working as one for the 21st century - amazon s3
TRANSCRIPT
Working as one for the 21st CenturyCentury ….And to start our next
100 years
OFFICIAL
Reminder of why we are undertaking the review
• For 40+ years we have had broadly the same structure within CSSC for Regions and Areas
• Times have changed.... Has Region and Area funding and governance approach changed to match the change members have seen?
• Regions and Areas have: • signed up to a partnership framework
• self assessed themselves using Quality Street
• agreed to be guided by three finance papers signed off by the Board
• Do we need to go further to ensure the current model is still the right one for the organisation and more importantly, the members?
OFFICIAL
Consultation process
• Working party formed of experienced Area and Regional volunteers to produce the Area survey to discover current governance and funding arrangements and views on changes.
• Area Officers invited to send one rep to a pre survey discussion hosted by David Wells to discuss the reasons for the review and the survey questions. Good level of engagement from Areas.
• Survey issued to all Area Officers asking them to consult with their committee and submit one response from the Area.
• Survey response received from 52 Areas out of 72.
• Survey responses analysed, highlights and observations noted and questions for Area focus groups to discuss teased from them (see appendix 1).
• Four focus group sessions held, ranging from 90 minutes to 170 minutes long. 45 Area reps joined the focus group sessions
• The sessions discussed what views Areas had in common and where there were differences.
OFFICIAL
Outcomes Minimum size Area
• This question received almost universal support – not to introduce a minimum size Area. The survey revealed that many small Areas were geographically at the extremity of the UK and as such it would be difficult for them to merge with another Area. The decision on if and when to merge Areas should be left to the Area themselves in discussions with the VTL. One Area did suggest Areas should be of a common size.
Consultation, not dictation
• A common view was that Areas wanted to be consulted on change and not have change thrust upon them. They felt they knew what their Area members wanted and what works for them.
Guidance v’s Policies
• On a similar theme, Areas preferred guidance to be issued nationally than policies, as they felt policies were too rigid and did not allow for local variations necessary to tackle such issues as a large geographically spread Area, or the location of the Area (e.g. coastal location, major attraction within the Area). Guidance also allowed Areas some flexibility – e.g. if offering an event with a higher subsidy than the guidelines as an enticement for members to join. There was also a concern regarding how policies would be policed. However, policies which ensured Areas did not break the law, or give CSSC a poor reputation were acceptable.
OFFICIAL
Events and the ‘Open all Area’ policy
• Most Areas operated the ‘Open all Areas’ policy. The reason why some Areas did not is that they viewed the grant money they received as money for their members only and others had concerns that if members from outside their Area are allowed on events, their members may miss out. Some Areas operated the policy, but only after their members had an exclusive window to book. The counter view to this from Areas that do operate the ‘Open all Area’ policy is that in their experience there has been very few non Area members who have attended their events and in addition they viewed all members as equal, so it did not matter where the member was from. Some Areas also contributed to the Region and if an event was thought to have a Regional appeal, the subsidy would come from Regional funds.
Cashbacks
• One Area advised they could not hold events due to the large geographical spread of their Area, so offered cash backs instead. Some Areas had concerns that a member could claim the same cash back from two different Areas (where they live and where they work). One Area only offered cashbacks on events within their Area. Most Areas (all?) only offered cashbacks to members within their Area, but could see the possibility that popular cash backs (e.g. National Trust, Theatre offers) could be provided at a Regional level
Prize Draws
• Most Areas hold prize draws and were concerned that logistics meant they could not open them up to non Area members. However, if it were logistically possible, some Areas indicated they would be open to the possibility of ‘Open all Area’ for prize draws and that some could be operated at Regional level.
OFFICIAL
Blue Print for the future
• Comments were generally positive. Some concerns that volunteers may not be found for Regional offers and demand on Treasurer time, but if can overcome, the model could work. The feedback route was particularly welcomed and Areas could see how it could improve engagement levels, ensuring changes were agreed, not imposed.
• Key points if the model is to work: • Areas must decide what offers will be Regional ones and agree a budget for the
Region.
• Regional Officers must have the majority of the Area’s backing
• Checks must be made on Regional cash backs to ensure a member only claims once.
OFFICIAL
Appendix 1 Highlights from the AA survey • Q3 Area Governance
• 95% have Chair
• 87% have Sec
• 98% have treasurer
• 90% have committee
• 35.00% - Record of decisions made document
• 46.67% - Policy Document
• Q5. Following the financial guidelines • 83% fully
• 17% partial
• 97% Attend Conference
• 63% Contribute financially to the Region – in many different ways!
OFFICIAL
Highlights from the AA survey cont.
• Q9. The majority of Areas are in favour of the per capita funding model continuing
• Q13. Current Governance • 89% About right • 6% Too light • 6% Too heavy
• Q.14 Where should Governance sit to ensure AA’s spend funds that aids Recruitment and Retention • 30% National • 19% Regional • 34% Area – self governing • 17% Other
OFFICIAL
Highlights from the AA survey cont.
• Q15. If Governance was to change • 42% central guidance • 8% central policies no Regional oversight • 32% central policies with Regional oversight • 8% Regional policies • 10% More autonomy
• Q16. If it came to a choice, would members want more national offers over local ones? • 38% Yes • 21% No • 40% Not sure
OFFICIAL
Highlights from the AA survey cont.
• Q17 – Should there be a minimum size of AA? • 10% Yes
• 18% No
• 72% Not sure – [NB – Questionnaire defaulted to Not sure in order to add comments]
• Comments suggest no appetite for minimum size Area
• Q18 – Should all AA’s operate ‘Open all Areas’ policy • 81% Yes
• 19% No
Highlights from the AA survey cont.
• Q6, 10, 11, 12 – What offer does AA give and what should be provided by AA, Region, National? • Above 40% at Area level – Events and trips / cash back / prize draws / Local
discounts / Corporate discounts / Joint events / Sporting events / Sections
• Above 40% at Regional level – Events and trips / local discounts / Corporate discounts / Joint events / Sporting events
• Above 40% at National level – Events and trips / Corporate discounts / Sporting events
OFFICIAL
Observations
• All Areas are following the financial guidelines (fully or partially)
• 91% operating Open all Areas / 81% think we should • Areas not in favour of Open all Areas policy are concerned ‘their’ members
may miss out and they will not have the funds to support it
• Some comments suggest they see non Area members as the enemy?
• Good Regional engagement
• 89% of Areas think the current governance is about right
OFFICIAL
Observations cont.
• Mix of views on where governance should sit to ensure AA’s spending funds that aids Recruitment and Retention. • Prefer guidelines to policy • Prefer Regional oversight
• Mixed views regarding choice of whether members want more national offers over local ones
• No appetite for minimum size Area • Some similarities and some clear distinction between what Area, Region
and National offering is and should be • Some concern regarding availability and quality of volunteers • Some comments regarding geography of Areas and Regions • Some comments abut key role of VTL
OFFICIAL
Observations cont.
• Comments regarding Areas reflect variety of views across Areas • From the independent Area view:
• Areas should do whatever their members want without any hard and fast rules • Area's are autonomous, they should not be compelled to provide any particular benefit to members • Areas would want to offer specific events just to their own members , especially if tickets numbers are limited • CSSC HO is there to support the volunteers and members not dictate to them • One size doesn't fit all and you can't tar everyone with the same brush. As soon as you take away the local
identity and ownership you are guaranteed to lose members and especially volunteers.
• To the broader views: • Everything that an area offers should be available at a regional level • We are one CSSC and all our offers are available to anyone as they are on the website/NuTickets • Everything should be on the website so are automatically available to all • In this day and age Areas should be encouraged to move away from being insular in their outlook. • Members nationally could be missing out on reduced entrance fees to attractions because Areas do not
promote this outside their Area.
OFFICIAL
Observations cont.
• Comments on per capita funding: • fairest way to allocate funds and promotes 'member get member’ • To split the entire membership monies equally between all the various areas/regions would greatly disadvantage larger areas
and thus decrease their ability to offer trips and events and give an unfair advantage to smaller areas who do not have the membership to benefit. The bigger the area, the more grant it needs to be able to offer a wide range of events etc for its' members
• areas with large memberships end up with proportionally too much money – one event (eg subsidised trip) can take a v large proportion of a small areas grant limiting the number of events they can run.
• A model is needed which would allow members’ grants to be allocated to the AA of their choice • Our AA has a large Civil Service commuter population, the latest funding model supports our ability to provide benefits to
everyone who lives or works in the area. • We have some Areas that are very active and spend all of their grants and some that ‘waste’ money at the back end of the
year on prize draws to spend their budget. • If you are an active area more money should be given to these areas • Per capita could be used to encourage growth if get more money each year membership increased, but is no good if budget
is cut each year. Down side to per capita is that poor Areas get money even if they cannot spend it • Does not take into account the geographic challenges of an Area. • An alternative model for funding could be that Areas and Regions agree a Budget each year to cater for locally organised
events.
OFFICIAL
Observations cont.
• General comments • Regions have no constitutional control of areas so not sure why there is a question about
regions oversight. • Consistency should be applied in all respects across the CSSC so that members and
volunteers have the same benefits/rewards no matter where they are located. • If you are a member who lives in one area but works in another you get benefits from 2,
while if you live and work in same area then you only get the benefits from 1 area. All members should have access to similar levels of benefit ie National offers and local benefits from 1 area
• The current system does not ensure equality for all; some members have better or more offers due to size of their area membership.
• Consistent policies and guides so that all Areas/Regions work to similar standards and consistent funding model so all areas can offer a similar level of service/access to events for members wherever they are based but would like consultation on this.
• Think we should reward Areas that do well. Something along the lines of quality street. A governance check list tick box. Think that all Areas should spend Area grant and not carry money over.
OFFICIAL
Questions
Q1. As There appears to be no appetite for a minimum size Area, are attendees in favour of leaving potential mergers to Areas and VTL’s to decide as and when appropriate?
Q2. As 46% of Areas have policies, why is only guidance preferred from National CSSC?
Q3. If Areas felt they had more buy in to policies, would this view change?
Q4. As 83% of Areas are following the financial guidelines in full and 91% operating the Open all Areas policy, should these be mandatory?
OFFICIAL
Questions cont.
Q5. 89% of Areas think the current governance is about right. If the current governance stays the same, how do we ensure:
• All members have access to benefits which the majority of Areas provide (e.g. cash backs / prize draws)
• All Areas are following national guidelines
• Areas are sharing best practice to recruit and retain members
OFFICIAL
Questions cont.
Q6. If Governance was to change the preference would be for central guidelines with Regional oversight.
• The potential ‘Blueprint for the future’ in the attached word doc. is a model the Working Party have produced which gives Areas the remit to self govern themselves within a framework and be accountable to their peers (other Areas) in their Region. It also provides a clear feedback route from Area to Board level and back.
• Further, an empowered, self governing Region could also support Areas through the planned changes to the Civil Service Estate. With more Regional centres planned and less of a presence in smaller towns, democratic representation across areas within the Region will offer a flexible structure moving forward as there will be a significant increase in members who work in one Area but live in another.
• Could you support a gradual move to this collective ownership within a Region?
OFFICIAL
w/c 3 and 10 August – Focus group comments analysed
w/c 17 August – WP draft options paper for Board
w/c 24 August – Final draft of options paper presented to Board
10/09/20 – Board agree way forward
October – Areas and Regions informed of Board decisions
OFFICIAL
Reminder of why we are undertaking the review
• For 40+ years we have had broadly the same structure within CSSC for Regions and Areas
• Times have changed.... Has Region and Area funding and governance approach changed to match the change members have seen?
• Regions and Areas have: • signed up to a partnership framework
• self assessed themselves using Quality Street
• agreed to be guided by three finance papers signed off by the Board
• Do we need to go further to ensure the current model is still the right one for the organisation and more importantly, the members?
OFFICIAL
Consultation process
• Working party formed of experienced Area and Regional volunteers to produce the Area survey to discover current governance and funding arrangements and views on changes.
• Area Officers invited to send one rep to a pre survey discussion hosted by David Wells to discuss the reasons for the review and the survey questions. Good level of engagement from Areas.
• Survey issued to all Area Officers asking them to consult with their committee and submit one response from the Area.
• Survey response received from 52 Areas out of 72.
• Survey responses analysed, highlights and observations noted and questions for Area focus groups to discuss teased from them (see appendix 1).
• Four focus group sessions held, ranging from 90 minutes to 170 minutes long. 45 Area reps joined the focus group sessions
• The sessions discussed what views Areas had in common and where there were differences.
OFFICIAL
Outcomes Minimum size Area
• This question received almost universal support – not to introduce a minimum size Area. The survey revealed that many small Areas were geographically at the extremity of the UK and as such it would be difficult for them to merge with another Area. The decision on if and when to merge Areas should be left to the Area themselves in discussions with the VTL. One Area did suggest Areas should be of a common size.
Consultation, not dictation
• A common view was that Areas wanted to be consulted on change and not have change thrust upon them. They felt they knew what their Area members wanted and what works for them.
Guidance v’s Policies
• On a similar theme, Areas preferred guidance to be issued nationally than policies, as they felt policies were too rigid and did not allow for local variations necessary to tackle such issues as a large geographically spread Area, or the location of the Area (e.g. coastal location, major attraction within the Area). Guidance also allowed Areas some flexibility – e.g. if offering an event with a higher subsidy than the guidelines as an enticement for members to join. There was also a concern regarding how policies would be policed. However, policies which ensured Areas did not break the law, or give CSSC a poor reputation were acceptable.
OFFICIAL
Events and the ‘Open all Area’ policy
• Most Areas operated the ‘Open all Areas’ policy. The reason why some Areas did not is that they viewed the grant money they received as money for their members only and others had concerns that if members from outside their Area are allowed on events, their members may miss out. Some Areas operated the policy, but only after their members had an exclusive window to book. The counter view to this from Areas that do operate the ‘Open all Area’ policy is that in their experience there has been very few non Area members who have attended their events and in addition they viewed all members as equal, so it did not matter where the member was from. Some Areas also contributed to the Region and if an event was thought to have a Regional appeal, the subsidy would come from Regional funds.
Cashbacks
• One Area advised they could not hold events due to the large geographical spread of their Area, so offered cash backs instead. Some Areas had concerns that a member could claim the same cash back from two different Areas (where they live and where they work). One Area only offered cashbacks on events within their Area. Most Areas (all?) only offered cashbacks to members within their Area, but could see the possibility that popular cash backs (e.g. National Trust, Theatre offers) could be provided at a Regional level
Prize Draws
• Most Areas hold prize draws and were concerned that logistics meant they could not open them up to non Area members. However, if it were logistically possible, some Areas indicated they would be open to the possibility of ‘Open all Area’ for prize draws and that some could be operated at Regional level.
OFFICIAL
Blue Print for the future
• Comments were generally positive. Some concerns that volunteers may not be found for Regional offers and demand on Treasurer time, but if can overcome, the model could work. The feedback route was particularly welcomed and Areas could see how it could improve engagement levels, ensuring changes were agreed, not imposed.
• Key points if the model is to work: • Areas must decide what offers will be Regional ones and agree a budget for the
Region.
• Regional Officers must have the majority of the Area’s backing
• Checks must be made on Regional cash backs to ensure a member only claims once.
OFFICIAL
Appendix 1 Highlights from the AA survey • Q3 Area Governance
• 95% have Chair
• 87% have Sec
• 98% have treasurer
• 90% have committee
• 35.00% - Record of decisions made document
• 46.67% - Policy Document
• Q5. Following the financial guidelines • 83% fully
• 17% partial
• 97% Attend Conference
• 63% Contribute financially to the Region – in many different ways!
OFFICIAL
Highlights from the AA survey cont.
• Q9. The majority of Areas are in favour of the per capita funding model continuing
• Q13. Current Governance • 89% About right • 6% Too light • 6% Too heavy
• Q.14 Where should Governance sit to ensure AA’s spend funds that aids Recruitment and Retention • 30% National • 19% Regional • 34% Area – self governing • 17% Other
OFFICIAL
Highlights from the AA survey cont.
• Q15. If Governance was to change • 42% central guidance • 8% central policies no Regional oversight • 32% central policies with Regional oversight • 8% Regional policies • 10% More autonomy
• Q16. If it came to a choice, would members want more national offers over local ones? • 38% Yes • 21% No • 40% Not sure
OFFICIAL
Highlights from the AA survey cont.
• Q17 – Should there be a minimum size of AA? • 10% Yes
• 18% No
• 72% Not sure – [NB – Questionnaire defaulted to Not sure in order to add comments]
• Comments suggest no appetite for minimum size Area
• Q18 – Should all AA’s operate ‘Open all Areas’ policy • 81% Yes
• 19% No
Highlights from the AA survey cont.
• Q6, 10, 11, 12 – What offer does AA give and what should be provided by AA, Region, National? • Above 40% at Area level – Events and trips / cash back / prize draws / Local
discounts / Corporate discounts / Joint events / Sporting events / Sections
• Above 40% at Regional level – Events and trips / local discounts / Corporate discounts / Joint events / Sporting events
• Above 40% at National level – Events and trips / Corporate discounts / Sporting events
OFFICIAL
Observations
• All Areas are following the financial guidelines (fully or partially)
• 91% operating Open all Areas / 81% think we should • Areas not in favour of Open all Areas policy are concerned ‘their’ members
may miss out and they will not have the funds to support it
• Some comments suggest they see non Area members as the enemy?
• Good Regional engagement
• 89% of Areas think the current governance is about right
OFFICIAL
Observations cont.
• Mix of views on where governance should sit to ensure AA’s spending funds that aids Recruitment and Retention. • Prefer guidelines to policy • Prefer Regional oversight
• Mixed views regarding choice of whether members want more national offers over local ones
• No appetite for minimum size Area • Some similarities and some clear distinction between what Area, Region
and National offering is and should be • Some concern regarding availability and quality of volunteers • Some comments regarding geography of Areas and Regions • Some comments abut key role of VTL
OFFICIAL
Observations cont.
• Comments regarding Areas reflect variety of views across Areas • From the independent Area view:
• Areas should do whatever their members want without any hard and fast rules • Area's are autonomous, they should not be compelled to provide any particular benefit to members • Areas would want to offer specific events just to their own members , especially if tickets numbers are limited • CSSC HO is there to support the volunteers and members not dictate to them • One size doesn't fit all and you can't tar everyone with the same brush. As soon as you take away the local
identity and ownership you are guaranteed to lose members and especially volunteers.
• To the broader views: • Everything that an area offers should be available at a regional level • We are one CSSC and all our offers are available to anyone as they are on the website/NuTickets • Everything should be on the website so are automatically available to all • In this day and age Areas should be encouraged to move away from being insular in their outlook. • Members nationally could be missing out on reduced entrance fees to attractions because Areas do not
promote this outside their Area.
OFFICIAL
Observations cont.
• Comments on per capita funding: • fairest way to allocate funds and promotes 'member get member’ • To split the entire membership monies equally between all the various areas/regions would greatly disadvantage larger areas
and thus decrease their ability to offer trips and events and give an unfair advantage to smaller areas who do not have the membership to benefit. The bigger the area, the more grant it needs to be able to offer a wide range of events etc for its' members
• areas with large memberships end up with proportionally too much money – one event (eg subsidised trip) can take a v large proportion of a small areas grant limiting the number of events they can run.
• A model is needed which would allow members’ grants to be allocated to the AA of their choice • Our AA has a large Civil Service commuter population, the latest funding model supports our ability to provide benefits to
everyone who lives or works in the area. • We have some Areas that are very active and spend all of their grants and some that ‘waste’ money at the back end of the
year on prize draws to spend their budget. • If you are an active area more money should be given to these areas • Per capita could be used to encourage growth if get more money each year membership increased, but is no good if budget
is cut each year. Down side to per capita is that poor Areas get money even if they cannot spend it • Does not take into account the geographic challenges of an Area. • An alternative model for funding could be that Areas and Regions agree a Budget each year to cater for locally organised
events.
OFFICIAL
Observations cont.
• General comments • Regions have no constitutional control of areas so not sure why there is a question about
regions oversight. • Consistency should be applied in all respects across the CSSC so that members and
volunteers have the same benefits/rewards no matter where they are located. • If you are a member who lives in one area but works in another you get benefits from 2,
while if you live and work in same area then you only get the benefits from 1 area. All members should have access to similar levels of benefit ie National offers and local benefits from 1 area
• The current system does not ensure equality for all; some members have better or more offers due to size of their area membership.
• Consistent policies and guides so that all Areas/Regions work to similar standards and consistent funding model so all areas can offer a similar level of service/access to events for members wherever they are based but would like consultation on this.
• Think we should reward Areas that do well. Something along the lines of quality street. A governance check list tick box. Think that all Areas should spend Area grant and not carry money over.
OFFICIAL
Questions
Q1. As There appears to be no appetite for a minimum size Area, are attendees in favour of leaving potential mergers to Areas and VTL’s to decide as and when appropriate?
Q2. As 46% of Areas have policies, why is only guidance preferred from National CSSC?
Q3. If Areas felt they had more buy in to policies, would this view change?
Q4. As 83% of Areas are following the financial guidelines in full and 91% operating the Open all Areas policy, should these be mandatory?
OFFICIAL
Questions cont.
Q5. 89% of Areas think the current governance is about right. If the current governance stays the same, how do we ensure:
• All members have access to benefits which the majority of Areas provide (e.g. cash backs / prize draws)
• All Areas are following national guidelines
• Areas are sharing best practice to recruit and retain members
OFFICIAL
Questions cont.
Q6. If Governance was to change the preference would be for central guidelines with Regional oversight.
• The potential ‘Blueprint for the future’ in the attached word doc. is a model the Working Party have produced which gives Areas the remit to self govern themselves within a framework and be accountable to their peers (other Areas) in their Region. It also provides a clear feedback route from Area to Board level and back.
• Further, an empowered, self governing Region could also support Areas through the planned changes to the Civil Service Estate. With more Regional centres planned and less of a presence in smaller towns, democratic representation across areas within the Region will offer a flexible structure moving forward as there will be a significant increase in members who work in one Area but live in another.
• Could you support a gradual move to this collective ownership within a Region?
OFFICIAL
w/c 3 and 10 August – Focus group comments analysed
w/c 17 August – WP draft options paper for Board
w/c 24 August – Final draft of options paper presented to Board
10/09/20 – Board agree way forward
October – Areas and Regions informed of Board decisions