Archived decisions

Hampshire County Council

Culture and Communities Select Committee

22 January 2009

Charitable Outdoor Centres Final Report

Report of the Chief Executive

Item 7

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

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

1. Introduction

1.1 The review of Charitable Outdoor Centres 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.

1.2 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.

A review panel consisting of:

      · Cllr Keith Chapman (Chairman)

      · Cllr Dr Ray Ellis

      · Cllr Dennis Wright

      · Cllr Brian Gurden

    was established to undertake this work. Each of the centres was visited by members of the panel (notes from these visits are provided at Appendix One).

2. Score Sheet

2.1 Arising out of the visits, questions raised by Members and from discussions with officers a set of draft criteria was developed in the form of a score sheet to be completed for each centre. The notes from the visits and the draft score sheets as applied to the centres were taken to the Culture and Communities Committee on 9 October 2008 as a practical test of the approach (see Appendix Two). The score sheet has subsequently been `tuned' to ensure that the scoring accords as closely as possible with considered and informed judgement.

Centre: charitable outdoor centre ________

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

      

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

·

     

Fit with Centres provided by HCC

      

· Either the degree to which the centre complements HCC centres, or the degree to which the centre adds needed capacity vis-à-vis HCC centres

      

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

      

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

(using an approximate unit of `per person', `per session')

      

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

0

0

0

Note:

· ........

· ........

· ........

Overall

Score

00

2.2 Explanation of score sheet: Scores

2.2.1 Whilst it is important to be able to turn the criteria into a means of scoring centres, it is also important to recognise that score sheets should not be used in isolation from knowledge of the centres gained through regular contact and other means. It also has to be possible to produce scores that allow comparison between centres whilst at the same time making it reasonably clear what the reasons for any changes in levels of funding might be. The scoring values are explained below:

      · Yes (6): indicates confidence that the centre meets the criterion

      · Maybe (3): indicates a likelihood that the centre meets the criterion. This score is also an implicit acknowledgement that scoring is not about absolute values and more about the judgement of experienced officers or members.

      · No (-3): indicates that there is little or no apparent evidence or certainty that the centre meets the criterion.

2.3 Criteria used for the Score Sheet:

    Strategic fit with Corporate Priorities

2.3.1 It is important that funding and grants provided by the County Council to charitable and independent providers is used to foster the same priorities and aims as the County's own provision. The two priorities that have most potential relevance for outdoor centres have been included as two separate values for which scores can be given, ie:

      · Maximising wellbeing, and

      · Enhancing our quality of place

    Strategic fit with Educational/Children's Services Priorities

2.3.2 It is reasonable to think that a centre could provide experience of particular value to children, young people, or even adults with specific physical or social needs and disabilities. Such groups or young people may be identified as priorities for support or care by individual departments such as Children and Young People; this criterion allows such special added value to be recognised in scoring centres.

    Fit with centres provided by HCC

2.3.3 The recent review of outdoor and field studies centres looked at the range of provision across all centres run by Hampshire County Council. If support is to be provided to independent centres, then it would seem reasonable to consider them in terms of the value they add to what the County already provides, particularly in a climate that expects HCC centres to become increasingly financially independent. The criteria below attempt to identify the most obvious ways in which the fit of charitable outdoor centres with HCC centres might be scored, ie. by scoring the degree to which centre complements HCC centres: this criterion enables the score sheet to identify:

      · either where a centre clearly complements the County's own provision, either by type of experiences provided and/or by special facilities provided and/or where the centre adds needed capacity vis-à-vis HCC centres: this criterion identifies where extra high quality capacity is provided for which there is a clearly identified demand.

      · The degree to which the centre's location helps improve access for all localities in Hampshire: this criterion recognises the extra value that a centre may provided specifically because its location improves access to schools and groups in that area.

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

2.3.4 Not an absolute measure, but relative to the amount of subsidy provided to other centres, including the County's own (based on the grant or subsidy divided by a common unit of service provided). For the review of Outdoor and Field Studies Centres, the common unit of measurement used was the cost per person for a `session', defined as a morning, afternoon or evening of activity. This criterion is indicative and therefore provides only an approximate indication of value for money. The lower range of costs per session are scored as a `yes'; the higher range are scored as a `no' and intermediate cost levels as `maybe'.

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

2.3.5 In principle, it is not normally desirable for an organisation to be dependent upon a single source for a large part of its income. The score sheet reflects this concern by allowing it to be factored into the overall score using this criterion. A `yes' indicates that the centre recognises the importance of seeking funding from a range of sources, and actively attempts and succeeds in attracting other income, thus reducing the risk attached to relying on one major contributor. A `no' indicates that County Council funding forms a large part of the centre's income; a `maybe' shows that the centre appears to have more scope to attract additional income.

    Culture of innovation in course development/outdoor experience and delivery

2.3.6 This criterion recognises that for any business it is critical to have a culture of innovation that not only recognises change, but anticipates it. No organisation can afford to stand still, indulge in the past and hope to remain viable and successful. The assumption here is that for the County, it is preferable to fund organisations that are prepared to change and innovate, rather than to prop up those that are unwilling to do so. A `yes' score recognises that a centre continues to demonstrate its ability to change and move with the times as customers' expectations and interests evolve. A `no' indicates a centre may appear satisfied with maintaining the status quo, whilst a `maybe' could indicate that a centre is open to innovative initiatives, but its options may be limited.

3. Summary

3.1 The score sheet attempts to capture key and practical principles or criteria for scoring charitable outdoor centres. It is suggested that scoring sheets are used on a yearly basis as an aid for officers and members as they reflect on funding decisions and the relative merits of each centre in this regard. The scoring sheets, however, can only provide part of the story. In their ways, each centre is unique, and in the end funding decisions will be informed by a variety of factors and executive members much have scope to include all considerations that appear relevant at the time.

3.2 The charitable outdoor centres have been scored by panel members with the assistance of officers, largely based on visits to the centres and other available evidence; the score sheets can be found at Appendix Two.

4. Recommendations

The Review Panel recommends that:

4.1 The Executive Member for Recreation and Heritage adopt the proposed score sheet as principled and practical input to inform funding decisions with respect to Charitable Outdoor Centres

4.2 The County Council considers adopting a version of the score sheet in assessing the County's own centres to provide a simple, consistent input into decisions / discussions on their potential viability, and the value each adds to the county's portfolio of outdoor and field studies centres.

4.3 All Charitable centres be expected to have a business model that aims to cover costs from revenue, but where additional funding is needed to subsidise the centre, they are encouraged to seek funding from a variety of sources in addition to the County Council. In this context it is also recommended that the County provides access to specialist expertise in support of centres broadening their funding base, thus reducing risk associated with high dependence on a small number of grant giving agencies.

Appendix One: Notes from members' visits to Charitable Centres

Culture and Communities Select Committee

Review of Charitable Outdoor Centres

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

Centre visits: Countryside Education 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?

(approximate costs were taken from evidence from the Outdoor and Field Studies report 2008)

   

Countryside Education Trust, Beaulieu

Contact details

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 Totton 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 Education 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, ie. excludes Winter

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?

(approximate costs were taken from evidence from the Outdoor and Field Studies report 2008)

   

Avon Tyrrell

Contact details

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

    · Provide activities at far Western side of Hampshire

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?

(approximate costs were taken from evidence from the Outdoor and Field Studies report 2008)

   

Contact details

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

    · Centre struggles financially to maintain its unique service and could limit potential development

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.

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

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

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

· Virtually all visits are from within Hampshire.

5. What are the unit costs - if available?

· Website claims the centre is low cost. (approximate costs were taken from evidence from the Outdoor and Field Studies report 2008)

   

Contact details

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, Selborne 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.

5. What are the unit costs - if available?

(approximate costs were taken from evidence from the Outdoor and Field Studies report 2008)

   

Contact details

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 Two: Score Sheet evaluation of Charitable Centres exercise

Potential Funding Criteria for Charitable Outdoor Centres

Centre: Countryside Education 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

      

· Either the degree to which the centre complements HCC centres, or the degree to which the centre adds needed capacity vis-à-vis 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

-6

9

12

Note:

· The centre probably duplicates provision at some HCC centres in NF area

· Strong commitment to adding value in local community

· Level of subsidy appx £1.86 pp ps

Overall

Score

15

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

      

· Either the degree to which the centre complements HCC centres (score for field studies only), or the degree to which the centre adds needed capacity vis-à-vis 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

(field studies only score)

      

Culture of innovation in course development/outdoor experience and delivery

(field studies only score)

      

Total

-3

12

12

Notes:

· Intake for the centre as a whole is 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; funding has not been sought from the centre for their more innovative work.

· Level of subsidy appx £0.63 pp ps

Overall

Score

21

Centre: QE II Silver Jubilee Activity Centre

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

      

· Either the degree to which the centre complements HCC centres, or the degree to which the centre adds needed capacity vis-à-vis HCC centres

      

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

0

3

36

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 appx £0.87 pp ps

Overall

Score

39

Centre: Privett Outdoor Centre

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

      

· Either the degree to which the centre complements HCC centres, or the degree to which the centre adds needed capacity vis-à-vis 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

6

18

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 appx £2.75 pp ps but trying hard to find additional income from other sources. However note that `sessions' are actually provided by staff bringing children to the centre.

· Valuable (unique?) resource for more intensive work with small groups without distraction

Overall

Score

21

Centre: Gilbert White Field Studies Centre

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

      

· Either the degree to which the centre complements HCC centres, or the degree to which the centre adds needed capacity vis-à-vis 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

12

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 appx £5.11 pp ps

· Very recent concern expressed by the Museum and centre concerning their longer time viability, therefore have begun to explore options and possibilities (confirms scoring sheet assessment)

Overall

Score

9

Additional Review Panel comments on score sheets

Members noted that:

· the score sheet and criteria seemed to work well, accurately supporting impressions of the centres by visiting team.

· sourcing funding requires specialist knowledge possibly not available to smaller centres, therefore HCC may have such expertise it could/should offer to support centres if requested.

· it is believed that their visits may have caused some centres to consider their income/funding issues. Members indicated that they believed that viability issues for any specific centre was more than just an issue for the centre and whether it can survive, but should be seen in the wider context of providing access to out of classroom experience for children in all parts of Hampshire. It might therefore be appropriate for HCC to consider whether expert advice on business viability could/should be offered by the County if requested by centres.