ESVFON - Objective 2 2000-2006

ESFVON

European Social Fund Voluntary Organisations Northern

ADMINISTRATION ARRANGEMENTS OPTIONS
Option 1 - Improve Existing Package Process
Option 2 - Accountable Bodies
Proposals for Package Development

OBJECTIVE 2 2000-2006
ADMINISTRATION ARRANGEMENTS OPTIONS

There was a consultation held at Durham County Hall on Monday 26th June 2000 by Government Office-North East for invited partners.

The area of greatest interest to most voluntary and community organisations is whether bureaucracy will be reduced, improving the efficiency of the whole system.

As a starting point it would appear a package process will be retained in some format. The options proposed were an improved package system, action plans with Accountable Bodies, or a mixture of both. It is envisaged that the Accountable Bodies would have similar responsibilities to those involved in Single Regeneration Budget (SRB). An important issue is that not all those in a position to be an Accountable Body may wish to do so. Furthermore, there may be those who wish to be an Accountable Body but do not have the resources.

Option 1 - Improve Existing Package Process

The main improvements for this option are:

responsibility between Government Office and the Package Co-ordinator/Manager will be redefined to ensure only applications which reach a certain standard are submitted for appraisal and within specified timetables
clearer guidance notes for both applications and claims
use of delegated grants schemes (often called Key Funds) to reduce the numbers of applications for Government Office appraisal and to enable voluntary and community sector organisations to access small grants with the minimum of paperwork and bureaucracy.

The main disadvantages are:

Potential inconsistency of approach between package partnerships. Do all partnerships have the capacity to run their end of the system?
Potential delays with applications needing to be submitted to the Package Co-ordinator first, before going to the Secretariat
Without accountability for the overall resource allocation to the package, are deadlines and monitoring enforceable?

Option 2 - Accountable Bodies

The main advantages are:

More local ownership of package and projects
Quality of projects in some other regions have improved due to local determination
Potentially speedier decisions on projects, through appraisal and approval undertaken at a local level
Secretariat freed up to concentrate on strategic aspects of the Programme

The main disadvantages are:

Evidence from the North West suggests the quality of applications remains mixed, despite the action plan process
Potential for double handling of large number of applications, if delegated financial approval limits are set too low which has caused delays in other regions
Potential for different appraisal systems to develop across the region and different levels of service for applicants
Appraisal of projects could take longer due to lack of experience and capacity of Accountable Bodies
Likely length of time for setting up accountable bodies bearing in mind the Programme is expected to start in late 2000

At the consultation event overall support from the different workshops was for the continuation of the package process with the suggested improvements, not for Accountable Bodies. Together with the experience gained during 1997-1999 of the package approach, many also felt there was insufficient time to implement Accountable Bodies effectively. We will keep you updated on the outcome of these deliberations.

Proposals for Package Development

Measure	Measure Title	Level of Package
1.1	Assisting SME's to expand (ERDF Revenue)	Sub-Regional
1.2	Providing access to finance (ERDF Revenue)	Regional
1.3	Improving performance of SME's by Knowledge Transfer (ERDF Revenue)	Regional
1.4	Developing New markets (ERDF Revenue)	Regional for overseas elements; Sub-Regional for remainder
1.5	Accommodation and Productive Capacity for SMEs (ERDF Capital)	Sub-Regional (Sites & premises) and Regional (Regional Enterprise Grants only)
1.6	Growing New Businesses and Marrying Entrepreneurs with Ideas (ERDF)	Sub-Regional
1.7	Rebuilding Entrepreneurial Attitudes and Skills (ESF)	Sub-Regional
2.1	Strategic Employment Opportunities: Spatial (ERDF capital)	Local Packages co-ordinated through Regional Group
2.2	Strategic Employment Opportunities: building on the region's technology assets (ERDF)	Regional
2.3	Strategic Employment Opportunities: clusters and sectors (ERDF)	Regional
2.4	Leading to 200 High Growth SME's (ERDF)	Regional
2.5	Strategic Employment Opportunities: building on the region's natural and cultural assets (ERDF)	Regional
2.6	Embedding Employment Opportunities (ESF)	Sub-Regional
3.1	Establishing Capacity in Targeted Communities (ERDF)	Local
3.2	Promoting Community Based Enterprises (ERDF)	Local
3.3	Improving Employability: Pathways to Work (ESF)	Local
3.4	Investing in Sustainable Communities (ERDF)	Local

Note. Sub-Regional - Northumberland, Tyne & Wear, County Durham, Tees Valley

Last Updated: 16 October 2000

OBJECTIVE 2 2000-2006 ADMINISTRATION ARRANGEMENTS OPTIONS

Option 1 - Improve Existing Package Process

Option 2 - Accountable Bodies

Proposals for Package Development

OBJECTIVE 2 2000-2006
ADMINISTRATION ARRANGEMENTS OPTIONS