1 / 12

Funding Public Service Delivery By The Voluntary Sector Briefing for Voluntary Sector Excellence:

Funding Public Service Delivery By The Voluntary Sector Briefing for Voluntary Sector Excellence: A joint UK/Finland/Estonia project November 2004. THE NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE ROLE. To provide independent information, assurance and advice to Parliament on the use of public resources

fabian
Download Presentation

Funding Public Service Delivery By The Voluntary Sector Briefing for Voluntary Sector Excellence:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Funding Public Service Delivery By The Voluntary Sector Briefing for Voluntary Sector Excellence: • A joint UK/Finland/Estonia project • November 2004

  2. THE NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE ROLE • To provide independent information, assurance and advice to Parliament on the use of public resources • To help promote better financial management and value for money

  3. UK PUBLIC FUNDING OF VCS • 1998 Compact between government and VCS • 2002 HM Treasury review ‘The Role of the VCS in Service Delivery’ • Since 2002: • HMT – Guidance to Funders, VCS Review 2004 • Home Office – procurement guidance • Compact funding code • Other government departments – VCS strategies and champions • NAO study of progress • OPM - Balance of Risk • ACEVO – full cost recovery, Sure(r) Funding

  4. HM TREASURY REVIEW, 2002 • Funding recommendations (by April 2006) • Full cost recovery – price to reflect full cost, inc overheads • Streamlining access – common access point and application process, ‘passporting’ • End loading of payments – advance payments, balance of risk and profile funding • Stability in the funding relationship

  5. NAO STUDY FINDINGS • Volume of VCS funding up • Progress on funding practices is patchy • Some ‘green shoots’ • Some issues cause more difficulty • Full cost recovery • Grants vs contracts • Top-level commitment, but ‘trickle-down’ varies • To other funding bodies • Within departments

  6. OTHER WORK • HM Treasury Guidance to Funders • timing of payments • stability in funding relationship • ACEVO • full cost recovery templates • Sure(r) Funding • Charity SORP revision • current consultation, including reporting of achievements against objectives and allocation of costs • CFDG • positive response to SORP revision • ‘Inputs Matter’ – disclosure of full cost • Review of EU funding end-loading payments

  7. OUR STUDY • Focus on funding issues • Cross-departmental, Home Office lead • Coverage – spending chain, inc local govt • Takes SR2002 as its starting point – focus on implementation • A progress report • Increasing volume of work for the VCS • Streamlining application and monitoring • Moving to better funding mechanisms • Output – report to Parliament in spring 2005

  8. FIELDWORK • Track many current initiatives and data • Contacts through G3 Champions and VCSLOs • Survey of departments, with follow-up • Case examples and drill down • NCVO • Consultation with the sector • Literature review • International comparisons • Key challenges • Draft report – end 2004 • Other outputs

  9. PROGRESS TO DATE • Survey of departments completed • All major funders • NDPBs and agencies • Initial analysis, inc best-practice examples • Workshops • Expert groups – full cost recovery, grants vs contracts • Operational issues Oct • Local government funding issues • NCVO • Focus groups • Interviews • On-line members’ consultation • Literature review

  10. FINDINGS continued • Building funders’ capacity to work with VCS • Variety of measures • Little evidence of dept-wide approaches • Early days • Clear VCS relationship facilitates capacity-building • Streamlining application processes • Several examples (2-stage, online forms, joint portal) • Direct-to-VCS and larger funders more proactive • Frequency of new awards encourages reform • Funding complexity resists standardised applications • Payment in advance • Widespread examples • Payment in advance of expenditure (not need) • Challenges – risk, “technology”, “EU rules”

  11. FINDINGS continued (ii) • Longer-term funding • Moves to 3-year funding (away from 1 year or less) • Notable successes • Challenges – programmes which run across Spending Reviews, resources to set up, risk, excluding new suppliers • Lighter-touch monitoring and evaluation • Most departments have at least some examples • Extent varies • Approaches vary • Perceived barriers – central guidance, risk • Full-cost recovery • Responsibility often delegated • Variety of approaches • Challenges – VCOs’ ability to evaluate costs effectively, under-bidding, public perception of charity overhead levels

More Related