Community Grants Final Evaluation

Transcription

1 Community Grants Final Evaluation Gateway E Workbook Template

2 Lessons Learnt Summary This section should be completed by the LDA Project Manager, summarising the key lessons learnt from the evaluation, including what worked well and what worked less well and the audiences for dissemination. Lessons learnt will be presented to IPB and APR quarterly. Please refer to the full guidance notes, in Appendix 1 of this document, for additional information. Community Grants Project Start Date: Investment Theme: Report Project End Date: Programme Name: Report A Project Number: Project Manager: Report Project Lifetime Spend: Total Project Cost: Gross LDA Investment: Other Public/Private Investment: Net LDA Investment: Brief Project Description: Lessons learnt what worked well? Lesson 1: Lesson 2: Lesson 3: Lessons learnt - what worked less well? Lesson 4: Lesson 5: Lesson 6: Type Type Dissemination of lessons learnt: ( ) Internal Internal (continued) External Strategy & Business Planning Skills - Development Delivery partner Partnership Development Skills Labour Market Strategy External partner <name> Economic Analysis CM Business Link External partner <name> Equalities & Diversity CM - ESF Stakeholder <name> Marketing & CM Global Comp. & C i ti B i Stakeholder <name> Gateway E Workbook Template 2

3 Section 1: Project Description The Community Grants programme followed on from the Fast Forward Grants programme which ran from GLE originally designed and delivered Fast Forward Grants, which grant-funded and supported over 1100 projects worth over 11 million. Since 2002 these projects have helped 2100 into employment, 2214 into further training and education, and 1056 into taking up volunteering opportunities. The current pan-london Community Grants programme offered grants of up to 12,000 to small voluntary and community organisations, providing skills and training support to help local people move towards finding employment. The grants aimed to support quality outreach provision for a maximum of seven months, providing an essential stepping stone for unemployed and economically inactive participants to find employment or progress to further learning. The programme was funded by the London Development Agency (LDA) and the European Social Fund (ESF). Organisations needed to satisfy the following conditions to be considered for a grant: be a voluntary organisation, have no more than two full time members of staff (or equivalent), not have an income of more than 67,000 in the last financial year, have a bank account, and be constituted since 26 December The programme funded projects which work with specific target groups to help them overcome employment barriers and learn new skills. The main target groups were women, disabled people, lone parents, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) communities, older people (aged over 50) and young people aged The programme was managed by GLE, acting as a Grant Coordinating Body, who planned a six stage procedure to deliver each of the three planned rounds of funding: Consultation and programme specification- identify eligibility and priority areas and ensure strong linkages to other ESF programmes, employment and training provision Programme promotion- promotion of funding opportunities to community and voluntary organisations throughout London Scoring, appraisals and approvals- assessing applications for eligibility and scoring against agreed priorities, organising of an appraisal panel of the wider Community Grants partnership to agree approved projects Contracting and payments- undertaking LDA due diligence checks, delivering workshops on monitoring and progression Implementation- monitoring and capacity building support for funded projects Project closure- collecting Project Closure Reports from funded project, preparing Annual Reports and publicising achievements The LDA intended for there to be three rounds of funding. However, this was later reduced to two. Delays in the both the launch of round one and its closure made it unfeasible to run a third round of funding within the three year timescale. The programme was monitored by a Steering Group, made up of a range of stakeholders from GLE, the LDA, LVSTC, the LSC/ Skills Funding Agency, JCP, the GLA, Age Concern and delivery organisations such as Faith Regen. Section 2: Project Background, Rationale and Objectives Community Grants is part of the London European Social Fund programme, which provides resources to support individuals to improve their skills, access and remain in employments, through non-mainstream support. The European Social Fund (ESF) is the main financial instrument of the European Union (EU) for the development of human resources and to improve the efficiency of the Gateway E Workbook Template 3

4 labour market. It is the means by which the European Employment Strategy priorities can be put into practice at the Member State level. Since 2000, ESF programmes have been administered through Co-financing Organisations (CFOs). This is in line with EU and UK national policy. In London open and competitive tendering is used to procure the delivery of services to target groups identified in the London Regional ESF Framework. Under this arrangement, ESF and required match funding are channelled through to end users in defined streams which are set by each CFO. The Community Grants Programme has been co-financed by the LDA. The rationale behind small grants programmes is that smaller providers often lack the resources and skills to access and implement public funded programmes, including ESF. Smalls grants programmes are seen by the European Commission, and at national and regional level, as a way of promoting grass roots level support in economic regeneration. This was recognised by the Department for Work and Pensions in their guidance: A key objective of Global Grants is to make ESF resources more easily accessible to small NGOs. Such organisations are often better placed to respond to social exclusion at a local level, but are not necessarily well equipped to deal with the demands of ESF secured through co-financing or bidding The evaluation of the Global Grants Programme ( ) by DWP found that While the size, geography and administrative make-up of regions influenced Global Grant structures, in some regions the ability of prospective IBs [Implementing Bodies] to access match funding appeared a key determinant which seemed to have overridden other factors in importance 1. Therefore the LDA input, in terms of co-financing and strategic guidance, can be seen to be key in ensuring that the outputs and benefits of running such a programme in London could be realised. The London Regional ESF Framework , which underpins the programme, stated that under Priority 1.3 indicative areas of support would include: Funding up to a maximum of 25,000 for community and voluntary sector organisations that can deliver more hard outputs such as skills development and employment support, leading to more formal progression pathways for beneficiaries. The current Global Grants programme has been very successful in delivering hard outputs and we will seek to build on good practice. The tiered funding system will enable small community providers to develop links with mainstream ESF provision to enhance beneficiary progression as well as providing a stepping stone to build capacity and access other sustainable sources of funding. 2 The programme was intended to support very small organisations who work closely within their communities to deliver skills and support to individuals and help them progress towards the labour market. As stated above, the programme is a continuation of the Global Grants (Fast Forward Grants) programme, which was also delivered by GLE under the London ESF programme. The Fast Forward Grant programme was heralded as a model of good practice by the European Commission in their review of European Global Grants programmes in The evaluation of the Global Grants Programme by Rocket Science recognised GLE s success in delivering the programme and the LDA maintained much of the design and scope of the programme in the Community Grants model, including: A focus on targeting unemployed or economically inactive individuals who have difficulty accessing ESF or mainstream provision; A focus on progression rather than jobs or qualifications; 1 Evaluation of the European Social Fund Objective 3 Global Grants programme, DWP, London ESF Regional Framework , Mayor of London, 2007 Gateway E Workbook Template 4

5 Targeting delivery of support through small community and voluntary organisations, including charities and social enterprises; Priority given to London Boroughs with the highest rates of worklessness; A range of project activities encouraged, ranging from soft skills and confidence building to basic skills and information advice and guidance; A streamlined, open and competitive process; and Delivering the programme with the support and steer of a representative and strategic partnership. However, the evaluation also recommended making some modifications to the programme, which were reflected in the LDA Community Grants specification and GLE s proposed delivery model. These changes included: A better strategic fit with other programmes, with linkages to both London-wide and local infrastructure and initiatives; Improve support to delivery organisations in order for them to create tangible progression pathways for their project participants; A more defined capacity building role in the programme to support grantees with the successful delivery and measurement of their projects; and A removal of the burden for the Grant Co-ordinating Body to assemble match-funding to make the programme viable. The LDA Community Grants Programme, therefore, was intended to build on the successful delivery of the previous small grants programme- using a Grant Co-ordinating Body to manage the programme on behalf of the LDA. More of a focus was given to tangible progression routes and the need to build the capacity of funded organisations to be able to successfully deliver their projects. Building on the predecessor to Community Grants, Global Grants, the programme had several key targets: Run three funding rounds between 1 April 2008 and 31 March 2011 Fund a total of 450 organisations Support 4,000 individuals Move 1,200 people into employment or jobsearch and further learning Section 3: Evaluation Methodology This evaluation has been undertaken by the Research and Evaluation team at GLE. In order to underpin the evaluation, a number of key questions were set. The questions are designed to test the effectiveness of small ESF grants to small, voluntary sector organisations in delivering desired outcomes. 1. Did the programme meet its targeted outputs and outcomes? 2. Was the use of a grant co-ordinating body successful? 3. How accessible was the programme for target organisations? 4. What are the lessons for future programmes? Gateway E Workbook Template 5

6 Methodology In order to assess the above questions, the following activities were undertaken: An initial meeting with the GLE Community Grants programme manager, Karen Ferguson, allowed the evaluator to outline all the data available. To inform the meeting, a topic guide was used. A copy of this can be found in Appendix 1. The topic guide was used for subsequent interviews with project staff and stakeholders, with relevant questions selected for each. An analysis of quantitative data, from GLE s programme management databases provided data to inform the evaluation on the extent to which Community Grants projects were able to move participants into employment or other positive progression routes. These bespoke databases collect information on all of the participants from the projects. They summarise the details of participants, the activities engaged in and their progression and outcomes. These databases are used to inform reporting back to the LDA. In addition to this, the evaluators reviewed the Prospectus from Round 2, the minutes of steering groups and the Options Paper which was submitted to the LDA in November 2009, which looked at significant issues with the programme and possible remedies. We complemented this quantitative analysis with qualitative data in the form of semi-structured interviews with the programme management team at GLE. This included all of the Project Support Offices: Fahad Abdi, Hema Moty, Richard Stevens, Mohammed Mukit and Paul Nsubuga. These interviews were undertaken using the topic guide, see appendix 1. The aim of the interviews was to identify factors that may have contributed to under/over-achievement of employment and other positive progression outputs. In these interviews, the evaluator also enquired about those organisations that were helped most and least effectively and probing to find out why and how. This information has been used to test the hypothesis on which the Community Grants programme was approved: Namely that small grants for third sector organisations that build their capacity to deliver better services results in an increase in the number of people progressing into or towards employment. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with five key strategic stakeholders. These included representatives of the GLA (Maria Diaz-Palomares), the LDA (Faye Thomas), the Skills Funding Agency (Leon Shakespeare), LVSTC (Ray Phillips and Geoff Robinson) and JCP (Kastur Hirani and Sue Harry). These ascertained the role of the grant-making body in building the capacity of grant recipients, in ensuring that the funding was distributed in the most effective ways with regards to the needs of recipients, and in making sure that outputs and outcomes were achieved. These interviews were additionally used to assess the accessibility of ESF Grants to target audiences. Due to the scope of the evaluation, there was no direct research undertaken with funded projects or participants. The evaluation will also consider the success of the strategies employed by GLE and the LDA to make programme more accessible during the second round of Community Grants via the above interviews and the reviewing of qualitative evidence such as the Options Paper. In order to assess the lessons learned for future programmes, analysis of all activities was undertaken. Section 4: Project Costs & Funding The baseline budget is taken from the London Framework. This was revised downwards in 2010 due to anticipated programme performance, changes in LDA strategy and finally the programme being moved from the LDA to an alternative CFO, London Councils, from Gateway E Workbook Template 6

7 With respect to the revised budget, by the end of January 2011 the programme had spent 95% of its allocation. The final 5% is made up of 67, of grant allocations which will still need to be paid to projects, and 100, of management costs for GLE. GLE is paid according to outputs and there are a number of final outputs that have not yet been achieved, namely final claims, project closure reports, the end of Round 2 reports, and this final evaluation. Therefore at the time of writing, it is not possible to make a final analysis on the success of the project. Table 1: Analysis of Project Costs & Funding Table 1: Provide information on all project costs and funding within Table 1. Baseline Budget Revised Budget (if applicable) Final Budget Actual Spend Variance Actual Spend against Final Budget (%) Project Costs Capital Revenue 5,396,816 3,224, ,224, ,056, , Total Project Cost 5,396,816 3,224, ,224, ,056, , Project Funding LDA Single Programme Funding (Cap) LDA Single Programme Funding (Rev) 2,698,408 1,612, ,612, ,528, , LDA Single Programme Funding 2,698,408 1,612, ,612, ,528, , LDA accountable funding (other public funding through LDA books) (Cap) LDA accountable funding (other public funding through LDA books) (Rev) LDA accountable funding (other public funding through LDA books) ,698,408 1,612, ,698,408 1,612, ,612, ,528, , ,612, ,528, , Other public funding (direct to project) Other private funding (direct to project) Total Project Funding 5,396,816 3,224, ,224, ,056, , Gross LDA funding (Cap) Gross LDA funding (Rev) 5,396,816 3,224, ,224, ,056, , Gross LDA funding (Total) 5,396,816 3,224, ,224, ,056, , Net LDA funding (Cap) Net LDA funding (Rev) 2,698,408 1,612, ,612, ,528, , Net LDA funding (Total) 2,698,408 1,612, ,612, ,528, , Table 2: Analysis of Management & Administration Costs Table 2: Provide information on all management and administration costs associated within this table. Total Management & Admin Costs Staff Costs Admin Costs Please add others as required Baseline Budget Revised Final Budget Budget (if applicable) Actual Spend 677, , , Variance Actual Spend against Final Budget (%) Section 5: Project Outputs and Outcomes & KPI s Gateway E Workbook Template 7

8 The project has achieved many of its outputs and outcomes, but as for the project costs above, we can only comment on information collected to 28 February The project team are continuing to collect and collate data for 12 outstanding final claims and 52 projects currently being closed. 5.1 Number of Projects The original target of 450 projects to be funded over three rounds was revised down to 214 projects over three rounds. There are a number of reasons that this target was revised. Firstly, it became clear that there was a mismatch between the due diligence requirements introduced by the LDA following the forensic audit and the ability of many potential grant recipients to meet those requirements, resulting in a smaller potential pool of eligible organisations. Secondly, delays in the both the launch of round one and its closure made it unfeasible to run a third round of funding within the three year timescale. Thirdly, there were a relatively high number of applications that were not of sufficiently high quality to be able to fund. Finally, LDA employment strategy changed during the latter stages of round one to focus on funding fewer, larger projects that delivered sustainable job outcomes. The Community Grants Programme was not compatible with this approach. Despite these issues, the programme has been successful at meeting the revised target. Given the due diligence requirements that the LDA was obliged to impose and the lengthy project closure process, a target of funding 100 organisations per round and a timescale of a full year per round would have been more realistic. 5.2 Number of Individuals Supported The original target of 4000 starts was revised down to 2772 at the same time as the number of projects to be supported was revised. The reasons for this revision have been set out in the previous section. However, it is worth noting that while the original number of individuals to be supported per project would have been 8.88, the revised number was Results to date are encouraging in this regard enrolment forms for participants of 188 projects have been entered by GLE staff into the programme database. This gives an average of participants per project. This figure is 69% higher than the original target and suggests that the programme has been particularly successful in engaging with workless Londoners. 5.3 Skills outcomes The original target of 1200 skills outcomes was revised down to 639 at the same time as the number of projects to be supported was revised. The reasons for this are stated above. The original number of individuals supported to obtain a skills outcome was 30% (from the number of starters). The revised conversion was reduced to 23%. Again, results to date across the two rounds have been encouraging. Of the 2826 registered enrolments, there have been 1115 skills outcomes. This is a conversion rate of 39%, well above the original target. This suggests that although there was an increased focus in this programme on progression rather than jobs or skills, funded projects have successfully supported participants to gain skills that they may use in their future education, training or employment. 5.4 Progressions into Employment and Further Training The original target of 1200 progressions into further employment or training was revised down to 1,171 at the same time as the number of projects to be supported was revised. The original targets suggested a conversion rate of 30% from starts to progressions. The revised targets provided a conversion rate of 42% - a significant increase to the original target. Gateway E Workbook Template 8

9 To date, leaving data for 188 of the 214 organisations funded has been entered into the programme database. The number of starts generated by these organisations is 2826 and the number of positive progressions entered to date is This represents a conversion rate of 38%, which if sustained, would be significantly higher than the original conversion rates. It is however, slightly lower than the revised rate. It is not possible to comment on whether the remaining project information will influence this. 5.5 Wider Impacts Impacts on organisations If this programme had not been funded by the LDA, most of the activities would not have occurred. It is not possible to comment on the extent to which funded organisations would have supported individuals in the absence of funding. Indeed, for many small organisations staff often work on a voluntary basis to deliver services in the community. However, anecdotal evidence provided by a number of the GLE team suggests that for many of the organisations, Community Grants represented the only source of funding they received. Further research into this at a project level is outside the scope of this evaluation. However, the feedback from the programme team indicated that for many projects, the funding and support received has helped them to improve their processes, which may lead to them operating more effectively in the future. In many instances, the experience of being a Community Grants funded project also provided staff with skills they believe will help them access further public funding. This is an outcome which project staff may not have achieved without participating in this programme. Impact on beneficiaries The impact of the programme on the intended beneficiaries- individuals who need support- was diverse. For some, the projects helped them to realise that skills they had acquired in a non-work context could be used to enhance employability. For example, a Somali participant was supported to recognise that the Norwegian he had learned whilst living in Norway prior to coming to the UK could be used to translate between English and Norwegian. For some projects, the staff enabled individuals to overcome cultural differences between the way employment is sourced in their country of origin and in the UK. For example, one organisation worked with participants who had come from the Congo, where employment is found by word of mouth, to understand the more formal processes that are often in place in the UK. Some organisations helped individuals to use their creative talents to acquire formal skills in job sectors where there is a need- such as one organisation which trained 15 people to successfully become dance instructors. For many individuals, the support offered by the local small community projects helped increase their confidence, an essential element in progressing towards entering/ re-entering employment. The impacts are sustainable because they focus on the initial skills, confidence building and support that are essential for individuals to move towards further training or employment. The projects that are funded focus on new experiences and positive opportunities which will benefit the individuals if they enter employment, training or further support. They are the first step to helping individuals enter a wider system of support. They are the outreach into the community through trusted means that larger organisations are not always able to achieve. Table 3: Analysis of Outputs and Outcomes Use your grant agreement or contract and quarterly reporting documents (Project Progress Reports) to complete the outputs and outcomes within this table. Gateway E Workbook Template 9

10 Output Baseline Target Outputs Revised Target Outputs (if appicable) Actual Outputs Variance Actual Outputs against Final Outputs (Actual) (%) Initial signing of contract Launch of 1 st bidding round Signed grant agreements in place Starters % Employment support % Final claims submitted (Round 2 only) % Projects closed (Round 2) % Outcome Baseline Target Outcome s Revised Target Outcomes (if appicable) Actual Outcomes Variance Actual Outcomes against Final Outcomes (Actual) (%) Skills other Positive progressions (FE within 6m or employment within 13 weeks % Please note that the table above states the position of achieved outcomes as of the date of receiving the final evaluation. The table below reflects the final LDA outputs and outcomes such as employability support, skills and positive progression did not have a budget entered on Athena Projects for ESF projects or have been re-profiled. However, the LDA contracted with the delivery partner for the following outputs: Starts (employability support) Contractual Outputs Re-profiled Outputs Final delivered Outputs Variance from Re-profile or contractual Unit Cost* 4,000 2,772 2, Employment Support 1, , Positive progression (FE within 6 month or employment within 13 weeks) 1,200 1,171 1, Skills (other) 1, , *The Unit Cost stated here is the 'Unit Price'. i.e. the amount of output-related funding that the provider can claim for each output achieved. Table 4: Analysis of Equality Outputs The Community Grants programme contained targets for the numbers within each equality group that the funded projects needed to engage with. It did not specify outcomes for each of those target groups. Nevertheless, the overall programme management information shows the outcomes achieved within each of the equality groups. Please note, that this information is correct at the time of writing, and includes data collected and collated to the end of February Gateway E Workbook Template 10

11 Key points to note include: Initial reviews of the overarching data revealed significant differences between the number of people who were economically inactive supported by the programme. After the project team scrutinised the data for Round 2 and updated the data entry, it was found that both rounds supported a similar number of participants in this cohort. Overall, the programme supported 1523 individuals who were classed as economically inactive, 1% more than the original target. Out of those we have data for that were classed as economically inactive, 31% have gained a skills outcome and 32% have undertaken employment support. Of the total group, 34% have moved into further education, training or employment. The original target for progressions for the whole programme was 30%, so this represents a real success of the projects- to move those who are very far from the labour market into further education or training. The programme underachieved in meeting its targets for supporting individuals with a disability, according to the data recorded to date. That said, for those supported, there have been some notable successes. 37% of those supported gained skills outcomes, that they can use in future education or training. 43% of those supported by projects have moved into further education or employment. Of this group at the time of registration, 34% had been out of employment for more than two years. Given the additional difficulties often faced by those with a disability, this is a great achievement for the projects. The programme underachieved on its target for supporting lone parents by only 6 people. Of those supported, 47% gained skills outcomes and 43% moved into other positive progressions. Given that 42% of lone parents supported by projects had been out of work for over two years, and 48% had no qualifications or at a level below NVQ1, this is an impressive outcome. The programme overachieved on the numbers of those aged 50 and over that it supported by 8%. Of this group, 41% gained skills and 33% moved into work. This is lower than for other target groups such as individuals with a disability and lone parents. Further analysis of the data suggests that 43% of those who moved on to further positive progression had been out of work for over two years and 49% had no qualifications or at a level below NVQ Level 1. This is comparable to the lone parents cohort, but there may be additional barriers such as age discrimination of employers which prevented further successes for this group. These additional barriers may provide some insight into why the conversion to positive progressions is lower for this group, although without further qualitative research with projects and participants, it is not possible to provide further comment on the reasons for this. The programme supported 72% more NEET young people than the contracted target. Although the number engaged was significantly higher than planned, the success rates for this group are lower than for any other target group. The number of participants gaining skills was only 23%. Over a quarter of the group had NVQ Level 1 or less equivalent qualifications at the start of support, which suggests that there was a clear need for additional skills support. In addition, only 23% of participants moved into further education, training or employment. The success of projects in supporting young people was significantly higher in the second round. In the first round only 8% moved into employment after support. For the second round, 36% moved into education or training. This may have occurred for a number of reasons: as stated in sections below, there were significant problems with projects record keeping during the beginning of the programme, which required significant support by the Grant Coordinating Body. As for many difficult to reach cohorts, projects may have struggled to access the evidence required to claim the outcomes. As with the above groups, without further consultation with projects and participants, it is beyond the scope of the evaluation to be able to provide succinct reasons for the reduced outcomes. Gateway E Workbook Template 11

12 The programme overachieved in terms of the number of BAME participants it supported by 21%. In addition, 40% of this group gained skills outcomes and 38% moved into further education, training or employment. The programme also overachieved in terms of the number of female participants by 51%. Across the whole programme there were significantly more female than male participants with women making up 64% of the total participants supported. In addition, the projects supported the participants in this group to achieve 39% skills outcomes and 38% moving into further education, training and employment. This is the average conversion rate for the programme.. Table 4: Analysis of Equality Outputs Economically inactive Disabled Output Target Actual Variance (Actual) Variance (%) Target Actual Variance (Actual) Variance (%) Engaged % % Skills (Other) n/a 470 n/a n/a n/a 83 n/a n/a Employment Support n/a 480 n/a n/a n/a 110 n/a n/a Positive Progressions n/a 513 n/a n/a n/a 97 n/a n/a Lone Parents Aged 50 & Over Outcome Target Actual Variance (Actual) Variance (%) Target Actual Variance (Actual) Variance (%) Engaged % % Skills (Other) n/a 254 n/a n/a n/a 174 n/a n/a Employment Support n/a 297 n/a n/a n/a 183 n/a n/a Positive Progressions n/a 234 n/a n/a n/a 142 n/a n/a Aged NEET BAME Outcome Target Actual Variance (Actual) Variance (%) Target Actual Variance (Actual) Variance (%) Engaged % % Skills (Other) n/a 200 n/a n/a n/a 962 n/a n/a Employment Support n/a 305 n/a n/a n/a 1083 n/a n/a Positive Progressions n/a 154 n/a n/a n/a 912 n/a n/a Female <Insert Equality Group> Outcome Target Actual Variance (Actual) Variance (%) Target Actual Variance (Actual) Variance (%) Engaged % Skills (Other) n/a 708 n/a n/a Employment Support n/a 835 n/a n/a Positive Progressions n/a 684 n/a n/a Section 6: Strategic Added Value Gateway E Workbook Template 12

13 The Community Grants programme has allowed the LDA s ESF provision to reach communities and individuals that other larger providers cannot access. As one member of the GLE team stated Community Grants is the ideal model, which has taken shape because of the projects we work with, not because of any design from the top. I.e. within the overarching strategic guidance of the LDA, projects are able to design bespoke solutions for the needs of their local community, which can be delivered in a way which builds trust. This programme allows the LDA to use ESF funds to bridge the gap between the mainstream provision and those who are very far from the labour market. It enables small community projects to support participants on the first step in a long chain of events that get people back to work. The non-prescriptive nature of the support means that activities can be successfully tailored to participants needs in a way that will increase their confidence in accessing further support from other sources. The programme promotes and supports small organisations in accessing public funding to support individuals, helping them gain experiences and skills that move them closer to the market. In addition, it provides them with support to understand the needs of funders, and develops their internal processes to meet more stringent requirements. By supporting local providers in building their capacity to deliver employment support, the programme enhances the quality of the small provider base in London. By increasing the performance of delivery organisations, it is hoped that the future provision that they deliver will be more effective at delivering against the aims of ESF, and regional employment and skills strategies. The capacity building support on offer can also be seen as a first step in scaling up activities that providers deliver. Helping them deliver publically funded projects increases their ability to access other potentially larger funding pots. While there is understandable fear in the sector about upcoming changes to the funding landscape, the experience and reference gained by organisations delivering Community Grants funded projects gives them stable ground to build on where funding is available. Section 7: Performance of Management and Delivery Processes GLE s Community Grants team were responsible for the monitoring and ongoing support of the funded organisations. The model of delivery built on that of the Fast Forward Grants programme, but included more of a focus on building the capacity of organisations. In this sense it was not necessarily innovative - but firmly rooted in previous experience, the success of the delivery model evidenced by the number of organisations returning to access the fund. Stakeholders that were interviewed commented on the increase of capacity building support in this programme, compared to that offered through the Fast-Forward grants programme, whereby support was more limited to monitoring and processing paperwork. The development of support workshops around claims (see below) showed that the flexibility of the available support enabled the programme to be successful. There were a number of key issues which were identified by the delivery team and management which could potentially impact on the success of the programme: Initial applications and due diligence processes Collection and maintenance of records to support claims Staff available to support funded organisations Payments to organisations Delays in contracting There were a number of ways in which GLE tried to/ successfully made changes to better support organisations. The initial application process for a grant involved a long due diligence process, whereby organisations had to supply 13 sets of information. This requires a more resource intensive application for small organisations than is recommended in ESF guidance for small grants programmes. GLE prepared an Options Paper for the LDA in November 2009 which included details of potential ways to reduce the impact of this. Support was also offered through LVSTC to help organisations with the Gateway E Workbook Template 13

14 process. Unfortunately there were no changes made during the first two rounds. As outlined in a previous section, this had a negative impact on the number of projects that were funded. Future programme development may wish to consider how best to strike a balance between minimising risk of investment versus the limitations and capabilities of very small community organisations. During round one, it became clear that organisations which did access funding often struggled with requirements on evidence retention as they did not have the systems in place to fulfil all reporting requirements. At this time, management and administration fee was structured in such a way that it was not possible for GLE to be able to bring in additional staff to support and capacity build funded organisations. However, following consultation with the LDA, the management and administration payment structure was revised in such a way as to allow GLE to employ two addition members of staff. This made it possible for GLE to resource compulsory claims workshops for funded projects in Round 2.This was a significant improvement that helped project staff understand what information was required to be able to support claims. The project team commented that this successfully enabled organisations to improve their claims submissions, which in turn helped programme performance. In addition the process built organisation s capacity and should mean they are better able to meet the requirements of other funding programmes. For many organisations, this has been their first source of funding, and therefore this additional support has been essential in developing their skills and confidence to participate in other publically funded programmes. The GLE team, in the Options Paper submitted to the LDA in November 2009, raised concerns that there was insufficient funding to employ the staff needed to fully support the funded organisations. This issue was also raised by key stakeholders that we interviewed, who felt that there were not enough staff to provide the valuable one-to-one support that GLE offers to projects. This was rectified by moving the budget for a capacity building consultant to an additional Project Support Officer from January This model, which provided 50% of the funded up-front, followed by 45% of the funding once the organisation had evidenced 30% of total project expenditure, required organisations to provide the final 5% of the costs of running the project, which was reimbursed once the project was complete. This proved to be a reasonable compromise for the LDA in terms of risk, GLE in terms of management and has enabled the providers to learn how to control their spending and understand budgeting. Delays to the start of the programme had a detrimental effect on funded organisations. For example, the latest round started very late, yet there was no opportunity for flexibility on the end date of projects since GLE was only contracted for a set amount of time. This resulted in funded organisations having to condense their projects into a considerably shorter schedule. Section 8: Added Value LDA Added Value The LDA s involvement in Community Grants ensured that the strategic aims of the programme were in line with its own in terms of creating a prosperous and inclusive city. In addition, the LDA made sure that key social issues were focused on. Thanks to the organisation, the evaluation of each applicant s ability to address the LDA s cross-cutting themes was a central part of the application process. This ensured that the promotion of equal opportunities, financial, economic and sustainability, and health and wellbeing, were mainstreamed across the Community Grants programme. The ESF small grants programme is not generic across the EU. Only a handful of other Member States use their allocation of ESF to fund such programmes aimed at supporting small voluntary organisations, mainly due to the risks associated with such programmes. The decision of UK and regional government to dedicate ESF to supporting this target groups in the face of risk is widely viewed very positively amongst a range of public and third sector stakeholders. In London, the management of the programme by the LDA has resulted in a stronger focus on concrete outcomes. Gateway E Workbook Template 14

15 This contrasts, to some extent, with the previous Fast Forward Grants programme, in which funded projects did not need to aim for prescribed outcomes. The involvement of the LDA has also added value by helping to align Community Grants with other ESF programmes funded by the LDA and other co-financers. This is beneficial not only for sustainability of the funded projects but also for the participants, as it strengthens referral pathways between ESF programmes. Value Added by Community Grants to Existing Provision The Community Grants programme complements and adds value to other ESF provision to a large extent. The programme funds organisations that are perhaps too small to access the larger ESF programmes, but that nevertheless have a huge capacity to engage with the hardest to reach target groups, which as stakeholders have repeatedly pointed out during the course of this evaluation larger organisations funded by mainstream ESF have difficulties in reaching. Community Grants funded-projects provide the support that these target groups need to become ready for employment and other outcomes, including readiness to benefit from in mainstream provision such as that provided by JCP. As one Project Support Officer told us, the programme represents the first step in a long chain of events that get people back to work. Undoubtedly, the Programme fills a significant gap in provision in terms of its success in supporting certain target groups to become work ready. Community Grants also adds value to existing ESF provision in another area: the capacity building of the organisations themselves. This has been done in a cost-effective manner. For example, it was identified that a large proportion of organisation funded during the first round had significant requirements for training around administrative and financial management skills associated with submitting paperwork. A workshop was held for all applicants, which aimed to address this issue. This was coupled with one to one support from GLE and LVSTC, as well as complementing the work of the ESF Unlocking Potential Project, which had the general aim of building third sector capacity. In general terms, Community Grants ensured capacity-building for organisations in several areas, adding-value by ensuring that these organisations were better-placed to apply for other provision, after their Community Grants project had ended: Setting up and maintaining financial systems Setting up and maintaining monitoring systems Establishing sustainable progression routes for beneficiaries Maximising the potential of staff and volunteers Raising your organisation s profile Excellence in organisational governance Setting up and maintaining Quality systems Undertaking longer-term business planning Community Grants adds value to existing provision by providing a platform for testing and showcasing innovative methods, tailored to the needs of specific hard-to-reach communities, for building workreadiness. As one project manager explained, this includes activities such as dance - whose links to the labour market may not be immediately apparent, but that have nevertheless resulted in soft outcomes such as increased confidence and wellbeing, and job outputs. The programme is generally more flexible in its activities than other provision, and this has resulted, as one project manager put it, in the programme taking shape because of the projects we work with, not because of any design from the top. In other words, Community Grants is ESF provision led and moulded by the voluntary sector itself. Section 9: Value for Money Assessment Economy The grants of up to 12,000 to small organisations are a very economical way of providing localised support. Using the recorded spend of the overall programme to the end of January 2011 versus the number of starters, the unit cost of supporting each Gateway E Workbook Template 15

16 individual is just over The cost of moving someone into a positive progression (further training or employment) was 2862 (based on the reported figures to the end of February 2011, and the total cost of the programme). If the target number of positive progressions is met and the total budget is spent, the budget unit cost of a positive progression is 2687, which is slightly less than that which is currently being achieved. However, this is still a cost effective way of supporting individuals who are far from the market to enter employment, or other provision which will support them on their way to achieving employment. There are some further estimates of unit cost in the table below, which illustrates that for the key outputs and outcomes, the programme has achieved a lower unit cost for all apart from positive progressions, which was 54 more expensive per outcome. It is not known if all the final data will be available for the final version of this report, so we cannot state whether this is a small failing of the programme overall. As the focus of the programme is not just to support individuals, but also to build the capacity of organisations to further deliver in this area, the programme can be seen as being very cost effective. It is important to consider the above rough estimates of unit cost as a guide, rather than a definitive assessment of the unit cost of support- as it is harder to do this as a programme, than it would be for a specific project. The organisations supported have fewer than two full-time members of staff, often working from very small premises, which reduce the overheads that they have compared to larger organisations. They therefore offer a cost effective way of supporting individuals. The use of a centralised Grant Coordinating Body, paid by outputs ensured that the programme was economical for the LDA as all of the promotion, appraisal of bids, management and closure could be managed by an organisation which took on the risk of making the programme a success, or risk not accessing payment for completing outputs. Efficiency - The activities that have been delivered through this programme are the management of a pan-london programme of funded projects, plus the grants paid to projects to deliver support to individuals. Therefore it is difficult to unpick the unit cost of delivering an activity, as many of the activities were not undertaken by one organisation with a specific cost attached. The outputs that are directly linked to the activities of the Grant Coordinating Body are paid for on a contracted rate, but do not necessarily represent the cost of delivering that activity (for example the cost associated with signing the contract was over 150,000). It is therefore difficult to provide a commentary on this, as it was not defined as a comparative measure from the outset. Effectiveness It is not possible to place a monetary value on the outcomes that have arisen as part of this programme without having more specific detail as to the destination of individuals who were supported through the funded projects, which is outside the scope of this evaluation. In addition, as part of the aim of the programme was to build the capacity of organisations, although this was not a contracted output, placing a monetary value on the outcomes that were achieved which do not represent all the activities that were undertaken would be misleading. Gateway E Workbook Template 16

17 Table 5: Analysis of Unit Cost Effectiveness The programme has a number of outputs and outcomes, but it is impossible to unpick the unit costs of each. GLE, as Grant Coordinating Body, is paid on the basis of a unit cost per output, but this is not necessarily the unit cost of delivering that output- rather a method by which to pay for this service. The individually funded projects are then also paid a grant of up to 12,000. Below are some rough estimates of the unit costs for the key outputs and outcomes. These are based on the collated results to the end of February 2011 and the spend to the end of January Outputs Outputs LDA Total Public Sector Target Unit Costs Actual Unit Costs Target Output Revised Target Output (if applicable) Actual Output Baseline LDA Budget Revised LDA Budget (if applicab le Starters ,698,408 1,612, Actual LDA Spend 1,528, Baseline Total Public Sector Budget Revised Total Public Sector Budget 2,698,408 1,612, Total Public Sector Spend 1,528, Baseline LDA Unit Costs Revised LDA Unit Costs (if applicable) Baseline Total Public Sector Unit Costs Revised Total Public Sector Unit Costs Actual LDA Unit Costs Actual Total Public Sector Unit Costs Employment support ,698,408 1,612, ,528, ,698,408 1,612, ,528, TOTALS Outcomes Outcomes LDA Total Public Sector Target Unit Costs Actual Unit Costs Target Outcomes Revised Target Outcomes (if applicable) Actual Outcomes Baseline LDA Budget Revised LDA Budget (if applicab le Skills ,698,408 1,612, Actual LDA Spend 1,528, Baseline Total Public Sector Budget Revised Total Public Sector Budget 2,698,408 1,612, Total Public Sector Spend 1,528, Baseline LDA Unit Costs Revised LDA Unit Costs (if applicable) Baseline Total Public Sector Unit Cost Revised Total Public Sector Unit Cost Actual LDA Unit Costs Actual Total Public Sector Unit Costs Positive progressions ,698,408 1,612, ,528, ,698,408 1,612, ,528, TOTALS Gateway E Workbook Template