Agenda item

Consideration of Community Chest Funding 2016/2017

Report No: GWP/SE/15/004

Members are invited to individually score the Community Chest applications prior to the meeting which may aid discussion.

Minutes:

The Working Party considered Report No: GWP/SE/15/004, which sought approval for a number of applications submitted for Community Chest funding in the 2016/2017 financial year. The recommendations of the Grant Working Party would be considered by Cabinet on 8 December 2015 for approval.

Applications for Community Chest funding for 2016/2017 closed on 30 September 2015. A total of 21 applications had been received from a wide variety of organisations as detailed in Appendix 1 to Report No: GWP/SE/15/004. The Community Chest budget for 2016/2017 was £281,483 and applicants could apply for a maximum of three years. Grants recommended for 2017/2018 and onwards would be subject to the budget setting process.

The officers reported that since the publication of the agenda and papers for this meeting, REACH and Suffolk West Citizens Advice Bureau had confirmed that their applications of £5,000 and £182,500 respectively were amounts for each year for three years and not for one year, as stated in the report.

Following discussions previously held with the Chairman of the Working Party, it was felt that four of the applications received (listed below and attached as Appendices 19 to 22 of the report) were not considered to be appropriate for Community Chest funding. It had been suggested that the Families and Communities Team worked with these organisations to source alternative funding. These alternative sources could be from other St Edmundsbury funds, such as the Rural Initiative Grants Scheme or Councillor Locality Budgets, or from external sources such as Suffolk Fit Villages, sport’s national governing bodies, such as Sport England and the Suffolk Community Foundation.

Appendix 19: Coffee Caravan

Appendix 20: Eastgate Amateur Boxing Club

Appendix 21: Rojo Art Projects

Appendix 22: St Edmundsbury Sailing and Canoeing Association

The Working Party considered that whilst there was some merit in the application from St Edmundsbury Sailing and Canoeing Association and that this submission in particular should be directed to other funding sources, this was a sensible approach.

Each application, including those felt more appropriate for alternative funding sources, had been summarised with the full applications attached as appendices to the report. Each application was required to be evaluated in accordance with the eligibility and selection criteria set out in Appendix 24, and was considered in turn as follows:

Appendix 2: YMCA Suffolk

It was considered the project would not satisfactorily achieve a facility that would be regularly used by young people and it was felt that the application amount of £47,977 each year for two years could be better spent on youth facilities elsewhere.

All agreed not to support any funding to this project.

Appendix 3: Young People of the Year - Befriending

The Working Party considered the concept of the project was acceptable; however the application lacked specific detail and the proposed administration costs appeared to be excessive. Members considered their efforts should be consolidated with other existing organisations.

All agreed not to support any funding to this project.

Appendix 4: Hopton Day Care Centre

(Councillor Jim Thorndyke declared a local non-pecuniary interest as an associate of the person listed as a second contact and remained in the meeting for the consideration of this application.)

The Working Party considered this project fully met the eligibility and selection criteria and supported the allocation of the full application amount.

All agreed to recommend an allocation of £5,000 in 2016/2017.

Appendix 5: Sue Ryder

An explanation was sought on the accuracy of the £43,064,000 amount listed as being unrestricted reserves or savings.

Members considered that mental health provision should be supported in Bury St Edmunds; however it was questioned whether similar organisations should collaborate and combine efforts on related projects, particularly as this total project cost appeared to be quite high at £37,118.

All agreed to defer this application of £10,000 to seek clarification on matters outlined above.

Appendix 6: The Voluntary Network (Befriending Connect Service)

Given the Voluntary Network was new to delivering projects in St Edmundsbury, the Working Party considered the application to allocate funding for a three year period was excessive. Members considered the project met the eligibility criteria; however they would recommend granting for two years, with a request that a report be submitted after Year One detailing evidence of where the project had benefitted people experiencing loneliness, particularly if those that had been supported had managed to avoid impacting on public health services.

Subject to the satisfactory submission of an evidence-based report detailing the benefits and success of this project in 2016/2017, as outlined above, all agreed to recommend an allocation of £9,860 in 2016/2017 and £10,238 in 2017/2018.

Appendix 7: The Voluntary Network (Community Car Service)

Some concern was expressed that the training and salary costs listed in the application appeared excessive as Members considered this project should be centred on volunteering; and whether the service would be sufficiently used. However, the aim of the scheme was supported, therefore it was considered an allocation should be recommended on a two year basis and not three as requested, with a request for a report to be submitted after Year One detailing evidence of where the project had benefitted those in need of this type of service.

Appendix 8: Bury St Edmunds Volunteer Centre

(Councillor Robert Everitt declared a local non-pecuniary interest as the Borough Council’s nominated representative on the board of the Bury St Edmunds Volunteer Centre remained in the meeting for the consideration of this application.)

The Working Party considered this project fully met the eligibility and selection criteria and supported the allocation of the full application amount.

All agreed to recommend an allocation of £6,586 in 2016/2017.

Appendix 9: Fresh Start – New Beginnings

Given the complexities and specialist nature of dealing with children that had disclosed sexual abuse, the Working Party considered this application should not be supported and addressing such issues should remain provided, in the first instance, by the Police and National Health Service.

All agreed not to support any funding to this project.

Appendix 10: Mentis Tree

Clarification was sought on a number of points contained in the application and the service to be provided, including:

(a) whether the necessary professional psychiatric expertise was available for all types of mental health;

(b) the implications of their ‘open door’ policy, given potential risks and safeguarding issues;

(d) the background to the Acorn Counselling Service.

All agreed to defer this application of £9,000 to seek clarification on matters outlined above.

Appendix 11: Relate Norfolk and Suffolk

The majority of Members acknowledged the merit of this service and considered it met the eligibility and selection criteria; however an allocation commitment for two years was favoured rather than three.

Subject to the satisfactory submission of an evidence-based report detailing the benefits and success of this project in 2016/2017, all agreed to recommend an allocation of £5,000 for 2016/2017 and £5,000 for 2017/2018.

Appendix 12: Suffolk Rape Crisis

Clarification was sought on some of the data figures quoted in the application, together with an explanation of the financial costs associated with the project which appeared considerably high.

Other potential funders had been listed under paragraph 24 of the application; however, Members sought clarification on whether any funding had yet been determined from those organisations.

All agreed to defer this application of £31,000 in 2016/2017 and £31,000 in 2017/2018 to seek clarification on matters outlined above.

Appendix 13: Suffolk Mind

Members acknowledged the potential benefits of this project; however the total cost appeared unwarranted, particularly the salary costs given that many other allotments are run by the people that rented them or by volunteers.

As it was identified that this project could be funded by alternative funding sources, all agreed to add this application to the list of four contained in Appendices 19 to 22.

Appendix 14: Suffolk Young People’s Health Project (4YP)

It was commented that, similarly with other organisations of this nature as considered earlier, the service being offered within this project should be consolidated with other organisations that were already addressing such issues.

Concern was also expressed that the application lacked specific detail on their project objectives.

All agreed not to support any funding to this project; however it was asked that when informed of the outcome of 4YP’s application, that should there have been some evidence of collaborative working with similar organisations, this may have had a positive bearing on consideration of the application.

Appendix 15: REACH Community Projects

A discussion was held on the relationship between REACH and the River of Life Church and that focus should not be given to Haverhill South ward.

Councillor John Burns also stated that Haverhill Town Council had previously allocated funding and this had not been referred to in the application and therefore he would be abstaining from recommending the allocations.

Subject to the satisfactory submission of an evidence-based report detailing the benefits and success of this project in 2016/2017, the majority of Members agreed to recommend an allocation of £5,000 for 2016/2017 and £5,000 for 2017/2018.

Appendix 16: Gatehouse Caring in East Anglia

Members acknowledged the merit of this service and considered it fully met the eligibility and selection criteria; however an allocation commitment for two years was favoured rather than three.

Appendix 17: HomeStart Mid Suffolk

(Councillor Houlder declared a local non-pecuniary interest as his son-in-law was employed by HomeStart and remained in the meeting for the consideration of this application.)

Members acknowledged the merit of this service and considered it fully met the eligibility and selection criteria; however an allocation commitment for two years was favoured rather than three.

As the organisation was expanding into West Suffolk, it was asked that HomeStart should provide specific evidence of its successes in this area at the conclusion of Year One.

Appendix 18: Suffolk West Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB)

Whilst the Working Party acknowledged the commendable service provided by Suffolk West CAB, concern was expressed regarding the level of funding requested, particularly given that a Community Chest grant of £17,500 had been recently allocated for customer access work from the 2015/2016 transitional year.

Consideration was given to requesting the Suffolk West CAB provide a presentation to the Working Party setting out background history; their aims and objectives; what the Suffolk West CAB specifically provided for St Edmundsbury; fundraising efforts; and the types of issues brought to them for advice.

All agreed to recommend an allocation of £182,000 in 2016/2017; however, the organisation would be asked to provide a presentation before consideration of an allocation for 2017/2018 and beyond.

RESOLVED: That

(1) consideration of the following applications be deferred to enable further information/clarification to be sought on the relevant application, namely:

(a) Sue Ryder;

(b) Mentis Tree; and

(2) Having obtained the further information/clarification required on each of the three applications above, further discussion be undertaken on them with the Grant Working Party by email, following which delegated authority be given to the Head of Families and Communities, in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Working Party to determine the level of grant (if any) to be recommended to Cabinet for approval.

RECOMMENDED: That:

(1) the allocation of Community Chest funding for 2016/2017, as detailed in Report No: GWP/SE/15/004, be approved, namely:

(a) Hopton Day Care Centre:	£5,000
(b) Bury St Edmunds Volunteer Centre:	£6,586

(2) Subject to the provision of a presentation on the work of the organisation prior to consideration of an allocation of funding for 2017/2018 and beyond, Community Chest funding for Suffolk West Citizens Advice Bureau of £182,500 for 2016/2017, be approved;

(3) subject to the budget setting process for 2017/2018, and subject to the satisfactory submission of evidence-based reports detailing the benefits and success of each individual project in 2016/2017, the allocation of Community Chest funding for 2016/2017 and 2017/2018, be approved, namely:

	2016/17	2017/18
(a) The Voluntary Network (Befriending Connect Service):	£9,860	£10,238
(b) The Voluntary Network (Community Car Service):	£5,310	£4,434
(c) Relate Norfolk and Suffolk	£5,000	£5,000
(d) REACH Community Projects	£5,000	£5,000
(e) Gatehouse Caring in East Anglia	£5,000	£5,000
(f) HomeStart	£13,250	£9,800

(4) Due to not being considered to be appropriate for Community Chest funding but with the intention of signposting to alternative funding sources available, Community Chest funding for 2016/2017 not be awarded to:

(a) Coffee Caravan;

(b) Eastgate Amateur Boxing Club;

(d) St Edmundsbury Sailing and Canoeing Association; and

(e) Suffolk Mind.

(5) No Community Chest funding for 2016/2017 be awarded to:

(a) YMCA Suffolk;

(b) Young People of the Year - Befriending;

(c) Fresh Start – New Beginnings; and

(d) Suffolk Young People’s Health Project (4YP).

(6) No allocation of Community Chest funding for 2018/2019 be approved at this present time.

Supporting documents: