Facilitator flipchart notes from all Council Grants Policy Co-production Events so far (sorted according to question and theme).

A. What should grants be for?

Prevention Prevention for children and families Grants should fund preventative services

Partnership work Partnership work – priority should be promised for joint applications Partnership work – to share overheads Links to Community Hubs There are implications for partnership or collaboration. Depending on size of grant *hidden

costs* Partnerships can be good but can become self-sustaining / exclusive in their own way The council should be bringing organisations and projects together and signpost to other

funders/partners Informal partnership work Synergies between organisations should be encouraged by the Council and prioritised – sharing

back office costs and overheads Partnerships between organisations / consortia, etc. take longer to form and cost money (staff

time, core costs) for the organisations involved. This needs to be considered. Also partnership brings liability (no control over all outcomes / activities).

The full range of VCS services Domestic violence Health and wellbeing organisations Homelessness, women and children, vulnerable Allocation re education, health, welfare rights, employment, sport, youth etc. Grants should be

across all elements of the sector Grants should be provided under themes i.e. families, young people, mental health, arts + crafts,

performing arts providers should be able to apply under 1 theme or multiple themes Themes: - Woman (gender specific) - Families – groups that are under represented, i.e. BME, refugees - Family mentoring - Mental Health - Health issues - Sports + Well being - Isolated people

1

- Young people - Performing arts - Substance Abusers - Street Worker - Culture - Capacity building for organisations Projects across the whole sector – luncheon clubs, arts clubs for disabled people, etc. Respond to multiple needs – hubs, community resources, (the grants should respond to a range

of needs) Work needs to be done to ensure the grant programme as a whole broadly reflects wider

demographic and geography (while not neglecting smaller interest groups). The local authority need to monitor this

Should cover the geographical areas There should be grants for different purposes There will be a decent offer for Arts & Culture The criteria needs to be as broad/open as possible. Grants should be more inclusive. Get statistics [presumably on demographics vs. funding spread]

Innovation Innovations around digital inclusion and loneliness – both in projects and in new projects Can maintaining status quo stifle innovation? Innovation possibilities – e.g. lunch clubs. An innovation funding stream could be ring fenced The grants policy shouldn’t all be about innovation - have some but not all funding for

innovation Seed funding for new ideas? Innovation needs to be targeted where needed There will be funding for piloting new ideas There should be a focus on new emerging and on-going needs (where local authority doesn’t

provide support etc.) Allowing the creation of the ‘impossible’ Expression of interest stage Organisations will be able to submit ‘expressions of interest’ for work You should be able to submit an idea for a project for up to a year, with the possibility of

extensions. E.g. 1 more year if it is successful / need.

Supporting grassroots work / small groups Grassroots organisations supported and inform policy – THCVS to referee organisations There is a role for the CVS to support smaller community orgs to be able to apply for both

tenders and grants – to get a constitution, etc. (capacity building) Start up grants should be available for unofficial organisations/developing groups who will work

with CVS Commissioning will support larger organisations Supporting grassroots organisations to have more policy influence The grants policy harness community action by offering introductions to existing orgs

2

o people could do this through volunteering with existing orgso it’s important to have accountable bodies for projects

Brokers (organisations that broker grants money to unconstituted groups) :o e.g. to fix a basketball course, small grantso For groups of peopleo Through THCVS

Vulnerable groups/protected characteristics/small groups/start ups The funding should ensure a focus on small groups and those who cater for 24/7 needs not

covered by existing services Can the members of a project apply for funding? Empowering the people we aim to support?

Core funding / organisational support Translation / interpretation needs to be an element of the grants to ensure inclusion If you get a grant you should not have to pay rent. Grants should be full cost recovery Capital and revenue grants should be available – core costs Core costs to develop organisations Social value and what [can’t read word] capacity build There should be unrestricted funding available through council grants Longer term grants are good for small organisations – these lead to stability and sustainability Fund tried and tested services that meet needs capacity building grants stream - is this the CVS role? Core funding gives organisations flexibility to innovate Objectives:

- Meeting need and training the voluntary sector- Capacity building

Capacity building is very important Continuing Professional Development should be built in to grants Core funding is important There will be grants for core funding available, to build resilience and for capacity building There will be grants for core funding – not just projects Larger grants should cover on-costs Match funding should not be compulsory.

- Timing is an issue with match funding and this needs to be considered – it takes time to find it.

Responsive / flexible funding Respond to local need Emerging needs – the policy framework needs flexibility to respond to emerging needs A policy that is needs driven: but how are needs defined? The policy needs to be flexible - to recognise the potential of small and medium sized

organisations and recognise the individual needs of organisations Less restrictions/no restrictions on when people can apply/who can apply

3

Geographical project related funding

Different types of grant should be available Duration - capital grants and events can be one-off, but rolling programmes for other projects (3

years plus) Provide different sizes of grants, small, medium, large Provide some funding at Council Ward level for ‘uber-local projects’ There should be different sizes of grants length of grant should be flexible (more than just one off and annual grants) Events funding will have different process (see below) There will be different levels of grant

o Up to 1k: one off events, easy application, light touch monitoringo Up to 20k: project funding, capacity building, etc.o Strategic grants: partnerships with LBTH, 3 year agreements (promoting stability)

Grants will start really small: £250+ for unconstituted groups Funding should be for more than one year/ if not, clear time scales (re application and delivery

windows) Opportunities for:

- Yearly applications for longer grants (i.e. 3 years)- More frequent applications for smaller/shorter term grants- Resources/capacity for assessing applications should match the number of applications

(so no delays / waste)- The grant selection process should not be overly fixated on geographic spread

Bigger grants should be for longer time periods Different lengths of grants available Longer funding terms There will be grants for different amounts of time

4

B. Who should receive council grants?

VCS organisations Third sector All third sector providers Essential that they are non-statutory No individuals should receive a grant as a beneficiary Only voluntary organisations should be able to access this grant - not for profit organisations

only Organisations not individuals Only the voluntary sector and CIC’s and community organisations There should not be any funding for statutory organisations Profit making organisations should not be able to apply. What about schools? Grants should not be for private sector opportunities

Local organisations Local organisations Organisations that have a real vested interest in the borough Serving participants from Tower hamlets and cross border (many felt grants should be for Tower

Hamlets residents only – but did accept that some projects are on the border so would have some residents from other boroughs)

Organisations funded through grants should have local people on their trustee boards Only Tower Hamlets organisations should be given this grant Organisations delivering services in the borough - ideally based in the borough Grants should cover a wide range of organisations and these should be within the borough Organisations funded should have a local connection Priority given to those giving significant service in the borough – local knowledge, expertise Grants should be facilitated and delivered by local groups. Locally driven

Specialist organisations / provision Detached services (i.e. Vietnamese mental health) – services that are not based in the area but

deliver for specific need in the borough Federated organisations, i.e. Age UK, Alzheimers that have a local branch should be able to apply Whoever comes in from outside of the borough needs to bring in added value (they should only

come in if local orgs can’t provide this service) Funding should take into account communities of interest in the borough (disabled people,

BAME, LGBT, etc.), not just geographic areas.

Size of organisation Larger organisations – if they can demonstrate and work with local organisations (there was a

debate on if larger organisations should be able to apply – after discussion the group felt that it would be good to have a mentoring /support role for larger organisations)

5

Should larger organisations be able to apply? It depends on the work. Offers that bring extra to table/or a local partner should be considered, i.e. match funding, buildings, training/mentoring, support community action, etc. – these offers develop infrastructure

it’s important that grants help small organisations survive There would be an issue if larger lead organisations were to not actually deliver services, but just

manage partnerships. Lead organisations could only work in partnerships if it delivers on charitable mission.

It’s also an issue if the lead organisation is removed from day to day activity of the project Should large organisations be allowed to apply for project grants? Big organisations shouldn’t be

barred from assisting smaller organisations in applying. Small organisations can bid independently for some of the money Well established (good track record) organisations will get the majority of funding – it’s not

always about innovation Established organisations can be involved in identifying the gaps in provision – innovation Could the eligibility criteria apply to projects rather than organisations? For example, Real DPO

Ltd has a turnover of £1m, but their Local Voices Network project (local forum) only has £25k Size of organisation is an issue. Big organisations lose out on good projects

Governance and policy standards for recipients People who are competent to deliver – willing to do the necessary training No bank account no money - if you are not a constituted group with a bank account you

shouldn’t receive money Organisations with a good track record There needs to be an accountable body/consortia They need to be constituted in some way They need a bank account with 2 signatories Organisations that have “messed up” grants in the past need to be able to demonstrate they are

able to deliver. The decision should not just be based on the application Monitoring visits/track record should be taken into account Policies and procedures Insurance (public liability/employee) Quality assurance (e.g. matrix, AQS) is important, but can smother/stifle smaller, younger groups

and innovation Demonstration of competence - organisations funded should have robust management and

organisational structure Organisations funded should have a good track record and capacity to keep data Organisations should meet the required quality standards for the type of project they propose to

deliver.

Organisations with contracts / council grant funding Links to tenders – services involved in tenders should not be excluded as a grant could be for

developing innovative approaches People with contracts as well Ensure innovation by supporting organisations that already have funding

6

Community / grassroots groups Larger organisations could be funded to support new / grassroots initiatives through a

‘supportive hosting’ system New innovators Enabling local talent to be involved Community Local start-ups + companies can add value as part of a community-led effort Supporting direct community action: Will the event /project benefit the community Question – puts pressure on organisation to support Larger organisations can partner up with smaller – unofficial organisations

o Costs to larger organisation needs to be includedo there are risks attached

A grants policy that takes track records into account, but doesn’t rule new/smaller organisations out

7

C. Principles (We were able to sort this section into the themes elsewhere – apart from ‘accountability’ which is a theme on its own)

Accountability Accountability to whom – multifaceted (to service users, to democratic principles) Possibly geography related – could be greater accountability at ward level proper process needs to be followed - to council, taxpayers and beneficiaries Does decision making have to always be by elected Councillors or can it be by paid officers?

Would this remove politics? Service user boards directed Review points? It’s important to build trust between Council and VCS – both need to stick to their promises

8

D. Implementing VCS Strategy Priorities(Note: We have kept feedback from this section mainly ‘unsorted’, but a lot of feedback here supports the suggestions in the other sections – suggesting that there is compatibility between the VCS strategy priorities and the suggestions given so far.

For example the majority of feedback on building community leadership is saying that core funding and capacity building [see part a] will address this.)

“Building Community Leadership” Community leadership is already there – it’s about harnessing it through core funding (and that

also means you can build your capacity). core funding also allows flexibility to respond to need as it changes. you can still evidence outcomes from core funding, but they would be open outcomes. therefore monitoring needs to be about working collaboratively to develop a flexible framework. it should be about new services rather than new organisations.

“Capacity building” partnerships: larger and smaller organisations can work together… larger organisations can help

capacity build smaller groups- Sometimes it’s about helping start-up organisations- And start-ups can learn from established organisations- “a melting pot” – both above should be funded- encourage partnerships

Should be to help local organisations compete Monitoring systems equals increased efficiency How to identify the capacity building needed? Training and workforce qualifications [for beneficiaries or grant recipients?] Quality assurance – other ways to assess? There should be a strategic approach to council resourcing – could grants also mean access to

other resources, e.g. staff training, buildings, discounted insurance, etc,?

Co-production Things need to be consulted on - not imposed on the sector (co-production) Co-production takes time. The timeline for co-production of the aims in the VCS strategy is really

important There needs to be acknowledgement that organisations dedicate time and resources when they

engage in co-production – it takes up the resources of VCS organisations To encourage co-production, grants should help bring people together – and provide resources

to organisations to do that re tenders: applying for contracts takes even longer than grant applications, especially consortia

bids there has been fracturing between VCS organisations – how do we bring the VCS together? to allocate a co-production budget as part of a grant should not take away from the project

delivery part (it should be extra)

9

“Co-production as practiced so far is an imperialist agenda to wipe out the voluntary sector” – grants have to go to local organisations and people

Co-production is not free - consulting and researching costs money and time

Outcomes focus Trust Measurement of outcomes is difficult over the short term There should be a limited number of set outcomes across the programme There should be some flexibility in the new grants policy, with a mechanism to allow for changes

in direction / adaptation over the grant period. There should be recognition of soft outcomes (they are hard to measure, so ask different

questions). Efficiency Diverse provider base The aim from the outset should be to measure clear measures of success.

“Develop an evidence base together” organisations need a single relationship with the Council (one Officer – continuity). That allows

you to build a relationship. Also it depends on length of grant what evidence base you can build. There should be more

impact reporting for longer grants: to show impact you need 1 year minimum, 3 years better is impact what the focus should be? grants should be risky/innovative – it’s about trying something out. They should fund pilot

projects and money for developing ideas – a stepped process, e.g. £200 to ask people “what to do” (co-design), £1,000 to pilot it and see what the outcomes are, etc. THIS IS CO-PRODUCTION.

How the Council uses the evidence base from VCS is also important – there is a question re how they do that… can we make that data accessible to all organisations?

more info is needed about communities and communities of interest demographics – this needs to be more accessible

there should be links to NHS data… Is there a relationship to CCG. what about joint commissioning? Council Officers engaged in monitoring who know the VCS should be involved – also in co-

producing mainstream grants Social prescribing has a role in building the evidence base and co-production – this should cover

every part of the sector (including children) Have an innovation fund. The council says “we want some ideas” and gives some money to

develop them via co-production. Around set areas. part of the new system should be a regular forum(s) where everyone can come together and

discuss need – and do signposting. THCVS should organise this and funding should go through them…networking and signposting:

- hold them in community buildings local organisations use- that helps build partnerships. Have “a grants conversation” at the forum – who we should be targeting etc…- have them once every 1-2 months – monthly breakfast meetings…

10

- have them dotted around the borough. People use their own buildings (VCS organisations)- this also helps capacity building, building community leadership, etc.- there should be a “stick” from Council to do this if you are a grant recipient organisation- the forum should facilitate ways for organisations / communities to swap “in-kind support”- each organisation should market the forum to the communities they serve so community champions / people engaging in “start up” hear about it- the forum should share email lists of attendees- community research approaches could be facilitated by this…- larger organisations can support small organisations/ community groups…(share policies etc.) - organisations could “Broker” for community action…(support money to the organisation to do this is extra!)

Organisations can use statistics for other bids Info from monitoring, making it useful, finding hidden needs Mapping what’s there Inc examples – do this first? Academics to residents Consultation True representation The policy should not be looking at what groups to fund, but what needs are there

o Groups need to work togethero Avoiding duplication; but check against need

Issue of finding need – the people in most need are often the most isolated. Ask VCS about prevalent issues for the upcoming year An outcomes framework for grants that is co-produced with community (make clear what this

means in simple language)

11

E. Feedback from New Grant Policy Co-production Launch Event

(Note: where we could, we have linked feedback to themes already discussed in sections A-D – the rest is here)

A clear, simple and accessible policy and criteria Clarity Clear priorities and requirements Monitoring requirements laid out at the start There will be greater understanding of the existing policy Different ways to access the info:

- Online- Phone calls- Meetings

We should share evaluation frameworks with other funders / organisations and learn from best practice elsewhere and case studies (what are other funders’ frameworks).

Accessible A policy that defines what it wants to achieve A council grants programme that is transparent and accountable The policy needs to be transparent - easy to understand Open perimeters – it will have been influenced/created by VCS Online process (for application and monitoring) An accessible process for small organisations / projects, especially those unable to use

computers etc. Clear guidelines Simplified version of strategic plan (checklist) Eligibility – what is the eligibility for a small, medium and large grant? Definition – what constitutes an organisation? Accountability – having certain processes in place. Clear guidelines Clear guidance in policy defining small, medium, large orgs and size of grants for each of these Promotion and publicity of the opportunities Consistent plain English language Outcomes more important [than outputs?] Criteria should be based on quality - not just the cheapest offer

A conversation at the application stage Evaluation at the start of project Proper feedback at the ‘expression of interest stage’ (which could just be a conversation)

- Is it worth re-applying?- How to improve your bid

Include tips/prompts for people applying – things to consider when putting projects together and bidding (this would build capacity as well as encourage applications)

Frequently asked questions list (see above)

A more supportive, equal relationship between the council and grant recipients

12

Support throughout the application process and delivery process:- Pre-application support- Reporting process- Interim chats- Variations if plans change- Re-adjust- Learning

A grants policy that tries to allocate all of the available funding Sees grants as a way to enable good outcomes - move away from paternalism in language and

wording. Change in behaviour and attitude. It needs to be a policy that recognises the strengths of VCS organisations Supportive process [application, monitoring, etc.] Real time feedback/observation of service delivery should be part of monitoring. The monitoring officers role should be to support organisations rather than police projects Positive aspects of projects are not always captured in monitoring (development of best

practice) The VCS should not be expected to provide better quality on the cheap, e.g. Youth Service

Proportionate monitoring and application processes Simple applications and reporting Different scales [this was about proportionality]:

- Small grants for small orgs? There will be lighter monitoring – proportionate (this has gone from one extreme to the other) Simple application and monitoring process Less bureaucratic/ more hands-on approach Proportional requirements for governance etc. depending on the level of funding. Delegation of power to Officers Organisations need to prove that the service was provided Monitoring should get the stories, not just about numbers (pictures, video diaries) the amount of monitoring should reflect the grant size Fair and proportionate There is an issue of proportionality. When it’s small grants for small organisations, it’s difficult

for them to measure outcomes and requirements

Fairness There needs to be a level playing field Fair It needs to be accessible and fair. It will reach the people who need to be reached (reach) Transparency – every organisation participates VCS should not be held to a higher level of accountability [I suppose than statutory partners?]

Priorities for managing the grant programme Cost effective – i.e. costs of administering the grant programme Realistic/achievable

13

On time – i.e. no delays There should be an in-built 3 year review of VCS grants In-built review timescale for the grants policy also (how has it gone and what needs tweaking)–

this would enable learning to be implemented in a constructive way There should be a large grant funding pot from the business sector in LBTH to be added to the

money in council grants from LBTH. Added value from other parties/corporates (private sector) One year from now it will be clear and finished (timely) Grants should be monitored by people who have good understanding of what the project aims

to do Assessment of applications should be by officers (assessment panel), but also should we have

external members on the assessment panel? How do we compare with other London Boroughs?

- Is there a standard approach – any research on what others are doing? - Can we save time/money learning from the work of others?

Grants should be offered on a full cost recovery basis Investing in organisations as projects Holistic process

I. Decide priorities for grant making II. Select

III. Performance management Cost of administering grants?

- evaluating - a reasonable ratio of costs to grants should be kept - assessing

14