Three Criteria for Comparing Project Support Roles

A research note from the Public Asset and PPP Lab (ISVD-LAB-005), comparing participation in the dormant deposits scheme and PFS. The separate analyses are in Two Ways to Support PFS Beyond Service Delivery and The scheme where programme officers are invisible.

Roles in the two schemes

The dormant deposits scheme uses dormant bank balances to support public-interest activity. PFS is a contracting method that links a public body's payment to outcomes. Their funding sources and purposes differ, but both involve funding, coordination and evaluation as well as delivery.

Fund distribution organisations select and fund implementing organisations. Activity support organisations provide non-financial support, and programme officers (POs) offer hands-on assistance. In PFS, intermediaries coordinate and develop projects, funders provide capital, and third-party evaluators assess outcomes.

An organisation considering participation needs to compare duties and contracts, not just role names. This note covers nine roles, including implementing organisations and contractors that receive support.

Three comparison criteria

1. Funding arrangements: grants, investment, loans or payment for support services; who pays and which costs are eligible.
2. Financial obligations: grant-return conditions and repayments or fees that vary with outcomes.
3. Published activity data: whether people, organisations or projects are counted, and whether individual records are available.

Grant-return obligations and outcome-linked payments are different mechanisms. The diagram's categories are a comparison aid, not a statement of all contractual responsibility. POs, intermediaries and evaluators also have obligations under their employment or service contracts.

What published material shows

The material reviewed contains no aggregate headcount or organisation count for dormant-deposit POs, PFS intermediaries or PFS third-party evaluators. It does publish counts of activity support organisations and supported organisations, and counts of PFS and SIB projects.

The 379 PFS projects and 19 SIB projects do not count contractors or funding organisations. One organisation may work on several projects, so those figures cannot directly establish growth in the supporting workforce.

Dormant-deposit call guidelines provide for disclosure of applicant names, documents, selection processes, reasons and grant amounts to explain the use of public assets. Such information explains allocation, but does not necessarily reveal the number or experience of support staff.

A hypothesis about information gaps

If data on support practitioners is less available than allocation and project data, assessing support capacity across a scheme becomes difficult. One hypothesis is that disclosure serves primarily to explain funding decisions.

An absence of published counts cannot be attributed simply to an absence of risk. Comparing two schemes does not establish a causal link between disclosure policy and contractual responsibility.

The dormant deposits scheme includes an activity-support window, PO cost categories and training. The PFS action plan includes networks among participants. Evaluating how these measures improve capacity requires information on specialisms, duties and changes at supported organisations, as well as headcounts.

Three years of the activity support tier found that all eleven selected projects were programmes supporting other organisations. Selection counts need to be distinguished from practitioners' numbers and experience.

Using the comparison

Missing aggregate data does not prevent an organisation from demonstrating its experience. Subject to confidentiality requirements, records of project names, periods, duties and results can support later proposals and discussions.

Further research

The scope for publishing support organisations' and practitioners' numbers and specialisms needs examination. AMED publishes PO names, affiliations and titles for individual programmes under its disclosure rules. Other schemes would need to assess the purpose of disclosure and personal-information safeguards.

Where intermediaries also evaluate outcomes, interests and independence need review. Comparisons with subsidies, designated management and Park-PFI should likewise distinguish each scheme's duties and contractual terms.

Related research notes

• Two Ways to Support PFS Beyond Service Delivery. Duties and financial responsibilities
• Pricing what cannot be measured. Willingness-to-pay design
• Has PFS reached beyond the three priority fields. Fields and first-time adopters

Related columns and guides

• The scheme where programme officers are invisible. Organisation and practitioner data
• Three years of the activity support tier. The eleven selected projects
• Five ways into the dormant deposits scheme. Participation requirements and funding