External Evaluation of RCVYS - July 2014

External Evaluation of RCVYS

Final Report

July 2014

Richard Usher, Director

Just Ideas Sustainable Solutions Ltd.

RCVYS External Evaluation 2014 – Final Report Richard Usher, Just Ideas, July 2014 1

Contents 1. Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 2

2. Background and aims of the evaluation ..................................................................................... 3

2.1 Background to RCVYS ............................................................................................................... 4

2.2 Context for RCVYS’s work ......................................................................................................... 4

2.3 Aims of the evaluation ............................................................................................................. 5

3. Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 5

4. Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 6

4.1 Representation of the Children’s and Young People’s Voluntary Sector.................................... 6

4.2 Training and support ................................................................................................................ 8

4.3 Networking and information sharing ........................................................................................ 9

4.4 Challenges for RCVYS ............................................................................................................. 11

5. Recommendations and conclusions ......................................................................................... 12

Appendix 1 – List of Partner Interviewees and input for the evaluation ........................................... 17

Appendix 2 – Interview guide: partners and external stakeholders .................................................. 17

Appendix 3 – Survey questionnaire to RCVYS members ................................................................... 19


1. Executive Summary RCVYS commissioned Richard Usher of Just Ideas to undertake an external evaluation of the

organisation with the following aims:

To assess the extent to which RCVYS is achieving its aims.

To explore and provide examples of the way in which RCVYS does or could achieve

successful outcomes and communicate these outcomes.

To identify any challenges to the organisation and reflect on future development priorities

by providing recommendations to the RCVYS Executive.

The evaluation took place between April and June 2014 and draws on data and information provided

through a survey of RCVYS members undertaken by the RCVYS Executive, semi-structured interviews

with a range of statutory and voluntary sector partners, a focus group with members and a desk

review of reports from RCVYS.

RCVYS is working in a scarce funding environment both for infrastructure organisations that support

frontline charities and groups, and more broadly statutory funding for work with children and young

people. The report outlines how this is playing out in the Reading context where there is increased

pressure on services for young children and young people, particularly those at disadvantage and

from ethnic minority backgrounds, as the number of children and young people in the Reading area

grow.

Through the analysis of feedback from the evaluation it is clear that RCVYS is providing a high quality

and respected service in relation to its core areas of representing its members (voluntary and

community groups working with young people) with statutory partners, supporting these members

in a changing environment (both in relation to policy and future funding) and networking member

organisations to increase their awareness of each other’s work, potential for collaboration and

sharing information. Examples are given of how successful outcomes have been achieved within a

partnership context that makes it difficult to demonstrate the difference RCVYS’s work has made.

Feedback from the members’ survey is incorporated including its focus on RCVYS’s potential

registration as a charity and charging for membership fees.

Recommendations are made under the following headlines:

a. Ongoing sustainability: charity registration and membership fees: Following feedback from

members registering RCVYS as a charity is identified as a priority, while charging for membership is a

lower priority requiring reflection on its impact for RCVYS’s representative role.

b. Partnership prioritisation and assessing the difference partnerships are making:

This recommendation suggests that staff, representatives and the Executive feed in to a review of

the efficacy of each partnership or forum that RCVYS engages with to ensure that it makes the most

of its resources – supporting partnerships that are performing.

c. Building the representative role: a number of proposals are made to increase the

awareness of and promote the role of representatives within (and outside) RCVYS’s membership

including increasing information available on the RCVYS website; articulating the two-way process of

representation; using success stories from representatives and gaining feedback on the outcomes of

consultation/representative work.


d. Acting as a broker or consortium builder for funding: this recommendation builds on

RCVYS’s successful experience within partnership and consortium projects. There continues to be a

need for this role, with a potentially growing role within the commissioning/contracting agenda, but

RCVYS’s involvement must be fully costed.

e. Statutory partners’ priority themes from their areas of work: partners were asked to feed

back on their priority themes for RCVYS’s consideration. A diverse range of themes are forthcoming

requiring consideration and prioritisation by RCVYS members and Executive.

f. Communication and partnership working – RCVYS has developed a reputation for effective,

systematic and pertinent communication across its membership and with statutory and voluntary

sector partners. This recommendation looks at how communication and partnership working can be

developed further through focusing on member meetings; using RCVYS’s experience to articulate the

social value of members’ work; communicating success stories publicly through the local

press/media.

g. Ensuring that changes within statutory and health partners are reflected and supported

through RCVYS training and information sharing: Feedback from statutory partners suggests that

there is a continuing need to support organisations as commissioning and contracting become more

commonplace for the procurement of services to young people. A further distinct strand for RCVYS is

in keeping abreast of developing health structures with partner suggesting that it may be relevant

for RCVYS (through its membership) to ensure attendance at Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG)

public meetings as well as keeping up to date with local CCG plans and action. RCVYS is in a strong

position to inform and bring together organisations where there is opportunity to tender for services

sought by CCGs.

h. Supporting members – member services: As RCVYS considers the introduction of

membership charges it is pertinent for its Executive to consider how the benefits of membership

transpire as member services including further developing its training services; promoting members’

services; and increase its role in promoting and involving volunteers in the CYP sector.

Looking ahead RCVYS is well placed to respond to these recommendations which are made with an

understanding of a prevailing funding environment which makes it difficult to maintain and develop

a voluntary sector infrastructure support organisation. By taking a creative and constructive

approach including considering the income generation approaches above, building on the successful

range of relationships and partnerships that it is involved with, RCVYS can develop new means of

sustaining itself, growing and continuing to meet the needs of its members.

2. Background and aims of the evaluation This evaluation of Reading Children’s and Voluntary Youth Service (RCVYS) was commissioned by

RCVYS with funding from the Big Assist programme (NCVO). Work took place between April and June

2014. Alongside the work of the consultant (Richard Usher, Just Ideas) RCVYS Executive Committee

undertook a survey of members. The results of this survey are integrated within the analysis and

recommendations of this report.


2.1 Background to RCVYS

RCVYS was formed in January 2002 as an independent networking organisation to promote and

support the work of all voluntary, community and faith organisations that work with children and

young people across the wider Reading area. It currently employs a part time Development Worker

(30 hours per week) with an additional 4 hours per week administrative support purchased from The

Mustard Tree Foundation. RCVYS supports a range of voluntary sector representatives (14 over the

2013-14 period that serve on 11 partnership groups). It also provides training opportunities to staff

and volunteers working with children’s and young people’s organisations (in the last year with a

particular focus on safeguarding, the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) and youth work related

training). Its work is overseen by an Executive Committee with representation from local and county

wide children and young people’s organisations. Over the last seven years RCVYS membership has

grown from 35 to 125 organisations. RCVYS is a constituted community organisation but not a

registered charity or company.

Its aims (as stated on www.rcvys.org.uk) are:

To identify needs in the local community and facilitate improvements in service provision to

meet those needs.

To assist local voluntary and community organisations to function more effectively and

deliver quality services to the local community.

To facilitate effective communication and networking local community groups.

To enables the views of the local voluntary and community sector to be represented on

partnership groups, and promote effective working relationships and two-way

communication.

To enhance the voluntary and community sector’s role as an integral part of local planning

and policy-making.

2.2 Context for RCVYS’s work

The work of RCVYS and its members is set within a period of funding cuts at a national and local

level, as local authorities respond to budget reductions from Government, manifested in the Local

Government Finance Settlement announced in December 2013. This was clarified at the

presentation by Councillor Jan Gavin, Lead Member for Children’s Services, Reading Borough Council

at the RCVYS AGM June 2014. The presentation also provided broader context for the services that

RCVYS provides to voluntary and community groups working with children and young people:

£40 million cuts to Reading Borough Council budget over the next three years

40% of children in Reading live in low income families – 21% are ‘living in poverty’

Large increases in the number of children living in Reading – 31,330 young people aged 0 –

18 (20% of the population), fastest growth in 0 – 4 year olds

48% of young people of school age belong to an ethnic group other than White British – 30%

of young people of school age have English as an additional language

There is a higher than regional average number of young people who are NEET (not in

education, employment or training), particularly in ‘at risk’ groups.

This profile sets the context for Reading’s Children’s Trust draft priorities for 2014-17 (the RCVYS

Development Worker is Vice-Chair of the Children’s Trust Board):

http://www.rcvys.org.uk/


Keeping children safe by protecting all children and young people and in particular those in

care. This includes protection from domestic abuse, sexual exploitation, on-line abuse and

cultural abuse and protection from harm they may cause themselves.

Having the best start in life and throughout – empowering and informing them to make

positive life choices; building emotional wellbeing and improving health; ensuring positive

experiences in relation to council services.

Learning and employment – that all children and young people have a fair chance to achieve.

2.3 Aims of the evaluation

This evaluation aims:

To assess the extent to which RCVYS is achieving its aims.

To explore and provide examples of the way in which RCVYS does or could achieve

successful outcomes and communicate these outcomes.

To identify any challenges to the organisation and reflect on future development priorities

by providing recommendations to the RCVYS Executive.

3. Methodology The evaluation drew on a range of quantitative and qualitative approaches to ensure that input was

gained from the full range of stakeholders involved with the organisation, specifically: member

organisations; statutory partners (from Reading Borough Council, the health service and the

probation service); the Chair of RCVYS; the Development Worker). To this end the following methods

were used:

i. A survey undertaken by the RCVYS Executive using a questionnaire including the extent

to which members engage with RCVYS, their views on RCVYS’s priority areas of work, the

difference support has made and feedback on whether or not RCVYS should charge for

membership and become a charity. 39 responses were received from the organisation’s

overall membership of 125 organisations (a 31% response rate). The survey was sent to

all members with contact details held by RCVYS. RCVYS Executive Members were then

allocated a number of RCVYS Members each, which they endeavoured to contact. There

was considerable difficulty in reaching some members with Executive Members needing

to try multiple times to reach organisation contacts, indicative of the difficulty both in

maintaining up to date contact details where staff or volunteers change and the

challenge of working with groups that may be volunteer led or supported by staff

working limited part-time hours.

ii. Desk research – reviewing reports and documentation provided by the RCVYS

Development Worker.

iii. Semi-structured interviews (See Appendix 1) were undertaken by the consultant with

12 stakeholders including individuals that RCVYS works with or has supported through

its representative/training role including staff from Reading Borough Council; the

National Health Service; voluntary sector partners; and the Chair/staff of the

organisation. A full list of interviewees along with the interview guide is included as an

appendix to this report.


iv. A focus group with members of RCVYS testing some of the initial findings of the survey

and interviews as well as gaining more in depth in put into the strengths/qualities and

challenges for RCVYS from the member perspective. There were five participants

representing a cross-section of the types of organisations that RCVYS supports at the

focus group on 10th June.

v. Presentation of the initial findings of the evaluation process at the RCVYS AGM 2014 and

the final report and planning session with RCVYS Executive Committee.

Throughout the report the following acronyms are use:

CYP – Children and Young People

RCVYS – Reading Children’s and Voluntary Youth Services

CCG – Clinical Commissioning Group

VCS – Voluntary and community sector

4. Analysis

4.1 Representation of the Children’s and Young People’s Voluntary Sector

“Having worked in other areas where there are lots of organisations but no co-ordination,

those areas don’t work nearly so well.”

(Statutory partner)

The quotation above from a statutory perspective highlights that Reading is unusual in having the

degree of co-ordination and representative role supported by RCVYS – as a result of the funding of

its work by Reading Borough Council. Statutory partners indicated that the representative role that

RCVYS supports through the election of representatives to a range of partnerships is the highest

priority for them (including Reading Borough Council; NHS respondents and the Probation Service) ,

but interview respondents also described their awareness of the importance of RCVYS’s networking

and support roles in achieving this:

“They are effective. They helped people understand the importance of it [representation] and

see the need for succession with reps. Reps on the Early Intervention group always

contributed and fed back to RCVYS.” (Statutory partner)

“Most people in the Council would know who they are, how they represent the community

through different ways and forums. Also the people that work there are committed and have

been involved for a while. They do actively find partners.” (Statutory partner)

There was also awareness in the interview feedback from statutory partners, shared by RCVYS staff

and members, that RCVYS does not represent the whole CYP voluntary sector:

“They aren’t the entire voluntary sector in Reading – it is a wide and disparate group!”

“I worry that the membership is limited. It doesn’t encompass the whole of the VCS for

children but is a small part of it. RCVYS doesn’t make bold claims about this and the


representation of their members is very good, always very engaging and challenging when

they need to be.”

(Statutory partners)

In contrast RCVYS’s representative role this was the lowest priority for VCS members in the member

survey, 31% ranked it as top priority for RCVYS, presenting a challenge to RCVYS in raising awareness

in its members of the importance and difference the representative role makes (an issue picked up

in the recommendations section.

RCVYS engages with the eleven partnership groups listed below:

Reading Children’s Trust Board – 2 positions

Reading Children’s Trust Agenda Setting Group

Reading Children’s Trust Early Years Intervention Group

Reading Children’s Trust ‘Think Family’ Steering Group

Reading Children’s Trust Teenage Pregnancy Strategy Group

Emotional Wellbeing Group

Disability Strategy Group

Domestic Violence Strategy Group

NEET Task Group

Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB)

The Compact

Representation - what difference does RCVYS make?

Overall statutory stakeholders commented on the ‘critical friend’ role that RCVYS representatives

and the Development Worker play in their engagement with partnership groups (and statutory

colleagues more widely). They found it more difficult to give specific examples of particular changes

or outcomes as a result of RCVYS input but the following examples are indicative of RCVYS’s

achievements:

RCVYS has been able to draw together representatives from relevant organisations to

respond to statutory needs for example in representation for development of the Early Years

Single Funding Formula. Initially there was no VCS representation for this area of work -

RCVYS ensured effective representation through organisations/staff that “really had their

say, with such passion and meaning” (Statutory stakeholder). This input influenced funding

for 3-4 year old provision.

Providing input from members on a wide range of consultations from statutory partners:

since 2012: Reading Parenting Review; Early Help Strategy; Family Hubs; Special Educational

Needs and Disabilities; Sexual Health Services; Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services

Feeding in to development of Children and Young People’s Plan priorities through member

meetings

Use of sub-groups/forums in response to strategic need, e.g. Early Years Providers Forum

In relation to the Children and Young People’s Plan – “the VCS has had a high profile e.g.

event at the Town Hall in partnership with RBC around what different organisations can

offer.” (Statutory partner)


Principles of effective representation – as ascribed to RCVYS in interview feedback

A nuanced approach - RCVYS is able to challenge constructively and effectively from a

position of knowledge about the local VCS delivering services for children and young people

(services, organisations etc.):

“They try to hold the local authority to account, but do it in a constructive way. There is a

need to keep the role constructive as the role of the local authority is changing. It continues

to be important to keep abreast of commissioning and contracting of services, as well as the

localism agenda – people need support in how to use this power.” (Statutory partner)

Representing the role of the VCS in a way that other stakeholders may not know or

understand such as explaining the roles of the sector to health visitor/school nursing

services – this point was particularly relevant to the Development Worker as the main

contact for the organisation.

Its ability to draw organisations together – particularly in relation to consultation work and

in fostering a sense of togetherness in its identity: “It is the glue between a myriad of

voluntary organisations” (Statutory partner)

Experience and knowledge of representatives – “in my experience reps have been well

informed. RCVYS is confident to challenge.” (Statutory partner). This experience and

knowledge was also evident in feedback on RCVYS staff – “A lot of it comes down to

experience and personality – knowing the people to go to and people know to go to RCVYS.”

(Statutory partner)

Navigation to the relevant VCS organisation – RCVYS’s ability to guide statutory partners to

relevant organisations either as a reference point for consultation or direct provision of

services was highlighted as a strong component of its ability to represent the sector.

Presenting a collective voice – through its communication with the sector RCVYS repeatedly

states that RCVYS works as a collective rather than through the individual activities of the

Development Worker, Reps and the Executive, although its success is dependent on these

roles being fulfilled by staff/volunteers with the necessary organisational, communication

and partnership working skills.

4.2 Training and support

RCVYS’s training work was highly valued by VCS respondents to the member survey, 36% identified it

as a top priority for RCVYS as well giving positive feedback on the quality, relevance and

effectiveness of RCVYS support through its training, events and individual support. Over the last two

years its training has focused particularly on safeguarding; DBS; youth work training (NVQ):

“Events are relevant, which not many areas run, and good at addressing current issues.”

“Funding to complete PTLLS [introductory minimum threshold level requirement for anybody

wanting to work as a teacher or trainer in the lifelong sector] made a difference to me and

our organisation.”

Some statutory partners articulated the need for RCVYS to support members’ organisations more in

relation to their preparedness for working with contracts and ability to engage with commissioning

processes:


“Some organisations don’t understand the concept of being commissioned. Most

organisations work on a grant basis but when faced with contracts and commissioning have

found it difficult to know what to do. But there is now that expectation of target and

outcomes, some culture change is needed and I haven’t yet seen the evidence of RCVYS

making that difference.”

(Statutory partner)

“As a membership organisation their core role should be to develop their members’ capacity

and skills in order to meet the challenges of getting funding, and getting robust outcomes in

today’s world.”

(Statutory partner)

Training and support - what difference does RCVYS make?

RCVYS training has developed a reputation for high quality reflected in feedback from members’

survey and interviews – “they deliver impressively” (VCS partner). RCVYS’s training work is also

inextricably linked with its broader networking function as course participants commented on the

opportunity presented at events for “interfacing with other agencies” (Member survey feedback).

RCVYS has joined up with partners to deliver relevant training, with high demand/uptake

such as Youth Mental Health First Aid; and joint training work with Reading Voluntary Action

on Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) training

RCVYS has introduced before and after monitoring of the impact training has on individuals’

confidence and skills – although this will always be an immediate snap shot at the time of

the training course it does give a useful indication of the likely outcomes of training. A

further approach would be to contact participants (a role that could be undertaken by a

RCVYS office volunteer) 6 months – 1 year after training seeking feedback on any differences

that have resulted following training.

4.3 Networking and information sharing

“Its main strength is that it’s a network – RCVYS is passionate about what they do. That’s our

community – they are working at the coal face. It makes you feel that you’re part of the

same community. We need to involve the VCS to get better outcomes.”

(Statutory partner/Health)

Feedback from statutory partners suggested that RCVYS is highly valued and seen as an effective

‘tool’ for engagement with the voluntary sector, with its ability to reach a broad or more targeted

network of CYP voluntary and community sector groups. Specific quotations from the interviews

with statutory partners bring this to life:


“It [RCVYS] is about the power of engaging the wider network. Without it we would not be

able to connect to the Children’s and Young People’s sector so effectively. It is a living,

breathing network.” (Statutory partner)

“I see them as a point of reference, a really important partner. I would like to see more

partnership and collaboration between them and VCS providers – there is mutual interest.”

(Statutory partner)

“Networking is really powerful, being part of a whole – as a commissioner I see the greatest

impact in this activity.”

(Statutory partner/Health)

RCVYS’s networking and information sharing function was most highly ranked role by VCS

respondents to the member survey - it was top priority for 50% of respondents to the members’

survey:

“RCVYS has put us in touch with other organisations, so we are part of the wider network of

providers we can work with.”

“Very reliable, supportive and on the ball with what’s happening locally.”

(Member survey feedback)

RCVYS utilises an e-mail list, newsletter, its website and Twitter account to share information (131

pieces of news and information reported in the Annual Report 2013/14). The importance of face to

face meetings was also emphasised by members – for future contact, working together, promoting

services and representation. “Meetings of members are central to the representative role.” (Focus

group respondent)

Statutory partners valued the opportunity both to engage with a range of colleagues/organisations

from the sector on pertinent themes, and awareness of the need for face to face meeting and

engagement – feeding into the representative role.

Networking and information sharing - what difference does RCVYS work make?

This selection of examples from interview feedback gives an indication of how RCVYS is working and

its achievements in relation to its networking and information sharing role:

Promotion/take up of elevateme.org.uk – education, employment and training website for 16-24

year olds following on from its launch in April 2014. The statutory partner noted: “It will be a

slow burn but without the network we couldn’t get the word out, [we would be] struggling to

engage effectively.”

Involvement in past projects such as Your Options (highlighting local VCS health services) as a

result of networking.

An event with members and Reading Youth Cabinet on Child and Adolescent Mental Health

Services reporting back to service managers. Following on from this and as a result of demand

RCVYS hosted a training session on ‘Youth Mental Health First Aid.’


For VCS members, particularly those either new to Reading or to their roles, RCVYS is a useful

and respected repository of knowledge on who does what in the sector and its relationship with

statutory partners: “like the yellow pages of the voluntary sector over a cup of tea!” (VCS

member)

RCVYS communicates effectively via e-mail, newsletter, meetings, website (with Twitter feed) –

some reported information overload but ability to manage this if in e-mail format, also potential to

group/theme communications.

Feedback from the member focus group and interviews with stakeholders revealed that most felt

that personal contact was most effective, and that the Development Worker was systematic in

catching up with colleagues over the phone (i.e. not relying purely on e-mails which can be ignored

or missed). There also appeared to be an understanding from statutory partners that issues raised by

RCVYS (where views or policy were challenged) are not directed personally at staff, rather

representative or reflective of RCVYS members.

Communication – internal and external

One respondent identified the significant issue about being clear in communication who the

intended audience is and what the purpose of the communication is – this relates in some respects

to theming e-mail information more clearly but is also wider than this in thinking how RCVYS can

communicate the work of CYP voluntary and community groups ‘outwards’:

“You have to think of the purpose and audience [of communication work]. There is a fantastic

amount of work being done by the CYP sector, only a fraction of which will see the light of day in the

wider context.

4.4 Challenges for RCVYS

Capacity – within the organisation and in relation to representative roles

Feedback on RCVYS from the range of stakeholders engaged in the evaluation reveals an awareness

of the capacity of the organisation (both in terms of staff and representative/committee role) set

against the broad range of aims the organisation has and demands from partners particularly for

representation on partnerships. It was commonly viewed that RCVYS ‘punches above its weight’ but

this capacity is very dependent on the existing staff (one Development and Admin support) and the

Executive and Rep team. There is a danger of being over-stretched which may impact on the quality

of RCVYS’s work – or its efforts being too thinly spread.

A further issue identified by members is the limitation on the capacity (both time and necessary

skills/experience) of staff and volunteers from VCS organisations to engage with representative work

or networking meetings outside their ‘core’ roles – where RCVYS responsibilities sit alongside the

organisational priorities of members, this overlap is neatest.

There appears to be increasing demands placed on the organisation within its current resourcing

(staff/funding) and longer term funding sustainability – an expectation of involvement in Reading

Borough Council’s partnership approaches such as the ‘Turnaround Families Programme’.


Funding – charity registration and charging for membership

RCVYS is reliant on annual grant funding from Reading Borough Council (which has remained

unchanged at £28,080 to fund the Development Worker role). This in itself is not replicated outside

the Borough (in surrounding unitary authorities) and is therefore crucial to the organisation, but

presents RCVYS with the challenge of looking beyond this to extend its capacity and sustainability.

The survey sought members’ views both on registering as a charity, with the potential benefit this

would present of access to a wider range of funding, and charging for membership.

Over the last seven years RCVYS membership has grown from 35 to 125 members, members

responding to the survey some partners identified the challenge in increasing its representativeness

through reaching out to more organisations and groups. This presents a further challenge of

ensuring mechanisms are in place to feed in to RCVYS representative/influencing work.

Representation

Through the focus group some members identified the need to be clearer about representative roles

- who are involved, the role of representatives and how to foster the two way flow of information

for effective representation. RCVYS may also be limited in its reach and ability to engage with new

organisations because of the difficulty of providing evidence of the outcomes of successful

influencing - as described above - stakeholders described benefit to the process of partnership

meetings but tangible changes were more difficult to identify. That said RCVYS uses the direct

quotations and examples of the difference its work makes effectively in the succinct Annual Reports,

reviewed during this process.

Future development

The evaluation provides evidence of the enduring need for RCVYS’s work and support to the CYP

sector. This is thrown in to stark relief in a local context where other voluntary sector forums (such

as those involved in the Big Lottery BASIS ‘Stronger Together’ programme are either weakened, no

longer active or have ceased. In contrast RCVYS has maintained and developed its purpose, role and

membership. It is clear from the range of feedback gleaned during this evaluation that RCVYS means

‘different things to different people’. This is a challenge as a well as a strength. The challenge is

meeting the needs of the local VCS who prioritise networking/support in relation to its

representative role, prioritised by statutory partners.

5. Recommendations and conclusions This section draws together findings from the member survey and the analysis above in to a series of

recommendations and proposals for the RCVYS Executive to consider.

The Effectiveness and Outcomes of RCVYS’s work

As a small voluntary organisation and network with a single Development Worker and

Administrative support the evaluation concludes that RCVYS punches well above its weight in

relation to its ability to represent the sector (through the role of reps on various partnership groups)

and particularly for its role in networking, information sharing and supporting a diverse range or

organisations from volunteer based toddler groups through to engaging with the local branch of


national charities. There was a high degree of satisfaction and confirmation of the quality of RCVYS’s

service from both partners and members (both those describing themselves as active or passive).

There remains a difficulty for RCVYS in demonstrating the difference that its input makes and this is

being addressed by the organisation (such as through before and after assessment of participants

attending training courses) but is particularly challenging for its representative role, which is tackled

in the recommendations below.

Understandably RCVYS’s success in bringing together the CYP voluntary and statutory sector has

created a ‘capacity stretch’ for the organisation. This is addressed by prioritising different areas of

work at different times – mostly being responsive to the needs of partners but also taking a

proactive role to take up the views of the sector. To some extent the aim that RCVYS is least well

able to address is ‘identifying needs in the local community and facilitating improvements in service

provision’ – though it has consistently brought groups and organisations together where

consultation is required to shape services (such as the recent mini-group for Parent and Toddler

Groups) the organisation does not have the capacity to do the proactive community development

work that would be required to undertake this aim fully. The Executive’s role in supporting, directing

and focusing the work of RCVYS through its staff will continue to be crucial to the success of the

organisation.

The following recommendations have been developed either in response to feedback from the

member survey or interview respondents as described in the above section.

a. Ongoing sustainability: charity registration and membership fees

o Registration as a charity: The survey to members asked for their views on RCVYS

registering as a charity. 70% of members responding to the survey were in favour of this

with other respondents indicating ‘don’t know’. While there was some comment about

the potential time involvement in undertaking the process this would be outweighed by

the benefit to RCVYS of it being able to access additional specific project funding e.g. for

training. An additional consideration for the RCVYS Executive is the potential change in

their role and responsibilities as trustees of the charity in relation to the Charity

Commission if the decision is taken for RCVYS to register as a charity, and whether this

would affect the involvement of the existing Executive members and likelihood of

recruiting new Executive members.

o Charging for membership: While there was a willingness among most members (69%) to

pay membership fee, most (58%) of those indicated a preferred fee of £40 or less.

Charging for membership needs to be weighed up carefully versus cost and time of

administration membership and should not be an excluding factor for the valued voices

of small, volunteer-led groups.

“Fees being proposed are not that much. But RCVYS need to be clear what the benefits of

paid membership are.” (VCS member)

Other considerations that make introducing paid membership a lower priority than

registering RCVYS as a charity are the need to improve contact information on existing

organisations in membership (as experienced by the Executive in the process of

following up member surveys by phone) and due consideration of the inferences of paid


membership where a key concern of RCVYS is the widest representative role of the CYP

voluntary and community sector, regardless of ability to pay for membership.

b. Partnership prioritisation and assessing the difference partnerships are making:

RCVYS’s limited resources (in relation to time and capacity of staff, representatives, and the

Executive) demand that it uses them to the best of its ability and in working with

partnerships or individuals/organisations that are able to make a difference. The evaluation

concludes that it would be productive for the RCVYS Executive and Development Worker to

systematically review its involvement with the partnerships it engages with to ensure that

‘RCVYS time is well spent.’ An approach to this would be to map out the partnerships that

RCVYS engages with, with input from reps and the Exec, and assess them on the basis of how

effective they are (this could on a range of criteria from whether they are actively meeting

through to whether the aims/tasks of the partnership are clear and/or being achieved). A

further development of this would be to assess whether partnerships are ‘strategic’ or

‘operational’ with Executive members represented on the strategic partnerships while other

representative may be better placed to engage with more operational partnerships. With

this assessment in place (and repeated annually or biannually) RCVYS would be in the best

position to allot its representative and staff capacity to partnership groups. A further means

of measuring the effectiveness of partnerships is through RCVYS introducing SMART

objectives (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time bound) to each partnership

that it engages with, which would enable it to measure whether its input has made a

difference and what the outcomes of the partnership have been over a set period.

c. Building the representative role:

RCVYS is in a position both to articulate the importance and outcomes of its influencing and

representative role and make some improvements to the mechanisms in place to do this.

Specific proposals coming out of the feedback from members were:

o Increasing information on the RCVYS website about the Executive and the roles of

representatives ideally with an image and brief information about the people involved

o Explaining (either through the website or newsletter) the two- way process of

representation i.e. the way in which members can feed in and hear back from

representatives on the outcomes of their engagement with partnership groups.

o Continue to articulate the importance of representative involvement to the sector –

perhaps through a case study from an existing representative

o Gain feedback from statutory partners on how the input of representatives or

consultations have been taken up and acted on.

d. Acting as a broker or consortium builder for funding:

RCVYS has had experience of consortium working as part of the Stronger Together

partnership and has helped bring together partners for projects recently, such as the Big

Lottery Fulfilling Lives bid. This is an ongoing priority and strength of RCVYS on the basis of

the feedback in the evaluation which described its strength in bringing relevant partner

organisations together. Again it is an area of work that may require intensive input for a

period but could result in increased capacity if funding is successful and with due

consideration of full cost recovery for RCVYS input as a co-ordinating or lead organisation.


o Further to this there is a potential a co-ordinating (lead) role bringing organisations

together for the commissioning of services.

e. Statutory partners’ priority themes from their areas of work:

Statutory partners identified a huge range of potential themes for future focus by RCVYS,

presenting a challenge for RCVYS in prioritising and deciding how to take these forward.

Themes suggested were: offender families; breast feeding friendly agenda; obesity;

safeguarding (robust recruitment); cultural life and diversity; mental health. Member

meetings provide a useful forum at which RCVYS stakeholders can prioritise these themes –

with reference to whether or not they have cross-sector relevance or could become the

focus of a smaller group of members, and to what extent they are issues that RCVYS

members’ work impacts on.

f. Communication and partnership working – across the RCVYS network and publicly

The evaluation makes the following recommendations on the basis of feedback about

RCVYS’s communication and partnership working:

o There is a continuing need for and focus on partnership working and community/VCS

representation within the local framework for Children and Young People. Reading is not

a large geographical area and the knowledge of each other’s work, by CYP

organisations, the local authority and other statutory partners, present a favourable

environment for partnership working. Within Reading members of RCVYS are also likely

to be members of Reading Voluntary Action as well as engaging with Reading Borough

Council independently – there is a need to think through the potential for closer joint

working where this could reach more of the voluntary sector as well as promote the

aims of RCVYS to a wider constituency of voluntary sector organisations.

o On the basis of sufficient funding the evaluation found that face to face meeting was

most effective for RCVYS to achieve it networking and representative roles. This would

be facilitated by more regular members’ meetings, perhaps hosted by different

members – therefore also meeting the needs of raising the profile and awareness of

RCVYS members to each other.

o RCVYS is well placed to articulate the value of local knowledge/expertise to statutory

partners in future commissioning processes – i.e. its social value. This can be achieved by

continuing to be well embedded within the sector but also gaining a fuller understanding

of the local, social difference that CYP organisations make. This might be through

surveying them (using an online survey) or through encouraging members to send on

examples of their work in action, and the outcomes they have had. It would be

facilitated by organisations that are using their websites effectively to tell the stories of

effective outcomes – web links to these could be shared most easily.

o A more difficult area for RCVYS to extend is its work in publicising the success stories of

the CYP sector to the local press, an area mentioned in feedback for this report. The

Reading area is well served through a local press that has genuine interest in the work of

the sector, this could be an area for members to discuss at a network meeting (it could

equally be decided that it is the responsibility of individual organisations to publicise the

success stories of their work).


g. Ensuring that changes within statutory and health partners are reflected and supported

through RCVYS training and information sharing:

o Feedback from statutory partners suggested that there is a continuing need to support

organisations as commissioning and contracting become more commonplace for the

procurement of services to young people.

o A further distinct strand for RCVYS is in keeping abreast of developing health structures

with partner suggesting that it may be relevant for RCVYS (through its membership) to

ensure attendance at Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) public meetings as well as

keeping up to date with local CCG plans and action. RCVYS is in a strong position to

inform and bring together organisations where there is opportunity to tender for

services sought by CCGs.

h. Supporting members – member services:

As RCVYS considers the introduction of membership charges it is pertinent for its Executive

to consider how the benefits of membership transpire as member services. The following

recommendations cover priorities arising out of the evaluation process:

o Further develop training: RCVYS has a strong track record of training tailored to its

members which could be made available as membership benefit. Consideration could be

given to how this area of work develops either through developing a Training Co-

ordinator role and applying for funding (following charity registration) for this role or to

generate income through ‘paid for’ training services to the CYP sector.

o Promote members’ services – across its membership and with statutory partners. There

was some feedback that association with RCVYS is an endorsement for organisations,

particularly smaller organisations or those seeking funding (suggesting integration and

awareness of how CYP voluntary sector services fits together and the potential ability to

work in partnership or take on a representative role.

o There is potential to increase RCVYS’s role in promoting and involving volunteers in the

CYP sector, particularly through work with RVA’s volunteering service. Specifically it

could have a role connecting volunteers up with young peoples’ organisations (either

directly or through RVA), increasing young people volunteering by promoting

volunteering with its members and recruiting further volunteers to support its work

(although this also requires sufficient capacity to support and manage volunteers taken

on). RCVYS is already in a position to talk about the importance of volunteering for and

with CYP organisations.

Looking ahead RCVYS is well placed to respond to these recommendations which are made with an

understanding of a prevailing funding environment which makes it difficult to maintain and develop

a voluntary sector infrastructure support organisation. By taking a creative and constructive

approach including considering the income generation approaches above, building on the successful

range of relationships and partnerships that it is involved with, RCVYS can develop new means of

sustaining itself, growing and continuing to meet the needs of its members.


Appendix 1 – List of Partner Interviewees and input for the evaluation

Esther Blake - Children’s Trust and Local Safeguarding Children Board, Business Manager, Reading

Borough Council

Alan Magness – Local Strategic Partnership Co-ordinator, Reading Borough Council

Louise Palmer - Commissioning Manager, Education, Adults and Children’s Services, Reading

Borough Council

Sally Murray - Head of Children’s Commissioning Support, Berkshire - NHS Central Southern

Commissioning Support Unit

Penny Cooper - Head of Children's Universal Services, Berkshire West NHS

Teresa Shortland - Head of Early Years, Reading Borough Council

David Seward - Chair of RCVYS, Chief Executive of Berkshire Youth

Sarah Holland - Senior Probation Officer, Thames Valley Probation

Richard Corbett – Director, RVA (at the time of interview, Richard has subsequently left this role)

Rachel Spencer – Advice Worker, Reading Voluntary Action (Rachel has now taken up the role of

Director of RVA)

Ben Cross – Development Worker, RCVYS

Input from Jan Gavin, Reading Borough Councillor (Lead Member for Children’s Services) at RCVYS,

AGM June 2014

Appendix 2 – Interview guide: partners and external stakeholders

External Evaluation of RCVYS

Interview Guide for partner organisations/stakeholders –

Name of interviewee:

Role:

Date:

1. Please tell me how your work or role engages with RCVYS (how long have you worked with

RCVYS/has your role involved engagement with RCVYS)

2. What do you see as RCVYS’s core role? Is this role clear within the context of Reading’s

voluntary/community sector organisations?

3. How effectively do you feel RCVYS is able to represent the views of VCS organisations

working with children and young people (its ‘voice’ function)?

a. To what extent is RCVYS connected and influencing relevant partnerships and

stakeholders?


b. How does it achieve this/what are the limitations?

c. Please give any specific examples.

4. How effectively do you feel RCVYS is able to support VCS organisations working with children

and young people? Is this role clear?

a. How does it achieve this/what are the limitations?

b. Please give any specific examples

5. How effectively do you feel RCVYS communicates with you as a partner (and more broadly

with the sector, if known) – sliding scale from 1 for highly effective to 5 for very poor.

a. How could RCVYS communicate more effectively

6. What part of RCVYS’s role do you think is most valuable (1 most valuable – 5 least valuable)

to you/your org:

a. Information sharing through the network and support from development worker

b. Training

c. Representing the collective views of member organisations

d. Any other are – please specify

7. What strengths do think RCVYS has – in relation to its services; network; structure/staffing?

8. Are there any weaker areas that you think RCVYS could develop in future (keeping in mind

local priorities/strategy; national policy as well as realistic expectations of funding)?

9. Does the work of RCVYS reflect the priorities that you see in the current children’s and

young people’s context (strategy; policy; local plans/partnerships etc.)? Please give

examples.

10. Are there any topics that you feel RCVYS should highlight or support either through its

networking or training? Please specify.

11. The evaluation gives an opportunity to draw out some specific examples of how RCVYS

makes/has made a difference – if you have an example please tell me about it (if it is used as

a case study I will check with you before publishing)


a. Any examples of ‘without RCVYS x would not have happened’

12. Are there any other questions or thoughts you have about this work or the role of RCVYS?

Appendix 3 – Survey questionnaire to RCVYS members

Mission statement

Reading Children’s and Voluntary Youth Service (RCVYS) is an independent and trusted

network of voluntary, community and faith organisations. We are a representative body

providing guidance, support and training opportunities. We have provided a voice for

organisations supporting children young people and families for more than a decade.

Why are we doing this? RYVYS has 126 member organisations. How useful do they find

being a member, what services do they use, would they like us to do other things or do

things differently? Have we still got the capacity to manage this number and continue to

expand?

Organisation name……………………………………………………………………………………………

Name/position of responder…………………………………………………………………………..

1 Are you an active or passive member of RCVYS? Active Passive

(i.e. taking an active part as described below.)

For example

Have you included your views in RCVYS submissions to the Borough Council (RBC)

on Early years, Children’s Centre’s or Youth Policy? Yes no dk*

Has your organisation been represented at a member’s meeting?

e.g. Health service reorganisation? Yes no dk

Do your members use our training courses/

e.g. first aid, safeguarding and youth leadership Yes no dk

Do you read and find helpful the newsletters emailed to you?


Yes no dk

2 If you or a representative of your organisation has not attended any meetings is that

because:

Your organisation is too small to spare staff time. Yes no dk

The meetings did not seem relevant to your organisation’s

concerns/needs. Yes no dk

The meeting time was inconvenient. Yes no dk

3 Are there topics or concerns that you would like us to highlight at a member’s meeting

or training session not covered before?

Yes no dk

If “yes” what would this be?

…………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………………………………………

*Don’t know

4 Do you feel that RCVYs offers a quality service? Yes no dk

If yes, in what way is our service “quality”?

…………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………………………………………

5 How has RCVYS helped you improve your service to children, young people and families

in Reading?

…………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………………………………………

6 What part of RCVYS’ role do you think is most valuable?

(Please rank the roles below 1,2 or 3 where 1 is most useful.)

a) Information sharing through the network and support from the development worker post.

b) Training c) Representing the collective views of member voluntary organisations to local

authority strategy discussions.


7 The executive is supported by one staff member and a few hours of administrative help.

This is financed by a grant from RBC which has to be applied for annually and has been

fixed for a few years. Some training activities are funded through other sources but they

are small scale and specific.

Therefore should RCVYS become a registered charity? Yes no dk

(Charitable status might help us raise funds from other sources.)

8 Member organisations do not pay a membership fee at present.

With a small fee we could plan ahead and develop more confidently.

Would this be acceptable in principal? Yes no dk

How much would your organisation be willing to pay?

£20-25 ; £26-40 ; £41-60; £61-80 ; £81-100 ; a larger sum ?

Please tick the range which would be appropriate for you.

Would a fee cause you to leave RCVYS? Yes no dk

Thank you for completing this survey. Are there any other issues that you would like to

raise?

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

RCVYS Exec. April 2014

Documents

External Evaluation of RCVYS - July 2014