Contact: Paddy Hillary, Ext. 7391

1. Summary

1.1. This report presents the outcomes and revised improvement programme resulting from the review of support for the voluntary and community sector and subsequent Best Value Inspection. The PRC received a report outlining the options for improvement in July 2002, following which the review was subject to a Best Value inspection. This report asks Members to endorse a revised improvement programme, incorporating the recommendations of the Best Value Inspectors and based on the main option, agreed at the conclusion of the review, which was to continue to provide support for voluntary and community organisations and to look at ways of improving the current delivery processes.

2. Introduction

2.1 Members will recall that this review was 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 The outcomes and proposed improvement programme were endorsed by the committee in July 2002 based on the previous recommendation to develop an option to improve current delivery of the County Council's support for voluntary and community organisations.

2.3 Following the committee's endorsement of the improvement programme, the review was subject to a Best Value Inspection. The final inspection report was delivered in February 2003 with a conclusion that the County Council is providing a fair service but with uncertain prospects for improvement. The Inspectors made some recommendations which have been incorporated into the revised improvement programme being presented with this report.

3. Review process

3.1 The review was undertaken by a joint team of County Council officers, elected members (Councillors Snaith, Ellis and Chegwyn) and representatives of voluntary and community organisations from Hampshire. The review 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) were £4195. The initial review took an estimated 106 person days to complete and a further 10 officer days were spent on work with the inspection team.

3.3 Following the publication of the inspection report, the review team revised the proposed improvement programme and carried out a further consultation exercise with partners in the voluntary and community sector, which concluded at end May 2003, to ensure that all were in accordance with the changes made.

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, launched in September 2001, provides a framework for working with voluntary and community organisations which includes 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 information and monitoring processes against the outcomes.

4 Inspection recommendations

4.1 The inspection report, published in February 2003, included the following
recommendations. The County Council should:

1. demonstrate clearly how it intends to address the challenges of the changing nature of its relationship with the voluntary and community sector though consultation and by clarifying and confirming overall objectives, developing targets to meet the aims set by the Hampshire Compact, relating these targets to the Corporate Strategy, identifying strategic leadership for this relationship within the council and publicising the approach.

2. ensure that greater benefits to local people are secured through better co-ordination of the councils range of funding including by implementing the recommendations of the District Audit report of March 2001, making a clear link to the development of the Compact, taking steps to improve access to information and resources and ensuring that the information collected helps demonstrate value for money.

3. improve relationships with the sector in order to enhance the capacity to meet the needs of local people by developing ways to learn from others including the voluntary sector and continuing consultation.

5 Outcomes

5.1 The review identified a number of outcomes which would improve both the effectiveness and management efficiency of the provision of support to the voluntary sector. These were 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 were also parallel discussions through the Hampshire Compact on a funding code of practice. The inspection recommendations supported these outcomes.

The outcomes are:

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 The review identified a number of improvements which would address concerns expressed through the challenge process and improve overall efficiency in the process corporately. These have been revised in line with the recommendations made by the Inspectors as outlined above. The proposed improvement programme is attached as Appendix 1 to this report.

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 organisations.

6.3 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, possibly with limited access for outside bodies, to:


- record all grant applications

- process and monitor grants through the decision making process

- provide summary and management information

- consider provision of application forms electronically

- 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 £15,000 for the design and set up work. There will be an ongoing maintenance charge which will depend on the complexity of the database. These costs reflect IT Services regular service rates for 2003/4.



Corporate Officer - short term appointment
In order to implement the proposed database it is recommended that a short term appointment be made at Scale 6 (subject to evaluation) initially for 1 year. This would be reviewed at the end of the period to establish the volume of ongoing work needed and an assessment of resources to cover this work. The cost of the short term appointment would be, depending on the outcome of the evaluation, £22,992 including on costs.

The post would have responsibility for finalising the database specification with IT Services and carrying out all the other activities identified in the improvement programme associated with the development of such an internal management system including reviewing the policy framework and criteria for grant allocation, streamlining application forms and processes, working with contacts in departments and developing a website to help with publicising the approach both internally and externally.

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 overall review having been undertaken at local government review in 1997)


- Streamlining the application process across all departments where appropriate


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


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

7 Conclusion

7.1 Overall the County Council provides a valuable service in supporting voluntary and community bodies in Hampshire. It is clear however, both from the review and the Best Value inspection conclusions, 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 and inspection processes. 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