A Cultural Commissioning Strategy for
Lambeth
Activate Cultivate Generate
Activate the Body. Cultivate the Mind. Create Wellbeing.
Cultural Commissioning Strategy
• Previous inspection highlighted that the division
needed a cultural strategy
• Project began in earnest September 2009
• Initial work focussed on looking at the
governance for the project, exploring definitions
of culture, looking at the scope of the project
and potential sources for research
• Way forward agreed by senior management and
partnership board. Governance established
Commissioning Principles
People
Services
Money
Greater
Wellbeing
through
employment
Economic
Wellbeing
Health and
Wellbeing
Partnership
Board
Workstream
Social
Wellbeing
Workstream
Children
and Young
People
Partnership
Board
Safer
Lambeth
Partnership
Board
Environmental
Wellbeing
Workstream
Project Team (Meet weekly)
•Peter Jones – Chair (Culture)
•Jon Armstrong (Culture)
Great place
to do
business and
invest
•Brian Reynolds (Performance)
Young
people on
path to
success
• Emma Dagnes (Culture)
Less poverty
& social
exclusion
• Chris Sipidias (CYPS)
Improved
health and
wellbeing
Mixed
sustainable
communities
Safe &
cohesive
places
Internal
Management
Boards eg. SLB,
PCT
Members Advisory
Group
Scrutiny
•Maria Burton (Health & Wellbeing
Partnership)
•Derek Prentice (Culture)
•Seona Gordon (Personalisation)
•Valerie Dinsmore (Consultation)
• Taiye Sanwo (ACS Finance)
Critical Friends Network
(Contacted individually)
•Mike McCart (South Bank
Centre)
•Deborah Saunt
•DCMS “twin”
•Martyn Allison (IdEA)
•David Littler (London
Printworks)
•Wigan MBC
•Tom Bewick (Creative and
Cultural Skills)
• Lynda Jessopp (NHS Lambeth)
Consultation &
Stakeholder
Group
•Project support - Lorraine Lynch,
Gareth Edmundson, Barbara Smith,
Francis Clarke (PEP)
(Meeting format
tbc)
• Phil Langslow, (HRE)
Executive Steering Group (Meet
monthly)
Jo Cleary, Ted Inman Ian Jackson
Kevin Barton, Nick Ephgrave
Place Partnership
Board
Partnership
Delivery Group for
the Cultural
Strategy
(Senior
Management
Level)
November –
January
• Conducted extensive
research
• Produced a 125 page + 1st
stage discussion document
• Attempted to show
contribution of culture in
the borough against SCS
outcomes
• Attempted to find out what
Lambeth’s needs are, what
people want and what
culture is like
• Begin to suggest what
needs to change
Prosperous
neighbourhoods
and communities
Increased
economic wealth
Great place to do
business and invest
•Leisure industry
Mixed and
sustainable
communities
•Creative arts
•Street markets – arts &
crafts outlets
•Integrating art into
regeneration programmes
Greater wellbeing
through employment
•High quality parks, open
spaces and allotments
•Training opportunities
Activate the body
Reduced
reliance
on
benefits
•Experience through
volunteering
Cultivate the mind
Lower levels of
poverty and social
exclusion
Increased
use of
public
facilities
Generate
Wellbeing
•Affordable services
•Accessible services
Improved
health and
wellbeing
•Arts, sports
•Dance and
exercise
•Things to do,
places to go
Reduce the need
for institutional
care
Children and Young
People on the path to
success
Increased
•Intergenerational projectsCommunity
•Libraries, play, sport
use of
•Healthy lifestyles
Safe and
Cohesive Places
•Diversionary Activities
•Build creative active
communities
Reduce
offending
rates
extended
schools
DELAY!
• Document presented to
Executive Steering Group
• Decision to delay and not
put to public engagement
till after the election
• Instructed to use time to
improve document for
post-election
engagement/consultation
• Embed and consider work
on Cooperative Borough
and new research
Critical assessment
• Critical assessment of document started
• Invited Martyn Allison & Sue Thiedeman for
challenge session
• Challenge session helped us to conclude that:
NEEDS
WANTS
PERFORMANCE
Jan to Present
• Restructuring & refining
document, new chapters and
outcomes, more clear and
concise
• Collecting better performance
evidence, to improve
understanding of services
• Building an initial performance
framework for the division
• Using IDeA’s recent research
developed new outcomes
triangles
• Better understanding of the
money and changing future
environment
CREATE WELLBEING
CULTIVATE THE MIND
ACTIVATE THE BODY
Sport, Leisure and tourism, Parks
and open spaces, Heritage,
Museums, the Arts, Media,
Libraries. Community buildings
and Creative Industries
3
1
2
Make learning fun to improve
life chances for Lambeth’s
young
Rich culture, dynamic
communities, promising
prospects
Get Lambeth active,
healthy and happy
4
5
Make sure everyone can join
in – going the extra mile
Supporting creative industries
– generate wealth and jobs.
CREATE WELLBEING
CULTIVATE THE MIND
ACTIVATE THE BODY
Sport, Leisure and tourism,
Parks and open spaces,
Heritage, Museums, the Arts,
Media, Libraries. Community
buildings and Creative
Industries
At the top of the triangle will be
the chapter heading. The chapter
heading is at the top because this
is our overall goal to aim for.
Local outcome
(Long term)
Be active, healthy and
happy
Local outcome
(intermediate)
Reductions in early
deaths and disability
through CHD and stroke
Reductions in drug and
alcohol mis-use.
Reductions in obesity
(particularly young
people)
Improved mental
wellbeing
Improved equality of
access to services
Cultural outcome
More opportunities
to get involved in
local decisions
More people gaining
new knowledge and
skills through culture
Increased levels of adult
participation, especially in
Norwood and Streatham
Improvements in what
people feel about
cultural facilities through
Resident’s surveys
Better value for
money in the
delivery of culture
and sport
Increased
participation in
volunteering
In the middle section
you will find more
specific medium and
long term aims to show
the impact and
contribution that
culture makes to things
like improving health,
making people safer or
increase employment
chances
Increased growth and
capacity of third sector
cultural organisations
At the bottom of the triangle, you will find what we are calling our
“Cultural outcomes”. For example, in this section of the triangle you
will find statements that start with “increase participation” or “more
opportunities”. These statements are important because these are
the things that, through implementing our proposal, we can directly
influence and measure to monitor our performance and improve
culture in Lambeth.
Local outcome
(Long term)
Be active, healthy and
happy
Local outcome
(intermediate)
Reductions in early
deaths and disability
through CHD and stroke
Reductions in drug and
alcohol mis-use.
Reductions in obesity
(particularly young
people)
Improved mental
wellbeing
Improved equality of
access to services
Cultural outcome
More opportunities
to get involved in
local decisions
More people gaining
new knowledge and
skills through culture
Increased levels of adult
participation, especially in
Norwood and Streatham
Improvements in what
people feel about
cultural facilities through
Resident’s surveys
Better value for
money in the
delivery of culture
and sport
Increased
participation in
volunteering
Increased growth and
capacity of third sector
cultural organisations
Performance
Parks
• 64% of people are satisfied with parks London average
72% - Residents Survey 2009
Arts
• Relatively high level of engagement in the arts (55.58%)
London average 49.36%, England average 42.95%
Sports and Leisure Centres
• Spent £3.6m in 2009/10 on leisure centres (net of
charges income) & invested £0.5m in Community Sports
Libraries
• In 2008/09 Lambeth had, per ‘000 population lowest
number of issues from and visits to Libraries in London
Targeted Services by Commissioner
Targeted
At specific groups of the population served by that
commissioner – some joint commissioned
Segment universal
Available to all of the
population in Lambeth
Universal
Available to everyone
(including visitors)
Libraries, archives,
maintained and landscaped
parks and open spaces,
Sports facilities, arts
CYPS
NHS
Adult Social Care
Criminal Justice
HRE
Just some of the figures
London Borough of Lambeth - Revenue
09/10 – Actual - £’000
10/11 – Budget - £’000
4,876
7,118
4,205
5,179
6,803
2,722
841
877
641
621
17,681
16,202
9,439
1,618
914
1,574
8,771
1,642
900
2,040
13,545
13,353
Adult and Community Services Day care
Older people and people with disabilities
Adults with Learning Disabilities
Mental Health
2,030
3,103
1,319
2,030
3,188
1,157
Total Adult and Community Services
6,453
6,376
Universal services:
Libraries
Parks and Open Spaces
Sports and Leisure
Arts
)
Events )
Strategy )
Divisional Management
Total Universal Services
Children and Young People
Community Youth
Play & sports
Music Service
School facilities (extended provision)
Total Children & Young People
Key Issue
Cooperative Borough
We think that a cooperative approach will:
• Allow public organisations like Council, NHS, Police
and others to work more closely together in
partnership
• Build better relationship between citizens,
communities and public services where power and
responsibility shared more equally
• Allow our public services to better meet the needs
and aspirations of our citizens
• Allow our services to be more personalised, this could
be for a specific individual, a family, or a community
Cooperative Principles to underpin
service delivery
• Principle 1: Public services as strong community leaders
• Principle 2: Providing services at the appropriate level,
personalised and community based
• Principle 3: Citizens and communities empowered to design and
deliver services and play an active role in their local community
• Principle 4: Public services enabling residents to engage in civil
society through employment opportunities
• Principle 5: A settlement between public services, our
communities and the citizen (this is what we provide, this is
what you do for yourself) underpinned by our desire for justice,
fairness, and responsibility
• Principle 6: Taking responsibility for services – regardless of
where they are accessed or which agency provides them
• Principle 7: Simple, joined up and easy access to services –
location and transaction; “one place to do it all”, “one form,
one time to do it all” – providing visible value for money
What might this
mean?
• Joint management of
Parks/Leisure centres
etc?
• A radically different
library service?
• Community ownership of
assets?
• Cooperatives, trusts,
mutuals, social
enterprises?
Timescales
• Discussion Document Oct ‘10
• “Discussion” phase
Oct/Nov ‘10
• Final strategy with
proposals Nov/Dec ‘10
• Formal consultation Dec
‘10 - Feb ‘11
• Final strategy for sign
off Apr/Jun ‘11
Challenges
• Partnership document – difficult to asses cultural spend in
some departments – e.g. Environment? NHS – clinical
intervention vs culture
• The project is big and complex, not easy to explain and
some departments have a greater affinity with culture
than others
• Some benchmarking data is unreliable, boroughs all do
things differently! Data has to be tested and further
research is needed to tell an accurate story
• How do we show culture’s contribution – can we show
commissioners in the partnership that investing in culture
will bring efficiencies and savings?
• And the biggest of all….can we deliver the same, or
improve services using commissioning and cooperative
borough with less money?
Still working on!
• Planning for future budget cuts
– is it possible to deliver same
service with a 20% or 30% cut?
• How will we deliver cultural
services – will politicians agree
with a radical approach?
• How can we maximise income
to mitigate budget cuts?
• How much will we invest in a
universal offer vs targeted
programmes to meet need?
• Are Lambeth’s third & cultural
sectors ready for new
commissioning model?