Much of our current activity if funded through our Change Up grant. To see what we're doing with our grant look at Current Activities on this site.
To see what else is going on in the region through Change Up funding see www.changeahead.org
Making the links Results of a mapping exercise to identify activities within the subregional infrastructure investment plans of interest and relevance to the national hubs of expertise. By Lynne Bryan: NACVS July 2005
A full copy of the report is available on NACVS's website: http://www.nacvs.org.uk/resources/cbis/docs/makingthelinks.pdf
Or read below for some extracts that relate to the West Midlands:
The purpose of this project was to provide an overview of the work currently underway or planned by sub-regional consortia on the ChangeUp national hub priority themes:
Workforce Development was not included in the remit of this project, as work within this theme is already underway, led by NIACE in partnership with the Workforce Development hub and NACVS. The project studied sub-regional infrastructure investment plans (IIPs), and identified activities or plans relevant to each theme by sub-region. Regional summaries have also been produced. This information will be shared with all of the national hubs of expertise to inform the delivery of agreed business plans, and development of future activities. The report will also be made available to the Active Communities Unit (ACU), sub-regional and regional consortia and to Government Offices.
The need for this research was identified during the business planning process for the national hubs of expertise. It became clear that all hubs needed to know what work was underway or planned at sub-regional level, to ensure that activities at national level support and do not duplicate this. After agreement that a co-ordinated project would be helpful and the most efficient way of approaching this task, NACVS was funded by the ACU to undertake the work. NACVS is well positioned, having involvement in all of the hubs of expertise, and contact with the sub-regional ChangeUp consortia. Not all IIPs are yet available; some are in the process of being re-worked. However, the national hub leads agreed that this study would provide vital information to ensure that the local-national link is built in at an early stage in the hubs’ development.
As a result of this project, all hubs will have information about the status of ChangeUp consortia work related to their theme at sub-regional level. This will enable the hubs to plan and deliver their services effectively, for example:
In addition, and although beyond the scope of the project, this report contains a summary of other themes identified, which may inform Capacity Builders or the Infrastructure National Partnership. Further resources would be needed to undertake additional analysis.
The output of the project is this report. It contains (in table form) details of activities on each theme by sub-region, and a consolidated report (in table and narrative form) on each theme by region. Where available, thematic leads and contact organisations in each sub-region have been included, so that the hubs can begin to develop relationships and networks. !Scope and limitations This mapping exercise is limited in its scope. It offers a snapshot of the activities listed within each of the latest available sub-regional infrastructure investment plans, and/or information forwarded about related activities from emerging plans, which have relevance for five out of the six hubs. The methodology is contained within Appendix 1. A full list of the documents considered for this report can be found in Appendix 2. Workforce Development is not included in the remit of this project (see above). This information was initially to be made available to the ACU and each of the hubs. After further discussion, it has been decided to make it available to a wider range of organisations and government bodies. These will include Government Offices for the Regions (GORs), Voluntary and Community Sector Regional Forums, (VCSRFs) and the sub-regional consortia. This is in the interest of networking, transparency and in order that organisations might identify activities within other regions or sub-regions which are similar to their own and where collaboration or sharing good practice might be beneficial. This mapping project does not seek to analyse any of the IIPs other than to extract the information relevant to the five listed hubs. Nor does it make any evaluative judgements on the plans or the processes involved in developing the plans. Some VCSRFs are also undertaking activity and defining their role in relation to the sub-regional consortia. The regional summary information contained within this report is mainly that which has been extracted from sub-regional IIPs, and where available, the regional ChangeUp plans.
The GOR approach for commissioning the IIPs has varied with differing starting points for each sub-regional infrastructure partnership. This is reflected in the different format and level of detail offered in each of the IIPs. Some IIPs appear to be a series of individual project applications, whilstothers are overall strategies which perhaps earmark funds for projects, or where the details of delivery are yet to be developed. Others go in to great detail around each aspect of their IIP . A few combine both. The timescales have also varied, with some already well established and drawing down ChangeUp and Defra main spend monies, whilst some are still very much work in progress. Notably, the South East and London have yet to make available plans for each sub–region. In London there are added complexities with each borough working towards an individual plan that will need to dovetail with the sub-regional plan, and eventually a pan London plan. Obtaining information on the current state of play for the whole of London has been difficult, and as yet there are no sub-regional or borough plans available. With this diversity of approach, achieving consistency in the information presented within this report has proved a challenge. GORs are generally combing Defra funding with the ChangeUp main spend, and in some cases identifying other sources of match funding, e.g. RDA and European funding. The activities listed therefore might include some which are jointly funded, solely funded by ChangeUp funds or funded through Defra. Most plans have included activities around volunteering, financing the voluntary sector, and ICT. Explicit references to performance improvement/quality initiatives are fewer in number, although many of the activities might be reinterpreted as performance improvement. This is particularly the case for those which fall under the banner of “modernising the VCS”, where economies of scale, more collaborative working and rationalisation of existing services have been listed within most plans, and could be read as performance improvement. The least mentioned area of activity, in terms of national hub themed work, is Governance. Strong trends in terms of individual activities, which fall within the hubs themes, include:
Activities to rationalise and reduce the number of volunteering infrastructure organisations, and activities in line with Volunteering England’s national strategy. This has permeated the work of the majority of IIPs.
Roll out of Circuit Riders or similar, as well as a significant number of plans to merge information, databases and websites.
A number of new social enterprise and funding advice initiatives, including posts and capacity building activities.
Notably, most plans do not include specific mention of activities aimed at addressing the needs of trustees or improving governance, although most who have planned activities for workforce development have included trustees within their target audience. When reading the mapping results, consideration should be given to the following:
A few IIPs give details of existing services or activities already funded through other sources, but on the whole, the IIPs forward information only on the activities which are perceived as gaps or priorities, and for which funding is being sought through the ChangeUp main spend.
It is vitally important that the hubs do not see the information within this plan as the sum total of all of the activity within a sub region. It might actually mean the opposite.
There may well be services of interest to the hubs which are not contained within this plan because of a high level of activity and sufficient support to VCS around a particular topic. Alternatively, it might mean that there is such a low level of awareness around a hub theme, where even recognising a gap is difficult, resulting in the exclusion of activities within that area.
*Very few of the plans had received approval from the GOR when the information was collected. It is therefore feasible that some of the listed activities will not be approved for funding.
*The starting point for each sub-regional IIP has been very different. It is apparent that in some areas, comprehensive mapping or needs analysis had already taken place, and therefore strategy in those areas may be further along the process. In other areas, the needs analysis has started as part of the ChangeUp process.
*The starting point for partnerships or consortia has also been different, with some built on existing partnerships and well established joint working. For others, ChangeUp has been the catalyst. In these circumstances, time is required to develop trusting equitable partnerships, and in some cases to build bridges within what might have been difficult organisational relationships. These circumstances are likely to have had an impact on the progress of IIP development.
*Existing expertise within a sub region on the national hub themes may vary. In some areas this may result is a partnership identifying a national hub theme as a gap and therefore a priority, whilst in others areas, levels of awareness might be so low that it isn’t even recognised as an issue. The opposite might also be true. For example where there have been sufficient resources to develop work on a particular theme, there might also be a “champion” for that theme within the sub-regional partnership,and it may well feature prominently.
*It is acknowledged within ChangeUp that there is an inconsistent level of VCS infrastructure across the country. Some areas are much better resourced and have greater capacity to engage with the ChangeUp process and in the development of partnerships. It follows then that there have been variances in the capacity of individual organisations within ChangeUp partnerships to engage. It is also true that in areas where there are weaknesses in the existing infrastructure, the priorities may well be investment in the infrastructure itself, and not necessarily development of services around hub themes. For many, such activities will be at a later stage when there is sustainability to deliver such services.
*A number of the listed activities may cut across several national hub themes. A prime example of this is ICT, which might list activities for better communication, include performance measurement tools, or be the vehicle through which much collaborative work will be routed, for example, joint websites and databases.
*Performance Improvement is a term that could include a wide array of activities and which is often interpreted differently. The performance improvement activities included within this mapping are those, which make specific reference to quality improvement, meeting quality standards and tools and health checks for performance improvement.
During the course of undertaking the research to identify national hub themed activity, a number of other findings were noted:
*In most sub-regions, the consortia which have submitted IIPs are large, some having upwards of sixty members and are, on the whole, inclusive of a diverse range of generic and specialist VCS infrastructure organisations.
*It is apparent from the differences in the way plans are presented, that each regional office has approached their task differently. Some plans have addressed the 10-year ChangeUp vision; others have appeared to undertake a shorter term needs analysis and to develop project plans, to address the immediate gaps. Some plans date from as far back as June 2004, but are the latest available, indicating delays in the negotiating of final plans with GORs.
*There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that some LIOs have been reticent about developing ambitious plans, due to the uncertainty of continued funding after March 2006 (at the time of formulating the plans).
Several key themes emerge from the plans, which although beyond the scope of this current report, might be usefully collated for the benefit of the ACU and Capacity Builders when it becomes operational:
*Most plans have included significant resources for development and support of a sub-regional consortium or forum. Where these are currently restricted to a small number of infrastructure organisations, most have plans to widen the membership to include all sub-regional and specialist infrastructure organisations. Most plan to develop this group further to take forward their strategy and several will aim to publicise their role, develop a one stop portal for local VCOs and make it easier for local VCOs to know where to go for support and information.
*Most of the plans reflect the spirit of ChangeUp in undertaking feasibility studies, which might reduce duplication and increase collaboration to provide a more rationalised VCS infrastructure. Such activities might include mergers, sharing of back room functions, the development of specialist services shared across organisations and new structures for pan regional services.
*Many plans have included some form of community development/outreach work, with the aim of offering better services to excluded and hard to reach groups.
*A number of plans have listed activities to address the lack of representation of BME groups in sub-regional consortia. Many have outlined plans specifically to support the development of BME VCS infrastructure. Others have outlined activities to better address the needs of BME groups.
*Investment in community buildings for affordable and accessible space for VCS and resource centres has featured prominently in some regions.
*Understandably, with ChangeUp resources being pooled with Defra funded activity, plans to address rural needs feature prominently.
*Some of the sub-regional consortia have decided to ring-fence money to establish funding pots for the local VCS.
*There is little mention of filling gaps with new generic infrastructure organisations in districts where none exist; however, there is mention of addressing the gaps in services through other means.
*Many IIPs contain promotional activities to raise the profile of ChangeUp funded activity and improve coherence for the local VCS.
In the West Midlands, IIPs have been drawn up for Herefordshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent, Warwickshire and Coventry and Worcestershire. Birmingham and the Black Country IIPs are in progress. The GOR has adopted a bidding process for the delivery of the IIPs, so lead organisations are not necessarily identified. “ChangeUp West Midlands Main Programme aims to realise the national vision of frontline organisations realising their full potential and improving the quality of life for communities. By working with second-tier organisations and through the distribution of ChangeUp funds the programme will ensure that they have the capacity, skills and infrastructure support they require to fulfil that role. The total amount for the region of ChangeUp main programme investment funding in this region from ACU is £5.4m this represents £1.5 million for capital and £3.6 million for revenue. From DEFRA a further £.5m has already been put in place. The aim through the ChangeUp Commissioning process is to develop an even spread of supported proposals across the infrastructure function areas. It is also envisaged that within each of these functions there will be a broad spread of research, feasibility, development and delivery.” GOWM ChangeUp commissioning guidance “Government Office West Midlands will be commissioning work within the region. This work will be related to the investment plans that have been put together by consortia in the West Midlands. Each consortia comprises second tier or intermediary voluntary and community organisations looking at improving the infrastructure of frontline organisations in their sub regional area. Consortia and those working around special themes will put forward proposals for consideration for commissioning initially by completing an Expression of Interest. The completed proposal will be considered by an Independent Assessment Panel, if passed by the panel then a Full Proposal will be requested.”
In general, the guidance criteria put out by the government office focused heavily on the national hub themed priorities, and generally, IIPs have responded well to these. http://www.changeahead.org/html/downloads.html http://www.changeahead.org/Proposal_Guidelines.pdf
Featuring strongly across the region, with the majority of IIPs listing activities. They focus mainly on developing infrastructure organisations to better support social enterprise. Other featured activities include highlighting the role of the VCS in public service delivery, supporting and developing the single pot, creating a database of funders and providing information, training and funding support. Governance Included in the plans of one IIP, which intends to investigate the feasibility of the establishment of a sub-regional governance hub. ICT Four of the five IIPs have listed activities. These are largely split between support to infrastructure organisations, and support and capacity building for frontline organisations. Plans include shared databases, peripatetic ICT support workers and establishing or piloting Circuit Riders in some areas. Performance Improvement The majority of IIPs have planned activities. One area will focus on benchmarking quality in infrastructure organisations, with planned work on PQASSO and PERFORM quality initiatives. The remaining plans are more concerned with quality within the local VCS, and include collaborative work with specific activities around sub-sectors and themes, e.g. specialist legal and employment advice. In one IIP, organisational development is the central theme, with numerous activities listed. Volunteering All of the five IIPs considered list plans to develop volunteering. The majority of activities focus on the development of strategies, which include the establishment of forums, encouraging collaborative working and creating sustainable funding for the volunteering infrastructure. Some IIPs detail further of activities which include promotional work across communities and ages, the promotion of good practice for volunteer managers, as well as links to national campaigns and branding of volunteering infrastructure.
On 15th August Home Office Minister Hazel Blears confirmed funding of £16.5m for six ChangeUp national hubs of expertise over the next two years. These hubs will act as beacons of best practice and provide strategic leadership for the voluntary and community sector. This significant investment reflects the Government's commitment to a strong, independent and competent voluntary and community sector (VCS) and its desire to ensure that front line organisations have access to the support they need. For more information on the hubs see the links below:
ICT Hub: http://www.ictconsortium.org.uk
Workforce Development Hub: http://www.voluntarysectorskills.org.uk
Volunteering Hub: http://www.volunteering.org.uk/changeup
Governance Hub: http://www.governancehub.org.uk
Performance Improvement Hub: http://www.performance-improvement.org.uk.
Financing the Voluntary & Community Sector Hub: http://www.nacvs.org.uk/resources
To ensure that Capacity Builders can maintain momentum it is necessary to consider the way that Capacity Builders will relate to the existing structures and in particular how funding will be distributed. The paper attached below sets out a series of questions around this.
The new team to run Capacity Builders, the agency charged with fund managing the £150 million ChangeUp programme, was announced today by the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke.
Headed by new Chair Chris Pond and Chief Executive Simon Hebditch, the focus of Capacity Builders will be to implement the ChangeUp investment programme, designed to build capacity and infrastructure framework for the voluntary and community sector.
For more information go to this site