Agenda item
Poverty Reduction - Voluntary Sector Partners Update (19:05 -19:55)
Minutes:
4.1 The Chair opened the discussion by outlining that the administration had pledged in 2018 to “tackle poverty, including child poverty, as well as key inequalities in health, education and employment based on a solid understanding of the barriers and needs of our different communities, listening to their concerns and expanding the use of social value and co-design”.
4.2 The need to address poverty in Hackney was also a repeated issue in the consultation for the Community Strategy 2018-2028, and tackling inequality and entrenched poverty was therefore identified as one of its key priorities. The ongoing focus on poverty reduction in the borough had also been amplified by the current cost of living crisis.
4.3 The Panel had received an update last year about the strategic framework outlining the Council’s approach to poverty reduction, the aims, and objectives. The purpose of this discussion was to review how the Council’s Poverty Reduction Strategic Framework was working in practice and how it had been embedded across council services. The Panel also sought to understand how the Council was working in partnership with key local stakeholders in the voluntary sector to meet the needs of residents.
4.4 To support this discussion, the Panel went on site visits to Woodberry Aid, Chicken Soup Shelter and Stamford Hill Community Centre, engaging with organisations that had been providing the following types of support:
· Community Shops
· Advice Providers
· Orthodox Jewish Organisations/Food Distribution
· Holistic Support
· Warm Hubs
4.5 Before beginning the discussion, the Chair thanked Council officers from the Policy and Strategic Delivery Team for supporting the site visits and the external guests in attendance at the meeting.
4.6 Representing London Borough of Hackney
· Cllr Chris Kennedy, Cabinet Member Health, Adult Social Care, Voluntary Sector and Culture
· Cllr Rob Chapman, Cabinet Member for Finance, Insourcing and Customer Service
· Cllr Caroline Woodley, Cabinet Member for Families, Parks & Leisure
· Cllr Carole Williams, Cabinet Member for Employment, Human Resources and Equalities
· Ian Williams, Group Director Finance & Resources
· Sonia Khan, Head of Policy and Strategic Delivery
· Jenny Zienau, Strategic Lead Change and Transformation
4.7 External Guest(s)
· Nicolette Nixon, HOPE at Morningside
· Jabez Lam, Hackney Chinese Community Services
4.8 The Chair invited the representative from HOPE at Morningside to give a short verbal presentation. The main points are highlighted below.
4.9 HOPE at Morningside was a youth and community charity based on Mornington Estate. It provided a range of services which include youth club activities, a food bank, a food hub, community lunches and exercise groups for the elderly.
4.10 It worked collaboratively with a range of voluntary and community sector organisations, and worked with relevant organisations and agencies to provide support on a range of issues from housing disrepair to domestic abuse. The pandemic in particular had proved useful in building these positive relationships.
4.11 Organisations like HOPE at Morningside benefited from having similar life experiences as many of the people that used its services, meaning that it could provide a comfortable space for local people to talk about their issues and seek help. In many circumstances there was a lack of trust between local people and agencies, and grassroots organisations could provide a useful brokerage role.
4.12 Resources and funding remained a challenge. Funding was more accessible during the pandemic, but resources had since been allocated elsewhere by local agencies. This was coupled with a continuing rise in the number of people reaching out for its services in recent years, particularly throughout the pandemic and the cost of living crisis. For example, it was receiving around 10 referrals per week for support with food.
4.13 The Chair then invited the representative from Hackney Chinese Community Services to give a short verbal presentation. The main points are highlighted below.
4.14 Hackney Chinese Community Services was a community organisation which was originally established over 30 years ago to serve the local Chinese community. Since then, it had grown to support the wider East and South East Asian community in Hackney, providing services such as learning and education, health and wellbeing, youth activities and caring.
4.15 Its activities ranged from community lunches for the elderly, to singing, yoga and table tennis. It also provided advice services to local people, including support with communicating with relevant agencies. More recently it had been focused on supporting those who had fled from Hong Kong, for example by helping them find accommodation, schools or health services.
4.16 Another important aspect of its work had been in supporting those that had been victims of hate crimes, the prevalence of which had increased during and since the pandemic. This involved working closely with the Metropolitan Police to report incidences and provide support for victims where appropriate.
4.17 It received funding from the Council to provide advice services through its community centre on Ellington Road, and further funding from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities to provide support for local people from or with ties to Hong Kong. However, funding was often short term and the organisation often needed to look for alternative sources of long-term funding.
Questions, Answers and Discussion
4.18 A Panel Member asked whether any wellbeing support was provided to staff and volunteers working with community groups to help them deal with the pressures of providing support services throughout the pandemic and cost of living crisis.
4.19 The representative from HOPE at Morningside explained that people who worked and volunteered with them did so because they enjoyed supporting and giving opportunities to their local community, and doing so was mutually beneficial to all involved.
4.20 During the pandemic, peer support was provided by the Council which proved helpful for staff and volunteers in dealing with the various issues that may arise in their work. Whilst formal support had now stopped, staff and volunteers felt comfortable in contacting Council officers if further support and guidance was needed.
4.21 The representative from Hackney Chinese Community Services added that the Council and Greater London Authority had supported it with funding to improve its facilities, which had encouraged volunteers and allowed them to work effectively.
4.22 Hackney Chinese Community Services had also developed positive working relationships with many other community and voluntary organisations in the borough which allowed it signpost effectively when specific areas of concern arise.
4.23 A Panel Member asked what the experience of community groups and organisations like HOPE at Morningside and Hackney Chinese Community Centre had been in accessing Hackney’s Money Hub.
4.24 The representative from HOPE at Morningside explained that whilst Hackney’s Money Hub was particularly busy and inundated with referrals, its staff were helpful, collaborated with community groups and shared resources to ensure a wide impact.
4.25 The representative from Hackney Chinese Community Services added that the Money Hub’s outreach workers were easy to work with and had provided financial support to those residents it worked with when needed.
4.26 The Group Director Finance & Resources explained that funding for the Money Hub had been secured via health partners. The Money Hub had two clear goals: improving access to discretionary and crisis funds, and improving benefits uptake in the borough.
4.27 It was estimated that around £13 million a year was lost in unclaimed benefits in Hackney. The aim was to ensure around £1 million of this was claimed this year and, in the first six months, around £500,000 had been claimed.
4.28 A Panel Member asked for more information on the progress made in improving benefits uptake across the borough, and whether there were plans in place to sustain the early successes in this respect of the Money Hub.
4.29 The Group Director Finance & Resources explained that the Council was looking at the ways in which it could fund the Money Hub beyond the current period. Whilst the Council had recently approved its budget for 2023/24, and was in a difficult financial position, it did recognise the return on investment seen so far and would consider funding opportunities as they arose.
4.30 The Council was looking to continue to move around potential resources, and was successfully covering many of its costs through internal staff redeployments. It was also looking at other sources of non-current funding, for example the Household Support Fund which provided support to a wide range of local groups.
4.31 The Cabinet Member for Finance, Insourcing and Customer Service added that while the Council was committed to doing what it could to support people through the cost of living crisis, any help was provided against a backdrop of successive government policies which had strained the benefits system. For example, the recent removal of the Universal Credit uplift alone removed £35 million from the income of Hackney residents.
4.32 Improving benefits uptake and access to crisis and discretionary funds were vital to the poverty reduction agenda, and the Council was committed to finding ways to support it in future years. These were being undertaken not just by the Council, but in partnership with community groups and organisations across the borough.
4.33 The Head of Policy and Strategic Delivery added that conversations regarding funding for future years were live, and it was important to note the distinction to be made between the distribution of discretionary funds and supporting benefits uptake across the borough.
4.34 Whilst the Money Hub acted as a centralised single point of access for emergency funding, it did collaborate with community partners and other agencies and share resources so that it had a wider impact and value.
4.35 A Panel Member asked whether HOPE at Morningside had considered a community shop model to expand its work in relation to food poverty in the local community.
4.36 The representative from HOPE at Morningside explained that a community shop model was currently being explored and developed, with funding received from City Bridge. Whilst this would be more sustainable than a food bank in the longer term, it did not come without its challenges such as securing long term funding and sourcing affordable food.
4.37 A Panel Member asked whether the Council had considered offering employer-supported volunteering to enable its employees to take paid time off to volunteer during working hours.
4.38 The Head of Policy and Partnerships explained that it was a policy that the Council had looked at before, but instead opted to put more resources into identifying and communicating volunteering opportunities to its employees. For example, Volunteer Centre Hackney had recently come in to talk to employees about volunteering opportunities across the borough.
4.39 A Panel Member asked whether HOPE at Morningside and Hackney Chinese Community Services felt that improving benefits uptake across the borough and improving access to discretionary funds were the right priorities for the Council to support people through the cost of living crisis.
4.40 The representative from Hackney Chinese Community Service explained that a significant amount of the people that reached out for support needed help in accessing funding or benefits, and so the Money Hub was seen as a helpful response.
4.41 The representative from HOPE at Morningside added that in practice, benefits were not enough for many people in Hackney to live on. The financial support provided by the Council through discretionary funding was a huge financial relief for many, as well as the immediate relief of claiming those benefits they had missed out on.
4.42 A Panel Member asked whether HOPE at Morningside and Hackney Chinese Community Services had explored or been engaged in any community food growing opportunities, and what they thought about such initiatives as a means of alleviating food poverty.
4.43 The representative from Hackney Chinese Community Services explained that it grew its own food on a small scale, with some of the food grown being used for its lunch clubs. Once it had moved into its new premises in the next few months, it would look to grow more of its own food and possibly start food growing projects.
4.44 The representative from HOPE at Morningside added that growing its own food was difficult because it was primarily a youth club, and many of its youth activities were undertaken in its garden area. Moreover, it was not seen as an efficient way to provide food for the number of people it provided support to, as these would likely far outweigh the amount produced.
4.45 The Cabinet Member for Parks, Families and Leisure went on to say that the Council had relationships with food growing communities and there were ways to work together with other community groups to grow food, despite the difficulties in expanding this area of work due to a lack of land.
4.46 There were also a range of other opportunities for the Council to explore such as the provision of fair trade food, bulk purchasing, and supporting schools with plant based diets.
4.47 A Panel Member asked for further information on the progress of the Council’s task group which had been established to review food poverty affecting children in schools.
4.48 The Head of Policy and Partnerships explained that the task group was set up by the Director for Education to look at ways to expand the free school meals offer in a financially sustainable way, for example through procurement and external funding opportunities.
4.49 Since the announcement that the Mayor of London would be funding universal free school meals for the 2023/24 academic year in primary schools, the task group had been accessing the implications and opportunities for local work which would complement this.
4.50 The Cabinet Member for Health, Adult Social Care, Voluntary Sector and Culture added that the funding from the Mayor of London would only last for the 2023/24 financial year, and funding would need to be identified by the Council if the offer was to stay in place for subsequent years.
4.51 The Cabinet Member for Parks, Families and Leisure went on to say that the funding for 2023/24 presented challenges as well as opportunities, as there was a risk that it would not cover the costs of the full range of dietary needs across the borough such as kosher and halal food.
Summing Up
4.52 The Chair thanked Panel Members for their questions and all witnesses for their responses and engagement with the scrutiny process.
4.53 It was explained that the Panel would reflect on the evidence heard, which would inform its ongoing work on the Council’s efforts to alleviate poverty.
Supporting documents:
-
Item 4 - Coversheet (Poverty Reduction), item 4.
PDF 118 KB -
LBH Poverty reduction - Scrutiny Panel, item 4.
PDF 582 KB