Agenda item

Report of the Divisional Director of Community and Culture.

The Committee received a report of the Corporate Director of Community and Environment, which set out information relating to the process for administering the 2011/12 main grants programme.

Members had a number of detailed questions and comments on issues arising from the report.  It was noted that the Funding Officer at the Harrow Association of Voluntary Service (HAVS) had helped a number of organisations with their applications for the 2011/12 grants round, and that £20,781 had been ring-fenced to replace the support previously provided by HAVS.  Members questioned what form this would take.  Officers advised that they were looking at an interim solution, and were considering an offer from 4 voluntary sector representatives to provide services in the short term, but that they would be working with the voluntary sector to find a long-term solution, which it was hoped to implement from November 2011.  It was unlikely, however, to be a like-for-like replacement for HAVS.  It was also proposed to carry forward the remainder of the HAVS grants for 2010/11.

Members questioned whether the organisations that had availed themselves of the information sessions on the revised grant application process had been more successful than those who had not.  Officers advised that no such analysis had been carried out but that it could be done.  Members suggested that there should be evaluation of the information sessions.  A Member also felt that there had been an issue about the way in which changes to the process had been communicated, and in particular that applicants had not been aware of the introduction of a word limit.

Concern was expressed about the timeline for resolving the issue of grant appeals in 2010/11, and specifically that this had been resolved via a decision of the Leader on 8 February 2011, only two days before a scheduled meeting of Cabinet.  It was suggested that the decision should have been taken by Cabinet as this would have been more transparent and constitutionally sound, and the reason for not submitting a report to Cabinet was queried.  Officers undertook to look into this and to incorporate a response into the report to be submitted to the June Committee meeting as agreed under the previous agenda item.  In addition, Members questioned why an independent adviser had been appointed to review the appeals, after the Grants Advisory Panel had agreed that they be reviewed by reserve members of the Panel.  The Portfolio Holder for Community and Cultural Services stated that she felt that this would be a quicker and more transparent process.

Members were also concerned about the timeliness of committee reports, and about documents being made available late, both to Members and the public.  It was suggested that there should be a separate Cabinet meeting to agree the grants to voluntary organisations.  The Corporate Director of Community and Environment stated that Members had been advised in July 2010 that the consultation on the grants process would have implications for the delivery of the main grants programme for 2011/12, and that papers had been made available as soon as they were ready, but officers had had to weigh up various factors and try to pull together a tight timeline.  It was hoped in 2012 to bring the report on the grants applications to the February Cabinet meeting with a view to completing the whole process, including appeals, before the end of the financial year.  A Member noted that there was no mention of the Grants Advisory Panel in the timeline and felt that it was important that the Panel be fully involved in the process, as it was able to look at issues in greater depth.

The outcome of the consultation on the possible commissioning and delivery of a revised small grants programme was queried, and it was advised that over 80% of respondents had supported this.  The Council was therefore developing proposals for revised funding arrangements for 2012/13 and would be holding stakeholder meetings on this shortly.  A Member highlighted that London Councils had recently lost a Judicial Review case relating to this and questioned what steps were being taken to avoid this in Harrow.  The Portfolio Holder for Community and Cultural Services stated that she had had several meetings with officers on the matter.  Officers advised that they were taking legal advice and also working with the procurement team on developing the specifications.

RESOLVED:  To note the improvements made to the grants administration process as a result of lessons learnt in previous years and recommendations made by Internal Audit.