Funding streams - analysis of online customer feedback
Summary
1. Feedback from customers (see para 2 below) as part of Defra’s funding streams’ review showed a clear desire for continuity, simplification and flexibility - as well as a strong push for more localised input and management. Another strong theme was a more professional approach to advice at all stages of the process, from application to monitoring of projects. These views are in line with evidence given to Lord Haskins and with other reviews (Mid term review of the England Rural Development Programme, National Audit Office report on Helping Farm Businesses). Meeting these concerns will require linking into work on modernising Defra’s customer interface already underway elsewhere in Defra.
Introduction
2. Defra defines “customers” as those who directly receive a product or service (e.g. a grant, some regulation, a pet passport - i.e. the output). The Funding Streams Review Team set up a website for comments (link to funding stream feedback page) on current Defra funded schemes and how they could be improved. At the time of publication of the review (21 July 2004) we had received 64 valid replies. This compares to the 122 replies received in a similar exercise by Lord Haskins and echoes similar views. The self-selecting nature of the exercise, means that it cannot be seen as a scientific survey of views.
3. We are keeping the website open for comments on Defra funding streams which will continue to be useful both in addressing detailed problems with existing funding schemes while the review’s recommendations are being implemented and also to inform that implementation process.
Results
 |
 |
Lack of continuity in grant schemes | 30% |
 |
Simplify the current number of schemes and the application and monitoring procedures associated with them | 23% | |
 |
The need to introduce more discretionary powers to decision makers in order to make schemes more flexible | 21% | |
 |
More attention should be given to devolving decision making to the most appropraite level where local knowledge and understanding can best be used to determine priorities | 11% | |
 |
The need for a more professional approach to providing advice to applicants | 15% |
Continuity
4. Analysis of the results shows that by far the most important criticism made of current system is the lack of continuity in grant schemes. 30% of the responses mentioned this in one form or another. Customers are concerned not only about continuity from year to year but also in-year. The current arrangements whereby decisions on funding allocations are made late in the year hampers the ability, particularly in the voluntary sector, to attract and retain staff and to carry out the work within the timescale proposed. Customers also criticised the uncertainty caused by the annual bidding process which results in uncertainty over whether schemes will continue from to year. There is a clear feeling that more needs to be done to be able to guarantee a long-term perspective, particularly where local capacity building is concerned.
Simplification
5. The next major concern mentioned was the need to simplify the current number of schemes and the application and monitoring procedures associated with them. 23% commented on this aspect. Complicated and time-consuming application and assessment procedures were seen as a major barrier to applicants. This involved not only application procedures but also the number of different schemes in operation. There was also a feeling that eligibility criteria should be reviewed, particularly in relation to the amount of funding involved.
Flexibility
6. 21% mentioned the need to introduce more discretionary powers to decision makers in order to make schemes more flexible. This criticism was linked to the devolution of decision making (see para 8) but the principal complaint was the lack of discretionary powers for, for example, rolling over unused funding at the end of a year.
Advice
7. 15% mentioned the need for a more professional approach to providing advice to applicants. Coupled with this was the desire to know at the earliest stage possible whether the application stood any chance of success. Some also suggested the need to set up training courses to teach applicants how to manage their projects.
Devolution
8. 11% criticised the central nature of decision-making. More attention should be given to devolving decision-making to the most appropriate level where local knowledge and understanding can best be used to determine priorities. Replies from the voluntary sector argued in favour of involving the voluntary movement more in decision-making.
Page last modified:
19 May, 2005
Page published: 2 March, 2004