ITEM CMDT10
CABINET MEMBER FOR TRANSPORT – 22 NOVEMBER 2007
REVIEW OF EXTERNAL TRANSPORT POSTS
Report by Head of Transport
Introduction
1. This report invites the Cabinet Member to consider future funding for the employment of three externally-based posts, each with a remit to advise, assist and encourage the provision of transport in various ways by the community and voluntary sector. The current posts and their funding arrangements are described at Annex 1 (download as .doc file)
2. The availability of such advice and assistance is a precondition for encouraging the continuation and growth of a healthy community transport sector in Oxfordshire. The community transport sector plays a large part in the delivery of transport for people who are unable to access conventional public transport services. They are designed to enable wider participation in social, recreational and community activities. Particular beneficiaries of such schemes are elderly and young people who have no access to alternative means of transport. The existence of these posts has enabled Oxfordshire County Council to secure cost-effective transport provision in circumstances where a conventional bus service is inappropriate.
3. This funding review needs to be taken in the context of partnership working with the four rural district councils, who will be making their own decisions on financial support that they currently give to two of the posts.
4. The review also encompasses consideration of alternative ‘hosting’ arrangements for the Oxfordshire Transport Co-ordinator post, following the decision of OCVA not to continue with the present arrangement.
5. Current Oxfordshire County Council funding arrangements for these posts come to an end on 31 March 2008 offering a rare opportunity to take a holistic view of how all three current posts relate to each other and to the requirements of the various funding partners.
District Councils in Oxfordshire
6. A number of meetings have been held between officers of the County Council and the four rural district councils to progress this review and to try to establish a common framework of future ambitions and expected outputs of the external transport posts.
7. Officers of each District Council have had an opportunity to contribute to this report through engaging in the drafting process. This report has been written with the intention of providing a common ‘platform’ for the consideration of various options, and to provide the basis for an agreed policy on future funding.
8. In common with the established practice of the County Council, agreement is sought to provide future funding for the external transport posts for a four-year term. The general practice of the district councils is to agree funding on the basis of a one-year programme.
9. Discussions with officers of the various district councils have been supportive of the principle of continued joint working and it is understood that officers of the district councils will each be seeking the decisions of their respective Portfolio Holders.
10. Officers of Oxford City Council have been approached to establish the possibility of future funding for the Oxfordshire Transport Co-ordinator being provided from that source, given that that post (unlike the other two) has a remit which covers the whole of the county. Unlike the other Oxfordshire districts, Oxford City Council has not previously been involved in funding of transport advisory posts, and the City’s initial response points to their lack of budgetary provision for this purpose. The Cabinet Member may wish to consider whether to pursue an approach to Oxford City Council for funding of the one of the three current posts which contributes to advice and support to City-based voluntary organisations.
11. It is expected that each district council will make its own decision on funding for these external transport posts in the next few weeks, in order to allow the host organisation to give necessary notice to affected employees.
Context of the Review12. Oxfordshire County Council’s Partnership Working Unit has been discussing how to move towards a single service agreement between OCC and ORCC that sets out the County Council’s various service-specific requirements and ensures that there are clear and simple monitoring, reporting, payment and communication arrangements in place. The purpose of this work has been to ensure that the County Council has a unified policy towards ORCC that is understood by the district councils, SEEDA and GOSE and that the County Council is compliant with the public/voluntary sector compact (adhering to some basic principles of good practice in contracting arrangements between sectors).
13. This is part of a wider piece of work on compact compliance and improving relationships with the voluntary and community sector which contributes to our CPA corporate assessment (December 2007) and more effective working with district councils.
14. The Rural Forum was established in 2006 to bring together all the key people and organisations that have an influence on rural issues in Oxfordshire. The Rural Forum comprises the four ‘rural’ district councils, Oxfordshire County Council, ORCC, National Farmers’ Union, Country Land and Business Association, SEEDA, GOSE, Oxfordshire Economic Partnership, Business Link, and Oxfordshire Business Enterprise.
15. Members of the Rural Forum are developing a “Rural Framework” for Oxfordshire. It is intended that this will help direct improvements to service delivery in rural Oxfordshire, provide a clear and accessible evidence base to help bids for external funding and strengthen and support Oxfordshire’s voice and influence in the South East and nationally.
16. Discussions held with the Partnership Working Unit have satisfied officers that the joint work that has been undertaken in the course of this review of external transport posts has been in accord with the streamlined monitoring and reporting arrangements anticipated as part of the general partnership work.
17. Oxfordshire County Council has already identified a policy desire to help ORCC to be successful in identifying and delivering its core aims. This has encompassed streamlined monitoring and reporting arrangements to reduce the burden on all concerned. Meetings have investigated any duplication of effort with the objective of reducing bureaucracy and improving co-operation.
18. Further work will be done on this once the Government has completed its Funding and Comprehensive Spending Reviews.
Consultation
19. For this review consultation has been carried out with all parish councils, and parish transport representatives, all the ‘rural’ district councils and all county councillors, all providers of community transport schemes (as contained in the 2007 published edition of the Oxfordshire Rural Community Council’s “Directory of Community Transport in Oxfordshire” and some 40 organisations representing disabled and mobility-impaired people throughout Oxfordshire, as well as Transport For All, the Oxfordshire Rural Community Council and Oxfordshire Community and Voluntary Action. Specific responses are summarised in the appropriate sections and copies of all consultation responses have been deposited in the Members’ Resource Centre.
20. Consultation responses are discussed in the attached Annex 2 (download as .doc file), which also shows the broad work-streams of the posts, arranged in order of positive mentions by consultees. Past and Present Outputs of Each Post
21. These are shown at attached Annex 1 (download as .doc file).
Future Outputs of Each Post
22. Given that the existing funding arrangements for all three posts now end at the same time, a holistic, “bottom-up” review of all posts has been carried out, jointly with the other funding partners.
23. In doing so, a number of options for taking the work of the posts forward were developed in outline. These essentially covered possible work-streams of three FTE posts, two FTEs and one FTE post.
24. It would be more appropriate for ORCC, as the post-holders’ employer, to itself determine the precise specification of each post and the distribution of work-streams between them.
25. Accordingly Annex 2 (download as .doc file) shows the combined work-streams of all three posts, and these are shown in the form of a broad ranking based on the frequency of positive mention in consultation responses, further slanted through inputs from funders including Oxfordshire County Council officers. In the event that funding sufficient for three FTE posts is agreed then it could be expected that the entire list of tasks would be covered. If funding were restricted or reduced, however, then the outcome would very likely be that less than 3 FTE posts would emerge, and that certain work-streams would have to be reduced in scope or dropped altogether. In these circumstances, it is suggested that those activities ranked towards the bottom of the list at Annex 2 (download as .doc file) would be the most vulnerable.
26. ORCC have themselves suggested some possible work-strands based on three FTE posts and ORCC suggestions are shown at Annex 3 (download as .doc file).
27. It is sought to add two specific future lines of work to the outputs of the external transport posts: Officer-support for Transport For All and work to develop a pilot project on the provision of a minibus to Oxfordshire schools, on the basis that these will be made available for use by community groups outside school hours. These are described in more detail at Annex 2 (download as .doc file).
Future ‘Hosting’ of the Posts28. As has already been indicated, OCVA, as the current employers of the OTC, signalled that they do not wish to continue to ‘host’ the position.
29. Accordingly, six possible new ‘hosts’ for the OTC (identified by the current post-holder) were approached, which seemed to have the capability to employ an external transport post in future.
30. Oxfordshire Association for the Blind reported that they were “not in a position to act as employer”; Helen & Douglas House reported that they did not have sufficient office space to accommodate anybody else; ORCC reported that they were happy in principle to host the position. No other responses were received.
31. Any transfer of any of the posts to a new host organisation may be subject to TUPE rules. Officers are exploring how the setting up of future funding of the host of these posts fits within the council’s procurement rules, and any issues in this respect will be reported orally.
32. ORCC have pointed out that current arrangements for delivery of driver training to the voluntary transport sector rely on the availability of a vehicle and room, as well as storage space for training materials, available to OCVA at marginal cost. ORCC would incur costs in providing for these.
33. ORCC have suggested that there should therefore be an increase in the delegated driver training fund. Figures supplied by the OTC would seem to show that the existing £3,500 training budget has been inadequate in the last three financial years, with the shortfall in each case having been met from other OCVA funds. It is suggested that the allowance included for the cost of training materials should increase to take into account the increasing volume of training undertaken, the costs of renting a training room and storage space and of the ownership and operation of the training vehicle. ORCC have suggested a figure of £8,500 per annum as realistic, but would be happy to consider this as a maximum payable against proof of expenditure.
Financial Implications
34. The financial cost to the County Council of supporting these three external transport posts currently amounts to £70,307.16 (financial year 2007/08), plus the £3,500 delegated training budget for the OTC. The current total expenditure by Oxfordshire County Council is therefore £73,807.16.
35. ORCC have indicated that the costs (based on their established policy of Full Cost Recovery) of providing the work-streams outlined at Annex 3 (download as .doc file). (based on three full-time equivalents) would amount to some £153,750.00.
36. On the assumption that an equitable share of these costs would be 50% between Oxfordshire County Council and the remainder met by other funding partners, the County Council’s share of the projected salary and on-costs would amount to £76,875.00
37. Additional to these costs is the delegated training budget, discussed elsewhere.
38. However, discussion with ORCC has highlighted that there may be additional funding required to maintain the previous employment terms of the OTC upon transfer from OCVA. If it were determined that TUPE rules applied to the transfer, then this may need to be maintained by ORCC. ORCC are understood to be taking detailed legal advice on this at the present time. Any relevant developments will be reported orally.
Implications for People Living in Poverty
39. These various posts aim to encourage, assist and enable extra transport opportunities for people with mobility problems, a significant number of whom are elderly. The people who benefit from these services are more likely than other sections of the population to have low incomes. These extra transport opportunities improve access to community facilities and therefore contribute to improving the quality of life for some people living in poverty.
RECOMMENDATIONS
40. The Cabinet Member for Transport is RECOMMENDED:
(a) to pay 50% of the total costs of the external transport posts, subject to the district councils collectively meeting the remaining 50% of the total costs;
(b) acordingly to pay Oxfordshire Rural Community Council £76,875.00 per annum (with annual adjustments for inflation), subject to the district councils matching that funding to the same total, to provide for the outputs listed at Annex 2 (download as .doc file) to this report, on the basis that this is likely to be provided through three full-time equivalent posts to be vested with ORCC, for a period of four years from 1 April 2008;
(c) to consider whether to seek a contribution from Oxford City Council in respect of those functions covered by the current Oxfordshire Transport Co-ordinator;
(d) in the event of district councils not agreeing funding as outlined in this report, to ask officers to report back to the Transport Decisions Committee in January 2008; or in the event of subsequent reductions in district council funding in future years to ask officers to similarly report back to the Cabinet Member for Transport for further advice;
(e) to pay up to £8,500 per annum (with annual adjustments for inflation) to ORCC as a delegated fund to be used to pay for the costs associated with providing training for volunteer drivers of community transport services, particularly where these transport services benefit disabled or mobility-impaired people;
(f) to thank Oxfordshire Community & Voluntary Action (OCVA) for their past and present assistance in employing the Oxfordshire Transport Co-ordinator since 1988;
(g) that the Head of Transport draw up a Service Level Agreement with Oxfordshire Rural Community Council covering the job summary, key responsibilities, work programme and output targets expected for the external transport posts and that this should include clauses specifying actions to be taken in the event of subsequent reductions in funding availability; and
(h) to ask officers to continue to liaise regularly with external post-holders, through joint liaison and one-to-one meetings, and to monitor the outputs of the external posts in line with the Service Level Agreement.
STEVE HOWELL Head of Transport
Background papers: Consultation responses and communication with funding partners and other stakeholder organisations; reports from RCTA, RTPO and OTC on activities and outcomes in current funding period.
Contact Officer: Neil Timberlake. Tel: Oxford 815585
November 2007 |