Back to case studies listing

Sandwell - capacity building

About

This project seeks to build capacity of the Voluntary & Community Sector (VCS) by working one-to-one with local community groups and statutory organisations providing non core services, by bringing those groups together to explore and create a form of collaboration which will be a strong legacy for the Fair Share initiative in Great Bridge. Phases 1 & 2 of the project are now complete and progress has met expectations.

To date Health Checks have been completed for 25 groups in the Great Bridge ward. The Health Checks questionnaire was a tool created to produce a profile of the health of each individual group and identify their capacity building needs, so that these could be addressed in phase 3 of the programme (November 2011 March 2012).

However, there have already been some early successes:

- Help to resubmit a rejected funding application which produced a grant of £1,500

- Creating an Equal Opportunities policy which enabled 100% council tax relief

- Meetings to explore a special purpose vehicle for a private venue used by the community

- Help to establish a friends group of a local Tenant Management Organisation (TMO) to allow the group to deliver additional activities

- Twelve groups have been supported to submit expressions of interest to FST

- Terms Of Reference and a Safeguarding policy have been developed to accompany a consortium bid which is currently being processed.

The health checks are beginning to provide some indications as to the health of the “not for profit” sector in Great Bridge as a whole. The figures presented include two Community Interest Companies, a Provident Society with an income of £214,000 per annum and a Community Trust with an undisclosed income believed to be over £2 million. All four have excellent policy portfolios to reflect their needs, which should not be allowed to skew the overall picture for Great Bridge, where, generally, the sector is extremely disadvantaged by the lack of policies to support the effectiveness and efficiency required by potential funders and contractors Areas of Interest undertaken.

Youth: 22 of the 25 groups said their aim was to reduce anti-social behaviour in young people. 19 groups were providing off street activities and 14 considered their project to be developing existing provision.

Health and wellbeing: Less than 33% were addressing the needs of OAPs. 7 claim to be improving the health of people of all ages in the community.

Environment: Only one group claims to address environmental issues.

Governance: 18 claim to have a governing document of their own and six say they are governed by umbrella organisations. Despite claims to the contrary, in six of the 25 no evidence of governance could be produced and in a number of cases the quality of the documentation was poor or not accessible. Only five held an AGM and only 6 had trustees meetings more than four times a year. The majority rely upon local churches and community buildings, incurring costs ranging from £300 to £12,000 a year in rent. Most struggle to break even by raising rent from fees, which are often wavered because families can’t afford to pay.

Income: Sixteen groups describe their income as erratic, occasional or unreliable and less than a third provided figures. Most of the small groups said they generate around £200 to £300 each year from fees or fundraising. There is a local Tenants Management Organisation which receives £214,000:00 and a Children’s Centre governed by a regional Community Trust with an income exceeding £2 million.

Human Resources: At least 77 local people give their time voluntarily to provide services through 21 of the groups and training is provided for them in five. Three full-time and eight part time paid workers can be found within four of the wealthiest organisations, a local Tenant Management Organisation and a children’s centre which is part of the Murray Hall Community Trust, for example, where an understanding of employment policy and practice is evident. Financial Management Eighteen bank accounts requiring two signatures are in place and 11 produce financial reports for funders.

Legal and regulatory: Whilst 22 groups claim to reduce anti social behaviour and nineteen say they are doing this by engaging young people only 17 claimed to have a Safeguarding policy in place. Policy provision and the quality of it, is generally very sketchy and has yet to be verified over the next phase. So far twelve claim to have Health and Safety, 11 equal opportunities, 4 data protection and 7 confidentiality policies.

Performance improvement tools: Performance improvement tools are only found within four organisations one of which has recently been mentored through level one and another through level three of the Practical Quality Assurance System for Small Organisations, by SCVO.

Training: Training for staff, volunteers and trustees is extremely limited.

Relationships: 50% felt that they had a healthy relationship with other local groups. Less than half were aware of key groups in the ward like the Fair Share Panel, Great Bridge Community Forum, Haines Branch Walk Group and Friends of Sheepwash, for example, and around 25% expressed a desire to become involved.

Requirements: Funding was the highest priority on the menu of support needs with 22 of the 25 requesting help. Project planning came second, closely followed by contracting and procurement and strategic planning. Finding and supporting volunteers, training, marketing and employment advice were also identified.

Summary: In summary, the outcomes of these 25 health checks highlight the urgent need for capacity building support if groups in the ward are to access the funding and contracts required to sustain the local voluntary and community sector in the Ward. It also highlights that much still needs to be done to bring many of these groups up to acceptable standards. There is also an attitude amongst a number of groups who see no reason to change – we were here long before Fair Share Trust and will be here long after Fair Share Trust has left.

 

Back to top