Agenda item

1.    Chairman welcomed Keith Harrison (KH) Chief Executive, Action with Communities in Rural Kent (ACRK ).

 

            Please see Select Committee Agenda Item 3 (pages 7 to 16)

 

2.    KH gave an overview of ACRK ’s ethos. It was set up with the primary aim to  provide advice and guidance to ensure that no one was disadvantaged because they lived or worked in a rural area.

 

3.    ACRK has, over the last 40 years, focused on community development activities and is currently supporting around 600 community-led organisations for example with  their regeneration projects.

 

4.    ACRK is funded by about 40 different organisations (i.e. private sector, individuals, EU, Kent public sector). There is recognition this is not an efficient funding mechanism but an unfortunate reality. 60% of funding streams not Kent (county based, from public or private sectors) funding.

 

5.    ACRK has changed/diversified. The charity is in a very different position to its thinking in 1992 (when existing KCC core-finance levels were set; they have varied within a £5,000 limit either way since.) This presents a major challenge. To continue to exist ACRK must undertake work which brings in the associated management fees which can in turn be used to fund the work ACRK  wants to do but cannot get funding for.

6.    KCC funding equates to 6% of ACRK core financing. Where work is co-financed by KCC each £1 of KCC funds has £10 in matched funding - contributors from public, private and civil society sectors, co-finance from Defra, which amounts to a mixed funding approach.

 

7.    The Chairman took questions for each of the Select Committee Members:

 

Q: How beholden is ACRK to its paymasters?  What would make the organisation a better one in terms of the number of funders / pay masters? How does KCC support ACRK and can it play a more important role in the provision of KCC services as it becomes a commissioning authority?

 

A: ACRK and KCC financial relationship very different to that of other County Councils and ‘their’ ACRKs; for example KCC annually fund ACRK £37,000, in Hampshire the funding is £300,000. Such disparities in funding effects stability and forces organisations such as ACRK to seek different fund sources to continue to exist, flourish and to enable research and investment in new ideas. It was suggested there should be a review of how KCC Directorates work with all VCSE organisations, Consideration of a more realistic core agreement for ACRK would be a good as a starting point as the relationship with KCC is vitally important.

 

Q: KCC Members /tax payers of Kent needed certainty of outcomes, who commissions?

 

A: Other Counties have a strategic over view. In Essex, for example the County Council Leader and Chief Executive have been meeting with RCC Essex (ACRK’s equivalent) twice yearly, and had an interesting and mature relationship. Kent is a huge organisation, working in many different directions. KCC talk about control, Essex talk of enablement. The Essex relationship model is still based on political personalities and with a change in Leadership, it will be interesting to see how the relationship will (continue) to work. Additionally, in Essex a RCC Essex Trustee had become a County Councillor consequently a lot of trust has built up based on the personalities of the politicians involved.

 

A Member commented Kent was not organised in the same way as Essex but it was not unreasonable to ask if Kent was adequately accommodating organisations like ACRK and whether the current structures were working in the best way for the people of Kent.

 

Q:  How does ACRK  work in rural areas without a parish council?

 

A: The work is ad hoc as ACRK do not have the resources to generally go into areas without parish councils and can only work where invited to do so by the local community; for example working with village hall organisation  - ACRK have a related project running in Thanet. ACRK does not have the resources to target ‘bomb’ rural areas and tends to rely on organisations making the initial contact. ACRK does try to ensure organisations are aware of their existence through village magazines, notice boards in pubs, village shops, etc.

 

Q: What is ACRK ’s criteria for a bid?  If a good idea (not specifically defined) was tabled, would a test be applied, the project costed, bid for and commissioned?

 

To work new projects had to be related to ACRK’s core business for all bidding purposes. All projects are considered for eligibility in relation to ACRK’s aims; if a project sits outside our area of expertise but ACRK  believed running a pilot might assist the commissioning authority  it would consider bidding. All major projects, i.e. with six-figure funding are referred to ACRK Trustees for consideration / agreement. It was reiterated that generally new projects must link to ACRK’s strategic aims, for example a Community Foundation style project was declined because it was deemed more suitable for other experienced organisations to consider.

 

Q; What about the potential effect of staffing for example if ACRK  did not have the appropriate staff for a project or skills to bid?

 

A: Staff would be recruited as ACRK  employees to either cover the ‘normal’ work load or ACRK would buy in expertise who might be  subcontracted individual who were self-employed.

 

Q: To clarify if a bid fitted the core aims of the charity and ACRK  buy-in staff sub-contractors - was there a limit to securing expertise?

 

A: ACRK uses the appropriate mechanisms to try and secure the right benefit for itself and commissioners. Sub-contractors are used by ACRK to achieve the best skills sets. It was suggested one idea might be to help VCSEs / SMEs would be to bank roll them via interest free loans, or to act as their financial guarantor so that a private sector organisation had confidence that a particular subcontract could be delivered.

 

Q: Referring to page 11 of the papers and the point about disconnection and the expertise within VCSEs, is the solution to KCC’s suggested ‘incapability’ to be able to organise itself - to hand everything over to ACRK with guaranteed funding for a period of years?

 

A:  The member’s interpretation of the briefing paper was disputed but ACRK does have sufficient expertise to state KCC was inadequate in its work with rural communities. ACRK is one but not the only option and ACRK offered potential solutions, with the pitch “could it be done better? “.  ACRK also needs funding to do better - there were models across the country which have not been tested in Kent and might be better. Primarily it was imperative to achieve the best for the people of Kent.

 

Q: Does ACRK see itself in competition with other organisations i.e. CPRE

 

A: No not in competition - as all organisations had their own specific remit or core business.  ACRK looking to help make things better and more efficient not to take things over - ACRK wants to work together - not to appear to be arrogant.

 

Q: Through our conversations with procurement team and community organisations we have become aware of ‘soft’ silo working, one possible outcome of the Select Committees might be a top to bottom review. What is  ACRK s approach to KCC regarding procurement, does you for example speak to commissioners?

 

A: There have been are no direct conversations between ACRK and KCC Commissioning Officers, these have primarily been held with officers working on specific projects; for example the ESF programme worked with Economic Development staff. KCC appear to be unaware globally of what ACRK was doing or able to do - as an example ACRK had emailed the Cabinet Member for Economic Development regarding a commission thought to be worth £80,000 to gather community assets information across the county that ACRK already held much of. This commission came from a separate directorate from that overseen by the Cabinet Member for Economic Development (who does oversee the directorate ACRK has its core workingrelationships with). ACRK is registered on the South East Portal but had not been notified, through that system, of this commission.

 

ACRK were advised to register on the new Kent Business Portal.

 

Q: Case Study 2 (p.12) suggests that £7m might have been saved. What is the effect on employees - concerns were expressed about zero hour contracts, lack of pensions and the need to consider both ends of life - retired life and working life?

 

A: Employment laws must be complied with and ACRK did recognise work / life balance and paid pensions to staff, although these were not the same rates as KCC. Duty of care was a huge issue, but research showed there are savings to be made with the right social value which is not at the disadvantage of employees - investment needed to be awarded to the right contractor and project (Case Study 2) trialled.

 

Q: How can a more efficient service be realised at a reduced cost, whilst protecting staff and community?

 

A: By trialling new partnership working, asking the questions - Is anybody else doing this? Can we give a better service more efficiently and reduce cost but protecting both the communities we serve and staff?  It is all about piloting future work methods, commissioning a mix of services some in-house and some external. In one area an idea was commissioned and trialled by own internal staff.

 

Q: With 6% core KCC grant and the 40 different funding organisations is   there waste / inefficiency and how could it be made easier or stream lined?

 

A: The example was given of the numerous funders for affordable housing contracting with ACRK - 13 Housing Authority and 7 or 8 Housing Associations offering a total pot of only £57,000 is totally inefficient.  ACRK had suggested a single commissioning authority and setting fees to simplify the process and costs for the associations / authorities. The difficulty was the inability of the funders to agree to a financial rate or a joint specification - for example they would need to agree a common flat rate % of every new build.

 

Q: How could KCC help?

 

A: Ensure that any joint-commissioning or multi-agency partnerships are governed by clear formal agreements, setting out precise roles and responsibilities of all parties.

 

Q: What opportunities been missed? Is ACRK able to do more if KCC relinquish the reigns? Is ACRK an enabling organisation or just taking over?

 

A:  ACRK have a history of running services but are happy to trial, if the bid aims indicated right to do so. It was hoped the review would look at whether there were ways for KCC to support innovation rather than stagnation. A review of infrastructure funding is needed, with benchmarking against other counties and the introduction of a degree of parity, transparency and fair formulae applied.

 

Q: There are lot of small businesses in rural areas, often attracting apprentices could ACRK do more to help get information out to rural businesses?

 

A: ACRK had a failed bid to the Princes Countryside Fund. Graduates and NEETS from Kent could have been mentored. If funds were available there were major options to pilot a scheme utilising ACRK’s contacts, drawing funds from Central Government and EU funds, thus reduces the toll on KCC. There might be a role in helping SMEs find out about the grants / financial assistance available to them as both SMEs and to employ apprentices.

 

Q: What offers are made in regard to piloting a particular project? What specific efforts are ACRK making to ensure on the radar of KCC commissioning and procurement teams?

 

A:  Some parts of KCC were good at commissioning and some were not. ACRK  is part of the process but not THE process. It is about navigation and communication. Efforts had been made with specific KCC politicians and officers, such as Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Director for Economic Development and Spatial Awareness (Economic Development) who head-up the part of KCC that ACRK works most closely with. But, what had become clear from attending this session of the Select Committee is that ACRK were not necessarily connecting with the right KCC people across the directorates. It was clear they were not acquainted with the correct people/contacts at County Hall involved in commissioning and were unaware of the obvious person/link.

 

It was apparent from the discussions that there were barriers to partnership working and commissioning with KCC. The Committee took the point that there might be unnecessary repetition, the Committee suggested Keith Harrison email Mrs Cracknell the list of his current projects and Members agreed this was the best way forward.

 

Mr Angell thanked Keith for leading an informative debate and confirmed the Select Committee would give careful consideration to all aspects of re-commissioning and de-commissioning in Kent.