The Committee is asked to consider Document “X” which contains the Stronger Communities Strategy and Delivery Plan, produced by the Bradford Stronger Communities Partnership.

Members are asked to note the work carried out in the development of the Bradford Stronger Communities Strategy and Delivery Plan.

(Ian Day – 01274 433507)

The Committee considered Document “X” which contained the Stronger Communities Strategy and Delivery Plan, produced by the Bradford Stronger Communities Partnership.

Members of various groups making up the Partnership attended the meeting and spoke in support of the Strategy, advising that it had been informed by existing good practice across the District; that it dovetailed with other strategies; that it went beyond the original remit of the green paper and the narrow confines of the integration agenda; that Bradford’s experiences meant it had answers for the wider community and that the strategy would be shared widely across the Country.

The part of the Strategy which dealt with linking schools was explained in detail to the Committee, especially the positive experience of two very different schools within the District which had formed close on-going links to the benefit of both pupils and staff.

A member queried the need for the two schools to meet at neutral venues and asked whether that in itself could cause further division. He was advised that the project had proven very successful and had the full support of both head teachers. 

The Bishop of Bradford, who was a member of the Partnership, stated that it was important to make a start on working towards the aims of the Strategy without waiting for other issues such as housing and school admissions to be understood better. He stressed that one of the best places to engage with people was within schools and that, while some issues might be challenging, the purpose of the Strategy was to tackle them.

Members were also advised that the Strategy was an evolving document and that the partnership intended to challenge some of the data that had been used as a starting point. For example, it intended to create a Bradford standard measure for segregation, which took into account the high number of mixed race families within the District.

A member concurred with that view, stating that he wasn’t comfortable with the issue of segregation being described in simplistic terms without challenging that view or taking into account the movement of people within the District as new communities became more established and prosperous.

Another member stated that he considered that the issue of cohesion had been identified by organisations such as the Partnership as important rather than by the communities involved. He challenged the Partnership on this point as he noted that the report mentioned only working with registered social landlords when he considered that the issue of getting communities together was more subtle than that. He stated that he considered the issue of class to be important and queried what the report was trying to achieve.

The Assistant Director, Neighbourhoods and Communities appreciated Members’ challenges, stating that a big issue for the Partnership was understanding poverty and how it affected housing and communities. He stated that the Government considered that communities should be trying to do better than simply get along together. He also explained that he did not expect every strategy explored by the Partnership to be taken forward but that all options would be considered and an evidence based progress report would be brought back to the Committee.

A member expressed some concern that there was a sense of distance between those communities experiencing challenge and those which were not and which were based out of the city centre. He also considered that a major challenge in terms of employment was that of female participation, which he considered to be lagging behind other areas. He stated that getting women into employment and out into their communities changed those communities in a completely different way than did male engagement. He also concurred with the view that Bradford could improve on the Government description of segregation.

The Assistant Director agreed with the concerns expressed about female engagement, stating that a significant issue was the lack of spoken English among some female groups which affected every aspect of their lives and limited their opportunities for social mixing as well as more formal interaction such as health, education and employment.

Members also noted that issues within Document “X” overlapped with the subject matter of Document “W” which was also to be discussed at this meeting, particularly the issue of hate crime.

A member congratulated the Partnership on its success in obtaining funding which would not have come into the District otherwise. However, she did have a concern that some of the projects referred to in he report were short term in nature and that they could take place and conclude without any lasting positive effects for the communities involved. She criticised previous work on this subject which she considered had simply taught communities to consider themselves as victims or had stereotyped them.

In response, the Assistant Director stressed that this was a five year project, with some of the work taking place on a “test and learn” basis. He highlighted that he expected the work to have an end point impact. Partnership members also stressed that it was very important to them to leave behind a legacy and that the strategy must be considered along side all the other work that was also on-going in the District on the issue of cohesion.

A member commented on the five year nature of the plan, comparing it to the fact that matters could change completely in as little as three and a half months and wondered if the timing was appropriate. He also queried the lack of mention of sports in the report as he considered this was a good way to encourage cohesion. He was advised that the Partnership considered this to be a good time for this type of work, considering the current national agenda and that the District was invloved in a local delivery pilot on work around sport.

A member also noted that, as some projects were time limited, it would be necessary to make robust decisions about what was having a positive impact as it would not be possible to address all issues. He stressed that the workplace was important for integration and highlighted that older people of different communities had worked alongside each other in Bradford for many years.

The Assistant Director agreed that it would be important to be smart about investing in projects and that dynamic assessment would be utilised to asses projects before they concluded.                   

Resolved –

(1)  That Document “X” be welcomed and the good work that is being undertaken be acknowledged.

(2)  That this Committee requests that progress against the Stronger Communities Strategy Delivery Plan be provided in twelve months time.

(3)  That the progress report include focus on the outcomes of projects being delivered as part of this programme.

(4)  That the report highlight the positive outcomes from “Test and Learn” so that work which has not been successful is not repeated.  

ACTION:  Strategic Director, Place