An opportunity for members to ask questions of external
organisations who also provide
funding/investment into the Voluntary,
Community and Social Enterprise sector.
(Exempt under
paragraphs 1, 3 and 10).
Minutes:
The Panel considered written statements provided by BBC
Children in Need and Locality, regarding
the impact and value for money of grants programmes and investment into the
local Voluntary, Community and
Social Enterprise (VCSE)
sector. Copies of these statements marked “Agenda Item 5” are filed with
these minutes. The documents were not for publication by virtue of Paragraphs
1, 3 and 10 of Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972.
The Chairman welcomed other grant funders, partners and
stakeholders to the meeting and invited feedback regarding the impact and value for money of grants programmes and
investment into the local Voluntary,
Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) sector.
In response to a
question regarding the impact which grant funding had on supporting the
Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise sector, the following points were made:
i.
The
Lloyds Banking Foundation believed in unrestricted funding and did not
necessarily focus on outcomes or outputs.
Funding was often used by VCSE organisations to pay for running costs.
Grant funding helped to keep organisations in operation and quite often VCSE
organisations were unable to use funding from other funders to pay for such
overheads. Members were advised that funding supported the most vulnerable in
society through the delivery of support services which had not been offered by
statutory bodies. Grant funding from local authorities had often helped VCSE
organisations to secure funding from other sources.
ii.
North
West Leicestershire Council agreed that grant funding helped to support those
in the community who could not receive support from statutory services and also
provided leverage for VCSE organisations sourcing alternative funding streams.
iii.
Charnwood
Borough Council highlighted that VCSE organisations were often adaptable when
providing support to communities during difficult circumstances, such as the
Covid-19 pandemic and assisting with cost of living pressures. It was noted
that considering outcomes had been important, but that it was often more
appropriate to focus on case studies rather than quantitative data.
iv.
The
National Lottery Community Fund focussed on what support could be delivered to
VCSE organisations, and to their service users, and commented that the guidance
and development opportunities provided to organisations was often invaluable.
v.
Voluntary
Action LeicesterShire commented that local grants would be important against a
climate where national grant schemes had generally been reduced.
In response to a
question regarding whether organisations had used specific criteria when
assessing applications or requests for repeat funding, the following points
were made:
i.
Charnwood
Borough Council allowed applications for repeat funding but had always
signposted organisations to additional sources of funding beforehand. The
authority offered repeat funding where it would be used to help a group
continue in the absence of other funding streams.
ii.
Blaby
District Council accepted applications for repeat funding. Only one grant per
year was allowed and only one grant could be requested at a time.
iii.
North
West Leicestershire District Council accepted applications for repeat funding
but these would be accessed to understand the bigger picture before making a
decision.
iv.
The
National Lottery Community Fund had no process in place for repeat funding but
instead focuses on the relationship with organisations and encourages
diversifying their reliance on grant funds. Each application would be treated
on merit and the organisations expectations and learning would be taken into
consideration when assessing the application.
v.
Lloyds Bank
Foundation provided repeat funding to secure the future needs of organisations
and their service users.
In response to a
question regarding how funding providers had monitored key outputs and
outcomes achieved through grant funding, the following points were made:
i.
Grant
funders provided members with an overview of the methods used to monitor and
evaluate the progress of activity delivered as a result of grant funding. The
majority of organisations had a robust application process which considered project
aims and objectives. Some organisations had undertaken health checks and used
monitoring forms to track project delivery as it progressed and some had
conducted visits to witness the work being carried out in the community. The
consensus amongst the grant funders in attendance was that monitoring
information would only be gathered where necessary and that the collation of
such information would always be proportionate the level of funding being
provided.
ii.
Illustrating
the outputs and outcomes of grant funding was often difficult to quantitively
demonstrate and members were advised that it was easier to consider case
studies to determine the impact which grants had on organisations and
individuals.
In response to a question regarding the level of grant
funding available and the total grant fund budgeted for annually, the following
points were made:
i.
Charnwood
Borough Council offered various types of grants:
o Member Grant awarded grants of up to £500
and the annual budget was £26,000;
o Community Grant had an annual budget of
£52,000 and provided up to £5,000 in grant funding;
o Community Facilities Grants scheme awarded
funding of up to £20,000, to a maximum of 50% of the cost of a project and had
a budget of around £50,000;
o Strategic Partner Grants offered funding
between £8,000 and £35,000 and had a budget of £300,000.
ii.
North
West Leicestershire District Council had an annual budget of £16,000 to provide
small grants. It also had a Strategic Grant Agreement in place with a £93,000
annual budget.
iii.
Blaby
District Council had three community grants schemes which offered £500 per
grant application. It also had two larger grants which offered up to £4,000,
with match funding.
iv.
The National
Lottery Community Fund allocated £20m annually for grant funding nationally.
Its typical grant was £75,000-£100,000, awarded over a three year period (with
an additional £30,000 to secure the organisations development). The fund had
provided between £135,000 and £150,000 annually to projects in Leicester and
Leicestershire.
v.
The
Lloyds Bank Foundation offered small grants of up to £10,000 and larger grants
of on average £240,000 over a five year period.
Members noted that
grant funding from local authorities had often provided VCSE organisations with
the initial funding needed to get started and provided the leverage required to
source match funding and funding from other sources. Having a track record of
delivering successful projects, as a result of grant funding, would often also
help VCSE organisations when applying for grant funding for new projects.
In response to a
question regarding the sustainability of VCSE organisations outside of grant
funding, members noted that VCSE organisations would generally always require
grant funding and that only a small percentage would benefit from other types
of fundraising, by relying on donations, or through operating commercial
activities. Grant funders and organisations such as Voluntary Action LeicesterShire
would offer support and advise to VCSE organisations which would help them to
diversify and consider alterative funding streams as well as developing their
Board of Trustees and adapting this business plans, although this was often not
a mandatory condition attached to grant funding.
RESOLVED:
That the
information presented by other grant funders, partners and stakeholders be
noted.