Item

Strengths

Weaknesses

Opportunities

Threats

Arts Council England: quality and process of engagement with partners/stakeholders

· May expose weaknesses in ACE processes

· May provide insight into ACE processes for Members

· ACE - not within HCC jurisdiction

· No powers over organisation

· Limited - might provide some evidence to support letter of complaint

· Lot of work with little opportunity to influence

· Little opportunity for win-win for scrutiny

· Possible negative impact on reputation of Cttee if not seen as chance to further HCC's influence or improve on HCC services

Summary and selection criteria

Because the Arts Council England is not a department or part of Hampshire County Council, as an organisation, it and its actions are outside the remit and scope of the Committee to scrutinise. It is recommended that the proposed topic, "Review the basis for funding of the arts in Hampshire..." may be more suitable as a scrutiny topic.

Community Projects: Rationale for grants awarded by the Executive Member for Community Development and External Affairs

· Potential opportunity to make recommendations, either related to criteria used for awarding grants, or possibly to do with influencing re priority areas for funding/grants

· An exploratory exercise unless there are known problems or issues that need to be addressed

· Possible to provide positive contribution to improving transparency in how HCC uses its resources to support communities

· May be political sensitivities that need to be negotiated

· May step on toes re use of influence by constituency members

Summary and selection criteria

· Remit of Committee: Terms of Reference include: "...community development; developing sustainable communities; supporting..." Therefore it is within the Committee's remit.

· Not apparent / no evidence provided to suggest that this is an issue requiring scrutiny.

· On the basis of the last criterion, it is not a clear priority for scrutiny.

· Might have the potential for constructive impact IF a review found that such improvements were necessary.

Review of partnership relationships and outcomes - good or bad

· Probably interesting and potentially revealing, but very complex.

· Probably very many partnerships, each probably with different characteristics and dynamics, therefore would require extensive and time consuming research.

· May be difficult to draw general conclusions

· Scope could be problematic - too wide if every partnership were included, not representative if too narrow.

· May be a problem with defining `partnership' to keep a review manageable.

· Difficult to address recommendations to partners where the remit and intentions of the select committee/HCC might be questioned.

Learning opportunity perhaps, but complex

· The complexity inherent in a county-wide study might make it difficult to write a report that communicates simply and clearly, or to develop clear, focused recommendations?

· Politically sensitive vis-à-vis partners?

Summary and selection criteria

Dialogue with Rob O - to discuss potential angles and the section on O&S of partnerships (as per loc gov and pub inv in health act 07)

Rurality issues and their impact on HCC for planning and resourcing

· Strong perception exists that providing services to rural communities is more costly than central government allows for, however a large issue

· It is likely that recommendations would single out issues of central government support; central government is not within the power of HCC select committees to influence

· Research might unearth additional evidence of use in discussions with central government, but not clear it would be a productive use of select committee time and resource

· Criticism might accrue to the select committee if considered by others to not be best use of time and resources; also if recommendations unable to positively benefit HCC.

Summary and selection criteria

· Rurality, not directly within the remit of the Committee to scrutinise. It may, however, be possible to address rurality in the context of examining HCC's role in `developing sustainable communities'.

· Does evidence exist to suggest this should be an issue for scrutiny?

· Has the performance of the County Council been called into question with regard to its role in developing sustainable communities?

· What potential recommendations might have potential for constructive impact - on the CC or its partners?

Public consultation and engagement: role of members in supporting and monitoring progress

· Central Gov direction of travel:

o Strong and prosperous communities

o A stronger local voice

o Service design principles for government

o e-methods for public engagement

· Implications for all services eg. LIS

· Focus and targeting of resources etc

· Needs commitment of Members and senior officers

· Only if a review were to duplicate other work

· (would need careful scoping and shaping)

· To strengthen and support parallel initiatives

· If seen as challenge to the `representative' role of Members of their communities by Members

· If progressed without sensitivity to political or timing issues, eg. exec vs backbenchers.

Summary and selection criteria

· Clearly within the terms of reference of the Committee to look at "community engagement and consultation".

· Follows Government's `direction of travel' eg:

· A Stronger Local Voice (July 2006)

· Strong and Prosperous Communities (October 2006)

· Unlocking the talent of our communities (March 2008)

· Public engagement and consultation will become an increasingly significant element of audit of local authorities

· Does evidence exist to suggest this should be an issue for scrutiny? The Library Review would suggest evidence does exist?

· Is this an area for improvement in which scrutiny might have the potential to support?

· What potential recommendations might have potential for constructive impact - on the CC or its partners?

· Related to `community call for action' and `councillor call for action'

· Modifiable audit tool for engagement exists to support

Hard to reach communities: determine need/quantify extent of challenges, relevant issues and success of HCC in reaching those communities

· Special case of the above

· Valuable exercise for Members that could inform and strengthen their role as representatives of their communities

· As above

· To strengthen and support related initiatives such as the above

· No obvious threats

Summary and selection criteria

Related to the above topic; a subset of it. Similar drivers and questions for scrutiny

Communities under threat: evaluation of how Hants has been impacted by measures such as PO closures, school closures etc.

· Essex CC precedent

· Potentially popular politically

· Reasonable scope

· Possible to make recommendations to HCC (PBRS?)

· Would require pump priming with funds

· Risky if the County unable to find economically viable solution

· Business case essential

· Possible opportunity to create core set of community services?

· Possible to sweat existing assets more effectively?

· Might open the door to unknown exposure to risk in longer term.

· Would need to be consistent with council direction of travel and capable of integration with it.

Summary and selection criteria

· Possibly related to whether communities are sustainable, and therefore within the committee's remit; also economic development?

· May appeal to public sentiment, but does evidence exist to suggest any specific Hampshire communities are under threat?

· What Hampshire schools may be closing? What Hampshire post offices may be closing?

· Unless this issue is clearly a problem for Hampshire, should it be a potential scrutiny topic at this time?

Review of the basis (or bases) for funding of the arts in Hampshire - how Hants fits into the wider picture?

· Possibly greater knowledge of basis for funding might help HCC target funding to organisations better?

· Not clear that the basis for funding in Hampshire, is any different, in principle, to other counties.

· Not clear that the basis is not reasonably well known by R&H already

· Opportunity for Members to gain better appreciation of funding mechanisms and success factors, though the R&H department may be able to give briefing.

· Unless necessary, possible drain on scrutiny time and resources.

Summary and selection criteria

· Arts funding is within the committee's remit or sphere of interest.

· The committee has a duty to make recommendations to the County Council's departments when appropriate, but has no jurisdiction over external bodies such as the Arts Council.

· The committee could legitimately seek information and comment upon how the CC uses its arts funding within the larger context of funding available to arts organisations or for arts projects.

· What evidence exists to suggest that HCC is not currently providing arts funding appropriately, or that its criteria for funding are not adequate/appropriate for the purpose?

· Contextually, timing may be appropriate for a review as arts funding becomes tighter, criteria are changing, and economically challenging times affect priority setting for government and business organisations - complex set of interactions.

Review how HCC is preparing as a council for the demographic time bomb - problems and opportunities re over 65s?

· Real challenge for which longer term planning and preparation would be wise.

· May be opportunities to be identified as well as challenges

· Most facts are well known, at least in broader terms.

· Work may have been undertaken, or may be in progress.

· Opportunities may exist for creative thinking, innovative solutions and opportunities for investment.

· Would need to be carefully scoped and structured.

Summary and selection criteria

· The remit of the committee includes a responsibility to consider economic development and developing sustainable communities, but it is not clear that it has a particular remit to look at the ability of HCC to sustain its service provision, or how it plans to address the challenges of demographic changes and prioritise its use of resources in the light of these changes. Is this topic actually within the remit of the committee?

· The issues are strategic, and evidence required for planning would depend upon trend analysis and demographic statistics, this might limit the type of evidence taken by a committee; it would also require some speculation and prediction. The Committee could possibly contribute to policy development?

· The issues are probably timely, but are they not under consideration elsewhere in the organisation, eg. in departments, Treasurer's etc?

Culture and Communities

(terms of reference)

Looking at how policies, services and decisions support thriving culture and sustainable, inclusive communities; how they are implemented and how performance is evaluated and improved.

Culture and recreation; heritage; economic development; community development; developing sustainable communities; supporting diversity and inclusion; community engagement and consultation; lifelong learning for adults

Departments Covered:

· Recreation and Heritage,· Chief Executive's,· Adult Services,· Environment

Any other relevant functions in other Departments