MERTHYR TYDFIL COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCIL Civic Centre, Castle Street, Merthyr Tydfil, CF47 8AN Main Tel: 01685 725000 www.merthyr.gov.uk FULL COUNCIL REPORT Date Written January 2011 Report Author Chris Hole/Sue Hughes Service Area Social Regeneration Exempt/Non Exempt Non Exempt Committee Date 1st February 2012 To: Mayor, Ladies and Gentlemen Communities First: The Future PURPOSE OF THE REPORT: To update Council on the changes to the Communities First Programme and to seek agreement on the way forward for 2012/13. 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 In September 2011, following a 3-month consultation process on the future of the Communities First Programme, the Minister for Communities and Local Government Carl Sargeant (A.M) announced that Communities First would continue post March 2012. The announcement also included a number of key changes that would be required to the programme. A summary of these changes is set-out below; 1.2 From April 2012, Communities First will be a Community Focused Anti-Poverty Programme and will work towards 3 broad strategic Outcomes: • Prosperous Communities; • Learning Communities; and • Healthier Communities. 1.3 The new programme will have the flexibility to include other areas of activities (e.g.) environment, safety, arts/culture, however, all funded activities must demonstrate its contribution to tackling poverty. 2.0 CONTENT 2.1 Areas to be included within the new programme will be based on the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation 2011 (WIMD) and will primarily focus on areas among the most deprived 10% in Wales . These areas, called Lower Super Output Areas (LSOA) in WIMD, will be grouped together to form ‘Clusters’ : • Each Cluster will contain a minimum population of 10,000 and a maximum of 15,000 (numbers are approximate and there will be flexibility). • Clusters will form the main geographic focus for delivery of the new programme. • Where appropriate, most Clusters will need to include other areas although these should be mainly or wholly among the most deprived 20% of LSOAs within the WIMD. • Existing CF areas not included in a Cluster will be eligible for exit strategy funding to the end of March 2013. 2.2 A Regional (Planning) Framework will be developed across Wales with this being established on the Local Health Board footprint i.e. six regions. Regional Programme Boards (RPBs) are intended to include strong community representation from each Cluster Area and will: • Promote the CF Programme; • Link Clusters with the national Anti-Poverty Programme Board; • Ensure accountability across CF; • Be responsible for the identification and dissemination of good practice; • Support Programme Bending and • Be responsible for scrutiny functions. 2.3 Lead Delivery Bodies (currently GRB’s/Host Employers) will be established either for each Cluster or for a number of local clusters to provide one overarching local delivery body. Current guidance suggests that the Lead Delivery Body will have the following role: • Provide strategic guidance to the programme ensuring linkage between cluster approaches and key policy drivers; • Receive Welsh Government funding which will be allocated to each Cluster, primarily to enable a Delivery Plan and a Community Involvement Plan to be delivered; and • Ensure each Cluster will have a delivery team to support Community Involvement and to deliver agreed activities/outcomes (the expectation is that these teams will be employed by each cluster). 2.4 The current Communities First Programme ends March 2012. However, a number of partnerships and projects have now secured transitional funding until September 2012. This funding is to continue current programmes of activity and to support existing partnerships (and projects) to progress to the new arrangements. Cluster funding applications for the first 3-year phase (commencing 1 st October 2012) will be with Welsh Government in July of 2012. Outline guidance from Welsh Government has been provided and final guidance for the new programme will be published sometime early in 2012. 2.5 Within the new CF programme, Local Service Boards will be expected to endorse cluster plans for an area. 3.0 THE WAY FORWARD 3.1 Considerable debate and discussions have occurred locally amongst the Communities First Partnership Support Network (PSN) where all current CF Partnerships are a member, as well as the local authority. Following detailed consideration of all the available statistical information and in consultation with the Welsh Government and existing local Communities First stakeholders, a broad consensus has been reached on a 3-Cluster Model for Merthyr Tydfil. 3-CLUSTER MODEL CLUSTER WARDS *POPULATION North Cluster Dowlais, Gurnos and Penydarren. 10,873 Mid Cluster Vaynor, Cyfarthfa, Town and Park. 9,225 South Cluster Plymouth, Merthyr Vale, Treharris and 10,385 Bedlinog. TOTAL 30,483 *Qualifying populations made-up from the Lower Super Output Areas (LSOA’s) that fall within 20% most deprived. There will be some discretion (approved by WG) based on other factors for inclusion of some streets/areas which fall outside the 20% rule. 3.2 The impact of the refocusing of the programme by WG to LSOA’s within the top 20% of deprivation means that within Merthyr Tydfil 6 Lower Super Output Areas that were previously considered part of the programme are no longer eligible and on present guidance, will be able to access exit funding until March 2013. These areas are: • Dowlais 2 - North of Pant Road (Caeracca, Pengarnddu). • Dowlais 3 - North of Gwernllwyn School (Dowlais Top). • Merthyr Vale 3 - East of Cardiff Road & The Grove. • Cyfarthfa 4 – Heolgerrig. • Penydarren 3 - Lower Penydarren To Penydarren Social Club. • Penydarren 4 - Upper Penydarren to Hayden Terrace. 3.3 The above list describes the general locations of the areas that no longer meet WG criteria. The partnership coordinators within each cluster will need to determine how they negotiate with WG to establish a case to continue to support and work with those areas outside the programme. The local authority (Social Regeneration) has offered support to each cluster to establish a rationale if they wish to argue for the inclusion of the areas listed above. 3.4 Discussions have been held with the PSN on the advantages and disadvantages of either having 3 discrete clusters operating independently or having a holistic structure brought together by one overarching Lead Delivery Body. Whilst it has been recognised that there are benefits to having one lead delivery body for Merthyr Tydfil which would contract to 3 Clusters, concerns have also been expressed regarding the sovereignty of community cluster partnerships to decide, with their community, how their funding is spent and delivered. 3.5 Welsh Government has requested that any proposal that goes forward is supported by all partners. Currently there is no agreement on the approach identified in paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 and this is still being discussed. However, there is a need for the local authority to indicate what role it feels that it should play in the future programme. From a local authority service perspective (Social Regeneration), the preferred model would be one overarching strategic lead body with contractual arrangements with 3 clusters. The advantages of having a single Lead Delivery Body are as follows: • Greater opportunities and influence for programme bending; • Greater strength in representing locality issues in discussions with WG; • Opportunities for sharing of best practice and influencing partners through the lead body; • Ensures that all key partners are on board; • Greater strength in representing locality issues within the regional structure; • Optimum model for Council in delivering overarching Community leadership role; and • Would assist LSB managing delivery of relevant Community Plan priorities. 3.6 What the above arrangement would mean in practice is that: • The local authority would receive funding for allocation to each cluster within Merthyr Tydfil to enable and empower communities; • Service Level agreements would be developed with each cluster to enable them to develop the infrastructure to support community led organisations to deliver and sustain services across communities. Securing additional resources to compliment CF funding and a strong governance system will be key to the sustainability of these organisations; • Staff would be directly employed by the clusters; • There will be a very small central team (in line with the guidance from WG); and • A Partnership Agreement would need to be developed between the clusters and the local authority. 3.7 The most recent guidance (currently being confirmed) suggests that the criteria for WG accepting a lead delivery body will include: • CF resources should not exceed 50% of the organisations income; and • The organisation should hold reserves equal to the lifetime of the CF project. How rigorously WG implements the criteria for lead delivery bodies is yet to be tested as it has already been recognised it will cause significant difficulties for many voluntary organisations to comply with. 3.8 At the last coordinators meeting (PSN) the offer was made for the local authority to support the coordinators to consult on the way forward with their partnership boards. At this stage it was felt that the local authority input was unnecessary. 3.9 The PSN also discussed the role of the regional structure. It was generally felt that there was very little value in this structure and that apart from information sharing it was unclear what the Regional Programme Board would actually do. Discussions have also been held with the CF lead officer within Rhondda Cynon Taff local authority and he has indicated that RCT will be submitting a proposal to take on the regional role, as long as there are no financial liabilities. 3.10 With regard to the Southern Cluster, it is proposed that the local authority agree to be the lead cluster agency for the transitional period up until September 2012. A key element of the work with the southern valley transition will be consulting with existing organisations and members of the public on structures, working arrangements and priorities.