Archived decisions

Hampshire County Council

Culture and Communities Select Committee

9 October 2008

Charitable Outdoor Centres

Report of the Chief Executive

Item 9(b)

Contact: Martin Combs, Ext: 7479. Colin Hinxman, Ext 7343

E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

Culture and Communities Select Committee

Review of Charitable Outdoor Centres

Update on progress of review

1. Introduction

This review follows from, and complements the Review of Outdoor and Field Studies Centres undertaken in 2007, and brought to the Executive Member for Policy and Resources 28 January 2008.

That report identified that further work should be undertaken to explore the possibility of establishing criteria to inform future funding decisions and/or priorities with respect to the level of support provided by Hampshire County Council to outdoor and field studies centres in Hampshire run by charitable organisations. The Executive Member for Policy and Resources requested that the Committee undertake this related review.

2. Timeliness and relevance

    · Politically possible relevance to County elections in 2009

    · Relevant to how the CC is perceived in terms of its commitment to the wellbeing of children and young people

    · General improvement of performance of CC in terms of increasing the focus and direction of its resources to align more closely with corporate priorities and needs of its population.

3. Progress with scrutiny to date

    · A Review Panel was established consisting of the following members:

      o Cllr Keith Chapman

      o Cllr Ray Ellis (replacement needed now that RE is an executive member)

      o Cllr Brian Gurden

      o Cllr Dennis Wright

    · First meeting held on 23 May 2008 (notes - Appendix One)

    · Visits to centres by the panel held on 16th and 27th June

    · Notes from visits to centres (Appendix Two)

    · Potential funding criteria - draft (Appendix Three)

    · Draft terms of reference produced for consideration by the Committee

4. Scope of the Review

To ascertain the contribution that each of the charitable outdoor/field studies centres makes to out of classroom education in Hampshire, how they add value to what is already provided by the County's own centres, and the extent to which they may complement and/or supplement that provision.

5. Anticipated outcomes of the Review

The purpose of the review is to recommend to the County Council practical guidance/criteria for prioritising or determining the relative amount of funding support provided by the Council to charitable outdoor/field studies centres.

6. Indicative Key Stakeholders

    · Hampshire County Council

    · Recreation and Heritage Department

    · Charitable centres

    · Children's educational services

7. Proposed approach

    · The Review Panel meet to consider the draft potential funding guidance/criteria, and agree and/or amend them for recommendation to the Executive Member P&R.

    · Agreed criteria be taken to the Culture and Communities Select Committee

    · A report is produced with findings and recommendations to be taken to the Executive Member for P&R in the first instance.

Appendix One: Notes from the Review Panel meeting held on 23 May 2008

NOTE of a meeting of the CHARITABLE OUTDOOR CENTRES REVIEW PANEL of the CULTURE AND COMMUNITIES SELECT COMMITTEE held at the Castle Winchester on 23 May 2008.

PRESENT:

Councillor K. Chapman (Chairman); R.J. Ellis; B.T. Gurden; D.F. Wright.

Also present:

Councillor M. Kemp-Gee

The Panel received an introductory presentation by Stuart Nundy, Recreation and Heritage Department, giving details of the five charitable outdoor centres which historically receive partnership funding from the County Council:

· Countryside Education Trust, Beaulieu

· Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Activities Centre, Bursledon

· The Privett Centre

· Gilbert White's House, Selborne

· Avon Tyrell Activities Centre, Bransgore

They also had initial information on the main services provided by each Centre, the numbers of children they cater for, and their sources of funding.

The Panel indicated that they would like more information on:-

· How the five centres market themselves

· The rationale/criteria on which they receive the amounts of County Council grant that they do

· The overall funding picture for each centre - who else funds them, do Portsmouth and Southampton contribute, etc?

· How well each of the centres fits in with the County Council's corporate priorities and what match/competition or conflict there may be with the County Council's own outdoor activity centres

· More details of other outdoor activity centre providers not currently funded by the County Council, for example, Hampshire Wildlife Trust and Fairthorne Manor, what their sources of funding are and how they market themselves

· Geographical spread of outdoor activity centres related to the areas from which their customers come

· The future funding arrangements for Minstead and Stubbington Study Centres, as opposed to the various charitable outdoor centres

· Two days of visits to the various outdoor centres to be arranged, ideally on 16 and 27 June.

It was, therefore, agreed that further investigation should be put on hold until the necessary arrangements had been made for members to visit the centres and see for themselves how they operate. Stuart Nundy and Martin Combs undertook to make the necessary arrangements and notify Members.

4JN030508

Appendix Two: Notes from visits to Charitable Outdoor Centres

Culture and Communities Select Committee

Review of Charitable Outdoor Centres

(Log of visits to centres - revised 31/7/08)

Centre visits: Countryside Educational Trust, Beaulieu 16/6

General Questions

1. What does the centre provide that is over and above Hampshire Centres?

· Possibly more educational (field studies) content than expected, though mix of fun and developing knowledge of outdoor things

2. Who are the typical users of the centre?

· Special needs

· Community work (2 - 92 years!)

3. What types of funding do they rely on?

· Some funding from an American organisation

· HSBC

· Lottery

· Etc.

· Capital Programme (SEEDA)

· HCC

· Own fund raising

4. What is a typical annual cycle of use like?

· Residential tends to be near or to capacity throughout school year

· Day use is more difficult and tends to drop off in the winter. Hope to get a better balance with new and better buildings

5. What proportion of their users are from: Hants, Ports, Soton, Other?

· Used a lot by schools from London and Surrey, but not Dorset.

· Hampshire = most at appx 47%

6. What are the unit costs - if available?

  
   

Countryside Educational Trust, Beaulieu

Staff included

    Director: David Bridges (01590 612401)

    David's PA: Linda Haywood

Initial impressions / Additional comments

    · professional approach,

    · prepared for visit,

    · Probably, staff a little concerned about the purpose of the visit

    · video presentation and displays (made by Totten College) set up for panel

    · tour of facilities, incl work on new `tree house'

    · Provide kids with outdoor gear

    · Good contact with Amanda Elms, National Parks Education Officer

    · Consider the centre `unique' (& acknowledge that all centres have a `unique' element to the services/environments they provided), including H centres!

    · Charges

    · Hampshire kids get discount - costs appx £3 to £9 per day

    · Average appx £4.50

    · Repeat booking are appx 70%

    · Volunteers help in many ways, including instructing - helps keep costs down

    · Typical pay for a teacher/leader/instructor £16k pa

    · Staff seem to do the job because they like it and believe it is important

    · For a typical residential stay of 4 nights, staff who come with the children prepare `entertainment' for 3 nights, and the centre will arrange 1 night.

    · Accommodation is in two wings, one for males, the other for females in rooms for 3 or 4 children

Countryside Educational Trust

Pros

    · Significant role in local community?

Cons

    · Probably duplicates what HCC centres provide (particularly Minstead and Stubbington) - Note, however that the demand exists and that the centre is unlikely to take `business' from HCC centres.

Centre visits: Avon Tyrrell, NF near Ringwood 16/6

General Questions

1. What does the centre provide that is over and above Hampshire Centres?

· Large building with a lot of accommodation (main house sleeps 110, full board, 76 beds in self catering lodges, camping up to 400). Probably similar offerings to Tile Barn but on larger scale. Have a good high ropes area with climbing wall, Use the forest etc.

· Note: that the funding provided by HCC to this centre is for field studies only - a very small element within their overall provision.

2. Who are the typical users of the centre?

· Large range, but beginning to work more with young people who have been, or are in danger of exclusion (Youth achievement foundation).

3. What types of funding do they rely on?

· Various but try to cover costs from courses etc.

· Own fund raising

4. What is a typical annual cycle of use like?

· Usage tends to be seasonal

5. What proportion of their users are from: Hants, Ports, Soton, Other?

· Used a lot by schools from London and Surrey, Soton, Ports, Dorset and Hampshire

6. What are the unit costs - if available?

  
   
   

Avon Tyrrell

Staff included

    Claire Moir - responsible for field study work (the only part of the centre that is funded by HCC/R&H - 01425 672323 / 07771 507969))

    Louis Bonney - 15 years with the centre, and ex-forest ranger(? 01425 675101 [email protected])

    David - responsible for new programme for young people who are excluded, or are at risk of exclusion re education/society

Initial Impressions/additional comments

    · Staff prepared for visit and had a presentation ready

    · Staff very open and answered questions readily

    · Probably, staff were wondering about the purpose of the visit

    · Large country house used for catered accommodation

    · The above a challenge to maintain

    · Wooden chalets for self catering accommodations

    · Grounds that had seen better days, but probably adequate for the purposes of the centre

    · New construction being built near a small lake for field studies

    · High ropes course and climbing tower

    · Impressively dedicated staff who deliver a service for relatively low remuneration

    · Willing to look at building on experience of working with young people to deliver new programmes and to innovate

Avon Tyrrell

Pros

    · Probably the most innovative of the centres, for example, initiating new programmes such as for yp at risk of exclusion or excluded? But are they more innovative because they have to be to survive? But note that HCC does not support the centre for their mainstream provision such as this.

    · Significant capacity: residential, self-catering, camping

Cons

    · Duplicates some of what HCC centres provide

Centre visits: Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Outdoor Centre, Hedge End 27/6

General Questions

1. What does the centre provide that is over and above Hampshire Centres?

· Perhaps the centre with the clearest role in complementing the work of other Hampshire County Council centres. The primary and only focus is to provide outdoor or out of classroom adventure and learning activities for CYP and adults with special needs, probably most with learning disabilities, or for example, with conditions such as autism, although the centre does consider a wider range of people with needs.

2. Who are the typical users of the centre?

· Groups of people with special needs or needs of various kinds. The centre caters for day and residential visits.

· Over the past year types of people using the centre are approximately:

    o 70% learning disability

    o 17% autism

    o 10% primarily physical disability

3. What types of funding do they rely on?

· Various but try to cover costs from its `earned' income, and seeks ways to maintain or grow its revenue, however there are natural limits to growth, including finite accommodation, and availability of trained helpers/staff. It also raises funds, particularly raising them for specific projects from, for example the `Big Lottery' and other grant giving organisations.

4. What is a typical annual cycle of use like?

· Usage has tended to be seasonal, however over This year they anticipate some income generation over the Oct - Mar period which has previously been a period used to refresh the centre.

5. What proportion of their users are from: Hants, Ports, Soton, Other?

· About:

    o 64% from Hampshire

    o 18% from Soton

    o 16% from Ports

· Rest from out of county

6. What are the unit costs - if available?

  
   

Staff included

Centre manager: Phil Oates (02380 404844 [email protected])

Treasurer: Phil Olson (?) - relevant?

Initial impressions/ additional comments

    · Professional greeting

    · Sensed some concern or defensiveness over the visit - probably not understanding the purpose

    · Some interaction with Mike Wickenden? Who provides input about the wider world in terms of Government initiatives and possible funding programmes - have had the sense that `managers' perspective may be relatively limited to the job in hand, whilst `funding' is a specialist field and it would be easy for these small orgs to miss out due to lack of appropriate knowledge.

    · Interesting chalet style wooden houses, but would take a lot of refreshing and maintenance

    · Very specialist and valuable service provided at this centre - get the impression it takes its toll on staff.

    · Transitions project (see Mike Wickenden)

Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Outdoor Centre

Pros

    · Very clear specialist and complementary role vis-à-vis HCC centres

    · Attempting to cover costs through services provided

    · Some innovation

Cons

    · None

Centre visits: Privett Outdoor Centre, near Alton and Petersfield 27/6

General Questions

1. What does the centre provide that is over and above Hampshire Centres?

· Small, relatively intimate, quiet location away from city/urban hustle and bustle. In the context of working with special needs children on life skills, the small size of the facility is an advantage.

· The centre provides opportunities for life skills development, as well as for introducing groups to the rural environment. All groups using the centre are self-led

2. Who are the typical users of the centre?

· Primarily used by special needs schools/groups, primary and secondary schools, colleges and specialist units in schools. Also by some groups from urban areas such as Rowner.

· Typical usage:

    o 44% special needs

    o 20% primary schools

    o 10% adult

    o 14% other (eg. disabled or disadvantaged)

    o 12% youth groups (youth services from Gosport, Basingstoke, East Hants)

3. What types of funding do they rely on?

· Trying to cover greater proportion of costs from use of the centre.

· Attempt to get additional funding by applying for grants in addition to the R&H contribution.

4. What is a typical annual cycle of use like?

· Usage tends to be seasonal with greatest usage during the summer and autumn by schools.

5. What proportion of their users are from: Hants, Ports, Soton, Other?

· Virtually all visits are from within Hampshire.

6. What are the unit costs - if available?

· Website claims the centre is low cost.

   
   

Staff

Centre manager: Angela Grigsby ([email protected] 01730 828238) is the only member of staff

Initial impressions/ additional comments

    · Professional welcome

    · Very pleasant building and accommodation, though bunk beds for children. Clean and well kept

    · Old attractive small church next door - sometimes used by groups for activities

    · October to March is the lowest occupancy time for schools. Has been used over Christmas by large family group.

    · Satisfaction questionnaires used for groups

    · Request presentation from Angela

    · Looking for funding to improve kitchen facilities and access.

Privett Outdoor Centre

Pros

· Complementary role (not clear that other HCC centres would be able to provide comparable environment)

· Different opportunities in a small, almost domestic scale, quiet environment

Cons

· Capacity to become self sustaining unlikely, although efforts being made to reduce dependence upon HCC funding

Centre visits: Gilbert White Field Studies Centre, Selbourne 27/6

General questions

1. What does the centre provide that is over and above Hampshire Centres?

· Whilst the centre probably provides a high quality experience, and the local environment provides an unusually wide variety of biologically diverse fauna and flora, it probably duplicates HCC provision. It's geographical position makes it more accessible to schools or groups in the North and Northeast part of the county. It is limited in so far as it only offers day usage.

2. Who are the typical users of the centre?

· Primary and secondary schools, some colleges.

3. What types of funding do they rely on?

· Primarily income from visits/courses and HCC through R&H.

4. What is a typical annual cycle of use like?

· Mainly summer and better parts of spring and autumn, though open for school year.

5. What proportion of their users are from: Hants, Ports, Soton, Other?

· Mainly Hampshire some out of county. Also private schools. However note that the catchment tends to be those schools or groups within a 1 hour journey from the centre.

6. What are the unit costs - if available?

  
   
   

Staff

Field Studies Centre Warden: Jenny Streeter (01420 511517)

Murph Morrison - Trustee ( [email protected])

Cllr Mark Kemp-Gee - Trustee

Initial impressions/ additional comments

    · Cost of travel to centres arose again, this centre tends to target schools which have their own minibuses since for a school to book a coach for a day visit tends to be very expensive, often costing more per student than the cost of the course.

    · Fees are approximately:

      £3.50 pp up to and including KS2

      £4.00 pp for KS3

      £4.50 pp for KS4 and above

    · Centre continues to run at a deficit, despite relatively high level of funding from HCC

    · Uncertain as to how driven the organisation is in terms of creative marketing or course provision

    · What plans do the trustees have to reduce the level of dependency upon HCC funding and to become more self sustaining?

Gilbert White Field Studies Centre

Pros

    · Location - more accessible to schools north and east of the county.

Cons

    · Lack of residential capacity, therefore limits range of possibilities to develop the business

    · High level of grant from, and dependency on HCC

    · Duplicates, but probably not in direct competition with, HCC provision

Appendix Three: Potential guidance/criteria for assessing level of funding provided to charitable outdoor centres

Potential Funding Criteria for Charitable Outdoor Centres

Centre: Countryside Educational Trust, Beaulieu

Criteria

  
 

No

Maybe

Yes

 

-3

3

6

Strategic fit with Corporate Priorities

      

· Maximising wellbeing

      

· Enhancing our quality of place

      

Strategic fit with Educational/Children's Services Priorities

      

· Children at risk of exclusion / Children in care / Special needs

      

Fit with Centres provided by HCC

      

· Degree to which the centre complements HCC centres

      

· Degree to which the centre's location helps improve access to all localities in Hampshire

      

Value for money as measured by the level of subsidy apparently provided by HCC

      

The vigour with which the centre appears to improve its level of income from sources other than HCC

      

Culture of innovation in course development/outdoor experience and delivery

      

Total

-12

3

18

Notes:

· Centre does not provide anything that cannot be provided by HCC own centres in area

· Level of subsidy £11.65 pp ps

  

Overall

Score

9

       

Centre: Avon Tyrrell (field studies only)

Criteria

  
 

No

Maybe

Yes

 

-3

3

6

Strategic fit with Corporate Priorities

      

· Maximising wellbeing

      

· Enhancing our quality of place

      

Strategic fit with Educational/Children's Services Priorities

      

· Children at risk of exclusion / Children in care / Special needs

      

Fit with Centres provided by HCC

      

· Degree to which the centre complements HCC centres (score for field studies only)

      

· Degree to which the centre's location helps improve access to all localities in Hampshire

      

Value for money as measured by the level of subsidy apparently provided by HCC

      

The vigour with which the centre appears to improve its level of income from sources other than HCC

      

Culture of innovation in course development/outdoor experience and delivery

      

Total

-6

3

30

Notes:

· Intake for the centre as a whole from across England

· The field studies element funded by HCC probably replicates HCC own centres

· Innovation recognised here not relevant to the service element funded by HCC

· Level of subsidy £1.75 pp ps

  

Overall

Score

27

Centre: QE II Silver Jubilee Activity Centre

   
 

No

Maybe

Yes

 

-3

3

6

Strategic fit with Corporate Priorities

      

· Maximising wellbeing

      

· Enhancing our quality of place

      

Strategic fit with Educational/Children's Services Priorities

      

· Children at risk of exclusion / Children in care / Special needs

      

Fit with Centres provided by HCC

      

· Degree to which the centre complements HCC centres

      

· Degree to which the centre's location helps improve access to all localities in Hampshire

      

Value for money as measured by the level of subsidy apparently provided by HCC

      

The vigour with which the centre appears to improve its level of income from sources other than HCC

      

Culture of innovation in course development/outdoor experience and delivery

      

Total

  

3

42

Note:

· Location - one of very few such specialist centres in England, thus improves access to Hampshire and bordering counties

· Not clear how innovative the centre is or could be

· Level of subsidy £2.11 pp ps

  

Overall

Score

45

Centre: Privett Outdoor Centre

   
 

No

Maybe

Yes

 

-3

3

6

Strategic fit with Corporate Priorities

      

· Maximising wellbeing

      

· Enhancing our quality of place

      

Strategic fit with Educational/Children's Services Priorities

      

· Children at risk of exclusion / Children in care / Special needs

      

Fit with Centres provided by HCC

      

· Degree to which the centre complements HCC centres

      

· Degree to which the centre's location helps improve access to all localities in Hampshire

      

Value for money as measured by the level of subsidy apparently provided by HCC

      

The vigour with which the centre appears to improve its level of income from sources other than HCC

      

Culture of innovation in course development/outdoor experience and delivery

n/a

n/a

n/a

Total

-3

3

30

Note:

· Location - improves access in east of county

· Self-led centre mainly used to improve life skills for children with special needs

· Level of subsidy £43 pp ps but trying hard to find additional income from other sources

· Valuable resource for more intensive work with small groups without distraction

  

Overall

Score

30

Centre: Gilbert White Field Studies Centre

   
 

No

Maybe

Yes

 

-3

3

6

Strategic fit with Corporate Priorities

      

· Maximising wellbeing

      

· Enhancing our quality of place

      

Strategic fit with Educational/Children's Services Priorities

      

· Children at risk of exclusion / Children in care / Special needs

      

Fit with Centres provided by HCC

      

· Degree to which the centre complements HCC centres

      

· Degree to which the centre's location helps improve access to all localities in Hampshire

      

Value for money as measured by the level of subsidy apparently provided by HCC

      

The vigour with which the centre appears to improve its level of income from sources other than HCC

      

Culture of innovation in course development/outdoor experience and delivery

      

Total

-9

6

18

Note:

· Centre probably does not provide anything significant that other HCC centres cannot provide, but provides better access in the north/east of the county.

· Centre is limited by running only day courses, and it is not clear how innovative or how much vigour has been invested in finding other ways to increase revenue

· Level of subsidy £15.30 pp ps

  

Overall

Score

15