Agenda item
Voluntary Sector
Minutes:
4.1 The Chair introduced the item and explained the voluntary and community sector (VCS) had been through a transformation following the pandemic. The Commission asked for an update about the sector; the boroughs volunteering service and the future of the sector. The Commission was particularly interested in hearing from a mutual aid group because this was an area of development since the pandemic.
4.2 The Chair informed the meeting the presentations would commence with Sonia Khan, Head of Policy and Strategic Delivery from London borough of Hackney (LBH) followed by the following officers from the following VCS organisations; Tony Wong, Chief Executive Officer and Jessica Lubin, High Transformation Director from HCVS; Lauren Tobias, CEO from Volunteering Centre Hackney (VCH) and Euphemia Chukwu, Founder / Director from Woodberry Aid.
4.3 The Head of Policy and Strategic Delivery from LBH commenced the presentation and made the following main points:
4.3.1 The voluntary sector was critical to the emergency response during the pandemic. The grassroot activity and volunteering had been in collaboration and through the community partnership network. The network was initiated by the Council. This made use of existing resources and gaps were plugged with additional resources from the council.
4.3.2 This was in response to transitioning from direct delivery support (that was not sustainable) to tapping into existing activities.
4.3.3 This acknowledges the voluntary sector standing within the communities. Therefore, any preventative approach from the outset responding to the pandemic needed to make sure the Council was valuing the VCS from the start.
4.3.4 The Council worked with the London Community Response Fund. This was a group of funders that came together (this group consisted of some local authorities and some philanthropic funders). This made way to focus its resources on the emergency response. In essence this meant that if one project was not picked up by one funder it might be picked up by another funder. This also enable organisations to support the most vulnerable and meet the needs of residents.
4.3.5 Although there was a big response to need during the pandemic it became clear that funders who were not on this initial journey, but involved in the immediate pandemic response, did not understand they were still in a crisis, in terms of poverty, inequalities and complex needs. These have now exacerbated and present a potential threat to VCS organisations.
4.4 The Chief Executive from HCVS commenced his presentation and made the following main points:
4.4.1 During pandemic the voluntary sector was recognised for its role and the importance of the sector.
4.4.2 Following the role of the VCS in the pandemic they have seen improved partnership and relationships with the statutory sector and amongst the VCS sector itself. More collaboration in the sector.
4.4.3 They aim to solidify this work with the VCS enabler work which HCVS is leading on.
4.4.4 There is still concern around funding. They do not feel that the funding arena for the sector is thinking about the future. They acknowledge they are still in the pandemic, but some organisations are starting to consider how they mobilise their services beyond the initial pandemic response. But as they emerge from the crisis there seems to be a lack of funding opportunity for the sector in terms.
4.4.5 In a recent survey HCVS identified concern from the sector about their future and financial stability.
4.4.6 Although there is recognition that partnership working has being positive, the sector is still experiencing increased demand. HCVS have noted that several organisations are supporting clients with additional challenges. Particularly now with the onset of the fuel price increases and the events in Ukraine. It was highlighted that mental health is still a massive challenge not only for the communities they are serving but also for the workforce. It was highlighted that the VCS are some of the lowest paid staff doing complex work. Also facing a combination of being squeezed at all angles.
4.4.7 The demand for services has increased because of levels of poverty, health inequalities, food prices, fuel and uncertainty about what covid will bring next year. The VCS want to support people, so they do not need to choose between food or fuel this winter.
4.4.8 HCVS facilitated a VCS assembly on emotional wellbeing. Mental health and emotional wellbeing were highlighted as the top priorities by the community. They have seen an increase in mental health demand with people presenting at a higher level of need.
4.4.9 The VCS are part of the community and always want to support the people around them. HCVS pointed out if an individual presented with NRPF they would be supported because they often do not want to go to statutory services. In essence the VCS is acting as a third emergency service.
4.4.10 HCVS pointed out the increased demand is putting a lot of pressure on the sector. Although it is recognised the Council is facing the same challenges itself. The future of the sector is very uncertain and facing financial challenges. This has a knock-on effect on the VCS.
4.4.11 It was reiterated the VCS needs financial stability and long-term investment. It was highlighted the VCS workforce is among the lowest paid staff in the health system. These staff need financial stability too to deliver services to manage their own personal food, fuel and poverty challenges.
4.4.12 The VCS needs financial stability to be able to plan the delivery of services beyond a few months or a year in advance. Having financial stability will help them to have the biggest impact in their communities to help reduce health inequalities to make sure the VCS is an active and equal and proactive part of the health system.
4.5 The Chief Executive from Volunteering Centre Hackney (VCH) commenced her presentation and made the following main points:
4.5.1 Thousands of residents signed up to volunteer within weeks during the pandemic. This response was astounding and not experienced before. However, this response presented a massive challenge.
4.5.2 It was explained volunteers signed-up through existing community groups and through VCH. Volunteers worked in all weathers to deliver food, prescriptions, medical supplies and also to prepare food (including culturally appropriate food).
4.5.3 Demand was rising all the time and they worked in partnership with a range of statutory services – public health, community partnerships NHS – to deliver the community champions program, vaccine stewards and logistics support.
4.5.4 The VCH increased their befriending service within weeks from 20 matches to 150. Many of these matches continue. But the number of referrals is increasing. It was pointed out there are very few befriending services in the borough with an open criterion.
4.5.5 VCH work very closely with the voluntary sector groups to provide them with the volunteers. They recruited very quickly to help with the logistic support (driving and good preparation) as required.
4.5.6 VCH also identified that residents created their own projects to help (social action). Their own food pantry or digital sharing projects to bridge gaps. There were online exercises and entertainment. These were set up independently and in their areas with mutual aid groups or with exiting community groups.
4.5.7 VCH set up the system very quickly to respond to the emerging needs as the existing systems were not appropriate. They implemented a new recruitment matching mechanism to be able to respond to the continuing emerging needs.
4.5.8 The VCH worked in partnership with the council and other programs. The VCH also provided guidance and support to a lot of mutual aid groups because so many varied in their knowledge, skills and expertise.
4.5.9 VCH found there were resident and existing groups starting up all over the borough and this poised a risk to volunteer management and best practice. In addition, for existing group many had to redeploy their own staff. Work very quickly whilst delivering services.
4.5.10 It was pointed out very few organisations have volunteering coordinators. At one stage they were trying to recruit volunteer organisers for charities. But this is a skills gap in the sector and one that remains. It was explained that volunteer coordinators were not viewed as essential roles. However, they are required to help support, manage, look after and recruit volunteers.
4.5.11 Overall, there was a lot of positives. Overwhelming numbers and half of the people who volunteered had never volunteered before. Huge numbers came out to volunteer their skills to help their neighbours and people.
4.5.12 Although it was diverse many people were young 25-44 years old and white. This was a demographic that had not volunteered before, and they were a demographic that did not to engage. Over 50% said they would volunteer again.
4.5.13 The reason they volunteered is to engage with their community and a lot of the relationship continue. This was very local volunteering and they worked hard to try to match people to deliver food and prescription close to their postcode. They have tried to keep these connections going.
4.5.14 VCH pointed out they have been trying to do this for years to use the skills that people have to support each other and work together across communities in a local area to provide services. This social action established new projects.
4.5.15 Volunteering is more than just matching people to a charity role and it was more than this in the pandemic and continues to be. It is about delivering a service that is needed across communities.
4.5.16 This has given a greater appreciation among the statutory sector of the VCS role and the huge resources and assets residents, and volunteers can bring.
4.5.17 The speed of the response was good, but this posed an inequity in reach because to really volunteer you need to establish and build relationships. This process requires resources and takes a long time to build. This requires working with community groups on the ground to build trust. This not only applies to one-to-one support but working with groups too.
4.5.18 There was a lot of focus on vulnerability. The self-isolation requirements created a challenge in that it was a one-sided approach and took away the ability for people to collaborate and share their skills together.
4.5.19 There was a lack of engagement from Government. All the national government volunteer recruitment campaigns were not helpful locally because they did not work with local infrastructure. The ask from Members was to influence Government in the future about this area.
4.5.20 In relation to the resource and the time it takes people to work with people on the ground. If this type of emergency support needs to be repeated, this should be in partnership with groups and other charities on the ground. Redeploying existing staff. Previously this has been done without any funding and volunteer centres are often not given the recognition for their role. It was highlighted that volunteer centres provide an essential infrastructure and resource.
4.6 The Founder / Director from Woodberry Aid commenced her presentation and made the following main points:
4.6.1 Woodberry Aid was set up at the start of the pandemic. They identified that there were some residents in Woodberry Downs that were not able to access support.
4.6.2 The gap identified was the vulnerable elderly and disabled members of the community. Woodberry Aid was set up to close that gap. In addition, they provided cultural offers to the community.
4.6.3 Covid really hit the residents of Woodberry Downs severely. Local residents experienced the following:
• A high number are living in social housing, in cramped conditions with complex needs.
• Many residents are living on universal credit and were experiencing food poverty prior to the pandemic.
• There were families with SEND needs and a number of single parent families who are struggling to meet additional costs with children at home.
• Black and ethnic minority residents in the community were particularly impacted due to higher infection and death rates.
• Mental health needs were very high across all communities as residents were experiencing exacerbated poverty and the trauma from local deaths. The impact of trauma in the community was significant.
4.6.4 The demand at these early stages was huge. They learned quite quickly that partnership working was crucial.
4.6.5 In relation to the current situation, there has been no change and the living standards for people are not getting any easier. Although covid is reducing, the poverty and needs of people are still extremely high.
4.6.6 At the peak of the pandemic Woodberry Aid distributed 3000 meals a week. Through funding this increased to 4000 meals.
4.6.7 Despite the return to everyday lives the need has not reduced. The view is moving forward people will still need their support in the community. People are stretched and stressed which is causing anxiety and affecting their mental health.
4.6.8 For Woodberry Aid to continue to provide and meet the need they require funding. They are a grassroot organisation that reaches out to the people that well-established services cannot reach. They have the trust and understand the need. To continue this work will require funding. They are hoping there will be a solution and that the Government recognises grassroot organisations are essential. This will allow them to continue and support the local community.
4.6.9 In relation to skills, economy and growth. Woodberry Aid pointed out most of their beneficiaries from the early stages of the service have transitioned to become volunteers too. This has provided good opportunities for them to gain new skills. The volunteers included young people too.
4.6.10 The volunteers at Woodberry Aid have remained consistent over the last 2 years. They are still volunteering, and some have moved on. The experience and skills they have acquired has helped them secure employment.
4.6.11 In the 2 years three have moved into employment grown in confidence and gained new skills. It was pointed out one person was unemployed for over 5 year and lacked confidence. But after volunteering for 2 years with Woodberry Aid they have grown in confidence and learnt new skills. This person secured employment last December (2021). In addition, young people have secured employment too through volunteering.
4.6.12 Woodberry Aid highlighted their work was crucial, but they could not continue without support from government. At the peak of the pandemic partnership working, and collaboration helped them to sustain; but they are uncertain about how they can continue with the return to normal.
4.7 The Head of Policy and Strategic Delivery from LBH closed the presentation by making the closing remarks below.
4.7.1 There is no going back to normal for the council and their partnership working with the voluntary sector.
4.7.2 The challenges HCVS outlined are the same challenges the Council faces. The joint working was co-created with the sector taking on board their insight and impact. The challenge will be using this insight.
4.7.3 The Council wants to continue to work with other funders to share their understanding. The aim being to improve the knowledge of funders who do not work at a local granular level. There is a lack of share the awareness and understanding that we are in a growing crisis.
4.7.4 The collaboration and partnership working with the sector has changed their relationship with the Council. The Council anticipated this direction of travel which is referenced in the Council’s voluntary and community sector strategy. They had identified the need to work more on the ground with local organisation and understand the local ecosystem. In addition to needing to change their funding relationships.
4.7.5 The council was able to flex when the pandemic started and had already reduced the bureaucracy following the co-production work they had started with the sector.
4.7.6 The Council has introduced a new funding stream that is about community infrastructure. This is about locally based organisations and cultural organisations that have reach into different and diverse communities.
4.7.7 The rationale is to fund based on community reach not on a project. Funding organisations that are good at reach as opposed to organisations that are good at filling out funding bids and doing a good project proposal.
4.7.8 This approach will not work if they do not change how the whole council and health system views and works with the VCS. Valuing their role which was revealed during the pandemic. They are continuing to embed the approach across the council to drive that culture change. However, this partnership working can only be sustained through culture change across the whole organisation.
4.7.9 The Council is currently embedding priorities for volunteering, voluntary sector partnership working and grant making because of the pandemic. E.g., working with VCH on the voluntary sector brokerage and the future impact. How to value the place-based work and how they might work together to look at external funding. This could include looking at the dynamics such as who volunteers and how they can move to good health
4.7.10 In relation to the community partnerships network, currently there is work to look at the different food networks to consider how they can be sustained. This is challenging for the reason outlined in the previous contributors above (funding and level of input) but if they can get a network working together, they can be prepared to be able to draw in external funding and direct this to the organisations that have reach within the communities.
4.7.11 The Head of Policy and Strategic Delivery also pointed out there is the need for preparation to respond to future emergencies. The officer pointed out Hackney was able to respond quickly to the refugee crisis because the Council was preparing for the Afghan refugee crisis. They are currently working on getting access to advice and advice services for Ukraine residents.
4.7.12 Wider preventive work will be picked through the council’s poverty reduction framework. This will ensure the Council has the focus on the immediate impacts whilst looking at the role of the voluntary sector for long term prevention and early intervention.
4.7.13 In relation to influencing Central Government. The officer pointed out the Council recently acquired some funding from the Department for Levelling Up Communities and Housing to show how they can work better in a hyper local place-based way with people. Explaining that this is to show central government how they might work with councils differently and how some of their policies and ways of funding could be developed. The Council had submitted a second stage business plan.
4.7.14 The objective is to consider how central government policy could be developed to be more supportive to a place-base and community-based approach valuing the reach.
4.8 Questions, Answers and Discussion
(i) The Chair commented the very nature of mutual aid organisations helped people to get jobs, acquire skills and dignity through their work helping their own community.
(ii) Members commented the information presented reflected the same information ward councillors heard from Hackney Wick Ward residents. Similar work with the council was carried out to deliver services to a whole range of people they had not previously been in contact with. In addition to mobilizing a new set of people it was encouraging to see that the experience in Hackney Wick was part of a bigger movement in the borough.
(iii) Members acknowledged that out of the pandemic new models were emerging of how the council works and how the VCS works. This is a very different VCS model. This presented a key change to the council’s way of working and model of doing for people. Highlighting this was a major culture change. Members were impressed with the Council’s flexible way of working. Members noted this would be a new way of doing things and not just in an emergency. Members pointed out making a culture change of this magnitude was enormously difficult and needs sustained leadership, new skills, and continual support for the operational model. Members commented they have not seen evidence of this turning into long term culture change.
(iv) In relation to the VCS model Members commented they found that place-based people and organisations are right at the hyperlocal level. The information presented was highlighted that people needed to be joined together at a very local level. However, it was not clear how any single funding stream could do this. Members commented they were not well organised across the VCS, as a council and in Government to supporting the necessary networking. Members asked how they would build on this and acquire a network of community workers that can sustain this work across a range of services and throughout the borough.
(v) Members commended the work done by the sectors during the pandemic. Members commented the work by VCH and the Council was quite organic at a hyper local level. Members asked if this was patchy or had a good coverage across all the communities that need it and enquired about the vision?
(vi) Members pointed out it is anticipated that over the next year families will be forced to make the choice between heating and food. Members asked if the council and VCS was prepared or working in partnership to consider the provision of support to families in the coming year?
(vii) Members noted a larger proportion of the volunteer demographic was white. Members asked if this was related to a lack of engagement by other communities or if the white community was less engaged in hyper local organisations? Members asked if there was any further insight to explain this?
In response to ways of working the Head of Policy and Strategic Delivery from LBH explained the council had dedicated capacity across her service and there was a change support team in digital that was proactively developing the change program that is linked to partnership working. This involved working with a group of people and scaling up. There is also an element about resources, the type of resources frontline workers, management, and leadership. E.g., making sure everyone has the same information about emergency support. Some of this needed better digital tools, conversations and getting people to learn together. Training had a role but learning together and sharing was more impactful. This was being evaluated by University College London.
In addition, it is also about recognising that working this way takes its toll and is difficult to do. Even if you work more with external agencies you need to take into consideration that this was different organisational cultures coming together. Sometimes you would need to repeat pitches and this can be quite exhausting. ~This is looking at the role of managers and testing the support available for frontline staff. This way of working was being tested through peer support.
Lastly changing the ways of working is also about building the partnerships needed. For example, the food network. There was also the need to ensure all council departments are working in a more collaborative way and the right framework was in place to support working in partnership with the VCS. This way of working would be a change from pre pandemic. This responsibility was held by one team. They would be the team to talk to abut funding issues or the survival of an organisation.
The officer added how this will be embedded into the workforce strategy and all council plans is in development. An example of this is the poverty reduction framework. This values the partnership and collaborative working with the VCS. There is an evaluative framework and the three aspects to it outlined above are being developed in tandem.
In response to the point about hyper local the officer explained that the place-based approach currently focuses on food because of the impact during the pandemic. This would help to build on previous what and learning. The community champion leads by public health have been a hyper local way of reaching residents. The officer informed that the Pembrey community work was pre pandemic but proved itself as a way of working with the community during the pandemic. This is now going into another phase. There is also Kings Park Moving Together programme. The concept of place shaping is gaining traction.
In relation to the vision, they are getting to the tail end of the current administration and there will a newly appointed leadership. So it will be important to be clear about the reasons for placed based working because although it’s about place shaping it is also a way of reaching residents who are unlikely to trust and seek support from the council. It will be important to have this as a clear policy point.
There are methods that can be used to look at where there is more capacity and preparedness within communities and where there are and how the council might be able to make sure that where communities who do not have anchor organisations do not get left behind. This is not like having a set vision in a community development plan.
The officer pointed out it is worth revisiting the policy reasons for doing place based work. Highlighting the risk of having a grand plan is that you try to implement the same model of a local hub in every area. But from the evidence emerging it is becoming clear it will be important to think about a community development approach to the way they develop and deliver public services and the way they deliver partnerships. Then consider where there is a need to have a hyper local approach.
In response to the point about the demographic this was a risk anticipated when they entered the pandemic. But they wanted to reach people who had not thought about volunteering. It was highlighted there are people in communities who volunteer do not consider themselves to be volunteers. It was also noted that there was a difference between the demographic of those who are part of a formal volunteering program and those who were volunteers.
The VCH added there is no insight to explain the demographic. VCH pointed out the majority of new volunteers did not have a family to support, and some were Hackney residents on furlough and not working. It was highlighted that Hackney has a lot of residents who are in the creative industry (musician, hospitality etc.) and who were not being paid. Volunteers also included people who were new to the borough.
Many of the new volunteers came through community groups or mutual aid groups. There was also a lot of people who were not on their books in existing community groups or mutual groups. VCH pointed out the demographic was not necessarily a bad thing; they had wanted to reach that population and it is recalibrating now.
In relation to place based working there is a huge diversity of groups across the borough (TRAs and people who deliver provision in community centres) who are not necessarily recorded or known as a voluntary sector organisation. Therefore, the work they and VCH do on placed based projects is to reach and help people who are not necessarily engaged with the community sector and the statutory sector. However, this is not funded. The VCH has lottery funding for 2 resident led skills share work and more recently were funded by the CCG to do this model through GP surgeries. This encourages patients to share their skills with each other. This has been successful because it is reaching people with hugely complex health conditions to volunteer in surgeries and share their skills. This has developed since Covid. This work can only happen where there is funding, and it will need continual funding if you want to deliver this in every borough. The officer highlighted it takes a lot of time to work with residents and not all residents (who have trust issues and lack confidence or have other barriers) want to engage. It takes time to build trust.
HCVS added last year through Happy CVS they launched their VCS enabler model. This brings together all their networks. There are several networks that operate to serve specific groups. A top tier created last year has incorporated the VCS assembly model. This brings together all the VCS alongside statutory partners and residents (where appropriate) to look at broad issues that impact communities to co-produce solutions to these big issues.
In reference to the point about changes to council working it is in essence co-producing with all residents and the VCS organisations that are closest to residents to make sure they are working that way.
HCVS are looking to develop this and secured funding for another year and want to turn this into longer term investment.
In relation to the neighbourhoods conversation HCVS deliver the neighbourhood programme this follows a similar footprint to the primary care network. This brings together in a similar guise residents, VCS and statutory partners to make sure there is a person centre approach to delivering health and social care to residents. Ensuring services are joined up and coordinated. In answer to the question about if they are coordinating and have networks, the response is yes.
(viii) Members asked the Mutual aid group to explain if groups needed to mirror their way of working to respond to a crisis?
The Woodberry Mutual Aid explained every community is unique. What is important is knowing your community and being embedded within the community. This gives the insight to local need, and you can identify how to respond. The officer explained they identified the gap within their community and responded. The staff and volunteers they had were previously beneficiaries. To empower them they became volunteers for the organisation until they secured employment and moved on.
In reference to the demographic of their volunteers it was a mixture. They had older people (this helped them to get out), young people and people from ethnic minority backgrounds.
(ix) Members commented the power of connectors like Woodberry Aid should not be underestimated and an emerging recommendation from this discussion is to value people and the volunteering coordinators role.
The Cabinet Member for Health, Adults Social Care and leisure from LBH added the points made by Woodberry Aid is precisely the reason why a big community development strategy was not required. The Cabinet Member pointed out every community is special and unique and highlighted that the King Park Moving Together project found their area had its own unique set of problems and to turn into a functioning community they must first address them in a unique and specific way to Kings Park Ward.
The Cabinet Member informed the Commission the work outlined by VCH at the meeting was the reason why they had been awarded the freedom of the borough.
(x) Members commented the groundswell witnessed was unprecedented. Members were of the view the development of mutual aid organisations was often where pre-existing anchor organisations formed a pivotal role in ensuring mutual aids evolved and were functioning.
(xi) Members highlighted work with resident participation groups revealed they wanted to be that ignition point for engagement. Without the support from anchor organisations Members were of the view it would be difficult. Members referred to the Council’s resident participation team and asked about the relationship between them and the voluntary sector.
(xii) Members also asked in the absence of social capital how they could generate it through resident participation when you do not have institutions to do i.
(xiii) Members referred to the points about embedding and the role of HCVS in neighbourhood conversation and pointed out a local mutual aid in her ward found these conversations useful. Members asked if this model still exists and if any learning was extracted. Pointing out the role of various organisations coming together in an area to understand what each other is doing, the needs and how they can work together was very useful. Members asked for an update on those conversations.
(xiv) Members commented it would be useful to evaluate all mutual aid groups particularly on the variability of sustainability and the drivers behind the disparities.
In response HCVS confirmed the conversations had continued. This started with Well Street Common as the pilot area and over the last 12 months this has evolved to seven areas. HCVS advised the detail from each conversation was unique but in essence the view was shared experience is useful in terms of key stakeholders being around the table and learning the specific characteristics of each neighbourhood and their needs. This was in addition to valuing being able to speak openly and freely with key providers. This is a model that everyone supports and would like to evolve and develop. This is work HCVS will be doing.
|
ACTION |
HCVS to provide Cllr Potter with an update on the results for each conversation. |
In response the Head of Policy and Strategic Delivery informed there was support to mutual aid groups. The Council has a lead officer within her team that works with mutual aid groups, so there is a relationship with these groups.
In reference to social capital and the role of the council and co-institutions. The officer pointed out social capital is not evenly distributed in communities so they need to recognise there is an equality issue.
In relation to the role of the Council the officer was of the view there needed to be a coherent approach to working with the voluntary and community sector that recognises the VCS influences on the ground. The officer highlighted groups like Woodberry Aid that know the people and understanding the local eco system have the insight. Therefore, having a strategy that recognises the organic activity of local people is useless unless if you do not know what is happen in areas and if you do not build and add value to this. This is the direction they are taking with grant funding but there is more to do in relation to policy from this work as they learn from the pandemic.
Part of the council’s role is about making sure the focus on the VCS is not seen as one team’s work but that different parts of the council - working with residents - also see the value in working with the VCS, as a way of being able to build social capital. Notwithstanding the officer pointed this is not a substitute for talking to communities directly but recognising this as a way of being able to develop activity on the ground.
The officer highlighted the council is interested in understanding how the model described by the VCH (in GP practices) works to build social capital equitably and develop partnerships for people in places.
The Chair closed the item with the following comments:
• commented the discussion was extremely valuable because they have heard about the analysis and experiences of the frontline organisations.
• This demonstrated how a crisis became an opportunity for strengthening the relationship between the local authority and the dynamism we have within our communities to help identify where the gaps are and how we might be able to support residents.
• In respect of mutual aid organisations the Chair commented harnessing the energy is one aspect but resisting the temptation to be statist was another aspect. These are inevitable tension.
• From The Chairs observations the council had managed this well and ended up in quite a good place in terms of the areas outlined at the meeting.
• Members noted with interest how food had become a key issue, and this was not just related to food poverty but because food was a connector and linked to areas beyond the subtenancies of the body such as the soul.
• The Chair suggested the council should work on developing this area of work further.
• The Commission would review this discussion and consider if there are recommendations to be made about what the work that can be done to fill gaps physically and geographically in relation to the shortage of social capital and where the biggest strength is.
Supporting documents:
-
4A - Coversheet-voluntary sector, item 4.
PDF 70 KB -
4B - Voluntary Sector SEG March 2022, item 4.
PDF 336 KB