10 Conclusions and recommendations
1. We
believe the Government should quantify the potential administrative
savings for service providers that can be generated by co-financing
and identify ways in which these savings can be realised. (Paragraph
56)
2. We further recommend
that the DWP compares the implementation of ESF in areas where
there are a few C0Financing Organisations with those areas,
such as London, where a larger number of CFOs operate and, in
consultation with the ODPM, describe how it proposes to improve
the co-ordination between CFOs to the benefit of applicants. (Paragraph
57)
3. We recommend that
steps should be taken by the Government to make the EU rules on
additionality, and specifically that match-funding need not be
additional, more widely understood (Paragraph 64)
4. We recommend that
the DWP investigates the possibility of providing a fast track
procedure for relatively small grant applications, such as those
under £50,000. We also recommend that the DWP ensures that
suitable transitional funding is in place before the end of the
current programming period as protection against delays in granting
programme and project approval at the start of the next programming
period. (Paragraph 68)
5. We recommend that
the Government considers changes in the way in which project approval
is considered. We would like to see service providers, possibly
in the form of advisory groups, included more in drawing up the
plans and specifications if a conflict of interest can be avoided.
(Paragraph 75)
6. We suggest that
some direct funding be retained as a safety net for those worthwhile
projects that fall between specifications. We therefore recommend
that some direct funding be retained in all regions and re-introduced
in London. (Paragraph 76)
7. It is our belief
that a detailed statistical analysis of the awarding of grants
is needed. We recommend that, in replying to this report, the
DWP investigates the concerns expressed by some members of the
Community and Voluntary sector that funding under co-financing
is being channelled through mainstream programmes at the expense
of the C&V sector organisations. We have already recommended
that the Government undertakes a comparative study into direct
bidding and co-financing. We suggest that that study also investigates
whether there are any marked differences under the two systems
with respect to the types of projects supported and rejected.
(Paragraph 77)
8. We recommend that
the Government guarantees that bids which include support for
childcare are not disadvantaged compared with bids that do not
budget for such costs (Paragraph 80)
9. The accuracy of
those making claims needs to be tightened up. In view of the
high error rate we recommend that the design of the claim form
also needs to be drastically improved and streamlined and that
the process for settling claims be speeded up, including making
greater use of claiming over the internet. (Paragraph 84)
10. In order to reduce
the risk of wide regional variations, we consider that the DWP
should press the European Commission for greater clarification
on how intense the monitoring regime should be. (Paragraph 85)
11. We request that
an assessment be undertaken into the total administrative costs
(both direct and indirect) that organisations face when dealing
with ESF. We recommend that the DWP undertakes a value for money
study into the use of technical assistance in the delivery of
ESF. (Paragraph 89)
12. We recommend that
the Government ensures that all newly approved projects are assessed
for their risk and are subject to a monitoring regime that is
proportionate to that risk. (Paragraph 90)
13. We recommend that
a fast track service for processing claims be more widely available
and that the authorities make clear that, subject to certain conditions,
an emergency cash advance could be made available. (Paragraph
91)
14. We recommend that
Objective 3 funding should continue to be widely available . (Paragraph
97)
15. We recommend that
the DWP provides a comparative analysis of any variation in monitoring
standards across the UK and reassures us that monitoring of service
providers is proportionate to their assessed risk and broadly
comparable across the UK and the EU. (Paragraph 101)
16. We recommend that
the Government considers ways in which it can provide more support
to potential applicants, before and after formal applications
are made. We believe that all rejected applicants should be provided
with reasonably full written feedback that identifies clearly
the areas in which the tender could be improved. We urge the Government
to review the use of the standard pro formas used by Jobcentre
Plus when informing applicants that they have been unsuccessful.
(Paragraph 103)
17. We request that
the Government explains the reasons for the omission of the social
inclusion agenda from the Government's consultation paper. We
also recommend that the Government assures us that work on the
labour market and countering social exclusion, which is funded
by the ESF, will not be lost under the Government's proposals
for the post-2006 regime and that proper transitional funding
will be in place in good time. (Paragraph 115)
| 
