And one third rate it as poor. In addition, ratings spanning ‘poor’ to ‘satisfactory’ exceed 80%. This is perhaps not surprising since the average combined presence of community and voluntary sector representatives and/or residents on the central decision-making boards of all LSPs is a mere 19% of the total membership.

Let’s re-establish our bearings. In ‘the 88’ Neighbourhood Renewal areas, LSPs have been given money to go kick off with. So, Government deemed these areas to be in need great enough to justify it. Though extremely diverse in many aspects, they have a number of common traits.

The single most apparent of these is poverty. That, in itself, helps to give rise to a plethora of other equally unpleasant states. Take the racial tension in some towns which dominated our media during last summer. That, in addition to high crime rates, is said to be down not only to unemployment and general deprivation but also to incohesive communities. There must be reasonable doubt as to whether any partnership with a minority of the said communities at the helm can possibly glue them together.

It’s a fair argument that representatives of other sectors around the table are often community residents but that is inadequate. It doesn’t complete the picture, and, on the whole, serves to cheat the worst-off areas of good honest representation. Those representing business, public sector interests and Local Authorities are likely to have well paid jobs and are far less likely to actually live in the most deprived areas under the scope of the LSP. Yet, it is the experience of living in those areas which has justified the setting up of an LSP in the first place.

At an average of less than 20% voluntary and community sector composition of LSPs, it seems to be taken quite lightly. While it is fair to acknowledge that voluntary sector and poorer community/resident interests represent only some, amongst many others, to be taken into account, it is certainly not fair that they are not explicitly at the centre of the LSP’s purpose.

An ideal situation would see the voluntary and community/resident sector command the majority influence in LSPs. In the shorter term, however, Urban Forum advocates a minimum 33% presence on the central decision-making boards of LSPs. In addition there should be a compulsory 75% agreement on all decisions so that they can never be wholly outvoted.

There is no doubt that statutory service providers and business must be heavily involved in LSPs, but they are not the main event. LSPs exist to enable communities to thrive again. That means business must thrive, as well as local authorities and other statutory service providers, in ways that can be seen to serve the most deprived communities well.

This cannot be assumed and LSPs cannot expect to know whether this is happening without voluntary and community sector and poorer resident representatives forming a critical mass of their composition at the most powerful level.