Agenda item

The Commission considered a report of the Chief Executive concerning an independent consultant’s report on the effectiveness of locally based voluntary and community sector infrastructure services, currently provided under separate contracts by Voluntary Action Leicestershire (VAL), seven Community Hubs (CHs) and three Local Resource Centres (LRCs). A copy of the report, marked ‘C’, is filed with these minutes.

 

The Chief Executive reported that Mr. Honeywell, an independent consultant, had carried out the review to establish how:

 

·                    More effective support could be provided to over 3,000 voluntary organisations;

·                    More cost effective arrangements could be put in place;

·                    Duplication of effort could be removed across the sector.

 

The review was conducted within the context of severe financial pressures, which would see the voluntary sector budget cut from £1.5 million to around £1.1 million over the next three years. Of this reduced budget, £1.1 million would be allocated to VAL, £430,000 to the CHs and £30,000 to LRCs.

 

The Chairman invited Mr. Honeywell to address the Commission. In introducing the report, Mr. Honeywell outlined the following key points:

 

·                    He had worked in the voluntary sector all his life and now worked as a consultant providing links between the sector and the public;

·                    There were many different ‘models’ of voluntary sector support adopted across the country and there was no single ‘right’ way of providing support;

·                    The voluntary sector in Leicestershire was strong, though there were longstanding difficulties in regard to the way it was organised – particularly the merits of a “Countywide Infrastructure Organisation” model (the Council had contracted VAL to carry out this role) or a “Hub and Spoke” model. There was a clear need to commit fully to one way of working;

·                    The voluntary sector would undoubtedly face challenges in the near future with the impending Big Society agenda and changes in technology and levels of need;

·                    Agreement was urgently required between funders on the level of service delivery provided and who be responsible for those services;

·                    He recommended that the “Countywide Infrastructure Organisation” model should be pursued. Agreement in principle had been reached at a workshop organised by members of the voluntary and community sector that this was the appropriate approach for the future. An agreement between VAL and the CHs/LRC would be required regarding the extent to which services could be sub-contracted from the latter organisations;

·                    The contract with VAL was for one further year. He recommended that this contract should be extended for two further years in order to fully embed the new arrangements.

 

With the consent of the Chairman, Cllr. D. Jennings of Blaby District Council addressed the Commission to amplify a letter outlining the Council’s comments on the report. A copy of this letter is filed with these minutes.

 

Cllr. Jennings stated that the District Council had not been consulted about the notice of termination letter. The District Council was, however, in full support of the “Countywide Infrastructure Organisation” model.

 

With the consent of the Chairman, Mr. John Warren – Manager of the Lutterworth Volunteer Centre – addressed the Commission. Mr. Warren made the following key points:

 

·                    CHs were ‘on notice’ that their contracts would end on 1 April. This had caused concerns;

·                    The review was a good piece of work and there was full support for the “Countywide Infrastructure Organisation” model, on the basis that it would allow support to be decentralised (“subsidiarity”).

 

In response to questioning from members, the following points were noted:

 

·                    The funding provided to VAL was for ‘infrastructure support’ and not community development/service delivery. A range of outcomes were expected of VAL as part of this contract. It was important, firstly, that there was an agreement between VAL, the CHs and LRCs on the role they would each play in providing support – the outcome of which would be needed by early February and require the endorsement of the funders;

·                    Mr. Honeywell had been asked to review the implementation of the “Countywide Infrastructure” (VAL) model, hence little of the report was concerned with the “hub and spoke” model. The County Council’s Cabinet had previously resolved to pursue the contract with VAL;

·                    The voluntary sector had been inadequately supported for some time. The contract with VAL had significantly improved support to the sector, however it was clear that further improvements were needed;

·                    The arrangements would have to be lean and agile to respond to the Big Society agenda and changing developments in the future;

·                    The proposal for a peer review body that would review areas of disagreement was supported;

·                    It was important to reach a clear understanding of the implications of the subsidiarity model and whether that meant that in principle services which could be delivered locally should be delivered in that way in the context of the need to ensure value for money and efficient ways of working.

 

RESOLVED:

 

(a)               That Mr. Honeywell’s report be welcomed as a way forward in providing efficient and effective support to the voluntary and community sector;

(b)               That the “Countywide Infrastructure Organisation” model be supported in principle;

(c)               That the recommendations contained within the report be commended, particularly those for a peer review body with an independent chairman to adjudicate in disagreements between the single delivery vehicle and the CHs/LRCs and proposals for a full review of the performance management framework and regular review by funding bodies;

 

(d)               That some concerns remain regarding to the extent to which the voluntary sector would be able to reach agreement regarding the balance of activities to be carried out by VAL and the CHs/LRC in localities (the “subsidiarity” model) under these new arrangements and that it is the view of the Commission that the Scrutiny Commissioners should discuss this further with the Leader of the Council or his representative;

(e)               That the outcome of any subsequent discussions should be addressed at the Commission’s next meeting on 2 February.