BIG LOTTERY FUND MEETING OF BIG LOTTERY FUND ENGLAND COMMITTEE HELD ON WEDNESDAY 12 FEBRUARY 2014

Transcription

1 MINUTES BIG LOTTERY FUND MEETING OF BIG LOTTERY FUND ENGLAND COMMITTEE HELD ON WEDNESDAY 12 FEBRUARY 2014 PRESENT: Nat Sloane England Chair (in the Chair) Geeta Gopalan (Vice Chair) Albert Tucker Scott Greenhalgh Steve Richards Charlie Howard Danny Silverstone Special Advisor IN ATTENDANCE: Dharmendra Kanani Director, England (Item 8) Tim Davies-Pugh Deputy Director, England (Items 1-6)(by video conference) Lyn Cole Deputy Director, England Andrew Morris Deputy Director, England Jon Fox Head of Policy and Learning (Insight) Amanda Todd Corporate Manager (Secretariat) Louise Snelders Head of Funding (Early Contact) (Items 1-6) Graeme Howe Head of Funding (Investment) (Items 1-6) Sean Tizzard Policy and Learning Manager (Item 7) 1. INTRODUCTIONS AND APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 1.1 The Chair welcomed members of the England Committee and Officers to the meeting. The Chair introduced Charlie Howard, following her appointment to the England Committee. The Chair noted that the other new appointee, Jane Robinson, was unable to attend the meeting but would be in attendance in March. He set the context for the day s discussion noting that this was the first of the off-cycle meetings and invited members to feedback on this format at the end of the two days. ACTION: England Secretariat. 1.2 Apologies were received from Nalini Varma and Jane Robinson, England Committee Members. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 2.1 There were no declarations of interest. 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS ENGLAND COMMITTEE MEETINGS 3.1 The minutes of the January 2014 England Committee were agreed and signed as a correct record of the meeting. 4. MATTERS ARISING FROM ENGLAND COMMITTEE MEETINGS (NOT COVERED ELSEWHERE ON THE AGENDA) 4.1 The Chair noted a correction to the recent Director s update confirming David Godden had been appointed to the Power to Change Board. 5. DEMAND LED FUNDING 5.1 Scott Greenhalgh introduced the discussion, the aim of which was to update Committee on the current status of demand led funding, the issues and risks to the Fund s ambition for this strand of the portfolio associated with the funding management system, staff consultation and budget review. Scott noted that the paper presented did not cover all the issues he and the DLF team had hoped to address at this stage. Page 1 of 5

2 Page 2 of 5 EC(14)M Louise Snelders restated the ambition for demand led funding as expressed through the Connecting England project and summarised progress towards delivery. She highlighted that despite the challenges, the Fund continues to operate a robust grant making system. She confirmed that Officers are committed to meeting the ambition for demand led funding, however, this will need to be within a fixed budget in recognition of the 5% operating cost target England needs to meet. Louise gave assurance to Members that the situation is being managed through detailed programme and business delivery risk plans. 5.3 Officers acknowledged that there are areas where they would like to see more progress, specifically building in knowledge and evaluation, adapting the Early Contact offer and distilling information in a resource efficient and proportionate way. These will be addressed in the next stage of the review which the England Director will lead. More detail of the support provided to applicants by the Early Contact team will also be presented at the March England Committee. 5.4 Committee received an update on the current operating efficiency levels of the funding management system. Some progress was noted but the situation remains challenging. Incremental changes are anticipated as the system stabilises, as staff become more familiar with the new processes and as training becomes embedded. The impact of these is being assessed and it is anticipated that future savings delivered by the system will release some staff time once stabilisation is achieved. 5.5 Committee were advised of the functional review being carried out to identify areas of overlap and duplication between directorates, the recommendations of which will feed into the corporate budget review. It was highlighted that the recommendations from the Triennial Review may also impact on how the demand led funding strand is taken forward. It is likely that while these two reviews will directly relate to the 3% costs (front line), there could be impact on the 5% administrative cost envelope for delivering the DLF programmes. 5.6 Committee highlighted that the delegation of the demand led funding strand of the portfolio had been an ambition led rather than budgetary decision. In that context, they requested that the framework for demand led funding, how it will be delivered and what impact the Fund expects from it is built into the next stage of the review. Recognising the current constraints Officers were requested to consider an appropriate time frame for this work ACTION: Dharmendra Kanani 5.7 Committee noted the assumption that the grant budget for the demand led funding streams will remain fixed for the 2014/15 financial year. Specifically that relates to 150 million for Reaching Communities and 57 million for Awards for All. The proposed 5 million funding for the Building Capabilities strand will be reviewed as part of the overall Building Capability strategy. Committee requested a further discussion around what the Fund is trying to achieve through Building Capabilities as part of our wider demand led offer. ACTION: Louise Snelders 5.8 Committee stressed the importance of management information and analysis to support their oversight of the portfolio. The progress being made in the development of reporting was noted, however given recognised system issues, Officers requested that they could exercise judgement as to whether a revised format should be presented to Committee in April or May 2014 This was agreed by Committee. ACTION: Jon Fox 5.9 The England Committee acknowledged and commended the achievements of staff despite the challenges and requested Officers to feedback their thanks to teams and consider where Committee Members could provide additional support ACTION: ESMT The England Committee agreed to: ii) Receive a revised paper on the approach for demand led funding at a future meeting ACTION: Dharmendra Kanani (timing TBC)

3 iii) The 2014/15 budget for Reaching Communities and Awards for All 6. REVIEW OF DELEGATED DECISION PANEL 6.1 Graeme Howe provided an update on the December delegated decision making panels. He highlighted that the Reaching Communities spend for 2013/14 is likely to be million versus the revised ceiling of 165 million agreed earlier in the year. The flexibility of the decision making process however has allowed an additional meeting to be scheduled which will give benefits to the customer and commitment levels. Committee welcomed the commitment to customer service this demonstrated. 6.2 The Committee was updated on conversations that the Fund is having with organisations supporting communities affected by the recent floods. Committee welcomed this work and were supportive of the Fund considering what role it could play in this area ACTION: Louise Snelders. 6.3 Committee Members restated their need for improved reporting with regards to the demand led funding to give the required assurance and oversight of the portfolio. ACTION: Jon Fox Members also requested high level updates at the England Committee on significant external conversations that Officers are having ACTION: Louise Snelders. 6.4 Graeme Howe noted the new England Committee members would join the delegated decision making panel as part of their induction and this opportunity was opened up to all Committee Members ACTION: Graeme Howe. 6.5 In advance of the Basic Needs discussion, Committee received anecdotal evidence of current demand for this area of funding. 6.6 The England Committee agreed to: Tim Davies-Pugh, Graeme Howe and Louise Snelders left the meeting. Sean Tizzard joined the meeting 7. THEMATIC REVIEW : BASIC NEEDS 7.1 Sean Tizzard provided a summary of the intelligence gained during preparation of the review and highlighted how the discussion will link to the strategic framework debate. This will consider the Fund s role in responding to acute need. Detail was provided of the wider funding environment, an historical overview of the Fund s support to basic needs projects and what elements an impactful project may include. 7.2 Committee were invited to consider what the future funding approach could be in this area. During the discussion the following key points were noted: i) It is difficult to establish a causal link between support for material poverty and better life outcomes. ii) The different aspects of basic need (entrenched, structural and crisis) require a different response and consequently different role for the Fund. Support for entrenched need also has the potential to raise questions of additonality iii) There was a recognition that basic needs cuts across all areas of funding. It was suggested at this time the Fund looks to support projects through existing funding streams rather than establish a specific investment or crisis fund. It was suggested that a wider discussion around what is happening in the market could indicate the demand for a crisis management activity and help the Fund identify what a proportionate response to that would be ACTION: Sean Tizzard iv) Officers were requested to provide guidance to Funding Officers to identify projects that are providing pathways out of poverty, supporting the core common themes associated with basic needs funding such as literacy and consider how projects working in this area can be signposted to other organisations in their local areas. It was noted that this latter suggestion linked into the Fund s equalities work ACTION: Sean Tizzard Page 3 of 5

4 Page 4 of 5 EC(14)M02 v) The need for any approach to address the stigma associated with basic needs support was highlighted with the approach taken by the Multiple and Complex Needs investment to mitigate against this noted. vi) While recognising the difficulty of drawing a connection between action and prevention, it was suggested that the Fund should look for ideas that support a preventative model. Given the affordability for the Fund of supporting a long-term solution, Officers were requested to consider opportunities to leverage our position and learn from other organisations specifically in the area of project scalability, efficiency of delivery and capacity building in communities ACTION: Sean Tizzard vii) Potential opportunities arising from the Improving Financial Confidence intervention have been identified and will be brought to a future England Committee meeting ACTION: Jon Fox 7.3 The England Committee agreed: i) To note the paper and subsequent discussion ii) To consider the need for a specific initiative or crisis fund as part of wider strategic framework and England portfolio post 2015 reviews ACTION: Jon Fox (November 2014) Sean Tizzard left the meeting. Dharmendra Kanani joined the meeting 8. PLANNING FOR ENGLAND S PORTFOLIO AND INVESTMENT STRATEGY Jon Fox outlined the process of consideration of the England portfolio post 2015 highlighting that this will be co-ordinated within and complement the broader corporate development of the Strategic Framework scheduled to be agreed by the Board in January The Chief Executive s external message on the launch of the strategic review was tabled and it was confirmed that she would join a future England Committee meeting to discuss the approach in more detail. 8.2 Committee were invited to consider and comment on the assumptions detailed in the paper. During the discussion the following key points were noted: i) Committee emphasised the importance of framing what continuity would look like. They acknowledged that given the stage that the five strategic investments are at it was difficult to make a definitive judgement as to whether these are the most effective use of funds. There was a strong steer from Committee that we should focus on the existing areas rather than moving to develop new initiatives given our commitment to shifting the dial in the long term. Officers were therefore requested to consider what continuity means and the implications of that for the five strategic investments by identifying options for both thematic and programme continuity. ii) The traditional short-term response to issues internally and externally was noted. Members highlighted the longevity built into the strategic investments and therefore time was needed to identify what is working and its impact. This will be clearer in 2016/17 when the first evaluations of the strategic initiatives become available. iii) Given the potential amount of funding available in England over the period Officers were requested to consider the balance and breadth of the portfolio and look for opportunities for directing funding into channels such as demand led funding, single awards, Trusts, and legacy programmes alongside the individual strategic initiatives. iv) Committee highlighted the influence that the strategic framework review may have on areas of funding available to England and what type of funder the Big Lottery Fund would become. The opportunity for the work in England to inform the review was noted. 8.3 The England Committee agreed to: ii) Receive a paper in March 2014 which will include specific recommendations of what continuity could look like for the strategic initiatives and the use of other investment channels ACTION: Jon Fox iii) Where Funding Committees consider there is sufficient quality within their portfolio, the England Committee would be receptive to receiving requests for additional funding. ACTION: SROs/England Committee Leads

5 9. ANY OTHER BUSINESS 9.1 No additional items were raised. The meeting closed at The Chair held a closed session with s and the England Director. DATE, TIME AND VENUE OF NEXT MEETING The next England Committee meeting will be held on 13 March 2014 in the Newcastle Centre. MINUTES AGREED DATE NAT SLOANE ENGLAND CHAIR Page 5 of 5