Waverley Borough Council Committee System - Committee Document
Meeting of the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 20/11/2006
Results from Members’ Questionnaire
(Based on 10 returns received.)
1. Are you aware of the Community Partnerships Fund? Yes 10 No
2. Are you satisfied with the grants criteria being used? Yes 8 No 2
3. What aspects of the criteria, or how the criteria is applied, do you consider to be unsatisfactory and why?
A problem where identified community need also has an associated health need because of age of client. Criteria excludes health care provision. How are communities in greatest need measured? - could be financial, health related or lack of existing facilities, or area of recent unemployment or redundancy. Are criteria sufficiently transparent?
Grants should not be given to projects that concern special groups and not everyone e.g. specific religious groups or sects.
The criteria allows organisations to reapply under the same name but for different projects or repeat funding. Maybe from the outset it’s made clear that repeat/alternative projects does not exceed 25% or valid from/expiry date introduced.
4. How do you think the process for operating the Community Partnerships Fund could be improved?
Is it possible to consider projects in stages over more than one year e.g. towards renovation of village hall one year and additional car spaces / or play facilities the next year on the same site.
Is there any way a facility has more certainty about future funding sources?(Organisations may need more time to raise balance of funding and may prefer separate projects)
This is money taken from people in the Borough – many of whom will find Council Tax and NNDR a significant burden. Should we use so much of this money as we do?
Keep it simple, fair but firm. Tick box example showing them where they failed allowing them to see the areas they need to improve upon.
I am by no means certain that we are reaching disadvantaged groups. We have built an awful lot of cricket pavilions, however.
More account should be taken of Area Partnership Groups recommendations.
Do you think that Waverley’s agreed 25% maximum level of funding towards projects is right?
Yes 7 No 2
6. What percentage of maximum funding do you consider would be appropriate and why?
In many cases – not at all reason given in 4.
The maximum level of funding should be set at 33% with no exceptional 50% limit.
The percentage should take into account whether the work can be done by volunteers or whether special contractors are required e.g. re-roofing or installing a lift making the project particularly expensive.
This criterion is too often waived, particularly for projects where articulate supporters are involved!
7. Are you satisfied with the level of member involvement in the Community Partnership Fund process?
Yes 7 No 2
8. What additional member involvement in the process would you wish to see?
Ward member always consulted.
Scoring is undertaken by officers. Could the ward member also be involved for projects in their ward? Could be administratively difficult but perhaps officer scoring could be sent to ward members to see if they had any comment.
9. Do you have any further comments on the Community Partnerships Fund grants criteria?
It’s nice to give away money - but whose money?
There has been a tendency in recent years for the fund to be used by Waverley to part fund projects that arguably are Waverley departmental responsibilities. A bit like the Govt uses the lottery.
The principle of partnerships is a good one where funding is difficult to raise but I do think all partners have to be committed to it financially. I think it should not have been possible for the PCT to refuse to pay their share. Would 2 year funding schemes be better? (Can the partners be under contract to pay their share)?
It’s always difficult distributing grant funding but if it is fair, firm and simple and lines of communication are open to help and support in other ways, it’s not always about money.
As a member of Cranleigh Parish Council I believe that we have been able to gain grants from the Partnerships Fund for community projects and would hope to do so again in the future.
Current system is well thought out.