1 Voluntary and Community Sector Review Voluntary & Community Sector Review Grants Strategy Working Party Participative Session 28 September 2006 Appendix 1 CETC/46/2006

2 Voluntary and Community Sector Review Overview Introduction Current funding process Review of best practice Options review Commitment to the Sector Discussion Points Next steps Appendix 1 CETC/46/2006

3 Voluntary and Community Sector Review Introduction Purpose of the session –To obtain the views of the Working Party to inform the fundamental review approved in July 2006, of what the Council is trying to achieve through its work with the voluntary sector. Appendix 1 CETC/46/2006

4 Voluntary and Community Sector Review Current Funding Process Process Three-Year Partnership Agreements established for 15 Groups (£416k in 06-07) Annual grants round open to all to apply Selection based on assessment against published criteria Total budget in 06/07 - £572k Cost of managing/administering process estimated at £35-40k Benefits understood by the voluntary sector uncomplicated, relatively easily managed Apportions available budget on the basis of application and assessment Risks Process may not target sufficiently the limited resources to meet priority needs of the community. Funding may be awarded on year-on-year basis, without full regard to ongoing benefit to the community, particularly for groups on longer term agreements. Southend’s Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) and Local Area Agreement (LAA), will identify priorities for the community and there will be an opportunity to consider how the resources of the grants budget can best be used to address the priorities. Support to the sector may be perceived as not sufficiently transparent. Lack of alignment between Community Services e.g. Older People’s services and awards made through grants process Appendix 1 CETC/46/2006

5 Voluntary and Community Sector Review Review of Best Practice A number of other authorities have recently introduced or proposed Grants Commissioning programmes or targeted programmes following a review of their grants programmes: Waltham Forest – introduced Commissioning in April 05 (budget £1.8m) Camden – Proposals to align grant aid to Community Strategy (budget £7.5m) Westminster City – Introduced Commissioning and Annual Revenue Grant Aid (budget £5.2m) Oxford City Council (£1.6m), Hull (6.7m) reviewing process with a view to introduce Commissioning in 2008/09 (budget £1.6m) Cambridge – Targeting priorities (£739k) From a sample of 20 other authorities, the process for distributing grants budget was varied and included: Commissioning – 2 Proposals to moving to commissioning - 4 Targeting to published priorities – 10 Combination of commissioning and targeting – 4 Appendix 1 CETC/46/2006

6 Voluntary and Community Sector Review Process Option 1 Option 1 – Commissioning of Services –Commissioning: the process of specifying, securing and monitoring services to meet people’s needs at a strategic level’. (Audit Commission: Making Ends Meet, October 2003.) –Commissioning means deciding  what services are needed  how much can be spent  who will provide the services Benefits –Based on a clear set of defined, measurable outcomes that are of direct benefit to the Council. –Ensures that support to sector is aligned to Council’s priorities. –Opportunity to reduce duplication. –Can be used to support delivery of priorities set out in Council’s strategies and plans i.e SCS, LAA Risks –Not appropriate for all activities that the Council may want to support –Less flexibility for voluntary organisations to develop services as outcomes and outputs will be specified by the Council. –More demanding process –Potential for multiple application processes. Appendix 1 CETC/46/2006

7 Voluntary and Community Sector Review Process Option 2 Option 2 – Hybrid Commissioning & Targeting –Commissioning 2 to 3 major services: awards of £50k+ (£259k in 06/07)  As for Option1, but limited to major awards only –Targeting priorities identified in SCS/LAA: awards between £6k and £50k (£184k in 06/07)  Open invitation to organisations to apply for grant award to fund activities that directly contribute to Council’s priorities as identified in SCS & LAA –Small Grants of up to £5k (£35k in 06/07)  Small Grants fund to accommodate smaller community type groups that would not meet requirements of targeting Benefits –Commissioning can be used where most appropriate –90% of funding support aligned to Council priorities –Increased flexibility –Accommodates smaller community type groups Risks –More demanding process –Potential for duplication/overlap Appendix 1 CETC/46/2006

8 Voluntary and Community Sector Review Process Option 3 Option 3 – Targeting –Awards granted only to organisations/activities that directly contribute to published priorities based on the Council’s SCS & LAA Benefits –Limited resources can be directed to support Council’s priorities –Improved use of resources –More responsive to changes in need –Broader scope than Commissioning Risks –Not appropriate for all activities that the Council may want to support –Existing services currently supported may not be identified as a priority in SCS/LAA –Smaller community type groups may not meet priorities Appendix 1 CETC/46/2006

9 Voluntary and Community Sector Review Process Option 4 Option 4 – No Change –Open invitation to voluntary sector groups to apply for funding, applications scored against published criteria and assessment of benefit to community Benefits –Least disruptive to sector –Easily understood by all –Ease of administering –Open invitation to all to apply. –All applications considered on merits as against published criteria Risks –Not targeting priorities –Not sufficiently transparent –Possible duplication/overlap Appendix 1 CETC/46/2006

10 Voluntary and Community Sector Review Commitments to the Voluntary Sector Key Principles The local Compact for Southend-on-Sea, includes the following Key Principles with respect to the relationship between statutory agencies and the voluntary sector: A healthy voluntary and community sector is part of a democratic society Working in partnership with the voluntary and community sector can result in better policy and services and better outcomes for the community Partnership requires strong relationships and openness. Statutory bodies can play a role as funder of the voluntary and community sector The independence of the voluntary and community sector should be respected The Compact’s Code of Good Practice on Funding additionally includes the following Key Principles: Commitment to developing financial relationships that make the best use of the available resources and maximise the outcomes achieved. Understanding each other’s needs and requirements and discussing matters openly to help avoid problems and to help achieve outcomes. Commitment to seeking increased funding for the voluntary and community sector. Appendix 1 CETC/46/2006

11 Voluntary and Community Sector Review Commitment to the Voluntary Sector Undertakings Undertakings of statutory agencies in their relationship with the voluntary and community sector are included within the Compact and associated Codes of Good Practice. These include: –Work together to improve outcomes for the community –respond to the sector's need for greater financial stability to enable it to fulfill its full strategic role. –improve sustainability and longer term planning by longer term funding so organisations do not spend disproportionate resources chasing new or renewed funding. –recognise core costs and the need to contribute to these fully or partially. –invest in the capacity of the infrastructure of the voluntary and community sector. –promote fair access to strategic, project and contract funding and provide clarity in the objectives of funding opportunities and their eligibility criteria. –ensure that proper consideration, and an appropriate response, is given to the needs of harder to reach groups that may have limited access to statutory funds. Appendix 1 CETC/46/2006

12 Voluntary and Community Sector Review Discussion Points What would we like to achieve through our work with and funding of the voluntary and community sector? –What do Members believe we are currently achieving? –What are the gaps? How is Council currently demonstrating its commitment to the sector? –What more could we do? How well supported do Members believe the sector feels? –Rate between 1 and 10 What don’t we want from the sector? To what extent do Members feel that the sector shares our objectives? What criteria would Members set around the process? Appendix 1 CETC/46/2006

13 Voluntary and Community Sector Review Next Steps Feedback to Members on outcomes of session Develop process and present to Working Party Consultation Agreement Implementation /09 Grants Round Appendix 1 CETC/46/2006