CS.82.08 - Community Support Review Public.pdf

Note: in compliance with section 100d of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985
the report has been prepared in part from the following papers: CS 68/08 & CS 79/08
1
REPORT TO EXECUTIVE
PORTFOLIO AREA: HEALTH & COMMUNITIES
Date of Meeting: 17 November 2008
Public
Key Decision: Yes Recorded in Forward Plan: Yes
Inside Policy Framework
Title: COMMUNITY SUPPORT REVIEW
Report of: Director of Community Services
Report reference: CS 82/08
Summary:
To consider the feedback from Community O&S meeting on 6 November on the
Community Support Review. The draft Minute is attached together with the Executive
Summary of the report.
Recommendations:
It is RECOMMENDED that the Executive considers the recommendations of this review
and requests the Director of Community Services in conjunction with the PH for Health &
Communities to develop an action plan to progress these.
Contact Officer: Mark Beveridge Ext: 7350

2
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The attached report was considered at a Special Community O&S on 6th
November.
The SOLACE report itself formed the basis of their discussion and that report was
previously considered by the Executive (CS 68/08).
2. CONCLUSION
2.1 The SOLACE report contains a number of recommendations for the service and for
these to be implemented it is necessary to devise an action plan for Community
Support based on whichever recommendation the Executive agree.
2.2 It is anticipated that this action plan will in turn determine the future direction of the
Council’s Community Support Team. In turn through the development and
monitoring of the plan it will be possible to engage with Members and stakeholders
much more than has been the case previously.

Final Report by Andrew Chatterjee
SOLACE Enterprises
August 2008
Service Review -
Carlisle City Council
Community Support
Unit

Page 2
Contents
Introduction p. 3
Exec Summary p. 4
Key Recommendations p. 8
What is Community Development? p. 17
Scientific Approach to Community Development p. 19
The Local Context p. 22
The Community Service Unit (CSU) p. 26
The Budget p. 26
Comparing Spend with nearest neighbours p. 29
Marketing & Communications p. 32
Children & Young People p. 33
Events p. 37
Community Engagement p. 40
Benefits Advice p. 44
External Advice & Advocacy p. 48
The Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) p. 50
Housing & Homelessness p. 52
Carlisle Housing Association p. 52
Cumbria County Council p. 54
Primary Care Trust p. 56
Parish & Rural p. 58
Performance Management p. 59
Menu of Opportunities for Community Involvement p. 62
Conclusion p. 66
Figure 1: CSU Service Costs p. 27
Figure 2: 3D Pie Chart of Service Costs p. 28
Figure 3: Key Achievements p. 31
Figure 4: Employment Status Benefits Advice Claimants p. 48
Appendix 1 – National Policy Context p. 68
Appendix 2 – Neighbourhood governance arrangements p. 73
Appendix 3 - Benefits Advice Service selection of feedback slips p. 76
Appendix 4 - List of Interviewees p. 77
Appendix 5 - Community Engagement Team: Work Areas Audit p. 79
Appendix 6 - Children & Young People Team: Work Areas Audit p. 92
Appendix 7 - Benefits Advice Team: Work Areas Audit p. 96
Appendix 8 - Members' Workshop notes p. 99

Page 3
Introduction
SOLACE Enterprises was commissioned by the client to review the role and function of
the Community Support Unit (CSU). A specific objective of the Review is to appraise
the strategic relevance of Carlisle’s approach to community support and to evaluate its
impact and effectiveness on internal and external stakeholders, particularly in relation
to neighbourhood working, community cohesion/empowerment issues raised in the
White Paper and in tackling social exclusion. Specifically the client wished to better
understand how the work of the CSU was contributing towards the council's strategic
objectives – Carlisle Renaissance; Cleaner, Greener, Safer and the Learning City. At
the same time the client is conscious that all of the services CSU provides are
discretionary. It has identified efficiencies it wants to make and has requested that a
number of proposed savings options be identified and appraised.
This report presents the findings of the review. It builds on and incorporates initial
research included of the baseline report of May 2008. The report includes some
detailed factual information, background and history of the service and, whilst some
readers may be well acquainted with these facts, others for whom this report is
intended, will not be. These may include for instance, the newer elected members. It
is important this context is provided. In the absence of context analysis is stripped of
meaning and erroneous judgements may be arrived at.
This Review takes place at a time when talk of community empowerment abounds and
when local government must rise to challenges from central government to devolve
more power and authority to localities in ways that improve service outcomes and
deliver social benefits. The whole thrust of government policy is towards empowering
people to give them a greater say in how key services are delivered and give them
opportunities to shape these services and their neighbourhoods.
Community development practitioners will be the conduit for channelling local ideas,
energies and ambitions upwards into the Civic Centre and brokering a dialogue
between the two worlds. To properly fulfil the function the new policy and legislation
demands of them community practitioners will themselves need to be valued and
empowered by their own authorities. The emphasis is also very much on improved co-
operation and partnership working – practices which are redefining organisational
behaviours, boundaries and calling for 'outside the box' thinking.
As ever times are lean in local government and the need to deliver continuous
efficiency savings features tempers everything councils do. How can these imperatives
be balanced? Solutions to both challenges may be in finding more imaginative and
innovative ways of joining up services at the local level and finding ways of working
together more effectively with partner organisations in ways that allow services to be
shared. To do this requires trust, vision and the preparedness of some bodies to
relinquish control and resources for the greater good.
For ease the term Community Development (CD) is used interchangeably with
community support / community empowerment. Hereafter Community Support Unit
will be referred to as CSU.

Page 4
Executive Summary
The Government wants to give citizens and communities a bigger say in the services
they receive and in shaping the places where they live. There is a political consensus
on this across all the main parties. Carlisle Council has set out its stall. It wants to
deliver Carlisle Renaissance, Learning City and Cleaner Greener Safer. The Corporate
Improvement Plan has acknowledged the new best value duty to involve local people
in decision-making on policies, and to inform them about how the authority is
performing. Community development is at the heart of this work – the catalyst that
secures local 'buy-in' and activates strategies and policies, translating them into real
action. The current wave of government reform presents a huge challenge to
community development to deploy its methods more fully than ever before. One of
the key constraints on the council’s ability to fulfil its new statutory duties to involve,
and its own ambitions to empower, local people will be the availability of capacity-
building, support and training to enable local people to actively participate in civic
affairs in a meaningful way.
The CSU has been under internal review since 2006 and its component services, such
as Benefits Advice and Events, have been under periodic review on and off for a
number of years. There is a clear need to ensure that the work undertaken by the
CSU is more effectively understood. Community development work is often hidden
from view and difficult to measure directly, but it is clear from an examination of
Beacon council best practice in this area that local authorities who have acknowledged
the contribution of community development have found that its practice generally
adds value and supports the delivery of wider corporate objectives. Community
development is not a traditional council service that fits nicely into one box but rather
an approach to service delivery that should be employed across the council by all its
employees. It is a hybrid skill-set, a way of working, part social work, part customer
relationship management, part education, part health, part planning... it is a square
peg in a round hole. A council that inculcates all its employees with a community
development culture will reap the benefits for years to come. The report includes
some proposals to make this happen.
This Review has delved deeply into the work of the CSU and found concrete and
tangible evidence that it is contributing towards key council objectives both directly (in
terms of particular outcomes) and indirectly (by creating and sustaining a local
environment in which strategic priorities can flourish). It finds also that the CSU's
work has strategic relevance and fits with the both the local and national policy
context. The Review finds that the CSU provides a valuable service that enables and
facilitates other council services to deliver on corporate priorities in ways that would
not be possible without their support. It recognises also that there are areas for
improvement and that the responsibility for these rests with all parties - the unit itself,
the Executive and with elected members. It also considers some intermediate outputs
and looks at a performance framework which will demonstrate that the unit is
performing effectively.
The council, in line with national policy and best practice, wishes to take a locality
working approach – devolving provision and governance down to an area level to
create more locally responsive and accountable services. Other partners also share

Page 5
this ambition and are actively considering how they can achieve this. Again
community development is the vital ingredient – engaging with local people to involve
them in the process, 'do it with them - not to them' as the maxim goes. The report
gives some thought to potential service models for locality working and associated
area governance arrangements which have been applied in other areas.
The Review asserts strongly that a strategic local approach to the provision of
community development neighbourhood regeneration in Carlisle is urgently needed.
Work needs to be effectively and efficiently co-ordinated between the key providers in
the city – the City Council, Cumbria County Council, PCT Carlisle Housing Association
and the VCS. The Local Strategic Partnership is the only vehicle that has the remit
and reason and whose Executive has the clout, to do this. If the political will exists
this is the right time to get LSP partners on the Executive to consider pooling all their
resources to create a shared community development and neighbourhood
regeneration service for Carlisle, working to a jointly agreed Stronger Communities
Strategy and Community Empowerment Action Plan.
At a wider level improved local collaboration through sharing community development
services offers clear advantages – a team greater than the sum of its parts, more
staff, more experience, greater flexibility, increased staff satisfaction from job
variation and unity of purpose, a seamless service experience for Carlisle residents,
better support to councillors, improved capacity, better networking and cross-referral,
opening up more funding opportunities, more detailed and accurate intelligence, data
collection and performance management, greater efficiencies, sharing of risk and
benefits, better outcomes for all. The Review has identified that Community support
is a service area in which the city council is held in high regard by partners and
service users. It must continue to provide this function if it is to fulfil its new statutory
duty to involve local people and in order to deliver on corporate priorities. The city
council already provides children and young peoples services on behalf of the county
council – a service area with potential for further growth. If partners agree a
workable shared service model will need to be found. It is therefore proposed that the
city council might wish to put itself forward as the most appropriate and best placed
organisation to lead and host a shared service in Carlisle.
The Review has highlighted that community development activities are often
undertaken in a range of different teams within the organisation, therefore it is felt
that efficiencies could be gained from more efficient integration. Such reconfiguration
will improve the unit's effectiveness, achieve more joined-up working internally, avoid
duplication and combat the issues of silo working which the report has identified. If
the council and its partners on the LSP agree on establishing a shared community
development service this will make the council's CSU a more appealing 'marriage
prospect' for its partners.
How would this work in practice? The Review considers the mechanics and possible
management arrangements for such a set up which will allow for co-operative locality
working and looks at how the potential stumbling blocks and obstacles might be
overcome. A matrix management approach in which council staff from other front-line
services trained in community development techniques would allow officers to be
assigned to specific geographic areas and contribute towards project work in a more

Page 6
co-ordinated and cost efficient way. This would add value and allow the council's
various service teams to better interface with members of the community and each
other. If a shared service model were adopted with partners this approach would
have even greater potential, as the pooled resources would be much greater. The role
of the LSP at all stages will be integral. The report looks at a number of different
options such as a totally integrated community development team for Carlisle; a pilot,
partially integrated city council run team with staff seconded from partner
organisations; commissioning and contracting out arrangements.
The funding of community development is a key issue for the council. The need to
deliver service efficiencies has been considered separately in Section Two, which
considers a number of specific savings options the client may wish to consider. In
broader terms this review recommends that a cultural change is needed, consistent
with corporate efficiencies, which recognises the reliance that other Directorates and
partners have on community development methods for the successful delivery of their
own initiatives. National best practice suggests that all policies which invoke
community empowerment or rely on community engagement for their implementation
should have a built-in margin of their budget allocated to community development /
capacity building.
Carlisle Renaissance will rely heavily on community development if it is succeed not
only in its ambitious physical regeneration plans for the city centre but also for the
implementation of its economic strategy 'Growing Carlisle'. The CSU will have an
important part to play in delivering this. The Learning City ambition comes with no
new money but with an opportunity to influence other partners and budgets. In
supporting the Cleaner, Greener, Safer agenda CSU will be increasingly relevant in
ensuring local participation and engagement in neighbourhood liveability initiatives,
perhaps through promoting resident service champions and in encouraging community
ownership of small scale urban greening and environmental schemes. Any other
service that needs community involvement, be it consultation, organising workshops
or events, should first make use of the resource and expertise that exists in-house
(and via the CSU their extensive local network). Re-charges should be levied
accordingly. The Unit for its part must do more to sell its services both internally and
externally to generate income.
The CSU is scrutinised in detail. The overall cost of the service is broken down by
each discrete work area (Children & Young People, Events, Community Involvement -
Community Centres / Equality & diversity, Benefits Advice & Grants to external
providers). These are evaluated to understand
• impact on corporate priorities and strategic relevance
• impact on service users
• levels of partnership working internal and external
• limiting factors
• areas for improvement
• effectiveness of communicating with service users, partners, stakeholders
• evidence based approach to service planning and delivery
Based on information that was available an analysis of the shared work and resource

Page 7
input of partner organisations including Carlisle Housing Association, Cumbria County,
and CVS is made. The Review also looks closely at the LSP. It found that the stronger
element of 'Safer and Stronger' block has been subsumed by the 'Safer' work and
consequently was not being adequately addressed. Community Development
outcomes lacked sufficient profile, which may have limited what can be achieved
through dedicated community development support for the implementation of
initiatives and interventions directed from the partnership.
The report gives careful attention to the new policy and legislative agenda which is
changing the landscape of local government and which has pushed the profile of CD to
the forefront. The key points of the Community Empowerment White Paper,
forthcoming Community Empowerment, Housing & Economic Regeneration Bill, Local
Government and Public Involvement in Health Act, Sustainable Communities Act and
Quirk Review are appraised. The report also considers the implications of policy
trends such as commissioning, asset transfer and of relevant agendas such as
localism, active citizenship, devolution, personalisation and looks at ways to future
proof the council and refers the reader to some valuable resources for best practice
and networking.
Finally, as requested, this report contains a separate section outlining a number of
proposed savings options as the client requested. An attempt has been made to
indicate the pros and cons of each option and estimate the likely impact on overall
service levels, affect on the community and council's public relations.
There is a great deal of detailed information about the CSU's actual work areas in the
tables in the Appendices. It is suggested that if the reader really wants to see the
sort of day-to-day work the unit does, and to understand how it contributes to core
council priorities, that these sections deserve attention. Additionally the reader will
note that throughout the report references appear in the footnotes indicating sources
of further and better particulars for important issues.

Page 8
Key Recommendations
Problem: Lack of an explicit Community Development policy and vision (endorsed by
the Executive and strategic partners) and an appropriate LSP mechanism to co-
ordinate community development work in Carlisle
Fact: None of the council's corporate priorities or LSP targets can be achieved
without CD, yet there is no definitive policy statement which acknowledges this fact or
which sets out a context for CD work in Carlisle. No where in the 2007 Community
Plan is community development / empowerment explicitly mentioned. There is a
sentence noting an intention to 'work on developing strong community networks
through devolved decision making' but it does not say how this ambition will be
achieved. The Safer & Stronger priorities focus entirely upon Safer priorities.*
The
CDRP's own Partnership Plan report acknowledges that the CDRP needs to embrace
the stronger as well as the safer elements (see this report, para 99 LSP section p.51)
for more details) and recommends this issue be addressed via a CDRP Leadership
Group. But is this the appropriate body? In the eyes of officers, members, partners
and the public community empowerment will be perceived and associated with crime
reduction – when in fact it is about much more than this.
Solution: A shared vision and strategy to deliver stronger communities in Carlisle.
This will be underpinned by a mechanism to deliver 'Stronger Communities' between
partners, allowing for more effective and efficient co-ordination and collaboration on
CD work. This mechanism should recognise that CD cuts across and supports the key
LSP priorities – health, children and young people, economic, environmental. The
work with the County Council on the Community Empowerment Pilot may be a start
on a more co-ordinated approach but an agreed, clear and coherent contextual
framework for future CD work is still required.
Recommendation 1: Firstly an explicit, Executive endorsed, internal (city council)
policy statement recognising the contribution of CD in contributing to overarching
corporate objectives. This statement should clarify the council's intentions for work in
this area and set the context by identifying and clarifying the broader policy and
strategic framework in which the community support service will operate. Secondly, a
Stronger Communities /Community Empowerment Action Plan borne out of by a
Refreshed Sustainable Community Strategy developed, published and driven by the
LSP. There is no point in Carlisle producing a separate strategy, as it simply doesn't
have the capacity to deliver core community empowerment objectives alone, nor is
this desirable, since responsibility lies with all partners – not just the city council. The
Action Plan will focus partners' attentions on defining and planning the nuts and bolts
– the who, what, where and when needed to deliver Stronger Communities in Carlisle.
It may also serve as a precursor to sharing services in this area (see next
recommendation).
* The Refreshed Community Plan (Summer 2008) appears to have recognised this gap. It
acknowledges the LSP's commitment to empower communities to have a greater influence
of decisions and identifies community planning as a way of addressing this. It states that
“Difficulties remain with the formation of an effective mechanism to address 'Stronger
Communities' issues... Task and Finish groups will be established to focus efforts in these
areas.”

Page 9
****************
Problem: Community development underpins the strategic objectives of all the
partners on the LSP, but the CSU team have to prioritise what they can achieve with
the existing resources. A more joined up and efficient way of delivering this service
needs to be found which avoids duplication of effort and maximises the resources
available.
Fact: The city council are one of the main practitioners of CD in Carlisle with many
years of experience. Other partners have similar teams with overlapping roles e.g.
Carlisle Housing Association’s Neighbourhood Investment Team, Cumbria County
Council’s Neighbourhood Development Officers, PCT’s Health Development workers.
More efficient use could be made of these staff by integrating and pooling human,
information and financial resources. Properly harnessed and directed, this expertise
and knowledge will better help the council and its partners deliver on their cross
cutting objectives. It will also improve service delivery for the end user by offering a
seamless service. For the most part the public does not understand the reason for
mechanised and stratified public service delivery where workers from different
agencies or departments operate independently of each other, yet apparently to the
same end. This is extremely confusing to the service user and often leads to the
complaint levelled at councils and other statutory bodies that the right arm doesn't
know what the left is doing.
Solution: A shared services model. It is wasteful of resources in a relatively small city
like Carlisle to have three or four separate agencies undertaking neighbourhood
development and community support functions. This presents a very strong case for
sharing services. A holistic approach is needed that maximises and pools all partner
resources, including staff, budgets and information in a formal and sustainable way.
Recommendation 2: Create a new, improved Community Development Service for
Carlisle. Better integrate the existing CD resources within the CSU team. Either
second or wholly transfer key staff from partner organisations. There will then be
enough staff to take a locality working approach (see Recommendation 8). This is
now a reconfigured, multi agency team working in a co-ordinated way to a jointly
agreed work plan designed to deliver the Refreshed Carlisle Sustainable Community
Strategy. In this model the city council would act as the lead authority. The unitary
debate is now over and there is now sufficient stability, aided by an emphasis on, and
an enthusiasm for, working through partnerships, to achieve this. The grass-roots
workers from different organisations all work well with each other currently so it is
issues of accountability and management that would need to be resolved. It will be
essential to ensure that sufficient thought is given to the arrangements proposed for
leading and managing this extended team in order to empower the members of it to
work positively and cooperatively under the auspices of the LSP.
If this option is favoured, a programme of work would need to be undertaken
including, for example: preparatory development work and presentations to partner
organisations to establish their support and build consensus together with the
preparation of a full independent feasibility to consider and evaluate the potential in
greater detail:

Page 10
• The specific objective of the proposal
• All potential alternative service models
• An outline analysis of the business case including:
o The capital and revenue expenditure needed to achieve the start up of
the shared service and the payback period.
o The difference in the cost of the shared service at the end of the payback
period compared to the current cost.
o An estimated quantification of the improvement in service quality, cost
reduction and efficiencies.
o Where in the supply chain the greatest improvement of the shared
service will be achieved (i.e. will it be service improvement or reduction
in cost or another benefit?)
o How the potential gain for each partner is proportionate to that partner’s
share of the service.
• The governance arrangements proposed (i.e. to whom will the service be
accountable e.g. the LSP or a separate Board or Committee?)
• The management arrangements proposed (i.e. will one organisation manage
and deliver the service for its contractual partners or will their be shared
responsibilities?)
• The potential impact on staff
• Preparation of a Project Initiation Document demonstrating how partner
organisations will be involved and how this will work.
****************
Problem: Joint working within the city council could be improved to be more
effective and efficient. Current CSU capacity limits its effectiveness and undermines its
value to the organisation and to external partners.
Fact: There are council officers in other services who would be better placed to deliver
on their own service's and on corporate priorities, if they worked much more closely
and effectively with the CSU. It is also true that the CSU would be much better placed
to deliver on corporate priorities if their role and the expectations of them, were made
clearer. If the shared services option was seriously on the table the other partners
would want to buy in to a service which comes better resourced and equipped than
CSU presently does - one which has a cross section of staff with multi layered
experience which will better complement their own teams.
Solution: There is a strong business case for an internal re-alignment of some posts
into CSU anyway. An expanded CSU team would be better placed to explore Locality
Working / Neighbourhood Management pilot. If shared service goes ahead it will be
even better, demonstrating to partners the council is thinking progressively. Join
together disparate posts to expedite this.
Recommendation 3: Consider integration of officers with relevant functions from
Housing, CDRP, Rural Support, Economic Development, Greenspace, GIS Team,
Carlisle Renaissance to add value to CSU team. See page 67.

Page 11
****************
Problem: Need to cascade CD skills to all front-line staff to better enable them to
work better with the public. There is also haziness around the nature and role of CD
work that needs clearing. Many council staff have a limited view of what colleagues in
the CSU actually do and how it relates to, and can support, their own work.
Fact: Local authorities are under increasing pressure to demonstrate community
involvement, yet they can't do this without CD work. It underpins a lot of council work
areas but is not being used as effectively as it might be. Community working is the
job of all council employees. The recent Community Empowerment White Paper
reasserts this and sets out plans for an “Empowering the Front-line Taskforce” to run
until 2010 which will work on ensuring that front-line council staff are able to respond
to a more empowered public.1
Solution:
1) CD workshops, facilitated by the CSU should be run to inform employees /
members and raise awareness of CD practice.
2) CD training should be made available for all staff as part of employees'
professional development.
3) All staff delivering on key corporate priorities should shadow CSU workers to gain
insight into CD skills and work areas.
4) A Job Swap day should be organised across the council to give employees an
insight into how different parts of the organisation work and how each is
delivering on corporate priorities. This would lead to greater understanding, co-
operation, and clarity of purpose. To be organised by Corporate HR, Chief
Executives and CSU
Recommendation 4: this proposal to be implemented without delay
****************
Problem: Poor service engagement with members. The Review has found that
working relationships with members are patchy and ad hoc. Few members have been
able to attend events organised by CSU to promote their work and therefore may
have a limited perception of the CSU's remit, work and capacity.
Fact: A desire for greater locality level working and recent Government proposals
mean that front-line councillors are now expected to assume stronger community
leadership and advocacy roles at ward / neighbourhood level. At present, there is no
formal mechanism for communicating with and briefing members about the work CSU
is engaged in and how it relates to their wards. Presently CSU team members do not
attend neighbourhood forums, which are serviced instead by Cumbria County
Neighbourhood Development Officers (NDOs). As a consequence, the NDOs have a
much closer working relationship with their CC members than the city council's CSU
officers have with their city council members.
1 Communities in Control, DCLG, July 2008 p.29

Page 12
Solution: A more robust, regular and direct working relationship with members. The
Service must work much more closely with ward councillors. It is imperative
members are well briefed and supported to understand what the CSU team are doing
in each area, why they are doing it, and what outcomes are expected. This will
benefit members, the CSU and the community.
Recommendation 5: the communication links between the CSU and members are
strengthened to provide for a regular formalised reporting and feedback structure.
Democratic Services should be involved to support this. Furthermore as CD is so
integral to overarching priorities and affects all wards in the city it is suggested the
outcome and recommendations in this Review must not drop off the member's agenda
and for this reason they require further consideration via a Task and Finish Group. In
addition a series of best practice visits for members to authorities in other towns and
cities that have well established mechanisms for neighbourhood and area community
engagement ought to be considered.2
****************
Problem: Increasing public expectations of high performance from councillors often
mismatched with what councillors can actually deliver. Officers and members
sometimes also have different expectations of each other. Challenge is for both
officers and councillors to support each other do their job professionally and more
effectively in. Many backbench councillors also feel distanced from council decision-
making and struggle to engage with LSPs and other structures set up to influence
decisions about mainstream service allocation (the members' workshop in Carlisle
certainly confirmed this).
Fact: National research has identified concern among councillors, officers and
community groups about the scale and complexity of the future ward member role.
The vital community leadership and advocacy role of ward councillors has been
reasserted by the empowerment agenda. A locality / area working approach will
entail more responsibility for local decision decision-making. The trend is towards a
higher profile role - more visible community engagement from members. All
councillors will need to respond to these expectations. A cultural change in officer-
member-communities relations is therefore urgently needed.
Solution: Councillors Compact3
. A voluntary, two-way agreement between the council
and elected members which sets out the council’s expectations of the ward councillor
role, encouraging basic minimum standards of activity and performance. Compact also
clearly sets out the council’s commitment to provide minimum levels of support,
training and remuneration for members to enable them to fulfil their role effectively.
2 Consultant would be able to recommend suitable authorities, organise and facilitate these
visits.
3 Councillor Compact was a recommendation in the Joseph Rowntree Foundation Report
"Ward Councillors and Community Leadership: A Future Perspective”. See p.47
http://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/2125-local-government-councillors.pdf

Page 13
Recommendation 6: That the Council Executive give serious consideration to a
Councillor Compact and initiate dialogue between senior officers and members to
consider proposal. Suggest involvement of Communities Directorate, Democratic
Services and external support as necessary in drawing up compact for consideration.
****************
Problem: Marketing and communication by CSU could be improved.
Fact: There is scope for improving communication. The Review has found that a large
number of internal colleagues are completely unaware of the good work that CSU do.
CD work is often hidden from view as it takes place away from the centre. However
lack of knowledge about the team's work and its potential is now hindering it. There
is a desire from the Corporate Comms team to provide more support to community
development activities which support and deliver strategic priorities.
Solution: Enhance CSU communication internally and externally.
Recommendation 7: Explore new and more effective ways of promoting the council's
and partners' community work e.g. short advertising / promotional campaign
comprising road shows, regular e-bulletins to members and interested parties;
engaging marketing and comms professionals to raise awareness of participation
opportunities. The internal Communications team should be used in the first instance.
****************
Problem: Getting to grips with devolution and area based arrangements. Developing
better locality working is particularly challenging in Carlisle within a two-tier/ county-
district structure. Carlisle is low on the citizen participation ladder. An effective area
governance structure is needed, with an area forum model that galvanises local
involvement and which ensures greater service provider responsiveness and
accountability.
Fact: Both district and county councils are considering improving their locality working
approach. The County is actively exploring devolved service delivery and new area
governance arrangements through a high level 'White Paper Working Group'. The city
council needs to be in a position to respond to this. The majority of CSU's work is
centred around informing, advising, supporting and consulting. The big exception was
Sure Start Carlisle South – which represented a significant step up the ladder to
citizen control. CHA have progressed further with devolved budgeting (see p.45) and
lessons can be gleaned from this. However in general the community cannot become
more empowered and the CSU cannot facilitate this process because there are
currently no suitable area / neighbourhood governance structures to allow for
meaningful delegated citizen power, devolved budgeting etc. The existing
Neighbourhood Forums represent the most basic form of tokenistic participation.
Solution: New multi agency area governance arrangements such as local partnership
boards / public service boards which provide opportunities for sustained involvement
in local decision making, greater service provider accountability and devolved power

Page 14
through participatory budgeting and resourcing. Such bodies can only be established
with the agreement and commitment of all partner agencies.
Recommendation 8: City council to initiate discussions with key public sector
partners. Commission an independent evaluation of neighbourhood forums and
review of potential locality working models and neighbourhood governance structures
in Carlisle.
****************
Problem: CSU not seen as contributing towards key objectives.
Fact: CSU has a key role to play in involving communities in the decision- making
around the economic, social and environmental future of the city. Both the 'Growing
Carlisle' strategy and the Strategy for Sustainable Cumbria identify a host of local
involvement opportunities which the CSU can broker. There are also new work areas
to explore which would contribute further towards both Learning City and Cleaner,
Greener, Safer priorities.
Solution: CSU support a series of interventions with clear performance outcomes
targeted around corporate priorities.
Recommendation 9: Begin discussions with relevant services regarding specific
project work listed in this report.
****************
Problem: Rural areas / parish council reps complain of feeling sidelined by corporate
preoccupation with urban areas. They are concerned about apparent lack of
consultation around proposed Community Empowerment Pilot in Longtown and
inadequate LSP representation. Parish Plans have not been implemented. In addition
there are issues around parish council membership and the effectiveness of local
representation.
Fact: The parish council system, Parish Charter and closer, more cohesive rural
society, together with strong representative associations may expedite CD
interventions and allow for some rural 'quick wins' that would restore confidence, build
local capacity and tackle rural exclusion. A new well being power for parish councils is
anticipated in the forthcoming Community Empowerment Bill (see this report p.70).
Solution: The Community Empowerment pilot in rural areas is developed in
collaboration with rural stakeholders. A series of targeted interventions supported by
CSU / Rural Support officers and partners will garner public support. Work with
Democratic Services to improve the quality of parish council membership. New
community planning exercises must not be paper exercises producing parish plans
which are never realised and sit on the shelf.

Page 15
Recommendation 10: Further research and development work required. The
Community Empowerment Pilot must build on best practice4
.
****************
Problem: Events requires greater co-ordination
Fact: Events run by CSU clearly deliver outcomes beyond CD – particularly in
promoting Carlisle
Solution: A more structured approach to planning and organising Events, which
would enable a pooling of ideas, skills, resources (both internal and external) that can
be used more effectively and efficiently.
Recommendation 11: New Events group comprising key internal and external
partners. A feasibility study into a social enterprise events company.
****************
Problem: Council needs to respond to Sustainable Communities Act 2007
Fact: The Act represents the biggest opportunity for many years for councils and local
people to reverse community decline and enhance the social, economic and
environmental fabric of the city.5
Community participation and involvement is a
requirement in formulating proposals that are sent to the Local Government
Association for consideration. The important point is that this legislation is about local
government and local people telling central government what they need to make
Carlisle more sustainable. Central government has a legal duty ‘to assist local
authorities in promoting the sustainability of local communities’. So by ‘opting in’
councils are signing up to receive that ‘assistance’.
Solution: Opt-in to the process. Conduct triple bottom line sustainability audit for
Carlisle (social, economic, environmental) Following DCLG guidelines establish local
panels and begin public consultation. The role of CD will therefore be crucial in
establishing local panels and in encouraging understanding and awareness of the
process. This represents a significant community empowerment opportunity in itself.
Recommendation 12: Accept the invitation from Secretary of State to opt-in to the
process immediately. Task CSU with establishing consultative panels of
representatives of local people in accordance with government guidelines. Council
Executive request a sustainability audit and preparation of a Carlisle Sustainable
Communities Action Plan to develop ideas and suggestions related to the matters
listed in the Schedule (Section 2 of the Act: see http://www.localworks.org/?q=node/44)
When local consensus on sustainability proposals has been established, the Executive
4
http://www.acre.org.uk/DOCUMENTS/communityengagement/Empowerment%20through%
20Community%20led%20Planning.pdf
5 http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/681480.pdf

Page 16
must sign off final proposals and send to the Local Government Association for
consideration.
****************
Problem: 'Feedback frustration'
Fact: Consultees regularly complain that consultation is often nothing more than a
tick box exercise for the council and that their views, once garnered, are ignored. This
makes their participation seem pointless.
Solution: Let people know their views are valued. Implement the corporate
consultation policy.
Recommendation 13: A list of all the consultations with local communities should be
kept on the council website and incorporated into new service plans. The list should
also state clearly what changes have been made to services as a result, thus
enhancing the credibility of the local authority in terms of responding to a
community’s views and needs.
****************
Problem: Ensuring consistent and high standards of service delivery for community
centres.
Fact: A recognised national standard / quality mark exists for community centres
know as the VISIBLE Communities standard.6
Solution: VISIBLE Communities standards. Certification opens up new opportunities -
access to networking, new funding, improved management, precursor of readiness for
community ownership of assets.
Recommendation 14: Support all centres to sign up to VISIBLE standards. Create
performance target based around this work.
****************
6 http://www.visiblecommunities.org.uk
VISIBLE – Community centres should be a: Voice for local concerns. Independent and
politically neutral. Service provider for local people. Initiator of projects to meet locally
identified needs. Builder of partnerships with other local organisations and groups. Strong
Local network of people and organisations. Way to Engage local people to become active in
their communities.

Page 17
What is Community Development?
1. Community development can be broadly defined as encouraging and empowering
people to gain control over the conditions in which they live, supporting people
and changing social alienation into engagement. The key purpose of CD is to
collectively bring about social change and justice, by working with communities
to identify their needs, opportunities, rights and responsibilities and to plan,
organise, take action to improve local circumstances.
2. Community Engagement can be described as the process whereby public bodies
facilitate citizen and community participation in order to incorporate their views
and needs into decision-making processes. Community Empowerment, which is
described as passing more and more power to more and more people, is the
desired outcome, the end result of CD work.
3. Major national studies into the sector e.g. “The Community Development
Challenge” and “Community Development at Work: A Case of Obscurity in
Accomplishment” have found many in the sector are left scratching their heads
when it comes to CD, wondering what they are getting for their money from a
service that is, after all, discretionary. It is an inescapable fact, however that
major reforms in local government and other major public services that depend
on involving local people are unlikely to work without CD. A DCLG report into the
subject notes that all too often CD is an afterthought:
“The role of community development is often overlooked at the higher levels of
policy, although there is wide reliance on its methods at the level of
implementation. This reliance is largely hidden from view because it takes place in
detailed local situations. Community developments own ethos of stressing its role
in providing background support rather than leadership reinforces this low
profile.”7
4. Community Empowerment has shot up the government's agenda. The 2006
Strong and Prosperous Communities White paper has become law with the
passing of the 2007 Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act.
This enacts the ‘new duty to involve’ which will come into force in April 2009.
Best value authorities will have a statutory duty to involve, inform and consult
local people in decision-making.
5. This new duty should not be seen as a chore. The majority of service providers
already involve their service users to a great or lesser extent in the design,
delivery and provision of those services having realised that there is clear
evidence this produces a wider beneficial impact – improving services and
customer satisfaction, cost effectiveness, increasing volunteering, building
capacity, enhancing community cohesion. From this perspective it is in council's
self interest to involve the public. A recently published report by think tank
DEMOS into public perceptions of local government, has found significant public
mistrust of local councils. It notes however, that this can be remedied, and that
7 http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/153241.pdf
p.3 'The Community Development Challenge', DCLG 2007

Page 18
the personal interactions between council staff and the public of the sort which
CD practitioners have every day, are the key to building trust and bridging the
disconnect between decision-making and the public. It proposes that trust
building would have significant benefits for local government. These include
fostering greater public willingness to engage with the council, greater confidence
in its decisions and services, and greater public acceptance that ‘mistakes
happen’ so long as they are acknowledged and rectified.8
6. In July 2008 the government produced the Community Empowerment White
Paper 'Communities in Control: Real People: Real Power'9
which aims to devolve
more power to local people to strengthen local democracy and shift responsibility
away from the state to ordinary citizens. In many ways the new laws and the
policies they originate from - active citizenship, localism and community
empowerment have breathed new life into the CD profession. Once viewed as
marginal and discretionary CD has become increasingly mainstream and an
acceptance of its value and contribution is growing. A recent report by the Local
Wellbeing Project has shown that community empowerment leads to happier
communities.10
A strong evidence base exists for CD work – generated through
evaluation of key government regeneration programmes such as New Deal for
Communities, Neighbourhood Management pathfinders, The Guide
Neighbourhoods Programme11
and the Evidence Annex of the Community
Empowerment White Paper.12
7. The question now for many authorities seems not whether we should do CD at all,
but how can we do it more effectively and efficiently? How far do we want to go?
and What resources are we able to commit to it?
What does empowerment mean for us?
8. The term community empowerment is a phrase that can mean many things to
many people. For instance in Carlisle the 'Save our Lonsdale' group organised
themselves, produced draft plans and successfully lobbied and petitioned the
council to secure funding for a feasibility study into the future of the Lonsdale
building. However, communities might also take a stance contrary to that of the
authority and make demands that authorities cannot fulfil or do not agree with.
For instance the residents of Rickergate who have formed 'Save our Streets'
campaign could be said to be exercising 'people power' as they have organised
themselves into a lobby group in an attempt to influence planning decisions.
8 http://www.demos.co.uk/files/Trust_web_ALL%20_032.pdf
State of Trust: How to build better relationships between councils and the public, DEMOS
July 2008
Communities in Control: Real Power, Real People, DCLG July 2008
10 http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=8428462
11http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/changeneighbourhoodsreport.pdf
12http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/886123.pdf

Page 19
9. The fact is that some communities may go through a stage of becoming more
articulate in their grievances against whatever authorities they have to deal. It is
the authority’s response to this that is vital. They can either take people with
them or work against them. All big regeneration schemes face these problems –
the difference is the successful ones choose to work through the problems with
stakeholders. To come out the other end takes a wise and farsighted council
committed to CD work. The research evidence notes that:
“In mature CD theory and practice there is a well recognised journey from
powerlessness through blame and protest to confidence, responsibility,
negotiation and partnership.” 13
10. Often CD work can be difficult and extremely demanding. In many cases it is
often about managing expectations, telling people what the council is not able to
do as much as what it is able to do. It is often about explaining the limitations of
power and authority and the processes of local government to people. But in
mediating in this way the CD practitioner is taking the time to fulfil an important
function. If the processes and practicalities are explained to them the community
member will at least feel that they have been listened to. In the future they will
be more inclined to engage with and trust the local authority, to volunteer and to
seek active participation in civic life as a way of addressing their concerns.
A Scientific approach to Community Development
11. It is known that a small percentage of individuals in the community are what
evolutionary biologists call 'selfless altruists' – these people exhibit remarkable
social behaviours in that will give up their own time and invest their own energy
for social good when there is no obvious benefit to themselves. They will work
tirelessly, unpaid and against the odds for their community. These are the
volunteers who run local groups, organise charity work and generally put
themselves out for others. They also have key knowledge about local
circumstances and context that are invaluable to service providers. As such they
represent a real asset and should, in fact, be nurtured.
12. A larger group of individuals at the same end of the scale are reciprocal altruists
who will help others for something in return. For many a return on their social
investment may simply be creating a better more liveable neighbourhood for
them and their families to live in, which will ultimately benefit them in terms of
feeling safe and secure. Others may do good deeds in the community in the
expectation of gaining work experience and furthering their own careers or simply
to get a return in terms of social interaction.
13. However, there are ground rules for reciprocal altruism. Helping behaviours are
often conditional – conditional upon that good deed being reciprocated. In the
case of working with the council- the altruist may well expect the council to
reciprocate their good deeds. Take the case of community centres. The council's
input is lease of premises, plus a grant per centre and officer support time. In
13 The Community Development Challenge, DCLG 2007 p.31

Page 20
return this produced a volunteer contribution in 2007/08 worth an estimated
£123,110.14
If the council's input is withdrawn or reduced too much the
volunteers who give their time for the community will feel exploited and the
mutuality may well be eroded. As it is centres find it hard to recruit volunteers
and the focus group held with volunteers confirmed that many already feel their
contribution is undervalued. Community development practitioners have the most
experience in identifying these individuals and importantly, understanding their
individual motivations and manipulating them to produce a social benefit.
14. A report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation: 'Community Participation: Who
Benefits?'15
recommends a new approach to community participation- the 1%
solution. It is based on detailed research, which suggests that community
participation invariably tends to be dominated by a small group of people. It
suggests ways in which formal participation arrangements could more effectively
engage with informal every-day social networks. The report is important reading
for councils who are keen to develop an approach to CD that provides VFM and
works with, and not against, the grain of human nature.
15. At the other end of the scale are the small percentage of people who are
diametrically opposite to the altruists. These are the selfish individuals who
actively cause problems in their community, take everything and give nothing
back, free-riders who fly tip, cause neighbour nuisance, crime and ASB. The
Police have known for years that a small minority of individuals cause a
disproportionate amount of criminality. It is estimated that approximately 10%
of the active offender population is responsible for half of all crime and that a
very small proportion of offenders (0.5%) are responsible for one in ten
offences.16
In addition to this alarming statistic there is also evidence that CDRPs
now employ a specific strategy to deal with the problem - the Prolific and Priority
Offender (PPO) strategy. This takes a 3 pronged approach:
i. Prevent and Deter - is to work intensively with those young offenders
locally identified as being on the 'cusp' of becoming PPOs. It requires
early identification of those children and young people most at risk of
becoming involved in criminality so that they can be provided with multi-
agency support to positively influence their lives and divert them from an
offending lifestyle.
ii. Catch and Convict - A managed multi-agency approach to tackle the
offending behaviour of those individuals locally identified as committing
most crime and causing most harm to their communities.
14This can be calculated by multiplying total annual volunteer hours for community centres by
the median part-time annual national average hourly rate (£7.27). Based on the median
full-time hourly earnings rate (£11.34) the value of community centre volunteer time would
be even higher - £192,031.
Source: National Statistics Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings 2007
15 http://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/1802-community-network-governance.pdf
Joseph Rowntree Foundation 2006
16 http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/ppo/ppominisite01.htm

Page 21
iii. Rehabilitate and Resettle - Multi-agency work providing supportive
interventions to stop identified PPOs re-offending and integrate into
society (Source: Home Office)
16. Scientists are only beginning to understand what causes individuals to act in
either extremely selfish or extremely selfless ways. An area of the brain has
been found which appears to be responsible for altruistic behaviour and there is
certainly a strong genetic component for both behavioural traits. It seems that
most humans have the capacity for altruistic behaviour hard-wired into their
brains and that the activation of this potential depends on environmental factors
such as upbringing, education and so on. The same may be true of extreme
selfishness.
17. It is imperative therefore, for CD practitioners to continue to work intensively with
children and young people. The potential is there for either behavioural
characteristic to be actualised during children's formative years when they are
extremely susceptible to a wide range of influences from family, peer groups,
authority figures. This is time when they could swing either way depending on
their own predisposition and strength of positive / negative environmental
influences and acquire personality traits and behaviour patterns that will stay with
them for life. One of the key aims of CD work is therefore social engineering –
attempting to mitigate the selfish impulses and to nurture and later harness the
altruistic ones to create healthy, participative, well-balanced communities.

Page 22
The local context
18. Carlisle does not receive any Neighbourhood Renewal Funding. There is therefore
no government required Community Empowerment Network (CEN) (bodies set up
to ensure community participation in local decision-making) as in other areas. In
addition Carlisle does not qualify for the new 'Working Neighbourhoods' funding
stream. As part of Cumbria it does however fall within a Community
Empowerment Pilot area. Cumbria is one of 18 Community Empowerment
Champions nationally that are suppose to drive the community empowerment
agenda and demonstrate good practice in devolving power. The empowerment
champions will encourage other areas and councils to devolve more power by
demonstrating the results that they have achieved across a diverse range of
neighbourhoods.
19. This is very important. Carlisle must seize the opportunity this status offers and
work much more closely with the county council to do some really innovative and
imaginative approaches to community empowerment. It should not afraid to be
experimental and to put itself forward as a laboratory for this work. A
Community Empowerment Pilot is planned in partnership with the County, which
aims to develop a model for engaging with communities to give real power to
shape the places where they live and the public services they receive. Two
proposed pilot areas have been selected, Longtown and Harraby. The planned
work is to trial techniques for engaging with the community, to support the Parish
Planning process in Longtown, and to develop a business case for Neighbourhood
Management in Harraby. The communities themselves have yet to be
approached about becoming pilot areas.
The ladder of participation
Where is Carlisle?
20. The diagram below is the classic Ladder of Participation, produced in 1969 by
Sherry Arnstein. It illustrates the various levels of community participation. The
government's devolution and empowerment agendas envision council's helping
their communities climb to the top of the ladder. It is not easy to show exactly
where Carlisle Council presently sits on the ladder as there are particular
approaches and interventions that would place it much higher, whilst other facts
means it features somewhat lower in facilitating meaningful participation.
8 Citizen Control. Have-nots handle the entire job of
planning, policy making and managing a programme e.g.
neighbourhood corporation with no intermediaries between it
and the source of funds
7 Delegated power. Citizens holding a clear majority of seats
on committees with delegated powers to make decisions.
Public now has the power to assure accountability of the
programme to them.
6 Partnership. Power is in fact redistributed through
negotiation between citizens and power holders. Planning
Community Centres
Sure Start

Page 23
21. The council has transferred its community centres to local management
committees which are now leased and run independently of the council. Here the
council is clearly facilitating community participation by ensuring there are good
quality, accessible local venues run by local people who have a majority of seats
on local committees. It ensures internal maintenance equality standards through
an SLA, guarantees external repairs and actively supports the centres both
financially and with training. The majority of the community centres would
probably not survive with the continued support of the council. In return for its
subsidy the council gets local services run by local people, most of them
volunteers. This partnership appears to work well and means that citizens are
empowered as they have meaningful delegated power and control over their
centres. If the circumstances were right it seems the council would certainly
consider full asset transfer i.e. community ownership.
22. The council was one of the lead players in setting up the Carlisle South Sure Start
scheme- an award winning, and nationally recognised, partnership model which is
now run by Barnardos from one of the council's own community buildings in
Petteril Bank. This initiative represents several steps up the participation ladder
for local people who were given the ability to sit in partnership on local
committees and to influence and shape their futures. The Botcherby Healthy
Living Initiative (HLI) can be seen as another example of citizen empowerment.
23. However, as both Sure Start and Botcherby HLI were local vehicles for national
initiatives they received substantial external funding. In the absence of external
regeneration money to catalyse public programmes the journey up the
participation ladder may be somewhat slower. In Carlisle there have not yet been
any concerted efforts to devolve wider power, core budgets and decision-making
down to local people and no area arrangements presently exist to do this. In
general the council has not moved in any substantive way beyond the tokenistic –
informing, supporting, advising and consulting. Carlisle Renaissance has not
moved citizens further up the ladder and it seems that local community groups
and some members appear to have concerns over the board's accountability and
composition. For these reasons Carlisle's position on the ladder in this regard is
lower.
24. The DCLG report 'Firm Foundations: A Government Framework for Community
Capacity Building'17
identifies five factors that need to be in place at
neighbourhood, parish or small town level to ensure that communities can
function cohesively. The table below considers how Carlisle fits into these
recommendations:
Firm Foundations Recommendations How does Carlisle fit?
1. A meeting space or base (sometimes
called a hub) which is available,
welcoming and accessible to all...
Yes. City council provides 15
community centres and guarantees
access to all.
2. Access to seedcorn funding, most often
small grants or community chests...
Yes. The council currently grant funds
the Community centres. It provides a

Page 24
small Grants for Leisure fund. But,
given the need for efficiencies can it
continue to provide this?
3. Access to support provided by workers
with CD skills (and) ...values. The
critical element is ...to start from the
goals and needs that communities and
groups define for themselves...
Yes. It currently provides some CD
workers. But staff have been cut back
and current efficiency savings may
jeopardise this.
Yes. There is evidence that these
workers take a bottom up approach
and respond to community needs
4. A forum or network that is deliberately
inclusive, open and participatory,
owned by and accountable to the
community...
Yes. There is a Voluntary & Community
Sector network. The city council
supports the Carlisle branch of the CVS
with core funding. But can it continue
to provide subsidy?
5. Learning opportunities to equip people
for active citizenship and
engagement...’
Yes the city council encourages
learning opportunities. But these are
limited not only by resources but also
by the availability of volunteers.
25. In light of the above the key decisions for the council will be:
• how far does it wish to take citizens up the ladder of participation? Does it
consider this to be a worthwhile objective?
• What level of resources is it prepared to allocate to facilitate this process?

Page 25
The Community Support Unit
CSU – Service Background
26. As a result of a series of internal re-organisations the CSU team has shrunk
considerably from what it once was. Following various Organisation Structure
Reviews since 2000, the following staff posts have been moved from Community
Support to other operational Units within the Council.
• Community Safety Officer x 1 (moved to Policy & Performance)
• Advice Services Co-ordinator x 1 (moved to Policy & Performance)
• Rural Support Officer x 1(moved to Economic Development)
• Community Involvement Officer x 1 –(currently vacant for 15 months pending
outcome of review)
• Community Support Officer x 1 (urban) deleted from establishment
• Community Liaison Officer x 1 (seconded to work SRB regeneration in Raffles
– not replaced)
27. The Unit has previously been based in the Leisure Department and Economic
Development Unit. It moved into its current place in Community Services
Directorate as a result of Organisational review in 2007. Some years ago a
corporate decision was made to bring CSU staff back to the Civic Centre. There
were more grass roots workers employed by CSU and individual community
liaison officers were attached to community centres.
The budget
28. Figure 1 shows a breakdown of CSU costs. These figures were produced
specifically for this report by apportioning costs to discrete service area headings
in order to better illustrate where the monies are spent. Figure 2 represents this

Page 26
information in a pie chart. It can be seen that the total cost of the service was
£1.49m in 2007-08, of which almost one-fifth was internal council recharges.
29. The core budget has seen incremental reduction totalling £700,000 over the last
ten years, mainly through reduction in staff numbers, although his has been
punctuated by occasional capital investments in community buildings, such as the
£355,000 this year for building refurbishment work at Greystone and Belah.
Figure 1: Service Costs for Community Support Unit 2007-08
Service Cost 2007/08 (£)
Children & Young People
e.g. staff 141,000
Project development materials etc. 41,600
Holiday Playschemes 13,146
Travel 3,200
Total 160,846
Income 38,100
Community Events
Event costs e.g. artists, equipment, advertising 89,073
Events management 31,300
Total 80,310
Income 40,063
Community Engagement
Staff salaries 62,600
Project development budget 20, 127
% Comm Engagement Manager 9,000
Total 91,727
Community Centres
Centre grants 356,420
Building R&M 101,400
% Comm Engagement Manager 26,700
% Admin support 4260
Renewals, project development 16460
Horticultural maintenance 8,100
Insurance 22,200
Total 529,568
Income 5,972
Community Grants
Grants for Leisure 10,800
Advice & Advocacy
Benefit Advice Service 119,800
Law Centre grant 82,900
CAB grant 50,200
CVS grant 33,100
Anchorage Pensioners Centre 28,500
Total 314,500
Management, Admin and Operational
Comm Support management 44,600
Admin support 27,640
Vehicles, travel and renewals 16,500
Storage costs 900
Total 89,640
Subtotal spend 1,277,391
+ Internal Recharges at 17% 217,156
Total service cost 1,494,547

Page 27
Figure 2: 3D Pie Chart of service costs
30. As part of the ongoing Community Development Service Review in 2007, CN
Research was commissioned to question five local authorities about levels of CD
provision. The results are summarised very briefly below (Table 1). They
illustrate the difficulty of comparing like-for-like CD service provision and in
obtaining relevant financial data from other authorities. The italicised column on
the far right is a basic analysis of the data. We can see that Carlisle spends
considerably more in some areas such as community centre provision, but also
considerably less in other areas such as community grants. The exercise in many
ways reveals the limitations of VFM comparison work. Without detailed
background information on specific local contexts in each authority only a very
generalised picture can be painted.
Table 1: Adapted from Community Development Review Questionnaire, CN Research
August 2007.
Service Area Provision Spend Carlisle
2006-07
Community
Development /
Engagement
All 5 2 – no answer
3 – between £18,600 to £97.800
£129,000 - More than
average
Community Events 4 out of 5 5 answers – between £30,000 to
£350,000
£90,000 – Less than
average
Children & Young
People
4 out of 5 1 answer - £204,000 £159,500 – Less than
average
Community Centres 3 out of 5
(councils
support an
1 answer - £148,787 £465,000 – More than
the 1 authority which
responded. Carlisle
COMMUNITY SUPPORT EXPENDITURE 2007-08
Community Events
Community Centres
Community Grants
Advice & Advocacy
Management, Admin and
Operational
Internal Recharges at
17% of total budget

Page 28
average of 6
community
centres)
supports 13 centres –
twice as many as the
other authorities
Benefits Advice /
Anti-poverty
4 out of 5
provide
No answers £332,000 – comparison
not possible
Leisure and
Community Grants
All 5 4 answers - From £10,000 to
£450,000
£14,500 – Less than
average
31. As part of the annual Use of Resources assessment, the Council conducted a
Value for Money (VFM) Self Assessment covering all service areas. This exercise
was completed in July 2008 by the Community Development Manager. A 2007/08
Service Cost profiling exercise carried out internally revealed that as in previous
years many of the council's services were n the upper middle to top quartile for
cost. For the purpose of VFM profiling Community Development was combined
with Economic Development. The internal estimate based on combined spend per
head for these two services in 2007/08 was £20.75 - £15.45 per head for
Community Development, £5.30 per head for Economic Development. In
2006/07 the cost was £13.39 per head for Community Development and £3.26
per head for Economic Development.
32. Based on figures available given to the consultant and based on a population of
103,30018
spend per head of population on Community Development equates to
£12.36 (excluding central recharges) or £14.47 (including recharges).
Comparing spend with nearest neighbours
33. As part of this Review an exercise was undertaken to compare Carlisle's levels of
provisions and spend on community support with those of its 15 nearest
neighbour authorities. The exercise proved of limited usefulness for several
reasons. Firstly the overwhelming majority of authorities were unable / unwilling
to provide figures. Secondly it quickly became clear that the types of services
provided varied wildly making a VFM comparison of like for like services
impossible. Thirdly some councils have a specific CD service which is specifically
resourced, whilst others undertake what they consider CD but organised across
different Directorates e.g. as part of cross-cutting work on regeneration
initiatives, neighbourhood management etc. and cannot easily attribute specific
service costs to it.
34. For example one of the nearest neighbours, Bury St Edmunds council, appears to
have a relatively small budget of £281,655 for Community Development on
which, in 2007-08, it spent £192,000 or 68% on two Citizens Advice Centres. It
spent £39,000 or 14% on grants to four of its six community centres, grants that
are repaid to the council as rent. Other work that is considered to fall under the
label Community Development such as local events and youth work appears to be
funded by other departments and figures were not available.
182006 figures from Cumbria County Council
http://www.cumbria.gov.uk/elibrary/Content/Internet/536/673/1757/3931893510.pdf

Page 29
35. We can deduce from these experiences that as a tool to judge the value for
money of a service comparisons with other authorities are not very particularly
helpful. Aside from the problem of comparing like-for-like services without
detailed information on what social benefit / outcomes these services deliver one
can never know what each council is really getting for its money.
The local policy context
36. The lack of an explicit CD policy or strategy has meant that the service has had to
develop an approach to delivering a service which contributes to the Council's key
priorities which prevail at the time. At one time or another most members have
been involved in some of their work e.g. Community Centre Management
Committees, community projects, external partnerships etc. Whilst there is
currently no specific policy context endorsed by the Executive that covers all of
the work CSU does, it has become clear during the course of this Review that the
team's interventions have clearly impacted positively on the Council's key
objectives. For specific examples of this see Figure 3, Appendices 5-8 and
information listed in detailed analysis of each separate service area. A key
recommendation of this report is that the strategic focus of CD work in Carlisle
should be strengthened, but that this ought to be done through a collaborative
and co-ordinated approach with key partners in the form of a Sustainable
Community Strategy, driven, endorsed and produced by the LSP.
Figure 3: CSU - Key achievements:
• Over £300,000 in grant aid for community centred initiatives gained by
community groups whom officers have supported, since 2005
• Over 77 awards amounting to over £60,000, to local groups through Grants
for Leisure Scheme, enabling projects worth over £300,000 to be completed.
• Over £3,250,000 in benefit gains since 2005
• Over 3,100 welfare benefit clients seen since April 2005
• Introduced advanced new technology in benefits case recording system
(WROSES)
• Enabled and facilitated a range of informal learning courses in community
buildings, including Money Management, IT courses, Teaching Assistants,
Crèche Workers, Healthy Eating, Charity Management
• 70 people have undertaken accredited (NCFE Level 3) courses/learning
opportunities since April 2006
• Completed the process of transferring community centres to Trustee leases

Page 30
• Enabled over 150,000 people to enjoy an events programme, including the
Fireshow which was nominated in 2006 in the top 5 events in the country
• Maintained and developed the annual youth exchange programme, enabling a
wider range of young people to attend
• Developed Service Agreements with the Law Centre, the CAB and the CVS
• Developed a closer working partnership with the County Council's
Neighbourhood development team
• Developed the original Partnership and Bid and continued to support the
Carlisle South Sure Start Programme as Lead Body to help them achieve
national award winning status
• Negotiated the successful transfer of Carlisle South Sure Start Programme to
Barnardos
• Negotiated an agreement with the Youth Work in Cumbria Partnership to
provide additional services for young people
• Achieved the highest level (4) in the YWiC standards Assessment
• Developed a successful bid to the Big Lottery Fund for a £220,000 investment
in CYP services
• Developed a Play Strategy and Policy
• Facilitated and enabled the development of the Carlisle Play Partnership which
has representation from over 20 agencies and community groups
• Introduced new face2face mobile unit to help develop services for young
people in remote locations
• Supported and enabled the development of 19 new community groups e.g.
HLI, Friends of Chances Park (this group was awarded a £1m grant in May
2008 to refurbish the Park) etc. since 2005 etc.
• Developed and facilitated the Carlisle Equality and Diversity Partnership
• Developed the Festival of Nations programme to include up to 40 workshop
session in schools and community venues, enabling over 1000 children and
young people to discuss the issues of equality, race etc.
• Enabled and facilitated the development of the Carlisle Advice Forum
• Led a successful programme of consultation exercises, particularly with CYP
for the Carlisle Renaissance Project
• Developed a closer working relationship with other 'internal' services e.g.
Sports, Countryside, Housing, Renaissance etc.
• Organised holiday play scheme sessions in 40 venues, attracting over 6000
children, since 2005
• Enabled the development of a comprehensive IT service, including a website
service for all community centres
Marketing and Communications
37. The Review has found that marketing and communications could be improved.
There have been many comments from stakeholders that service does some very
good work but that it sometimes 'hides its light behind a bushel' and could do
better at promoting itself and the work the staff are actively involved in. CSU
used to produce a comprehensive annual report each year but this was stopped
some years ago. There may be a resource issue. A DVD film was produced in
2007 with the participation of many service users and other stakeholders. The
film provided an interesting and informative glimpse into the work of the team. It

Page 31
is important, given the new emphasis on community empowerment, that the CSU
takes every opportunity to market itself and stay 'on message' by utilising all
available medias including local press, and electronic medias such as email
bulletins, blogspots etc. It seems that each service area has volunteer 'e-
champions' who volunteer to upload information onto the council intranet and
internet. It is clear that this mechanism needs looking into with a view to
improving it.
38. How the CSU keeps members informed is of particular importance. There
appears to be no formal mechanism to ensure a regular dialogue with members.
CSU used to report to a Community Development and Young peoples sub
Committee on 6 weekly basis. This was stopped 8 years ago. However it seems
that this relatively effective communication structure was not replaced with
anything formal that allows for regular dialogue and information sharing with
members. Recommendations 5 and 6 are suggested to improve this situation.
Cumbria CC are members of IdeA's front-line councillor in neighbourhoods
network. A focus on member development / support provides them with better
intelligence on local views. Incorporating IdeA / LGA guidance support for
councillors on Councillor CcfA responsibilities may clarify roles, strengthen
communication and enhance effectiveness. Also see Recommendations 5,6 & 7.
39. A national report commissioned by the DCLG into Corporate Communications
entitled 'LG07' by Karian and Box consultants revealed that lack of awareness
about CD is also a widespread problem nationally. The report found that:
• 32% of senior council communicators had not heard of the recently published
Government White Paper on community engagement and consultation ‘Strong
and prosperous communities’
• 31% said they were not involved in community engagement activity
• 49% cent said that community engagement activities were of little or no
interest for them.
40. ‘Connecting with communities' (CwC) recognised that local authorities must
communicate effectively if they are to increase citizen awareness, interest and
engagement in local government. Today's councils use a range of media– the
internet, 24-hour access, newsletters, digital television, mobile phone messaging.
Effective communication means making the most of all these channels.19
It said
that councils should "involve the communications professionals in order to ensure
a well developed approach to community engagement".
41. Carlisle Corporate communications are keen to ensure that this Review and its
findings are communicated effectively and a Strategy has been produced to this
end. A key outcome is that the council needs to manage public expectations of
what the CSU team can provide with the resources that are available to it.
Community Support Unit
19 http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=7844318

Page 32
42. The unit's work is divided into 5 main areas:
• Children & Young People
• Events
• Community Involvement / Community Centre support
• Benefits Advice / Support for External Advice / Advocacy Services
• Grants for Leisure
Each area and its impact and effectiveness will be considered in turn:
Team:
• Youth Officers x 3
• Play Development Officer x 1
• Face2Face Co-ordinators x 5 (30 hours per week)
Function: to work in partnership to ensure that all children and young people have
access to quality opportunities, activities and environments. A list of the team's
current activities can be found in Appendix 6.
43. CYP is the only area of CSU that has an officially endorsed strategy-the Play
Strategy 'Play for TODAY, Play for TOMORROW' which was adopted in 2007 by the
council and the Play Partnership - the result of a collaboration of more than 50
stakeholders from across Carlisle.
44. Besides its main objectives of developing better play facilities importantly it
specifically seeks to encourage the participation and active involvement of
children and young people in decision-making opportunities. The Review has
found that the team have embraced this work enthusiastically and with
demonstrable success:
• In 2007 they involved young people in consultation on Carlisle Renaissance
regeneration plans about city centre regeneration plans. In a 3 month
programme of consultation exercises the team used modern interactive
methods, running workshops at 4 youth clubs, engaging with young people in
skate parks and sending questionnaires to schools. This work was celebrated
as best practice and featured in 'RENEW' North West Practice paper.
• Having a Play Strategy was a pre-requisite to applying for external funding
opportunities. A successful bid for £220,000 from the Big Lottery Fund in
2007 has enabled the development of enhanced play provision in the City,
through the recruitment of two face2face Play Co-ordinators for 3 years and
the development of a Play Trail through Bitts Park to the City Centre. This
brings the face2face team up to 5 staff on 30hpw.
• Play Partnership. The team facilitates the Partnership. This brings together
key players round the table and ensures joined up working and co-ordination.

Page 33
Co-operative work with East Cumbria Countryside Project and on
environmental education themed play trails shows best practice. The structure
is allowing the Police to deliver on their crime reduction targets better and can
be evidenced through ASB reductions monitored through Operation GRIP
(Gradual Intervention Programme) and allows Police to explore new
approaches to youth diversion and integrated youth support services. The
Police believe that by giving children and their parents the context to engage
children in positive activities an enforcement route can often be avoided.
• The Local Children's Planning Board is a county led initiative set up through
the LAA. Multi agency support teams help support young people at risk of
offending through the common assessment framework referrals.
• Youth Exchange scheme broadens cultural horizons of a 15 young people and
allows them to visit Carlisle's twin towns.
45. It has been suggested in prior reviews that the team's interventions could be
targeted in a more sophisticated way – e.g. by at risk, vulnerable, low income,
rural areas. The Review has found that, in fact, the team and its partners are
working with hard to reach groups and targeting resources in areas of multiple
deprivation. In addition the Play Strategy undertook an audit of children' services
and hotspot areas and looked where the need and service gaps were. It involved
children and parents plus outside agencies. An intelligence led approach is being
taken. An up to date GIS system would certainly add value and allow the
Partnership to map activity and plan resource allocation. The effect on individual
young people can be measured by the team's own evaluation methods e.g. the
‘wheel’, questionnaires, session plans. Quarterly reports are sent out to Cumbria
CC, which are also shared at director level. If the Performance Team require
regular reporting the team are able to provide this information.
46. The team do target specific areas, but they are constrained by what they can
deliver in terms of detached / outreach / evening work because of staff capacity
and resource limitations. The team cannot do this alone and in developing the
Play Partnership they are heading in the right direction and placing the council in
the best position to deliver against new challenges such as those in outlines in
Section 6 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (which came into force in Jan
2007) in which all local authorities are required to:
• secure access for young people to ‘positive activities’, including youth clubs,
sports facilities and art projects
• take account of young people’s views on activities and facilities currently
available to them as well as any new ones they would like to see in the area
• publicise these to young people, and to keep the information up-to-date.
47. Through the Play Partnership the team are doing vital work to support other
agencies. The importance of this work cannot be emphasised enough. It
comprises:
• intensive face-to-face work with young people

Page 34
• working with police to identify people at risk offending
• target the right people and ensure that a menu of local solutions are
considered
• restorative justice work
48. Many of the young people they work with on a detached basis have emotional
problems, relationship difficulties and poor 'life-skills'. Team members report they
often want someone outside their peer group to talk to and they often act as de
facto counsellors. There are certainly a proportion of young people who would
benefit from referral to specialised counselling services. However it appears that
access to professional counselling in Carlisle is limited in availability and
unaffordable for young people. It is suggested that this is an area that requires
more attention.
49. It is recommended that the CDU approach of Face-to-Face work as set out in the
Play Strategy might be further enhanced by better co-ordination with educational
psychologists. A University department specialising in this field might add value to
their work by through an action research project and / or student placements.
This would ensure that the team has availed itself and its service users of the
latest techniques. The University of Cumbria runs a whole range of relevant
undergraduate courses e.g. Child & Family Studies; Education Studies with Child,
Family & Young Person; Person Centred Therapy; Interpersonal Skills and
Professional Development; Health Improvement & Social Change; Psychology;
Social Science; Working With Children & Young People; Youth & Community
Development Work; Youth Studies.
50. It is recommended that the Youth Homelessness Worker, from the Housing Team
should be seconded into the Children and Young People's team. They already do
some joint work and this would enable greater collaboration around areas such as
the planned John Street hostel.
Relations with Cumbria CC Children's Services
51. The county do not have an in house youth service (it was abolished in April 2001)
therefore they commission youth provision from other agencies. There are 15
providers in Carlisle of which Carlisle's CYP team are one. The current contract
with the city council to deliver youth programmes is worth £35,000. In 2009/10
a different commissioning cycle will take effect. The county plan to reduce the
number of main providers down to three organisations. They believe that Carlisle
CYP team would be in a good position to tender for this work.
52. Cumbria has a County Wide Commissioning Board and below this Local Planning
Groups (LPG), which reports to the Children's Trust. The Carlisle LPG is chaired
by Rev. Richard Pratt from the LSP. A new Local Area Plan for Carlisle needs to be
produced. The Children’s Trust is seeking to align all available resources against
the desired / planned for outcomes.

Page 35
53. The Corporate Director of Children's Services at the County felt that relationships
and better planning are the key to further improving, avoiding duplication,
increasing customer / outcome focus and maximising efficiencies. She is of the
view that agencies need to give up some direct control over their resources and
pool / apply them in ways that can achieve most overall. It is recommended that
a joint working group between county and district council is set up to consider
issues raised in greater detail.
54. The following is a list of factors that currently limit the CYP team:
• team is under-staffed and under resourced – members want more youth
workers in their wards but the team cannot cover all these areas and don't
have a budget to procure detached youth work in evenings and at weekends.
• difficulty in finding and retaining qualified youth workers
• lack of central meeting place for young people from across Carlisle to feel
welcome
• no formal facilities for projects to take place- community centres are not
always accessible. Sands centre is expensive
• negative portrayals of young people in press due to actions of a minority
• some youth clubs in community centres deny access to over 12s which means
older teenagers in some areas have no where to go
• no sounding board from councillors
• tied into a structure which only allows council to exchange with its official twin
cities, when actually there may be much more cultural, environmental and
social benefit if it could extend the programme to other countries or even
actually exchanges within this country e.g. Bradford, Leicester.
• council website does not appeal to young people. An interactive link to a
more user friendly website would help communication.
55. The following is a list of potential new areas for future consideration:
• annual residential for al young people who have used their services
• may be more value in running youth exchanges based around specific
interests of young people
• peer mentoring would add value to the existing work programme of the CYP
team by helping the young people to better influence and shape service
delivery
• Life-skills drop in centre for young people (run as social enterprise – teaching
cooking, managing finances, relationship advice, and education counselling
service). The new Central Academy will have a separate youth zone, which
architects are currently designing. In addition Morton Academy may have
Dance Centre but will this meet the needs identified by the CYP team and
young people?
• develop the Aim Higher programme to encourage more young people to
continue in education. Organise visits to University
• elected member to become a Children Young People Service Champion
• challenge is to ensure statutory targets e.g. Every Child Matters link with local
agendas- in essence trying to combine what kids need with what the national
policy says they need.

Page 36
• Carlisle Renaissance needs to provide better feedback to consultees
• A link to best practice appears below20
56. The Review concludes that this team has positively impacted on service users and
other agencies, and in so doing has also contributed in a clear way to the
council's corporate priorities as evidenced by points in Para 44 above. A key
challenge for the service will be to build on this work and secure a contract from
the County Council under the new commissioning arrangements, to deliver, in
partnership with other players, a range of provision and services which satisfy the
needs of young people in Carlisle.
Events
Team: Community Events Manager x 1
Function: To organise Community Events. The purpose of Events is to encourage:
• individuals/community groups to get involved in organising and participating
in events.
• learning through participation
• Social inclusion
• a feel good factor, sense of pride and community ownership
57. The main events are: Fireshow, Upperby Gala, Festival of Nations, Spring Show.
Support has also been provided for Christmas lights switch, organising partner for
Concert in the Park and for local gala events e.g. Morton Gala, Longtown Gala,
and Brampton Gala. The events programme has continued to grow in popularity
with the first two events of 2008 (Spring Show and Upperby Gala) attracting
larger crowds than in the past 3 years. Since 2005, more than £50,000 has been
attracted in sponsorship for the Community Events programme.
58. The ostensible reason the Unit puts on Events is to achieve a community
empowerment outcome, but in doing so the success and popularity of the some
Events like the Fire Show are hitting other outcomes such as tourism as they
attract people from outside the City. This is a win win situation. It also means
Carlisle Renaissance, which has a specific remit for 'Promoting Carlisle', ought to
be making a substantial financial contribution to these events.
59. An internal Review of Events was undertaken in 2007. Comparisons were made
with other local authorities, which showed that relatively Carlisle spends a similar
amount as other authorities. It noted that the organisation and management of
events, the links with partners, Health & Safety were all of a high standard. A
subjective attempt was made to assess the contribution and impact each event
made to corporate priorities, value for money, community cohesion, community
safety, promoting Carlisle, environment, accessibility. The Review concluded that:
20 http://www.beacons.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=7599275

Page 37
• efficiencies and greater consistency could be achieved by managing all events
through one source, rather than spread across the authority (5.2.1)
• for commercial events the council should charge for its time (5.2.2)
• businesses engagement in City Centre events is poor. The council has taken
city centre events as far as they can go - they should be moved forward by
other partners/ private partner (5.2.3)
• the existing programme of events and level of support they receive should be
reviewed and the potential for events focused on a particular theme should be
considered (5.3.1)
• future of Spring Show should be reviewed commercially and the potential to
increase the number of events within the community should be explored.
(5.3.2)
• a coherent sponsorship strategy is needed to replace the current piecemeal
approach
60. This Review generally concurs with these findings but makes the following
observations. The internal review noted the difficulty of finding accurate and
consistent performance measures. Satisfaction surveys, attendance data and
other information is collated and used to give some indication of success, but in
reality the 'feel good' factor that comes from putting on events is an intangible
that cannot be measured. Re: “efficiencies and consistencies could be achieved
by all events being managed through one source rather than spread across the
authority” - There certainly seems to be a case for events organised throughout
the Council to be better co-ordinated, but it is not clear whether managing them
through one source would, at this time, offer much benefit as some functions and
specialisms may be lost in the process. Firstly who would the one source be? The
internal review identified that in many of the city centre events local businesses
were not getting involved and recommended these be stopped.
61. It is proposed that at this time what is certainly needed is a more structured
approach to planning and organising Events which would enable:
• a pooling of ideas, skills, resources (both internal and external) which can be
used more effectively and efficiently to
• open up new funding opportunities
• secure greater corporate ownership of events which promote the city
• hit more Carlisle Renaissance, Learning City and Cleaner, Safer, Greener
outcomes
To this end it is recommended that a formal 'Events Group' should be established
with CSU as lead, comprising:
• Community Support
• Carlisle Renaissance
• Tourism
• Marketing and Communications
• Outside agencies

Page 38
62. It is additionally recommended that if the council wishes to be really forward
thinking it considers carefully exploring the establishment of a social enterprise
'not for profit company' to run events in the city. There is a precedent for this
approach. In 2004 the Unit funded a 3-year pump priming budget of £45,000 to
run music concerts. At the end of the 3 years, the organisation and management
of the event was transferred to a locally based private Company who invested
further in it (over £400,000) and it is now firmly established in the events
programme for the City, attracting an audience of over 16,000 in 2007. A similar
scheme could pump prime a social enterprise events company. Examples of
successful schemes of this kind include Whitby's Musicport - a not for profit
community enterprise promoting live music and music education. It now puts one
the UK's largest indoor world music festival, which in fact has become successful
in attracting people it has had to move to Bridlington. Carlisle International
Summer Festival appears to be run by a company with charitable status. If this
option were of interest consultancy support could be used to develop it.
63. Re: “potential to increase the number of Events within the community should be
explored”. An initial scheme to test the water using a community group to run
Brampton Live is under consideration at present. Depending on the success of
this, it may be wise to invite expressions of interest. Re: Spring show.
Paradoxically the Spring Show, despite having arguably the least relevance in
terms of CD outcomes is the only show that generates a small surplus, which
goes back in to subsidise other events. It seems to have had something of a
renaissance this year and it seems likely to continue albeit in an amended format.
Re: Lack of a coordinated or themed programme. The new Events Group should
address this. This Review makes the following suggestions:
• Historical themed events. Given Carlisle's rich history this one is obvious.
Roman legions, recreations of Roman life and culture. Include info and re-
creations of progressive aspects of Roman culture such as under floor heating
which the Romans made use of but which is sadly missing from modern
housing development - seek sponsorship from under floor heating companies.
History gives opportunity for schools and colleges to get involved hitting
Learning City targets
• Sustainable Living event, perhaps at Talking Tarn. Themed on Greenfields at
Glastonbury. Environmental issues are high on the agenda. Seek sponsorship
from environmental industries (some utility companies, eco-build etc.).
Include music, arts and entertainment and examples of alternative / nomadic
lifestyles and living, bushcraft etc. Invite Ray Mears.
Team:
Community Support Manager x 1
Community Engagement Manager x 1
Community Involvement Officers x 2
Function:

CS.82.08 - Community Support Review Public.pdf

CS.82.08 - Community Support Review Public.pdf

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to CS.82.08 - Community Support Review Public.pdf

Similar to CS.82.08 - Community Support Review Public.pdf (20)

CS.82.08 - Community Support Review Public.pdf