Consultation on a new fund to support the
sustainability of voluntary, community and
social enterprise sector organisations
Hull Community and Voluntary Services Response
This response has been drawn up after consultation with our
members and listening to the views of key stakeholders.
Hull CVS supports the idea of the fund and believes it
represents a real and significant opportunity for the
Sector. If its aims are to be met it must be led locally
and by trusted and properly accredited infrastructure
organisations. At the very least they must hold NAVCA
and Volunteering England quality marks.
Section 1: What Support is Needed, by Who and Where?
What type of support is needed?
Questions:
1.1. Reflecting on the journey to sustainability, what types
of support will have the greatest impact and why?
1.2. How can we best encourage pro-bono support
alongside paid-for support?
The aim must be to securing sustainable support to help
charities grow. The fund must supports change rather than be
used just as a short term fix for lost funding. This will be
achieved through support with organisational strategies,
business planning, income strategies, governance support and
preparation for commissioning.
Getting pro-bono support is difficult. Most organisations do not
have the skills and resources to manage it let alone source it
Pro-bono support should be brokered by an infrastructure
organisation and resources given over to develop the required
skills in the organisation.
How do we define organisations in-need of support?
Questions:
1.3. Are these the right factors for identifying those inneed?
1.4. What might be an effective approach to identifying
those ‘in-need’, particularly given that these factors could
be seen as negative and organisations might be unwilling
to admit to them?
We agree with the factors identified. The key document is the
organisational strategy, which must say why they exist as a
charity, their vision and mission and core values.
Organisations will only work with trusted and established
organisations. This work should be led by established
infrastructure organisations that have recognised accreditation
from NAVCA and Volunteering England. This will give
organisations the required confidence to work openly on the
problems they face.
Questions:
1.5. We intend to use the DWP definition of 'vulnerable and
disadvantaged'. Should we also include any additional
groups?
We support the use of this definition but as a guide rather than
a fixed rule.
Where is support most needed?
Questions:
1.6. How should we ensure that support available is
appropriate to local need?
1.7. What evidence is there of need in particular locations?
Support must be largely provided by local organisations. This
would help it is relevant to local need and not seen as outside
experts coming in and tell them how to run their charity.
Support should be provided by both private and Third Sector
organisations.
The identification of need is a key role for local infrastructure
organisations. We hold a rich pool of information and
intelligence that will help progress this work.
Section 2: How should the fund be delivered?
How do we identify the right beneficiaries?
Questions:
2.1. Could we use a light touch self assessment tool that
would identify the likelihood that an organisation is
appropriate from simple evidence and data?
2.2. Are there existing tools that would enable us to do
this?
2.3. Could we use existing local knowledge to identify
appropriate organisations, for example by utilising a
nomination approach?
2.4. Which local bodies or partnerships could best provide
local knowledge? E.g. local infrastructure such as
Councils for Voluntary Service, Local Enterprise
Partnerships, Local Authorities?
We support the idea of using a light touch assessment tool.
We support having a nomination approach. This would help the
fund to focus on the most pressing local need and support a
consistent approach to providing help. It would allow the fund to
use local knowledge of need rather than an assessment made
solely on statistical data.
Local authority and the local infrastructure charity is the
principle source of help and guidance in Hull. We would not
support the Local Authority controlling the fund as it would
make it open to potential political interference.
LEPs are not the most appropriate bodies to provide local
knowledge.
Should we use third party intermediaries to deliver
effective support?
Questions:
2.5. How could a model like this be made to work
effectively?
2.6. Is there an appropriately sized and experienced body
of potential intermediaries available to fulfil this role?
2.7. How would we ensure that intermediaries are
appropriately held to account and challenged to deliver
effectively?
We fully support the idea of using third party intermediaries as it
could maximise the impact and deliver real lasting change.
Properly accredited local infrastructure organisations are best
placed to fulfil the role of intermediaries. We have the skills,
experience and local knowledge. Making use of existing
networks and partnerships will avoid unnecessary duplication
and potential delays in starting the process.
Should we set upper and lower limits on organisation size?
Questions:
2.8. Should we apply upper and lower turnover limits to
focus efforts on those
organisations in need and which are achieving impact?
2.9. If so:
 What lower limit would be appropriate for identifying
organisations having the desired impact in
communities?
 What upper limit would ensure that organisations that
shouldn’t need support are excluded?
 Should we have a phased upper limit with higher turnover organisations considered in exceptional
circumstances?
Medium sized organisations with income between around the
£80k - £1.5m mark to be targeted as set out in the consultation
document.
The fund should not be used for supporting larger charities. The
funding available is not enough to make as significant an
impact with large charities. More will be achieved if the fund is
focused on charities with an income below £1.5m.
What size of grant should be provided?
Questions:
2.10. What average level of funding would enable
appropriate depth of activity for individual projects, whilst
ensuring a broad reach for the fund across the sector?
We believe the maximum size of grant should be £15,000. The
minimum size should be set by need and the light touch
assessment.
This would ensure the greatest possible number of
organisations benefit from the funds, whilst still ensuring quality
outcomes.
How do we ensure effective engagement from both
support providers and frontline organisations?
Questions:
2.11. Are these the right ways to incentivise effective
engagement?
2.12. Which of these are likely to be most effective?
2.13. What other ways could ensure effective engagement
from all parties?
Early success will be achieved if the aims of the Local
Sustainability Fund are clear and organisations know what
success looks like and how it will be measured.
We agree organisations must demonstrate commitment to the
work of the fund. This does not have to be financial but through
in-kind activities.
Outcome based payments are very difficult to manage when
some of this work will be only see tangible results in the long
term. The work would take place long before the benefits are
realised and the money will have already have been spent.
We would support claw back if it shown that the money has not
been spent on the stated aims of the fund.
We would support an approach where charities who receive
the fund have to commit to producing a case study six to nine
months after funded work finishes. The case study would
explain the work made possible and lessons others can learn.
Our experience of TLI in Hull tells us that it is important to think
about reporting at an early stage so it is possible to capture
evidence of success.
Effective engagement will only be achieved if it led by trusted
local infrastructure organisations. They have the networks and
experience to work across the sector.
Section 3: How can the fund ensure long-term impact?
Questions:
3.1. Which of the proposals for achieving sustainability do
you think are likely to be most effective? How else can we
ensure lasting impact?
3.2. What other ways could individual projects maintain
their activity after 2015/16?
3.3. What other ways could we sustainably grow the
market of support for frontline voluntary organisations?
The lesson from TLI was a lack of accountability and coordination. The best way to deliver the change is to have a
strong governance mechanism and an outcomes based
approach.
Change is continuous and the work after 2015/16 will only
continue if it led by established and trusted local infrastructure
organisations with the proper accreditation and skills. They
have the commitment to keep supporting the local sector, and
will not move on once the money has run out.