Archived decisions

Hampshire County Council

Executive Member

18 July 2002

Review of Grant Aid

Report of the County Treasurer and County Education Officer

Item 6

Contact: Neil Townsend, Financial Project Consultant, Tel: 01962 847521

Colin Smith, Youth Service Manager, Tel: 01962 846250

1. Introduction

1.1 This report summarises the findings of the review of Grant Aid and sets out recommendations for changes to ensure that the resources are used effectively to meet Hampshire County Council and County Youth Service strategic aims.

2. Background

2.1 As reported to Youth Panel on 11 March 2002, the County Youth Service has been reviewing its Grant Aid scheme.

2.2 The review was managed by the Youth Service with the assistance of a Reference Group consisting of representatives of the Youth Service, Recreation and Heritage, Social Services and the Chief Executive and County Treasurer's departments.

2.3 The review included consultation with stakeholders in the Grant Aid scheme.

2.4 Consultation with the voluntary sector included: a survey of some 100 voluntary organisations, of whom 25 returned forms, and an evening meeting to which the same bodies were invited.

2.5 A similar approach was used for consulting with Senior Youth Workers and other Youth Service Staff. The review was discussed at a meeting of the District Management Group. Senior Youth Workers were invited to contribute further, prompted by an e-mail survey. The Youth Service Management Team also contributed to the review.

2.6 Corporate (Policy and Resources) priorities and policies and those of the Social Services and Community departments were gained through their Reference Group representatives and by consideration of the emerging recommendations of the corporate Best Value review of County Council support for the voluntary and community sector. The Police Authority provided information on their Crime Prevention Panel's work.

2.7 Other local authorities were consulted about their grant aid schemes.

3. Findings

3.1 The main findings of the consultation process with stakeholders are summarised below. Fuller details are attached in Appendix 1 (policy), Appendix 2 (priorities) and Appendix 3 (process).

3.2 (1) Policy

3.2.1 Stakeholders felt that funding should be in line with achieving the Youth Service's strategic aims.

3.2.2 Organisations funded should not have policies contrary to those of the County Council, although it is recognised that not all bodies will have policies on issues the County Council is concerned with.

3.2.3 In addition to financial support, voluntary organisations value the provision of advice and other forms of support from the Youth Service. Quantifying the value of this would provide evidence of the role the Youth Service plays in the county and would give an indication of the full impact of County Youth Service support in addition to direct provision.

3.3 (2) Priorities

3.3.1 In addition to meeting Youth Service aims, funding should be targeted towards the core age range and key initiatives and approaches.

3.3.2 The consensus was in favour of funding individual organisations rather than umbrella bodies and favouring local rather than county-wide organisations.

3.3.3 The voluntary sector was largely in favour of on-going revenue funding, whereas the Youth Service were more keen on project funding.

3.4 (3) Process

3.4.1 There was strong support for involving young people in determining funding priorities but recognition that the key issue to overcome in doing this was ensuring those involved were representative.

3.4.2 Management of all, or any aspect of grant aid, could be outsourced though this would reduce HCC control of prioritisation, and would be contrary to the broad outcomes of the corporate Best Value review of support to the voluntary and community sector.

3.4.3 The voluntary sector prefer to be treated in a more business-like manner in terms of language and relationship, for example by using service level agreements.

3.4.4 The application process could be more focused on voluntary organisations' needs and include acknowledgement and feedback.

4. Proposed changes to Grant Aid

4.1 The following changes are recommended as a result of the findings of this review:

4.2 (1) Policy

4.2.1 Assessment of grant applications should be based on meeting the five priority aims of the County Youth Service; as described in the Youth Service Strategic Development Plan. These aims and their importance in appraisal should be clearly set out in supporting literature.

4.2.2 The Youth Service should ensure no funded bodies have policies contrary to those of the County Council.

4.2.3 The Youth Service should maximise opportunities to provide non-financial support especially where it bears no direct cost.

4.2.4 Young people's views should influence strategy and funding decisions.

4.3 (2) Priorities

4.3.1 Funding priorities should be for work with the core age group 13-19 years, face-to-face youth work and Connexions work in line with Youth Service and Government priorities.

4.3.2 Funding for non-core age groups (11-12 years and 20-24 years) and activities should be limited to 20% of new projects funding.

4.3.3 Funding should be to predominantly local organisations and projects. Where funding is allocated to county-wide bodies, the areas in which it is to be spent both geographical and in theme, should be detailed to ensure funding is allocated to Hampshire young people in line with Youth Service aims.

4.3.4 Grant aid applications should require details of target groups, exit strategy for when County Council funding ceases, and details of planned activities.

4.3.5 Ongoing funding applications (revenue support) should include a development plan for a three-year period. Success in meeting objectives for the previous year should be the key to gaining continuing funding.

4.3.6 The Youth Service should not allocate grant aid to an organisation for a project where the County Youth Service is directly funding 50% or more of project costs.

4.3.7 The Youth Service annual grant aid budget is currently £196,500. In order to address the policy and priority issues identified in the grant aid review, the budget should be allocated as follows:

· £50,000 to partnership projects involving the Youth Service, voluntary organisations and Connexions

· £90,000 for revenue support for voluntary organisations providing the grant is focused on Connexions and Youth Service strategic aims, planned for three years with annual review to ensure criteria are met

· £30,000 for developing the voluntary youth work sector in line with Connexions and Youth Service curriculum priorities

· £26,500 for new projects meeting Youth Service priority aims.

4.4 (3) Process

4.4.1 Hampshire County Youth Service should:

· continue to deal with grant aid proposals and recommendations

· move towards stronger relationship with voluntary organisations by using Partnership Agreements with funding recipients

· take every opportunity to publicise the grant aid scheme, thereby increasing knowledge and accessibility

· reduce the amount of information required for lower amounts of project funding

· put information of the scheme on the County Council web-site and distribute leaflets more widely

· seek to arrange for statements of support from young people to be attached to grant applications

· develop an appropriate system of monitoring and evaluating the results of providing grant aid to voluntary youth organisations.

5. Recommendations

That the Panel advises the Executive Member for Education that:

1. The proposals outlined above for policy and priorities be adopted with effect from 1 April 2003.

2. The proposals outlined above for the process be developed so that arrangements are in place for the financial year starting 1 April 2003.

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.

N.B. The list excludes:

1. Published works

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

Nil

Appendix 1- Findings: policy

Views of stakeholders	Conclusions of Reference Group
Fund in-line with HCYS priorities Fund bodies that assist all young people Support to established/accredited groups Work funded is complementary to the HCYS work. Clear outcomes for young people Bodies should have policies and procedures that address child protection, police checks and health and safety. Organisations should have procedures for monitoring and evaluating, and should feed back to HCYS. Grants should meet corporate aims, for example on sustainable development. Need to ensure best value for money is obtained, and maybe use Best Value criteria to assess the whole scheme or individual grant bids	Agree
Financial support most valued by voluntary sector. However there is clear demand and appreciation for support in terms of: Advice and general support to sector Use of HCC facilities and buildings Support in kind, for example, with distribution of leaflets and literature.	Need to identify cost of support (direct cost and staff time) when allocating grants and as an indication of value of HCYS contribution.
Financial support allows greater service delivery either directly or through freeing up volunteer time otherwise spent on seeking fund-raising, also the argument that funding inspires leaders who in turn inspire young people. HCC funding adds legitimacy to an organisation and hence makes it easier to attract more funding from other sources. Enhanced facilities attract more interest from young people. Ongoing support allows long term increases in service delivery	Training not funding builds capacity of voluntary sector.

Appendix 2- Findings: priorities

Views of stakeholders

Conclusions of Reference Group

Training for leaders of voluntary youth organisations is beneficial.

General revenue funding, for example for administration costs and insurance needed, as is funding for equipment, facilities and building improvements.

Should concentrate on 13-19 age group.

Require vol orgs to use grant aid for face to face work.

Devote much of funding to support initiatives by the vol sector to deliver work on Connexions Strategy i.e. set criteria which would support Connexions work.

Vol sector more in favour of general grants, YS specific ones.

Concentrate on 13-19 age group, say 80% of funding - in-line with government and YS priorities.

Non-core funding could be all project, with no additional support

Support for funding to individual organisations favoured

Umbrella organisations have greater ability/resource to make grant applications than local branches, so prefer funding to come through their central (Hampshire) organisations. A problem applying to many larger and umbrella organisations is that their geographical boundaries may not reflect those of Hampshire County Council.

Favour funding local organisations over umbrella bodies.

Clear preference for the majority of funding to be locally focussed.

Concern about inadequate delivery across the County, some county wide bodies do not operate in all districts.

One option is to delegate half of budget to YS Districts with ring fencing to ensure it is used for local partnership work.

Need to be sure umbrella groups are funding local groups in line with HCYS priority schemes/areas.

Strong preference from stakeholders for local funding.

Not convinced allocating funds to districts will improve system; will change workload. Important point is areas are consulted about allocations - this already happens.

Most keen on partnership working. View that partnership is a good use of resources, avoids duplication of service provision and so offers value for money.

Concern that voluntary organisations want to keep their autonomy and so would want the criteria and regulation on any such arrangements to be limited.

In partnerships, and funding generally, the impact on Youth Service time and cost needs to be considered in funding offers.

Difficult to maintain autonomy of vol orgs if HCYS is grant funding as this will be influencing their priorities.

Majority of voluntary youth organisations were in favour of ongoing funding rather than project based funding.

Ongoing revenue funding is more difficult to secure from other sponsors than project funding

Projects should not have to be redefined to seek funding, providing positive work to young people continues. That is more important than innovation. Although work may not be new, it will be new to the young people, much youth work is aimed at a specific age and so different young people will benefit each year.

Some voluntary organisations said there was a perception that if they were `mainstream', there was no point applying for funding and that also some funding sources demanded they be inclusive, sometimes difficult despite efforts because of geography/demographics and society attitudes.

One concern of voluntary organisations is that ongoing funding is allocated on an annual basis whereas their business planning is over a longer period.

Sudden cessation of funding is very hard for vol orgs to cope with.

Issue of funding over more than one year: cannot directly address as funding allocations need to be approved annually. An intention to fund indication could be given to organisations though but need to be careful about implying commitment.

Divergence of opinion; voluntary sector prefer revenue funding, Youth Service tend towards project funding.

Appendix 3- Findings: process

Views of stakeholders	Conclusions of Reference Group
Young people should be involved in delivering funding priorities. concern about how it should be achieved: difficult to get representative views of young people. Some do not want to be involved, others may be hard to access. Hampshire Youth Council to be consulted about strategies for allocation. One way that young people can be incorporated into the decision making process is for their experience of projects to be used in the assessment of suitability for further funding - this could be either through their own evaluation or the perception of youth workers as to the benefit of a grant funded scheme/organisation for individual young people. A supporting statement from young people could be requested for new schemes as an indication of demand.	Young people need to be consulted. Widespread support but limited practical ideas. Representativeness is biggest problem.
HCVYS keen to have role in overall strategy Options: could allocate funds to HCVYS to allocate and monitor Grant Aid; could fund HCVYS to monitor and evaluate.	Need to ensure non-HCVYS members not discriminated against. Risk of loss of member/HCC control. HCYS and HCVYS partnership for discussing priorities would help.
Wording and approach of Grant Aid wrong. Term `grants' viewed as old-fashioned. Voluntary sector has moved to a business culture and service level agreements where the Youth Service purchases services from the voluntary sector. Query appropriateness of `voluntary' when many staff involved are professionally qualified. Youth Service could specify work wanted and invite tenders. Social Services funds the voluntary sector on a formalised basis with SLAs. Arrangements for regular reporting, and in case the contract breaks down, are in place.	More formal nature would protect HCC but may make it hard not to fund body if had met agreement in previous year. May also generate additional administrative work for small voluntary organisation and HCYS
Process of applying should be as streamlined as possible Marking/scoring process could be quicker - takes up to 4 months to process applications. Should aim for 8 week turnaround time.	Various issues and documentation required for appropriate decision making/audit purposes. Process partly governed by Youth Panel timetable. Should acknowledge receipt of grant - R&H use postcards
Lack of information on web-site, little guidance to form and lack of publicity e.g. leaflets. Information on HCYS objectives would be useful. Designated contact for queries would be good	System suits those currently funded as they are knowledgeable.
Information on why successful/unsuccessful would be useful.	More feedback needed especially for unsuccessful applicants.

This content is archived