You know that, I know that. We need to get better at explaining/demonstrating this to those that don’t know this.
But like I say - I guess that pushback was there because you were trying to use public funding to support your activity? I guess the question would be could you not have achieved the service engagement outcomes by visiting a closer unit, with the same benefit to the cadets?
I don’t know - I’m just asking the questions that might get asked.
In this case though it’s a bit different then just that. I’ve been told what I’m doing is the way to do it by the WExO, and as far as I know, everyone in the wing does it the same way.
I’m not in HIOW but have done overseas based gold DofE, and this is a very common perception but isn’t true in reality. For example, the last trip we took we had 9 staff and 8 cadets.
Of the 9 staff, 7 were drivers and 4 of those were qualified to drive a minibus and trailer abroad, with the other 3 driving a support vehicle. 3 of them were technically qualified in the area of AT at the appropriate level for the venue with 2 building up to it and gaining experience.
1 was the WATTO planning the activity and the one with overall responsibility. 2 spoke the local language. 2 were DofE assessors and had the appropriate camping qualifications which were needed to run the activity.
2 were support staff who helped with cooking, general admin etc. 5 of the 9 could claim pay, of which I was one. I used that to subsidise the CIs who were with us.
We all paid over £350 each for it after we had fundraised and applied for grants to bring the cost down.
On the face of it, looks crazy but actually it ensured a safe, well planned and thought out experience for everyone with plenty of contingency planning, allowed everyone going to gain something and people to gain gold DofE in an environment they couldn’t have otherwise got. And if anything, because it was abroad we couldn’t claim mileage on the vehicles whereas we could in Scotland, so it saved money!
Yeah, all valid questions to ask. But they are somewhat frustrating when you’re spending hours and hours planning, contacting people, and doing all the admin for activities like this. It probably won’t come as any surprise that I haven’t managed to do anything similar since.
And this is the entire function of the ‘pre-approval’ - to ask these questions up front, before people spend hours doing the planning and organisation, rather than when it’s all in place and people are ready to drive out the gate.
The intention and the principle of the process are all sound. It’s the implementation of it that is challenging and potentially creates extra administration, as well as not being back up by any kind of business management system that can help confirm the efficacy of the process.
And why it needs to be included as part of the SMS application not a random additional form you find out you have to fill in after you submit the application to WHQ…
Absolutely.
A cost model exists, that has been agreed with HQAC, for estimating costs of things like Clarity, VA, so on, so forth. This would pop out an approximate ‘cost per head’ to the public purse, and a list of the ACTO11 activities / desirability of the activities it is associated with. That cost per head / desirability could trigger additional scrutiny or approval to progress the planning.
But that still requires CFAVs to put the data in at some point, which is extra work - unless the data is already required somewhere else and can be re-used / repurposed to reduce admin elsewhere.
For example:
You could say that I want to do a weekend away walking. I need two F151s from Clarity, and 3 staff. two of whom are claiming VA.
If when going through the ‘pre-approval’ check, the system could then take that need for two F151 buses from the form and populate a clarity request… then win. However, what actually happens is you end up having to put that information in for the pre-approval, then duplicate it to do a Clarity request later. More admin = bad juju, unhappy CFAVs and general ballache.
That’s always going to be the case as soon as you go anywhere Sexy/Dangerous, if I run an activity in wild country I’m going to be staff heavy.
A single Gold Group in wild country is a 4 staff job minimum (which is less than 2 Cadets each), between the Supervisor, Assessor and Drivers plus potentially female staff cover if you don’t already have a female in any of those other roles.
The bit I would have an issue with is if they question how many staff are claiming VA when they are all there doing actual jobs. (I get that will need to be documented somehow)
Out of interest can you claim VA if you go to Windermere on a Development course like Rock Skills or Top up your logbook? Or only when your on an actual course?
I have previously for rock skills.
Maybe a better solution is to bucket the days then, so that a max of 14 can be claimed for desirable, this in theory means that 14 days will be for core.
Or bracket?
What would be classed as desirable vs corps?
Read ACTO11.
This is why people get challenged, because they haven’t made themselves aware.
Never been challenged once.
I just apply common sense and the rules in acp300.
Yet. And more words …
What is the problem here?
I didn’t ask the original question.
I asked what is a definition of ‘desirable’ as far as I see it’s not in ACP 300. Which deals with public money.
The definition of Core vs Desirable is in ACTO 011…
Ok thanks.
But of course everything listed in acp300 as a minimum can be claimed.
Perhaps the issue is people trying to claim things not listed here?
In which case I would argue they shouldn’t be claiming.
Many fill their 28 days easily through just the list in acp300.
I think it goes back to making sure that people are not conducting desirable activities at the expense of essential ones.
I.e. not conducting loads of gold Expeds (desirable) and no money left to fund VA for bronze (essential)
No, the issue is that ACP300 says the types of things that could be permissible, which should be being used in conjunction with ACTO11 which states the breakdown of what we should be offering routinely (and focusing our resources on), compared to those things which are nice but not really essential and then those things which are pie in the sky dream activities.
They are trying to ensure value for money from the organisation and as our biggest outlays are VA and travel costs, the emphasis is being put on ensuring that the financial support goes to places where it has the biggest impact for the most number of cadets at the least cost to the budgets.
The problem is that apparently most WExOs don’t ever get sight of a figure to work with and so can’t make informed decisions, and so some are ignoring it and pushing everything through (as yours sounds like they are doing) and some like mine are much stricter on what they will allow us to claim for, and require up front justification.
Not at all.
I know loads of people in my wing who routinely get things denied.
I guess it all boils down to experience and also not taking the urea.