So I know many regions and wings have already been doing their own sort of financial scrutiny on events. Looking at VA vs cadet numbers, or transport costs etc. From what I gather, HQ are going to be introducing a single ‘financial approval process’ so that we can all start working from the same rule book!
Although a lot of people seem to question this financial scrutiny, I guess at least the rules should soon be the same organisation wide.
I do wonder how such a policy is going to look though. I assume it will pretty quickly lead to less VA etc.
Anyway, a thread to discuss this up-coming policy.
Another admin burden that will create longer lead times for events and activities.
Until units Wings or regions are given a budget to work to then it will pointless. It will come down to whether paid staff think that an activity is worth while or not.
I’m sure it might lead to less VA etc but the first step is to give HQ a better view of spending ahead of events. That is info they currently don’t have.
I’ve heard some horror stories about transport quotes, having a national picture would help with managing that and potentially making more use of service vehicles vs rentals.
clarity is broken, it is a cartel between coach companies.
A wing wanted to transport 11 people from Exeter to Leigh Delamare services and back. Quote from clarity came back in the region of £3000, it is a 200 mile round trip. A private quote was then obtained by WExO, £700
Transport costs is Transport costs - annoying but not really in our control
However, I can see VA becoming the next hill that CFAVs die on.
We are ‘eligible’ for up to 28 days a year but I am sure the corps average claimed prob works out to 10/15 or so so a large proportion is not used and prob accounted for in budgets.
If this is going to be squeezed then those that bust their limits are going to look very closely at what they do - and lets face it these are the people who are the ones delivering the high value courses. So direct consequence for cadet experience.
For the remainder that only do a few events the loss of VA will still be a factor on their desire to get out of bed on a cold weekend morning to help with whatever it was
So budget holders, not just a numbers issue - real cost/cause/effect/value question in there as well.
I would favour a tiered VA entitlement. So if you hold specific tickets (AT, Fieldcraft, shooting, even DI, and train the trainer quals) you can claim more days than someone who’s just done their CiC and EFA and turns up for ‘ratios’.
Or a separate pool for camps.
Most of our Wing shooting team bust their VA limit by this time of the year.
I already feel this has been squeezed from the other end - that of the CFAV. Post pandemic there appears to be less going on imo, and I know of many “good quality/talented” CFAVs who have left and if not left now stepped back from what they used to consider “normal” level of volunteering.
I am not sure if we are back to “normal” now post pandemic to suggest considering/comparing 2023 numbers versus 2019 to analyse the quantity of events taking place - has their been a drop in “cost” to the organisation already, simply by fewer events taking place (i predict yes) - is any budget “cut” simply redressing the balance - as @Biggles_Lovechild suggests, its creaming off the 10-15 days that go unclaimed anyway?
Why have a Wing budget of £50,000 for VA when only £28,000 of it is spent annually?
(numbers are used to illustrate a point and not to be taken as realistic or genuine*)
considering some back of the fag packet maths:
Taking a Wing with 25 Squadrons, of which there is an “average” of 3 uniform staff on each, all of which eligible to claim up to 28 days
25 Sqns x 3 Staff x 28 days = 2100 “man days”
at £80/day (“average”) - £168k VA potential for this “typical” Wing
And like the NHS for generations, if you don’t spend the allocated budget, then it is reduced the next year to the amount spent and no roll over of unspent funding into a new financial year.
I don’t wholly agree. Anyone can do that role so there is a larger pool of staff to draw on.
There are only so many RCOs (and other specialists) and without them the activity won’t take place. They also have the burden of the admin and planning which isn’t covered by VA.
But then again, how many are ‘course collectors’, and once qualified, you never see them! Whilst great having staff there, they need to be useful.
It is a fine balance between need and necessity. Too many staff make it unviable due to cost, but too few makes it unviable due to ratios.
The other big issue, and it has been mentioned, is that some staff are multi-hatted, soon running out of VA days, whilst others are never seen or claim.
but these are the people who count towards the ratio - by your own admission they are not doing all the pre-event admin and effort on the day to get it off the ground
If they don’t show up to events they don’t impact VA (I get the bit about wasted quals - I’ve had a few like that who’ve been on my courses and not delivered training).
My point further up is more that some staff should have their VA days ring fenced and there are some activities that need a ‘protected’ number of VA days to run whilst others don’t need all the staff who show up (I’m looking at you, Wing Field Days)
And it doesnt take into account complexities like CIs, who are unpaid, staff who are not claiming pay, or staff out of days.
Besides, and my biggest qiestion - WHY DOES IT MATTER? Has the RAF EVER turned round to RAFAC and said - ‘sorry. you’ve run out of cash this year. no more activities.’ I think this is all part of Special K’s plan to ‘look good’ while effing up everyone else.