The Church Urban Fund (CUF) supports and represents small, local faith-based social action organisations, which comprise an important sub-sector of the Third Sector. CUF supports organisations with an annual turnover of under £150,000 and which work in the 10% most deprived areas of England or with intrinsically disadvantaged communities (such as homelessness, drug and alcohol problems or refugees). During its 20 year existence CUF has supported over 4,500 projects and awarded over 6,000 grants totalling in excess of £62 million.

In addition to its grants programme, CUF is also a development, infrastructure and advocacy organisation representing the projects it supports.

• Development initiatives, assisted by funding from DCSF, DCLG and Capacitybuilders, include research, training, toolkits, and consultancy for projects.
• Infrastructure developments for projects include facilitating a network between projects through which they are able to communicate with each other and be empowered to share and learn from identified best practice.
• Advocacy work is enabled by our strategic partnership with and ‘Voice' grant from the Cabinet Office's Office of the Third Sector which equips CUF to gather the voices of smaller faith-based social action projects and ensure that they are heard by government and policy-makers at national, regional and local levels.

Discussion questions:

1. Will a set of principles aid third sector participation in your LSP and its thematic groups?

There can be no doubt that this set of principles will aid third sector participation in all LSPs and their thematic groups. We also note the comment on page 5 that ‘This document is not guidance to local authorities, LSPs, statutory agencies and partners as to how to involve the third sector'. However, two particular points need to be made:

• First, the document works in a theoretical setting. It would be enormously strengthened if accompanied by an outline of practical action that could be taken to implement it for all LSPs and local areas.
• Second, linked to the above point clarification is needed regarding this document and its proposals / suggestions:
  • How will this be monitored?
  • How will it be enforced?
  • What actions / sanctions will be put in place to remedy inadequate local implementation?

2. If the third sector is already well represented in your locality, do you think the principles would have made a difference?

Written principles are to be welcomed as it was clearly shown in Faithful Representation that the vast majority of faith representatives did not have written guidance regarding their role in sitting on their LSP but did want it. Submission by faith representatives to Faithful Representation suggested that about half do not regularly meet up with other partnership representatives so anything that promotes better integration between all representatives and that strengthens the credibility of third sector representatives is to be welcomed.

3. Are there any approaches to third sector representation you would recommend? We have suggested networks and forums, please give examples of other approaches you have experience of in your area?

We would stress how Faithful Representation showed that by linking faith representatives to local faith forums (ideally inter-faith ones) those representatives were provided with greater legitimacy and accountability.

The main recommendation in Faithful Representation emphasised the need for a network to be created for faith representatives. This was overwhelmingly demanded by all faith representatives. It is very regrettable that no funding has been forthcoming to establish this. A network would encourage solidarity amongst faith representatives and enable better dissemination of best practice.

4. Do you agree with the benefits we have set out:

For the third sector?

For the local authority and its public sector partners?

Are there any other benefits you would add? If so please tell us what they are.

We are pleased that the document alludes to some of the benefits that the third sector brings (p.14). For the faith sector this includes its volunteers, its buildings, its long-term local commitment and historical presence, and its ability to reach ‘hard to reach' groups.

It is important to note that between the third sector, local authorities and their public sector partners confusion can arise around issues relating to ethnicity, cultural and faith issues.

One of the benefits that has been over-looked is that more effective third sector participation will enable a better quality debate to be achieved at local level on the relative values of giving grants and commissioning services as well as on the value and practicality of transferring local authority capital assets.

5. Effective partnerships take time and effort to develop and sustain. Have we identified the main challenges? (Please offer examples of the challenges you and your partners have faced in your area and how you overcame them.)

Faithful Representation suggested that faith representatives have faced many challenges that restrict their effectiveness on partnerships. Suggested practical remedies include the following which would be relevant to all third sector representatives:

• Better inductions
• Training (delivered in a form that is not too time-consuming) in governance, negotiation skills and conflict resolution
• Written guidance particularly on partnership roles and responsibilities, expectations, priorities and national policy development
• Access to examples of best practice
• Expenses including covering loss of earnings
• Better access to staff and IT support
• Meetings that are not full of jargon, that are practical (for instance in terms of where and when they take place) and that are not too ‘public sector' in style
• Faith literacy training for other partnership representatives and staff
• More young people and women as faith representatives
• Training for potential new representatives
• New and imaginative ways to communicate and create greater dialogue especially with local residents

6. Do you agree with the principles?

• Will they make a difference in your area?
• If not, why not?
• If they will, please say how?
• Is there anything missing?
• Is there anything that you would recommend?

We would strongly recommend the need for partnerships to have clearly identified faith representatives to represent local faith communities with their legitimacy and accountability reinforced either by a local faith / inter-faith forum or by local third sector representation structures. It is unwise to assume that generic third sector representatives on partnerships will be representative of local faith communities if a means to achieve this has not been put in place.

In response to this consultation question, one is drawn to the key question posed in response to consultation question 1 - how will what is being proposed be monitored, how will it be enforced and what actions / sanctions will be put in place to remedy inadequate local implementation?

7. Are the case studies helpful?

• Do you have any examples of good practice that illustrate any of the principles?
• If so, please share them with us.

One is forced to ask the question – what case studies? This document is weaker due to the lack of real life case studies. As stated in response to consultation question 3, if a national network of faith representatives was established (as requested overwhelmingly by faith representatives) then this would be an excellent way of providing and disseminating case studies of best practice.

Promotion of case studies illustrating best practice related to any of the principles could be facilitated by establishing specifically for this purpose a web-site or an awards scheme.

CUF is working in partnership with DCLG and NAVCA to identify case studies of best practice between local faith communities and local third sector infrastructure organisations. A specific example of where third sector participation (including specifically endorsing local faith communities) in an LSP is strong and effective is in Liverpool. Below is a piece from the main analysis of our Faithful Representation research identifying good practice on Merseyside:

Merseyside is an excellent example of how faith organisations can work together and with the VCS to show what churches and faith organisations have to offer to the local area. Church and Society in Liverpool Diocese for CTMR (Churches Together in the Merseyside Region) co-ordinates meetings of the local LSP faith representatives to discuss key issues and the CTMR LSP Group submitted its own detailed response to the consultation on the future of LSPs. CTMR's LSP Group has been chaired by a local Bishop who himself chaired a local LSP. The convenor is the Chair of the local Change Up initiative and has recently been elected as the Voluntary/Community/Faith representative on The Mersey Partnership. Linked to this, the Diocese of Liverpool which acts for CTMR has produced a number of reports with local CVSs. These include:

• ‘Living Faiths in Sefton' and ‘Faithful to…Knowsley's communities' - mapping exercises of local faith communities in these two boroughs.
• ‘Faithful in Partnerships' – a survey of faith engagement in the six greater Merseyside LSPs.
• ‘Faithfully serving … rural communities' which has led to a full-time Rural Officer based in Liverpool Diocese serving the whole Voluntary, Community and Faith sector.
• A review of faith responses to the ‘homeless and rootless' in Liverpool, Southport and Birkenhead.

Please contact Billy Dann at CUF on 020 7898 1091 if further details are needed.

8. Are you aware of any tools that would help to apply the principles?

CUF would highlight the Churches Community Value Toolkit that is has produced and is publicly available on the CUF web-site www.cuf.org.uk/page18562133.aspx This has been specifically produced for churches to measure their quantitative and qualitative impact on their local area. Anglican, Methodist and Baptist versions have been produced. This toolkit could be easily adapted by secular third sector organisations to demonstrate their differing local impacts. This would strengthen and underpin individually and collectively local third sector organisations' ability to demonstrate that they themselves are working to the seven principles.

9. We really want to hear about examples of good practice. If you have any, please share them with us.

As referred to in the responses to consultation questions 3 & 7, a national network of faith representatives (as requested by over 80% of them) would enable instant identification and sharing of best practice.

10. What else could the sector itself do to encourage an effective and well networked local third sector in every part of the country?

It is important that when consideration is given to ‘the third sector' that specific action is taken to include all groups including those representing all relevantly local faith and belief communities, small community groups without paid staff and (where applicable) isolated groups operating in rural areas. A key way to achieve an effective and networked local third sector in all parts of England would be through the effective usage of IT and new technology. Indeed, it is surprising that it is not stressed in this document how local third sectors need to use the opportunities opened up by IT and new technology.

Finally, it is important to ensure that third sector participation on LSPs stays diverse and fresh. It is also important to ensure that the impression of ‘the usual suspects' does not arise. To this end not only is it important to ensure all third sector representatives are linked to a body for their selection and accountability but it may also be wise to consider limiting the amount of time any particular individual representative can serve on a partnership. Indeed, such time limitation may be good for representatives of all sectors.