Financial Justification for Activities?

A few years ago I had a very infuriating experience going back and forth between RHQ trying to justify taking cadets for a weekend camp to HMS Bristol.

The crux of it seemed to be that RHQ were of the opinion that we could deliver the same experience closer to home. This ignored the fact that we do not have a Type 82 destroyer in our neck of the woods nor any of the activities I had arranged with various naval people around Portsmouth.

In the end the only reason we were allowed to go was that we had already paid a deposit for one of the activities. But, uniformed staff weren’t allowed to claim VA and the squadron had to stump up its own money to hire an extra minibus. I was told that I shouldn’t have paid for anything without approval for the activity going ahead - this conveniently ignores the fact it took nearly eight weeks for RHQ to even contact me after WHQ had passed the application up to them.

I just felt like banging my head against the wall.

2 Likes

From someone who routinely looks at applications, I can tell you this rarely happens (that sufficient justification is put in). I can infer what the benefits are because I’ve done it all before as a CFAV and seen the benefits in action, but that doesn’t help from a permanent staff perspective.

And the point is, they are asking as part of this process - but people immediately go on the defensive when asked to justify what they are doing. Fundamentally this is often because they know it’s poor value for money, but they are just doing it because they can and there is no direct cost to them or their unit (and this is where my point about the business management systems comes in).

For 95% of applications, all you have to do is take a breath and write down the benefits that you already know, and link it to the core offer in ACTO11. If you can’t do that…then maybe you need to rethink?

1 Like

So taking this as an example (I have a feeling this might also be one of the examples that has been quoted to me), how do you link it to our core offer?

The way I read ACTO11 (without knowing details of all the activities on offer) it appears to be a Service Engagement event which isn’t directly supporting a unit so would be a non-core activity and wouldn’t attract public funding.

Oh, and don’t for a second think that I’m against the activity - it sounds like a good visit - but I’m using it as a test case to see how we link it to our published funding policy.

Oh and it’s not necessarily the same experience… more the same outcomes.

2 Likes

Ah ok I’m with you. That’s certainly reasonable to expect justification in the examples you’ve given. If it’s meant just for those sort of circumstances where you’re carrying out an activity outside of the norm, makes perfect sense.

1 Like

What would be nice however is an IBN rather than just suddenly expecting it to form part of applications without any explanation or guidance.

2 Likes

Can we please have some context for this?
I’ve no idea from where this is all coming.

What’s happened/changed/been said by whom?

I think that’s part of the problem - it’s really hard to specify when, or how, this is done, without pulling in every activity.

@wdimagineer2b Currently in W&W this is a ‘pre-approval’ form which essentially asks - what are you wanting to do, how does it link to the core offer, what are you expecting in terms of staff support, VA, clarity, etc etc. but it’s a nause to fill in, nobody really understands when you are supposed to do one vs. not. It really needs to be integrated into the SMS application process and automated based on a simple cost model that has already been agreed with HQAC.

It was originally targeted at multi-activity camps, and came out of the Comdts ‘Camps & Courses’ letter thing which I’ll find a link to in a bit. Since then its use seems to have expanded because of some of the activities I’ve used as examples above which have been challenged based on their use of public funds. That said, it sounds like it’s not routinely used around the regions based on some of the replies above.

Edit: Camps & courses Letter link.

We sort of had to do it for a bit, but thankfully it died a death (I suspect because you can’t manage a budget if you can’t actually see any budgets, which is what our WExO says).

Still we justify people’s attendance when going on things especially multi day activities.

This is the main thrust of my challenge to the process. If we are going to do this challenge, then the budgets actually need to be managed properly and delegated down.

2 Likes

Thank you. That’s the first time I have seen that letter.

My other issue with this is it hasn’t stopped things like an aerospace camp or junior leaders which has an exceptionally high cost per cadet, but it will stop me taking some cadets on a weekend camp to an RAF station because of the stuff posted above.

3 Likes

I’d be inclined to agree with you. I’ve asked if this is being applied to flying and gliding as well (which also has a high cost per cadet).

In fairness, it’s not stopped JL, but it has in part driven the changes to how it is organised and run now (or so I believe).

Oh, and I don’t think it’s going to stop you doing the camp - you just might have to pay for it yourself rather than it being publicly funded.

I don’t have a problem with justifying why we will do things, but it needs to be organised not just bolted on to the return to face to face system for ALL activities as an extra hurdle which appears to be what is going on. (Especially when the central guidance means we have half the ratios and therefore have to use double the qualified staff to do anything).

I also think they need to make sure they are being pragmatic when it comes to Adventure Training & DofE, taking small groups to Niche places is part and parcel of the activity and taking additional staff to get QMD’s is entirely justifiable. (I’m sure that my RATTO & Region DofE Officer will be but I know at least 1 of the others is less sensible about things).

1 Like

Pre approval form.

How about jog on.

If its allowable under ACP 4, 5, 20 and 300 then its allowable.

ACP 300 dictates what VA and travel can be claimed. If it isnt in ACP 300 dont expect to be paid it.

Otherwise, crack on and do the activity.

This sounds like a MASSIVE overstep and increase in unnecessary admin burden.

If post event a WHQ say ‘we ain’t paying that’ as it isnt in ACP 300 etc then that’s just tough on that Sqn Cdr. They should have been a bit more savvy and know the regs.

Let’s please stop reducing the Corps to the lowest common denominator.

You are missing the key document on where public funding can be allocated… ACTO 11.

Sure ok ACP 11 also.

Aren’t Accounts 4 supposed to be pre-authorised anyway?

yes. and accts 80.

But it seems to me the key issue being foisted on us is too much VA and travel claims for one event.

People just need to be more savvy.

Yeah but accounts 80 are pre authorised by having a correctly signed off sms application.
Or at least that is everything I have ever been told / taught.

Also if my wexo does not like an event, they edit it and add ‘will.not attract VA’ to the comments section.