Agenda item

Consideration was given to the report which detailed how infrastructure services provided support that helped voluntary and community sector (VCS) organisations across the borough to become more effective and sustainable.

Active and vibrant community groups and voluntary organisations were the backbone of local communities and work collaboratively with residents and with the Council to make a positive difference. The Council’s funding for infrastructure support meant that local groups and organisations could access capacity building support and be part of a Rotherham-wide network.  

Community and voluntary organisations have an important role in helping to build resilient communities across the borough and in supporting residents - particularly the most vulnerable.

The current infrastructure services were provided by Voluntary Action Rotherham (VAR) with the engagement of Rotherham Ethnic Minority Alliance (REMA). The current arrangements ran until the end of March 2018.

As part of considering arrangements for the next three years, a review into the infrastructure support needs of the VCS in Rotherham had been completed. The purpose of this review was to assess the effectiveness of the existing service and to identify future needs. The outcome of this was the recommended continuation of infrastructure support (in line with the commitments of the Rotherham Compact), with a priority focus on activity and support aligned to communities and neighbourhoods as set out in the Council and Rotherham plans.

The next stage in the process was to invite bids for there to be a lead infrastructure organisation to work with the Council to develop full proposals and then lead the delivery over the next three years.

Members referred to the recommendations within the report and sought clarification as to how activities would be achieved and how success would be measured. In response, it was confirmed that this would be part of the specification and targets would be defined against benchmarking data within the voluntary and community sector. Following on, Members sought assurances that the funding was not going to be taken away with an expectation that the sector would have to deliver more. In response, it was confirmed that there was no intention of asking the lead organisation to do more work, but they would be required to work to an identified set of priorities.

Reference was made to part of the report which stated that external funding would be sourced to mitigate any budget cuts and Members asked for information as to how the Council would get this funding and how it would tackle inequalities. In response, it was explained that the borough was not currently receiving its fair share of external funding and the intention was to put in collective bids for external funding with the voluntary and community sector. In respect of equalities, it was noted that there had been a concentration on particular communities and not addressed outlying communities and the new neighbourhood working model would play an important role in addressing inequalities.

Members queried whether voluntary and community sector infrastructure grants were being monitored and how performance would be reviewed. In response, it was acknowledged that this had been neglected in the past and discussions were taking place with Voluntary Action Rotherham (VAR) on how this would work in future. The expectation was that quarterly monitoring reports would be submitted and it may involve a refreshing of objectives and the specification itself.

Assurances were sought in respect of efforts to encourage voluntary and community sector organisations to build their own reserves so that their financial modelling would become more sustainable.

Members sought clarification in respect of how the preferred approach was determined and how the precise figure was reached. In response, it was accepted that the options were considered to be radical and that option 1 was chosen on the basis that the sector in the borough continued to need infrastructure support. The alternative would have been to cease funding altogether and that would not be supported.

Resolved:- 

1.    That Cabinet be advised that the recommendations be supported.

2.    That there be greater clarity on the outcomes arising from the activity (as outlined in Recommendation 1.3 of the report) to ensure that value for money is achieved on the Council’s investment.