Grants Committee
Review of Grants Commissioning
Processes – Action Plan
Report by:
Morven McCallum
Date:
8 July 2009
Contact
Officer:
Morven McCallum
Telephone:
020 7934 9933
Summary
Recommendations
Job title:
Email:
Item no: 12
Grants Policy Manager
[email protected]
Further to the report produced by SQW Consultants reviewing the London
Councils grants commissioning process which Grants Committee
received at their 22 April 2009 meeting, this report considers the key
conclusions and recommendations made by SQW and proposes an
Action Plan to respond to and/or address the recommendations as
appropriate. The Action Plan is attached as Appendix 1.
That Members:
1. Receive this report;
2. Agree that commissioning will continue to be the method for
delivery of the grants programme;
3. Agree the proposed Action Plan as set out in Appendix 1, taking
account of any comments, views and suggestions, that Members
wish to make to improve it;
4. Agree to receive a further report at the September meeting of the
Grants Executive (date to be arranged) with full details of the work
plan and timetable to deliver the agreed actions in time for further
commissioning rounds which are due to commence from late
2010.
Background
1. In March 2004, Leaders’ Committee appointed an independently-chaired Grants Review
Board to investigate London Councils’ future role and scope in funding the voluntary
sector. One of the key recommendations arising from the review was the introduction of
commissioning as the primary approach to allocating funding.
2. The introduction of commissioning at London Councils aimed to ensure that:





priority services are available to those who need them, wherever they live in
London
priorities and outcomes are better informed and more strategic
funding is focused on the most effective ways of meeting needs
resources are distributed and used efficiently
there is a better match between the London Council’s priorities, what we fund and
what we wish to achieve for Londoners with our funding
3. The commissioning process was developed in close partnership with the joint London
Councils/3rd Sector steering group, and an undertaking was given by the Grants
Committee that, once the commissioning of organisations had been completed,
independent research would be jointly commissioned with the 3rd sector to review and
evaluate the effectiveness of the introduction of commissioning as a means of funding
services provided by the sector.
4. SQW Consultants were engaged to undertake this exercise, commencing work in
November 2008; presenting preliminary findings to Grants Executive on 20 February; and
producing the final report for the Grants Committee’s meeting on 22 April 2009.
5. On 22 April, Grants Committee agreed to receive the report and noted its contents, and
requested to receive a report from officers at the 8 July 2009 meeting proposing an
action plan on how the commissioning process will be improved upon for the future.
Key Issues from SQW’s Research Report
6. To briefly remind Grants Committee members of SQW’s key findings:
i)
Timescales
These were felt to be too tight. It is suggested that future commissioning
rounds should be staggered to a greater extent;
(ii)
Service Priorities and specifications
 The rationale behind the adoption of priority services was felt to be unclear
and failed to consider existing service delivery. Recommendations are made
as to how this could be improved upon;
 There are too many service areas and resources are spread too thinly. SQW
recommends that the number of service areas funded should be reduced
thereby increasing investment in a smaller number of priority areas. It is also
suggested that the number of organisations/partnerships per service
specification should be limited
 There was insufficient training provided to staff when they were formulating
service specifications.
(iii)
Application Process
There were a range of concerns about aspects of this process including
capacity issues, insufficient time to develop proposals and shortcomings of
the application form itself. SQW have made a number of recommendations
as to how these concerns can be addressed in future commissioning rounds.
(iv)
Decision-making Process
 It was perceived that the current system of assessment and scoring of
applications has a number of weaknesses which can be primarily addressed
through training and assessment tools. One proposal is that there should be
an independent external element to the process by way of quality control.
 The role of elected Members and the value they add to the process was often
misunderstood. Again, training and tools for elected Members was seen as a
potential solution, and also better information on the London Councils website
about the nature of the Grants Scheme and the context within which it
operates.
(v)
Wider issues
 Despite the views expressed by some detractors, SQW considered
Commissioning more appropriate than Open Bidding for London Councils in
meeting its strategic objectives. However, it was considered that London
Councils had failed to explain the rationale behind commissioning sufficiently
well and that communications could be much improved upon;
 Stifling innovation and creativity by allocating all resources via the
commissioning process could be resolved by creating a small innovation fund
– as long as it was ring-fenced specifically for this purpose;
 More encouragement should be given to partnership arrangements and bids.
Also, support to applicants could be improved upon and by second tier
organisations as well as London Councils.
Despite these issues, overall their report demonstrated that the Grants Committee’s
move to commissioning was broadly supported.
Proposed Action Plan
7. The most fundamental decision required today is to establish that Grants Committee
agrees that commissioning continues to be the preferred manner of delivering the Grants
Programme. Officers have to date assumed this will be the case, and have been
developing the draft action plan on that basis; but the first recommendation today is that
commissioning will continue to be the process for delivery.
8. Since 22 April, officers have been considering the detailed findings, recommendations
and conclusions of the review with a view to identifying the most appropriate ways of
responding to the challenges it presents and ensure that practice is improved for future
commissioning rounds. The resulting action plan is set out at Appendix 1
9. Our 3rd sector partners have also been considering the recommendations and the
proposed action plan from the perspective of organisations that were successful in being
commissioned (through the Voluntary Sector Forum), and of the wider sector (through
the 3rd Sector Alliance). They broadly support the proposed actions although have
expressed some concerns on the following:
- Ensuring that that there are sufficient resources available for work around
developing and supporting partnership bids/consortia approaches;
- The role of SMZs as part of the priority-setting consultation process;
- That the commissioning process mitigates against smaller, often equalitiesfocussed organisations. They feel that it is essential that London Councils assess
the impact of the London Councils commissioning process and that partnerships
of smaller organisations could be a key mechanism for service delivery in the
future;
- Issues around lobbying and the Right to Reply process needing much greater
clarification;
In summary, they would like to see the steering group for the Review of the
Commissioning Process, which included 3rd Sector representatives, reconvened for
overseeing the implementation of the Review’s recommendations and the development
and improvement of the commissioning process.
Developing a work plan and implementation time-table
10. Following consideration of the proposed plan by Grants Committee today, and assuming
that Members agree the action plan incorporating any amendments they wish to make,
officers will prepare a work plan to deliver the actions incorporating a timetable towards
making the improvements. This will be reported to Grants Executive at a meeting to be
arranged for early September meeting. The revised commissioning processes will need
to be in place in readiness for commissioning activities that are due to commence in late
2010 following the setting of priorities for 2011-15 by Leaders’ Committee in July 2010.
11. A number of actions will require planning in partnership with the 3rd Sector’s 2nd Tier/
Infrastructure organisations and officers will be meeting with them shortly to discuss how
this could be done. There are likely to be costs involved in them providing the kinds of
help and support to prospective bidders that are outlined and these will need to be
identified and costed for further consideration alongside the work plan.
12. Officers will also continue to seek further information, comments and suggestions from
3rd sector organisations, other funders and stakeholders when implementing the work
plan to ensure that improvements made are best informed.
Recommendations
13. Officers recommend that Members:
1. Receive this report;
2. Agree that commissioning will continue to be the method for delivery of the grants
programme;
3. Agree the proposed Action Plan as set out in Appendix 1, taking account of any
comments, views and suggestions, that Members wish to make to improve it;
4. Agree to receive a further report at the September meeting of the Grants
Executive (date to be arranged) with full details of the work plan and timetable to
deliver the agreed actions in time for further commissioning rounds which are due
to commence from late 2010.