Wrthi'n llwytho
Does dim crynodeb o'r cyfarfod hwn eto. Caiff crynodebau eu hysgrifennu pan fydd y cyngor yn cyhoeddi'r cofnodion, sef ei gofnod swyddogol o'r hyn a benderfynodd cyfarfod. Maen nhw fel arfer yn ymddangos ychydig wythnosau ar ôl y cyfarfod.
1.1 The Chair welcomed all to the meeting. 1.2 There were apologies received from Councillor Karl Gauden.
2.1 The following declarations were made: · Councillor Evans declared a personal and prejudicial interest as a recipient of Third Sector Grants. · Councillor Horler declared an interest as a Trustee Director of a Partnership directly impacted by Third Sector Grants. · Councillor Williams declared a personal and prejudicial interest as Chair of the Torfaen Voluntary Alliance, who were directly impacted by Third Sector Grants.
3.1 The minutes of the meeting dated 22/01/26 were confirmed to be an accurate record.
4.1 The Team Leader – Scrutiny confirmed all actions were completed. 4.2 The Committee noted the action sheet.
5.1 Prior to the start of this item, the Members who declared a prejudicial interest left the meeting. 5.2 Prior to the commencement of questioning, The Head of Communities and Renewal and Group Manager, Housing and Prevention provided an overview of the strategic context for the review. They outlined the council’s wider ambition to strengthen early intervention, prevention and community‑led approaches, emphasising the need to align the third sector major grants programme with this direction. It was noted that the scheme had not been reviewed for a significant period and no longer fully reflected current community needs, operational pressures or the changing post‑pandemic landscape. Officers highlighted the intention to modernise and streamline processes, strengthen governance and monitoring, improve transparency and accessibility for community groups, and ensure that future allocations were clearly linked to demonstrable impact and strategic priorities. 5.3 Following questions from the Committee the Head of Communities and Renewal, Group Manager, Housing and Prevention and Team Lead, Preventative Commissioning confirmed the following: · The strategic aim of the review was to align the major grants programme with the council’s early intervention, prevention and community‑led vision, ensuring funding directly supported the ambition to shift power, resources and capacity into local communities. · The review sought to simplify and clarify processes so that community organisations could apply more easily, understand expectations clearly and access proportionate monitoring requirements without unnecessary bureaucracy. · The fixed budget of approximately £380,000 would continue to be used as the basis for the scheme, although opportunities to blend or redirect other internal or external funding streams would be explored where this added value or mitigated financial impact for individual organisations. · Larger historic grant allocations would be examined carefully to ensure fairness, strategic alignment and sustainability, with transitional arrangements used where necessary to avoid destabilising organisations currently dependent on long‑term awards. · The review aimed to strengthen transparency so that the grant became genuinely accessible to all groups, with clear criteria, improved visibility and more equitable opportunities across communities. · Changing community needs, particularly following the pandemic and shifts in local pressures, required a refreshed approach to commissioning and grant administration to ensure funding responded to current rather than historic priorities. · The design principles underpinning the review focused on purpose and alignment, accessibility, fairness, impact, and streamlined governance, forming the framework against which future applications would be assessed. · Needs assessment work was ongoing and dynamic, informed by intelligence from the Prevention Hub, community capacity builders, case presentations, feedback from local groups and officer insight across services. Newly emerging gaps, including those relating to neurodiversity, were already being identified. · The review timeline was ambitious but necessary to establish clarity early in the financial year, enabling both existing and potential recipients to plan, prepare and adjust with appropriate notice and transitional support. · Future monitoring arrangements would place stronger emphasis on demonstrating impact rather than volume, focusing on improved resilience, reduced re‑presentation to statutory services, effective early help and the wider contribution to prevention outcomes. · Data from the Prevention Hub, including case pathways and repeat presentation patterns, would form part of the evidence base for understanding whether funded activity achieved sustainable outcomes for residents. · Assurance processes and overall governance of the scheme would be strengthened in response to the ongoing internal audit and corporate grants workstream, ensuring consistency, clarity and appropriate checks proportional to grant value. · Groups would not be required to hold charitable status; however, minimum governance standards such as a constitution, bank account and committee structure would remain necessary. Support through TVA and the community capacity team would be available to help organisations meet these standards. · Barriers to access would be addressed through clearer language, accessible documentation, stronger communication channels and improved visibility of the scheme, ensuring smaller and emerging groups could engage more confidently. · Collaboration between community groups would be encouraged to reduce duplication, maximise limited resources and promote shared delivery models, with officers highlighting the strong examples of partnership already achieved through other commissioned programmes. · Engagement had included both current recipients and the wider sector via TVA, direct communication, workshops and one‑to‑one discussions, with broader engagement continuing as the review progressed. · Organisations had expressed concerns regarding sustainability and changes to long‑standing funding arrangements, but many also welcomed opportunities for clearer processes, stronger alignment to need and greater ability to evidence the value of their work. · Engagement with external partners such as RSLs, health and police had occurred informally through existing networks, with further structured conversations anticipated as the review developed, recognising the shared benefits of community resilience across sectors. · Deprivation levels and differing community pressures would be considered as part of the redesigned scheme, recognising that need was often more concentrated and complex in certain localities. · Timescales for future funding periods would be reviewed to ensure organisations had sufficient time to demonstrate impact, with officers acknowledging the limitations of one‑year funding cycles and the benefits of multi‑year arrangements where feasible. · Officers recognised the need for clear and accessible public communication, ensuring residents and community groups understood the purpose of the redesign, how it aligned to the county plan and the deal, and how decisions relating to grants were made. 5.4 The Chair thanked the Head of Communities and Renewal, Group Manager, Housing and Prevention and Team Lead, Preventative Commissioning for their contributions and they left the meeting. On completion of their scrutiny activity, the Committee concluded by offering the following comments and recommendations for consideration: Recommendation 1 – The committee recommended the strengthening of communication of the TSMG design principles by providing a clear explanation of how they align with The Deal and the County Plan. This should include accessible messaging for third sector partners and the wider public outlining the programme’s strategic purpose and how it aligns to early intervention and prevention goals. Recommendation 2 - The Adults & Communities O&S Committee recommended the review and redesign of the TSMG scheme include key partner agencies, such as Registered Social Landlords (RSLs), Gwent Police, and Health partners. Members were considerate of the avoidance of mixed messaging at this stage with a focus on community organisation voices, however, felt early partner involvement would help ensure the revised programme supports shared prevention objectives, and strengthens collaborative working across sectors. Recommendation 3- Members recommended a robust monitoring and evaluation framework be developed to track the progress and impact of the redesigned TSMG scheme. Establishing annual review points should be planned to evidence progress, identify areas requiring adjustment, and ensure the programme continues to meet the needs of communities whilst aligning with strategic priorities. The Adults & Communities O&S Committee welcomed the timely review of the TSMG scheme and would look to revisit this issue once the TSMG scheme has been redesigned, implemented and progressed for a period of time, to assess its impact.
6.1 The Committee considered the proposed agenda item for the next meeting and agreed that the scheduled topic of Early Intervention and Prevention should proceed as the item aligned with ongoing scrutiny work undertaken during the year and would provide an opportunity to examine performance relating to prevention activity and referrals into statutory services.
7.1 The date of the next meeting was confirmed to be 16/04/26.
Rhaid i gynghorwyr ddweud pan fydd ganddyn nhw gysylltiad personol â rhywbeth sy'n cael ei drafod, fel swydd, eiddo neu aelod o'r teulu. Mae buddiant sy'n rhagfarnu yn ddigon cryf i'r cynghorydd adael yr ystafell fel arfer a pheidio â chymryd rhan.
Caiff datganiadau eu darllen o'r cofnodion unwaith y byddan nhw wedi'u cyhoeddi.
Yn rhestru cynghorwyr presennol y cyngor yn unig. Nid yw aelodau cyfetholedig, swyddogion a chyn-gynghorwyr yn cael eu dangos.