The North West Hub is currently four months into a 12-month trial. A range of key performance indicators (KPIs) are being used to assess its impact, including:

Both quantitative and qualitative data are being gathered, including member surveys and feedback forums.

It is important to emphasise that no decisions have been made about future structures. A full assessment will inform recommendations to the Board at the end of 2026.

The Hub trial includes a dedicated communications liaison resource, allowing events and content to be planned further in advance and presented more consistently.

In other areas, communications often come from multiple volunteers and sometimes at short notice, meaning messaging must be more reactive.

The trial is testing whether a more coordinated communications approach improves engagement. Any wider rollout would require additional resource and clearer processes for content submission.

Success will not be judged solely on event numbers. Measures include:

The trial is exploring new formats and activities while continuing to review what works and what does not.

Yes. CSSC policy is to pay grants in two instalments within the calendar year. The second instalment is typically released in July, subject to governance requirements being met (e.g., AGM held, signed accounts received, minutes submitted).

Funding remains available for members in dormant areas. In these cases, funds are held centrally.

A clear process is being finalised to ensure:

Guidance will be shared shortly on how activities in dormant areas can access this funding.

The cap is part of a wider organisational effort to direct resources toward direct member benefit rather than meeting and venue costs.

CSSC has adopted a consistent approach across the organisation, including:

The intention is not to discourage engagement, but to ensure value for money and sustainability.

Questions were raised about potential volunteer drop-out and the wider impact of operating model changes.

While no formal impact prediction can guarantee outcomes, the organisation hopes that:

The intention is to make volunteering more fulfilling and sustainable, not less

CSSC posed a question to attendees around volunteers' understanding of the need for change. It's important that as an Executive and Senior Leadership team, we are clear on how our communication around change is landing with the membership.

1. Why the urgency of the changes given CSSC has £30m+ in assets?

To clarify facts around CSSC’s assets:

• Only about £15m of CSSC’s £35m assets are liquid.
• With a £1.5m yearly deficit, liquid assets would be gone in around 10 years.
• CSSC would then need to sell property, reducing future income and worsening sustainability. 

2. Why are certain areas of the organisation (sport, Area Associations) being cited as the reason for change?

It is not one particular area of CSSC that needs to change, the organisation as a collective must change. With regards to Area Associations (AA’s) less than 10% of the membership participate in area activity, yet approximately 40% of our expenditure was spent on this activity, including staff support.

With sport, less than 5% of members participated in the sports programme with a cost to serve of approximately £530 per head. This doesn’t reflect that the delivery of sport was open to the majority of our membership and also raises questions about fairness and accessibility for all members. Some feel AA’s and Sport are being targeted, which shows the wider message—that the whole organisation needs to change—has not fully landed. CSSC is undergoing broad change across all areas, and this needs to be communicated more clearly.

3.There are mixed messages around doing more ‘local to me’ but reducing spending, how can volunteers do both?

CSSC cannot continue to subsidise local events and activity in the way because the membership has changed. 30 years ago, approximately 70% of our members were “sleeping members” (members who were typically unengaged salary and pension payers). This 70% effectively subsidised the 30% of members who were engaged and wanted to attend events and activities. Today, we’ve now got fewer than 20% sleeping members so that model is no longer viable.  

To stay sustainable, subsidies have to be reduced, and local activities should instead secure discounts directly at source. The aim isn’t to do less locally but to do it differently and more sustainably, because continuing to let members receive more value than they pay in each year will threaten the organisation’s future.