DRAFT

LOCAL CHILDREN’S PARTNERSHIP: STEERING GROUP

11TH MARCH 2011

Present:

Martin Devine / NFDC
Dave Yates / NFDC
Brian Corrall / Youth Support Services (HCC)
Angela Wedgewood / DM (Education)
Sue Kocaman / DM (Children and Families)
Andy Dyer / HardleySchool
Julie Hooper / HCHC (Health)
Becky Pollard / Youth Options
Sue Morse / Youth Offending Team
Beverley Hawker / Oak Lodge
Martyn Beales / Fordingbridge Infant School
Chris Willsher / Priestlands
Di Roberts / Brockenhurst College
Michael Clowes / CFNF

Apologies:

Alison Foster; Claire Lowe; Sheila Young and Sharon Davies.

It was noted that this would have been the last meeting of the group for Sheila, Alison and Sharon and the excellent contribution by both of them in the development of the partnership was noted by the meeting.

1. WELCOME

Introductions took place in welcoming new members to the meeting. CW noted that this was the first formal meeting of the Steering Group – the period of transition was now behind us!

2. NOTE OF LAST MEETING (February 2011)

These were agreed as a correct record.

Most of the actions were arising on the agenda. Of the other matters:

The noted action for SK to circulate the award of grant funding could not take place until after the Executive Member’s Decision Day. Once this happened, they can be circulated

Action: SK circulate list of grant awards once approved.

There was further discussion on this item, there being some concern about the lack of effective validation of the grants made. It was felt that the process for this group was in its infancy and there was room for improvement in future exercises of this nature. An action that could be implemented was to ask selected recipients of funding to address the wider Partnership meeting on the outcomes achieved.

Action: Bring forward to a future meeting of the Steering Group the intention to request selected funding recipients to present at the full meeting of the Partnership

3. PROJECTS AND ACTION PLAN

An update on the rural projectwas provided. SK reported seeking a decision within the Service on the funding:

a) If available to carry forward – implement the scheme as envisaged.(The preferred alternative_

b)if required to spend before 31/3/11 – an event would be held and the balance allocated to a third party

A decision is awaited

Action: SK follow up on decision and advise the Group

It had not been possible to find a Headteacher willing to be part of the project team but there was a presence at the consultation event, which was very helpful. There may be a need to return to seek a nomination if the funding is carried forward.

It would be useful to have a summary of each of the projects.

Action: CW to circulate a summary of each.

Action Plan updates were as follows:

CW thanked JH for input of health information – the Plan was now ready and would go Hampshire.

Action: CW send Plan to HCC and also copy to the Group

There was a question about reporting on progressing the Plan and whether it was required to do so either to Headteacher conferences and/or Children’s Trust

Action: CW/MB to compare notes and follow up.

4. FUNDING REQUESTS

Administration £10,000

There was a need to agree an approach to best use of this funding. There was a time demand for the officers to undertake work outside of meetings on behalf of the LCP. The meeting agreed this should be recognised by way of an honorarium for the Chair and two Vice Chairs. There should also be an allocation available for secretarial / admin services. The sums to be £2,000 to the organisations of the officers and £1,000 to the organisation providing admin.

Action: CW to initiate allocation of the admin funding as above

This was not just a need in start up. There will be a continuing requirement and the Group would need to return to the resourcing of this at a future meeting

Action: bring forward the resourcing of the LCP as a future item.

Funding bids £55,000

There was a useful discussion about the best use of time in the meeting and the most effective process to assess the (healthy) list of bids. It was agreed to spend the time agreeing criteria and to appoint a smaller working group to consider the list.

Whilst there was no time constraint on the funding, there was a need to act promptly as some of the bids were seeking continuity of service. The prevalence of bids related to parent support was noted. There would be a need to consider matters of duplication and coverage, even if a truly “strategic approach” was not possible at this time. It was unfortunate as it perpetuated previous lack of co-ordination in these services. It was though noted that the working group would be able to clarify provision, if it was felt to be needed.

Criteria were agreed and form a separate page at the end of these minutes – for ease of retention and reference. The meeting agreed that the working group should be delegated to make the decisions, without reference to the officers of the group or waiting for the next meeting of the Group. The nominations would reflect this.

There was discussion about the basis of content in some applications and it was agreed that part of the working of the sub group would be to seek clarification if there was uncertainty.

Action: CW arrange date and location of the working group

With the number of bids involving parenting services it would be helpful to have an update on the position in respect of any funding for these services through Hampshire.

Action: CW to approach Volker Buck for an update

The meeting was asked if there was an agency prepared to undertake fund holding for 2011/12, as Priestlands was doing so for a number of federal arrangements. As for other funding arrangements, up to 3% would be available for resourcing the function. AD offered to provide the function and the meeting agreed.

Action: CW/AD make arrangements to transfer fund holding role.

5. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

MB advised that this would be his last meeting, given demands at school. A nomination would be sought. Martyn was thanked for his contribution to the establishment of the LCP.

Action: CW/MB approach Solent Heads meeting

The consultation on Children’s Centres was noted. It was understood to have been extended to April. At the full Partnership meeting, CW and CL had been delegated making a response

Action: CW/CL respond from the LCP to the Children’s Centres consultation

For future meetings, it was agreed that a report on the business of the Hampshire Children’s Trust Board be included as a standing item on the agenda.

Action: CW to include update on agenda

6. DATE OF NEXT STEERING GROUP MEETING

Two were proposed for morning meetings:

4th May – but there were a number of members who could not attend

13TH July – agreed

Action:Note for next meetings:

CW/CL – check if there are other dates close to 4th May which could be offered

ALL – note the 13th July date

WORKING GROUP: FUNDING BIDS - MARCH 2011

CRITERIA AND WORKING ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF BIDS

Working group members:

Chris Willsher (Chair)

Claire Lowe (Vice Chair)

Michael Clowes (Vice Chair)

Julie Hooper

Sue Kocaman

Sue Morse

Criteria

Schemes to be considered against level 1 criteria as the key filter. Subsequent levels to be used against those best matching the first level.

1 / To what extent does it meet a high level need?
1 / What are the outcomes / impact?
1 / What arrangements are there for monitoring and evaluation?
1 / What is the likelihood of sustainability of the project / legacy from the outcomes?
1 / Is the project deliverable? (timescale, capacity of organisation, control)
1 / What is the geographical coverage / balance across applications?
2 / What is the cost / benefit?
2 / What is the level of matched funding (including volunteering / in kind resources)
2 / What is the extent of relationships / partnerships?
3 / What is the coverage of bids in respect of age range?
3 / What is the coverage of bids in respect of types of provision/sector of providers?

Working arrangements

Group has been delegated the ability to make its decisions and then advise applicants

In doing so it may:

  • Make allocations for parts of bids if felt to be appropriate.
  • Seek more information
  • Apply funding allocations to meet the threshold of funding need
  • Allocate all of the available budget.

1