Interviewees were asked about the role and commitment of other local organisations in tackling poverty. Different stakeholders mentioned different organisations, and few would claim to have a complete picture. However, a fair degree of consensus emerged across the stakeholder interviews with opinions summarised in Figure 8.
Figure 8: Perceptions of other organisations’ commitment to poverty reduction
Analysis on the perceptions of the various types of organisations was angled towards Leeds because the majority of VCS, private sector and other public sector interviewees were targeted in the city. Most of the conclusions are likely to apply elsewhere, although those about the local authority (which are based on perceptions of local stakeholders) may do to a lesser extent.
LEP
…focused on growth not poverty, but involved in
jobs & skills
Local authorities …central, variable, mean
well but can struggle to deliver
FE colleges …often increasingly active and important
Other public …varied views, can
be seen as pivotal or passive VCS …Front line + strategic… committed and active, but bitty and small scale Businesses
…big ones do CSR, some local ones want to ‘give back’, others think it’s not their job
Social housing providers …good ones do more than housing
53 Local authorities: Are seen as committed to poverty reduction in principle, and having a central role in pulling together different strands of action and partners. Organisations in Leeds quite often cited leadership from the top on this agenda, with the council leader and chief executive both singled out for praise, for example: ‘This leadership has really made a positive difference across Leeds over recent years’ (business sector
interviewee) and ‘Leeds City Council is hugely committed to reducing poverty…this is a recent commitment, prior to a year ago it was much less of a focus’.
Others acknowledged local government’s desire to act on the agenda but also saw limitations, such as doing too much themselves (instead of say, supporting the VCS) or struggling to turn vision into action. One business representative summed this up as: ‘Local authorities do some things really well and have some very passionate people. But they have less discretionary money now, are prone to mediocrity and don’t deliver
outcomes very well’.
Private sector: Many interviewees mentioned that larger businesses are often involved in CSR activity, and see this as a plus. But there is scepticism from some quarters about how far this affects poverty rather than general good causes and whether it is borne of enlightened self-interest and mainly for show. Nevertheless others, such as certain local authorities, see opportunities in engaging with big local businesses around their CSR programmes, for example as a route to getting them more involved in
apprenticeships, worklessness initiatives, mentoring and work with schools. Two angles emerge on business more widely. One is that significant numbers of firms, especially local SMEs, feel that they should ‘give something back’ to their local communities – ‘there’s a real feeling of mission’ – as one person put it. A growing core of businesses in York who are proud to be paying the living wage was cited as one example. The second angle is that businesses have a self-interest in less poverty (because it means more spending), but don’t see it as something they have a responsibility for. As one local authority director put it:
‘Morally they might be interested, but it’s not a key business issue for most – and the higher costs that come with better wages are probably a concern.’
Voluntary and community sector: Much of the VCS is seen as highly committed to poverty reduction, with many groups set up specifically for that purpose. Some observe that the sector is split between frontline groups that help people directly (e.g. through food banks) and more strategic groups who help people to help themselves (e.g. by offering advice or capacity building) or by representing community interests. Alongside praise for the sector’s work, there is a sense that its work is often fragmented, small scale, and patchily distributed. Lots of groups are doing lots of things, but those are not
54 always well connected. Others noted a changing – and potentially growing – role for the sector as local authority budgets and their ability to provide services are reduced.
The LCR LEP: Some organisations, especially those closer to its work, are aware of the LEP’s activity on skills, apprenticeships and worklessness and see that it is increasingly helping people to move off benefits and into work. However, that is the minority view. More commonly, stakeholders are of the opinion that the LEP doesn’t really see itself as an organisation that is there to do poverty reduction, and that it could and should do more. The view of one local authority director that the LEP was about ‘growth at all costs, rather than the impact of that growth’ was echoed in other sectors too, with
another director perceiving the LEP to be ‘less bothered about worklessness, they see it as a matter for councils and Jobcentre Plus’. Others observed differences between local council leaders and businesses on the LEP board, but also saw a positive direction of travel:
‘It’s somewhat split. Local government leaders see tackling poverty as important, although it varies by area, but private sector members generally don’t see it as a priority. Overall though things are moving in the right direction.’
Health, education and other public sector organisations: There was relatively little comment about big public sector/anchor bodies such as hospitals and universities, but some do note that these organisations have a role as big employers, and that health and care services have a tremendously important role in dealing with the effects of poverty. Some also point to the growing role of colleges as key bodies that are involved in training, work experience and apprenticeship initiatives, often alongside local councils and businesses. Local authority interviewees also stressed a growing contribution from housing associations, who increasingly act as more than landlords, and have moved away from a focus on benefit maximisation to getting involved in helping their tenants to become more financially stable, for example through building skills that will help them get a job.
‘The public sector is on the whole pretty good here. Housing associations always get it, as do health agencies. Jobcentre Plus is very helpful too.’
Local authority development director
‘Our ALMO [Arms Length Management Organisation ] is very good. They don’t just manage properties, and have put schemes in place that help tenants out of poverty, partly as they realise it also impacts upon themselves through rent arrears.’
55 ‘The City College takes civic responsibility very seriously and engages with the council well.’
Local authority, skills and employment directorate
Interviewees were also asked how far connections are being made between the work of the different organisations they had mentioned and to assess these on a scale of 1–10. Table 13: Plans, policies, commitments and connections
Mean rating Range Stakeholder interviews: all interviewees
Is any connection being made between the work of different
organisations on this issue? [reducing poverty] 5.6/10 3/10 – 10/10 There is consensus across sectors that the connections made between organisations are fairly weak. Average scores from all sectors were between 5 and 6 out of 10, with local authorities the ones most likely to award slightly higher scores. Views do vary within sectors and between places, with the highest score (of 10/10) awarded by a VCS stakeholder in Leeds. This, however, appears to be an outlier as most VCS scores on this question are between 3 and 6, and scores from Leeds-focused organisations overall average the same as those elsewhere at between 5 and 6 out of 10. The highest scores for organisational connections in a local area (based on local authority interviews only) – are in Bradford and Wakefield, rated as 8 and 7 out of 10 respectively. Wakefield suggested one reason for good local connections is that it is not as large as some areas, meaning that stakeholders know one another better. In
Bradford, the emphasis on the partnership based community strategy (see Internal commitments and policies on growth, jobs and poverty) and multi-agency action to deliver it, may well be one factor that is building relationships between organisations. In Leeds, the Sustainable Economy and Culture Board is seen as playing a similar role, while the work of the Ahead Partnership in ‘connecting things up’ was noted as helpful in the areas where it works (which include but go well beyond Leeds).
However, despite some instances of good practice the overriding message is that much more can be done to strengthen links and make the approach more systemic in order to enhance the impact of work to tackle poverty. As one private sector representative put it:
‘Commitment to reducing poverty is probably very high, but the linkages are probably very low and there is much disconnectivity.’
56 Positively, change appears to be in the air. Quite a number of organisations note an improving situation sparked by a range of factors. For a large hospital in Leeds this stems from the outward, partnership based perspective of its new chief executive. For local authorities, it is partly prompted by changes such as funding cuts and welfare reform which demand new models of service provision, with partners working more tightly together. But other factors also play a role. For example in Calderdale and in Kirklees both authorities point to the move of public health into the local authority in 2013 as a factor that is sparking better connection between economic development, health and inequalities.
57