Agenda Item No_____11_______
BIG SOCIETY FUND REVIEW AND PROPOSALS
Summary:
This report provides an appraisal and review of the Big
Society Fund, which has successfully operated for a
year, administered by Norfolk Community Foundation.
The fund has helped many community projects get off
the ground and has hence achieved some very positive
results for local communities in the District. Having
considered a range of issues relating to the
administration process and the outcome of the funding
scheme, it is recommended that the Fund is continued
in 2013/14 but that changes be made to the way in
which it is administered.
Options considered:
There are various options in relation to the future of the
Big Society Fund, ranging from not operating the fund to
increasing its value. The success of the fund in its first
year suggests that the scheme should be continued for
a further year, with a similar (but slightly increased
value), discontinuing it would not be a reasonable
option; however it is considered that the administration
of the fund can be improved by undertaking this inhouse; as opposed to an external organisation. The
implications of these alternatives are discussed in the
report, together with other recommendations on how the
effectiveness of the Fund in achieving its objectives can
be improved.
Conclusions:
The review of the Big Society Fund has concluded that
the scheme was successful in facilitating the delivery of
many beneficial community projects. The outcomes of
the funding scheme, however, could be better achieved
by changing the way in which the fund is administered
and by setting up a different process of support and
funding for larger or more complex projects.
Recommendations:
Cabinet should make the following
recommendations to Full Council:
1. The SLA with NCF be delivered for the
remaining period (i.e. administration of
outstanding (conditional) grant awards,
monitoring of projects awarded funded in the
first year and providing reports as
appropriate).
2. Set up a Big Society Fund for 2013/14 of
£225,000 for applications for grant aid of not
more than £15,000 per project, in accordance
with the draft prospectus included as
Appendix A.
3. Set up an ‘Enabling Fund’ of £225,000 in
order to support initiatives developed in
partnership with local communities (to help
realise opportunities arising from the
provisions of the Localism Act and to
respond to local needs) or for community
projects above £15,000 in value which
otherwise meet the provisions set out in the
Big Society Fund Prospectus.
4. Establish a ‘Localism Board’ to provide a
steer for officers on the development of
initiatives supported by the enabling fund
noting that decisions on funding for them
would be brought back to Cabinet or Council
for decision as appropriate (with appropriate
local member involvement).
5. The Big Society Fund should be
administered’ in-house’ by NNDC officers.
6. To approve the terms-of-reference for the
‘Big Society Fund Grants Panel’ set out in
Appendix B and delegate any subsequent
minor amendments of those to that Panel.
7. To appoint five members (plus two
substitutes), in accordance with the
proposed terms of reference, to the new Big
Society Fund Grants Panel.
8. To note that minutes of the Big Society Fund
Grants Panel will be reported to Cabinet and
that an annual report will be produced
summarising how resources have been
applied and the outcomes achieved.
Reasons for
Recommendations:
These recommendations are made in the light of the
appraisal of the scheme’s operation in the first year,
taking account of the views of the review group set up
by Overview and Scrutiny Committee. It represents the
most effective means of operating community grant
funding for the next financial year.
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY LAW
(Papers relied on the write the report and which do not contain exempt information)
Cabinet Report and minutes 31 January 2012
Overview and Scrutiny 6 February 2012
Council 13 February 2012
Big Society Fund Prospectus 2012
Service Level Agreement with Norfolk Community Foundation (2012)
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
Cllr T Ivory
All
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Robert Young; 01263 516162; robert.young@north-norfolk.gov.uk
1.
1.1
Introduction
The provisions of the Corporate Plan and Annual Action Plan are included in
the text box below. Resources to develop the activities necessary to achieve
these objectives are available via the income to the Council from the
discretionary element of the second homes Council Tax, supported by staff in
the Coast and Community Partnerships Team.
Encourage communities to develop their own vision for their future and help
them to deliver it
1. We will commission work to support community planning and for community
and voluntary sector capacity building
2. We will utilise our resources, statutory powers and influence to encourage
communities to realise opportunities for their own future
Encourage the growth of The Big Society within communities
1. We will continue to monitor the community investment fund, known as The Big
Society Fund, to invest in local communities, strengthen civic society, and
establish the process for determining priorities for expenditure
1.2
The current operational framework for funding and support for community and
voluntary sector initiatives was adopted by Council on 22 February 2012. This
resulted in the Big Society Fund being established in April 2012 and an
agreement to provide support to the Voluntary Sector in July 2012. At the time
of the Big Society Fund’s inception it had been anticipated that the Council
would set up a similar SLA with a suitable organisation to provide ‘capacity
building’ support to community organisations; however, no suitable proposals
came forward for the provision of this service and so this has been provided
in-house (at a level commensurate with the resources that exist).
1.3
The Big Society Fund has had a full year of operation (administered under a
SLA (Service Level Agreement) with The Norfolk Community Foundation
(NCF)) and it is thus timely to evaluate its effectiveness in achieving its aims
and to determine the most suitable method of meeting the corporate
objectives in the coming year. The SLA (with Voluntary Norfolk) for the
provision of support to the voluntary sector will be separately reviewed and
reported to Cabinet at the appropriate time. This report deals specifically with
the Big Society Fund and includes recommendations for its future operation.
2.
The effectiveness of the Fund in achieving the aims and objectives
originally set, in the first year of its operation
2.1
The fund was set up with the purpose (as set out in the BSF Prospectus) of
helping to build strong communities in North Norfolk. It aims to help
communities to develop new and innovative projects which will improve their
social and economic wellbeing. The prospectus identifies the outcomes (i.e.
benefits or impacts that can be recorded now and/or in the future) that the
Council would expect to evidence as a result of investment from this fund as
including:
• People working together to achieve benefits that can be both appreciated
by and have real positive impacts for the whole community, or sections of
it that have particular needs
• People who feel part of their community and have a sense of belonging
and responsibility for the good and long-term benefit of the wider
community
• Communities and/or local groups who feel empowered to make a
difference and make improvements to the lives of those who they support
in the locality
• An increased number of people volunteering and getting involved in their
local community to achieve greater levels of activity aimed at improving
and sustaining opportunities for the wider community
• Local economic benefits that can create employment and training
opportunities for those most in need.
2.2
2.3
The Nature of applications to the Fund
Ninety-four applications were made in the first year for a very wide range of
projects and from diverse applicants, as illustrated in the following chart. The
size of grant sought is illustrated in the charts in Appendix C (for both grants
over and under £10,000 in the first year).
2.4
2.5
Projects awarded funding
Approximately fifty per cent of all applications received were awarded funding
in the first year, amounting to forty-seven projects and £397,537. Many
projects (8.5%) received the full amount requested, whilst others were
awarded partial funding. The reason some applications were unsuccessful
related either to the projects not having sufficient supporting information or
that they did not sufficiently match the provisions of the prospectus and the
purpose of the Fund. The fund was hugely oversubscribed.
2.6
A breakdown of successful applications by organisation and type of project is
shown in the following charts and the geographical spread of successful
applications is illustrated in Appendix D.
2.7
Projects that were unsuccessful, or received only a partial award were
frequently put forward for funding from other grant schemes operated by NCF
(because the application process was common to all the funds administered
by them). An example of such outcomes is illustrated in the table below,
which shows the unsuccessful applications for the second round of BSF
grants which were redirected and subsequently funded by the Victory
Housing grant scheme.
Applicant
Bodham Playing
Field
Fakenham And
District Light
Operatic Society
Norfolk Federation
of Young Farmers
Clubs
Raynham Parish
Council
Stibbard Village Hall
Management
Committee
Location
Project Note
Awarded
Bodham
To provide a basic skate ramp on
the playing field.
£2,000.00
Fakenham
To
purchase
new
stage
equipment for the society.
£3,170.00
To open a ‘Countrysider’ Club for
the 10 -16 age range in
£4,000.00
Fakenham
Raynham
To purchase a roundabout to
enhance the play area.
£5,000.00
Stibbard
To install double glazing
improve heat efficiency.
Fakenham
to
£5,000.00
2.8
2.9
Projects implemented
The latest project monitoring information is attached as Appendix E. This
shows the applications approved for the first two rounds of applications and
demonstrates the degree to which the fund has achieved successful
outcomes. The full extent of implementation will not be known until one year
after the last round of grants were awarded.
2.10
2.11
Total funding drawn down
For some projects the BSF was the only source of external funding; whether
these projects would have been successful in attaining alternative sources of
support we cannot tell. For many projects, however, the BSF was but one
funding source (ranging from 1.9% to 97% of total project value) and in total
£2,867,735 worth of projects have been able to proceed. It cannot be claimed
that the BSF was the sole means by which this additional funding was levered
in but it is reasonable to assume that it has been a significant catalyst and is
likely to have demonstrated the confidence for other funders to provide
additional support; as well as giving the applicant organisations the impetus to
proceed.
2.12
2.13
Measurement of ‘Social Impact’ of the Fund
Whilst it is not possible to say definitively (after the first year of operation) that
the Fund has achieved its overall purpose and objectives, the above figures
suggest the extent to which this is likely. Spending money (either ours or that
of other funders) is not, however, an indication of success; empowering
communities and enabling them to implement worthwhile projects is. What we
have been unable to determine is the level of involvement of local
communities in the delivery of projects, or their ultimate, on-going
sustainability. Nor are we generally aware of the fate of projects which were
not funded; or of any ‘latent’ demand or need for projects that have not
manifested in applications for this fund. It will therefore be important to
establish procedures and provide adequate resources to focus on monitoring
the achievement of these outcomes in the future.
2.14
This existing funding scheme has been largely reactive, that is it has offered
the opportunity of funding (in accordance with the provisions set out in the
prospectus) and we have waited for projects to come forward. In utilising
Norfolk Community Foundation to administer the fund, we have been able to
take advantage of their knowledge of the wider funding context and of their
links to other funding schemes that have either been able to match BSF
grants or provide funding for some of those projects unsuccessful in their
application to the BSF. This set-up, however, has ‘insulated’ NNDC from the
project and the applicant. We have not therefore been as aware as we might
have been of the need for additional support, which could have increased the
chances of unsuccessful applications, or of how greater benefit might have
been achieved from those that were successful. Nor have we been in a
position to provide support during project implementation to help secure (and
monitor) the outcomes the Council has sought.
2.15
Issues identified prior to establishing the Fund and how these have
been addressed
The report to Cabinet and Overview and Scrutiny Committee in January/
February 2012 identified that the risks to the Council relating to reputation
were twofold.
2.16
•
“Firstly, funds are derived from the County Council’s decision to return
50% of their share of discretionary second homes council tax to the
district in which it is raised. This arrangement sits within NCC’s current
budget regime and therefore the Fund is vulnerable to any future changes
made by the County Council. However, it is a rolling resource and will be
launched with a carry-forward from the North Norfolk Community
Partnership, effectively creating a financial buffer and giving significant
management flexibility in the future should income vary. “
•
“The second reputational risk is around delivering on expectations given
the size of the Fund and the range of proposed resource applications.
This can be mitigated through endorsing the various scheme criteria and
particularly through tracking the use of grant monies to demonstrate their
effectiveness in supporting community wellbeing, and by communicating
regularly on locality projects being developed with town and parish
councils.”
2.17
In relation to the former, funding for the forthcoming financial year (2013/14)
from the District element of the ‘second homes Council Tax’ has been
secured and is expected to amount to £968,386 (compared with £656,812 in
2012/13). Any residual of second homes Council Tax has been rolled forward
at the end of each financial year, and the slight underspend from the first
year’s BSF grant is available for the following year, thus ensuring sufficient
funds for next year and an adequate ‘buffer’ for the following year.
2.18
The second risk identified relates to the effectiveness of the prospectus (and
its application) in exercising ‘quality control’ in decision-making and the
monitoring and feedback mechanisms that are in place. This essentially
relates to the effectiveness of the operational framework (addressed below).
The Overview and Scrutiny Committee received an update report in
December 2012 and this report covers the principal concerns in relation to
this risk. It has been generally considered (by NCF, relevant NNDC officers
and the review group) that the prospectus has proven to be appropriate and
has assisted with the determination of both large and smaller grant
applications.
3.
3.1
The effectiveness of the operational framework and administrative
arrangements for the Fund (including the SLA with NCF)
The report to Cabinet of February 2012 set out the proposed operational
framework. This included the heads of terms for the Service Level Agreement
that was subsequently developed, which set up NCF as the administering
body for the Fund. Any publicity around the Fund continued to credit NNDC.
3.2
The SLA has cost £27,000 for the first year of the Fund’s operation (this was
calculated as six per cent of £450,000). In practice Staff in the Coast &
Community Partnerships team have also been actively involved in the
delivery of the Fund, overseeing the administration, reporting large grant
applications to Cabinet, managing the SLA, monitoring the overall
performance of the scheme and handling promotion and public relations
issues.
3.3
3.4
Appraisal and Review
The group appointed by Overview and Scrutiny to review the Fund
considered the following issues alongside the advice of the Chairman of the
Big Society Board (Cllr Ivory) and Council officers responsible for it.
• Whether the fund should operate next year or whether alternatives to
a grant making process would be more effective use of the budget
• The size of the fund in total and the amount to ring fence for external
applications
• The ceiling for any grant awards scheme
• Alternatives to the external grant scheme
• The future administrative arrangements for the fund (and the role of
NCF)
• Any changes to the prospectus
• The role of the Big Society Board
3.5
The group’s deliberations gave rise to the following issues and conclusions.
3.6
The Fund has had many successful outcomes and should continue in the
next financial year. It has been effective overall in achieving its purpose, has
delivered many worthwhile projects and has been consistent with the
expectations of the ‘second homes income’. Changes, however, should be
made to maximise the value of the Funding scheme in achieving the
outcomes set out in the prospectus – improving the opportunity for
communities to benefit from the Fund. An ‘external’ grant fund should
continue to achieve the same benefits as in the past year but the
effectiveness of the support for larger projects would be further improved by
establishing a separate ‘enabling fund’. This would mean that projects can
benefit from bespoke advice and support in the early stages in their
development, ensuring that they are suitably equipped and fit for purpose to
increase their opportunity of success; not only of funding from the enabling
fund but also from other external funders. Together, both the Big Society
Fund and the Enabling Fund will, if supported by resources for
implementation, increase the value of the investment and more effectively
deliver the desired outcomes.
3.7
The Fund should total £450k (excluding administration costs), divided equally
into an external competitive grant fund and an ‘enabling’ fund. This amounts
to an overall increase of £27,000 in the grant funding available.
3.8
On reviewing the demand for grants in the first year of the Big Society Fund
(illustrated in Appendix C) together with consideration of the administration
and governance procedures, it was considered that the ceiling for any
external grant awards scheme should be changed to £15k. Applications
above that threshold will be supported and developed via the enabling fund
(for which no ceiling should be set).
3.9
The administrative arrangements for the fund (and the role of NCF) should
change, with the Council undertaking the total administration of the Fund inhouse, therefore adding greater value by taking schemes from inception to
implementation and beyond. This requires additional resource, which could
also be used to support the administration of the external grants scheme; in
doing so many of the issues that have arisen with the SLA could be ironed
out. Administering the grants scheme internally would enable projects to be
better understood and supported from start to finish. That way issues arising
early in the application process can be addressed and hands-on support can
be provided to assist in implementation following grant approval (e.g.
matching applicants to mentors from similar projects).
3.10
Amendments to the prospectus should be made to reflect above changes but
the purpose/ objectives should remain the same. The levels of evidence and
supporting information etc. needed for different grant levels should be made
clear in the prospectus.
3.11
Big Society Board has served well in the process of determining grant
applications for the Big Society Fund and the same arrangement should
continue next year (under slightly revised terms of reference (reflecting the
increased grant threshold).Officers will need a steer on the development of
projects to be assisted by the enabling fund and it is suggested that this be
undertaken alongside the support given to communities in the development of
Localism initiatives (see report on Item 12 on this Cabinet’s agenda). A
‘Localism Board’ is therefore proposed to fulfil this role.
4.
Implications and Risks
This report reviews the effectiveness of a fund which has been both high
profile for the Council and has involved the distribution of large sums of
money. Considerations relating to the way in which the fund has been used in
its first year, and decisions relating to whether and how it will operate in the
coming year, are crucial for the Council’s reputation. The proper and effective
use of this fund is also likely to be a key consideration by Norfolk County
Council in determining the return of the agreed element of the discretionary
‘second homes Council Tax’ to NNDC in the future. The conclusions and
recommendations set out in this report are felt to optimise the potential to
achieve the outcomes sought for the Big Society Fund and reduce the risk of
the funding being lost in the future.
5.
Financial Implications and Risks
The recommendations within this report can be supported within the approved
budget. Both the Big Society Fund and the enabling fund will be supported by
the discretionary element of the second homes council tax charge (2013/14)
which is being returned to the District Council by the County Council. This is
£867,563, in addition to the 2012/13 adjustment of £100,823.
The following provides a summary of the allocation within the 2013/14 budget.
£2013/14
Community Grant Fund
Community Transport Schemes
Discretionary rate relief
Voluntary Sector Support
Community Capacity Building
Internal Support
450,000
15,000
68,000
37,500
50,000
64,328
684,828
The overall fund available for external grant aid will be increased next year
(by approximately £27,000) if the recommendation to administer the fund inhouse is supported.
6.
Sustainability
There are no sustainability implications resulting from the recommendations
or options considered in this report.
7.
Equality and Diversity
The proposed changes to the community grant fund scheme provide greater
opportunity to address identified issues and inequalities, therefore the
recommendations in this report are likely to bring improvements to the current
position with respect to equality and diversity.
8.
Section 17 Crime and Disorder considerations
There are no crime and disorder implications resulting from the
recommendations or options considered in this report.