Archived decisions

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

Decision Report :

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1) Summary of Decision Area:

1.1. This report considers applications for partnership funding for 2009/10 from the six independent charitable Outdoor Centre providers (including the Hampshire Red Cross). It recommends the distribution of a total of £135,400 in 2009/10 as follows:

Centre Amount

£

Avon Tyrell Outdoor Centre, Ringwood 6,400

Countryside Education Trust, Beaulieu 47,130

Privett Centre, Privett, near Petersfield 28,400

Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Activity Centre, Bursledon 13,200

British Red Cross, (Hampshire Branch) 4,050

Gilbert White Field Study Centre, Selborne 36,220

2) Issues Covered in Report:

2.1. The service provision offered by each grant applicant.

2.2. The outcome of the Select Committee review and report of January 2009

3) Recommendations:

3.1. That approval is given to the above partnership funding recommendations for 2009/10.

MAIN REPORT

1) Background / Contextual Information:

1.1. The six identified organisations are invited to apply for annual partnership funding to assist them with their essential running costs. The funding levels are largely historic, although this year these have been affirmed by the Select Committee Review (See below). The support enables them to deliver outdoor education to Hampshire young people in support of the Hampshire Outdoor Service 2008/11 Strategy and in support of the Corporate Priorities, specifically relating to `Enhancing our quality of place'.

1.2. A review of grant aided Outdoor Centre provision across Hampshire County Council was undertaken by the Culture and Community Scrutiny Committee in the summer of 2008, agreed by the Executive Member for P&R in January 2009. The Review Panel recommended that:

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

· 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.

1.3. The `score sheet' (see appendix 1) sets out specific criteria and has been used to assess the contribution of each centre for 2009/10 in order to ascertain the contribution of each centre to overall Corporate Priorities. In addition, each centre has submitted a comprehensive application form setting out their operational and budget situations. Summary Business Plans exist for each centre. In addition, each centre is being encouraged to seek other funding opportunities as recommended by the Select Committee. A summary of all the partnership funding applications is set out in appendix 2 with recommended funding levels.

2) Budget Position:

2.1. The base budget provision for this partnership funding in 2009/10 is £135,400 (inc. inflation at 2%, and taking into account a contribution to the Corporate Partnership for Communities and Equalities).

3) Criteria of Grant:

3.1. Strategic fit with Corporate Priorities

3.2. Strategic fit with Educational/Children's Services Priorities

3.3. Fit with centres provided by HCC

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

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

3.6. Culture of innovation in course development/outdoor experience and delivery

4) Other Considerations:

4.1. Following the Select Committee review, and the application of the scoring system set against the agreed criteria, it is affirmed that these grants contribute significantly to services for Young People provided by Hampshire County Council.

4.2. The recommendations of the Review Committee have been taken into account. In particular, the criteria outlined within the Score Card will enable an annual monitoring of performance which will provide a year on year comparison of outputs from these centres related to corporate priorities

5) Recommendations:

5.1. Please see the Executive Summary for the recommendations

CORPORATE OR LEGAL INFORMATION:

CRITERIA FOR PARTNERSHIP FUNDING:

DETAILS OF PARTNERSHIP FUNDING APPLICATIONS: