Following on from the previous agenda item, the Working Party is invited to partake in a workshop on the future allocation of funds and proposals for streamlining the grant funding process, and to discuss the idea and consider principles for a Community Chest (working title).
Minutes:
The Working Party was invited to partake in a workshop-style discussion to consider proposals put forward by officers for potential development to enable the streamlining the grant funding process. This included the consideration of principles for a Community Chest (working title).
A series of questions were asked, which sought the Working Party’s views on proposals for streamlining the grant funding process.
What is the Council’s role in grant funding?
(a) The Rural Initiative Grant Scheme was established to support rural areas as parishes provided services through their own precepts that were already provided by the Borough Council in the towns (namely parks, cemeteries, play areas etc). Members considered this scheme should remain separate to the proposed Community Chest (working title) and the Locality Budget Scheme (LBS). The remaining approximate value of £63,000 in the RIGS ‘pot’ should remain ringfenced for rural areas but not incorporated into the LBS as some RIGS allocations exceeded that currently allowed under the LBS. Members would need to consider what would happen to any remaining monies in this ‘pot’ when the Scheme ceased to operate in two years’ time.
(b) With the exception of RIGS, the principle of a single fund (Community Chest) to amalgamate the existing grant pots as outlined in Report No: GWP/SE/15/001 was supported.
What lessons can we learn from the current process?
(a) The criteria for core grant funding needed attention to make it more comprehensible, open and transparent, to enable those involved in the decision making process (i.e the Grant Working Party, Cabinet and ultimately full Council as part of the budget setting process) to make more informed decisions on the recommended grant and the validity of any reductions proposed.
(b) Greater analysis of the organisations that received funding was required, which was largely historic.
What worked well with core grant process?
That some flexibility remained in the process, for example, the Grant Working Party recommended a grant of £1,500 to SARS in 2014/2015 (subsequently approved by Cabinet), which was contrary to the officers’ recommendation.
What should grant criteria include?
Criteria would potentially need to include:
(a) justified reasons for the required funding;
(b) a demonstration of more joined up partnership working between organisations as there appeared to be a significant amount of duplication;
(c) greater emphasis being placed on match funding being obtained from other external organisations and less reliance on local authority funding;
(d) provision for applications to be judged on their own merits;
(e) feedback required from the organisations receiving funding, e.g. where the money was spent and the outcomes;
(f) the organisations needed to help people in West Suffolk/St Edmundsbury and meet the Families and Communities (F&C) Principles;
(g) F&C Officers to provide support to the organisations on where they could obtain funding from non-local authority bodies;
(h) Funding Agreements be established and sufficient notice be given to the organisation if future funding was reduced/discontinued; and
(i) funding should not be allocated to remain unspent in the organisation’s reserves.
How should the allocation of funds be governed and monitored?
On being asked whether a Grant Working Party was required, Members agreed that it was however, it was agreed that meetings need only be
bi-annual or annual as several items of business could be dealt with via email, such as RIGS applications.
It was suggested that one meeting could be used for considering potential policy changes and operational matters, while the other be convened to consider the core funding application round and Community Chest applications.
Any other comments or concerns?
Discussion was held on a maximum term for a Funding Agreement. Two year agreements were agreed but work a year ahead (or more for material core grants) to provide the organisation with security regarding its future; however, agreements should be flexible depending on the need.
Other issues/conclusions were expressed at this point on what the organisation receiving funding needed to consider, which included:
(a) being able to demonstrate their strengths and what they did for the community;
(b) who were they aiming to reach, was there an identified need, and what were the outcomes and impact of their service;
(c) being able to demonstrate how their funding was matched; and
(d) was there a wider impact on the Borough Council’s services if funding was reduced.