Agenda item

The Commission considered a report setting out details of the impact of and learning from the Community Resilience Fund (CRF) process of participatory decision making and assessing opportunities to build on this.

Key points highlighted by officers in presenting the report:

1. Through the CRF, the Council had invested £4m of capital funding in 53 community and voluntary sector projects in the most deprived areas of Bristol (£3.2m, 40 projects), and in citywide equality groups (£0.8m, 13 projects).  The decisions about how the funding was allocated were made by groups of citizens, community and voluntary sector groups and elected ward councillors. From the outset, it had been recognised that this was an action learning process.

2. In terms of the participatory process and lived experience from administering the CRF, five key learning points had been identified as follows:

- The importance of co-design as a key principle and building capacity over time to enable and support participation.

- Strong, confident facilitation at meetings was key.

- Importance of participants from diverse backgrounds.

- Building trust and confidence among participants.

- Ensuring access to information and expertise.

Summary of main points raised/noted in discussion:

1. In response to a question about costs, it was noted that the cost of support for co-production of the process and initial technical support had been £250,000; the grant management and programme management support cost £100,00 per annum.  Overall, there was an estimated total spend of 14% (of the overall budget) on programme management over the 4 year course of the programme.

2. The vast majority of participants had given positive feedback about their involvement. 84% of participants had indicated they would take part again, 60% felt they had gained confidence through their involvement and 81% reported making new connections.

3. It was noted that a core objective of the CRF was to build city resilience by growing the power of and focusing the use of funding within communities experiencing the greatest inequality. It was suggested though that, in some cases, due to the area-based approach and criteria based on multiple levels of deprivation that had been applied, there were some deserving pockets of communities and groups that had not been reached through this funding opportunity in spite of being located within close proximity to areas of multiple deprivation, e.g. particular parts of Knowle which were geographically close to Filwood ward.  It was suggested that an additional area of learning might be that in similar future exercises, it would be valuable to consult and capture views from local ward councillors at the outset, to tap into their local knowledge about groups who could be reached out to. 

4. It was noted that a number of potential future opportunities had been identified for applying the participatory process in other areas, for example in relation to decision making around devolved Community Infrastructure Levy.

5. At the conclusion of the discussion, and in noting the key areas of learning as identified in the report, it was suggested that in the context of how area committees might operate after May 2024, it may be useful for the Committee Model Working Group to review the findings/learnings that would be set out within the final CRF evaluation report (which was awaited at this point).