The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Executive Summary

Rocket Science was commissioned by the Scottish Executive, on behalf of the Strategic Funding Review ( SFR) partners (the Scottish Executive, Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations ( SCVO) and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities ( CoSLA)), to undertake a review of the support services available to the voluntary sector.

This report provides:

• The context in which the review was commissioned and undertaken
• An overview of the Scottish voluntary sector
• The views of support recipients about the support services available
• Views from a range of support providers
• Conclusions in relation to the five core areas (organisational development, workforce development, technical support, income generation, lobbying and network support)
• Recommendations for the short and long term

Context

The review forms one element of the implementation of the SFR set up in 2003 to: "maximise the contribution of voluntary organisations to the common good of Scotland by identifying, and making a shared commitment to resolve the cultural and practical issues relating to the funding of voluntary organisations that currently constrain them". The SFR reported in 2005 and a range of objectives have been identified to support the growth and development of the voluntary sector. The key themes underlying these objectives include: sustainability; efficiency; demonstrating impact and effectiveness; partnership working between voluntary and public sectors; and improvements to funding arrangements.

The voluntary sector has become increasingly central to Scottish and UK policy and there is now a growing emphasis on its role in the delivery of public services. The SFR has taken place in the context of a range of policies affecting the voluntary sector including: the Charity and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005 that followed the recommendations of the McFadden Commission; the Scottish Executive's Vision for the Voluntary Sector; Change Up, the UK capacity building and infrastructure framework for the voluntary and community sector; the Scottish Volunteering Strategy; the Scottish Social Enterprise Strategy (currently out for consultation); and a range of policy agendas including best value, full cost recovery and equalities.

Findings

Views of support recipients

Rocket Science undertook focus groups, interviews and an electronic survey with a broad range of voluntary organisations across Scotland. The research produced in-depth information which is discussed in detail in the following sections of this report. Key issues included:

Support needs

• Participants strongly identified income generation as the first priority for support, followed by organisational development and then workforce development. In relation to income generation, support was needed to identify funding sources and complete funding applications. In addition voluntary organisations anticipated that in the future they would need support to develop an income generation or funding strategy.
• The need for support for boards and management committees was a recurring issue that emerged throughout the review. This was identified as a key future support need in relation to organisational development and workforce development. Participants also highlighted the need for help for trustees to understand their financial management responsibilities.
• There are various issues about the types of support voluntary organisations require as they adopt a more businesslike model, including who should provide this support.
• Organisations tended not to have accessed a great deal of support with lobbying and networking and the priorities here related to support to engage at a local level with strategic partners and planning structures.
• Support accessed largely focussed on 'fire fighting' as opposed to being informed by a systematic identification of support needs to support the development of organisations.

Source and quality of provision

• Voluntary organisations access support from a range of sources depending on the support required. Commonly used sources include: local authorities, voluntary sector intermediaries, Councils of Voluntary Service ( CVS), SCVO and private companies.
• Variability in the quality of support available was a key issue. There was a desire for greater quality control, including improved means for organisations to know that support will be of high quality before they commit time and money to it or make referrals.
• The majority of support is paid for by voluntary organisations, with less than a quarter provided free of charge (help with income generation and networking is most likely to be free compared to other areas). A large majority of respondents reported that the external support they had used had provided value for money.

Future support

Participants commented on what support services ought to look like in the future and the key messages were that it needs to:

• Be well connected and co-ordinated;
• Be well promoted, accessible and help with the identification of support needs;
• Be locally relevant;
• Provide the appropriate skills and expertise;
• Be affordable and properly funded.

Views of support providers

The review included interviews and focus groups with providers of support to the voluntary sector. This covered a range of agencies including: CVS, SCVO, sector intermediaries, non-voluntary sector providers ( e.g. Scottish Enterprise) and funding bodies.

• Voluntary sector providers generally reported that the support offered was developed according to needs expressed by recipients. This was achieved via ongoing contact with their stakeholders/members as well as through formal methods such as annual membership surveys. Non-voluntary sector providers provided a wide range of support and tended to describe this as being reactive (in response to expressed need) as opposed to being planned strategically.
• The impact of support tends to be evaluated through one type of survey or another (for example many intermediary bodies carry out an annual membership survey) although there was relatively little in-depth or systematic monitoring or assessment of impact. Organisations with membership fees have some degree of inbuilt monitoring as organisations will only continue to subscribe if they benefit from the services offered. Robust monitoring and evaluation of support provided was identified as an area where the capacity of support agencies themselves needs to be improved.
• Providers of support reported some co-ordination and a desire to avoid duplication. However there was a notable gap in links between support provided by traditional voluntary sector support providers and non-voluntary sector providers.
• Support providers (voluntary sector and non-voluntary sector) suggested that the support infrastructure is complex and that there needs to be greater clarity over respective roles and where these 'begin and end'.

Conclusions and recommendations

The detailed conclusions of this review and the resulting recommendations are discussed in sections 5 and 6 respectively. Key themes include:

• Capacity building for management committees and boards.
• Issues arising from the increasing trend for voluntary organisations to move towards a business model, coupled with the growth and development of the social enterprise sector.
• A clear need for access to support with legal issues, particularly human resources and employment legislation.
• The relationship between traditional voluntary sector approaches to income generation ( e.g. grants) and other approaches such as loans or trading activities.
• The need to make the support infrastructure (all providers) more coherent at local and national levels, including greater joint working and a more effective signposting.
• Building on the existing infrastructure and in particular developing the role of CVS.
• Measures to improve quality assurance and introduce greater accountability in support services.
• The need to address immediate issues including the lack of understanding of many voluntary organisations about public sector procurement and the imminent changes to the European Structural Funds ( ESF).

« Previous | Contents | Next »