Contact: Paddy Hillary/Vicky Jolly, Ext. 7391/5909

1. Summary

1.1. This report presents the outcomes and improvement programme resulting from the review of support for the voluntary and community sector. At the meeting in February, the PRC received a report outlining the options for improvement and this report asks Members to agree an improvement programme based on the main option which was to continue to provide the support but to look at ways of improving the current delivery processes.

2. Introduction

2.1 This review has been conducted as a cross-cutting, corporate review looking at the strategic aims of the County Council in relation to support for voluntary and community organisations, the processes involved and whether the aims are being achieved effectively and consistently across the authority. The scope of the review included all support provided to voluntary and community organisations by the County Council, both financial and through other means (e.g. provision of accommodation, loan of equipment and professional services). The review specifically excluded service level agreements, contracts of service and grants to individuals.

2.2 Members will recall that at the meeting on 26 February the review team presented an options report which recommended that further work be carried out to prepare an improvement programme based on the option to improve current delivery of the County Council's support for voluntary and community organisations. At that time it was also agreed that more consideration should be given to the opportunities for outsourcing of the provision of support.

3. Review process

3.1 The review has been undertaken by a joint team of County Council officers, elected members (Councillors Snaith, Ellis and Chegwyn who have been involved since February 2002) and representatives of voluntary and community organisations from Hampshire. The review has included 1 internal and 2 external challenge events, a telephone interview consultation exercise with representatives from voluntary organisations, evidence gathering and comparison exercises with other local authorities.

3.2 The direct costs associated with the review (i.e. for consultation, challenge events etc) is £4195. The review has so far taken estimated 106 person days to complete.

4. Review Findings

4.1 The County Council has extensive connections with the voluntary and community sector both as a partner and as a funder of a diverse range of activities. The Hampshire Compact was launched in September 2001 providing a framework for working with voluntary and community organisations which includes a group drawing up a code of practice for funding and support issues. In 2000/1, the County Council allocated some £6m in grant aid and provided support through other means to a large number of organisations. It is difficult to establish the impact of this support on the sector in terms of measuring the financial value of these partnerships, but it is generally accepted that the fact of County Council support helps voluntary and community organisations to raise funds from other bodies. Similarly, measuring the impact on communities is difficult, but again it is generally accepted that the level of support given to voluntary bodies produces far more in the way of impact than the actual financial value. More research at the national level would help to quantify this more precisely.

4.2 The main findings of the review related to the processes used by the County Council in working with voluntary and community bodies. Most grant/support decisions are made in relation to specific service delivery areas, apart from those decisions made by the Leader, with separate criteria and application/notification processes. The County Council does not employ `grant officers' and recommendations are made by officers responsible for direct service delivery or commissioning. Although this is seen as a strength because these officers are well placed to judge the value of an application in relation to service priorities, it does mean that there is no overall management of the process and it is difficult to access information on the total commitment to grants or on individual applications. It is also difficult to determine the exact cost of this process but an estimate is that it currently costs in the region of £52,000 per year based on an estimate of the number of hours spent by staff in departments on grant administration as part of their overall roles.

4.3 The main weaknesses, identified through the challenge events, were a perceived lack of information and accessibility particularly for organisations unused to dealing with the County Council, inconsistent guidelines and application processes, and a lack of information on the progress of grant applications. For the County Council itself the main concerns were in terms of the need for a clear policy framework for providing support and statement of desired outcomes, inconsistencies of criteria and the lack of clear corporate management and monitoring processes against the outcomes. One example of this is the fact that the County Council appoints members to some 200 outside bodies with no clear view of the purpose of some of these appointments and no method of measuring the value of this representation.

4 Outcomes

4.1 In response to these findings the review has identified a number of outcomes which would improve both the effectiveness and management efficiency of the provision of support to the voluntary sector. These outcomes have been agreed through a process of consultation and challenge with representatives of voluntary and community organisations, Members and officers from within the authority and by looking at the approaches taken by other organisations that provide support. There have also been parallel discussions through the Hampshire Compact on a funding code of practice which have confirmed these outcomes as key to improving the relationship between the County Council and voluntary sector.

These outcomes are as follows:

1. Increased knowledge of and access to information within the voluntary sector on grants and other support available from the County Council,


2. Improved understanding of the County Council's aims in relation to funding and the ways in which decisions are made,


3. Improved corporate management of the support processes and overall efficiency of systems for allocating grants.


4. Greater understanding by the County Council and outside bodies of what is achieved by the support given to help service development and financial effectiveness and the impact on communities.

6. Improvement programme

6.1 Overall the review found that the County Council has a long track record of
supporting and working in partnership with voluntary and community
organisations for mutual benefit. Along with recommendations from the District Audit report in 2001, the review has identified a number of improvements which would address concerns expressed through the challenge process and improve overall efficiency in the process corporately.

6.2 The proposed improvement programme indicates the timescale to implement the improvements which takes account of the need to clarify costs and consult voluntary and community organistaions.

6.3 The first two proposals are fundamental to achieving the other improvements. These are:

Creating a central database of grants and other support.

Under this proposal the County Council would create a database which could be used by County Council staff and members, with some access for outside bodies, to:

- record all grant applications

- process and monitor grants through the process

- provide summary information

- enforce security (i.e. limit access)

- provide application forms electronically

- allow applicants to check progress

- record post grant information - i.e. how grant was used, were outcomes met etc

The initial set up cost of this system is likely to be a one off £30-40,000 for the design and set up work plus £4,000 per annum maintenance. These costs reflect IT Services normal 2002/3 rates.

Creating a single point of contact
The purpose of this position would be to improve access for outside bodies by providing a clear route for enquiries on grants/support issues. The contact would be able to answer limited questions and would signpost to departments for more complex queries. The contact would also be responsible for maintaining the database mentioned above in order to help with queries and provide reporting information for the County Council. There are a number of possibilities for creating this role including making use of the existing expertise in the Student Support unit. Further work is necessary with departments to work up these options but the estimated cost could be in the region of £16,500 per annum to employ an additional member of staff on SO1/2 to manage the process within the Student Support Unit or to enhance the role of existing staff in Student Support or Chief Executive Department.

Other improvements

If the two proposals outlined above are implemented, there are a number of other improvements which can be made as follows:


- Strengthening the policy framework for decision making and further reviewing the County Council's representation on outside bodies (the last review having been undertaken at local government review in 1997)


- Streamlining the application process


- Improving information availability and access including the development of website access


- Developing and improving the monitoring process and criteria in partnership with voluntary sector


The costs and staffing implications of these proposals are limited mainly to staff time as part of the role of the single contact officer identified above. The work of the Compact Development Group will also contribute to achieving these improvements.

An action plan for achieving these improvements is attached as App 1.

7. Outsourcing

7.1 Following the meeting in February, the review team consulted again on the possibilities for using outsourcing as an option for allocating grants. There was little support for this proposal from among members and voluntary sector, over and above the limited amount which exists, and so the team are not putting this forward as part of the improvement programme. The County Council will, however, remain involved in the development of the proposed Community Foundation for Hampshire as previously agreed by the Leader.

7 Conclusion

7.1 Overall the County Council provides a valuable service in supporting voluntary and community bodies in Hampshire. It is clear, however, that this value can be increased both for the County Council and for voluntary and community bodies by addressing some of the issues raised during the review process. The improvements proposed will cost more in the short term, but these costs will be offset by the improved systems for departments staff, a better overview of the County Council's commitment to the sector and clearer outcomes for all parties to aim for.

Background Information

Section 100D - Local Government Act 1972 - background papers

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.

NB the list excludes:

1. Published works.

2. Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.

File Local

Appendix 1

Improvement Programme

Best Value Review of support for the voluntary and community sector

Outcome 1: Increased knowledge of and access to information on grants and other support available.

Performance Measures:

To be tested periodically by consultation/survey work with voluntary and community bodies, possibly using Compact Development Group

Outcome 2: Improved understanding of the County Council`s aims in relation to funding and the ways in which decisions are made.

Performance Measures:

To be tested periodically by consultation/survey with voluntary bodies

Clear guidelines for representation on outside bodies developed by December 2002.

Option 3: Improved corporate management of the support processes and overall efficiency of systems for allocating grants.

Performance Measures:

Process to measure and set targets for time of response to grant applications.

Process to measure and set targets for time taken to pay out agreed grants.

Outcome 4: Greater understanding by the County Council and outside bodies of what is achieved by the support given to help service development and financial effectiveness and the impact on communities.

Performance Measures:

To be tested periodically by consultation/surveys with voluntary bodies