Annette Goldband from FPM reflects on recent developments in Reading, exploring emerging models of community ownership. Reference is made to the right to challenge. Details are attached.
The Reading Steering group had a very productive day with Cliff Mills from Mutuo/Cobbetts. He outlined the history and principles of the co-op movement and explained a range of organisational structures in detail, drawing on real examples to illustrate the advantages and limitations of each. Throughout this process he was checking details about the local situation which served to a) help him contextualise his support to the group and b) helped the group identify the key decisions they now needed to make.
The steering group were already working on their business plan and issues arising from this were able to be addressed and clarified; as indeed, issues from the business plan were able to begin to clarify organisational structure choices facing the group.
The steering group has since met to explore further a number of key issues emerging:
1. Nature of partnership and relationship with local authority youth development service
As part of the business plan, Groundwork staff were to meet all YPFN partners individually to discuss what they want and need from their involvement in the project and what they are prepared to bring to the table. Whilst these conversations had occurred early in the process, the steering group recognised that this needed to be an ongoing exploration, repeated at several stages, with growing trust and clearer vision allowing for more frank negotiations.
As the context continues to change for all partners, it is also important to keep reviewing each partner’s position. In relation to the local authority partnership, the Reading YPFN group need to clarify what the local authority’s position is on allowing the local community to take over responsibility for youth provision in the area. If so, they need to appreciate that this will not necessarily be in the old model of subcontracting; if a mutual is established, the local authority will have a valid and relevant voice but not control of the organisation; if a Multi-Stakeholder Mutual, the local authority may be represented but will not have the majority stake, which is likely to be with residents as the principle intended beneficiaries.
Cliff Mills also helped the group understand the Right to Challenge and how this can be used, NOT to create an antagonistic relationship with local authority services, but to negotiate better use of local offers and local authority resources. For example, this might communicate itself as “We do have the right to challenge, but rather than take this up, we would like to reach an agreement about appropriate areas of responsibility and local accountability.”
The Reading group have had involvement from paid staff of the youth development service and very strong involvement from politicians. The group began to articulate the difference in perspectives of these two constituencies. The delicacies of the politics involved here are fully recognised and appreciated by the group, who now see that some of this must be articulated and addressed for the YPFN project to proceed.
2. Form and function
The local community are in the process of developing a formalised Community Association. It is possible they will explore the option of becoming a Mutual. The Reading YPFN group began to explore the pros and cons of the youth provision being part of this organisational structure or having their own. Their aspirations regarding development of the community organisation will now be checked out formally, as part of the business planning model (see below) and the pros and cons will be put to the YPFN steering group’s meeting.
3. Wider Involvement
It was agreed that a phase 2 action plan for the involvement of young people (and adult community members) was needed. Whilst progress had been made, it was now a priority for young people’s views to be a formal part of the decision making. To this end, it was decided that the current membership of the youth project would be consulted early next week, in order that they were able to be involved in this stage of the decision making process.
4. Business plan
Two members of the YPFN group had attended the workshop on Business planning. GW (Thames Valley) is currently in the process of a wider business planning process and has decided to link the YPFN business planning with its own. This will ensure some continued support from GW post March 2013, as well as serve some joint objectives. To this end, GW staff have taken on the operational development of the business plan and will be negotiating their process for this with the YPFN steering group. The process involves interviewing all partners on their aspirations for the YPFN as well as for their own organisation.
Some key points of learning
The group found the day both stimulating and enlightening. Early exploration of different organisational structures was first undertaken in an Options appraisal in November and December 2011 in order to decide what organisational form might best suit the emerging function of sustainable youth provision in the area. The group nonetheless valued returning to this theme when the whole picture was clearer and progress more sharply defined, having an external facilitator with detailed legal knowledge. It felt to some as if they were hearing the information for the first time. A good example of the maxim that “every idea has their time”.
At the time of the Options Paper, a required external timeframe was at odds with what the group could see emerging in tangible form which they could digest and assimilate for real rather than in the abstract. If sustainability of provision (not organisation) is our goal, these processes need to be revisited when they are needed, especially if we have had to undertake them at earlier points because they have been required!