DRAFT: Fairness Commission
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
DRAFT: Fairness Commission [This is a working title. Need to consider alternative titles]
Purpose
To provide options on how to conduct a Fairness Commission to inform the way the city should address poverty and advance equality of opportunity.
Aims and objectives of the Commission
The purpose of the Commission will be about tackling poverty and inequality. Based on an analysis of need the Commission will provide an opportunity to shape strategic approaches and interventions, and be a key driver in allocation Council (and potentially other) priorities and finances. The Commission will examine the building blocks of human, social, environmental and fixed capital to identify where effort can most effectively be targeted and make the biggest difference on prevention and intervention.
[Drafting Note: would be helpful to insert a diagram here showing these four types of capital]
It will use evidence to see how we can get more ‘outcome’ from the resources. An aim will be for the Commission to have the backing of the main political parties in the city.
The objectives include:
1. To influence and inform the 2012/13 budget of the Council and other bodies. This would involve having some immediate impact in terms of doing things differently and how to distribute the Council budget in a way that makes the biggest difference. It would also test budget proposals to make sure there aren’t any unintended consequences which increase poverty. [Need to make a SMART objective]
2. Testing existing and new policies. This would include reviewing the impact of current activities and the potential impact of new activities [Need to make a SMART objective]
3. Tackling long-term inequalities. The Commission would look in detail at the evidence in the city and what has worked elsewhere in considering what recommendations might be best for Sheffield. This would need the involvement of the other public sector agencies in the city. This would include addressing gender and ethnicity issues as well as poverty across the whole population. [Need to make a SMART objective]
Draft version: 5 1 of 12 The recommendations produced by the Commission: o would include what resources should be devolved or centralised o would include some effective short and medium term measures to alleviate the impact of poverty. o would include medium and long term recommendations to tackle root causes, extend wealth and extend opportunity. o might not necessarily cost o might not be in the gift of local agencies and require lobbying of national government
The financial context and costs involved will be an important consideration within the terms of reference for the commission.
Background
In Sheffield just over a fifth of households (approx 50,000) are living in poverty. This is using the definition of poverty as an income less than 60% of the median income. However, poverty is not only about money. It is also about health, education, community and aspiration.
The Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) take into account income, employment, health and disability, education, skills and training, barriers to housing and services, crime and living environment. IMD shows that over the period 2007 to 2010 more parts of Sheffield have become more deprived – 48 separate city geographies are now in the 5% most deprived in the country. Since 2007 the gap between the worst off and best off people across Sheffield has increased.
There are also significant inequalities in the city. For example BME people have lower average rates of employment. Women also have lower rates of employment, with ethnic minority females having much lower rates of employment than all other groups. Educational attainment for White British children tends to be higher than overall BME, but ethnic groups vary dramatically.
The recession has had an impact with JSA claimants rising from 7,650 (2.1%) in December 2007 to a peak of 16,955 (4.6%) in Feb 2010. At June 2011 there were 16,165, (4.4%) claimants.
The Council and partners are already working to tackle poverty and increase social justice. Some examples include: The Free Insulation Scheme offers free loft and cavity wall insulation to home owners and private rented tenants across Sheffield. The Health Inequalities Action Plan which outlines our aim to have good health for all in Sheffield and tackle inequalities. Developing a Child Poverty Strategy Fund an extensive network of voluntary sector advice centres across the city to support people facing financial crisis and to develop money management skills.
Draft version: 5 2 of 12 The Council is exploring how it can move from doing indirect work to alleviate poverty towards direct work which tackles root causes and addresses short term problems as well.
Poverty, inequalities and social justice are important issues to the new Administration. The Leader has asked officers to provide some options on how a “Fairness Commission” could operate in Sheffield. The “Fairness Commission” title is a working title and we will need to consider different names. Other possibilities could include ‘Tackling Poverty Commission’ or ‘Anti-Poverty Commission.’
The focus will be on poverty and inequality to make Sheffield a fairer place for everyone who lives and works here. [Drafting question: Does this section need to be bolder? Is it also about extending aspiration, opportunity, power, voice and wealth to more people?]
Options
There appear to be five broad models:
1. Standing Forum – ongoing 2. Event Based Commission – 6-9 months 3. Select committee-style Commission – 3-5 months 4. Conference style Commission – 3 months 5. Combination
[Drafting note: this section may need to be redrafted - the Leader has said she favours the Select Committee model.]
The table overleaf has a brief summary of each option and a summary of the issues for each option:
Draft version: 5 3 of 12 Project: Fairness Commission – summary of issues/options Options Environment Timing Cost Score Standing Forum Positive – Shows long term Positive – test Positive – build Independently chaired body reporting commitment, builds proposals and impact of into business to the Council and/or SEB on understanding and interventions over planning for progress on poverty/social justice ownership, reference for longer term contributing Provides and commissions strategic core, test issues in Negative – responsive services/agencies authoritative analysis depth and consider enough to demands of Negative – ongoing Evaluates effectiveness of policies emerging issues budget timetable expenses and Identifies best practice and new Negative – Risks drift, support costs – approaches harder to attract business support Provides a city voice on expertise/calibre over and possible poverty/social justice longer period, may resource for duplicate scrutiny. commissioning Event based Commission Positive – Themed Positive – over 6-9 Positive – other Independently chaired body reporting discussion & hearing months but could be agencies may to Council/SEB events, allows for in depth phased to provide early contribute Examines issues around a series of analysis and options, public evidence for Budget resource/funding themes at events over 6-9 months involvement at events considerations and final Negative – support involving open sessions and invite Negative – Could be report alongside Budget costs, venue and based discussions perceived as an academic Negative – may not event costs, Informs long/med term strategic talk shop provide info across all expenses direction and some input into 12/13 themes in time to meet Budget process immediate budget Events based to ensure wide requirements involvement Interim reports on themes and final report Select committee- style Positive – could use formal Positive – could be Positive – Independently chaired Commission hearing or citizen jury type done over 4-5 month relatively cheap to reporting to Council/SEB approach, based on call for period (poss shorter to gather evidence, Held over 3-5 months, with series of evidence, based around feed into budget partner contribution hearings held over 2-3 week period pre-determined themes process) Negative – requires Commences with call for evidence Negative – Requires Negative – harder to secretariat Final report and recommendations by significant input from get all commissioners /business support Dec commissioners over a small together in same place period of time, may not for longer than a day have time to go through full range of issues. Conference Based Positive – Provides a range Positive – 2-3 months Positive – One off Independently chaired reporting to of ways to highlight and focussed on final 2 day costs Council/SEB debate issues, options and event, help influence Negative – event Organised over 3 month period recommendations, involves early budget support on logistics ending with a 2 day event wide range of people, final discussions. Could be inc facilitation, Focussed around city conference, report within weeks repeated one year on to with workshops, lectures, visits Negative – may lack depth assess progress. Final report within 3 weeks. and analysis, focus on short Negative – term problems, raise Reputation/Comms unrealistic expectations issue if event coincides with difficult decisions, Combined – e.g. conf/hearing plus Positive – in depth analysis, Positive – 3-4 month Positive – less standing forum plus longer term hearing based activity costly than long Independently Chaired commitment to assess alongside 2 recall term commission, Single Conference or shorter term progress, involves people, events to assess could build into hearing style Commission could build into longer term progress. scrutiny Combined with Standing Forum to work programmes Negative – Harder to Negative – longer meet quarterly to assess progress (or Negative – may not provide influence early budget term costs could be linked into Scrutiny to do necessary focus if expected discussions this) to continue
Draft version: 5 4 of 12 Whatever option is chosen a clear view has been expressed that it would be helpful if the findings have a city wide focus. It is suggested that the preferred option is presented to the Sheffield Executive Board in September and that SEB also receive back a report on the findings as some findings may apply to partners. This will help ensure SEB buy in to the process.
Membership – Chair and Commissioners
There has been a clear steer that the Chair would need to be, and be seen to be independent.
The Commissioners would include people from a range of sectors including academia, VCS, education, older people, health, housing, disabled, BME, and Faith.
Expectations of the Chair would include: An ability to Chair Impartial, ie no ‘political baggage’ Credible nationally Good communicator Committed to poverty/exclusion issues Explicit connection with Sheffield?
Expectations of all Commissioners would include: Knowledgeable Could bring a particular perspective eg political, business, voluntary sector, academic but not include current officers from statutory agencies Experience of tackling complex issues Committed to poverty/exclusion issues
We will need to ensure that there is diverse membership on the Commission as a whole, so that for example there is an authentic Sheffield 'voice' within the Commission's work but an external perspective on the city is also included, ie a mix of local and national people. The Commission will need to have a gender balance, at least one BME member and ideally one disabled person. We could also consider having a member who has personal experience of living in poverty.
Possible Chairs and Commissioners are listed in Annex A, along with a brief description of their background.
Outputs/Deliverables
Interim and Final Report with independent recommendations that would be considered by Cabinet/Scrutiny. Publish evidence Publish transcripts?
Draft version: 5 5 of 12 Public engagement through events and online.
Costs
At this stage costs are unknown, but indicative costs for each option could be worked up. Costs would include: o Expenses and remuneration for the Chair and Commissioners o Publicity and communications o Report and evaluation costs
Resources
Officer time, including from Business Support, Policy Partnerships and Research and Governance and Involvement for logistics and policy work and analysis.
Communication and Involvement
We will need to consider the 'positioning' of the Commission. Done well it could enhance the reputation of the Council both politically and managerially, at a local and a national level. At worst, it could be seen as a waste of money and/or be consigned to policy history. This work provides an opportunity to get local people involved, in both helping the Commission understand and analyse needs and influencing recommendations. Each option will need to have appropriate communication and engagement strategies, that maximise involvement and ensure the Commission reaches into seldom heard communities, potentially encompassing events (city and neighbourhood based), online (social media), surveys, focus groups, open calls for evidence etc. We might want to set up a special website. It will be important to define the Commission’s role in relation to the Sheffield First Partnership, the Sheffield Executive Board and statutory agencies.
Reporting Back
The Commission would report back to the City Council with a copy of the report also going to Sheffield Executive Board. Depending on the model chosen there could be one or all of: o A report to inform budget discussions in Autumn 2011 o Individual reports on themes o Final report covering short and long term recommendations by March 2012. o Annual progress reports
Risks
Draft version: 5 6 of 12 Failure to agree/sign-off of final report by all of Commission Recommendations pose a significant challenge to the Administration’s priorities. Capacity of Council and other agencies (research, etc) to support Commissioners. Commission becomes dominated by the local ‘usual suspects’ – do we need to make some provision for lay members to prevent this? Public expectations are raised and not met. A danger that it could become a ‘council bashing exercise.’ A danger that it could be a ‘talking shop’ and lack focus Recommendations are not accepted or acted upon. Cost to the Council of implementing recommendations. Although the financial context will be an important consideration within the terms of reference for the commission. The Commission becomes a political battleground
Draft version: 5 7 of 12 Annex A
Possible Chairs and short biography
Prof Alan Walker
Professor of social policy at the University of Sheffield. His research interests span a wide range in social analysis, social policy and social planning. A founding Academician of the Academy for Learned Societies in the Social Sciences, and, in 2007, was given lifetime achievement awards by both the British Society of Gerontology and the Social Policy Association.
Details for 6 other possible chairs redacted on the grounds of personal confidentiality – they were not appointed and not notified they were being considered.
Draft version: 5 8 of 12 Possible Commissioners
All three political groups at the Council could take part in the Commission:
Cllr Julie Dore Council Leader and Leader of the Labour Group Cllr Shaffaq Mohammed Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group Cllr Gillian Creasy Leader of the Green Group
Other potential Commissioners include:
Person Description Prof Alan Walker Prof of social policy at University of Sheffield. Bishop Steven Current Anglican Bishop of Sheffield Jacqui Stubbs Sheffield based, disabled people's rights activist Tony Peddar Giving Forgemasters and NHS perspective Major employer representative Morgan Killick former Social Entrepreneur of the Year based in Sheffield Young person's representative Steve Slack, Director Centre for HIV and Sexual Health
Names of 27 other potential Commissioners redacted on the grounds of personal confidentiality – they were not appointed and not notified they were being considered.
Draft version: 5 9 of 12 Annex B
Summary of Commissions elsewhere
A number of other local authorities have set up Fairness Commissions:
Islington1
The Islington Fairness Commission was set up in June 2010 to look into how to make the borough a fairer place. The Commission was co-chaired by Professor Richard Wilkinson, and included senior figures from Islington Council, Islington Police, NHS, Homes for Islington, Islington Trades Council, Islington Chamber of Commerce, City and Islington College, Cripplegate Foundation, and London School of Economics.
The Commission met in public seven times to hear evidence from the community and debated issues such as health, housing, family, community, social care, education, skills and training, employment, crime and safety, democracy, sustainability, environment and economy.
Seven priority areas have been identified with key recommendations in each area to help make the borough a fairer place for all. The priority areas are as follows: 1. Income 2. Work 3. Families 4. Community 5. Safety 6. Housing 7. Health
The final report has been published and was presented at Full Council on 30 June 2011.2 It makes 19 recommendations on issues covering income; work; families; communities; safety; housing; and health. Recommendations range from the more radical – “explore the possibility of passing a by-law to prevent payday loan companies from operating in the borough” to what is business as usual for Sheffield – “A single telephone number should be established for reporting antisocial behaviour, requiring collaboration between Housing Associations, Homes for Islington, Islington Police and the Council.”
The Fairness Commission looks to be the stepping stone to further work. Some examples are “Chamber of Commerce to develop a plan … ”, “major review, convened by the new Health and Wellbeing Board …” and a new community collaboration to share reading skills across communities.
1 http://www.islington.gov.uk/Council/councilfairness/ 2 Closing the Gap the final report of the Islington Fairness Commission: http://www.islington.gov.uk/DownloadableDocuments/CouncilandDemocracy/Pdf/fairness_co mmission/IFC_final_report_closing_the_gap.pdf
Draft version: 5 10 of 12 The website includes background reading, details of commissioners, a substantial collection of evidence, FAQs, Info on events (mostly built around 7 themed meetings of the commissioners to hear evidence from community and experts), and a substantial collection of material submitted e.g. correspondence, reports etc.
York3
The York Fairness Commission is an independent advisory body which will examine matters of social justice in York. The Commission will prepare a report which will help inform the City of York Council on issues of fairness in preparation of the Council’s spending priorities review for 2012-2014.
The York Fairness Commission has a three-pronged approach - Well-being, Access, and Work. The vision is to ensure the wellbeing of each person in the community; to provide access to services and support, and to make the provision of work a priority.
The Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu sponsors the York Fairness Commission. The Fairness Commission has four Commissioners and a Chair appointed on the basis of their expertise and commitment to social justice. Members of the Commission are:
Ruth Redfern, Assistant Chief Executive, Yorkshire Forward – Chair John Kennedy – Director of Care Services, Joseph Rowntree Foundation. John Lister – Finance Director, Aviva. Professor Richard Wilkinson – Professor Emeritus of Social Epidemiology at the University of Nottingham, Honorary Professor at UCL and a Visiting Professor at the University of York. Dr. Kate Pickett – Professor of Epidemiology, Dept of Health Sciences at the University of York.
Cllr James Alexander, Leader of York has said the Fairness Commission “fulfils a manifesto commitment to have a genuine non-partisan engagement with residents over service priorities of the council. It is clear the fairness commission may have the opportunity of a longer-term role in working towards policy formulation to close the gap between rich and poor.”4
The York Labour Party manifesto5 said “the Commission will discuss the 838 services the council provides, those it has to provide by law and those by choice. The Commission will rebalance the model of local government in favour of the resident. The Commission will engage with residents to find out: 1. Residents’ priorities for the services they want; 2. Which services residents need; 3. Who can best provide these services;
3 http://www.archbishopofyork.org/articles.php/2128/archbishop-sponsors-york-fairness- commission and http://www.archbishopofyork.org/articles.php/2132/archbishop-launches-fairness-commission 4 http://www.yorklabour.org.uk/ 5 http://www.yorklabour.org.uk/policy/York%20Deserves%20Better%20-%20Detailed.pdf
Draft version: 5 11 of 12 4. How these services will be delivered; and 5. How these services will be paid for. The work of the York Fairness Commission will form the basis for a transformation in City of York Council’s public services that will culminate in a two year council budget being proposed in May 2012. For the first time in many years this budget will be a people’s budget, informed by, and for, the city’s residents.”
Liverpool6
The Liverpool Fairness Commission which will investigate poverty in the city started in April. The Commission aims to look at the main causes and effects of poverty, identify inequalities and challenges, and aims to better understand the problems faced by communities in order to develop clear long term plans to make Liverpool a fairer place to live.
It is being chaired by the Chief Executive of a successful social enterprise charity and will include representation from all political parties on the council, trade unions as well as universities, business, housing and the independent and voluntary sectors.
It will consider issues including health, housing, social care, education, employment and crime using an approach taken by Islington Borough Council.
The Opposition Lib Dem Group Leader has said the first two meetings of the Commission have been scene setting rather than evidence gathering but we seem to be about to move into more evidence gathering mode.7
Nottingham8
A Fairness Commission was set up by One Nottingham – the LSP in July 2010 to work for 12 months and report back. It now plans to report back in September 2011.
The remit is to look at particular/defined aspects of equalities and fairness within the operations of One Nottingham Theme Partnerships and the implementation of the Nottingham Plan, for example an analysis of the impact of the Nottingham Jobs Plan by gender, race, residential area and disability.
The Commission was chaired by the Portfolio Holder for Employment and Skills who stood down at the last election and a replacement chair has not yet been appointed.
6 Liverpool City Council Press Release: http://liverpool.gov.uk/news/details.aspx?id=196092 7 Blog by Paula Keaveney, Lib Dem Group Leader: http://www.liverlibdems.org.uk/liverpoollibdems/?p=1686 8 http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/onenottingham/index.aspx?articleid=12148
Draft version: 5 12 of 12