Agenda item

The Board considered a report that provided an update on the new Area Based Grant (ABG) and funding arrangements and implications for the HSP.

It was noted that the new ABG merged a number of existing funding streams to create a general grant that would be used to contribute to the achievement of local priorities. There was an expectation that the ABG would improve the way that jointly agreed priorities were achieved.

The pooling of existing funding streams under the ABG meant that a deficit of approximately £1M would be created. In order to address this each of the Thematic Boards would be asked to assess the projects within their responsibility. After the first six months of the new financial year and the PMG would then determine the final list of projects that would continue to receive funding. Performance would be assessed using a new Performance Monitoring Framework, which was being created in order to provide a consistent means of measuring performance across the Partnership.

In order to facilitate discussion, each Thematic Board would participate in a workshop during March, which would focus on the new national duties placed on the Partnership under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act and embedding the new Performance Monitoring Framework.

In response to a query as to why the allocation under the ABG was larger in the second year, the Board was advised that as NRF ceased completely for some Authorities in 2008/09, some transitional funding had been provided, which all Authorities were contributing too. From 2009/10 onwards, this transitional funding would be removed and therefore funding for contributing Authorities would increase to normal levels.

There was agreement that issues around the NRF and the new WNF and allocations for the second year of funding would need to be presented to the Board in more detail at the appropriate time.

In response to concerns that some groups, which currently received NRF were already making employees redundant due to uncertainty over future funding, the Board was advised that these groups had recently been reminded, via letter, that funding would cease in April 2008. After the initial six month period, performance would be reviewed by the PMG and decisions would be made as to which projects would continue to receive funding, based on performance.

(Tracey Baldwin arrived at 7.10pm)

It was noted that there was a focus on reducing Worklessness within the WNF and Job Centre Plus highlighted the need for this to be reflected in the allocations made under the ABG, as funding previously received via the Deprived Area Fund, may be lost.

The Chair suggested that it would be helpful if Job Centre Plus were to appoint a representative to the HSP Performance Management Group (PMG) and noted that ABG funding was intended to address local priorities. As such it was for the Partnership to determine how the funding was allocated on the basis of local need.

The Council’s Chief Executive underlined the importance of negotiation in partnership working and noted that Job Centre Plus would be well placed to influence and shape decisions in relation to funding if it were to take up a place in the PMG.

It was noted that there was currently some confusion as to whether the Deprivation Area Fund, currently utilised by Job Centre Plus, would be subsumed into the WNF and there was agreement that clarification should be sought in relation to this.

RESOLVED:

1. That 2008/09 should be treated as a transitional year to facilitate the move to the new Area Based Grant.

2. That a consistent Performance Management Framework should be developed across the HSP, which would be capable of identifying outcomes and value for money.

3. That the Thematic Boards should submit funding proposals to the HSP Performance Management Group for agreement based on the outline at Appendix 1.   

4. That each Thematic Board would participate in a workshop in March that would cover the new national duties contained within the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act and to embed the new Performance Management Framework.  

5. That a six monthly performance review would be conducted to identify any changes in activity or funding that may be required to meet LAA Performance Indicators.

6. That consistency, in terms of current funding, should be provided to existing commitments as far as practicable within the overall reduction of grant.