1. Evaluating decision making procedures for Regional Funding Allocations
Sarah Ayres (University of Bristol) & Ian Stafford (WISERD, Cardiff University)
Presentation for 1st RSA South West Branch Conference, 23rd January 2009

2. Promoting policy co-ordination
In July 2005 the Government published indicative Regional Funding Allocations (RFAs) for economic development, housing and transport policy
Second expanded round of RFAs announced by SNR in July 2007
This paper explores the regional responses to and perceptions of the RFA decision making process.
Research Qs:
What are regions perceptions of the first round?
What are the key issues in preparing for the second round?
How effective have decision making procedures been for the second round?
Summer – Autumn 2008 semi-structured interviews with senior officials and stakeholders in London, North East and South East
Interviews focused on:
Examining actors views on RFA arrangements in the first round of RFAs
Preparations for the second round of RFAs due in Feb 2009
Decision making procedures for RFAs within regions
Implications of the SNR
Insights used to inform a web-based survey of the remaining 6 regions, using the same themes and sampling frame.
To date survey sent to 280 individuals across the 6 regions, we have had 97 responses – response rate of 35%.
This paper focused on the preliminary findings, the survey will be “live” until March 2009.

3. Regional Funding Allocations
Regions were invited to prepare advice on spending priorities in each policy area up to & indicative planning assumptions up to 2016
In 2006/7 RFA funding amounted to £4.1bn - only 14% of public expenditure in the 3 policy areas in regions
RFA advice to be developed in partnership - build regional capacity, develop realistic & joined-up priorities tailored to local circumstances
Regions able to vire funding across spending pots.
Lack of policy manoeuvre due to existing commitments and level of resources within exercise
A Treasury Official, for example, pointed out that, ‘the big prize was bringing transport into the equation’.
In the first round the South West was notable in a number of aspects:
The approach that the SW adopted in developing its methodology for transport priorities led to it being described as the “odd man out” as it chose to develop the process in house rather than use consultants.
A GOSW official:‘did not want to waste money on consultants given that [they] had already identified transport priorities in the RTS and work on the development of methodologies had already been carried out in other regions.’
Faulkner: “it is debatable whether the assessments it produced were as a result materially less reliable: much more important limiting factors on the quality of all regions' advice were probably the inadequacy and inconsistency of some of the information available from promoters on individual schemes.”
SW also introduced a regional infrastructure fund, a capacity fund and local delivery teams.
Mention second round of regional funding allocations –expanded but limited.

4. Reflections on RFA arrangements in the first round
Regions felt government’s primary motive for RFA was to ‘get regions to make tough decisions about prioritisation’
First round of RFAs seen as allowing greater regional discretion, building partnership working and enhancing the evidence base
Exercise was not seen as improving relations with Whitehall departments
Transport policy was perceived as the area most significantly influenced by RFAs, with sustainable development the least
South West mirrored national results although greater emphasis on the size of funding and the key role of the IRS and Sustainable Communities Plan
53% of respondents identified ‘get regions to make tough decisions about prioritisation’ as very significant
69% agreed or strongly agreed that RFAs allowed for greater regional discretion over priority setting
However, one respondent commented that in their view “the RFA provides a veneer for the decentralisation of decision making without actually doing anything.’
One respondent from the West Midlands commented “the rhetoric far outweighed the reality and in fact there was little flexibility”.
Only 38% agreed or strongly agreed that it had enhanced intergovernmental relations
SW Respondent commented that “The pot was so small compared with the need I do not believe any of these were achieved!”
“Far too small to influence. There are too many other sources of funding that we have no say over.”

5. Preparing for the second round of RFAs
74% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the second round guidance provided scope for regional discretion over priorities
Lack of clarity over the roles of Regional Ministers and Government Offices
Mixed view of government department support for virement
Strong support for skills funding to be included in the full RFA exercise
South West respondents were marginally clearer on the issue of virement and far more critical of the timetable for the second round
Several respondents expressed problems over the six months starting in the summer holidays and finishing just after Christmas.
Perception that virement requires more time, respondents suggested from 12 to 18 months – it was argued this could allow tie in with the emerging structures like the HCA and Leaders Forum.
Skills – described as ambiguous and ‘half in, half out’ and highlights a “serious disconnect in Whitehall between DIUS/DCSF and the ‘participating’ RFA departments.
66% argue should be included in the RFA pot
Respondent: “The middle ground if being asked to identify skills priorities, but without the funding is arguably less helpful than including skills funding within the RFA. However, where regional relationships and networks are effective, aligning skills funding with wider regional priorities and funding within RFA should not be unachievable.”
SW Respondent: “The Government appears to have failed to understand that where partnership working is involved and massive growth proposed, it is impossible to consult stakeholders and gather sufficient information and then consider which requirements may be more appropriate for other funding mechanisms and how to prioritise within the timescale allowed.”

6. Analysing decision making procedures – Challenges & Objectives
Almost 75% of respondents felt lack of funds in second round was a significant or very significant challenge
The wider downturn in the UK economy and variable quality of the evidence base considered key challenges
Almost 70% of respondents identified the desire for ‘greater influence over investment decisions’ as being a key objective
Surprisingly the next most important objective was delivering sustainable development (55%)
In South West respondents broadly reflected national concerns regarding the key challenges and objectives
Challenges
In addition to levels of funding etc…, several respondents noted that moving from ‘silo’ thinking was still a challenge.
Respondent – Can’t get the RTB to focus on the government guidance (e.g. focus on outcomes rather than schemes and climate change); they just want to carry on promoting schemes that advantage their district or sub region.’
Objectives
Improving policy delivery and enhance policy coordination also 50% plus.
Enhance relations with Whitehall was lowest response at 12%
East of England respondent - “this is a good opportunity to influence the government in its policy making and change the perception about the region, moving away from the way it is currently perceived.’

7. Analysing decision making procedures – Institutional arrangements
A wide range of partners and organisations identified as crucial for success of second round – Local Authority Leaders Forums
Regional groups or boards within the policy areas were seen as key to developing RFA submissions
‘High level’ executive meetings make final decisions - RDA and Assembly Boards
Informal face-to-face meetings most common form of interaction
85% of respondents stated have sufficient opportunity to engage in RFA process
Respondents adopted wide range of lobbying techniques
South West results demonstrate slight variation e.g. less significance given to regional ministers and slightly higher results for opportunity to participate and partnership working
Key roles were attributed to the GO, local authority officials, Assembly and RDA. Also emerging Local Authority leaders forums.
Respondent – ‘RFA has provided an early opportunity to test the new governance structures in the regions.’
For example, 84% rated the RTB very important or important.
79% of respondents engaged in face-to-face meetings, the RDA Board was the least used route of access at 32.3%.
Although 85% had access several respondents noted time and financial constraints as limiting their participation.

8. Analysing decision making procedures – Collaboration & Conflict
Respondents strongly identified ‘disagreements are inevitable but are usually resolved as part of the process’
Disagreement between geographical localities viewed as biggest cause of conflict (66%)
70% of respondents identified effective leadership as the most effective way to resolve disagreement
Formal voting was perceived as least effective mechanism
63% of respondents identified enhanced dialogue between policy sectors would improve decision-making
Interestingly South West respondents placed less stress on competing Whitehall and regional objectives but saw enhanced dialogue between region and Whitehall as key
60% identified disagreements are inevitable but usually resolved as part of the process
Respondent “a lot going on behind closed doors, so that what is presented to meetings is already decided and battles have taken place and there is little room for real discussion.’
Respondents emphasised that on boards there was an active approach to avoid voting but to build trust and consensus
SW – Only 23% of respondents saw competing Whitehall and Regional agendas as key cause of disagreement but 67% thought the decision-making process we be improved by enhanced dialogue.

9. Conclusions – the impact of the SNR
Overall RFA exercise is viewed positively across English regions but there are a number of common concerns
Lack of clarity in process highlighted by issues around the SNR
77% of respondents viewed the emerging Single Regional Strategy (SRS) as making policy integration easier
However, respondents noted a lack of clarity to how the second round of RFAs fitted in with SRS, viewed by some as ‘cart before the horse’
Although there are some instances of divergence, responses from the South West appear to reflect the wider concerns of English regions
Respondent – ‘There has not yet been a lot of discussion about the link between the SRS and the RFA process but the assumption is that the RFA will identify the resources for the delivery plan, that is to be part of the SRS.