The state of the VCSE sector in Cornwall 2018

Combined

Evidence Base

Index

Introduction - What, Why When How Who Page 3

Overview of Policy - policy context Page 4

Best Practice Examples Page 12

Restatement of 2013 key Findings Page 14

Online Survey Page 16

Focus Groups Page 41

Social Action workshops Page 49

TCA Liskeard Place Based Pilot Page 50

What A project to revisit the 2013 VCSE strategy in order to review the state of the VCSE in Cornwall in 2018. The Council is interested in understanding the viability of the VCSE in Cornwall to respond the changing policy and strategy landscape in the UK and the resilience of the sector pre and post Brexit.

Why In the autumn of 2013 an extensive research and mapping exercise was completed with VCSE organisations from across Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. The 2013 work identified the contribution of the VCSE sector to the economic development of the county and informed the development of the Employment and Skills Strategies for the sector by producing detailed information about the following areas:

• Sector activity overview; • Levels of employment; • Numbers of volunteers; • Economic activity; • Employment forecasts; and • Future skills needs. The final report on that research was produced to coincide with the development and publication of the Employment and Skill Strategies in December 2013. Cornwall Council wanted to revisit this body of research and intelligence to look at: • The changes that the sector have experienced over the last five years and the health of the sector going forwards – including an analysis of the impact of public sector savings on the sector • The potential impact that the lead up to Brexit and the post Brexit period will have on workforce and services the VCSE offer and deliver • Policy and strategy landscape affecting the VCSE in the UK today and tomorrow • Best practice examples of public sector and VCSE working together

When Planning work commenced in July 2018. The online survey was conducted in September and the focus groups in October. The findings from Social Action workshops in July are also incorporated in the report

How • A review and simple restatement of the 2013 research main finding • Desk research into national policy and strategy that affects the VCSE - leading to: • Overview of the policy and strategy landscape affecting the VCSE in the UK today and

tomorrow • Phone survey of Best Practice examples of the public sector and VCSE working together • Online Survey of VCSE in Cornwall developing a snap shot to compare with 2013 research. • 2 sector focus groups - one for chairs/trustees and one for CEOs/senior managers • Public sector Commissioners focus groups looking and the needs and the gaps and

commissioning intentions which impact on the VCSE • Incorporating findings from Social Action workshops held in July

Who The project was led and researched by Ian Smith for Cornwall Voluntary Sector Forum Nigel Tremlett of Transform Consultancy reviewed the 2013 report, undertook the on-line surveys and facilitated the commissioners focus group Richard Williams of CVSF facilitated the VCSE Chairs focus group Lydia Bilson of CVSF facilitated the Social Action workshops Rahul Mittal (PhD student, Exeter) assisted with the final report

Overview of the policy and strategy landscape affecting the VCSE in the UK today and tomorrow

The Social Value Act and the Care Act

There are two main pieces of legislation that encourage the public sector to both support and engage with the VCSE sector. The Social Value Act and the Care Act, both place a high value on the role of the sector.

The Public Services (Social Value) Act came into force on 31 January 2013. It requires people who commission public services to think about how they can also secure wider social, economic and environmental benefits for their area. Many consider that the Social Value Act could be used to a much greater extent to support local businesses and organisations, and to promote the circular economy. (see the Preston model),

The Care Act 2014 came into effect from April 2015. It gives local authorities new functions, including a general duty to promote individual wellbeing. Local authorities are also expected to carry out their care and support functions with the aim of integrating services and promoting a whole- system approach based on strong local partnerships. The Care Act also introduced a market-shaping duty for local authorities to promote a diverse, high-quality and sustainable market for care and support in their local area. Research by the Kings Fund found that “Few commissioners were able to say much about the Care Act or able to describe the impact it had had.”

House of Lords: Select Committee on Charities 2016-17 Stronger Charities for a stronger society

The House of Lords select committee report is runs to 153 pages, but thankfully the summary is just 2 pages long.

The report is critical of the trend to awarding contracts rather than grants, stating that smaller charities are disadvantaged. It recommends support for bidding consortia and steps to promote commissioning for social value. It supports the need for core costs and is critical of the pressure to reduce back office costs in favour of frontline delivery. It also favours longer term funding. The report is critical of the move towards social investment, again because it disadvantages smaller charities.

Civil Society Strategy: Building a future that works for everyone

In August 2018, HM Government released it’s Civil Society Strategy.

The strategy has been broadly welcomed by national organisations that support the VCSE. Indeed NAVCA sees the Civil Society Strategy as an opportunity to re-set the relationship between the state and the population. The strategy has 5 main chapters and themes:

PEOPLE: Enabling a lifetime of contribution

“From individuals’ acts of kindness to the work of charities and mass movements for change, people taking action is the bedrock of a strong society.” …“We want to build a society where people have a sense of control over their future and that of their community.”

PLACES: Empowerment and investment in local communities

“ ‘Global Britain’ is rooted in ‘local Britain’. The government’s vision is that in the future the public sector will focus more on the needs of places and take a more collaborative approach.”

THE SOCIAL SECTOR: Supporting charities and social enterprises

“A healthy, independent and influential civil society is a hallmark of a thriving democracy. Charities and social enterprises - the social sector - are the core of civil society. A strong social sector is a sign of a strong democracy, which offers many ways in which citizens’ views and concerns can be communicated to decision-makers.”

THE PRIVATE SECTOR: promoting business, finance and tech for good

“Business done right is a force for good in society. The best businesses play a highly positive role - not just in how they reach out to respond to social problems in society (their corporate social responsibility), but also in their core business.”

THE PUBLIC SECTOR: ensuring collaborative commissioning

“In recent decades, government has introduced competition to deliver greater value for taxpayers’ money in public services and to broaden the supply of services to include independent providers. This has led to a greater focus on the difference services make and the costs. But this has also resulted in an often rigid focus on numbers, including budgets, volumes, and timescales, rather than a focus on the relationships and flexibility, which people and communities also need.

“The government’s vision for public services in the modern era is one of collaborative commissioning. This means that in the future local players will be involved in an equal and meaningful way in how services are created and delivered. It means that all the resources of a community, including public funding, will be deployed to tackle the community’s challenges.”

Taken together the key quotes from each chapter show a clear direction of travel, at least in how HMG thinks about civil society. Other points to note are:

• An aim to give individuals and communities control to take action on their futures and on

issues they care about, involving local people in the design and development of services; • A commitment to reviewing and overhauling commissioning processes. Unlocking

alternative sources of funding for the VCSE sector via increased grant-making and dormant accounts;

• Encouraging collaborative commissioning, to give local players meaningful involvement in the way that public services are created and delivered;

• An extension of the principles of the Social Value Act across all aspects of public sector commissioning of goods and services.

• Renewed commitment to the Voluntary Sector Compact, an emphasis on involving VCSE Organisations in policy-making and a pledge to work on the right of charities to campaign.

Guides to Social Action

In March 2017 the Department of Culture Media and Support (DCMS) and the New Economics Foundation produced a series of seven guides to social action, designed to assist the public sector, including a specific guide to commissioning social action. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/enabling-social-action-guidance

The Office for Civil Society is also based within DCMS

Joint review of partnerships and investment in voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations in the health and care sector Final report produced in partnership by representatives of the VCSE sector and the Department of Health, NHS England, and Public Health England https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/524243/VCSE_Investment_Review_A.pdf

Probably the most in-depth assessment of the relationship between the public sector and the VCSE is contained in this Joint Review. The opening Vision section, written by Alex Fox, Chief Executive of Shared Lives Plus and Chair of the VCSE review provides an insightful and eloquent description of the current situation. Key quotes and recommendations are:

…whatever our long term health conditions or support needs, our dreams remain rooted in living well at home as part of welcoming, inclusive communities.

It is hard to see a future for many VCSE organisations and statutory services alike, if VCSE organisations remain seen as outsiders in a statutory-based system. VCSE organisations can share the risks and responsibilities of local systems but in turn need to able to share in the resources and rewards.

Parts of the VCSE sector have been challenged to scale up and to ‘professionalise’. They are now delivering large scale service contracts for some of the most vulnerable people in public service systems. There is only benefit in this happening where VCSE organisations can remain rooted in their communities and continue to deliver added ‘social value’, through recruiting people with lived experience or from overlooked communities as volunteers and paid staff, for instance. Professional VCSE organisations can respond to crises, deliver technical or medical care and manage challenging risks, but great VCSE organisations do not wait for crises; they think socially not medically; and they never let a clear view of risk obscure people’s potential. It would be an own goal to encourage all of our most successful VCSE organisations to become indistinguishable from statutory and private sector organisations.

There should be greater co-production with people who use services and their families at every level of the health and care system. Some recommendations from the report: When preparing their joint strategic needs assessment (JSNA), Health and Wellbeing Boards should ensure that it is a comprehensive assessment of assets as well as needs based on thorough engagement with local VCSE organisations and all groups experiencing health inequalities The government, led by the Cabinet Office, should demonstrate its support for the Compact principles as a framework for effective collaboration between VCSE and statutory sectors Health and Wellbeing Boards should work closely with local VCSE organisations to ensure that their strategies are co-designed with local citizens, particularly as they try to reach those groups and communities which may be under-represented or overlooked

The King’s Fund Commissioner perspectives on working with the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector

Following on from the Joint Review, The King’s Fund was commissioned by the Department of Health to conduct research that would explore how and why clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) and local authorities chose to engage with the voluntary, community and social enterprise (VCSE) sector.

There is wide variation in the way commissioners engage with the voluntary, community and social enterprise (VCSE) sector. Some commissioners saw their role solely as stimulating a market of providers, with no particular interest in creating a strong VCSE sector. Others had made a clear choice about the value of the VCSE sector as a critical player in developing asset-based approaches to care, engaging VCSE organisations as key partners in co-production of health and care outcomes.

The report is a relatively quick and easy read, and gives a carefully nuanced discussion about the pros and cons of grants versus contracts, and the value and risks of alliance contracting.

Collaborate for social change A whole New World: Funding and Commissioning in Complexity

https://collaboratecic.com/a-whole-new-world-funding-and-commissioning-in-complexity-12b6bdc2abd8

If the Kings Fund provide an easy read on public sector commissioning as it is, Collaborate have produced a challenging and detailed report, that is highly critical of social interventions over the last 40 years, and proposes a paradigm shift in service delivery

“Too often, those who hold power – and resource – attempt to dilute these complexities. They have looked to make the challenges come to them, to fit their model and to tick their box, to define their work on the basis of what they want, rather than what’s right for the community.” Dawn Austwick - Chief Executive - Big Lottery Fund

“People that use services are not defined by the service they use. So it’s actually redundant to talk about drugs users. … They also have mental illness, and they’re homeless and they’re offending. It’s just happenstance that they happen to go to drug and alcohol treatment first. So people are beginning to see that actually they’re not my clients, we all share these people and if we work together it’s better for all of us ...” (Public Sector Commissioner)

Improving Commissioning through a VCSE Single Point of Contact

“Voluntary, Charity and Social Enterprise (VCSE) organisations play an increasingly vital role in delivering public services. However, by excluding many smaller VCSE organisations, the current system is failing. It is failing to get the best services and outcomes for people and the best value for commissioners. A Single Point of Contact (SPOC) model addresses this failure”

NAVCA have produced a very useful guide with case studies and a 10 point plan shown below:

Volunteer Cornwall and eight VCSE partners are working on a proposal for a SPOC

Cornwall Council Commissioning Toolkit

https://www.cornwall.gov.uk/health-and-social-care/childrens-services/cornwall-childrens-trust/working-together/commissioning-toolkit/

Cornwall Council has developed this online resource to strengthen and standardize commissioning practice. The objects of the toolkit are:

• Improving outcomes for people • Improving commissioning and value for money • Strengthening the VCSE sector

And the principles are:

• Putting people at the heart of commissioning • Co-producing our approach with people, providers and partners • Creating ambitious and transformational solutions • Providing choice & opportunities for local people in every aspect of their lives • Making sure any changes are evidence-based • Making the best use of our collective resources

• Being open and transparent • Being flexible and responsive

Summary of Policy and Strategy Landscape

Taking the legislation, strategy, policy and research together what are the key themes and talking points?

The various market mechanisms that have been applied over the last 10-20 years receive a lot of criticism. Competitive tendering, outcomes based commissioning, social investment, payment by results, metrics, social return on investment; these are all generally thought of as driving perverse incentives, having unintended consequences and entrenching silo based delivery. These negatives include making it more difficult for small and local VCSE organisations to participate

The VCSE’s response to these market mechanism also comes in for much criticism, with in-fighting and poor governance often being cited.

There is a clear direction of travel towards trying to tap into the vast resource that is civil society, including:

• Place based approaches • Co-design and co-production • Including service users and lived experience in design and delivery • Including small and local organisations • Appropriate use of grants or contracts • Away from competition and towards collaboration • Away from measurement and toward reflection and learning • Away from silos and towards whole system thinking • Away from medicalisation and towards socialisation

And this in turn is about a rebalancing of power and responsibility, away from the state and towards the individual, the family and the community.

Brexit and the EU (Withdrawal) Bill

We have avoided too much scrutiny of Brexit due to the great uncertainties at the time of writing, but issues of equality and diversity and charitable finance are being raised at a national level.

Civil liberties groups including Liberty, Amnesty International and the Equality and Diversity Forum have very serious concerns about the potential implications of the Withdrawal Bill for the promotion and protection of human rights in a number of policy areas, including: immigration and asylum; privacy and digital rights; justice and home affairs; children’s rights; disability rights; employment; and devolution. These concerns revolve around the executive powers that ministers will have, without parliamentary scrutiny.

The Charities Finance Group are concerned about issues such as tax reform (the current charity VAT rules are complex and unhelpful), funding, public procurement, state aid rules and workforce

retention. Currently this group is not satisfied that any of these concerns are being addressed by government.

Best Practice Examples of the public sector and VCSE working together

NAVCA - the National Association for Voluntary and Community Action recommended three areas where the relationship between the VCSE and the public sector is thought to be sustainable and effective at delivering good outcomes; Sefton, Greater Manchester and Liverpool.

Telephone interviews were held with the CEO’s of three organisations:

Sefton CVS Angela White

Macc Mike Wild

Liverpool CVS Colin Heaney

Direct comparisons are not advisable as all three organisations cover very different geographies and populations to Cornwall. Sefton is a Borough, Macc covers Greater Greater Manchester and Liverpool CVS operates in the City of Liverpool. However there are commonalities and points to note:

All three organisations to a greater or lesser extend combine all the components of infrastructure within one organisation, namely:

• Representation, brokerage and advocacy - bringing people together • Volunteer support and social action - matching individuals with organisations • Capacity building - support for individual organisations • Small grants - financial support for community groups

All three organisations/CEO’s maintain good, long term personal relationships with senior officers, politicians and non-executive leaders of the local authority, clinical commissioning group, police/ office of the police and crime commissioner. All three organisations preferred to work quietly within the system, rather the campaigning or going to the press.

At moments of crisis or great change, especially the onset of austerity all three organisations showed leadership, by bringing the voluntary sector together and agreeing to offer support to the public sector. They promoted the message that “we are all in this together” rather than fighting to maintain individual budgets and funding (although no doubt some of this happened as well).

The importance of playing the long game was emphasised, as was the need to separate out the offer of support or promotion of new ways of working from the demand for money. Sometimes initiatives were undertaken at risk (self-funded). It was generally held that by being supportive and playing the long game the money and resources would follow.

Lived Experience and of Communities of Practice - Further research:

Through the Inclusive Growth/Shared Prosperity Fund work that has been commissioned by Economic Development (Emily Kent) and led by Cornwall Neighbourhoods for Change the opportunity exists to undertake a short study tour for a mixed group of professions and individuals of lived experience. Liverpool CVS would welcome a visit from Cornwall. Of particular relevance:

Mike Wild was particularly clear that he cannot “represent” 3000 VCSE organisations, but he can advocate on their behalf. Liverpool CVS operate communities of practice with professionals and people of lived experience - a process he describes as uncomfortable and challenging, but effective. They are working hard to go beyond representation on various boards (CCG/Health and Wellbeing Boards) by the same old VCSE faces. Instead, or as well they are getting people of lived experience attending these boards.

Restatement of 2013 Cornwall and Isle of Scilly VCSE Research and Mapping Exercise: Key findings

This section summarises the key findings from the 2013 research which sought to identify the profile and economic contribution of the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) sector in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly (CIoS). The findings were based on a survey of a representative sample of 452 VCSE organisations grossed up to the 4,525 VCSE organisations and groups identified across CIoS by an accompanying mapping exercise:

• Economic value of the VCSE sector The 2013 research found that the annual turnover of the VCSE sector had increased markedly since 2008, when it was £390m, to the order of £580m million. This made the sector one of the largest contributors to the CIoS economy. Combined with its role as a very major employer, the value of the sector to the economic wellbeing of CIoS was highly significant.

This level of magnitude reflected the growth of the VCSE nationally and the particular importance of the sector in CIoS. The most important sources of finance for VCSE organisations were: fundraising; fees and charges from the private sector; and external grants from the public sector, local or central government.

• Volunteers and the value of volunteering The research identified c.153,000 volunteers across CIoS in 2013, representing over one in three of the adult population of 423,000 (36%). Furthermore, 30% of the adult population of CIoS give up to 10 hours of their time each week volunteering. The economic value of this volunteering was worth over £490 million each year; equating to at least 23,500 full-time equivalent employees based on an average annual salary of c£20,900.

Three fifths of those volunteering were women (62%) – an almost identical proportion to 2008 and very similar to the national figure (57%). Half of the volunteers (50%) were aged over 50 and 15% were aged under 25. One in fourteen volunteers were people with a disability (7%), compared with 3% in 2008.

• Employment and areas of VCSE actitvity The 2013 research found that the VCSE sector was operating across a wide range of areas: many targeted on the cross-cutting themes of equalities and the environment. Three quarters of VCSE staff worked in the health, social care, welfare and education areas, with many clients and beneficiaries being from local disadvantaged and minority groups. Paid employment in the sector was c.22,300 representing c.9% of the total workforce compared with c.3% nationally and 7% in 2008. Women made up the majority of these staff (70%). Two thirds of staff were aged between 25 and 49 (67%) and a quarter (25%) aged 50+, with fewer than one in ten (8%) being under 25. Half of VCSE jobs were part-time (53%).

• Employment Forecasting In 2013, 30% of VCSE organisations said that there would be somewhat or significantly more employed staff in their organisations over the next five years: front line and delivery roles

(56%); administration, support staff (26%); and project and contract managers (19%). Half of VCSE organisations did not think that there would be much change in employment numbers over the next five years – 52% saying that they would be “roughly the same”, while nearly one in eight said that employee numbers would decline over this period (12%).

• VCSE organisations Of the 4,525 VCSE organisations identified by the mapping exercise, 25% provided support/resources for community groups, 14% operated in the social care/welfare or culture/arts sectors and 10% in health/well-being. In term of their size and turnover:

o 46% were micros, with turnover of less than £10k per annum, 20% were small with turnover of £10k to £50k per annum, 24% were medium with turnover between £50k and £250k and just 9% were large with turnover of more than £250k; and

o The 9% of large VCSE organisations with turnover of more than £250k per annum accounted for 34% of the 153,000 sector volunteers, 55% of the 22,300 sector employees and 83% of the £580m sector turnover; and

In addition to the identified 4,525 VCSE organisations, there were estimated to be 1,500 more small volunteer-led community organisations across CIoS.

• Training Over eight out of ten VCSE organisations (82%) said that they provided training for their staff and half for their volunteers (54%). Much of this training was relatively limited in scope: lasting between 1 to 5 days a year for full time (59%) and part time employees (72%), with half being accredited (52%). The training focussed on:

o Child protection/safeguarding; o Compliance; o Continuing Professional Development; and o First Aid, Food Hygiene and Health and Safety.

Among VCSE organisations with paid staff who were being trained, only two fifths had a training budget (39%) – substantially lower than in 2008 (54%) and nationally in 2010 (64%). The single biggest challenge being faced in providing or accessing training was cost.

• Future Skills Needs In 2013, the most important skills needs of VCSE organisations over the next five years were found to be:

o Money (Bid writing/tendering/grant applications/funding and fundraising); o Interagency working/collaboration; o Leadership (Management, governance and leadership skills); o Core skills (esp. Safeguarding); and o Technology (ICT skills).

These skills needs covered the diverse challenges facing the VCSE sector at the time: firstly in terms of the recognition of the need for the sector to be able to win work to sustain itself; secondly, the need to collaborate to do this (and to deliver) more effectively; thirdly, the need to better manage and run itself in challenging times; fourthly, the compliance and safety requirements for much of the delivery work undertaken by the sector; and fifthly, the need to

drive technology and ICT skills improvements across all staffing levels – from basic ICT usage to working in more advanced and client specific areas.

Online Survey

1. Profile of VCSE Organisations responding to survey

This chapter profiles the 56 VCSE organisations who responded to the 2018 survey in terms of their organisation type and legal structure, their most important area of activity, field of work, turnover and sources of finance. Where appropriate it makes comparisons with the findings from the 2013 research to identify the similarities and differences between the two samples.

1.1 Organisation type and legal structure Eight out of ten (80%) of the VCSE organisations responding to the 2018 survey said they were independent local organisations and two fifths were either part of a larger, national organisation (18%) or something else (2%). This compared with 79% and 21% respectively in 2013, as shown in chart 1.1 below.

Chart 1.1 Organisation type

Bases: VCSE organisations responding to surveys (452 in 2013 and 56 in 2018)

While Chart 1.1 shows that the two samples of VCSE organisations were very similar in terms of their organisation type, they were markedly different in terms of their legal structure. Nearly three quarters of the 2013 sample were registered charities or trusts (72%), while a further 10% were registered charities and a company limited by guarantee and 7% community interest companies (CICs).

In comparison, just one in five of the 2018 sample were registered charities or trusts (19%), while two fifths (39%) were registered charities and a company limited by guarantee plus another fifth (21%) were community interest companies (CICs). Chart 1.2 below shows the full breakdown comparing 2018 and 2013.

There is some evidence that this very marked change does reflect changes that have taken place nationally, particularly with the growth of the social enterprise sector (esp. CICs) and the decline in the benefits traditionally associated with having charitable and trust status. Compare also the reduction in trusts with the increase in Charitable Incorporated Organisations, which provides limited liability without the need to register as a company limited by guarantee.

Chart 1.2 VCSE organisation legal structure 2018 and 2013 (%)

Bases: VCSE organisations responding to surveys (452 in 2013 and 56 in 2018)

1.2 Fields of work and areas of activity The VCSE organisations completing the surveys in 2013 and 2018 were asked to identify their “single most important field of work.” Chart 1.3 contains the details and shows that the two samples were found to be markedly different in many of their key fields of work. In particular the proportion of VCSE organisations saying that their most important field of work was:

• Providing support and/or resources to their local community /community groups was 25% in 2013 compared with 16% in 2018; and

• Providing health and welfare was 10% in 2013 compared with 33% in 2018.

There were also differences, albeit less marked, in the fields of culture/arts, sports/leisure/recreation, environment and pre-school aged children.

The reduction in the percentage of organisations providing support and/or resources to their local community/community group may suggest that the reduction in funding by Cornwall Council to infrastructure organisations since 2013 has had a domino effect, going deeper into the sector than just those organisations that were contracted to provide support.

Nonetheless, it is worth noting that overall, social care, health and education are the main focus of the work of the sector nationally – with the UK Voluntary Sector Workforce Almanac 2018 reporting that “59% of the sector’s employees work in social care, health and education”1 – and that this reflected by the 2018 sample.

• 1 https://data.ncvo.org.uk/a/almanac18/workforce-2015-16/#By_subsector

Chart 1.3 VCSE organisations’ single most important field of work 2018 and 2013 (%)

Bases: VCSE organisations responding to surveys (452 in 2013 and 56 in 2018)

In terms of their single most important area of activity, chart 1.4 below illustrates that the 2018 and 2013 samples were much more similar in profile – with direct service provision being the most common activity (62% in 2018 and 75% in 2013) followed by the provision of information, advice and guidance (19% in 2018 and 7% in 2013). On each occasion, much smaller proportions of VCSE organisations said that they provided training/skills or advocacy and campaigning.

Chart 1.4 VCSE organisations’ single most important activity 2018 and 2013 (%)

Bases: VCSE organisations responding to surveys (452 in 2013 and 56 in 2018)

1.3 Turnover and sources of finance In terms of the size of their turnover, major differences were also found between the two samples of VCSE organisations. In 2013, nearly half the sample had a turnover of under £10,000 (46%) and a further 20% of between £10,000 and £50,000. Of the 2018 sample, seven out of ten had turnover of more than £50,000 and 35% of more than £250,000. Chart 1.5 contains the detail.

Chart 1.5 VCSE organisations’ turnover 2018 and 2013 (%)

Bases: VCSE organisations responding to surveys (452 in 2013 and 56 in 2018)

The NVCO Almanac 20182 makes the following points about income in the sector:

• The voluntary sector’s economy is dominated by larger charities (81% of total income) • Voluntary organisations with an annual income of over £1m account for 81% of the sector’s

total income yet make up only 3% of the total number of charities. • Organisations with an income of £100,000 or less make up 82% of the sector in terms of the

number of charities, but account for less than 5% of the total income. • The vast majority of the sector continues to consist of small organisations. However, in

2013/14 there was a notable rise in the number of organisations with an income over £100m, which has continued to increase since then.

• 2015/16 saw a continued rise in the number of super-major charities. In 2015/16 there were 45 super-major organisations in the UK.

It is highly unlikely that the variation in organisations by turnover reported above is representative of the sector as a whole in Cornwall. Most likely it is a reflection of the membership of Cornwall Voluntary Sector Forum, in that smaller organisations are less likely to join CVSF, and those that do join are less likely to have the time or inclination to respond to online surveys. You have to work much harder (have a far bigger resource) to reach the small community groups. We took steps to ensure that the focus groups had a better balance of small, medium and large organisations, so that the voice of small groups could be heard.

• 2 https://data.ncvo.org.uk/a/almanac18/size-and-scope-2015-16/

Turning to the VCSE organisations’ three main current sources of finance, chart 1.6 below shows that external grants received from the public sector were mentioned by nearly half of those responding (48%). Around a third said that charitable sources, (34%), public sector contracts (32%) and fundraising (32%) were among their thee main sources of finance. (N.B. The total adds to more than 100% because organisations were allowed to provide up to three sources). Chart 1.6 VCSE organisations’ three main sources of finance 2018 (%)

Base: 56 VCSE organisations responding to survey N.B. Sources add to more than 100% because up to three answers allowed.

When asked to identify their single most important source of finance, the replies given matched the profile of sources shown in Chart 1.6 above.

1.4 Summary comments on profile differences While the sample of VCSE organisations responding to the 2018 survey was similar in some key profile characteristics, such as organisation type and main area of activity, it was overall markedly different to the representative sample from the 2013 survey. There are a number of reasons for this:

• The differences in the fieldwork methodology used – online and telephone; • The differences in the sampling method – drawn from VSF members and all VCSE; • Changes in the sector over time – especially relating to the legal structure of VCSEs;

More fundamentally, and as noted above by NCVO nationally, the sector has seen a movement toward large, “super-major charities”, with just 3% of organisations accounting

for 81% of income. Reflecting this movement, the 2018 sample contains many organisations with turnover of more than £250,000 who operate in the core areas of social care, health/ well-being and education.

We are also aware of some significant mergers in the VCSE sector which has resulted in fewer, larger organisations. This has been driven by both financial pressures and by commissioning practice.

2. Changes to the demand for VCSE organisations’ services

When asked whether demand for their organisation’s services had changed over the last five years, the key finding among the VCSE organisations responding was that three quarters (75%) said that there had been an increase in demand. None said that there had been a decrease in demand (0%). Among the remainder:

• 14% said that there had no change in demand; and • 11% were new organisations/did not exist five years ago.

Chart 2.1: Changes in demand for VCSE organisations’ services over last five years

Base: 56 VCSE organisations responding to survey

Although the numbers were too small to be statistically reliable, the following points can be made about the organisations who said there had been increased demand:

The 42 organisations who had increased demand for services (75%) • 33 of these organisations were local, independent organisations and 9 were part

of larger, national organisations; • 17 of these organisations had turnover of more than £250,000 and 15 of between

£50,000 and £250,000; • 22 of the organisations provided direct service delivery, nine information, advice

and guidance and five training/skills; • 15 of the organisations operated in the health and welfare field, five in social care

and welfare and five in support for community groups; and • Excluding one outlier who said demand had increased by 2000%, the average

increase in demand for services over the last five years was 64%.

3. Changes to the resources of VCSE organisations

This chapter describes reported changes over the last five years to the resources of the VCSE organisations responding to the survey, covering:

• FTE staff, hours worked by part time staff and volunteer numbers; • Turnover and sources of finance; and • Level of financial reserves.

3.1 Changes to numbers of FTE staff

When asked about any changes to their numbers of FTE staff over the last five years, the key findings among the VCSE organisations responding were that:

• 30% said that there had no change in their number of FTE staff; • 41% said that there had been an increase in the numbers of paid staff; • 18% said that there had been a decrease in numbers of paid staff; and • 11% were new organisations/did not exist five years ago.

Chart 3.1: Changes in number of FTE staff over last five years

Base: 56 VCSE organisations responding to survey

Although the numbers in each group were too small to be statistically reliable, the following observations can be made about the organisations who said that they had increased or decreased their numbers of paid staff:

The 23 organisations who had increased FTE staff (41%) • All but one of these organisations were local, independent organisations;

• 16 of these organisations had turnover of more than £250,000 and six of between £50,000 and £250,000;

• 13 of the organisations provided direct service delivery, four information, advice and guidance and two training/skills;

• 20 of the organisations said that demand for their services had increased over the last five years – on average by 90%; and

• The average increase in the number of FTE staff among these 23 organisations was 59%.

The 10 organisations who had decreased FTE staff (18%) • Six of these organisations were local, independent organisations and four part of larger,

national organisations; • Five had turnover of between £50,000 and £250,000, three of more than £250,000 and

two of between £10,000 and £50,000; • Three of the organisations provided information, advice and guidance, two

advocacy/campaigning, two direct service and two training/skills; • Eight of the organisations said that demand for their services had increased over the last

five years – on average by 40%; and • The average decrease in the number of FTE staff among these ten organisations was 54%.

3.2 Changes to total number of hours worked by part-time staff

When asked about any changes to the total number of hours worked by part-time staff over the last five years, the key findings among the VCSE organisations responding were that:

• 37% said that there had no change in the number of hours worked; • 47% said that there had been an increase; • 5% said that there had been a decrease; and • 11% were new organisations/did not exist five years ago.

Chart 3.2: Changes in total hours worked by part-time staff over last five years

Base: 56 VCSE organisations responding to survey

Again, the numbers are too small to be statistically reliable, though the following observations can be made about the organisations who said that they had increased the total number of hours worked by part-time staff:

The 26 organisations who had increased hours of part-time staff (47%) • All but two of these organisations were local, independent organisations; • 12 of these organisations had turnover of more than £250,000 and ten of between

£50,000 and £250,000; • 17 of the organisations provided direct service delivery, five information, advice and

guidance and two training/skills; • 23 of the organisations said that demand for their services had increased over the last five

years – on average by 77%; and • The average increase in the total number of hours worked by part-time staff among these

organisations was 70%.

3.3 Changes to numbers of Volunteers

When asked about any changes to their numbers of volunteers in the last five years, the key findings from the VCSE organisations were:

• One third said that there had been “no change/stayed the same” (38%); • One third said there had been an increase in the numbers (38%); • 13% said that there had been a decrease in numbers; and • 11% were new organisations/did not exist five years ago.

Chart 3.3: Changes in numbers of volunteers over last five years

Base: 56 VCSE organisations responding to survey

Although the bases were again too small for statistical reliability, these observations can be made about those organisations who had increased their numbers of volunteers:

The 21 organisations who had increased volunteers (38%) • 19 of these organisations were local, independent organisations and two part of larger,

national organisations; • Nine of these organisations had turnover of more than £250,000 and seven of between

£50,000 and £250,000; • 14 of these organisations provided direct service delivery and three information, advice

and guidance; • 16 of these organisations said that demand for their services had increased over the last

five years – on average by 66%; and • The average increase in the number of volunteers among these organisations was 92%.

The 7 organisations who had decreased volunteers (13%)

• Three of these organisations were local, independent organisations and four part of larger, national organisations;

• Three of these organisations had turnover of more than £250,000, three of between £50,000 and £250,000 and one of £10,000 to £50,000;

• Four of these organisations provided direct service deliver, one information, advice and guidance and one training/skills;

• Three of these organisations said that demand for their services had increased over the last five years – on average by 60%; and

• The average decrease in the number of volunteers among these organisations was 54%.

3.4 Changes to turnover and financial reserves

This section reviews the changes to turnover over the last five years reported by the VSCE organisations responding to the survey, as well as data on their current state of financial reserves and any reported changes to the state of these reserves over the last five years.

3.4.1 Changes to turnover Chart 3.4 below shows that nearly six out of ten of the VSCE organisations responding had increased turnover in the last five years (59%), while nearly one in five (19%) had decreased turnover. 11% said that there had been “no change/stayed the same” (38%) and 11% were new organisations/did not exist five years ago. The following observations can be made about those organisations who had increased or decreased levels of turnover:

The 33 organisations who had increased turnover (59%) • 29 of these organisations were local, independent organisations and four part of larger,

national organisations; • 15 of these organisations had turnover of more than £250,000 and ten of between

£50,000 and £250,000; • 20 of these organisations provided direct service delivery and four information, advice

and guidance; • 29 of these organisations said that demand for their services had increased in the last five

years and four that it had stayed the same; and • The average increase in turnover over the five years was 155% while the average increase

in demand was 67%.

Chart 3.4: Changes to turnover in last five years

Base: 56 VCSE organisations responding to survey

The 11 organisations who had decreased turnover (19%) • Seven of these organisations were local, independent organisations and four part of

larger, national organisations; • Four of these organisations had turnover of more than £250,000 and five of between

£50,000 and £250,000; • Three provided direct service delivery, three information, advice and guidance, two

training/skills and two advocacy/campaigning; • Eight of these organisations said that demand for their services had increased in the last

five years and three that it had stayed the same; and • The average decrease in turnover over the five years was 86% while the average increase

in demand was 67%.

3.4.2 Current state of financial reserves Chart 3.5 below shows that nearly two thirds of the VSCE organisations responding had less than six months operating costs in their reserves (63%). The following observations can be made about these 36 organisations:

• 29 were local, independent organisations and seven part of larger, national organisations; • 15 had turnover of more than £250,000 and 12 of between £50,000 and £250,000; • 15 provided direct service delivery and four information, advice and guidance; • 23 said that their turnover had increased in the last five years and 8 that it had decreased.

Three said it had stayed the same and one was a new organisation; and • 28 said that demand for their services had increased in the last five years and five said it

had stayed the same while three were new organisations.

Chart 3.5: Current state of financial reserves

Base: 56 VCSE organisations responding to survey

3.4.3 Changes to financial reserves Chart 3.6 below shows that two fifths (41%) of the VSCE organisations responding had a worse level of financial reserves than five years ago (41%), while nearly one in three (30%) had an improved level. 18% said that there had been “no change/stayed the same” (38%) and 11% were new organisations/did not exist five years ago.

Chart 3.6: Changes to state of financial reserves over last five years

Base: 56 VCSE organisations responding to survey

The following observations can be made about the organisations who had a changed level of financial reserves:

The 23 organisations with worse financial reserves (41%) • 17 of these organisations were local, independent organisations and six part of larger,

national organisations; • 8 of these organisations had turnover of more than £250,000 and 7 of between £50,000

and £250,000; • Seven of these organisations provided direct service delivery, six information, advice and

guidance and three training/skills; • Ten of these organisations said that their turnover had decreased in the last five years and

four that it had stayed the same, while for the other nine it had increased.

The 17 organisations with improved financial reserves (30%) • 15 were local, independent organisations and two part of larger, national organisations; • 6 had turnover of more than £250,000, 7 of between £50,000 and £250,000 and two each

of between £10,000 and £50,000 and under £10,000; • 13 provided direct service delivery, three information, advice and guidance and one

training/skills;

• All 17 organisations said that both demand for their services and their turnover had increased in the last five years; and

• The average increases were 75% for demand for services and 50% for increased turnover. 3.4.4 Summary comments on changes to turnover and financial reserves The survey found evidence that many of the VCSE organisations responding to the survey were in a less financially sound position than they had been five years ago:

- 63% having less than six months operating costs in reserve; and - 41% with worse financial reserves than five years ago

However, there was also evidence that a smaller proportion of organisations were actually in a better position than five years ago. These were more likely to be those who were:

- Local, independent organisations; - With turnover of more than £250,000 or at least £50,000; - Providing a direct service delivery

4. WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT IN THE VCSE SECTOR

This chapter explores the provision of training for employees and volunteers among the VCSE organisations participating in the survey, together with any changes to training budgets, as well as the most important skills needs for the sector over the next five years.

4.1 Training for paid staff and volunteers

In total, two thirds of the VCSE organisations participating in the survey (66%) provided some form of training, either accredited or non-accredited to either staff and/or their volunteers.

4.1.1 Accredited training

Nearly two thirds of the VCSE organisations participating in the survey (62%) provided accredited training:

• Accredited training for staff and volunteers (30%) • Accredited training for staff only (28%); and • Accredited training for volunteers only (4%).

The remaining 38% did not provide any form of accredited training

4.1.2 Non-accredited training

One third of the VCSE organisations participating in the survey (35%) provided non-accredited training:

• Accredited training for staff and volunteers (21%) • Accredited training for staff only (5%); and • Accredited training for volunteers only (9%).

The remaining 65% did not provide any form of non-accredited training.

Chart 4.1: Training for staff and volunteers

Base: 56 VCSE organisations responding to survey

4.2 Training budgets The survey found that 68% of the VCSE organisations who responded said that they had a training budget. This figure was higher than the 66% who said they provided some form of training, either accredited or non-accredited to either staff and/or their volunteers. This was for two reasons: some of the training was provided free of charge (so did not need a budget) and some of the organisations had a budget but were not currently spending it.

In terms of changes to their training budgets, over a quarter said that it had increased (29%) in the last five years. Two fifths said that they had stayed the same (40%) and one fifth (20%) that it had decreased.

Chart 4.2: Changes in training budget over last five years

Base: 56 VCSE organisations responding to survey

4.3 Key skills areas for VCSE organisations in next five years

All of the organisations participating in the 2018 survey were asked to rank a set of skills areas in terms of their importance to them over the next five years.

“What do you think will be the most important skills needs of your organisation over the next five years? Please choose only one.”

Chart 4.3 overleaf contains their replies and shows that:

• Securing funding (Bid writing/tendering/grant applications/funding and fundraising, etc) was regarded as being the most important need by nearly a third of all the organisations (32%);

• This was followed in importance by collaboration (Interagency working/partnership skills/joint development, etc) which over two fifths (22%) rated highest.

The chart shows that only two other skills needs were ranked as being important by more than one in ten of the organisations – leadership (management, governance, partnership skills, etc) by 14% and technology skills (ICT, social media, etc) by 12%.

Chart 4.3: Most important skills needs over next five years

Base: 56 VCSE organisations responding to survey

It is worth noting, that although the questions used were qualitative in nature, the 2013 research identified five key areas as being the most commonly needed skills requirements that were anticipated by VCSE organisations over the next five years:

• Bid writing/tendering/grant applications/funding and fundraising; • ICT skills; • Management, governance and leadership skills; • Interagency working/collaboration; and • Safeguarding.

It is interesting that, although the descriptions in some cases are very slightly different, these five areas remain the highest ranking areas.

4.4 The biggest challenges faced in providing or accessing training

All of the organisations participating in the 2018 survey were then asked to describe the issues they faced with training in terms of:

“What is the biggest challenge that your organisation faces in providing or accessing this training over the next five years?”

Chart 4.4 below contains their replies and shows that:

• Affordability (cost/funding/money/finance) was the single most important issue - for over two fifths of all the organisations (44%).

Two other issues were mentioned by sizeable proportions of the VCSE organisations – the availability of good quality, local training (18%) and finding the time for training to take place (16%). One in ten did not answer because they did face any challenges or did not intend to provide any training.

Chart 4.4: Biggest challenges in providing or accessing training over next five years

Base: 56 VCSE organisations responding to survey

5. WORKING WITH THE PUBLIC SECTOR

This chapter explores any changes in the relationships with the public sector experienced over the last five years by the VCSE organisations surveyed. It then goes on to examine knowledge of Cornwall Councils’ priorities and whether the VCSE organisations’ own priorities are aligned with those of the Council.

5.1 Changes in relationship with public sector in last five years

The VCSE organisations were asked whether there had been any changes in their relationship with the public sector over the last five years. Chart 5.1 below details their answers and shows that over a third said that their relationship had improved (37%), while a quarter said it had not changed (26%). Just 14% said that it had got worse, while 12% had no public sector clients s could not comment.

Chart 5.1 Changes in relationship with public sector over last five years (%)

Base: 56 VCSE organisations responding to survey

The following observations can be made about the organisations who had changed relationships:

The 21 organisations with better relationships (37%) • 18 of these organisations were local, independent organisations and three part of larger,

national organisations; • Eight of these organisations had turnover of more than £250,000 and eight of between

£50,000 and £250,000;

• Eleven of these organisations provided direct service delivery, five information, advice and guidance and three training/skills;

• 18 of these organisations said that demand for their services had increased in the last five years and three that it had stayed the same;

• Four of these organisations said that their turnover had decreased in the last five years, while for the other 17 it had increased; and

• Ten said that their level of financial reserves was worse than five years ago, six that it was better and five the same. The 8 organisations with worse relationships (14%)

• Six were local, independent organisations and two part of larger, national organisations; • Three had turnover of more than £250,000, four of between £50,000 and £250,000 and

one of under £10,000; • Four provided direct service delivery and two information, advice and guidance; • All eight organisations said that demand for their services had increased in the last five

years; • Four said that their turnover had increased, two that it had decreased and two that it had

stayed the same in the last five years; and • Six said that their level of financial reserves was worse than five years ago, one was better

and one the same. 5.2 Knowledge of Cornwall Council’s priorities

The VCSE organisations were then asked:

“Do you consider you know what Cornwall Council’s priorities are that are relevant to your most important field of work?”

Chart 5.2 below shows their answers:

Chart 5.2 Knowledge of relevant Cornwall Council priorities (%)

Base: 56 VCSE organisations responding to survey

The chart shows that nearly half of the VCSE organisations said they did know what the Council’s priorities were (47%) that were relevant to them. A quarter said that they did now know what the Council’s priorities were (23%) and a further quarter skipped the question without answering it (24%) – suggesting that they did not know the priorities either.

Focus Groups Three focus groups were held in October 2018 .

• Cornwall Council commissioners - facilitated by Nigel Tremlett, Transform Consulting

• Chairs and trustees of VCSE organisations - facilitated by Richard Williams of CVSF • CEOs and senior managers of VCSE organisations - facilitated by Ian Smith

Cornwall Council Commissioners Seven commissioners or senior managers from Cornwall Council took part in the discussions

Perspectives on working with the VCSE

This comment was in response to a loss of EU funding - but it applies to all service provision and sums up the value of the VCSE to the public sector, and suggests a way forward

The implications (of loss of EU funding) are multi-dimensional, while the VCSE are involved in mitigating demand for our services - engaging with the most vulnerable families and adults – security, food, access to nutrition all that kind of thing – the VCSE are acting as a holding ground for that demand. The implications of losing that will be a breakdown in our social cohesion…feels very bleak so we’ve got to be positive...how do we mitigate this? We need to prepare the ground with the VCSE at the table and risk assess for those impacts.

From a commissioner perspective the relationship with the VCSE is predominantly positive:

Always had a good relationship with VCSE sector… don’t know if that’s because we are geographically bound or not…where we contract with the sector they always deliver over and above what we want providing extra value added.

And where we collaborate it is effective:

Enhancing, supporting gaps in public service delivery we work quite proactively and collaboratively with the sector We’ve been looking in adult care at how we can best meet need and demand, within a situation with a rapidly diminishing supply of money...having open conversations about services specifications and commissioning intentions together – trying to be open and realistic with the market about what can be done and achieved and how we can shape that together…it’s a much more adult conversation to be having.

And brings added value:

A contracted service for young parents support brings in 100% match. We couldn’t run that service without VCSE provider

Commissioners really value the innovation that the VCSE brings:

We can really benefit from the sectors innovative approach…some of the sector have been able to come to us with solutions for issues that we are grappling with. For example… Delayed transfer of care from acute hospitals, the voluntary sector had secured national funding for a pilot looking at how they can support detox. Aligned what they were doing and shared learning from pilot giving access to evaluation outcomes … minimal financial input And then integrated the commissioner into a national pilot.

And they are keen to promote Best Practice

Commissioners see the Early Help Hub as a great example of collaboration providing local intelligence and added value - they are keen to expand this way of working …If you’re looking for a service that we don’t have in house it’s great to be able to phone her and say “do you know where…” A particularly useful insight was that collaboration and co-production needs formal and informal settings and relationships:

The conversations and “by the ways” in the car park helped enormously… This was what made a real substantive difference to the specification...led to a much more informed and creative outcome than we would have had otherwise. One of the few examples where we have actually pulled off co-production…! At a strategic level we have involved health, education, care services - police and the VCSE. VCSE sit on the board which is good from a strategic view point. Quite often if we just call a few providers they will come and help with bids which is good in terms of future development

But we could still work better together, especially on the 5 priorities

Not sure we have mapped the councils 5 priorities against what the voluntary sector offers

Set of individual contracts/leases...not as good as they could be with voluntary sector. This is an areas we can improve upon in terms of office space, buildings, vehicles etc Voluntary Sector is working with core hard to reach part of the population that we (The Council) can’t reach anymore…it’s a huge opportunity for us to work with them (VCSE) to reach our priority groups. Provides a mechanism for us to do this at strategic and delivery level. Its about sharing information, best practice and resources in a more planned way so that we can understand where genuine need is and then see if we have resources to meet that need or not. Needs to be done this way, but we’re not quite there yet. and the social value act:

3-15% of tenders are now scored on social value, but commissioners are also looking to increase the length of contracts, thereby giving more stability and job security for VCSE, and giving a more consistent service to users/clients.

But perhaps the most difficult issues are around integrated, strategic commissioning across the whole system: (See policy section) ideas included:

• Arriving at a joined-up strategic vision that incorporates the necessary tactical interventions

• Looking at the system as a whole, rather than in silos to improve collective impact and build resilience.

• Looking at what services and what budgets can be joined up - for example childhood obesity or smoking during pregnancy

• Taking the best bits out of the old VCSE Commissioning Board

Commissioning intentions that might impact on the VCSE as a deliver/supplier/provider?

Demographic change and the ageing population was the major concern (see strategy section), coupled with austerity and a lack of resources. Commissioners were clear that commissioning practice was changing, with far more emphasis on pre-market engagement and co-production, including:

• Being clear that the council does not have all the answers • Pre-market engagement - doing a lot of talking first • Thinking about facilitating and enabling - rather than a contractual relationships • Thinking of a relationship with the VSCE sector that has a future proofing agenda. • Bring research and academic institution into the mix • Broker this knowledge and intelligence • Align learning to inform future commissioning intentions

The need for Infrastructure support

In the main commissioners were supportive of the need for a development partner: The current situation needs to change…there needs to be some facilitation (by the council) of the change to enable transparency and a level playing field if we are trying to engage fairly across the sector or access information from the sector. So that navigation role would help (improve the gaps) and is important. There is still a need for capacity and capability to build resilience for and within the sector for all the reasons we discussed earlier. But got to guard against “one select group” we need to allow new groups in… how can we all work together effectively, including service user needs. Ensure a representative voice rather than who shout’s loudest.

Commissioners emphasised the need for:

• One central coordinating development partner, “we can’t communicate with them all”

• A whole system mechanism • Real coordination on the ground • Sector leads - thematic leads - locality leads • To be aware if some VCSE organisations are adding complexity and confusion by

mission drift and chasing funding

• Capacity to build resilience in the sector - • Intelligence on who is doing what

But there were reservations and recommendations: VSCE could best arrive at this by …not following TCA model… there needs to be a responsibility on both sides that arrangement will be respected so that conflicts of interest are avoided. Thinking of strategic partnerships – we need someone to facilitate that, who is dynamic. We need somebody to speak knowledgeable for each sub-sector … the voluntary sector commissioning board we used to have…can we pick out the good bits from this..? Comments included:

• The need to be time efficient and transparent and show a level playing field • A standard approach to gathering data • freedom to liaise with other VCSE orgs - esp where there is a specialisation • Facilitate strategic voice but keep it fluid - enabling the right voices to get to that

table • Coordination of sector is difficult - it is perceived that there are gaps and duplication

- need a really good sense of what is being delivered - • TCA was poor, it set organisations against each other - there needs to be a

transparent process -

So how should we proceed and what should a development partner do?

VSCE needs to show how its provision aligns with Councils priorities and give a sense of what it can offer and is already providing. Taking a tangible example, looking at discharge from hospital, I don’t think anyone has a handle on all the different groups that are doing something in all the communities at the moment. There needs to be some kind of work around that (By VCSE) so that we know what we are commissioning and paying for where. If we could tap into the paid for and volunteering (i.e. milk and bread delivery) full range of services, then we would have a much better idea where the statutory money should be spent and where we can be supporting the community and voluntary work in a different way. I know that this is not easy, but for me this is one of the key things that a VCSE infrastructure body could be doing – being the voice between the two sides (LA and local community). Commissioners highlighted:

• The need to understand at each locality what is the collective resource available –

where are the gaps – what are the needs – how do we plan to fill them in the future. • Community links officer posts are being set-up but coordination of these roles is

missing – one person who commissioners can talk to bring it all together. • The challenge on all sides, it is hard and all partners will need to be involved without

duplicating each other’s efforts.

• But don’t overmanage it, there is a natural resilience in communities, we can’t make them all fit in one size!

On the Potential Loss of EU Funding, and what funding may follow:

Due to the huge uncertainty when this focus group took place, and the lack of crystal balls, we did not spend long on this issue:

in terms of future proofing we don’t understand full reach of EU finding - we understand direct impact (nos. dependent upon EU funding) but we don’t understand second stage impact and infrastructure support. This is not enormously well understood across all providers (or funders).

If we look at councils five priorities then in terms of Brexit it still feels like it’s not at the forefront. Again there’s a danger that we think of separate services but we need to take step back and think of community needs overall...prepare the gourd with each community to prepare people.. Comments included:

• Do we need a summit - what is everybody thinking • If the promises come true - if it (Shared Prosperity Fund) is less bureaucratic then it

could be good • If it all goes - a highly damaging effect - public sector has no way near the same level

of resources to sustain the same sort of provision - ability to leverage additional funding (triple the investment) - lottery struggling etc. This is a huge risk to Cornwall.

VCSE Chairs and trustees The chairs of eight organisations took part. Comparing their responses to those of the CEOs, the chairs tended to be more high level and strategic, and less likely to go into details. This was reassuring, as the role of trustee is to set a policy direction. Chairs also had stronger views on the need for the VCSE sector to collaborate

There remains a general frustration with the public sector. There is an imbalance of power, delivery continues to be in silos and change is slow.

Dissatisfaction with central government was very evident, with HMG blamed with creating a hostile environment for charities and a “devolution of blame”

There is recognition that some public sector commissioning practices are changing for the better

There is a question why some colleagues in the public sector are good to work with, and others not, and general agreement that too much is down to personal relationships

The general willingness of the chairs and non-execs in the meeting to collaborate is less event from CEOs and senior managers. So this needs to be addressed

We need to come together as a sector, and to engage in a collective discussion on social action. What is the vision of the people of Cornwall, not just our vision

We need to be clear where we should just get on with it ourselves, and/or seek private sector and philanthropic support.

We need to be clear where we should be collaborating with the public sector

There are cultural differences between public sector and VCSE that need to be addressed

The relationship with town and parish councils is important and needs to be addressed

VCSE CEOs and senior managers

Six chief executives and senior managers took part, and came from a wide range of organisations from a local, wholly voluntary group to part of a national charity.

Collaboration between public sector and VCSE

“We have a strong relationship with the council, we trust each other. But if you are completely dependent on state funding then you can’t do your job properly”

“We work with the people that state won’t work with. If you are person centred you are against the system. Our charity is going against the establishment and trying to save lives”

Nobody believes that austerity is coming to an end. There was a general concern that more staff cuts at Cornwall Council are coming in the next months. Concern for these staff, and concern that statutory services will be reduced and the VCSE will be expected to provide services where the councils withdraws. Services are cut to the bone already.

There was a lot of discussion about where collaboration is needed and is appropriate and where it is not. There is a spectrum, with views ranging from “the public sector is toxic” to “we must always work with the public sector” with pragmatism being in the middle “where it makes sense”

“Commissioning is not working at a grass roots level, some patients who have come out of hospital, all they want is someone to do their shopping”

Almost all public services started out as philanthropic and voluntary activity, going back to the 19th Century. So the VCSE needs to be proud and confident.

Collaboration works well where the public sector has a statutory duty, and the VCSE can bring in additional funding and resources from elsewhere, and do it quicker and cheaper.

It is not what you know, it is who you know

Collaboration works well when there are good personal relationships, and therefore works badly where there a poor or non-existent relationships - the parochial nature of Cornwall is both a strength and a weakness in this regard. People in both sectors change rolls but re-emerge, bringing their positive networks and there old enmities with them.

“Cornwall and surrounding peninsula - good people are around for forever and know each other and learnt from each other and grow together - this is something special about Cornwall.”

It was generally held that there was too much reliance on personal relationships, and not enough in the way of structure and process.

Some organisations have an indirect relationship with the public sector, in particular where their clients or service users have personal budgets.

A view was expressed that there was too much collaboration, both between the public and VCSE and within the VCSE. This led to too much complexity in the system as a whole

Small organisations and community groups are generally at a disadvantage, both in terms of personal relationships and in terms of process.

A very positive example was given of local GPs building bridges with a VCSE organisation helping people living with multiple sclerosis, due to the burden of the disease and lack of curative treatment options. It is important to manage these patients holistically with personalised delivery of care.

Commissioning Practice

Commission practice was thought to be improving. Delegates valued informal discussions and soft market testing, and found commissioning staff to be very helpful

“Some have a sensible approach to commissioning collaboratively based on common sense while others commissioners take a transactional approach and want pound for pound”

This also led to improved collaboration within the VCSE Sector.

“We collaborated well and talked to each other, phoning each about the application form and how to answer questions”

Appropriate measurement - measuring the right things was problematic. Big targets, KPI’s and payment by results was held to have a negative effect both on collaboration and project delivery because it created perverse incentives

“The measurement tools are very narrow, it is public sectors outcomes that are measured - not ours” “We are not about numbers we are about person centred outcomes”

ESF in general and BBO in particular came in for criticism with Big Lottery making programmes more difficult to administer.

Unsurprisingly GDPR came in for a lot of criticism and was thought to have increased a risk adverse culture in the public sector. “This is very frustrating, we already have a framework in place with other third sector organisations to share data and we feel comfortable navigating this environment”. Large national charities who had sold personal data were critisised.

There was also some discussion on how to play to the strengths of the VCSE

“getting people out of bed and helping them get a job are things that are not easily measured. The VCSE are less bound by rules, they are flexible and can use different pots of funding, and people want to work with us.”

“Where people self-refer to us they tend to stay the course and get better outcomes - where they are referred to us they are more likely to drop out”

Infrastructure support

Overall, awareness of infrastructure support as a concept and a service was low, but delegates gave many examples of support and/or the lack of it.

“Infrastructure support used to be better, with forums and opportunity to network and learn, now it is more competitive”

“There is a problem connecting the dots and sometimes help the council realise that people/organisations are maybe doing the same work and get them in touch with each other and help facilitate bridges”

“Competition - the setting up of yet another charity that does the same thing - we need to work together and avoid the wrangling”

“The definition of civil society is very loose and the private sector has a much stronger voice than us.”

“we went through a very rough patch and CRCC were very helpful, including back office support”

“The lunchtime news is really good - gives me a feel for things” “We are very reliant of VC for drivers” “We need help on transport and sharing facilities”

“Volunteer Cornwall have good training programmes. The coordinator helped increase membership and help setup transport which is our biggest nightmare”

“There is not enough of sharing - we need more collaborative working on projects” On representation: We are grassroots and can only talk in general terms of the pressures the sector faces, we can’t speak for the whole sector

Brexit and the possible loss of EU Funding

Discussing the implications of, and preparations for Brexit at this time (October 2018) was thought to be pointless. There was considerable concern about hitting a recession if there is no deal and/or the regional/structural support goes, or Cornwall’s share of the Shared Prosperity Fund is low. “there are a lot of well-paid people dependent on EU funding who may come into job market and depress the market”

Although it wasn’t supposed to, EU funding has been paying for things the public sector used to do, if EU funding goes it was thought that even more demand and pressure will fall on the voluntary sector

Never waste a good crisis “The 2008 crash coincided with the new unitary authority - it was a difficult time and we went and hid under a rock for a few years. Now with the unitary authority, the CCG and the OPCC we all have the opportunity to collaborate and work together - DO IT NOW”

Social Action

Social action is about people coming together to help improve their lives and solve the problems that are important in their communities. It can include volunteering, giving money, community action or simple neighbourly acts Source: DCMS

Social Action Workshops

In 2018 VSF has been developing the concept of local backbone organisations and ran 3 consultation events in July in Torpoint, Bodmin and Newquay

The local backbone organisations we worked with were:

Torpoint CHAT (Community Health around Torpoint)

Bodmin Into Bodmin

Newquay Newquay Community Orchard

Attendance figures are:

Torpoint 23

Bodmin 32

Newquay 59

All three events that were held were very successful and generated a lot of comment and interest. In particular it was clear that there is a lack of join up at a local level, but a real willingness from local activists to work more closely together. Delegates undertook an exercise to identify all the assets of their town, be the physical buildings, organisations or people. In every event delegates were surprised by the assets and resources they had, but all arrived at the conclusion that these resources were not well used or joined up. The delegates agreed on two key issues to take forward and local groups have been formed in Bodmin and Newquay to continue discussions that will lead to more joined up local action.

It was clear from all the events that local volunteers love their town and want to support vibrant communities. Of particular concern was the future of each town centre. It was also evident, especially at the Newquay meeting that many of the attendees wore at least two hats. They attended the event on behalf of the organisation they worked for (mostly in the public sector) but they were also volunteers and active in their communities. Numbers of Council staff involved in the corporate volunteering scheme are low. Colum Taylor of CRCC who manages the scheme states that:

Since March of this year 256 CC staff have volunteered on this project. Last year we had 379 in total. According to a FIO report as of April this year Cornwall Council employ 5544. So the 379 account for about 6.8% of CC staff. However not all council staff members are eligible to take part in the scheme such as teachers and it’s unclear to me if they are included in the 5544.

In addition, the majority of this activity is by way or team building (eg beach cleans) rather than utilising the skills and knowledge of council staff to assist the VCSE and social action.

TCA Liskeard Place Based Pilot

A separate report has been produced from the TCA Liskeard pilot, which supports the view that a large amount of social action goes on “under the radar” in every town and locality.