make effective decisions, most third
sector respondents thought that they did not. It was felt that funders
lacked understanding of local community needs and capacity, and that
their commissioning skills could be improved. Funders had access to
limited information on need, and were not necessarily equipped to
interpret it accurately. The consistent view was that funders should
develop a closer relationship and better / more transparent
communication with their local voluntary and community sector, which
was best placed to assess needs and how these could be addressed.

Respondents agreed that access to funding, leadership skills and
misconceptions were among the key barriers to bridging. A range of
others were identified, including physical segregation and mild
economic deprivation. Community groups would need additional support
to enable them to broaden their focus and overcome particular barriers
including resource limitations and a lack of understanding of cohesion
and their potential contribution to it. Among the proposed solutions
there was action for national and local government to ensure complete
clarity on policy and to communicate this effectively, and to develop
close and supportive working relationships with the third sector.

Pragmatically speaking, the omission of references to cohesion in
charitable objects was not felt to be a genuine barrier to funders
working with third sector organisations to promote cohesion, although
some respondents felt that this was an example of the government
challenging the sector’s independence. The consultation responses
contained over a hundred good practice examples of projects balancing
bridging activity with meeting diverse needs. The widest range of
examples focused on education, community centres, events, and advice
and support.

Most operated at local authority level and had been sustained over
time. There was a good spread of examples encompassing bilateral or
multilateral contact between specific groups, and contact that engaged
one or more single groups with the wider community.

Many examples were also provided of funders perceived to be working
well to promote cohesion locally – some third sector respondents
commented that charitable funders had a better understanding of the
voluntary and community sector’s ethos. A handful of funders, mainly
local authorities, provided a description of their own good practice
funding processes.

Extract from the 64 page report

Cohesion Guidance for Funders Consultation: Summary of responses

Published: 11 December 2008
Product code: 08CFU05410
ISBN: 9781409802273

This document summarises responses to Communities and Local
Government's consultation on draft Cohesion Guidance for Funders,
which ran from February 2008 to May 2008.

This publication is only available online - see link below to
download.

If you require this publication in an alternative format (eg Braille
or audio) please email alternativeformats at communities.gsi.gov.uk
quoting the title and product code/ISBN of the publication, and your
address and telephone number.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/communities/cohesionguidancesummary