Agenda and minutes

To note the attendance at this meeting of any duly appointed Reserve Members.

Reserve Members may attend meetings:-

(i)                 to take the place of an ordinary Member for whom they are a reserve;

(ii)               where the ordinary Member will be absent for the whole of the meeting; and

(iii)             the meeting notes at the start of the meeting at the item ‘Reserves’ that the Reserve Member is or will be attending as a reserve;

(iv)              if a Reserve Member whose intention to attend has been noted arrives after the commencement of the meeting, then that Reserve Member can only act as a Member from the start of the next item of business on the agenda after his/her arrival.

RESOLVED:  To note the attendance at this meeting of the following duly appointed Reserve Members:-

To receive declarations of personal or prejudicial interests, arising from business to be transacted at this meeting, from:

(a)               all Members of the Committee, Sub Committee, Panel or Forum;

(b)               all other Members present in any part of the room or chamber.

RESOLVED:  To note that the following interests were declared:

Agenda Item 8 – Edward Harvist Trust

Councillor Nana Asante declared a Personal Interest in relation to the following organisations: Flash Musicals, Age UK, Harrow MENCAP and Harrow Citizens Advice Bureau.  She had also chaired the recent Scrutiny Harrow Association for Voluntary Service Challenge Panel.  She would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Agenda Item 8 – Edward Harvist Trust

Councillor Krishna James declared a personal in relation to MIND in Harrow.   She would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Agenda Item 8 – Edward Harvist Trust

DevenPillay, Representative of the Voluntary and Community sector stated he was Chief Executive of Harrow MENCAP.  He would remain the room whilst the matter was considered.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 9 November 2011 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 9 November 2011 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

To receive questions (if any) from local residents or organisations under the provisions of Executive Procedure Rule 51 (Part 4D of the Constitution).

RESOLVED:  To note that no public questions were put, or petitions or deputations received at this meeting.

Report of the Divisional Director Community and Culture.

The Panel received a report of the Divisional Director Community and Culture setting out monitoring information relating to the previous grant application round for the Edward Harvist Trust (EHT) and the draft timetable and proposed publicity material for the next call for proposals. 

The Divisional Director stated that since writing the report, an additional sum of £7409.17 had been received from the EHT and the new total was £22,185.42.

She added that officers were seeking the Panel’s agreement for the Afghan Association to use its award underspend for purposes other than originally specified.

With regard to underspends and where monies had been spent on items not specified in a group’s grant application, Panel Members made the following comments:

·                    it was reassuring that the Afghan Association had informed officers of its underspend and requested permission to spend the outstanding balance.  The request should be agreed as a one-off because its request had been open and transparent.  However, it was important not to set a precedent that other groups might follow in the future.  Officers should inform the Afghan Association that in the future, successful applicants to the EHT would be expected to buy items specified in their funding application;

·                    allowing each individual on the course to be responsible for their  memory sticks was acceptable as the individual unit cost was low and the expected benefit to the group’s members was high;

·                    some groups had spent some of their grant fund on toner cartridges.  This was not an approved item as toner cartridges are a revenue spend, and not a capital spend.  One group had spent 25% of its EHT grant on toner cartridges, even though the criteria clearly states that only capital expenditure is covered.  The concerns of the Panel should be communicated to the Groups in question;

·                    third sector organisations could make a case for a grants scheme similar to EHT which would provide revenue funding.  It may be necessary to provide a separate revenue stream from other sources for this purpose.

Panel Members also requested that the EHT publicity material be amended to reflect the following:

-                      EHT fund information for prospective applications should specify that groups would be expected to adhere strictly to the funding criteria;

-                      there should be consistency and clarity regarding what constituted a capital spend.  Although it would not be feasible to provide an exhaustive list of these, the information for prospective applications should refer groups to Community Accountancy Self Help (CASH) for advice regarding this;

-                      groups must not spend EHT grant funds on items not specified in the original grant application, and any monies thus spent would be reclaimed by Grants officers.  If subsequent to receiving funding, a group’s needs changed, then it would be required to submit an amended proposal to Grants officers for consideration.  However, small underspends or changes in expenditure of less than £100 need not be reported;

-                      any group successful in securing EHT funding will not normally be eligible to re-apply to the fund for a period  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.

Report of the Divisional Director Community and Culture.

The Panel received a report of the Divisional Director Community and Culture setting out information on the monitoring of grants awarded under the Main Grants Programme 2011/12.  The Divisional Director highlighted the following points:

·                    thirty eight projects had been awarded grant funding for a period of eleven months.  One organisation had declined its award, and this funding had subsequently been redistributed amongst the remaining successful applicants;

·                    at the time of writing the report, thirty five organisations had returned completed monitoring forms.  Two organisations would be returning their forms shortly and had provided valid reasons for the delay in returning their forms;

·                    four further organisations had submitted their forms after the deadline and monitoring visits to two of these organisations would be carried out shortly;

·                    twenty-three grant funded projects had been assessed as part of the joint monitoring.  The monitoring process consisted of a self-assessment by groups, which was followed by a monitoring visit by joint monitoring officers.  Following a review of information provided during the monitoring visit, feedback, in the form of individual action plans was provided to organisations;

·                    in 2011/12, monitoring visits had been carried out jointly by officers from Community and Environment, Children’s Services and Adults and Housing.  Each funded organisation had been visited once by a team from one of these directorates and officers had been briefed prior to the monitoring visit as to expected outcomes and supporting evidence;  

·                    actions plans were yet to be completed for the two organisations where monitoring visits had not yet been undertaken, as well as for Kids Can Achieve, as this latter’s projects were being monitored separately by Children’s Services, as this related to an OFSTED report.

The Divisional Director stated that organisations had reported a number of positive achievements during the first six months of the funding period and added that:

·                    approximately thirty one thousand people in the borough were expected to benefit from these grant funded projects;

·                    some funded organisations had developed new partnerships with strategic organisations and other third sector organisations;

·                    some organisations had seen an increase in demand for services;

·                    some organisations had seen a notable increase in volunteering, and developed new services which had been enabled by the grant funding;

·                    other organisations had been able to respond to emerging needs such as the Ignite Trust, which during the week of the riots had used peer leaders as role models and worked with a number of young people who might otherwise have been tempted to get involved in the disturbances;

·                    some organisations had been able to secure additional funding as a consequence of receiving grant funding from Harrow, for example, several organisations had been able to secure additional ADHD autism support;

·                    many organisations had reported positive feedback from users, for example, Harrow Citizen’s Advice Bureau undertook a satisfaction survey, which showed that 73% of its users reported they were happy with the service.

Following questions and comments from Members of the Panel, the Divisional Director stated that:

·                    during monitoring visits to organisations, officers were able to review  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.