1. The seminar was held to allow members of the Recreation and Heritage Policy Review Committee and the Executive Member to discuss current arrangements for supporting external organisations and how these might be improved. Members had received a briefing paper from the Director of Recreation and Heritage in advance of the seminar. This presented the results from a mapping exercise undertaken by an officer review team and the team's preliminary conclusions. It also invited members' views on five specific questions arising from the review.

2. The main points emerging from the discussion were as follows:

Importance of Partnership Funding and Support

There was general agreement that the partnership funding and support provided by the County Council to external organisations is very important in maintaining the rich and varied cultural life of the county. The indirect support given to external organisations through the involvement of officers was recognised as being very significant for many organisations, particularly community associations.

County Council funding also achieves a multiplier effect by levering in grants from other sources and encouraging spending in the local economy by people who attend events and activities. The economic benefits to the county are considerable. Services should give greater emphasis to gathering evidence of economic impact on a continuing basis.

Members also agreed that County Council funding and support is particularly important to smaller organisations. The significance of relatively small grants should not be underestimated.

Continuing Support or Pump Priming?

Members expressed a variety of views on whether or not external organisations should receive funding on a continuing basis. There is a concern that grants tend to go to established clients year on year and that this encourages a culture of "grant dependency". Several members wished to see grants provided for a limited period only as "pump priming", with recipients being encouraged and supported to achieve self sufficiency in their operations. There should also be more publicity about the Recreation and Heritage grant programmes to ensure that they do not operate for the benefit of a "favoured few".

However, there was an equally strong view that continuing support is essential in maintaining the cultural infrastructure of the county. Some external organisations are so significant in this respect that they need the security of a long term relationship with the County Council. Many organisations and the activities they provide could not exist on a commercial basis. Supporting them is justified on a value for money basis as the cost of direct provision would be much higher. It is also important to recognise that the continuing relationship with some organisations provides the basis for important programmes of service delivery (e.g. the work by musicians from the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra in Hampshire schools).

There was general agreement that, where organisations are funded on a continuing basis, there should be:

· clarity about benefits of such relationships

· agreed "exit strategies"

· more rigorous monitoring of performance and evaluation of outcomes, which should also examine value for money issues, and

· member involvement in the review process.

Members also confirmed the long established principle of supporting organisations that Hampshire people use, regardless of administrative boundaries.

Working with District Councils

There were varying opinions about the value of trying to link County Council grant decisions to those of District Councils. While very successful arrangements existed in some services and with some districts, it was felt that, on balance, the County Council should retain the freedom to allocate funding and award grants on its own terms. Nevertheless, there may be some scope for linking more closely to priorities emerging from district level LSPs and Community Strategies. It is also important to ensure that local members have an opportunity to make their views known on individual grant applications.

Award Process

There was general agreement that the assessment and award process should be as straightforward and transparent as possible. While recognising the need to build this process around clear criteria based on corporate and departmental objectives, some members felt that rigid adherence to such criteria would not be beneficial. Specific objectives and targets should be agreed with applicants on a case by case basis.

Some members raised concerns about what could be seen, in some cases, as subsidising minority interests. However, this needed to be balanced by a recognition that not everybody could be expected to benefit from all grant awards.

Accountability

Members and officers have a responsibility to ensure the proper and effective use of public funds. However, members agreed that any conditions attached to grant awards designed to ensure probity and accountability should not be so onerous that they imposed an unreasonable burden on other organisations and involved them in significant additional costs. It is legitimate to ask for details of financial plans when considering applications, but monitoring should concentrate on outcomes and value for money.

3. In relation to the five questions posed in the briefing paper, members views were as follows:

Do members agree that different arrangements should apply to the different categories of partnership support identified by the review?

Members agreed this point, with the proviso that arrangements should be sufficiently flexible to allow individual organisations and the services they provide to be supported in a variety of ways.

Do members agree that the Hampshire Compact provides a model for Recreation and Heritage in conducting its relationships with partner organisations?

Members agreed that the Compact principles do provide a useful guide, but should be applied in a way that is appropriate to the Recreation and Heritage partners.

Do members agree that greater pooling of project funding would have advantages over the current arrangements?

There was a general feeling that there is sufficient flexibility in the current arrangements and that grant decisions should be informed by the specialist service knowledge of relevant officers.

Do members agree that judgements on the effectiveness of partnership funding and support arrangements should concentrate on their contribution to key Departmental objectives rather than the current service based arrangements?

Members agreed that County Council objectives should be the basis of these assessments.

Do members agree that reporting arrangements need to be modified to improve the monitoring of performance? If so, what would they wish such reports to contain?

Members agreed with this point. Reports should include:

· information about performance against targets

· the specific outcomes and benefits achieved

· involvement of District Councils and other major organisations in supporting activities

· the extent of any indirect support from officers.

4. Following the seminar, firm proposals will be produced for consideration by the Policy Review Committee and approval by the Executive Member in May as the basis for formal consultation with partner organisations and other stakeholders.