Agenda item

The Vice-Chair submits a report providing an overview of the Commission’s examination of Ward funding and how it is distributed.

The Vice-Chair, as Chair of the informal scrutiny task group, submitted a report providing an overview of the Commissions examination of Ward Community Funding.

The Vice-Chair thanked the officers involved.

Key points included:

• The allocation of ward funding had been considered with consideration to the proportionality of funding to ward size and whether it was a two- or three-member ward.
• The criteria and priorities for ward funding had been considered by the group.
• Implications around the potential for multi-ward applications were considered by the group.
• The group had looked at whether there was sufficient information on the application process given the resources available to groups.
• The conclusions were set out in the report.  Some key conclusions highlighted included:
  • It was good to put an emphasis on organisations that could provide match funding.
  • Language could be added to the policy around multiple applications.
  • Emphasis should be put on setting ward priorities at the beginning of the year.
  • More information could be provided for bids of over £500.
• The Commission were directed to the recommendations in the report and asked to consider them.

The Committee were invited to ask questions and make comments. Key points included:

• The report was welcomed as the benefits of ward funding helped smaller community organisations.
• The group spent much time discussing what this money meant to smaller groups.
• Wards should set priorities for funding and there should be a focus on value for money.
• Larger groups had an advantage in resources, including having experts to fill in application forms.  As such this work aimed to benefit smaller organisations.
• Consideration had been given to the issues surrounding having to wait for one of the three meetings in a year to apply for funding. One of the recommendations was for this to no longer be the case so that community organisations could have a smoother process for applications of over £500.  This was important as if an event fell between meetings, it may be that funding could not be applied for until after the event had passed.  Applications should be considered in good time and not retrospectively.
• Councillors should be offered additional training on the consideration of applications and the awarding of ward funding.
• Whilst the group had acknowledged the fact that wards received the same funding regardless of size, redistribution would be difficult without taking money from other wards.  Additionally, deprivation in wards would need to be considered as well as size.
• With regard to larger organisations applying for funding, it was suggested that consideration be given to their accounts when considering the application.
• Ward funding was greatly needed in terms of communities, and it was important to retain as some organisations could not function without it.
• It was critical that Ward Councillors had control over this.  As such, a further meeting of the group was suggested to include Executive Members so that they could report progress to the group, for example, by suggesting what training opportunities could look like and how ward priorities could be set.  Additionally, data profiles could be shared with Ward Councillors.  It was suggested that it was important for the Executive to have co-production on the recommendations.
• The possibility of leftover funds from underspent wards going to other wards at the end of the financial year was raised.  However, it was extremely rare that wards were underspent as projects were funded towards the end of the year with money available.  Additionally, a 10% carry-over of funds into the next financial year was permitted.

AGREED:

          1) That the report be noted.

2) That comments made by members of this commission to be taken into account by the lead officers.

3) That a meeting be convened between the group and the executive be convened to have co-production on the response to the recommendations and the response be brough back to the Commission.