Future Services Consultation 2024 - Competitive (one-off) Grants Proposal
Insight Summary
Background
From 8 January to 31 March 2024, Hampshire County Council invited residents, partners and stakeholders to provide their views on options to change and reduce some local services to help the Authority address a £132 million budget shortfall faced by April 2025.
One of the options proposed was to withdraw three competitive grant schemes which provide one-off funding grants to a range of community groups and organisations, namely the Leader’s Community Grant, the Rural Communities Fund, and the Parish and Town Council Investment Fund, saving £481,000 per year.
Who responded to the proposal?
3,453 responses were submitted for the competitive grants using the consultation response form. 3,339 were submitted by individuals, 61 of these were submitted by organisations and 34 from Democratically Elected Representatives.
Respondents were invited to add further comments to support their views on this proposal via an open-ended question. This allowed people to expand on impacts they felt the proposed changes would cause and suggest alternative courses of action. 667 respondents left an open text comment in relation to the proposal. Six respondents also commented on the Competitive Grants proposal in the any further comments open text box at the end of the consultation, designed to capture any further feedback to any of the proposals in the consultation.
22 unstructured responses relating to the proposal were received. 14 were from organisations, two from Democratically Elected Members and six from individuals.
In order to help capture the views of young people about the consultation, members of the Hampshire Youth Forum (aged between 11 and 18) were invited to consider the proposals and attend a discussion group to share their feedback.
Levels of agreement with the proposals
Respondents were more likely to agree than to disagree with proposals to withdraw the Leader’s Community Grant and the Rural Communities Fund. However, there was no clear majority agreement and opinion was divided with regards to the withdrawal of the Parish and Town Council Investment Fund. Across all three grants organisations/ groups showed significantly higher levels of overall disagreement for the withdrawal of funding than individuals and Elected Representatives.
- Leaders’ Community Grant
- Rural Communities Fund (including Country Shows)
- Parish and Town Council Investment Fund
Overall, a larger proportion agreed with this proposal compared to those who disagreed, specifically:
51% overall agreement (19% strongly agreed)
28% overall disagreement (13% strongly disagreed)
20% were neutral
Among organisations, however, only 16% agreed overall, with 7% stating they strongly agreed. 75% of responding organisations disagreed, with 51% strongly disagreeing.
Overall, a larger proportion agreed with this proposal compared to those who disagreed, specifically:
48% overall agreement (18% strongly agreed)
35% overall disagreement (15% strongly disagreed)
17% were neutral
Again, among organisations, the level of disagreement was much higher; 60% disagreed overall, with 30% doing so strongly. 20% agreed overall, with only 4% agreeing strongly.
As respondents in rural areas are more likely to live in locations eligible for the Rural Communities Fund, it was unexpected to see that the overall level of agreement to withdraw the fund was higher than the level of disagreement. Of those respondents living in rural areas, 47% agreed overall with withdrawing the Rural Communities Fund, and 17% strongly agreed. Whilst 36% disagreed, 18% strongly disagreed.
Although agreement/ disagreement with funding for Country Shows was not sought specifically, the verbatim comments indicated some mixed views, with some respondents feeling that shows have the opportunity to make money through sponsorship, entry charges and business relationships and therefore do not require funding, whereas others suggested that Country Shows need funding as they are vital to the rural community providing an opportunity to pass on their skills and crafts and highlight countryside issues as well as providing an opportunity to promote their produce and services.
There was no clear consensus in agreement or disagreement with the proposal to withdraw the Parish and Town Council Investment Fund. The data showed:
41% overall agreement (15% strongly agreed)
42% overall disagreement (17% strongly disagreed)
17% were neutral
However, disagreement was more evident amongst both organisations and Elected Representatives. Of the responses from organisations, 20% agreed with the proposals, of which only 5% strongly agreed. 69% disagreed, of which 37% strongly disagreed. Elected Representatives had a similar sentiment, with 29% agreeing, of which only 3% strongly agreed, whilst 59% disagreed overall, with 21% strongly disagreeing.
What is driving agreement with these proposals?
Further comments on these proposals suggested that the differences in opinion were influenced by what respondents deemed as ‘essential services’ and, therefore, the impact of losing services supported by the grants. 30-34% of respondents across all three grants who agree with the proposal judged the services supported by these funds to be non-essential.
Similarly, 28% - 32% of respondents who agreed with the proposal across all grants commented that they thought alternative funding sources were available.
24 comments were agreeing that the Rural Communities Fund should not be funding country shows, seeing them as having the ability to fund themselves as they charge entry fees and trade stands and can attract sponsorship etc.
Generally speaking, those who agreed with the proposal identified far fewer groups and issues on which the proposal would impact compared to those who disagreed.
There was also some concern about the lack of scrutiny with the grants. 15 comments claimed that they have no oversight, are too discretionary and pay for projects that don’t contribute to the Hampshire County Council plans or priorities.
What is driving disagreement with these proposals?
Key concerns identified included:
- negative impacts on social well-being and community cohesion
- negative impact on access to essential services
- well-being of vulnerable groups
- the proposal would increase demand on, and therefore cost to other services
- proposal would require individuals to pay more
- proposal is discriminatory against those with protected characteristics and those who live in rural areas
Notably more negative impacts were expressed by organisations (79%) than other groups, particularly among charities, voluntary organisations, and local community groups (84%).
As direct recipients of the grants, it was not unexpected that organisations had a higher level of disagreement with the proposal. The higher identification of negative impacts could explain the reason for the high level of disagreement.
Although only 13 people of non-binary gender responded, they showed a much higher level of disagreement about the withdrawal of these grants. Unfortunately, due to the small numbers, we cannot determine why this might be so.
Responses from Hart district had a higher level of disagreement with the Parish and Town Council Investment Fund than other county areas. It is unclear why Hart's respondents have this view on the proposal.
However, there were fewer comments from Hart respondents where people thought the impacts would be low. They also identified higher impacts on poverty, age, disability and the environment. There were also no comments from Hart respondents acknowledging an acceptance that the council has no choice in making this proposal.
Although only 28 respondents under 25 responded, they disagreed more with the proposals for all three grants (between 50% and 63%) than other age groups. Although too few young people gave further comments on the consultation response form to aid understanding of why this might be the case, information gathered from Hampshire Youth Forum showed us some insight. The Youth Forum told us they acknowledge the short-term benefits of the grants but think it is unsustainable. They suggested reducing the funding but prioritising vulnerable groups, e.g. Youth Councils should be prioritised over Country Fairs), helping desperate communities to set up charities, sourcing funding from elsewhere, and making longer-term investments to serve a wider demographic of people.
Main impacts of the proposed change
667 respondents submitted comments on this proposal. 257 comments (39%) related to the impacts of the proposal. Of these, the most frequently mentioned impact was social well-being and community cohesion (49%), reflecting the importance of community amongst respondents.
"These grants build community cohesion and help groups work together."
33% of the comments related to how stopping the grants would impact access to essential local services.
The comments also highlighted how vital respondents feel some services supported by the grants are to the community:
“I cannot support any reduction in Parish and Town Council grant funds as local Councils are already struggling to provide services our Residents rely on and often undertaking tasks on behalf of larger authorities. So, these grants are crucial to supporting Parish and Town Councils projects which often support HCC strategy and core responsibilities too”
312 respondents made further comments and 24% of these comments showed that respondents felt the grants, or the services the grants funded, were not essential. For example:
"We have to scale back and people don’t understand that some services are not needed!"
22% of comments mentioned that alternative sources of funding would be available.
Perceived impact on protected characteristics
Those who commented were asked whether their comments related to any protected characteristics or issues, 394 indicated a characteristic and the most frequently reported were:
- rurality - 42%* (highlighting low service provision within rural areas, isolation and people living on low incomes)
- age - 36% (particularly young people and vulnerable people)
- disability - 35% (comments generally refer to impact on vulnerable people)
- poverty - 34% (impact on people living on low incomes)
- environmental impact - 28% (grants important for tackling climate change)
*There were concerns about the removal of the rural grants as it was perceived by some that rural communities have less access to service provision compared to non-rural communities. This was mentioned in 13 comments with a further 27 comments highlighting that, separate to supporting country shows, rural communities need to receive funding.
Suggested alternatives to the proposal
203 out of 667 people (30%) who chose to provide comments on this proposal made a suggestion about any alternatives to the proposal or how they felt the service could be carried out differently. No single idea was mentioned by more than 14% of these respondents, but suggestions included:
- Parish Councils raise money themselves
- Hampshire County Council should look for internal savings, e.g., reducing the number of councillors and managers, reducing salaries, bonuses, and pensions, and improving budget management.
- raising council tax
- suspending the grants temporarily until more money becomes available
- withdraw these grants but re-invest to support communities in other ways
- lobby the Government for more funding
- review the three levels of Government - having Parish/ Town, District, and County Councils is inefficient
Although the consultation Information Pack had noted the reasons why grant reductions were not currently being proposed, some respondents suggested reducing the grants rather than eliminating them altogether. These included making a 50% funding cut, as well as options for reducing the overall funding pot but making the criteria more stringent and targeting areas of highest need.
There was a wide range of additional and detailed suggestions which have been passed to the Department for consideration, both in relation to preparing recommendations on this proposal and for managing the service generally.
Comments on the consultation
Not many comments were made about the consultation process, however a small number did refer to the lack of a cost-benefit analysis.