Contacts: Helen Wheeler Ext: 5444 [email protected]

Stuart Dorward Ext: 6110 [email protected]

1 Introduction

1.1 This report sets out final recommendations on the future arrangements for partnership funding and support in the Recreation and Heritage services. These follow on from an external consultation on initial proposals developed in discussion with members earlier in the year.

1.2 The key features of these recommendations are:

· grants and other support for strategic partners to be the subject of more formal, longer term agreements

· where possible, agreement to be sought with other major funders on joint approaches to the funding of key partners

· greater emphasis on corporate and cultural strategy objectives as the basis for allocating and evaluating grants

· wider publicity for Recreation and Heritage grant programmes

· where appropriate, greater simplicity and standardisation in grant administration processes and documentation.

1.3 Partnership funding and support is a fundamental part of the County Council's delivery of Recreation and Heritage services. The proposals for developing these arrangements will therefore contribute indirectly to Aims 1 to 4 of the Corporate Strategy (Maximising Life Opportunities, Stewardship of the Environment, Achieving Economic Prosperity, Building Strong and Safe Communities) and directly to Aim 5 (Improving Services). They also support all of the aims of the Cultural Strategy.

2 Background

2.1 The Recreation and Heritage services currently provide support to a wide range of organisations and individuals in Hampshire through grants and other indirect means. The total value of this support is approximately £2.3 million per year, which in 2003/04 helped 180 organisations and 70 individuals.

2.2 The current pattern of partnership funding and support originates from the different strands of activity within the Recreation and Heritage Department and has developed over time. Each has its own processes for receiving, assessing and approving grant applications and subsequently administering, monitoring and evaluating grant awards. With the formation of the Recreation and Heritage Department it is appropriate to reassess these arrangements in terms of their contribution to County Council, Departmental and service objectives and in the light of the findings of the corporate best value review of support for the voluntary and community sector.

2.3 A small officer team completed a mapping and analysis exercise earlier in the year to identify:

· the range and value of the partnership funding and support provided by Recreation and Heritage

· current policies and policy objectives for all partnership funding schemes

· the different application, award, administration, monitoring and evaluation processes in place.

2.4 The detailed findings of this review were discussed by members at a seminar on 24 February 2004 and this led to a formal report to the Policy Review Committee and Executive Member in May setting out initial recommendations for improving the overall management of partnership funding and support arrangements. Members agreed that these should be the subject of wider consultation with partner organisations and other interested parties. This consultation took place between June and September this year.

3 The Consultation

3.1 The key proposals covered by the consultation were:

· strategic partnerships to be the subject of more formal long term agreements

· greater emphasis on evaluating outputs, outcomes and benefits

· greater emphasis on the contribution to County Council objectives as the basis for allocating and evaluating partnership support

· greater standardisation of documentation and processes

· reduction in the number of different partnership funding and support programmes.

The consultation document agreed by members included nine specific questions bearing on these proposals as well as inviting general comments. It was mailed to all the County Councillors and to 93 external bodies including all the Hampshire District Councils. It was also made available on Hantsweb.

3.2 The Appendix to this report is the summary of the consultation responses published on Hantsweb. 50 responses were received - 38 from external bodies in the voluntary and community sector, six from District Councils, five from County Councillors and one from an individual member of the public. 44 of the external organisations contacted directly responded to the consultation - a 47% response rate.

3.3 The Appendix shows that there is considerable support for most of the proposals. The one area where opinion is divided is on the desirability of pooling resources. The results of this wider consultation are very much in line with the views expressed by members.

3.4 The general thrust of the comments made in consultation responses is that partner organisations are looking for:

· an equitable, fair and consistent approach to partnership funding

· application, assessment, monitoring and evaluation processes that are proportionate to the size the partner organisation, the scale of funding involved and the category of funding

· stability, financial security and the ability to plan over a longer term to ensure the sustainability of projects

· clarity about decision making processes, efficient administration and information on the progress of individual applications.

3.5 These factors, together with issues highlighted in the seminar with members about accountability, value for money and the need for flexibility have guided the specific recommendations made later in this report.

4 Corporate Developments

4.1 The review of partnership funding and support in Recreation and Heritage has taken place alongside corporate developments stemming from the best value review of the County Council's support for the voluntary and community sector¹. The main outcome is the establishment of a corporate database of all County Council partnership funding programmes, including those in Recreation and Heritage. This will track all applications and provide better information to applicants and to the County Council about progress and the totality of the relationship between the County Council and individual organisations.

4.2 In practical terms, this will involve changes to administrative procedures and application forms. The opportunity will be taken to make processes much clearer for applicants and ensure that they are not repeatedly asked for the same information in support of their applications.

5 Proposed Changes

5.1 The consultation has established that there is general agreement that the majority of the proposals arising from the review and subsequent discussion with members will have benefits for the County Council, the organisations it supports and the people they serve. It is proposed therefore that the following changes are instituted as soon as possible:

· grants and other support for strategic partners should be the subject of more formal, longer term agreements that would cover:

o the purpose and intended benefits of the relationship

o the period of the agreement

o funding to be provided

o specific and measurable objectives expressed where possible in terms of outputs, outcomes and performance indicators

o monitoring requirements

o review process

o review criteria (which would include value for money considerations)

o notice period and termination arrangements.

· where possible, understandings should be sought with other major funding providers (District Councils, Arts Council England etc.) on joint approaches to the funding of key partners

· greater emphasis should be given to corporate and cultural strategy objectives as the basis for allocating and evaluating all grants; this implies that current criteria for all grant programmes will have to be reviewed, revised where necessary and communicated more widely

· the monitoring and review of all grant giving should place greater emphasis on evaluating outputs, outcomes and benefits, but all monitoring should be appropriate to the scale of the organisation, the size of the grant and the degree of risk; this implies that expected outcomes and benefits are made explicit before a grant arrangement is approved

· wider publicity should be given to availability of grant support from the Recreation and Heritage services, the objectives of grant programmes, eligibility criteria and application processes

· there should be greater standardisation in grant administration processes and documentation (some of which may be driven by corporate requirements coming out of the best value review); this implies possible reorganisation of administrative arrangements

· the final decision on all grant applications should be made by the Executive Member on the advice of officers and with the benefit of the views of relevant members.

5.2 If approved, these changes would be implemented over the course of the coming year. Further reports will consider the implications for the different grant funding programmes within Recreation and Heritage.

Recommendations

To the Policy Review Committee:

That the proposals set out in paragraph 5 of the report be supported and submitted to the Executive Member - Recreation and Heritage for approval.

To the Executive Member:

That the proposals set out in paragraph 5 of the report be approved.

Section 100 D - 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.

Appendix

Partnership Funding and Support Consultation - a summary of responses

The County Council consulted with key partners and other interested parties for a period of 12 weeks from 13 June 2004 to 13 September 2004 on proposals which, in its view, would improve the operation of the partnership funding and support programmes provided by the Recreation and Heritage services of the Council.

The consultation invited comments on a number of specific questions, the key points of which were:

· Strategic partnerships to be the subject of more formal long term agreements

· Greater emphasis on evaluating outputs, outcomes and benefits

· Greater emphasis on the contribution to County Council objectives as the basis for allocating and evaluating partnership support

· Greater standardisation of documentation and application processes

· Reduction in the number of different partnership funding and support programmes

Following the consultation a further report will be made to County Council members with final recommendations for approval by the Executive Member - Recreation and Heritage in November 2004. Any new arrangements will then be phased in with effect from the start of the 2005/2006 financial year. The County Council would like to thank those who have responded and commented on the consultation document.

Below is a summary of the main points made in response to the consultation. Please refer to the consultation paper for the context relating to each question.

1. Do you agree that the Hampshire Compact principles provide an appropriate framework for conducting the relationships between the Recreation and Heritage services of Hampshire County Council and the partners they support through grants or other means?

Percentage of respondents: Agreed 88.6% Disagreed 4.6% Don't know 6.8%

There was general endorsement of the Hampshire Compact principles as an appropriate framework for conducting relationships and ensuring a fair, equitable and consistent approach to funding. The Hampshire Compact recognises the difference between large and small organisations and the different types of partnership that may be established through funding arrangements.

2. Do you agree that it is helpful to distinguish between these different categories of grant?

(There are four main categories of partnership funding: formal partnerships governed by the provisions of joint management agreements with other local authorities; strategic partnerships with key external organisations where the County Council has provided funding and other support over a number of years; project support to enable partners to deliver specific activities; one-off grants to support individuals or organisations to achieve a specific goal)

Percentage of respondents: Agreed 95.6% Disagreed 0% Don't know 4.4%

3. Do you agree that different application, approval, monitoring and evaluation processes should be used for the different categories?

Percentage of respondents: Agreed 91.3% Disagreed 2.2% Don't know 6.5%

Many respondents emphasised that application, monitoring and evaluation should be appropriate, proportionate, fair and consistent in relation to the size and resources (staff/volunteers) of the organisation, the size of the grant being awarded or the category of funding. The role of monitoring and evaluation was accepted as an important element for the County Council in demonstrating the achievement of value for money.

4. Do you agree that placing key strategic partnerships on a longer term footing under the terms of a formal agreement would be beneficial to the County Council and partner organisation?

Percentage of respondents: Agreed 93.3% Disagreed 2.2% Don't know 4.5%

The benefits of stability, financial security, long term planning and the more likely sustainability of projects or organisations for the greater benefit of the Hampshire Community were identified as well as the benefit of reducing time spent on grant application processes and enabling greater support for other funding applications. The concerns raised included retaining flexibility to respond to change, ensuring funding is available for innovative, new initiatives, retaining the independence of the funded organisation and how to provide financial security beyond the end of a long term funding period.

5. Do you agree that placing greater emphasis on the expected outputs and outcomes from project support and one-off grants would be beneficial to the County Council and partners?

Percentage of respondents: Agreed 77.3% Disagreed 4.5% Don't know 18.2%

There was general agreement that funding should seek to achieve objectives but that outcomes are agreed between the partners and should be appropriate to the size of the organisation or the amount of funding awarded. The value of a service and the intangible and long term benefits that are not easily measured should not be overlooked in the interests of quantifying participation in numbers only.

6. Do you agree that the aims and objectives of the County Council's Cultural Strategy should provide the primary basis for assessing and evaluating Recreation and Heritage partnership funding and support agreements?

Percentage of respondents: Agreed 82.2% Disagreed 4.5% Don't know 13.3%

There was general agreement that the Cultural Strategy provides the basis but that the aims and objectives require greater clarification and definition as criteria for assessing grant funding applications.

7. Do you agree that there is a need for greater standardisation of grant processes and documentation?

Percentage of respondents: Agreed 63.6% Disagreed 13.7% Don't know 22.7%

What is important to grant applicants is that the application form and the application process is clear and simple, that the decision process is quick, that applicants are kept informed and that the information requested is appropriate to the size of grant sought.

8. Do you agree that there is a need for a central contact point for grant applications?

Percentage of respondents: Agreed 68.2% Disagreed 11.4% Don't know 20.4%

The overall view was that it is important to organisations to have personal contact with a named officer who understands the funding application process and is able to advise and keep them informed of progress.

9. Do you consider that there should be greater pooling of resources and a reduction in the number of different partnership funding and support programmes in the Recreation and Heritage services?

Percentage of respondents: Agreed 22.2% Disagreed 22.2% Don't know 55.5%

The comments received reflected an element of doubt regarding the pooling of resources and fears that funding may be reduced or that smaller organisations may loose out and larger partners benefit.