Clear view, sharp focus

back to the contents page

Colin Maclean, Head of External Funding at Kent CC, shares his recent experience of the authority’s Best Value review of external funding

Make sure you receive your fair share of lottery cash - take out a no-obligation trial subscription today.

Some employment changes are like a mild osmosis through organisational boundaries – others are seismic, with challenging and permanent effect. My own move earlier this year, from the London Borough of Haringey to Kent County Council was of the latter variety.

At Haringey I held corporate responsibilities for employment, business support, strategic site development, regeneration programmes, and all external funding. As Head of External Funding at KCC, I am responsible solely for UK external funding. It almost seems a backward step – except that this is Kent, a £1.3bn business in the largest county in England. So how would I get to know how to deliver this new challenge?

The answer lay in my first meeting –well before I started – with the team captain and project manager for a Best Value review of external funding. The review had been delayed until the post was filled and my first task was to secure chief officer and cabinet approval for the new approach and direction emerging from the new ‘performance improvement plan’. This was an 18-point action plan (see box for summary) which would be the basis of my managerial/change priorities. More importantly, it provided the means to

understand how external funding had developed, what could be built on, what should be reviewed and specific actions.

The review was cross-cutting, internal to the council but picking up on partnership issues. The timing could not have been better, given the context of partnership expansion through LSPs and the Kent Partnership, and new government initiatives.

The plan’s approval was sponsored by the lead cabinet member, who now chairs an External Funding Board. This group, with senior representatives from all council directorates, provides the high-level corporate weight to drive actions and improvements. The thrust is to refine, improve and focus all external funding work on the long-term priorities of the council and the Kent community. Inevitably, there is a new external funding strategy and redefinition of roles for all the key players. The challenge to specify the purpose of the unit and its added value led me to a diagrammatic summary (below). One part of the review looked at Kent’s performance against our south-east county colleagues and Birmingham (why Birmingham? Because a key question that came up during the review was: ‘Why do we not receive £600m of external funding per annum, like Birmingham?’). This benchmarking against 13 authorities exposed a mixed picture on lottery: third place ranking by total amount but 12th per capita. Internally some rationalisa-tion was needed to build on our major strengths on NOF and Sports. In line with DCMS / LGA best practice, a new lottery officer post was recommended and, with funding support from all directorates, the new post-holder is due to start next month.

The review and implementation actions, of course, ran in parallel with the DCMS review of lottery distribution. Here are a few points from KCC’s response:

1. Devolved decisions and allocations
With ever stronger strategies (community plans) and partnerships (LSPs), our view was not to replicate and confuse but to integrate and simplify. LSPs should plan and coordinate resources in pursuit of agreed priorities. With the horizontal partner spread and vertical community links, they are well-placed to be supported with indicative financial allocations.

2. One-stop shops and funding advice
While not convinced about ‘one-stop shops’, much could be done to build on existing information platforms across lottery, council and voluntary sector infrastructure. KCC offered to lead a coordinated approach to new partnership working which would also provide a strategic link with other government policies. Our aim is to consistently improve funding advice to a changing customer base. 

Summary of performance improvement plan

This is of as much importance to the lottery as to, say, the Invest to Save unit in the Treasury, because of the importance of complementary and future funding streams to achieve sustainability.

3. Additionality
The next phase of the lottery should target unique community outcomes that would not be achieved with existing funding. Again, there is the potential to plug the community gap-funding priorities of LSP strategies where there is a real possibility of meeting needs as well as innovating services.

4. Performance and evaluation
A real opportunity exists to go beyond the baseline quantitative data held by DCMS and to move into shared appropriate intelligence. The South East Lottery Forum councils (also linked to East England CCs) are researching new models of performance measurement that work locally and centrally. For now, the real actions locally are being driven by new lottery distributor strategies and enthusiastic new regional staff. Combined with initiatives to redress past imbalances (such as Fair Share in Thanet, HLF targets in Dartford and Swale – and, on the basis of Kent Districts comparison, Gravesham should be the next target area!), this seems like a genuine phase of ‘new commitment to lottery’. But with the massive slump in lottery interest, the spirit of Tessa Jowell’s ‘permanent revolution’ was never more relevant.

In Kent there is a renaissance in purpose and partnership. For me, the Best Value review and plan can be compared to a fast-track induction: it bridges the past and the present; provides context and perspective; opens the doors to internal/external relations; and provides pathways to the future. The task now is to mature the relationships and invest energy in the gaps between – where real innovation can be found and nurtured.

You can contact Colin Maclean on: 01622 694109; email: colin.maclean@kent.gov.uk