Archived decisions

Hard to Reach Communities

0. Initial SWOT analysis

Strengths

· Potential to add value by making recommendations that might help clarify which groups of people could benefit most from either knowing about the services that the County Council provides, or who could benefit from taking greater advantage of services available to them. These groups may constitute the `hard to reach' residents of Hampshire, provided that they wish to take up the services available to them.

· Clearly within the remit of the Committee to review issues of the Council's engagement with communities.

Weaknesses

· Whilst there is, and probably always will be challenge for local authorities with respect to some of its groups/communities, it will be important to identify high quality evidence to support the review; it is not clear at this stage whether sufficient evidence of quality and integrity exists.

Opportunities

· Opportunity exists to feed into work being undertaken with respect to community engagement, empowerment and sustainable communities.

Threats

· Without very careful scoping it would be possible for the review to absorb all available scrutiny capacity and for it to lose focus and potential usefulness. It would also be important that the attention of departments were not unduly occupied for little return or benefit.

1. Introduction

It has been proposed that the Culture and Communities Select Committee reviews the scale and nature of the challenges for the County with respect to engaging with hard to reach communities and how those challenges either are being, or might need to be addressed.

This piece of work would need to sit within the wider context of public engagement and consultation which is a major theme of central government thinking in papers such as:

· Strong and Prosperous Communities: the local government white paper, 2006

· The Governance of Britain: The Next Steps in Constitutional Renewal, 2007

· Local Government and public Involvement in Health, 2007

· A Stronger Local Voice: a framework for creating a stronger local voice in the development of health and social services, 2006

· Unlocking the talent of our communities, 2008

However a review would, in addition, have an interest in not only the communication with, and engagement of, `hard to reach' groups, but also whether they access the County's services as much as `easier to reach' communities.

The expression `hard to reach' is typically used to label many groups for a number of different reasons. It can be used to refer to almost any person or group that has characteristics that are different from the norm (if that can be defined), but the term usually implies that the groups may in some way or ways be disadvantaged relative to white middle class people.

Because many people or groups are described as `hard to reach', the term is not specific enough to determine whether or not all or most of the individuals represented by the labels are any more or less well served by the County Council than any other individuals. It does not necessarily mean that all of the people or groups to which the term is often applied, either have not been communicated or engaged with, or that all members of such groups are actually disadvantaged or excluded from `mainstream' society. For the purposes of this review, therefore, the term `hard to reach' may better be defined in terms of need or disadvantage.

2. Terms of Reference of the Review

2.1 Purpose:

To consider the approach or approaches of HCC with respect to `hard to reach' communities/groups, and how information about engagement with `hard to reach' groups is consolidated and communicated to Members and corporate management.

2.2 Objectives:

· To agree a practical definition of `hard to reach' groups such that the County can prioritise its resources to support those in most critical need of support and inclusion

· To clarify the assumptions and intended purpose of engagement

· To identify who is doing what in terms of engaging with HtR groups

· To identify approaches used to `reach' the `hard to reach' (law of requisite variety?)

· To identify how intelligence and needs assessment is used to inform approaches, strategies and organisation intended to improve engagement and equitable access to services

· To identify how such engagement is monitored and developed

· To identify how the success of such engagement is measured

2.3 Scope:

The review focuses on engagement and access to services in the context of rural communities and minority groups in Hampshire.

2.4 Deliverables:

The review seeks to make recommendations that will improve the ability of Members and senior management to better understand the scale and nature of the challenge, and the role and work of the County in reaching HtR communities. The review should also help identify the potential for Members and departments to improve equity of access to HCC services (including taking into account the role and potential of partnership working).

3. Review Organisation

Initial scoping and research to better understand key issues and scope for a Scrutiny Panel to add value

3.1 Stakeholders

· Equalities and diversity leads for HCC

· Marketing and Communications leads for HCC

· Research leads for HCC

· If the issue is to be considered as potentially wider than the County Council, then partner organisations would also need to be included as stakeholders, as would members of `hard to reach' groups.

3.2 Customer

For the purpose of this review it is the Executive Member for Policy and Resources as well as Corporate Management or the Executive Member for Recreation, Heritage and Communities.

4. Centres Review Panel

Not appointed at this stage

5. Process

5.1 The process would include:

· Research and scoping of the review

· Setting up of Review Panel

· Acquiring evidence and identifying all relevant stakeholders

· Analysis of evidence

· Possible use of select committee style sessions if required

· Development of recommendations by the Panel

· Development of draft report for the full Committee

· Report to go to the Executive Member P&R

6. Summary

There appears to be a need to define `hard to reach' in a way that would allow the County to effectively and efficiently focus its resources on the basis of needs assessments and intelligence, rather than on broad assumptions that seem to underly the use of the label `hard to reach'. The County has made its top priorities:

· To make Hampshire safer and more secure for all

· To maximise wellbeing, and

· To enhance our quality of place

It is important therefore to recognise where these ambitions are being particularly unmet for certain `hard to reach' groups, since this evidence would guide a review in its adoption of a working definition of what `hard to reach' means, and how it might be possible for the committee to make recommendations that are relevant and constructive in the County's approach(es) to meeting the needs and aspirations of the communities/groups involved.

Initial discussions with officers from different departments suggest that there should be scope for the Committee to add value.

Notes:

A. Related work/dependencies

· Rural Task Group: Andrew Smith (CX)

· Rural Strategy: John Tickle (RH&C)/Ian Parker, Rosalind Rutt (Environment)

· Sustainable Communities Strategy: Rob Ormorod (Policy Unit, Chief Exec's), Sustainable Communities Strategy (See A5 - reference to areas of deprivation)

· Work with Gypsies and Travellers: Robin Edwards, Barry Jordan-Davis (PBRS)

· Community Engagement: Karen Mann (Communications, Chief Exec's)

· Work with BMEs: Mohammed Mossadaq (AS), Amjid Jabbar (RH&C)

· District data exercise: Frances Candler (Community Action Hampshire)

· Frances Candler being undertaken on behalf of Peter Brown (environment) with BME communities in Eastleigh and other areas (results may be available within a month? according to Peter)

· Work being undertaken by Karen Murray re gypsies and travellers

a) policy review

b) workshop on 18^th June etc.

Try to get Terms of Reference for the former at least.

Framework dichotomy

Notes:

· Not all members of a particular group will feel or be excluded, or not make use of HCC services

· Some groups will have national/regional or other associations that represent their interests and provide some networking potential for those trying to reach them

· Some areas or types of areas may have concentrations of people from groups, who perhaps have limited access to housing, transport or skilled employment

· Common denominators of need may be obscured by division of populations on the basis of a specific label

· Dichotomy between groups that may appear spread across the county, eg. Asians, or more specifically, for example, Bangladeshis vs concentrations of deprived, poorer people into areas/locations into which resources might be concentrated for maximum affect - what are the characteristics that are most significant in finding solutions?

· We know that a number of `excluded' groups can be found in areas of deprivation, such as Leigh Park in Havant and North Town in Rushmoor