cabinet – 12 april 2007 report of the director of ...€¦ · leicestershire strategic senior...

CABINET – 12 April 2007

Report of the Director of Partnerships & Customer Services

ITEM 6 REVIEW OF VOLUNTARY & COMMUNITY SECTOR INFRASTRUCTURE Purpose of Report To respond to the current consultation by Leicestershire Together on the appropriate model for Voluntary & Community Sector (VCS) Infrastructure in Leicestershire. Recommendation To endorse ‘Model B’ with seven district VCS infrastructure organisations supported by a Central Hub for specialist functions. Reason To endorse a model which provides for the optimum efficiency and quality control in infrastructure support while maintaining the involvement of local volunteers and organisations. Policy Context In the Corporate Plan improvement goals include (4) “Revitalised local democracy and effective community engagement across the Borough” and (5) “Deliver shared outcomes for the community through business like arrangements with partners in county wide Local Area Agreements and the Charnwood Community Strategy Delivery Plan” Background Prompted by the Government’s ChangeUp programme work has been undertaken to review VCS Infrastructure in Leicestershire. The latest stage of the review has involved the carrying out of an ‘Assessment of Models of Future Infrastructure Support Provision for frontline voluntary and community groups in Leicestershire’. A report summarising this work was received by the Strategic Senior Officers Group of Leicestershire Together on 14 February, and the main board itself on 12 March and the covering report is attached as Appendix 1. The main report of the assessment, produced by a VCS Infrastructure Working Group, is attached as Appendix 2 and links to the appendices are given in background papers. In summary, three models are considered varying between allowing recent developments to continue for a period (Model A), to a centralised model for the County. Model A recognises that there have been significant changes already in the period to 1 April 2007 and would allow time for the effects of these to be evaluated. Model C would provide a single Infrastructure organisation to cover the whole county of Leicestershire and in doing so it would replace all of the existing infrastructure support functions of organisations such as district based Councils for Voluntary Service (CVS), Volunteer Centres (VC), the countywide Rural Community Council and other specialist infrastructure organisations.

While Model A would not be such a problem for the new Voluntary Action Charnwood, it is accepted that there are efficiencies in having a centre of support for some of the more specialist functions and that this would be especially helpful in some of the other Districts. Model C, however, would undermine the work done in building up local partnerships and engagement. Accordingly Model B is recommended as an alternative which sustains district-owned and delivered support services (based at present on one infrastructure support organisation per District – though this could be fewer cross-district organisations) and proposes the establishment of a central specialist Hub to cover the whole county of Leicestershire. The benefits and disadvantages of the three models are further discussed in the reports attached as Appendix 2. The criterion for promoting stronger communities shows the advantages of Model B, and this chimes with the increased drive towards neighbourhood level working. Local sensitivity and responsiveness is also better in B than C. In some aspects of policy work, or where there is accepted to be inadequate knowledge and skills in some of the other districts, it might be argued the best delivery is one central hub, however the view in existing voluntary organisations is that the central hub can work best by supporting local workers. The clearest disadvantages to Model C are the losses of local support in terms of funding, volunteers and goodwill, which would occur if there was no local organisation involved. It is difficult to see a comparable gain from Model C which would offset this loss. On the other hand the benefits of Model C can be achieved through Model B, as well as the other advantages. The County is clearly a large funder and has an interest in seeing its money well-spent and delivering well, however this is currently being achieved through the new style Commissioning Agreement. Although the Syston and District Volunteer Centre has just recently drawn back from committing itself to the new organisation, Voluntary Action Charnwood builds on a long history of profitable work with the voluntary sector locally in Charnwood. Currently Charnwood Borough Council is working with Voluntary Action Charnwood and other voluntary organisations in Charnwood to find a replacement building for John Storer House which would serve as a centre within the borough and a basis for closer working between the voluntary sector and other public sector organisations in the Borough. Model B provides an impetus to maintain the momentum of this work and further enhance the capacity of the voluntary sector in Charnwood. Financial Implications There are no immediate financial implications to this report, but the presence of a robust voluntary sector presents opportunities for efficiencies in delivering many council services through this mechanism.

Risk Management

Risk Identified Likelihood Impact Risk Management Actions Planned Voluntary & Community Sector will not be efficiently supported

Medium Medium Less of a problem for Voluntary Action Charnwood, given its size and organisation, but can be improved through Central Hub organisation.

Lack of District Level Engagement with Voluntary Sector

High High Problem mainly inherent in Model C and can be avoided through Model B.

Loss of benefits from past efforts in building voluntary sector capacity.


Lack of involvement of local volunteers and trustees.


Key Decision: No Background Papers: Background papers to Appendix 2 can be found at

http://www.leicestershiretogether.org/index/meetings_and_events/minutes-2/management_board_papers/march_2007.htm

Officer(s) to contact:

Steve Phipps (01509634605) [email protected]



mailto:[email protected]

1

Appendix 1

LEICESTERSHIRE STRATEGIC SENIOR OFFICERS’ GROUP 14TH FEBRUARY 2007

REVIEW OF VOLUNTARY AND COMMUNITY SECTOR

INFRASTRUCTURE

REPORT OF THE VCS INFRASTRUCTURE WORKING GROUP

Purpose of Report 1. To report on progress in reviewing Voluntary and Community Sector

(VCS) Infrastructure in Leicester Shire and, in particular, to seek the views of SSOG members on an assessment of future infrastructure options produced by a joint VCS Infrastructure Working Group.

Background 2. Prompted by the Government’s ChangeUp programme work has been

undertaken to review VCS Infrastructure in Leicester Shire. The latest stage of the review has involved the carrying out of an ‘Assessment of Models of Future Infrastructure Support Provision for frontline voluntary and community groups in Leicestershire’. The report of this assessment, produced by a VCS Infrastructure Working Group, is attached as Appendix 1.

3. Earlier stages of the review are summarised in paragraphs 1.2 to 1.5 of

the attached report. They have been characterised by joint collaborative consideration of issues and future options by representatives of both the Voluntary and Community Sector and of funders (actual and potential) of VCS infrastructure.

4. The work has been jointly overseen by the Leicester Shire VCS

Consortium and by the Leicester Shire Funders Panel (which existed until recently to consider ChangeUp funding bids developed by the Consortium). Following workshop events and a study carried out by Sheffield Hallam University, the Consortium and the Panel agreed to set up a joint working group to consider models of future infrastructure provision. The working group included representatives of Councils for Voluntary Service (CVSs), Volunteer Centres, the Rural Community Council, Leicestershire Ethnic Minority Partnership, Leicestershire Community Foundation, the County and City Councils and a district council.

5. The Leicestershire Together Board and SSOG have previously received

updates on the review. The Assessment of Models of Infrastructure Provision 6. The report of the working group summarises an assessment of three

broad models of infrastructure provision. Each model assumes the continued existence of a separate generalist infrastructure organisation in Leicester (currently Voluntary Action Leicester). The three models are as follows:

2

• Model A - Retain changed structures in place from April 2007; • Model B - Seven district wide VCS infrastructure organisations

supported by Central Hub functions; and • Model C – One county wide VCS infrastructure organisation

7. Each model is assessed against a number of criteria including cost and

ability to deliver key functions required of infrastructure organisations.

8. The models were developed to assist understanding of the benefits and disadvantages of adopting three different approaches to future infrastructure provision. They are not the only options available and each could, and probably would, need to be adjusted if implemented in the future. The assessment is broad brush and sets out the perceived overall advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Paragraphs 1.9 to 1.12 of the attached working group report set out some further caveats about the assessment.

Next Steps & Recommendations 9. The purpose of the review of VCS infrastructure has been to inform the

future development of infrastructure organisations in the light of new guidance, pressures, circumstances and opportunities. Increased emphasis on the strengthening of communities and on ‘third sector’ delivery of services are two key drivers. Further influences relate to financial pressure being experienced by local authorities and other actual and potential funders of VCS infrastructure.

10. In light of the attached assessment SSOG members (and their

constituent organisations) are asked to consider:

What role they see VCS infrastructure organisations playing in helping them to achieve their corporate and partnership objectives;

Their preferences in terms of the future organisation of VCS infrastructure; and

What role they see themselves having in funding the future provision of VCS infrastructure.

11. It is further recommended that the views of key partner organisations

(some of whom are funders of VCS infrastructure) be sought as part of this exercise, including the Big Lottery, Arts Council East Midlands, the Sports Partnership, and the Community Foundation. It is also important that the views of all district councils be sought.

12. It is recommended that all partners submit their views (to Tom Purnell,

Leicestershire County Council, [email protected]) by Monday April 30th, to enable a report to be produced for the next SSOG meeting on May 9th.

Leicestershire Voluntary and Community Sector Infrastructure Support Review Page 1 of 29 Working Party Report January 2007.

APPENDIX 2

DRAFT version 0.8

Review of Voluntary and Community Sector Infrastructure in Leicester Shire

Assessment of Models of Future Infrastructure Support Provision for frontline voluntary and community groups

in Leicestershire

Report of the VCS Infrastructure Working Group

January 2007


CONTENTS

Executive Summary 1. Introduction and Background 2. The Models developed and assessed 3. Pros and Cons of the Models 4. Observations and commentary on findings and way forward 5. List of Background Documents 6. Appendices

A. Terms of Reference of the Working Group B. Membership of the VCS Infrastructure Working Group C. Key Stages in Consideration of VCS Infrastructure in Leicester Shire

prior to the Working Group’s establishment D. Funding VCS Infrastructure in Leicester Shire - Report of Workshop

held on 9th November 2005 E. Model A details and current expenditure F. Model B details and costs G. Model C details and costs H. Working assumptions on costs I. Table of current funding for infrastructure support


1. Introduction and Background Purpose of the Report 1.1. The purpose of this report is to summarise the work carried out by a VCS

Infrastructure Working Group which was set up jointly by the Leicester Shire VCS Infrastructure Consortium and the Leicester Shire Funders Panel to: ‘bring forward options for operational change and for structural change with the aim of setting out the costs and benefits of both‘.

The VCS Infrastructure Working Group 1.2. The working group was set up to include representatives of different types of

VCS infrastructure organisations together with representatives of funding organisations. The full terms of reference of the working group are attached as Appendix A. Members of the working group are listed in Appendix B.

Activity before establishment of the Working Group 1.3. The establishment of the working group followed on from a series of activities

and discussions that had largely taken place within the context of the Government’s Change Up Programme. Appendix C lists the key stages in the consideration of VCS Infrastructure in Leicester Shire. A full detailed description of this process is not attempted here – the report ‘Looking Ahead…’ produced by Sheffield Hallam University in October 2005 provides a fuller description of the process up to that point.

1.4. Following the publication of the Sheffield Hallam report a workshop event was

held in November 2005. It was out of discussion at and following this workshop that it was agreed (amongst other things) to ‘seek to narrow down the range of possible options for the future of VCS infrastructure, to focus discussions’. The note of the workshop is attached as Appendix D. The VCS Infrastructure Working Group was then established.

1.5. Throughout the above process progress updates have been provided to key

partnership bodies, in particular the Board of Leicestershire Together. The work of the VCS Infrastructure Working Group 1.6. The working group met regularly between April and December 2006 and during

that period followed the process summarised below:

• Acceptance of terms of reference, and agreement of membership; • Examination of VCS Infrastructure functions, taking account of national

guidance, requirements of funders etc; • Updating of information on existing funding for VCS infrastructure;


• Initial identification of three initial options for detailed development and assessment;

• ‘Option sub-groups’ developed these options in more detail – at two funding levels; one broadly approximating to existing funding provision; one involving a significant enhancement in levels of funding provided. These are described in the report as ‘existing’ and ‘enhanced’ funding variants of the options;

• Development of criteria for assessing options; • Assessment of options using the agreed criteria at series of workshops

facilitated by Dr Rob Macmillan of Sheffield Hallam University; • Refinement and further detailed development of models in light of initial

assessment exercise; • Assessment of pros and cons of refined models; • Preparation of this report.

1.7. The models described and assessed in the remainder of this report were

developed following an earlier iteration of the options. These earlier versions of the options were as follows: Option 1 One City and one County infrastructure organisation, each covering a

full range of generic and specialist infrastructure services. Option 2 One generic infrastructure organisation per district (ie 8 including the

City), one or more sub-regional specialist infrastructure organisations, and sub-regional arrangements (to be defined but which could range from a network of CVSs working together, to a sub-regional generic infrastructure organisation providing range of services)

Option 3 Three or four infrastructure organisations in the County plus one in

City. Further consideration to be given to the relationship between generic and specialist services within this option.

1.8. These options were examined at workshops held in September 2006, following

which analysis they were superseded by the models described in the rest of this report. In particular it was decided that Option 3 should not be pursued further as there was little support on the working party for the creation of infrastructure support organisations that crossed district boundaries but covered an area smaller than the County. It was felt important for local ownership and administratively to stick to either District or County boundaries. Instead a third proposal was made for the existing changes to be allowed to demonstrate their worth before further change is initiated. This is assessed in the Pros and Cons table below, but has not been developed as a detailed model. A report of the workshops held in September 2006 is available on request.


Some words of caution about the Report 1.9. There are a number of important caveats which apply to the options

assessment carried out by the working group and explained in this report. 1.10. Firstly it is not the intention of the working group to suggest that the models put

forward are the only possible alternatives available. The two models and the current changed position represent three different broad approaches – the models have been worked up in detail to enable them to be costed and compared. In practice it would be expected that implementation of any of the three broad approaches would most likely involve significant changes to the detailed models described in this report – for example in terms of staffing levels and structures, salaries, accommodation arrangements etc. (also the district model could have fewer organisations crossing district boundaries)

1.11. Secondly the analysis and comparative assessment has been broad-brush.

The intention is to set out the pros and cons of each of the models. The findings should not be read as absolute and definitive conclusions – rather they point to the relative advantages and disadvantages of each broad approach in relation to a number of criteria. Clearly each approach has advantages and disadvantages in different areas and it is to be expected that different stakeholders are likely to have different views on a preferred way forward given their own interests and requirements. It is hoped however that this report has clarified the range of options available and what the broad costs and benefits of each would be. (see the working assumptions on costs attached H)

1.12. Finally perhaps as important as the selection of any preferred model will be any

decisions about the timing and pace of change towards that preferred model. A strong preference was expressed within the working group for an organic and evolutionary approach to change, building on and extending the change achieved to date.

Context for the work of the VCS Infrastructure Working Group 1.13. It is important to recognise that the review of infrastructure provision in

Leicester Shire, and therefore the work of the working group, has been taking place against a backdrop of structural and operational change amongst existing infrastructure organisations in Leicestershire. There has been significant rationalisation of the arrangements for CVSs and volunteer bureaux across the county of Leicestershire, with district-based organisations combining CVS and volunteer bureau roles now largely in place. This process of change started before, but was accelerated and supported by, the Change Up process and associated funding. The newly rationalised, district-based, structure has emerged from arrangements that developed in a piecemeal and ad hoc way and that were supported by a set of different and inconsistent funding arrangements.


1.14. There is a strong current of opinion that these changes need to be given time to

bed in to ensure the benefits of rationalisation to date are fully realised and are not lost in a further round of change. A ‘bedding in’ period could be followed by an evaluation of the impact of these changes, with any further change taking account of the findings of this analysis. Set against this is the fact that some further changes, in particular the consolidation and sharing of activities at a sub-regional level, could secure significant improvements.


2. The Models developed and assessed 2.1 The Working Party, having investigated a range of options/models for the future

infrastructure support of the third sector in Leicestershire, settled on detailed analysis of two models. The first alternative (Model A) proposes to make no further change and see how the current changes (due to be complete by the end of March 2007) deliver for the County. The second alternative (Model B) carries more emphasis on local ownership and working from the ‘bottom up” – proposing effective infrastructure support bodies for each district in Leicestershire with the addition of a Central Hub of support functions covering the whole county. The third alternative (Model C) approaches infrastructure support from a centralised position – proposing a single ‘top down’ infrastructure support body for the whole county.

2.2 The Working Party understands that further work will be required to develop

any of these alternative Models, if chosen, before effective implementation can take place. The Models, by the nature of this exercise have included a range of assumptions such as:

- The current boundaries of the County Council and District Councils will

remain constant. - The infrastructure support functions required by third sector groups in

Leicestershire mirror those functions defined by the Home Office ChangeUp report.

- Models B and C have two sets of costs, one an estimate of how much is required to effectively deliver all of the required support functions in Leicestershire, and the other an attempt to deliver these support functions within existing resources. (Model A is assumed to be within existing resources)

- The costs are based on an estimate of the required staffing, with additional fixed percentages to cover accommodation and running costs. It is assumed that all costs are therefore contained but a detailed costing would be required before implementation of either model. (see appendix H for costing assumptions)

2.3 A detailed description with costs for the newer alternative Models (Models B

and C) is attached to this Report, below the Models are summarised: Model A – Retain changed structures set up from April 2007 2.4 Model A retains the existing arrangements of district-owned and delivered

support services (based from April 2007 on one infrastructure support organisation per District) and proposes the continuation of the existing county-wide organisations covering youth, rural, BME and health and social care issues.


2.5 This model seeks to allow time to assess the impact of the significant structural and operational changes made to the infrastructure support for front line community and voluntary groups. Since the Start of Changeup in April 2003:

• All independent CVS have merged with another body (usually the local

Volunteer Centre) • All but one of independent VB/VC’s have merged with the local CVS • The number of merged Local Infrastructure Organisations (LIO’s) has

doubled • We have one additional county-wide organisation that is Leicestershire

Ethnic Minority Partnership (LEMP) – although LEMP is only temporarily funded through Capacity Builders.

2.6 The position in each area of Leicestershire is shown in the table below:

Area served Before start of Changeup April 2003

Situation from April 2007

Blaby CVS Blaby South VC Blaby Blaby North VC

Voluntary Action Blaby District (VABD)

Charnwood CVS (inc Loughborough VB) Syston VB

Charnwood

Shepshed VB

Voluntary Action Charnwood (VAC)

South Leics CVS Market Harborough VB

Voluntary Action South Leicestershire (VASL) Harborough

Lutterworth and B.A. VB

Lutterworth One Stop Shop Hinckley and Bosworth CVS Hinckley and

Bosworth Hinckley VB

Voluntary Action Hinckley and Bosworth (VAHB)

Melton CVS Melton Melton VB

Voluntary Action Melton (VAM)

North West Leics CVS Coalville and Ashby VB North West

Leicestershire Castle Donnington VB

North West Leicestershire CVS

Oadby and Wigston VAOW VAOW

Leicester City Voluntary Action Leicester (VAL)

Voluntary Action Leicester (VAL)

Rural Community Council (Leicestershire and Rutland)

CVS Community Partnerships Leics Council for Voluntary Youth Services (LCVYS)

County-wide

Leics Ethnic Minority Partnership (LEMP)


2.7 This approach seeks to deliver infrastructure support to frontline groups as closely to those groups as possible (in this instance primarily at a District Level), with additional support from county-wide agencies. Using the ChangeUp defined roles of infrastructure support the table below describes in summary what will be delivered through this approach:

Support/

Assistance defined by Changeup

Delivery in Leicestershire

Pre start-up The District based Local Infrastructure Organisations (LIO) supported by County-wide infrastructure: • Support and promote the development of local

communities • Promote the role of community action • Contribute to their local LSP

Start-up The District based Local Infrastructure Organisations (LIO) and the County-wide RCC are the source of start up information and advice in a locality.

Secure access to facilities

All the District based Local Infrastructure Organisations (LIO) have the ability to provide facilities in their localities for meetings and practical assistance, with some also offering start up office space.

Income generation

The District based Local Infrastructure Organisations (LIO) and the County-wide infrastructure provide fundraising advice for start up and small projects from Trusts, Lottery and public funders.

Volunteering The District based Local Infrastructure Organisations (LIO) provide recruitment and placement of volunteers in local area, promotion of volunteering and development of local volunteering opportunities.

Personnel The District based Local Infrastructure Organisations (LIO) are able to provide basic HR information to varying degrees.

Organisational Development:

The District based Local Infrastructure Organisations (LIO) provide organisational development support to groups and link to the National Hubs of expertise in governance and performance improvement.

Technical support in specialist areas

The District based Local Infrastructure Organisations (LIO) provide a signposting role to national expertise

Information and Communication Technology (ICT)

As part of the ChangeUp plans VAL have set up a social enterprise to provide practical support, purchase advice (inc. group purchase) developmental consultancy and training.

Skills There are two short term funded projects dealing in a limited way with this issue.


Support/

Assistance defined by Changeup

Delivery in Leicestershire

Partnership building/ brokerage Advocacy/ representation

The local LIO’s provide partnership working on a local level with local public sector bodies and the local community and voluntary sector (e.g. with District LSP’s), and in collaboration contribute to county-wide partnership (e.g. County LSP and Stronger Communities agenda) Further support is provided by County-wide agencies, especially in Health and Social Care (CCP), rural issues (RCC), youth issues (LCVYS) and BME issues (LEMP)

Policy and research

Local research into local community need is carried out in a limited way by the local LIO’s. Sub-regional research is similarly limited and occasionally carried out by County-wide agencies

2.8 The cost of this Model A is £1,343,135 per annum. This provides an

infrastructure that is operating well for the County and delivering flexibility and change to meet the new agenda.

Model B – Seven district wide VCS infrastructure organisations supported by Central Hub functions. 2.9 Model B sustains district-owned and delivered support services (based at

present on one infrastructure support organisation per District – though this could be fewer cross-district organisations) and proposes the establishment of a central specialist Hub to cover the whole county of Leicestershire.

2.10 The estimated staffing level is based on an assessment of workload, with

comparison to the populations in each district. As a result the model proposes a local infrastructure support organisation (now commonly known as Voluntary Action...) in each district, 3 of which are larger and 4 smaller, with centralised Hub functions that can either be vested in a central organisation or hosted by one or more other organisations. The outcome is 8 organisations with 48 staff members across Support Service teams covering the infrastructure functions. Service delivery is focussed on Front Line Voluntary and Community Organisations in districts. The Central Hub is designed to more efficiently and effectively deliver certain support services, rather than each district doing so separately. The Change Up functions are shown in a grid format and separated into three themes as summarised in the table overleaf:


Theme Local district delivery Central hub delivery Volunteering and community level voluntary activity

• District-wide Brokerage service as per Volunteering England

• Voluntary groups activities led by volunteers LCC SLA)

• Local support staff, resources and access to development support

• Database of local facilities and support to meet local needs

• Local projects, as well as numerous volunteer-only activities

• Network of VCs - Volunteering Leicestershire

• Sub regional public service delivery

Group Development (Capacity Building)

Lower level support • Access to Small Grants and Trusts • ‘Hands on’ Fundraising support • Support to improve quality to

PQASSO Level 1 • Local staff help groups link to sub-

regional specialists in HR, Skills and ICT – clustering between districts as practical

Higher level support • Procurement and tendering

support • Workshops and training on

Fundraising • Support to improve quality to

PQASSO Levels 2 and 3 • Specialist staff on HR, Skills and

ICT give higher-level guidance Involvement in Planning and Decision-making

• Support role at local level to engage people

• Feed in to centrally-based specialists facilitated by district generalists

• Support local people and feed in to sub-regional level

Lead role on • Information dissemination • Policy formulation • Supporting VCS representatives

at sub-regional level

2.11 This model is based on a substantial core of the infrastructure support work

being delivered at a ‘district’ level to local community and voluntary groups. In the second theme, the central specialists will backup local staff, for example, supporting groups in successfully bidding for, and delivering on, procurement tenders from local public agencies. In the third theme, central specialists will enable voluntary and community groups to influence and participate in the development of public policy and practice. This will primarily be via the Local Area Agreement and LSP structure across the county.

2.12 If funded to be “fit for purpose”, this model provides a significantly improved

presence in each district and would be backed up by central specialists who would create greater consistency and higher quality of service provision across the county. The Policy role is also expanded from that which is currently available and is linked to the need for commissioners to be better informed about the potential of local community and voluntary groups, as well as the need for effective preparation and involvement of local groups.

2.13 It is anticipated that the delivery of specialist infrastructure support (I.e. support

for particular communities of interest or place) is integrated within this model so that the necessary support services are available and accessible for all sections of the community and in all locations. This is what is currently required of the Councils for Voluntary Service under their contract with the


County Council. If additional support is deemed necessary for particular communities of interest or place then this can be provided for additional investment as a single stand-alone agency, or as currently with a set of independent specialist infrastructure agencies.

2.14 The predicted cost of this new Hub and Spokes Model B is £2,915,663 per

annum. This creates an infrastructure that is ‘fit for purpose’ for the County. A revision of the proposal to limit the cost to the level of existing resources is also proposed, though with a loss in service delivery as a result. The options and their costs are summarised in the table below:

Financial Options for Model B No.

staff Annual

cost District based voluntary sector infrastructure bodies with a Central Hub that together provide infrastructure support to all frontline voluntary and community groups in Leicestershire

101 £2,915,663

Cost and structure limited to existing resources 52 £1,639,827Options for above with additional Specialist Infrastructure provision. Estimated additional Cost for specialist infrastructure support as a single body for the County

17.2 £617,520

or Estimated additional Cost for specialist infrastructure support through retaining the existing current range of independent specialist infrastructure bodies

18.2 £650,471

2.15 This model is based on a ‘bottom up’ approach, prioritising the development

and involvement of grassroots groups Model C – a single infrastructure support body. 2.16 This model proposes the establishment of a single Infrastructure organisation

to cover the whole county of Leicestershire. In doing so it would replace all of the existing infrastructure support functions of organisations such as district based Councils for Voluntary Service (CVS) and Volunteer Centres (VC), and the countywide Rural Community Council and other specialist infrastructure organisations. The outcome would be an organisation with staff members in three service teams:

• A team delivering the locality based volunteer recruitment and brokerage,

along with the support for small community and voluntary groups. The members of this team will be based in the communities they serve to ensure local responsiveness and access. This team will have an office presence in each District.

• A County-wide team focused on the development and sustainability of voluntary and community groups who are seeking to deliver effective public


services. This team will be supporting groups in successfully bidding for, and delivering on, procurement tenders from local public agencies.

• A policy team to enable community and voluntary groups to influence and participate in the development of public policy and practice. This will primarily be via the Local Area Agreement and LSP structure across the county. This team will work closely with district level LSP’s and district-based voluntary and community groups, as well as the County LSP and larger County-wide organisations.

2.17 It is anticipated that the delivery of specialist infrastructure support (I.e.

support for particular communities of interest or place) is integrated within this model so that the necessary support services are available and accessible for all sections of the community and in all locations. This is what is currently required of the Councils for Voluntary Service under their contract with the County Council. If additional support is deemed necessary for particular communities of interest or place then this can be provided for additional investment as a single stand-alone agency, or as currently with a set of independent specialist infrastructure agencies.

2.18 The estimated cost of this new organisation is £2,603,317 per annum. This is

higher than the current investment in infrastructure support but creates an infrastructure that is ‘fit for purpose’ and covering additional areas of work for the County. A revision of the Model C proposal to limit the cost to the level of existing resources is also proposed, though with a loss in service delivery as a result. The options and their costs are summarised in the table below:

Financial Options for Model C No. staff

Annual cost

Single voluntary sector infrastructure body that delivers infrastructure support to all frontline voluntary and community groups in Leicestershire

71.5 £2,603,317

Cost and structure limited to existing resources 43.5 £1,600,730Options for above with additional Specialist Infrastructure provision. Estimated additional Cost for specialist infrastructure support as a single body for the County

17.2 £617,520

or Estimated additional Cost for specialist infrastructure support through retaining the existing current range of independent specialist infrastructure bodies

18.2 £650,471

2.19 This Model focuses on the provision of policy and ‘higher level’ infrastructure

support to enable county groups to successfully tender for public service delivery.


3. Pros and Cons of the models proposed 3.1 Each model has been assessed by the Working Party against the previously

determined set of criteria that are detailed below. At this stage in the process the working party decided to include in the assessment the option to allow the recent significant changes in infrastructure support to ‘bed in’ and deliver. (Note: the changes involve the mergers of volunteer centres with Council for voluntary service that will create, by end March 2007, a coherent network of infrastructure support bodies across the county.) The assessment criteria used were:

1. Cost, including:

• Overall cost • Value for money • Impact on existing and potential funding sources • Medium term robustness

2. Responsiveness to different communities of interest and/or need including:

• Black and minority ethnic communities • Rural communities • Communities of people in need e.g. disabled people

3. Effectiveness of delivery of support functions such as HR, ICT and

financial management; including: • Support which helps group exist and function effectively (eg HR, ICT

etc) • Support for organisational development, business planning, tendering

and procurement

4. Suitability to support organisations to fulfil a significant role in public service delivery

5. Suitability to fulfil a significant role in the promotion and development of

stronger communities, e.g. through the development of volunteering

6. Suitability to engage in strategic joint planning and policy development

7. Suitability to ensure local sensitivity and local responsiveness

8. Impact on non-infrastructure activities

9. If we adopt this Model, are there any major adverse/perverse consequences that we have not otherwise considered?

3.2 These criteria were used to assess the Models at two workshops, the results of

the working party assessment are shown overleaf


Assessment Criterion

Model A - Retain changed structures set up from April

2007 to allow time to demonstrate success.

Model B - Seven district wide VCS infrastructure

organisations supported by Central Hub functions

Model C – One county wide VCS

infrastructure organisation

Pros

• Results of current round of

mergers and operational change can be seen

• Organic Growth – more sustainable

• Commitment from grassroots to make it work.

• Recognised infrastructure • No additional transition costs

• District Council funding more likely to be preserved or enhanced under this model (greater credibility with the local VCS)

• Greater diversity of funding streams – robust and sustainable

• Lower transition costs

• Less expensive model, since it rationalises existing structures

• Easy to understand - therefore an attractive prospect for funders

• Sustainable model over a medium term • Scale benefits

Cost, including: • Overall cost • Value for

money • Impact on

existing and potential funding sources

• Medium term robustness

Con

s

• Current level of resources not enough to adequately cover all functions effectively

• More expensive model as continues to invest in local infrastructure organisations

• Costs may be higher in some aspects (e.g. higher office and staffing costs)

• Reduced local/grassroots evidence may limit sources of funding

• Transition costs high • Costs may be higher in some aspects

(e.g. higher travel costs) • Would district councils contribute

financially?









Pros

• Existing arrangements are secure and known

• Stability for the sector

• Central Hub will improve patchy service delivery

• Retains rural outreach capacity through local LIO’s

• Retains local knowledge and contacts

• Flexibility to cover issues for very small minority groups

• Potential to join up minority issues with the mainstream

• Synergy created by bringing all themes into the mainstream.

Responsiveness to different communities of interest and/or need including: • BME

communities • rural

communities • communities

of people in need

Con

s

• Lack of expertise/patchy spread of expertise

• Duplication between generalist and specialist provision

• No core funding for LEMP • Not all specialist communities

of interest/geography covered.

• Lack of expertise/patchy spread of expertise

• Difficult for small local LIO’s to cover all specialisms.

• Rural: Potential loss of outreach capacity

• BME: specialist resources subsumed/diluted

• Loss of local knowledge and contacts

Pros

• Some good practice • Opportunity to work across

districts

• Focus on 'hands on' organisational development support

• Peer support between voluntary groups

• Better ‘hand holding’ support / mentoring

• Best option where potential demand for a function is low, and yet expertise needs to be high/specialised.

• Greater consistency in service delivery

• Increased peer support amongst staff members

Effectiveness of delivery of support functions including support for groups that: • Helps them

function effectively (eg HR, ICT etc)

• Organisational development, planning, and procurement

Con

s

• Patchy support often limited in expertise

• Diluted provision of some support functions - dispersed through 7 LIOs – dependent on individual staff members

• Not as easy to cascade support to community groups









Pros

• Already starting some consortia • Focus on potential of small

groups to deliver contracts

• May be better for developing consortia approaches to public service delivery

• Focus on potential of small groups to deliver contracts

• Concentrated expertise and support in one organisation

• Funders will have fewer more readily identifiable points of contact with the VCS

• Stronger link between policy staff and the emphasis on shaping the delivery of services

• One voice for the VCS

Suitability to support organisations to fulfil a significant role in public service delivery

Con

s

• Low capacity in current LIO’s and sub regional infrastructure

• Less able to compete with nationals

• Low awareness of VCS and its potential

• Missing opportunities • Limited central core

• Dissipated support • Would struggle with lead-in

development work with groups • Potential to miss out on new

opportunities if networking remains uncoordinated

• Harder to form clusters

• No local ownership – reduced democratic accountability

• Limits potential diversity of voices • Lacks local credibility • Reduced ability to respond to needs of

the local community









Pros

• LEMP has emerged • Established local presence • Solid organic growth • Cluster work between LIO’s

developing

• Greater direct governance role for local representatives of organisations through 7 Boards.

• More face to face work enabled • Chimes with national policy

emphasis on neighbourhood level

• Stronger strategic/policy emphasis may have longer term benefits for the development of stronger communities

• Potential for strategic approach to volunteering

Suitability to fulfil a significant role in the promotion and development of stronger communities, e.g. through the development of volunteering C

ons

• Patchy practice at present • Patchy governance quality

• Loss of grassroots face to face work implied by this model

• Model is more 'top down' and may cause VCS disengagement

• Harder to reach individual volunteers as weaker local base.

• Less responsive to emerging communities

• Governance remote from communities









Pros

• LEMP emerged • Current good practice from

CCP in Health and Social Care and LCVYS with young people

• Long term involvement in joint planning with excellent relationships

• Involves multiple grassroots/local voices to inform policy work

• Closeness to the ground facilitates stronger monitoring, feedback and evaluation of services

• Strong feature of this model - specifically designed to address this, including mounting policy challenges where appropriate

Suitability to engage in strategic joint planning and policy development

Con

s

• Limited capacity to respond strategically

• No core funding for LEMP

• No resources for policy work (though these could be added)

• Policy work may become hampered by the difficulties of working across district boundaries

• Lack of grassroots contribution – local intelligence and evidence – to policy.

• Change will be disruptive

Pros

• Operational work is closer to communities and neighbourhoods

• Greater knowledge of the local area and context here will enhance sensitivity and responsiveness

• Allows greater expression of diverse needs and wants

• Improved policy support from Central Hub

• Operational work is closer to communities and neighbourhoods

• Greater knowledge of the local area and context here will enhance sensitivity and responsiveness

• Policy officers able to develop greater knowledge of subjects and community-specific sensitivities

Suitability to ensure local sensitivity and local responsiveness (local refers to district or neighbourhood)

Con

s • Danger of remaining closely tied to existing district boundaries, and failing to work across them.

Danger of remaining closely tied to existing district boundaries, and failing to work across them.

• Emphasis on centralised resources and policy expertise

• May be difficult to meet the needs of communities of interest









Pros

• Able to maintain NIA where needed in local communities

• Interdependence of NIA and infrastructure activity

• Cheaper to fund NIA with infrastructure - VFM

• Able to maintain NIA where needed in local communities

• Interdependence of NIA and infrastructure activity

• Cheaper to fund NIA with infrastructure - VFM

• Encourages NIA to be 'floated off' to new hosts or as independent agencies

•

Impact on non-infrastructure activities (NIA)

Con

s

• Continuation of NIA can distract infrastructure from core roles.

• Continuation of NIA can distract infrastructure from core roles.

• Some NIA may be lost if there is no alternative mechanism

• Cost of delivering NIA increase if floated off.

• Complex to unpick the NIA from infrastructure activity. (e.g. physical resources)

• Because it is less locally based, infrastructure may become less able to act in a 'catalyst' or incubator role for new initiatives or organisations

Pros

• Local Vision developed • Good organic change to date

• Hub helps to improve consistency.

• Ability to promote consistency in performance across the VCS

Supplementary criterion: If we adopt this Model, are there any major adverse/perverse consequences that we have not otherwise considered?

Con

s

• Risk of inertia • Not enough resources to

cover priorities • Harder to achieve

consistency

• Not enough resources to cover priorities

• Harder to achieve consistency

• Volunteering not significant enough in model

• Potential for lack of ownership and disengagement

• Change too far – destruction of good work to date


4 Observations and commentary on findings and way forward 4.1 This report is the latest in a series of pieces of analysis into the

infrastructure support required for the effective development and sustainability of frontline voluntary and community groups in Leicestershire. Such as:

• Research into the needs of Funders (Greengage) • Research into the needs of Frontline Groups (Greengage) • Research into the scope of local infrastructure (Greengage) • Sheffield Hallam report on the Leicestershire Infrastructure • A number of smaller studies carried out with early spend resources • Evidence from national and regional research and analysis.

4.2 The report was prompted by a joint funders and infrastructure bodies seminar that debated the Sheffield Hallam report of research into the Leicestershire Infrastructure, in particular the subsequent request by the County Council that the potential for a single infrastructure body for the county be assessed.

4.3 This analysis has limited scope given the resources available, further

work will be required to decide an agreed way forward, especially the costs of the model and costs of transition.

4.4 There continue to be gaps in or knowledge about needs of frontline

groups, the state of the local sector and infrastructure, and the resources required to carry out the ChangeUp defined infrastructure support tasks successfully.

4.5 The amount and complexity of infrastructure support to be required in

the future (e.g. for procured public service delivery) depends on the willingness and speed of public bodies to outsource public services.

4.6 There is a strong case to opt for no further change in the short term, to

allow the current structural and operational changes, such as mergers that are due to complete at the end of March 2007, to be allowed to demonstrate their worth. This will also allow for further learning.

4.7 The two models that have been worked up approach the same issues,

but from different directions, Model C focuses on the procurement and policy issues – reducing the local level involvement; and Model B seeks to build to support for policy and procurement from the grassroots.


Next steps 4.8 This report is to be considered by infrastructure support groups in

Leicestershire, and by funders of infrastructure support for frontline groups. (Leicestershire Infrastructure Consortium (23rd January), the Leicestershire Together SSOG meeting (14th February), City Council mechanism to be confirmed)

4.9 The Working Group suggests that each assess the pros and cons for

themselves and decide whether to recommend a specific way forward. 4.10 The Working Group suggests a facilitated discussion between the

funders and infrastructure support bodies to determine what, if any, next steps are required.

4.11 In delivering this report the Working Group considers it has fulfilled the

remit it was given – and will disband.


5 List of Background Documents

5.1 The following documents are referred to in this report. Copies are available from Tom Purnell at Leicestershire County Council (0116 265 7019, [email protected] )

‘Looking Ahead…… Visions of Voluntary and Community Sector Infrastructure in Leicester Shire – Sheffield Hallam University (October 2005) Report of Leicester Shire Voluntary and Community Sector Infrastructure Review Workshops – Sheffield Hallam University (September 2006)