The first five years of the
Fair Share Trust Programme
An evaluation for the Big Lottery Fund
Final Report
2009
SALLY DOWNS CONSULTING
with
ALISON MILLWARD ASSOCIATES
BDOR
SHARED PRACTICE
Evaluation of the first five years of the
Fair Share Trust Programme
Final evaluation report
____________________________________________________________________________________
SALLY DOWNS CONSULTING
with
ALISON MILLWARD ASSOCIATES
BDOR
SHARED PRACTICE
Copyright BIG LOTTERY FUND, 2009
i
‘Be a Winner in Life’
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Bolton Literacy Trust Fair Share award
Bolton Literacy Trust got £80,000 for their Fair Share project to increase formal and
informal learning for young people and adults in Great Lever (Bolton) by:
• providing classes, workshops and taster sessions to build computer skills
• offering family learning classes: English-as-a-second-language, citizenship, parenting,
and more
• using sessional crèche workers and outreach to help overcome barriers and tempt
reluctant learners
• providing information and guidance on taking next steps
• promoting socialisation and interaction, as part of making life better.
In the first eight months, they helped more than 350 learners. People as young as six and
as old as 87 are coming through the door. 300 young people have already been to
activities, for example the fun, weekly multimedia sessions. Early indicators of success
include 85 pupils and their parents attending commendation lunches, and over 90 local
residents at a ‘celebration of success’ event.
Everyone attending sessions now lives in Great Lever, but they come from all corners of
the globe – more than 40 countries so far. The project’s volunteers are multi-cultural too,
many from Pakistan, and many local women.
Perhaps the remarkable knitting group best sums up this project. ‘Nightingale Knitters’ is a
group of six ladies - complete strangers to each other, with four nationalities between them.
Five are widows. One swears that the group saved her life. One now runs the group.
Together they knitted 600 woolly hats for Save the Children’s ‘Knit One Save One’
campaign to help newborn babies in Third World countries, and are set to utilise their skills
in a new social enterprise. These are ladies for whom the activities and friendship have led
to renewed engagement in their communities, and a new role and meaning in life.
Or perhaps it’s the story of Barbara Robertson. Barbara is over 80, and has been writing all
her life but, in her words, “had never taken it seriously”. She went along to the ICT class.
Through this, she heard that the Trust was starting a writing group, so she went along to
that too. And before she knew what was happening, a woman in the group said she was
going to do a University degree and would Barbara like to come along. The Literacy Trust
encouraged her to make an application, and in October 2008 she started a BA(Hons) in
Creative Writing at the University of Bolton.
Barbara wants to share her story so that other people know what they might achieve. She
thinks that a lot of people sit at home later in life because they are worried they are too old
to do something new, or that they might get laughed at. She wants everyone to know that
doing something different can be a source of so much pleasure – whatever your age.
Barbara says….”It’s unbelievable and fabulous. At the University, I’m mostly with young
ones, and at first they didn’t know how to treat me. But then a couple of the girls said one
day ‘aren’t you coming to have a cup of tea with us?’, and things just took off and it’s been
fine. They don’t go tip-toeing around me any more – I’m just one of them. It has given me
a whole new look on life. It feels as though I’m starting again.”
ii
The first five years of the Fair Share Trust programme
Table of contents
Evaluation team’s preface to the report
Executive summary
PART ONE: CONTEXT FOR THE FAIR SHARE INITIATIVE
1
2
Introduction
2
Setting the scene
Distinguishing features
Experimentation and risk
Terms used in the evaluation report
Evaluation of the programme
Report structure
2
2
3
3
4
4
Background to delivery of the Fair Share Trust programme
6
Origins of the programme
Fair Share aims (objectives)
The wider funding context
Arrangements for delivery of the Fair Share Trust Programme
Choice of Fair Share Trust neighbourhoods
The programme start
6
7
8
9
11
13
PART TWO: FAIR SHARE TRUST PROCESSES
3
4
The Fair Share Trust model
15
Guidance on delivery of the Fair Share Trust programme
Key elements in the process
Making the model work at the local level
Role of local Agent
Process working is a challenge
Evaluators’ commentary
15
16
17
20
22
22
Community involvement and capacity building
25
Introduction
Evolving concepts and priorities
Spread of approaches to community involvement
Who does capacity building?
Priority given to capacity building
Commentary
26
26
28
32
34
35
iii
5
6
7
The Panel approach
38
Role of Panel
Panel composition
Successes in Panel working
Panel perspectives on success
Challenges in Panel working
What is distinctive about Fair Share Panels?
Future of the Panels
Evaluators’ commentary
39
41
43
45
47
48
50
50
Understanding needs and setting priorities
52
Introduction
Understanding local needs
Reviewing the Neighbourhood Priorities Documents
Evaluators’ commentary
52
53
55
56
Project procurement
58
Introduction
A strategic approach to grant making
Routes to project procurement
Solicited bids and commissioning
Use of open grants
Use of negotiation
The role of the Panel in grant making
Evaluators’ commentary
59
59
60
61
66
68
68
69
PART THREE: OUTCOMES FROM THE FST PROGRAMME
8
9
Projects in action
72
Introduction
Number and size of awards
Use of small awards
Use of large awards
Who gets the awards?
Who benefits from the FST projects?
What sorts of activities are being done through FST funded projects?
Difficulties in attracting applications
Evaluators’ commentary
73
73
74
75
78
78
81
81
82
Have Fair Share neighbourhoods got more funding?
84
What question are we trying to answer?
Are the neighbourhoods getting their Fair Share Trust money?
Match funding and help in kind
Continuation funding
Money impacts of capacity building/ strengthening of infrastructure organisations
Ripple effects
Findings against the evaluation indicators
Evaluators’ commentary
84
86
87
89
90
91
93
94
iv
10
Building capacity and social capital
95
Capacity in who and what
Increased capacity in groups and group members
Impacts on capacity of wider VCS
Building social capital and quality of life
Evaluator’s commentary
96
97
100
103
105
PART FOUR: REFLECTIONS ON THE FAIR SHARE LEGACY
11
12
Reflections
108
Reflecting on Fair Share
A very local, process driven approach
A locally owned ‘pot’ of money
The role of the local Panel
The extended timescale
Is the work of the FST meeting BIG’s objectives for the programme?
Does the approach to procurement differ from a straight open grant programme?
109
110
112
113
113
114
116
A lasting legacy?
118
Sustainability
Issues and tensions
Lessons for future funding programmes
121
122
126
Annexes
The annexes are contained in a separate volume. They are:
Annex 1:
Annex 2:
Annex 3:
Annex 4:
Annex 5:
Annex 6:
Annex 7:
Annex 8:
Annex 9:
Annex 10:
Annex 11:
Annex 12:
Acronyms
Concepts and terms used in the report
Evaluation methodology
Background to the Fair Share Trust programme
Issues arising from the choice of Fair Share neighbourhoods in the case
study areas
Survey of local Agents
Panel composition and changes in the case study areas
Functioning of local Panels in the case study areas
Revisions to Neighbourhood Priorities Documents
Review of the strategic performance of Bolton projects
Project numbers and sizes in case study areas
Project descriptions in the case study areas
v
Principal acronyms used in text
BIG
CBO
CDW
CVS
CF
CFN
DCMS
DTI
LSC
LSP
NEET
NOF
PCT
RDA
SRB
TARA
VCS
Big Lottery Fund
community based organisation
community development worker
Council for Voluntary Service
Community Fund (now the Big Lottery Fund)
Community Foundation Network
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Department for Trade and Industry (now the Department for Business,
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform)
Learning and Skills Council
Local Strategic Partnership
not in education, employment or training
New Opportunities Fund (now the Big Lottery Fund)
Primary Care Trust
Regional Development Agency
Single Regeneration Budget
tenants and residents association
voluntary and community sector
vi
Preface to the report and acknowledgements
__________________________________________________________________________________
From the evaluation team
This report is about the Big Lottery Fund’s Fair Share Trust programme
which has ‘broken the mould’ in terms of local grant making. The
programme goes beyond the task of grant making, and engages with the
process of building strength and capability in local communities. It is
bringing about change in areas of disadvantage across the UK.
Local grant making through a ‘pot’ of local money, and involving local
people, has been part of regeneration initiatives for some time. None, so
far as we know, has been so successful in combining a real understanding
of local needs and aspirations with grant making to local organisations. In
their turn, these local organisations are developing their skills and building
networks between them. Critically, grant making is driven by local needs,
and not by the agenda of service deliverers. There is a justifiable hope and
expectation that the benefits will extend beyond the life of the programme,
with the potential to leave a Fair Share legacy of substantial magnitude.
Fair Share areas were nominated because they were affected by
disadvantage and had been under-achievers in getting Lottery funding in
the past. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that not all areas are so far
achieving the successes of the best. Some are finding difficulties in
operating for mutual benefit with strategic partners. Others rushed
headlong into grant making where slower progress might have yielded
more lasting effects. And for some, the levels of community activity at the
start of the programme were so small and so fragile that making awards to
the hoped-for local organisations has proved almost too difficult. Individual
human problems have sometimes interrupted wider social benefits, through
health problems amongst key players, and the resurrection of old
animosities amongst those most influential in the local process. But it is a
reflection of the strength of the programme that in many of these areas
there are now demonstrable achievements which are strengthening the
local communities’ confidence in the future.
It follows that the report is not just a story of triumphs. Rather, it describes
real life, and a painstaking journey, where setbacks sit alongside
achievements. It shows what can be achieved when time and effort are put
into understanding what local people really want, what local service
providers can offer, how much can be achieved by bringing people
together, and by engaging local organisations and individuals in decision
making. Each dimension in this is important, but one of the great qualities
of Fair Share is that it has offered a timescale which is way beyond that of
most grant programmes. In consequence, there has been time available to
get the process right.
In the course of the evaluation, we have heard snippets about other small
and successful grant programmes which, like the Fair Share Trust, have
been process driven. It would be good to hear from people involved in
those programmes so that wider conclusions can be drawn.
For us as evaluators, it has been a privilege to be involved in this
evaluation. We have shared moments of great joy. We have seen people
working together and demonstrating their extraordinary success in places
where previously there was little or nothing to celebrate. We have provided
tissues to mop up tears of frustration and have empathised over
vii
disappointments. We have heard about hopes and aspirations for the future
which are as practical as they are inspirational.
We are indebted to the people and organisations willing to share these
experiences with us. They include:
• people at the grass roots in eleven case studies areas who spent time
discussing their experiences in working on local Panels, in local
organisations and as project beneficiaries
• local Agents responsible for delivering the Fair Share Trust in local
neighbourhoods; the eleven case study Agents bore the brunt of our
research about their role, and others contributed through workshops and
a questionnaire survey
• the Community Foundation Network which manages the Fair Share
programme
• the Big Lottery Fund, whose predecessor organisation (the New
Opportunities Fund) had the courage to innovate through a long lasting
and locally devolved programme.
A genuine and heartfelt thanks goes to you all.
Evaluation team members:
Sally Downs (Project Director)
Jeff Bishop
Mike Dando
Stephen Hughes
Alison Millward
Diane Warburton
Contact details:
[email protected]
viii
Executive Summary
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Note to reader: the numbers in brackets refer to specific sections of the main report
where topics are discussed in greater detail.
Background
1
This report is about the Fair Share Trust (FST) programme, which goes beyond the task
of grant making by working to build strength and capacity in local communities. FST uses
a Panel of local residents and local organisations to decide on local funding priorities and
to attract suitable applications. One of its greatest qualities is that there is sufficient time to
get the process right.
2
It is inevitable that some places find it easier than others to make the most of the
opportunities provided by the programme. Where Fair Share is at its most successful, the
results are inspiring. The longer-than-average time frame for Fair Share (up to ten years)
means that all areas have the chance to build the capacity that makes it easier to develop
and run projects – and to win the funding to do so. There is a justifiable hope and
expectation that the wide-ranging benefits will extend beyond the life of the programme,
with the potential to leave a Fair Share legacy of substantial magnitude.
3
The programme operates in areas where low success rates in obtaining Lottery funding in
the past were combined with high levels of deprivation. It is a £50 million programme
funded by the Big Lottery Fund (BIG), and is much more than a temporary redistribution of
resources. The programme is subtle in its way of working and ambitious for its outcomes.
4
There are 79 FST target areas, known as FST ‘neighbourhoods’, spread across the UK.
At the outset of Fair Share, the vast majority of neighbourhoods were characterised by
relatively under-developed voluntary and community organisations, weak partnership
working between statutory and voluntary sectors, and frequently by past neglect.
5
The programme uses a new and distinctive approach to grant making. Its most important
features are:
• It is a devolved programme. BIG has put the Fair Share budget of £50 million into an
independent Trust fund, administered and developed by the Community Foundation
Network (CFN). In its turn, CFN has delegated delivery at the local level to local Agents.
• It responds to aspirations in the voluntary and community sector (VCS) for longer term
funding by operating over a period of 10 years, except for Scotland where it is seven,
and Northern Ireland where the period varies between neighbourhoods.
• In many locations, it is targeting very small neighbourhoods.
• For programme beneficiaries, there is a ring-fenced local ‘pot’ of money. Decisions on
how the money is to be spent are made locally, with the involvement of local people.
ix
• It is a ‘process’ programme. Processes used to identify projects for funding and ensure
appropriate delivery are as important as the projects themselves. Both processes and
projects have outcomes of value to the FST programme.
6
BIG is one of few bodies able to fund work which explores new ways to make grants on
this scale. Without a commitment to innovation, new approaches cannot be investigated
and new things achieved. It is a cause for celebration that the parties to the FST have
been willing to move beyond their normal ways of working, and that local communities are
generally responding so positively.
Programme aims
7
Amongst its complex aims, the following programme themes can be identified (para 2.5
on):
• To increase the ability of communities living in the target neighbourhoods to win Lottery
funding now, and in the future.
• To fund projects which are run by and for disadvantaged people.
• To bring about lasting change in the lives of people living in the target neighbourhoods.
• To build capacity and social capital.
8
The evaluation specification also highlighted that FST should support its aims by involving
local people in decision making.
The evaluation
9
The evaluation relies primarily on two sources of empirical data which together provide
depth and breadth:
• Case studies in eleven FST neighbourhoods (2004-2008): These have involved face-toface interviews and workshops with all relevant parties in the Fair Share process. There
have been three phases of work, giving the evaluation team a picture of programme
evolution, and its results over time.
• A survey of local Agents (2008): This used a self-completion approach and achieved a
72% response rate, which is sufficiently large to enable general conclusions to be drawn
from the sample, and provides a broad picture of the work of the FST to set alongside
the depth of the case studies.
The approach to delivery
10
Overview A process programme is one where how things get done is as important as
what gets done. It contrasts with grant programmes where the principal focus is on getting
the money spent on projects. The FST programme works with the grain of community
activity. It engages local people in the task of identifying local needs and priorities, it
provides a local ‘pot’ of money, and it involves local residents and representatives of local
organisations in grant making. It does this in ways which build the capabilities of local
organisations and strengthen links in local communities within the FST neighbourhoods.
x
11
Arrangements for delivery differ across England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales
(para 2.13 on). All involve a local Agent for each FST neighbourhood and funding of local
projects through ring-fenced, local money. In Northern Ireland, the overall approach is
modified to ensure that FST funding both addresses local needs and complements other
local interventions.
12
A complex programme like the FST, which must be accountable locally and nationally,
needs guidance on approach to delivery. This is provided by CFN (para 3.1 on). The
guidance requires local Agents to adopt a process with four key elements (see figure 1).
No part of the process can be omitted. They are interlinked, and our evidence suggests
that the more joined-up the process, the better the outcomes are likely to be.
xi
Working
with a local Panel
of residents
and representatives
of local
organisations
Identifying local priorities
for funding
Review after 3 and 6 years
Understanding local
issues and needs
Procuring and funding of projects which meet local needs
Figure 1: Key elements in the Fair Share process
13
The local Panel The FST approach involves local Panels in grant making (para 5.5 on
and 11.18 on). The local Agent appoints Panel members, with the aim of achieving
representation of a wide spread of local interests. They help to identify needs, determine
priorities for funding, work with Agents on the sorts of projects to be funded, identify
groups to work with, and attract applications. They make recommendations on all
applications to the programme in their neighbourhood. Strictly, Panel members give
advice rather than make decisions on applications. However, Agents have found ways to
work which fully engage Panel members in a collaborative and consensual decision
making process, so the responsibility is shared.
14
Panel members take their role in grant making very seriously. They work to ensure that
projects meet local needs and deliver value for money. They are concerned to ensure
probity and transparency, and feel accountable to their local communities. Steps are
taken to ensure that applications do not get favoured treatment if Panel members have an
interest in them.
15
The evaluation shows that Panels derive their legitimacy through their commitment to this
process. In contrast, the relationship between the Panel and the local community appears
to be less developed. In some neighbourhoods, the strength of Panel working could be
further enhanced through greater engagement with the community. Benefits could accrue,
for example, to transparency, more effective dissemination of information about Fair
Share progress and success, and wider involvement in Fair Share activity.
16
There are substantial challenges in making the Panel process work well. Achieving and
maintaining a Panel composition close to that recommended to Agents by CFN is proving
difficult, particularly in engaging young people, and residents who are not already involved
in other local organisations such as tenants’ and residents’ associations. Other
disappointments include tensions between Panel members, difficulties in retaining Panel
members’ commitment, and limited emphasis on communicating with, and involving, the
xii
wider community. Nonetheless, more than two thirds of Agents with comparative
experience see FST as better than other programmes that make use of a Panel.
17
Overall, the evaluation concludes that use of a local Panel is one of the key FST success
stories.
18
Local needs and local priorities In the FST programme, grant making is linked to an
understanding of local needs, local service provision and the capacity of local
organisations to grow and deliver new services in the neighbourhood (para 6.1 on). The
FST process required a ‘Neighbourhood Assessment Document’ (NAD) at the outset of
the programme, and needs assessment in various forms feeds into the setting of priorities
and underpins grant applications that fit those priorities.
19
A ‘Neighbourhood Priorities Document’ (NPD) acts as the strategic framework for grant
making. Like the needs assessment, the first was prepared at the outset of the
programme, with a life of three years. It proved challenging to decide priorities to last for
three years at the start of a process that also involved bringing together a disparate Panel,
finding effective ways of joint working, and moving on to making recommendations for
funding.
20
To be strategic, there needs to be clarity of purpose so that actions can be directed to
appropriate ends. Sometimes, broad wording of NPDs has meant that almost anything
could be funded and so the strategic worth of the document is limited. This is especially
the case where open grant-making is the predominant approach to project funding.
21
A priorities review at the end of three years and six years is built into the FST process.
The majority of Agents appear to have taken the task literally, with a straightforward and
sometimes brief review of the priorities set at the outset of the programmes. Others have
used it as an opportunity to undertake a thorough review of their overall direction, explore
their priorities, think about future grant making, engage with the wider community, and
build capacity. This is an approach in keeping with the spirit of the programme.
22
A ten-year programme needs at least one mid-term review. With nearly five years to go,
there is every reason to now look at all aspects of the programme at the local level. There
is still time to re-direct and re-focus activity if the review shows that more could be
achieved through adjustments to the way of working and the intended outcomes.
23
Project procurement To varying extents, Agents have devised approaches to project
procurement which ensure a good fit between priorities and projects funded (para 7.1 on).
Local needs are the key determinant. At the same time, the approach can focus on using
local organisations for project delivery, thereby building additional local capability. The
opportunities to create linkages are substantial and, at its best, these are being utilised in
a strong and creative manner.
24
Commissioning has proved an effective approach to procuring projects. It is pro-active,
and, at its most developed, can drive the Fair Share process. It involves:
• A proper consideration of needs.
• An identification of gaps in services, facilities and activities to meet those needs.
xiii
• Prioritisation of needs/gaps which enables the Panel to decide what they want to fund.
• Identification of potential delivery organisations, ideally ones that are from the
neighbourhood or nearby, which will be contributing to the area in the longer term.
• A process of developing the capacity of those providers so that they are able to submit
project proposals to fill the gaps.
• Full engagement of the local Panel in the process at every stage.
25
In this way, grant making is part of the strategic approach looked for by CFN and is a
contribution to capacity building.
26
In England and Scotland open grant making is more prevalent than anticipated. Some
neighbourhoods are making use of tactical, one-off grants, but in other locations the open
grant approach is modified, particularly through use of negotiation to ensure a fit between
proposed projects on the one hand and a neighbourhood’s needs and priorities on the
other. This makes important links back to the Neighbourhood Priorities Document (NPD).
The more specific and justified the NPD can be, the better any open grants will be
because there is something specific against which to judge them.
27
The results show that, if managed with a transparent and rigorous process, FST
approaches to project procurement stand comparison in terms of accountability with more
formal methods, yet are normally quicker and always more user-friendly. This is a critical
point in disadvantaged communities where capacity and confidence building are so
crucial.
Other factors in the success of the FST process
28
The approach to delivery devised by CFN is underpinned by a number of other factors
which contribute to the success of the FST process. These are:
• a locally owned ‘pot’ of money Fair Share has demonstrated the energising impacts of a
pot of local money (para 11.17 on). Local applicant groups feel that Fair Share is a real
opportunity, and that through it they can gain access to funding. The shared FST
experience can build links between groups and help them to identify ways of supporting
each other or working together in the future.
• capacity building Capacity building is an aim of the FST programme, and is part of the
FST process in the great majority of neighbourhoods (para 4.1 on). The importance
attached to it varies. Sometimes it is a relatively narrow and focused activity which is a
means to an end (good grant applications and project delivery). At the other extreme,
there are a small number of neighbourhoods where it is the sole or very substantial focus
of the programme, with increased capacity being an end in itself. It is focused principally
on community organisations, but includes individuals from within the local community
(e.g. through the Panel, through opportunities opening up as a result of Fair Share, and
through events and other Fair Share activities).
• extended timescale Building capacity and drawing in new groups takes time, and FST
provides an extended timescale in most of the neighbourhoods (para 11.22 on). If it had
been a three or five year programme, there would have been insufficient time for the
xiv
process to mature, with local Agents moving into finishing mode before successful
outcomes could fully develop and emerge. An important early lesson linked to timescale
is that a complex programme such as the FST requires a substantial period of time at
the outset to put in place the necessary management and guidance arrangements.
• local focus The FST programme is a strategic approach to funding at the very local level
(para 11.11 on). The delivery model is able to be locally responsive. In combination, the
local delivery model and the local pot of money underpin many of the positive outcomes.
This gives the programme an exceptional quality, enabling it to work with and for the
neighbourhood, rather than quickly doing things to the neighbourhood and its residents.
Observable benefits include growth in confidence, local ownership of resulting projects,
formation of new networks, and increased capacity in local organisations and in
individuals. None of this would have happened without investment in the local process.
• well-defined strategic vision The success of the approach appears to be greater where
there is a well-defined strategic vision. The case studies that are achieving the most
have a clear idea of what they want to achieve, and some decided to go slowly until they
could develop a strategic vision. They thereby avoided decision making and spend for
the sake of it.
• flexibility The guidance from CFN to Agents combines a consistent framework for local
Agents with a flexibility which enables them to devise local responses to local
circumstances. This flexibility is a crucial success factor in the FST process. It allows
the Agent and the Panel to ask the important question “what will work here?”. Whilst
working within the same broad model, neighbourhoods are able to respond to their own
opportunities and to bring about change.
• informality and responsiveness of the process The quality and style of the process
enables engagement in the programme, and makes it comprehensible to participants at
the neighbourhood level. Where other programmes are disappointing in their legacy, we
expect that the FST will have a significant and continuing impact in the local
communities because they have been able to really work with, adapt and respond to the
programme.
Projects funded through the FST
29
Across the FST programme, 10% of awards have so far gone to new groups or previously
unconstituted groups (para 8.17 on), 30% to groups that have not previously had
significant funding, 36% to established groups that have previously had significant
funding, and 17% to other categories (principally providers of public services). Some
areas are finding it difficult to attract enough applications of an appropriate quality. This
may change over time as the benefits of capacity building work feed through.
30
Judged by our case studies, the FST programme is so far dominated in numerical terms
by smaller awards, with nearly 40% being for £40,000 or less (para 8.3 on). Interesting
use is being made of awards of £10,000 or less to help deliver strategic approaches to
Fair Share, with a particular focus on activity which enables embryonic groups, either
through access to training (capacity building) or to enable them to test out an idea for
future service provision. In contrast, there are few awards of over £100,000, but they
make up nearly half the funding allocated. There is a risk that these larger projects may
meet their own aims but skew overall achievement of a neighbourhood’s priorities and its
contribution to the programme’s strategic aims unless they are very well targeted.
xv
31
Just over a quarter of projects are about capacity building, nearly 10% involve capital
spend, and the remainder are about the delivery of services and activities to a wide range
of beneficiaries. These include health projects; skills, education training and employment
projects; lunch clubs and day time activities; drama, music and films, credit unions and
debt counselling; and much else.
Meeting BIG’s objectives
32
Overview Two matters need to be considered when reviewing the programme’s success
in meeting BIG’s objectives (para 11.27 on). First, given the size of the local pot of
money, and the very large scale of the problems faced in the FST neighbourhoods, the
objectives for the programme are extremely ambitious in that they include matters such as
sustainability and building social capital (see paragraph 7). However, it is already clear
that, whilst FST monies are relatively small in relation to the problems, they can have a
transforming effect. Secondly, any funder such as BIG expects that its programmes will
meet its objectives. However, the objectives for the FST are not clearly worded. It is
strongly recommended that future programmes pay greater attention to this matter so that
programme objectives can be understood more fully, which is an essential pre-requisite
for their achievement.
33
Winning funding All FST neighbourhoods have Lottery monies through their FST awards
(para 9.9 on). There is also evidence of match funding for FST awards, with an order of
magnitude of half as much again, along with further help in kind and support from
volunteers. A small number of Agents are finding that new funders are being attracted to
FST neighbourhoods as a result of their observations about, or experiences of, Fair
Share. At a very small number of locations, there are concerns about their ability to
achieve full spend of the FST funding by the end of the programme.
34
Organisations that have had support and guidance with respect to making grant
applications report significant benefits. Some are already demonstrating their successes,
whilst others are happy that they will benefit from their enhanced abilities in future. What
we can see now is that the quality of the FST funding experience is considerably better for
groups than many other regimes they have considered in the past, and they regard their
FST success as a strongly enabling factor when they make future applications.
35
This is an era of reducing funding for the VCS. There is less certainty about continuing
success in the current circumstances. However, our case studies show that community
groups feel better placed to get funding in the future from a range of sources. The findings
suggest that the achievements of the FST programme will be valuable in an era of scarcity
of funding, as well as in times of plenty. The capacity for growth and development will not
be lost entirely, and the FST programme will have equipped more groups to continue and
thrive even in the most difficult circumstances, and to survive until funding becomes more
available again.
36
Whilst continuation funding is not yet an issue for many of the projects, some are already
finding other sources of funding. However, the current funding climate means that many
may struggle. We anticipate that will be particularly the case where open grants have
been used without significant capacity building.
37
Capacity building Capacity building is used in this report to mean activities and support
that strengthen the skills and abilities of people, groups and organisations to take effective
action. In the FST programme, the focus is principally on capacity to seek, obtain and
manage funding for projects.
xvi
38
Amongst community groups, new capacity is emerging (para 10.3 on). This relates to
practical issues such as governance and insurance, personal capacity such as skills and
morale, and matters such as communications and networks. Project participants report
access to training and qualifications. Corporate benefits for groups include increased
capacity with respect to administration, compliance with legislation, forward planning, and
aspirations for future activities. Such benefits accrue most strongly to new or less
experienced groups. Currently such groups are only a small proportion of successful
project applications, but these outcomes will strengthen if more funding goes to such
groups during the remainder of the programme.
39
The wider voluntary and community sector is also benefitting from Fair Share. Whereas in
many programmes, funded projects are far apart, in the case of the FST many are in close
proximity. Being part of an approach that produces a local sense of common purpose is
enabling and empowering. There is enhanced understanding between organisations
working in the neighbourhood, with new linkages and networks forming. In some
neighbourhoods, direct capacity building is being done in the sector, with strengthening of
infrastructure organisations which will outlast Fair Share and operate beyond the
boundaries of the Fair Share neighbourhoods.
40
Real change is happening. Groups are filled with enthusiasm for the tasks they have
taken on, and are more confident in their abilities. They have an enhanced sense of their
own worth. They have aspirations to work with others to build on Fair Share’s
achievements, and many are already doing so. Through Fair Share, local people are
being involved in activities which link them to others.
41
Meeting the needs of the disadvantaged The programme is successful at engaging
disadvantaged people and meeting their needs (para 8.20 on). All projects benefit people
who are disadvantaged in some way, and many also target a specific need group, with a
marked focus on young people and ethnic minorities. There is less evidence that
disadvantaged people are getting involved in starting and running projects, but clear
evidence of growth in social cohesion resulting from the Fair Share processes and
projects that bring people and groups together.
42
Social capital and quality of life Whilst building social capital is one of BIG’s objectives, it
is not often an explicit focus for the groups that are running projects funded through Fair
Share. Furthermore, both growth in social capital and improvements to quality of life are
long term changes which take time to emerge, so it is particularly significant to note that
there is already evidence of outcomes in these areas. Perhaps most critically there are
encouraging signs that people feel that their neighbourhood is improving. One of the most
commonly quoted outcomes is a sense that anti-social behaviour amongst young people
is reducing.
43
As a result of Fair Share, people are getting to know each other better, and there are
many examples of growth in ‘bonding’ social capital, where people intensify the positive
linkages between them (para 10.20 on). There is also some evidence of people coming
together across cultural, social and age divides, and building the much more difficult
‘bridging’ capital. Certainly at the project level, there is increased optimism and a sense
that “together we can make a difference”.
44
With four years remaining, it can be expected that these outcomes will strengthen and
extend before the programme is complete.
xvii
45
In the context of Fair Share, there is an interesting tension between building social capital
and capacity building. Where a large number of projects in a neighbourhood are focused
on capacity building, and only a few on funding for community groups/ organisations to
carry out their own projects designed to meet local needs, then there may be fewer
opportunities to develop social capital. Theory suggests that, in the longer term, there will
be downstream benefits that flow from the concentration on capacity building, and the
development of social capital may be one such benefit, but it is too soon for evidence of
this to emerge.
46
Community involvement BIG wanted the FST programme to include community
involvement in decision making, though its expectations in this respect were not
transparent. The evaluation has looked at the extent to which local people are part of
decision making within the delivery of the FST programme and are being consulted on
local needs and priorities (para 4.12 on).
47
Everywhere, there is involvement of local people in the work of the Panel, with up to four
local residents being Panel members. In addition, more than three quarters of FST
neighbourhoods are working on wider community involvement. This is primarily through
information giving and some consultation. Involvement of the community throughout the
process is rarely to be found, and collaboration is limited to direct work with the Panel.
The evaluators see this as a missed opportunity.
48
In many of the FST neighbourhoods, there is still time for a greater emphasis on engaging
the local community. This would further strengthen the programme in terms of building
social capital, accountability (and Panel legitimacy), and longer term sustainability.
49
Sustainability CFN guidance to the local Agents provides useful clarity over sustainability,
by reminding Agents that ‘lasting impact does not imply that projects which continue in
perpetuity are the most valuable. It is the programme’s outcomes – capacity building,
social capital and liveability – that the programme aims to sustain.’ As outlined above,
these outcomes are already becoming apparent, and more benefits of this kind are
anticipated before the programme end.
50
Contributions to sustainability come from a number of directions (para 12.9 on) which
include:
• Capacity building work to support community organisations and the voluntary sector on
matters relating to their own sustainability. The skills and capabilities that result
contribute to lasting outcomes in the FST neighbourhood, and are transferable when
beneficiaries move elsewhere. Without capacity building, sustainability is less likely to
be an outcome of the programme, and this is recognised in the approaches being taken.
There are opportunities for it to be further enhanced during the remainder of the
programme.
• Investing in key local organisations to carry on with capacity building work when Fair
Share is over.
• The emphasis on ‘strategic funding’ set by CFN. Agents and Panels are encouraged to
think about the long term impacts of the projects they fund. These impacts apply both at
the individual project level, and to them in combination. A strategic approach to funding,
xviii
linked to local needs and aspirations, is more likely to produce lasting benefits than
individual, one-off awards.
• Award recipients. When Fair Share makes awards to local groups – and particularly to
less experienced ones – it builds their capacity and builds linkages between them. This
in turn strengthens the local voluntary and community sector and helps build social
capital. Awards to experienced groups, and especially to statutory agencies and the
deliverers of public services, are unlikely to have the same level of impact.
• Growth in optimism. Fair Share is leading to higher morale and hopes for a better future.
There is a clear sense that “we can make a difference”. It derives from the engagement
and achievement being secured through the FST process. This will underpin
sustainability.
• The FST process. The process is local. Where it is working at its best, it is owned by the
Panel and (parts of) the wider community. It is enabling local groups to deliver projects
which meet their own needs or those of their target beneficiaries, and it is engaging the
local community, thereby extending benefits through widening social capital. The
evaluation has identified that contributions to sustainable outcomes from the process
would be enhanced by extending the work with the local community.
51
In Scotland, work on exit strategies is explicitly tackling the issues of sustainability and
legacy, and ensuring that the final stages of funding through the FST programme are very
carefully targeted to build long-term, sustainable achievements. In addition, CFN has
commissioned guidance for Agents on sustainability which is close to completion.
A lasting legacy
52
In a programme that operates at the local level, it is inevitable that some neighbourhoods
will achieve greater success than others. Furthermore, the changes and developments
that accompany Fair Share do not grow uniformly. There can be both set-backs and
sudden spurts of positive change. All this is typical of a community based programme.
So, whilst achievement levels vary, the evaluation report dwells largely on the best that is
being achieved. This is because there is so much to learn from it. There are a number of
areas of under-performance identified, some of which can be remedied and some of
which derive from challenges inherent in grass roots working. Notwithstanding these
difficulties, the FST model is clearly fit for purpose, and presents an inspiring approach to
grant making.
53
Significant benefits are already apparent from the programme for local people, the local
VCS and local quality of life. At this point in the programme, these are indications rather
than outcomes that have proved to be lasting, and it will be important to continue
evaluating the programme to establish how far these are followed through.
54
Although the deep and complex problems of disadvantaged areas will not be solved
during the course of the FST programme, its processes are expected to have contributed
to more sustainable community and voluntary sectors, and more resilient communities.
xix
55
Local legacy and local benefits The most obvious signs of longer term impacts are at the
local level (para 12.1 on) and include the following:
• Legacy for local individuals. Local people have developed skills, confidence and
ambition which they will take into the rest of their lives, whether at work, in other
voluntary activities or in their domestic lives.
• Legacy for the local VCS. The FST programme has provided investment both to the VCS
infrastructure and to support new and existing community and voluntary groups. Both of
these strands of investment have helped strengthen the local VCS in ways that will
survive, even if the funding is removed.
• Legacy for local quality of life. The FST programme has delivered local facilities (such as
parks, play spaces, arts facilities) that will exist in the longer term. There are questions
about the extent to which limits to future funding will reduce the value of these facilities if
they are not maintained, staffed, promoted etc. But new facilities exist, and that is an
important legacy in communities where the FST programme is the first chance they have
had to see their areas improve and to have been part of making that happen.
56
A model for public involvement in grant making? Fair Share is based on consensus
building in the grant making body and is embedded in identification of local needs. It
focuses on meeting those needs, rather than the priorities of the project applicant.
57
At this stage in the FST programme, we have observed the value of a local process (para
12.3 on). It is a good model for areas of disadvantage because it enables moves towards
local action in ways that empower local people by ensuring they are part of the solution to
problems. Community groups can have ideas and then set about getting the money.
Motivation and commitment are much stronger as a result. Furthermore, positive
outcomes accrue to the local community, strengthening satisfaction with achievements.
Development of this sensitive approach to grant making in small neighbourhoods is, in
itself, an important legacy from the FST programme.
58
Benefits from the use of such an approach would apply in a range of settings, and not
solely in areas of disadvantage, though it would necessarily need tuning to local
circumstances. The evaluation results are emerging at an opportune time, because Fair
Share experiences have a wider contribution to make to the successful implementation of
recent government initiatives at the local level. The FST model is exactly the type of
innovative yet proven, partnership-based yet locally rooted, format for managing local
funds that empowerment initiatives need as a matter of urgency.
Action needed in the FST programme
59
Our findings from this evaluation suggest that many local Agents and local Panels could
further enhance the achievements of the FST by investing resources and effort in
communicating more widely and more effectively with the wider local communities in FST
neighbourhoods and beyond (para 12.32 on). This is partly in order to better meet needs
for local accountability. It is also about refreshing and revitalising the programme by
reaching out to new groups and interests. This would extend the programme’s success in
building capacity and enabling growth in the confidence and experiences which underpin
social capital.
60
The FST programme is over half way through. The evaluation perspective is that now
would be a good time for a more comprehensive local review of where the programme
has got to, how the Panel feels about achievements, and consulting/communicating with
the wider local community to show-case achievements, publicise the game plan for the
second half, and generate support for (and modifications to) that game plan.
xx
61
Local Agents and Panels could also use a review to consider the current spread of grant
recipients in their neighbourhood, and whether more could be gained for long term
sustainability through awards to new and inexperienced groups, with linked capacity
building.
62
Now is the time to work nationally and locally to build sustainability and create clear exit
strategies. There is experience to draw on from Scotland, where planning has been going
on for some time to prepare for the closure of the programme there in 2010, and the CFN
guidance on sustainability will be available shortly. Exit strategy planning needs to
consider what happens when all the funding is spent, the continuing role of local Panels
(or not), and the impacts of local Agents no longer being able to provide the level of
support they have been making available through the FST programme.
63
It would also be very helpful to increase collaboration between local projects, building on
the local review mentioned above. That review would enable the projects to find
opportunities for joint working that could increase the value of their activities but it would
also be valuable for the projects to identify the wider learning from their experience to feed
into improved local services, facilities and activities in the longer term.
Lessons for future funding programmes
64
The evaluation has revealed a number of lessons from the experience of the FST
programme (para 12.38 on). At the national programme level, overall objectives need to
be very clear but also very high level, so there is full scope for local innovation, flexibility
and relevance to local circumstances, within a clear set of aims that provide strategic
direction and inspiration.
65
It takes time and a significant investment of resources to build capacity and community
involvement. However, a programme of funding that includes those features has
enormous additional benefits in terms of relevance of local projects, as well as building
local skills and confidence, social capital, sustainability and resilience. The 'process' of
involvement is as important as the 'product' of funded projects.
66
A ‘local’ pot of money ensures that local community groups feel that the money is 'theirs'
and that they have as much chance of getting their projects funded as larger, more
experienced, organisations. This can increase the 'reach' of the programme into those
parts of the community previously excluded from conventional programmes.
67
Processes of procurement that emphasise commissioning around an understanding of
local needs and negotiation between applicants result in more appropriate local projects
that fit within local priorities and meet local needs, as well as resulting in more robust
projects because they have been through a process of challenge and revision. These
forms of project 'procurement' rather than conventional grant application processes may
be good models for the future.
68
Community involvement needs to build on people's existing interests and willingness to
participate. It is important that decision making groups (e.g. the FST Panels) attract a
xxi
good mix of local interests, particularly local residents who understand and are motivated
to improve their areas.
69
Future funding programmes that include community involvement need to ensure there is
sufficient and appropriate support and resources. The FST programme suffered in the
early days from having underestimated the need and demand for support (from local
Agents, community development workers etc), and is now benefiting from investing more
heavily in these support services.
70
Decision making on grant applications and getting funding to projects can be streamlined
and therefore quicker and easier if there is significant investment of time and money at the
beginning of the process to build the appropriate community involvement and
understanding of the processes. Early 'upstream' investment of time and money can result
in real savings later in managing funding programmes.
Next steps for evaluation
71
This is the final report of this evaluation (para 12.45 on). Many of the changes hoped for
from Fair Share take time to emerge, and the findings in this report are necessarily
provisional. It is hoped that BIG and CFN will continue to evaluate the initiative so that a
fuller range of outcomes can be observed and conclusions more fully justified. Not least,
the question of ‘lasting’ impacts needs to be explored.
72
In any future evaluations, it will be important to closely link monitoring, learning and
evaluation activities, so that these activities become mutually reinforcing while reducing
the burden on those providing data (especially local Agents). It would also be beneficial to
increase opportunities for sharing and reflecting on experience so that knowledge about
this approach continues to be better and more widely understood.
xxii
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Part one:
Context for the Fair Share initiative
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
1
2
Introduction
Background to the programme
1
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Chapter one: Introduction
Setting the scene
1.1
The Fair Share Trust (FST1) programme tackles a vexed issue: namely, that there are
areas which do not get their ‘fair share’ of the Lottery funding which goes to good causes2.
The programme is much more than a temporary redistribution of resources in response to
the issue. It aims to bring about lasting change in the target areas, increasing their ability
to win Lottery and other funding in the future.
1.2
The FST is a £50 million programme funded by the Big Lottery Fund (BIG). BIG’s mission
is to bring about real improvements in communities and in the lives of people most in
need. Fair Share neighbourhoods combine poor performance in getting Lottery awards
with high levels of deprivation. Whilst their characteristics vary, there is heavy
representation of weak partnership working within and between statutory and voluntary
sectors, under-developed infrastructure in the voluntary and community sector and, in
some locations, a strong dependency culture3.
1.3
The FST programme responds to the needs of these local communities. It is a new
delivery model for grant making by Lottery distributors. The resulting programme is subtle
and ambitious, and is challenging to all involved in its delivery.
1.4
The programme works with the grain of local community activity. It engages local people
in the task of identifying local needs and priorities, it involves local residents and the
representatives of local organisations in grant making, and it nurtures and promotes
relationships that operate at the local level. As later chapters show, it does this in ways
which can build capacity in local organisations and strengthen links in the local
community(ies). At its best, the whole is truly more than the sum of the parts.
Distinguishing features
1.5
Some features of the programme are used in other grant programmes. However, the Fair
Share model is entirely distinctive – and perhaps unique – because of its introduction of
novel features and their combination in a single programme. The most important are:
• It is a devolved programme, in that BIG has put the Fair Share budget of £50 million into
an independent Trust fund administered by the Community Foundation Network (CFN).
In their turn, CFN have delegated delivery at the local level to local Agents.
• It covers a period of 10 years, except for Scotland where it will have been seven.
• In many locations, it is targeting very small neighbourhoods.
• For programme beneficiaries, there is a local, ring-fenced ‘pot’ of money; decisions on
how the money is to be spent are made locally, with the involvement of local people.
• It is a ‘process’ programme, by which we mean that processes used to identify projects
for funding and ensure appropriate delivery are as important as the projects themselves.
Both processes and projects have outcomes of value to the FST programme.
1
2
3
A list of acronyms used in this report can be found at the end of the table of contents.
Fair Share areas were defined by the Community Fund and the New Opportunities Fund (later merged to form BIG). Data on
access to funding was based on Lottery funding averaged across all distributors. The other main factor taken into account was
levels of deprivation.
Fair Share evaluation, First full report, August 2005 www.biglotteryfund.org.uk
2
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
• It was initiated by an external, non-governmental funder able to set the terms of
reference, yet it aimed to operate in collaboration with local authority partners. Not all
local authorities wanted to be part of the programme but BIG was able to continue
because it lies within their remit to decide where their funding is to be spent.
Experimentation and risk
1.6
BIG is one of few bodies able to fund work which explores alternative pathways to grant
making on this scale. Without a commitment to innovation, new approaches cannot be
investigated and new things achieved. It is because of this that a programme like Fair
Share is so important. It is therefore a cause for celebration in this report that the parties
to the FST have been willing to engage in an approach which took them beyond their
normal ways of working, and that local communities (by and large) are responding so
positively.
Terms used in the evaluation report
1.7
The programme is addressing disadvantage, community engagement and capacity
building. A number of interlinking concepts underpin the changes that BIG is hoping to see
as a result of Fair Share, and are used in this report4. The most important are5:
• Capacity building: Activities, resources and support that strengthen the skills and
abilities of people, groups and organisations to take effective action.
• Community development: The process of providing help and advice to communities to
bring about social change and justice by working with them to enable them to identify
their needs, plan their next steps, take action and evaluate the results, all in ways that
challenge oppression and tackle inequalities.
• Community engagement: The provision of opportunities for communities (individuals
and groups) to give their views and/or take part in wider projects and programmes that
affect their well being.
• Community empowerment: The giving of confidence, skills and power to communities to
shape and influence what public bodies do with or for them6.
• Social capital: Features of social life - networks, norms and trust - that enable
participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives7.
• Sustainability: In this report, sustainability is used to mean long term and lasting change
for the better, as in a long lasting capacity to meet people’s needs.
1.8
The commentary in annex 2 reveals a lack of clarity over some of the terms, and
unresolved challenges in making them work. It is tempting to avoid their use, but this
proved impossible given our brief and the context in which we are working.
1.9
Finally on the topic of terms, throughout this report, ‘neighbourhood’ is used to refer to
areas that receive FST programme funding. The term was adopted in the setting up
phase of the FST, and is a designation meaning eligibility for grant aid. It does not imply a
local area where the community is cohesive. In practice, some of the neighbourhoods do
perceive themselves as a single community and may be cohesive. Others contain, for
example, more than one housing estate where residents of one estate regard themselves
4
5
6
7
A discussion of these concepts can be found in Annex 2.
These definitions are based on the Glossary in the Community Power Pack. Real people. Real power. DCLG, London, July
2008.
This definition comes from An Action Plan for Community Empowerment, DCLG, 2007.
Robert Putnam, quoted in Prove It, New Economics Foundation, June 2000.
3
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
as quite distinct from residents of another, or are rural and diffuse, or regard themselves
as part of a wider urban community characterised by diversity. This means that the FST
approach is being used in a variety of different contexts.
Evaluation of the programme
1.10 The social agenda has changed extensively since the establishment of the FST, and
lessons from the evaluation are relevant in a range of unanticipated ways, for example to
the Government’s agenda for participatory budgeting and community empowerment. The
programme creates opportunities for learning for BIG as the initial funder, for CFN and the
local Agents as the grant administrator/makers, and for a wide range of other parties
amongst grant makers, the voluntary sector and government at local and national levels.
1.11 Evaluation is important to BIG. The evaluation terms of reference are in annex 3. The
principal sources of empirical data are intended to provide both depth and breadth:
• Case studies in eleven Fair Share neighbourhoods: Ten in-depth case studies have
been carried out over a period of four years, and have involved face-to-face interviews
and workshops with the local Agent, the local Panel, projects that have been funded
through the FST, and other interested parties such as local community development
workers and the local authority. They have involved three phases of work, giving the
evaluation team an in-depth picture of programme evolution. The remaining case study
has been looked at only in this round of evaluation, to understand their approach to
capacity building. The evaluation team has remained the same throughout the study,
enabling us to track changes and develop an understanding of the FST process in
action.
• A survey of local Agents: The survey was done using a self-completion approach in
autumn 2008. There was a 72% response rate, which is sufficiently large to enable
general conclusions to be drawn based from the sample, and provides a broad picture
of the work of the FST to set alongside the depth of the case studies. Wherever data is
presented in this report, it can be assumed that it is taken from the survey, unless
specified otherwise.
1.12 The framework for the evaluation is provided by the objectives of BIG for Fair Share.
Indicators of change linked to these objectives are in annex 3.
1.13 Five years of the programme have now elapsed. Many of the changes hoped for from the
programme will take time to emerge. It is, therefore, very much hoped that BIG and CFN
will continue to evaluate the initiative so that a fuller range of outcomes can be observed,
and conclusions can be more fully justified. In some ways, and in some places more than
others, the programme is still at a relatively early stage. There is still a great deal to learn
from Fair Share as the programme continues over the coming years.
Report structure
1.14 The report is in four parts:
• Part one: Introductions and background.
• Part two: Fair Share processes, covering choice of neighbourhoods, the Fair Share
‘model’, the Panel approach, needs and priorities, and project procurement.
• Part three: Outcomes from the FST programme, which covers project activity, success
with funding, and the building of capacity and social capital.
4
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
• Part four: Reflections on the Fair Share legacy.
1.15 A busy reader, or a reader who is less interested in process, can go straight from part one
to part three in order to find out what the programme is achieving and the implications for
future grant making.
1.16 The Main Report is accompanied by two supporting volumes which contain evidence to
support the findings:
• Volume 1: report of survey
• Volume 2: annexes.
5
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Chapter two: Background to delivery of the Fair Share Trust programme
Scope of chapter
The purpose of this chapter is to look at a number of threads which form the background to
the programme. They include the origins of the programme, its aims, the funding context,
and arrangements for delivery.
Summary of key findings
• The Fair Share initiative grew out of a number of developments which focused on making
Lottery funding for 'good causes' more equitable and more effective.
• It also responds to aspirations in the voluntary and community sector (VCS) for longer term
funding.
• Since creation of the programme, the funding context has deteriorated for the VCS.
• Delivery of the Fair Share Trust programme is through a charitable Trust managed by the
Community Foundation Network and delivered at the local level through local Agents.
• Arrangements for delivery differ across England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. All
involve funding of local projects in a local neighbourhood through a ring-fenced pot of
money.
• Choice of local authority areas to be involved in the Fair Share Trust Programme lay with
BIG, but identification of the smaller local neighbourhoods was done by the Local Strategic
Partnership (or similar) in the area.
• In a relatively small number of areas, the choice of neighbourhoods has created a legacy of
ill feeling, and sometimes disinterest amongst some of the partner organisations including
the local authority and parts of the local community. Fair Share local Agents have to work
to overcome this.
• Future programmes of an innovative nature should delay public announcements of launch
until such time as delivery can start in a speedy and co-ordinated manner, with full
understanding of what is proposed on the part of the relevant parties.
Origins of the programme
2.1
Two main drivers shaped the Fair Share initiative8. The first was pressure on government
and Lottery distributors (e.g. from local Members of Parliament) to address a social justice
issue, namely that some areas were not getting an equitable share of funding from the
Lottery good causes. Changes in approaches to distribution were deemed necessary9, and
the Fair Share focus on areas with a poor history of getting Lottery funding and a high
incidence of deprivation was one consequence.
2.2
The second driver was a series of interlinked developments, shaping ideas about future
grant funding. The most important from the evaluation perspective were:
8
9
See Fair Share evaluation, First full report, August 2005, chapter 2 www.biglotteryfund.org.uk
Background to Fair Share, 10 October 2003, internal Lottery paper
6
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
•
Concerns that Lottery funding was not contributing to significant long term change
despite significant levels of spend. Furthermore, the short term nature of the funding
reduced its potential contribution to sustainable funding for voluntary and community
sector (VCS) infrastructure investment and, in turn, to effective local capacity building.
•
Moves by the then Community Fund to increase its effectiveness by focusing work
where it was most needed, by maximising impacts of grants through long term changes
in communities where funding is awarded10, and by an increased emphasis on outcomes
of projects. An 'investor' approach to grant making was favoured, defined as ‘funding
organisations with not only financial resources, but also management and technical
support. This support is focused on enabling nonprofits to build greater organisational
capacity and infrastructure via long term, engaged relationships with investees’11.
•
Work by HM Treasury on the important role of the VCS in service delivery and by the
Home Office Active Communities Unit on the need for capacity building in the sector.
•
An emerging view that communities should be given more say over what is funded in
their area (following experience in regeneration programmes such as New Deal for
Communities), which put pressure on Lottery distributors to consider their role in
encouraging and stimulating good quality applications from communities, in part through
developing their capacity to so do.
•
Finally, a long standing view amongst VCS organisations that longer term funding would
enable them to plan and deliver more effectively for organisational and community
change.
2.3
The Community Fund (CF) and New Opportunities Fund (NOF) - now amalgamated to form
the Big Lottery Fund (BIG) - were charged by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport
with the task of developing a Fair Share initiative. The new initiative sat comfortably with
their corporate aspirations to have sustainable impacts on the lives of disadvantaged
people, and gave them an opportunity to explore new ideas and approaches. After this
chapter, ‘BIG’ will be used to describe the Lottery distributor responsible for Fair Share.
2.4
Fair Share was seen internally as an important step change in Lottery fund distribution12.
The aim of the initiative was ‘to combine the equity of distribution with local decision-making
and sustainability of funding’, plus tackling the vicious circle of the ‘lack of capacity within
communities to work up projects and prepare bids’ which therefore fails to increase capacity
and confidence. Fair Share funding was seen as a ‘means to an end, acting as a catalyst for
communities to access further Lottery money and other sources of funding’. From the
outset, it was a move to a more strategic form of grant making.
Fair Share aims (objectives)
2.5
The Fair Share initiative had three separate parts. One was an open grants programme run
by the CF. Two were run by NOF – one a green spaces programme known as
‘Transforming Your Space’, and the other the Fair Share Trust (FST) programme. This
report addresses the FST programme.
10 An Evaluation of Community Fund Grant Making to Voluntary Sector Infrastructure Organisations, Sheffield Hallam University /
University of Brighton, January 2003
11 Carrington 2002, quoted in previous footnote
12 Fair Share - One Year On, Update for DCMS June 2003
7
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.6
CF and NOF jointly developed overall aims which set a common social agenda for Fair
Share. Each programme also had its own discrete aims. Table 1 shows both13 the overall
aims for Fair Share and the aims for the FST. These aims, which BIG refers to as goals, are
used in the evaluation as programme objectives.
Table 1: Aims for the Fair Share initiative
Source
Statement of aims
Overall aims
for Fair Share
(covers all
three
programmes)
• All targeted Fair Share areas will have received a larger share of the
total funding from the good causes (i.e. Lottery).
Aims for the
Fair Share
Trust
• Awards made under Fair Share have a sustainable impact on the
lives of disadvantaged people in the areas it targets.
• Projects funded by Fair Share should:
- be run by and for disadvantaged people
- develop the capacity of communities to seek, obtain and manage
funding for projects that reflect local priorities and needs.
• Build capacity and sustainability in local communities, including
support for community assets and planning, and involvement in
regeneration.
• Build social capital, including support for social enterprises, local time
banks, Intermediate Labour Market schemes and training.
• Improve local environments, enabling communities to make them
safer, healthier, greener, cleaner, better designed, more welcoming
and accessible to all groups (the liveability agenda).
Source: Specification for evaluation of the Fair Share initiative
2.7
In the evaluation specification, the amplification is made that the FST should ‘support these
goals by involving local people in decision-making’.
2.8
The specific aims for the FST are embedded in the Trust Deed between BIG and the
Community Foundation Network (CFN). The Trust Deed makes no reference to the
common aims, or to the amplification about involving local people in decision making,
contained in the evaluation specification. However, those concerns are widely reflected in
the way that the FST is delivered.
2.9
These are ‘top-down’ objectives applicable to the national programme. In addition, the FST
programme is strongly focused around projects which meet local needs, and there is a
requirement for each FST neighbourhood to develop local priorities to meet those needs14.
These provide ‘bottom-up’ objectives for the FST programme at a local level, each tailored
to the particular situation in the local neighbourhood.
The wider funding context
2.10 The early 21st century provided a relatively benign period for the VCS. In the words of one
commentator,
‘…the past half decade has been one of the high points in the last fifty years for voluntary
and community organisations….. European funding has reached a peak, new government
initiatives like the Local Network Fund, Surestart, Community Empowerment Networks (to
name only a few), have invested much needed resources into communities and community
13 See annex 4 for more background and discussion on these aims..
14 FST programme Local Agent Guidance Pack, V2, Feb 2006, Aims, objectives, outcomes and outputs, p3
8
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
organisations. Single Regeneration Budget schemes were starting to be led directly by
voluntary or community organisations. Statutory authorities and the third sector alike have
entered a new arena of building effective partnerships which require much collaboration
over how funding is allocated, and the ways in which the services which it funds have been
delivered.’15
2.11 At the same time, the value of the third sector was increasingly being recognised, and Fair
Share was conceived at a time when it could reasonably have been expected that the
positive environment would continue16, though it was known that contributions from some
sources (e.g. EU Structural Funds) would diminish. Instead there has been a significant
downturn in funding.
2.12 Fair Share is operating in areas where the VCS has been relatively unsuccessful in securing
Lottery funding. The VCS in these areas suffers disproportionately when resources
decrease as the organisations are not sufficiently large and well-established to compete. As
the funding context in which Fair Share was launched changes for the worse, it impacts
most heavily on the smallest and least competitive, which are the very organisations that
Fair Share is aiming to help. There are particular problems for organisations that succeed
in delivery of a first project, but then find great difficulty in securing continuation or
development funding. This adversely affects expectations that communities helped through
the FST programme will be able to win new funding.
Arrangements for delivery of the Fair Share Trust Programme
2.13 The FST is a £50 million UK wide programme delivered over 10 years (seven in Scotland),
starting in 2003. BIG chose CFN as its delivery partner. CFN represents the Community
Foundation movement in the UK. As the Trustee for the FST, CFN is responsible for
management and delivery of the programme, and uses its internal staff for this purpose. A
Protector has been appointed to ensure that the Trust is administered properly and to
protect the investments which make up the Trust Fund. The Trustee body distributes the
monies to the target neighbourhoods for FST funding.
2.14 In its turn, CFN appointed local Agents, operating under a service level agreement, to
deliver at the local level. These local Agents work with local organisations and the local
community to ensure grants are made and projects delivered. The aim was to appoint
Agents with good local knowledge and existing links to local organisations. Wherever
practicable, CFN identified local Community Foundations (independent, local members of
CFN) as the Agents. Where a local Community Foundation was not available, or was not
yet sufficiently established, other local organisations with experience of grant making and
knowledge of the local area were chosen, for example Cheshire Community Action and
Hull Cityventure.
2.15 Arrangements for delivery, and some detailed aspects of the programme, vary from
country to country (see table 2). Everywhere, the approach involves funding local projects
in a designated area (the Fair Share neighbourhood) through a ring-fenced pot of money.
2.16 Of the 48 FST neighbourhoods in England, 38 are managed by Community Foundations
and ten by others. Their experience and knowledge of their respective Fair Share
neighbourhoods are very varied. Each Fair Share area in England has been awarded
£861,000 to be spent over a period of 10 years.
15 ‘The funding language of the future’, fit4funding, The Charities Information Bureau, January 2006, para 1.1. Whilst this
commentary is made about the West Yorkshire sub-region, it is true across all areas where deprivation is high and regeneration
has been a strategic national and/or European priority.
16 See Annex 4, para A4.7 ff for further details.
9
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 2: Details of the Fair Share Trust programme
Location Programme details
Distribution of money1
England • £38.75 million
• 45 local authority areas with £861K each; 48 FST neighbourhoods2
Northern
Ireland
• £2.25 million
• 14 local authority areas; 49 neighbourhoods: allocations vary from £35.5K to
£455K
Scotland
• £5.75 million
• 6 local authority areas; 13 FST neighbourhoods: allocations to
neighbourhoods vary in a range from £500K to £1.5 million
Wales
• £3.25 million
• 5 local authority areas; 5 FST neighbourhoods: £600K each
Timescale
England 10 years
NI
10 years; the programme in any one neighbourhood is normally less than 10
years
Scotland
Initially 5 years, extended to 7 years (finishing in 2010)
10 years
Wales
Fair Share neighbourhoods
England • Local authority areas were the unit size for initial identification of target Fair
Share areas.
• Neighbourhoods are small areas within local authority boundaries, typically
covering one or two wards or housing estates.
• The norm is for one local authority area to have only one Fair Share
neighbourhood.
• 3 subsequently elected to divide themselves into two separate
neighbourhoods.
Northern
Ireland
• The ward level was the unit size for identification of target Fair Share areas.
• The number within any one local authority area relates to the incidence of
deprivation.
Scotland
• Local authority areas were the unit size for initial identification of target Fair
Share areas.
• Neighbourhoods are usually small areas within local authority boundaries,
typically covering one or two wards or housing estates, although several are
larger and cover wider geographical areas.
• Local authority areas are the unit size for the Fair Share neighbourhoods in
Wales; this has remained the scale of operation throughout.
Local Agents
England One Agent for each neighbourhood.
Wales
NI
One local Agent covers all of the Northern Ireland neighbourhoods.
Scotland
One local Agent covers all of the Scotland neighbourhoods.
Wales
One local Agent covers all of the Wales neighbourhoods.
10
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Panel arrangements
England One Panel for each Fair Share neighbourhood. Where the neighbourhood has
formally divided itself into 2, there are separate Panels for each except in
Basildon, which operates with a single Panel for two areas.
1
2
NI
One Panel. Local Steering Groups supplement the Panel at the local level.
Scotland
One Panel for each Fair Share neighbourhood.
Wales
One Panel for each Fair Share neighbourhood.
Distribution of monies across E, NI, S and W is in accordance with population distribution, adjusted for incidence of deprivation
In 3 local authority areas, the nominated Fair Share neighbourhood divided into 2. The funding was divided between them on a
basis agreed locally
2.17 In Scotland, the Scottish Community Foundation was appointed to act as the local Agent
in all Fair Share neighbourhoods. Allocations to Fair Share areas in Scotland vary from
£1.5 million to £500,000. The programme in Scotland was expected to have a life of five
years only. However, the original deadline has been extended, with an end in June 2010.
2.18 In Wales, the appointed local Agent was Sefydliad, now known as the Community
Foundation in Wales. Each Fair Share neighbourhood in Wales gets an equally sized
sum of £600,000, to be spent over 10 years.
2.19 In Northern Ireland, the appointment of the Community Foundation Northern Ireland
parallels the one Agent approach of Scotland and Wales. Other aspects are different,
however, in that Fair Share areas were identified at the ward level, with 49 wards in all.
The overall programme runs for 10 years, but at any one location is considerably shorter
(normally three years, though in some locations this is being extended). Allocations are
based on Lottery spend to date rather than an equal share of the allocated money.
Community Foundation Northern Ireland is well established, and regards itself as more
than a grant maker. It has traditionally sought to work face to face with grant applicants to
enable it to undertake capacity building as well as grant assessment.
Choice of Fair Share Trust neighbourhoods
2.20 With the exception of Northern Ireland, the initial selection of Fair Share areas was done at
the local authority level. BIG based its selection in England on past performance with
respect to getting Lottery awards (all distributors) and levels of deprivation (using the Index
of Multiple Deprivation). In Wales the same approach was used, though selection was
modified to reflect local circumstances, following discussions with the Welsh Assembly
Government. In Scotland, the local authority areas were agreed between BIG and the
Scottish Executive, again taking into account both Lottery funding and the Scottish Index of
Multiple Deprivation funding. Northern Ireland had already been in receipt of substantial
regeneration funding, and there it was decided that the local authority level was too coarse
for identification of areas in greatest need. A ward level selection of local authority areas
was therefore used.
2.21 From this, it can be seen that the choice of Fair Share local authority areas lay with BIG,
influenced to some extent by national governments. It was independent of the local authority
or others engaged at the local level in strategic partnership working and/ or neighbourhood
renewal.
2.22 Within the initial Fair Share local authority areas, the choice of the FST neighbourhood (the
target location for the FST programme funding) was as follows:
• In England by the Local Strategic Partnership or a local authority officer acting on the
Partnership’s behalf.
11
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
• In Northern Ireland it was not necessary because wards had already been selected.
• In Scotland by local authorities and/or Community Planning Partnerships.
• In Wales, the decision was made to operate across the whole local authority area rather
than in a smaller neighbourhood.
2.23 A number of problems arose from the early setting up of the programme. The case
studies17 and survey suggest two types of issues.
2.24 First, there are problems which arise from selection of Fair Share areas, and the resulting
local authority partners. Problems identified are:
• Some local authorities had not wanted to be nominated for Fair Share. There was no
prior consultation with them or mechanism for refusing to be a Fair Share area, and a
small number of authorities are thought to have felt that the money available did not
compensate for an impression that they were not doing their job properly.
• Some local authorities wanted control of the money, and/or were unsympathetic to the
idea of VCS involvement in its distribution. Based on the case study sample, we estimate
this at somewhere between 20 and 30% of FST neighbourhoods.
2.25 These authorities did not engage well with the early stages of setting up Fair Share, which
in some instances caused subsequent problems for local Agents, e.g. a legacy of distrust
which means that local authorities continue to be reluctant partners. Others have overcome
their initial reservations.
2.26 The second category of problems arises from the choice of the FST neighbourhoods. In the
great majority of instances (except Wales), these areas are considerably smaller than the
local authority area. The problems encountered include:
• Perceived or actual separation of the neighbourhood into parts which leads to competition
for resources and difficulties in seeing the Fair Share neighbourhood and the Fair Share
approach as something of benefit to all. This has affected about one third of case study
areas.
• The size of the chosen neighbourhood. In particular, too small an area can mean that
there is insufficient activity to generate the anticipated level of applications, and at least
one neighbourhood has had to expand its boundaries to overcome the problem.
2.27 Unlike the majority of other (if not all) area based initiatives, BIG was able to proceed
without approval or engagement of key local partners. In other initiatives this would
normally be seen to be a disadvantage, even to the extent of being a reason for not
proceeding. In the case of Fair Share, the analysis leading to the selection of Fair Share
areas prevailed. However, it is interesting in that it means that an approach to change at
the neighbourhood level was instigated in a range of neighbourhoods where the relevant
local authority would not necessarily have thought of working, or of working in the way
undertaken through the FST programme.
17 See annex 5 for case study details on choice of neighbourhoods
12
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The programme start
2.28 The wider Fair Share initiative began with an announcement by the Secretary of State for
Culture, Media and Sport 2001 and was launched in 2002. The initial phases took the form
of an open grant scheme, with extensive outreach and resources for support to applicant
groups. This was led by the then Community Fund. There were lengthy delays before the
endowment phase - the Fair Share Trust programme - was eventually set up in 2003, with
the expectation that it would run until 2013. Some local Agents were out in their
neighbourhoods and talking about Fair Share before the processes were fully agreed and
described in the guidance (first version issued July 2003).
2.29 A number of problems ensued:
• Some Agents talked to community groups and people who later became Panel members
before they were clear about what was to be achieved and how, resulting in
misunderstandings. For example, in Ashfield, misinformation from the local Agent was
compounded by misunderstanding by early Panel members. In consequence, local
groups in three housing estates thought that ‘fair share’ meant that each of the three
would get their own amount on which they could determine the spending, and that
division of the area into three rather than integration of approach was to be the way of
working.
• There was a gap in funding between the closure of the Community Fund element of the
Fair Share programme and the availability of funding through the FST local Panels18.
This meant that it was impossible to fully build on the achievements of the first phase of
the programme and provide continuation funding and support for some excellent work by
fledgling community organisations, and led to Agents having to rebuild trust in the whole
programme in some areas.
• Some Agents came under pressure to start spending FST money before they were ready
to do so because there was such a large gap between Fair Share being announced and
money being spent. In the Dudley case study area, for example, the Agent resorted to
finding money from other sources to do projects in the area just to retain local confidence
in the Birmingham Foundation and help them feel that something was going to happen
through the FST.
• Community involvement and capacity building were unfamiliar approaches to many
Agents. Without clear guidance, some were uncomfortable and lacked confidence in this
way of working. However, over time, almost all have embraced these approaches and
some have since developed impressive skills and experience in working with
communities.
2.30 BIG and CFN, together with the local Agents, were doing something new, so it is not
surprising that there was a long period between announcement and start of the programme.
But, like the choice of Fair Share neighbourhoods, it created a legacy which led on to other
problems for many Agents. The strong message coming out of this is that announcement
and delivery on the ground need to be better co-ordinated, and that links between
programmes of funding need to be managed to minimise disruption to the availability of
funding for vulnerable local community groups. In the case of the FST, this was not in the
hands of BIG, and there are important issues here for discussion with the Department of
Culture, Media and Sport.
18 Fair Share evaluation, Second Report, December 2007 www.biglotteryfund.org.uk
13
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Part two:
Fair Share Trust processes
_________________________________________________________________________________
3
4
5
6
7
The Fair Share Trust model
Community involvement and capacity building
The Panel approach
Understanding needs and setting priorities
Project procurement
14
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Chapter three: The Fair Share Trust model
“This is a brilliant approach. It is based around local people, and local people understand local
needs. The use of local organisations to deliver the services means that they are nonthreatening, and get to the hard-to-reach. Users feel that the services are really for them.”
Panel member, Ashfield Fair Share area
Scope of chapter
This chapter examines CFN guidance provided to local Agents about running the Fair Share
Trust programme. It then explores the range of approaches to delivery being achieved
under that guidance, and the role of the local Agent.
Summary of key findings
• A complex programme, which must be accountable both locally and nationally, needs
guidance on approach to delivery. This is prepared for, and provided to, local Agents by
the Community Foundation Network.
• The guidance has successfully combined a consistent framework for local Agents with the
flexibility which enables them to make local responses to local circumstances.
• There are differences in detail between countries and at the local level, reflecting the fit of
delivery to local circumstances. All neighbourhoods, however, mix meeting local priorities
with contributions to wider agendas for capacity building and quality of life.
• Fair Share is a ‘process’ programme in that the process is as important in producing the
desired outcomes as the projects. Running a programme like this is not easy, but an
important feature of the Fair Share Trust is that there is sufficient time to resolve problems
and develop local solutions. The role of the Agent has been particularly difficult in some
areas, but Agents are demonstrating the value of determination and patience.
• At the operational level, there is a need to review the setting up of the programme and to
record a series of ‘good practice’ steps to be used in any comparable programme in the
future.
Guidance on delivery of the Fair Share Trust programme
3.1
It is a substantial challenge to deliver a programme of grant funding which lasts up to 10
years, involves local people in decision making, is responsive to local needs, yet remains
accountable nationally for public money. For the Fair Share Trust (FST), this is done using
formal guidance (plus other support mechanisms) from the Trustee, namely, the
Community Foundation Network (CFN), to local Agents charged with delivery19. The
guidance was developed by CFN and covers approach to be used to delivery,
management, and financial reporting. Management and financial accountability are not
considered in this evaluation.
3.2
In effect, the guidance offers a ‘model approach’ to grant making20. It explains key
parameters in the delivery process and, within these parameters, local Agents are able to
19 The Fair Share Trust Programme, Local Agent Guidance Pack, version 2, Community Foundation, February 2006
20 The approach is discussed in chapter 4, Fair Share evaluation, Second Report, December 2007 www.biglotteryfund.org.uk
15
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
shape the programme to suit local circumstances. An earlier round of this evaluation21
found that a key strength of the approach is its ability ‘to combine a consistent framework
for local Agents to work in (which enables monitoring and accountability) with sufficient
flexibility to enable a local response to local needs. This ability of the delivery model to
adapt to local circumstances is a major strength of the whole programme.’
Key elements in the process
3.3
From the perspective of the evaluation, there are four key components in the FST process
that need to be understood. The way they fit together is shown in figure 1.
Working
with a local Panel
of residents
and representatives
of local
organisations
Identifying local priorities
for funding
Review after 3 and 6 years
Understanding local
issues and needs
Procuring and funding of projects which meet local needs
Figure 1: Key elements in the Fair Share process
3.4
Working with a local Panel The FST operates with a local Panel made up of people with
an interest in the quality of life in the FST neighbourhood, namely local residents and
representatives from relevant organisations in the voluntary, community, public and
business sectors (see chapter 5). If their role could be summed up in a sentence, it would
be ‘they put the local element into the FST at the neighbourhood level’. The Panel brings
experience and knowledge of the local area. It plays a key role in seeing that local needs
are identified, and that the priorities which provide the framework for funding decisions
properly reflect those needs. It ensures that local needs are properly considered when
funding decisions are made. It has the potential to be pro-active in matters such as
explaining Fair Share to the local community, attracting applications for funding,
monitoring implementation, and bringing together organisations to promote networking. It
uses its local knowledge to test out which projects best meet local needs, and which will
be deliverable given past experiences and the culture in the neighbourhood.
3.5
Understanding local issues and needs From the outset, work in FST neighbourhoods was
expected to be rooted in local needs. This was done initially through a Neighbourhood
Assessment Document (NAD)22. The very great majority of NADs were prepared by the
Local Strategic Partnership, or its equivalent, and set out the characteristics of the local
neighbourhood, for example in terms of indices of deprivation, and relevant local issues
21 Fair Share evaluation, Second Report, December 2007, para 7.1 www.biglotteryfund.org.uk
22 Fair Share evaluation, Second Report, December 2007, paras 5.2-10 www.biglotteryfund.org.uk
16
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
such as service availability. It was to be a ‘framework’ document from which the Panel and
local Agent could set local priorities, though in many instances NADs fell short of such
expectations. This was partly because the NADs were produced very early in the process
when nobody could realistically have been expected to understand the new approach
being developed and its information requirements. The flexibility allowed to local Agents
means that many have done later, supplementary work to research local needs (see
chapter 6).
3.6
Identifying local priorities Each Fair Share neighbourhood has been required to prepare a
Neighbourhood Priorities Document (NPD). The NPD contains the specific priorities for
the local area, and a budget for spending which uses the priorities as budget heads for
target spend. The NPD is linked directly to the NAD, so that the priorities identified by
local Panels reflect the issues in the NADs. The first round of NPDs covered a period of
three years. NPDs are also expected to include the means by which the Panel intends to
ensure that relevant projects are brought forward (see chapter 6).
3.7
Procuring and funding projects The process of identifying local needs and priorities sets
the parameters within which applications for grants are considered. However, the
programme creates opportunities which extend beyond a normal open grant programme,
and grants can be procured in a variety of ways, with involvement of the Agent, any
appropriate community development workers, the Panel, and representatives of other
local organisations (see chapter 7). The Agent assesses applications and makes
recommendations to the Panel. The local Panel then considers applications and makes its
own recommendations to fund (or otherwise). The final decision rests with the Agent and
accountability for that decision rests with the Agent’s Trustees.
3.8
A formal review process is incorporated into the model for England, Northern Ireland and
Wales, and appears as the fifth element in figure 1. The first review of priorities took place
three years after the adoption of the initial NPD, and in consequence the second round of
projects may have a different focus from the first.
Making the model work at the local level
3.9
The model offers guidance, but each FST neighbourhood has to make it work for itself.
How this is done varies from country to country and from place to place. Box 1 (following
page) summarises variations. Everywhere, the principal components remain the same,
with local Agents working in local neighbourhoods. In some places this is one Agent for
one neighbourhood and, in others, local Agents cover a considerable number of areas,
with the Agent for Greater Manchester covering ten neighbourhoods, and the Agent for
Northern Ireland covering 49 wards. At the same time, in Northern Ireland, there is only
one Panel to cover the whole region, unlike virtually all other neighbourhoods which have
their own Panels. There are therefore differences in terms of how intensively the local
Agent can work in the neighbourhood, and in terms of how dependent they are on partner
organisations to help with the Fair Share process.
17
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Box 1: Delivery in the four countries
England
•
•
•
•
•
45 FST areas and 48 FST neighbourhoods.
Size of neighbourhoods varies substantially, and goes up to several wards.
Each neighbourhood has its own Agent and Panel. Needs and priorities are determined locally.
At the outset, Agents’ knowledge of their neighbourhood(s) varied significantly.
Each neighbourhood gets the same amount of money, except where there is more than one
neighbourhood in a local authority area; then the pot gets divided between them.
• With 26 Agents working across England, there is a wide variety of approaches.
• Each Agent has their own style of working, different approaches to grant making, extent of
experience of working with the community, and valuing of community development work.
Northern Ireland
• Neighbourhoods are based on single wards, with several neighbourhoods in some LAs.
• Each neighbourhood gets an amount of money based on their population size and level of
deprivation; these amounts vary by a factor of up to 10.
• There is one Agent for all Northern Ireland; this Agent is well known at the community level and
is a key player in the development of ways of working in areas experiencing conflict.
• One Panel covers all the neighbourhoods, so projects depend on more local enabling support.
• In order to maximise the impact of the funding, the Panel has selected broad target groups of
young families (with a lone parent), youth, and older people, across all neighbourhoods.
• At the neighbourhood level, working groups agree a prioritisation of needs, and agreement is
negotiated across divided communities as to how FST funding might best impact on those
needs and most effectively benefit local residents by complementing other renewal interventions
being undertaken in the area by a wide range of delivery Agents.
• This is, in effect, a testing of a model for community planning, and has re-established
relationships that had been lost between one community and another.
Scotland
• 6 FS local authorities and 14 FST neighbourhoods.
• Some neighbourhoods are single wards or housing estates and others cover much larger areas,
including rural areas incorporating numerous villages.
• The budget for each neighbourhood is different, based largely on initial calculations of
deprivation; these calculations and budgets have been contested since the programme was
launched and has resulted in continued dissatisfaction in some areas.
• Each neighbourhood has its own Panel and sets its own priorities; in one, this is a ‘virtual
Panel’.
• One local Agent for all Scotland (Scottish Community Foundation).
• Local Agent grants officers chair local Panels.
• A specialist FST development officer provided initial support across all the neighbourhoods.
• The local Agent was relatively newly established when the FST programme was launched, and
was not well-known at local level, but this has changed over time.
Wales
•
•
•
•
•
5 FS local authorities and 5 FST neighbourhoods.
Each FST neighbourhood has its own local Panel and sets its own priorities.
One local Agent for all Wales (Community Foundation in Wales).
Each neighbourhood gets the same amount of money.
There are small numbers of local priorities (in most areas only one), and relatively small
numbers of large value projects getting awards; in two cases, schemes which had been
identified prior to Fair Share, and for which funding was being sought.
• One Agent across Wales with long travel times means local development work cannot be done
by the Agent and there is strong partnership working with local agencies.
18
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.10 Moving from the country to the neighbourhood level, variations between areas become
even more marked, though the basic formula remains the same. Local circumstances
shape the approach to delivery as much as the FST model. Box 2 shows examples from
two case study neighbourhoods.
Box 2: Examples of Fair Share Trust model in action at the local level
Ashfield
• The Sutton Fair Share neighbourhood in the small town of Ashfield, located on the
former Nottinghamshire coalfield, is made up of three housing estates, each of which
perceives itself as separate from the others; this perception of separation has created
challenges in both Panel working and grant distribution.
• A Trustee of the local Agent chairs the Panel and was himself brought up in the
Sutton area.
• The Panel is made up of representatives of three tenants and residents associations,
other community based organisations, and professionals from voluntary and statutory
sectors; some of this latter group are advisory members only. Panel composition has
been an issue throughout. It is kept under review by the Panel and the Agent.
• A number of Panel members come from organisations that have received FST grants,
and know how Fair Share funding works for applicants.
• A ‘community champion’ (community development worker) is funded through Fair
Share and has an active role in community consultation, identifying needs, and
helping groups to bring forward applications for funding.
• The Panel is fully involved in developing ideas for projects, in the choice of service
provider to be invited to make applications, and in the considerations of the resulting
project proposals.
• Whilst the Panel does not take the lead on developing Fair Share in the
neighbourhood, it has an important scrutiny role.
• The first round of project funding focused on projects for young people; all these are
separate projects but the providers are learning to know each other better, and are
coming together in the interests of the young people and future provision for them.
• In the second round of funding there has been a wide group of targets. The Agent
has paired projects so that experienced voluntary sector organisations work with
newer, less experienced groups, and thereby hoping to build the capacity of the latter.
South Lanarkshire rural areas
• South Lanarkshire has two FST neighbourhoods; the rural areas cover a large area of
isolated villages/ small towns, with a mix of coal mining, former heavy industrial areas
and new commuter villages for Edinburgh and Glasgow.
• The local Agent chairs and provides the secretariat for the Panel.
• The Panel is made up of local residents who are active in local organisations, and
professionals from the public, private and voluntary sectors.
• Project funding has focused mainly on building up new and often very small
grassroots groups so they get a foothold on the funding ladder, and on building
support infrastructure (e.g. resource centres, training) as well as funding.
• The Panel has developed to work very coherently. Bringing together such
geographically separated local groups in a single Panel has helped create a better
sense of identity for the area as a whole, while maintaining and strengthening the
individual identity of local towns and villages (project funding has helped with this).
• The Panel includes individuals from groups running the main projects (including the
CVS) so there is a very detailed knowledge among Panel members of what the FST
programme is achieving overall as well as through individual projects. These links and
networks are enhanced by the CVS, which has operated in the area for many years
and is very well known and respected.
19
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.11 These two neighbourhoods are based in very different areas – one a town and the other a
large, rural area. They have in common their commitment to funding projects that meet
local needs, and are successfully building linkages between organisations in the
community and voluntary sectors at the grass roots level. They show that the FST
process can be very ‘joined-up’, bringing together community action at the most local level
with broader strategic priorities through the oversight of the local Panel. The Panel has the
pivotal role, linking strategic local planning for funding investment (through very targeted
grants, based on solid assessments of local needs and priorities) with national priorities for
capacity building and improved quality of life. This mix of fine grain local targeting (with
local involvement in decision making which builds capacity through experience) with
national strategic objectives seems to the evaluators to be a rare achievement.
Role of local Agent
3.12 The evaluation focus is on the programme's outcomes and processes, which are
significantly affected by how local Agents perceive their role. Amongst Agents, there is a
wide variation in views about what the role entails. They include:
• Leadership, with some Agents taking a strong line about all matters including process,
timetable and direction of travel, including sometimes a clear vision of what the money
should be spent on and what the FST legacy should be.
• Enabling others to shape the local agenda, and involve local people directly in decision
making.
• Good grant making and management.
• Direct involvement of the local Agent in capacity building.
3.13 The evaluation team has observed from the case studies that a particular problem centres
on how far local Agents should be pro-active. In Basildon, for example, part of the reason
for slow take-up of funding is the wish of the Agent not to take too strong a leadership role.
It needs to be remembered, however, that there are still more than four years to run on the
programme, and the role of the Panel (and the Agent) will continue to evolve. In some
cases, these relationships and activities are still at a relatively early stage of development.
3.14 Fair Share is working in areas commonly characterised by a lack of community
infrastructure. Agents could anticipate that helping to set up new organisations and/or
nurture existing capacity was part of the work of the FST. The need to manage
relationships between organisations and individuals may have been less obvious.
Understanding the hierarchy of influential people, the role of local politicians, and past
conflicts within the community requires local knowledge which Agents did not all possess,
although some tapped the knowledge of others who work in and with the community.
3.15 Much is dependent on the attitude and approach of the Agent. Work at the community
level, sometimes dealing with experienced community activists, can be emotionally
demanding and difficult. A local Agent needs to be good at explaining things, to have
experience in nurturing and encouraging people, and to possess strength, determination
and patience. An outstanding example of the results of this approach is in box 3.
20
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Box 3: The local Agent in Northern Ireland
The Community Foundation Northern Ireland team has been quietly and persistently
building consensus and getting communities of different identities to come together to
negotiate how FST will operate in their neighbourhoods. The two key staff have worked
hard at the task, and developed an approach which provides valuable lessons. The
forthcoming reorganisation and rationalisation of local authorities means that there will
be much more emphasis on local community level planning to identify needs and
priorities. The Fair Share Trust work, and the experience gained through it over the last
five years, has been enormously valuable to the major funders in Northern Ireland to
help them design (and feel confident about) the programmes of community planning
that will underpin the new governance system.
The results of the approach are evident in what is being achieved.
The significance of the Fair Share funding in Ballymena is that the three communities
(that had been isolated from each other during the Troubles) were required to come
together to negotiate how best the money might be spent on the target audiences.
Negotiations were difficult but eventually all agreed to use the monies for a similar
programme of events and activities in each ward, hence the similarities in project
details. People of all ages from two of the communities of Ballykeel and Ballee began
to visit each other again by being able to share in these same activities e.g. the knitting
clubs and dance clubs.
The three projects in Coleraine were developed during discussions between the
interested parties, which were guided by an independent facilitator. Whilst the groups
found this useful they were not supportive of being asked to work in specific wards,
some of which would not have been priorities for them or their communities of interest.
“It proved hard to get over the competitive mind set of the past between stakeholders
and potential applicants. Eventually we developed a cooperative way of thinking about
what was needed in the three wards and who might provide it”.
The level of cooperation achieved between the groups enabled one group to offer an
excess of funding to one of the others. “…the process was mad but very good….at the
end we were all pointing in the same direction…there was a good feeling in the room”.
3.16 Commitment is necessary, but insufficient. In one case study, we have observed problems
where the Agent is unclear over the extent of his/her leadership role and becomes too proactive. This has destabilised the FST process which had previously been evolving well. A
local Agent may work very hard, and with good intentions, but unless properly aligned with
the needs of the area and the priorities and hopes of the Panel, s/he will not optimise
results, and may potentially disrupt and even fragment the outcomes from the process.
3.17 Great care is taken to ensure that protocols are adopted which ensure that CFN’s
Declaration of Interests policy is followed by Panel members. These ensure transparent
and independent scrutiny of applications by the Panel (e.g. through Panel members’
declaration of interests, not voting on applications where they have an interest, and
leaving the room during discussions of relevant applications unless by agreement of the
Panel that they remain). To ensure complete transparency, these protocols should also
apply to local Agents. This may mean use of a mechanism such as a Deputy Chair to
handle applications where an Agent might be seen to have, or has, an interest.
21
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Process working is a challenge
3.18 A process approach, over a long period of time, is not easy to deliver. By definition, Fair
Share neighbourhoods are going to be difficult to work in given their relative deprivation,
lack of community infrastructure, and sometimes tensions, and the legacy of past
hostilities. These problems can lead to distrust, competition and aggression. This can be
between local community Panel members, or between those same Panel members and
professional members of the Panel (often the advisory members) and/or the local Agent.
Interchanges can be painful and wounding, especially where the Panel lacks an honest
broker figure, from amongst Panel members, able to mediate and re-build relationships.
3.19 For the Agents, the task of delivering the FST process is very demanding, especially the
start of the programme. It was often difficult managing a disparate, and sometimes
inexperienced, group of people on the Panel or a very challenging group of stronger
minded Panel members who wanted to run things in their own way and not follow national
guidance. There was a lot of staff turnover amongst local Agents and turnover in Panel
membership in the early days. Judged by our case studies, problems of stress and
unhappiness were strong factors in that turnover. The start up period (which was
prolonged) was an immense learning curve for a number of the Agents, some of whom
would have liked more support and training in the early days. Subsequently, CFN has
taken on a significant role in information dissemination, support and training.
3.20 Meanwhile, at CFN, running a process programme through a network of local Agents was
also proving difficult in the early days. More time was needed for support and troubleshooting than had been anticipated. Turnover in senior staff in local Agents resulted in
discontinuities. There was a need to clarify the Guidance (with issue of version 2,
February 2006), to introduce specific approaches to grant assessment (e.g., when dealing
with large capital projects) and training for Agents in related matters. This was combined
with work with BIG to clarify reporting and monitoring requirements, the extent of which
appeared to surprise CFN. There were significant pressures arising from these new ways
of working.
3.21 It is in the nature of FST work that the process is always evolving. The great majority of
areas have now settled down and found amicable and mutually supportive ways of
working. Indeed, this is a key strength of the programme. Our case studies suggest that it
is not always an even pattern of evolution. There are ups and downs along the way, and
some have progressed far more quickly than others, but the overall pattern is up.
Community-based grant giving has proved to be both innovative and challenging. It can be
anticipated that mutual support and learning amongst local Agents is likely to be needed
through to the end. It is important for Agents to continue to rehearse and discuss the
intended outcomes of the programme so as to remember the shared goals, and the prize
of communities better able to develop, with an improved quality of life and able to get their
fair share of the resources they need.
Evaluators’ commentary
3.22 CFN devised a model for delivery of the FST which is used as the reference point by all
local Agents. The model provides sufficient flexibility to permit its use in a very wide range
of circumstances, achieving a balance between necessary prescription and allowable
innovation. This was identified as a key strength in an earlier evaluation report, and will
continue to be demonstrated through the remaining chapters of part two of this one.
3.23 The four elements highlighted in this chapter fit together and form the core of the
approach. They are:
• Working with (through) a local Panel.
22
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
• Understanding needs in the local area.
• Determining priorities for funding.
• Procurement and funding of projects which meet local needs.
As presented here in a list, the last three may seem to be discrete. In practice, there is a
lot of iteration and learning involved in making the process work, and the early stages are
growing in sophistication as more is understood about local funding, local activity and
local responses to the opportunities. It is a critical feature that no part of the process can
be omitted. They are interlinked, and the evidence presented in the later chapters
suggests that the more joined-up the process, the better the outcomes are likely to be.
3.24 A common factor amongst the elements is that they each emphasise localness. The FST
programme is a strategic approach to funding at the very local level, in small areas. Most
of these are far smaller than the areas now used by many local authorities for what they
term ‘neighbourhood management’, (for example, the new ‘neighbourhoods’ in Bristol
average 28 to 30 thousand people.) The critical element that has emerged from this
discussion of the model is that it is local and is able to be highly locally responsive. Later
chapters show that this genuine localness – as perceived by local people, not imposed by
an external authority – really matters, and that it underpins many of the positive outcomes.
A lot of the above is important anyway but especially so for the later link to the
empowerment agenda.
3.25 The strategic aspect also matters. The FST takes a strategic overview of what is most
needed in each neighbourhood, based on an analysis of local need, and combines that
with delivery of Big Lottery Fund strategic aims with respect to capacity building and
improved quality of life. The mix of the big strategic picture and the prioritisation of the
local is a fascinating aspect of the programme.
3.26 However interesting as an approach, delivery of the FST began as a considerable
challenge for all parties at both local level and in the centre with the Trustee. It continues
to have ups and downs. However, there is a real sense of achievement amongst those
involved, and a perception that Fair Share is making a difference. Even in neighbourhoods
where difficulties are being experienced, there is an awareness that things have changed
for the better, and that there is still more time to go and more progress to be made.
3.27 An important lesson to be drawn relates to the length of time required at the outset to
establish an innovative community based programme and put in place the necessary
management and guidance arrangements. Our evidence on this topic comes from the ten
principal case studies and discussions with CFN staff. From those, our sense is that the
timetable adopted for the FST meant that some of this was being done once the
programme was up and running. A period best characterised by a ‘lack of clarity’ resulted.
There are many operational lessons from this, and we suggest that learning could be
consolidated through two brief reviews (done, for example, on a facilitated workshop
basis):
• The first is between BIG and CFN, to understand where and how early operational
difficulties arose between them, and to record an appropriate sequence of steps to be
taken in any subsequent programme of such an innovative nature.
• The second is between CFN and local Agents (probably on a selected sample basis) to
do the same at that level.
23
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.28 Agents, Panels and communities recognise that they are on a journey. In Scotland this
journey is nearly at an end, and elsewhere the neighbourhoods have reached a stage
where the end of the FST road is starting to come into sight. The need for all parties to
the process to plan their legacy and succession strategies is imminent. This moment will
perhaps be a major challenge for Panels, local Agents, local groups, and other key
partners alike, but is also an opportunity to be grasped. While this is not as brutal as three
year funding regimes (in which all of year three is taken up by planning the next bid), there
are already some in FST neighbourhoods who are starting to look at life beyond the 10
years.
24
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Chapter four: Community involvement and capacity building
"The main benefit is that Sale Moor Community Partnership is in a much stronger position and
is becoming more sustainable. It is also much more confident when dealing with strategic
partners. Fair Share funding of a development worker has allowed SMCP to concentrate on the
‘bigger picture’ rather than just being a forum for residents to express complaints about Trafford
Housing Trust or Trafford Council. The main challenge has been an occasional ‘blurring of lines’
between VCAT (the employer) and SMCP (they provide office space for the worker)"
(Community Foundation for Greater Manchester, Trafford - Sale Moor)
"The community development workers are our 'eyes and ears' on the ground. They act as local
animateurs and change Agents. They have skills, knowledge and abilities that contribute to the
development of the programme." (Community Foundation serving Tyne & Wear and
Northumberland, Seaton Valley and East Ashington)
Scope of chapter
This chapter provides a reminder of BIG’s aims for FST for capacity building and community
involvement, and revisits the concepts linked to them. It uses a spectrum of levels of public
participation to analyse the approaches being used in Fair Share for community involvement.
The spread of approaches and priority given to capacity building is then explored.
Summary of key findings
• Capacity building and, to a lesser extent, community involvement are integral to delivery of
the Fair Share Trust (FST) programme.
• Community involvement is done through work with the Panel, with local groups and
institutions, and through work with the local community.
• The work being done to engage local communities is characterised by breadth rather than
depth. It is primarily carried out through information giving and consultation. Involvement
of the community throughout the process is rarely to be found, and collaboration is limited
to direct work with the Panel. This approach accords with the guidance to Agents from
CFN. Whilst the legal position deters full empowerment of the Panel on decision making,
the way that Agents work with Panel members is empowering. Panels effectively make the
decision, but the Agent remains accountable for legal reasons.
• Direct capacity building is done through direct support for VCS groups, by support and
capacity building for Panels, by building relationships between VCS groups and with other
local institutions, and by networking and communications. Capacity is also built indirectly
through project delivery, networking between projects, and through new stakeholders
getting involved in the neighbourhood.
• Much capacity building work is focused on groups with the potential to make Fair Share
applications, though community development workers often spread their net wider to help
other groups.
• The priority given to capacity building varies substantially. In some neighbourhoods it is a
relatively narrow and focused activity which is essentially a means to an end (good grant
applications and project delivery). At the other extreme, there are a small number of
neighbourhoods where it is the sole or very substantial focus of the programme, with built
capacity being an end in itself.
25
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Introduction
4.1
Chapter three set out the key structural elements in the Fair Share Trust (FST)
programme. Two other dimensions are integral to the process: community involvement
and capacity building.
4.2
The overall aims of Fair Share are explicit that projects run by Fair Share ‘should develop
the capacity of communities to seek, obtain and manage funding for projects that reflect
local priorities and needs’. The FST programme should ‘build capacity and sustainability
in local communities, including support for community assets and planning, and
involvement in regeneration’ and ‘build social capital, including support for social
enterprises, local time banks, Intermediate Labour Market (ILM) schemes and training’.
The third aim for the FST programme (improving local environments) is not covered in this
chapter.
4.3
As the evaluation brief makes clear (para 26), ‘In addition, the initiative aims to support
these goals by involving local people in decision-making’.
4.4
This chapter examines the complex, and still evolving, concepts of capacity building,
community involvement and social capital in the FST programme.
Evolving concepts and priorities
4.5
When the Fair Share initiative was launched, there was a major social policy focus in
national governments on building social capital and strengthening communities. These
became key aims for the programme. Capacity building was to help build the skills,
confidence and abilities of local people to take effective action, and thus help create social
capital and stronger (and more sustainable) communities. Capacity building remains a
priority for the FST programme.
4.6
Other key concepts in social policy have changed over time. Current priorities in
government policy (2008-9) in relation to communities and local government are framed in
terms of community empowerment and resilient communities (similar to stronger and
more sustainable communities, but more clearly focused on dealing with challenges and
threats).
4.7
Social capital is less dominant as a guiding objective for social policy now than it was
when the FST programme began, although elements generally understood to be inherent
in social capital (strong personal relationships among local residents, networks of
relationships, bridges between different communities etc) remain important (especially in
relation to community cohesion). However, the implied links in the original FST
programme aims between social capital and economic development (given the examples
in the aims of social enterprises, ILM schemes and training) are much less strong than
they were, and the focus in any thinking about social capital is much more on social
development than economic development.
4.8
The concept of sustainable communities, too, has gone through a range of meanings
since the programme was launched. For some, this idea is still directly related to concepts
of sustainable development, where 'sustainability' is taken to mean an integration of
social, environmental and economic considerations, along with participation in governance
and with equity now and for future generations. Increasingly in government, and in the
FST programme, the term 'sustainable' is used to mean long term and lasting change for
the better (as in the sustainability of the voluntary and community sectors).
4.9
Definitions used in this round of the Fair Share evaluation are in chapter 1 (para 1.8), with
further discussion in annex 2. They are a first step in understanding the meaning of
26
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
complex concepts such as social capital, capacity building and community involvement in
the context of the FST programme. In summary:
• Community involvement is taken to mean the extent to which, and how, local people are
part of decision-making in delivery of the FST programme (e.g. as Panel members,
through consultations on local needs and priorities, and through more intensive
participation such as a series of workshops or even collaborative decision making).
• Capacity building is taken to mean the development of skills, confidence and abilities of
local people to take effective action. The extent to which capacity is being built through
the FST programme can be analysed by examining capacity building activities (what
has been done and is being done) including through community development work and
funded projects, and the achievements of those activities. In the FST programme, the
principal focus is on building capacity is to seek, obtain and manage funding for projects
that reflect local priorities and needs. Community development work is taken here as a
technique for capacity building (recognising that community development may have
wider aims), and that capacity building also links strongly to more effective community
involvement and the creation of social capital.
4.10 The aims of the programme focus explicitly on capacity building, social capital,
sustainability in local communities and community involvement. Yet these are rarely the
aims of local communities themselves. Project activities are defined locally in terms of the
needs of the community. They focus on the need to provide facilities for young or older
people, or play facilities, or improving health. Such tangible aims may result indirectly in
capacity building and the development of social capital, but concepts such as social
capital those are not generally the main reason the projects are a priority for local
communities and local Panels.
4.11 However, it is clear from the evaluation that capacity building and, to a lesser extent,
community involvement are integral to the delivery of the FST programme. They underpin
the success (or not) of the process in any neighbourhood. The extent to which they can
permeate every element of the programme is illustrated in figure 2.
Agents in capacity
building
Understanding needs and
wishes in local area
Working
with a
Panel
of local
people
and
representatives
of local
organisations
Determining priorities
for funding
Local Agent
Fair Share funded
community
development worker
Other community
development workers
Local Panel
Local authority
employees
Local infrastructure
organisations
Procurement and funding of projects which meet local needs
Other local partners
Figure 2: Capacity building and community involvement in the FST delivery process
27
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Spread of approaches to community involvement
4.12 In the FST programme, the main focus for community involvement in decision making is
through the processes associated with the work of the local Panels. This provides a
mechanism for community involvement in assessing local needs, identifying local priorities
and providing input on individual grant applications. The specific role of the Panels
themselves is discussed in the following chapters.
4.13 Community involvement through the Panels is secured in a number of ways, for example:
• Panel membership, with Panel members 'representing' different sectors of the
community or important local groups or institutions, or appointed and useful because of
their local knowledge and networks.
• Outreach work done by Panel members to communicate with groups/individuals that
may be interested in applying for funding, and to spread awareness of the achievements
of FST funded projects amongst residents living in the area.
• Discussion of ideas for projects with community groups and organisations, and work to
develop project ideas with their own group or organisation which they then put forward
for funding.
• Panel funding of a community development worker (CDW) to undertake outreach work,
either by funding a worker directly or funding a project run by a third party organisation
(e.g. the CVS).
4.14 Community involvement activities by Panel members vary, depending on who they are.
Local residents may communicate formally and informally with other local people, while
those who are local authority staff may be involved in community outreach and
development as part of their 'day job'. These activities by the Panel and the local Agent
have varying levels of influence on the decision making of the Panel.
4.15 We have analysed these levels of influence using the spectrum of public participation
developed by the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2)23, which develops
earlier work by Sherry Arnstein24 . The IAP2 spectrum is used widely in Government25. It
allows analysis against five levels of participation (see table 3 overleaf). The spectrum
shows growing levels of public impact on decisions, which move through inform to
empower. Use of data on community engagement activities from the survey of local
Agents allows the evaluation to draw conclusions about the extent to which local people
are involved in decision making.
4.16 The greater part of community involvement in FST neighbourhoods is around providing
information about the programme. The survey shows that local Agents in three quarters
of neighbourhoods (74%) are engaged in information giving activities (table 4). In practice,
we consider that all neighbourhoods are using the “inform” level on the IAP2 spectrum to
some extent. The spread of information giving activities uses a variety of approaches
(e.g. press, events) to get attention for the FST programme and provide information about
it. Information giving may not be a core part of decision-making, but consensus building
theory sees it as the foundation without which higher levels of participation cannot develop
fully. There is also information sharing happening with other organisations. The purpose of
this is to ensure that these bodies are kept up to date with the FST programme rather than
to promote collaboration in shared decision making.
23 www.iap2.org 2007. Details of the iap2 spectrum are in Annex 3.
24 ‘A ladder of citizen participation’ Sherry Arnstein, Journal of American Institute of Planners, 1969
25 Including by DCLG, Ministry of Justice, and Defra in their website www.peopleandparticipation.net
28
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 3: Levels of influence of community involvement activities
Level of
Example activities in FST neighbourhoods
influence1
Inform
(provide
balanced and
objective
information re
issues,
opportunities,
actions)
• Publicity and promotion to publicise FST activities and availability of FST
grants.
• Publicity and promotion to support Panels and groups by giving them wider
recognition.
• Advertising for new Panel members.
• Articles in local newspapers and distribution of newsletters.
• Holding Fair Share events or attending events run by others.
• Information sharing with community organisations, local support bodies
(e.g. CVSs), local authorities, and service providers (e.g. health authorities,
the police), about progress of the programme.
Consult
(get public
feedback)
• Consulting with, or researching views of, local people on needs of the
neighbourhood, and/or the priorities the Panel should apply in project
funding.
• Much relates to initial setting of priorities and the 3 year review of priorities.
• Includes consultation events (e.g. public meetings/workshops), and
surveys.
• Specific supplementary research on needs of priority groups (e.g. young
people).
• Consulting as part of project development work (e.g. consulting target
groups); in Wales, Panels may ask applicants to consult local communities.
Involve
(work with the
public and take
account of
their input)
• Deeper consultations with local communities to identify local needs/
priorities for funding.
• Includes workshops, with small working groups meeting several times to
identify needs and develop priorities for the future (specifically for the FST
Panel and/or with other local programmes e.g. regeneration programmes),
‘Planning for Real’, visioning exercises leading to action planning etc.
• Some Panels have invited certain groups to liaise with them directly over
needs of their target audience (e.g. on play strategies, or youth provision).
Collaborate
(partnership)
• Lies in Panel work to agree priorities, commission projects, consider grant
applications.
• Formal decisions on project funding are made by the Agent, but Panels
influence that decision to a significant extent.
• Differences of opinion between the Agent and the Panel over funding
specific projects are usually resolved through negotiation.
• At the outset, an attempt at collaborative decision-making with local
authorities and LSPs (and sometimes CVSs) in identifying FST
neighbourhoods and initial identification of needs.
• More recent collaborative working with local authorities, LSPs and other
local institutions tends to be through local Panels which include
representatives of these bodies.
Empower
(public makes
the decision)
• There are no activities that empower local communities in the sense used
in the IAP2 spectrum.
• However, there is a sense of empowerment among Panel members who
feel that, to all intents and purposes, they do actually make the decisions
on what the local priorities should be and which projects should get funded.
1 levels of influence are taken from the IAP2 spectrum of public participation and are described in annex 3
29
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.17 Nearly half of the FST neighbourhoods (49%) are getting public feedback through
processes linked to consultation. This relates to needs, priorities and specific local
projects. The survey of Agents suggests that this activity is particularly strong in Northern
Ireland and Wales. The case studies show that, wherever such work is being done, it is a
serious attempt to understand community views and priorities. Whilst the consultations
are not necessarily deep (e.g. they are not necessarily participative), the findings are
treated as genuine inputs to the decision making process.
publicity, promotion
and celebration events
through local Panel
work with community
and other groups
work through VCS
support organisations
work with LAs and other
partners
promoting partnership
working
capacity building
other
England
no
%
14
40%
28
80%
8
23%
12
34%
4
11%
13
37%
1
3%
6
17%
11
31%
35
N Ireland
no
%
5
100%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
5
Scotland
no
%
5
42%
11
92%
0
0%
3
25%
2
16%
3
25%
0
0%
1
8%
4
33%
12
Wales
no
%
4
80%
3
60%
0
0%
4
80%
0
0%
2
40%
0
0%
2
40%
2
40%
5
Number of
neighbourhoods
28
42
8
19
14
18
1
9
17
% of
neighbourhoods
49%
74%
14%
33%
25%
32%
2%
16%
30%
Nation
No of negihbourhoods
covered in survey
consultations and
research
Table 4: range of approaches used by local Agent to engage the local community
Programme
wide:
4.18 Local Agents and community development workers also work with a range of partner
organisations (table 4) to broaden the spread of information about opportunities relating to
the FST programme and progress with it. This enables a cascade of information down to
the community level, through organisations that have close links with local residents. It
also enables organisations to feed views back up to the local Agent and the Panel.
4.19 Whilst we do not have specific data, judged by both the survey and the case studies, work
on community involvement significantly diminishes after the ‘consult’ stage. We judge that
a considerably smaller number of neighbourhoods are undertaking in-depth, participative
consultations with local communities which are part of a developmental approach, and
which involve communities on an on-going basis. The information that we have suggests
that there are some Agents who are exploring new approaches to engagement, and who
propose to develop it further as the FST programme progresses.
30
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.20 Decision making is done largely through Panel work on priorities and projects. Whilst
Agents make the final decision, Panels have a substantial influence. It is therefore
probably fair to say that decision-making in the FST programme is collaborative, but that
the collaboration is confined to the Panel. Whilst the Panel includes local residents, it
cannot be regarded as collaboration with the local community or empowerment of it.
Community participation is through wider FST outreach processes which, as shown
above, are principally focused on information giving and consultation.
4.21 Consideration of community involvement also raises the extent to which the Panel
‘represents’ the local community. This is covered in Chapter 5, under Panel composition.
Spread of approaches to capacity building
4.22 Community development is the core process for linking the building of individual and
group capacity in communities with achieving community empowerment, a better quality
of life, and more effective solutions to problems in communities26.
4.23 Five principal types of activities are involved which are described in box 4. The most
common is direct support for groups in the local VCS. At a minimum, such support covers
an application for a FST award. It can include helping an organisation to get ‘fit-forfunding’, and support through the project implementation stage. Work with Panels is also
common.
Box 4: Approaches to capacity building in FST neighbourhoods
Direct support for VCS groups
• Support to develop projects and apply for FST and other funding.
• Information and advice at the pre-application stage.
• Support through the grant assessment processes (including ensuring groups are kept
informed of the progress of their application and any questions from the Panel).
• Support during project delivery (including help with monitoring).
• Advice on planning for project sustainability (including applications to other funders).
• Outreach work to help set up new community groups or strengthen inexperienced ones.
• One-to-one support, advice, and other information giving (e.g. help with forms, identifying
objectives and outcomes, preparing budgets, match funding, constitutions and governance
issues, management planning and project design).
• Small development grants for applicant groups to buy in specialist advice to help with
business plans or feasibility studies, or to get training needed to design and run a project.
Capacity building for Panels
• Team building and training on the role of the Panel; some Panel members resist ‘training’
because they feel they do not need it.
• Support for Panel work on identifying local needs, setting priorities, planning FST exit
strategies, role of community development, and decision making on grant applications.
• Tends to focus on Panel members who are local residents, but some involves whole Panel.
• Professional facilitation sometimes used to run workshops.
Building relationships between VCS groups and other local institutions
• Develop relationships between VCS groups and other local institutions and service providers
to support future partnership working.
• Build links between local groups and public bodies that will continue in the long term and
enable continued improvement in local services and facilities.
26 Achieving Better Community Development: ABCD Handbook, by Alan Barr and Stuart Hashagen. Community Development
Foundation, London, 2000. page 23.
31
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Networking and communications
• Bring local groups together to celebrate the achievements of Fair Share.
• Strengthen links between groups and build their confidence of groups to see their
achievements in the wider context (building both social capital and capacity).
• Enable exchange of information, development of mutual support, and exploration of potential
joint activity.
Indirect capacity building
• Successful funding applications and project delivery helps groups make better applications.
• Growing local confidence supports other groups to make applications.
• Fund and build capability in infrastructure organisations, and thereby increase capacity
building available to local groups.
4.24 Building relationships between VCS groups and other local institutions, and networks and
communications within the VCS are reported less often in the survey, but this type of
activity is likely to become more important over time, especially as groups and Panels gain
in confidence and start to look beyond their immediate activities, specific local needs and
geographic area. These activities have the potential to make a significant contribution to
sustainability of individual projects, and to the wider sustainability of local voluntary and
community projects and groups in the neighbourhood.
4.25 Some Agents are also working to increase capacity in their neighbourhood through
increasing the resources available. Examples include encouraging existing agencies to
work more in the FST neighbourhood (e.g. local authorities in situations where the areas
have hitherto been a low priority) or new ones to begin (e.g. the corporate sector). These
bring their own resources with them, and help develop links to other funders to boost
resources in the area. This is part of the culture of Community Foundations and may
reflect their wider remit of increasing resources for their areas. If so, it suggests an
additional benefit that Community Foundations bring to acting as local Agents, as they
may build new resources as well as managing existing ones.
Who does capacity building?
4.26 Capacity building work includes:
• Direct work by the local Agent working with the Panel, resulting in Panel members
having the skills, confidence and abilities to fulfil their role as Panel members.
• Direct work by a community development worker (CDW) with the Panel, which also
results in members having the skills, confidence and abilities to fulfil their role.
• Direct work by a CDW or others with local organisations to build their capacity (e.g. in
recruiting and managing volunteers, making applications, and forward planning).
• Panel decisions to fund projects specifically aiming to deliver capacity building (e.g.
projects to provide support and advice on fund raising among new and small community
groups; projects to contribute to sustainability of the VCS infrastructure, such as CVSs).
• Indirect learning in local groups and organisations (and sometimes more widely) as a
result of getting funded (e.g. a group learns that they need to develop business plans for
the future as a result of running their first project to receive major funding).
• Indirect learning through growth in understanding as a result of involvement in delivery
of the FST programme (e.g. the local Agent understands the practical benefits of
investing in community development work, or the CVS is able to better plan for its own
sustainability as a result of helping to deliver this programme).
32
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.27 Capacity building work is therefore done by FST CDWs, by Panel members providing
support (particularly, but not exclusively, for organisations they are already involved in), by
the Agent, and by other providers locally. Other providers include CDWs in organisations,
which may or may not be paid for through Fair Share funding, plus community network
workers, health authority workers, credit unions, Groundwork Trusts, volunteer groups and
the local Business Link. This range of suppliers of support and capacity building
illustrates how Fair Share is increasingly integrated into the local support structure, while
retaining a very clear identity around the Fair Share Panel and funding.
4.28 There are differences in the depth of support provided by CDWs and by, for example,
local Agents directly. CDWs, regardless of their employment arrangements, are able
(depending on their capabilities) to provide greater depth and to start at earlier stages including helping set up new groups.
4.29 Some of this community development work is general outreach and support to any
individuals who may want to form a group, but a significant element is also in helping to
develop projects that can apply for funding. If they want to run a project that does not fit
within the local FST priorities, they can be helped to apply to other funders. CDW support
focuses on identifying and helping to implement the group’s own goals.
4.30 By contrast, local Agents’ involvement in outreach is mainly promoting the FST
programme to local groups, through general publicity material, and through workshops
and events. Their in-depth involvement is after a group has articulated their ideas and
feels they may be able to apply for Fair Share funding. However, these are fine
distinctions that cannot often be made in practice as the motivations and priorities of
groups are rarely that clear. It is generally very hard to disentangle capacity building work
undertaken by the local Agent from the role and tasks of community development workers.
4.31 English Agents report a number of benefits from providing capacity building activities
through CDWs. In particular, the CDW provides a strong local presence and in-depth local
knowledge that is less easy for an Agent, who often covers a much larger territory.
Benefits of this local focus include being more available to community groups,
understanding and responding to their needs, and providing detailed, accurate and up-todate intelligence for Agents on changes in local circumstances in FST neighbourhoods.
4.32 Other benefits of funding CDWs include support for partnership working, especially
between the VCS and statutory agencies, as well as between funded groups, work on
community inclusion and engagement, providing a holistic approach to FST needs and
resources, advocacy for local people's views, strategic input on local developments, and
resources and support for local groups.
4.33 The main challenges in funding CDWs arise from a wider lack of understanding of the role
and benefits of CDWs, including difficulties of evaluating community development work to
demonstrate tangible benefits in ways that are meaningful to local communities and wider
audiences. There are also challenges around blurred lines of accountability and
management of CDWs.
4.34 The differences between the different countries in their approaches to capacity building
and community development which are shown in box 5 overleaf.
33
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Box 5: National approaches to capacity building and community development
England
20 out of the 35 local Agents responding to the survey said there was at least one CDW
employed in their FST neighbourhoods, and a further three were contemplating funding a CDW
before the end of the programme. Most were funded for three years, although sometimes with
extensions; a few have been funded since the beginning of the programme and are expected
to continue throughout. Most of these CDWs are employed through a local CVS or equivalent,
or through another local CVS body; two said the CDW was employed through the local
authority. Six said CDWs were employed directly and managed by the local Agent. Most of
these CDWs did also report to the Panel and/or attend Panel meetings to provide updates;
only four said that the CDW did not report to the Panel.
Northern Ireland
The Community Foundation Northern Ireland has provided extensive community development
functions themselves, as they have done for many years (before and during Fair Share). This
work has focused around brokering relationships between people involved in deciding on,
planning and delivering FST neighbourhoods, and includes liaising with other funders. It also
includes support and capacity building for groups and organisations delivering Fair Share, and
outreach and encouraging groups to apply to Fair Share (animation and promotion).
Scotland
There is also only one Agent for the whole country, so much of the capacity building is focused
on working through local Panels and funding for projects. Project funding has supported local
capacity building including funding a rural development worker to work with isolated local
groups who were unable to get to the main towns in the area to visit support agencies, to help
them identify and access training courses and funding; a community empowerment worker to
support the work of the local authority-led regeneration programme by building networks and
local capacity among local groups to develop and run projects; and two development officers in
another rural area providing one-to-one support for small and new groups who had little or no
experience of applying for funding and running projects.
Wales
Capacity building has been funded through project grants. For example, a play development
officer, based in the local CVS, has been responsible for producing a play strategy and a
business plan for its implementation, is now identifying groups and projects that can develop
specific projects that can go to the local Panel; a development worker is focusing on capacity
building in the voluntary sector, working with groups who are local service providers relevant to
the Fair Share priority for the neighbourhood, making links between them, and enabling the
partnership working necessary for improved delivery; and two funded projects in another
neighbourhood have employed apprentice CDWs and apprentice Youth and Children workers.
Their role is to work with voluntary and statutory organisations, building their capacity. The
apprentices undertake accredited training and also build their own skills and knowledge
through work placements.
Priority given to capacity building
4.35 Taken across the FST programme as a whole, there is a huge spread in terms of the
priority being given to capacity building:
• There are neighbourhoods where the very great majority (and possibly even all) the
capacity building work is focused on support for groups making applications for grants.
• There are neighbourhoods where capacity building is more widespread, is delivered to
all community organisations and groups operating in the area, and includes building of
the networks and partnerships which will strengthen the VCS for the future.
34
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
• There are neighbourhoods where the great majority of work being done under the
auspices of, and funded through, the FST is focused on capacity building.
4.36 This last category of priority given to capacity building is particularly interesting. The
additional case study done during this round of FST evaluation (North Somerset) is an
example of a neighbourhood with a strong capacity building focus. Box 6 on the following
page gives details of its approach. It shows a very strategic approach to capacity building,
based on strengthening a key umbrella organisation in the local VCS, and combined with
using a community development worker and funding for training to strengthen smaller
organisations.
4.37 Differences in priority are reflected in spend on capacity building, with some
neighbourhoods investing a significant proportion of their funding in it (including North
Somerset which, so far has spent all their funding in this way), while others invest minimal
amounts (or none) in this type of work. In England, the survey of local Agents suggests
that 20 of the 35 FST neighbourhoods responding are funding (or have funded) CDWs
and three more are planning to do so. The range of amounts of investment also varies,
with investment in CDWs in England ranging from three who are spending over £300,000
in total, to four who are spending less than £50,000.
4.38 Money is not the only measure of priority. An earlier emphasis on working through other
bodies seems to be changing as Panels and Agents grow in confidence and experience.
In particular, as Panels and Agents become much more knowledgeable about the needs
of their neighbourhoods, some seem more inclined to invest in capacity building and
community development work. Whereas some did so as a first step in their funding
programmes (e.g. Ashfield), others (e.g. Rotherham) have invested first in projects to
create visible improvements in the neighbourhood, and only now are focusing on funding
community development work. Overall, investment in community development seems to
be increasing across FST neighbourhoods.
Evaluators’ commentary
4.39 This chapter has explored community involvement and capacity building across the FST
programme, and has identified complex links between them. Community involvement and
capacity building have become key elements in the delivery of the FST programme,
despite not being identified as stages of the process in the formal guidance (other than
through local Agents working with local Panels).
4.40 There is ambiguity around the extent to which BIG was hoping for community
involvement. There is no reference to it in the objectives, the Trust Deed or the
Community Foundation Network (CFN) guidance to local Agents, although it is included
as an additional objective in the brief for the evaluation. This lack of clarity may help
explain the enormous variety of scale of activity, and priority given, across the UK to
community involvement.
4.41 Community involvement activity in the FST neighbourhoods is characterised by breadth
rather than depth. Probably all Agents are engaged in activities which provide information
about the programme to neighbourhood residents and partner organisations, and around
half are consulting local residents and/or local organisations about needs and priorities.
However, only some of this half consult in ways which engage the community over a
period of time and genuinely involve them in ways which lead to decision making on a
collaborative basis. As such, community engagement can be seen as an under-developed
component in the FST programme, with collaborative working between Agents and the
local community largely focused on the Panel. Sufficient time remains in the programme
in many locations for a greater emphasis on this work to emerge in future.
35
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Box 6: Capacity building in North Somerset (Quartet Foundation)
The FST programme in North Somerset is investing in the new CVS (Voluntary Action North
Somerset) and other local or sectoral infrastructure organisations. Hence the FST is providing
large scale support to a relatively small number of targeted organisations, with the aim of
increasing their capacity to address local needs and ensure their sustainability. Whilst the
principal focus is on activity in the Fair Share wards, the benefits are expected to be felt
across North Somerset.
If successful, this approach will result in stronger VCS infrastructure able to provide a full
range of services to local groups, enabling them in their turn to more effectively meet the
needs of their local communities, and securing a thriving VCS which has been sadly lacking
in the past.
The resulting grant making includes two very major awards (both over £100,000). One for
external, professional capacity building support to develop voluntary sector capabilities, and
the other to build the organisational capacity of Voluntary Action North Somerset (VANS), so
that they in their turn can better delivery their support and development work to the local VCS.
At the same time, very small awards are being made to enable local groups to get training,
and the costs of a CDW are being shared with North Somerset Council over three years to
work in one of the most needy FST wards, enabling key organisations to invest in their future
through funding strategies, development work with external partners and joint work with other
delivery organisations.
VANS is using its money to do three things: to strengthen their work on volunteering support,
to create an IT presence as a resource for FST neighbourhood groups, and to fund a
development worker in North Somerset. Already, the approach can be seen to be having a
strong ‘trickle down’ effect. They are finding that:
• groups are becoming more willing to ask for information and advice
• VANS are better at responding to such requests (e.g. on insurance, health and safety,
employment law, CAB checks), both through e-bulletins and outreach work
• more groups are forming, particularly addressing the needs of young people and the elderly
(and in consequence VANS produced a small groups information pack)
• groups are showing better understanding of funding and grant applications
• groups (particularly those in walking distance of each other) are sharing information and are
less isolated
• support networks are establishing, e.g. for people whose partners have dementia.
Benefits are being felt in many different ways, including by volunteers coming to VANS to find
out how they can help in the area.
“I came to Weston-super-Mare as I needed help coming off drugs… When I moved into a dry
house, I had a lot of time on my hands and wasn’t sure what direction my life was going. A
friend told me about the Volunteer Centre at VANS and I made an appointment. The lady I
spoke to was very friendly, and helped me find some voluntary work with Second Step, a
mentoring project which supports people who were once homeless, and have problems with
drugs and alcohol. This sounded perfect as I have lots of experience in the world of addiction.
“I had an interview with the project worker who explained what was involved. I had to
complete a few days’ training which I enjoyed. I didn’t wait long to be matched with a mentee.
The girl I was supporting reminded me of myself before I had given up drugs and our
relationship developed really well.
“My self confidence started to grow and my self worth too, as I felt proud of myself for being
able to share my experience, and support someone else. I had recently started a counselling
course – both the course and voluntary work helped build my listening skills and confidence.
I now feel like I have found some direction in my life, and would like to pursue a career in
counselling as I like supporting people who have been through similar issues as myself.
While studying counselling skills, I am in the process of finding some more voluntary work to
further my experience in this field.” (name withheld)
36
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.42 Capacity building, on the other hand, is well established. Other grant programmes do, or
have done, capacity building work with groups as part of procuring and processing grant
applications, for example the work of the former Community Fund’s own Fair Share open
grant programme and, to a lesser extent, the work of some of the Award Partners in BIG’s
Green Spaces and Sustainable Communities programme. The FST programme is,
however, distinctive in a number of ways:
• The breadth and depth of the work undertaken (pre-application, during delivery,
preparing for sustainability of the project or organisation).
• Who it is delivered to (applicant organisations, organisations who haven’t yet thought of
making a Fair Share application, organisations who are better off not making a Fair
Share application but who can be pointed in other directions).
• The length of time that can be taken to get it right, because of the time frame of the FST
programme.
• Its ability to tailor the capacity building work so that it is strengthening local VCS and
other groups to help them to develop their capability to manage Fair Share funded
projects to meet the needs identified by the Panel, as part of building/strengthening
capacity in the local VCS.
37
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Chapter five: The Panel approach
‘The local Panel is the key ingredient in this programme. It ensures that the programme is firmly
embedded in the area and linked into local strategy. They bring their local knowledge to the
table and act as champions for the programme throughout its life.’ Kingston upon Hull, Hull
Cityventure
‘The qualitative difference in the Fair Share Panel is:
• their involvement in the overall process from the beginning in terms of learning about a new
‘experiential’ grant making process,
• their commitment and passion for positive outcomes from the overall process,
• their ownership (and sense of responsibility) in terms of how Fair Share impacts on local
people and the community as a whole
• high retention rates for involvement and the comparatively high amounts of time and effort
they are prepared to commit to the programme.’ Doncaster, South Yorkshire Community
Foundation
Scope of chapter
The chapter discusses the role of the local Panel in the Fair Share Trust (FST) programme,
plus its composition and how that is changing over time. It explores successes being
achieved through Panel working and the challenges that it creates.
Summary of key findings
• The Panel brings local knowledge of the neighbourhood to the grant making process, in
order to determine local priorities and consider applications for grant funding. Some Panel
members take on a wider role through engagement with the local community and local
organisations e.g. by attending their events.
• Strictly, Panel members give advice rather than make decisions on funding applications.
However, local Agents have found ways to work which fully engage Panel members in a
collaborative process of grant making.
• Achieving and maintaining the recommended Panel composition has proved difficult.
Panels take seriously their role as a ‘local’ body and try to ensure they have a proper
balance of interests.
• Local Agents and Panel members keep Panel membership under review. Issues that recur
are problems securing the desired representation of local residents and of young people.
The balance of membership is evolving over time.
• Successes in Panel working include their serious commitment to the grant making process,
the local knowledge and experience that they bring, and their role with the local community.
The quality, range and type of projects that result are seen as a major benefit, together with
capacity building in the Panel and in participating voluntary & community sector (VCS)
organisations.
• Disappointments with Panel working include tensions between Panel members which
impact on Panel processes, difficulties in retaining Panel members’ commitment, and
insufficient effort on wider community communication and involvement. These are familiar
issues in projects and programmes at the local level.
38
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
• More than two thirds of local Agents with prior experience of working with Panels see the
FST approach to Panel working as better than others they have known. Reasons cited
include localness, local knowledge and experience, commitment to the local area, and the
ability to be strategic.
• The future of Panels is emerging as an issue, with some happy to disband, but others are
looking for a way to stay together and continue to contribute to their local neighbourhood.
Introduction
5.1
Other grant programmes make use of Panels. The Fair Share Trust (FST) programme is
distinctive in the extent of the role of the Panel, which goes beyond making a choice of
good open grant projects. FST Panels can be involved in a number of ways, including
setting local priorities and bringing projects together so that jointly they can make a
strategic difference, engaging in processes which contribute to building capacity and
social capital, and thereby helping to secure lasting gains.
5.2
Panel working isn’t easy. This applies to local community members who give their time on
a volunteer basis, to professional advisors who fit Fair Share alongside an already full
workload, and to the local Agent who manages the Panel process, which at times can be
very challenging. Furthermore, there are questions to be considered about the legitimacy
of a Panel to speak on behalf of a local area. Notwithstanding these problems, it is clear
from both the case studies and the survey of Agents that Panel work is very fulfilling.
5.3
Before exploring the issues surrounding the Panel and its role, it is important first to
remember the principal achievement, namely that disparate groups of people, each
bringing their own ‘baggage’, have come together, are working together, and have
become pivotal in a process which contributes to improvements in their own community.
5.4
When local Agents were asked in the survey about their overall satisfaction with Panel
working27, Agents for over 90% of responding neighbourhoods are either ‘very satisfied’ or
‘fairly satisfied’. Only 4% of Agents (2 neighbourhoods) are’ not very satisfied’, and none
describe themselves as ‘not at all satisfied’. Given the critical nature of the Panels’
involvement in the Fair Share process, this is a finding of substantial importance.
Role of Panel
5.5
The Community Foundation Network’s guidance sets out the role of the Panel as follows28:
• Provide local knowledge on the relevance of proposed projects for their Fair Share
neighbourhood and the community.
• Determine the priorities for the Fair Share Trust (FST) programme in the neighbourhood,
set these out in the Neighbourhood Priorities Document, and endorse non-material
amendments to them.
• Recommend approval or rejection of all applications made to the FST programme in
their neighbourhood, and ensure pursuit of the strategic vision in the Priorities
Document.
5.6
Within this framework, the more successful Panels have forged a considerable role for
themselves. They see grant awarding as the key element, but go beyond this by bringing
to the Fair Share process their knowledge of the local area and the organisations working
27 See annex 6 for more details
28 The Fair Share Trust Programme - Local Agents Guidance Pack, version 2, February 2006, para 3.2
39
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
in it. They can be involved in talking to local people, gathering views, speaking out for
them, and feeding back information on Fair Share progress to them. They are
knowledgeable about local community based organisations and other service providers.
Panel members bring knowledge of external partners and their current activities and plans.
Finally, they are involved in the task of setting and reviewing Priorities (see chapter 6).
5.7
The Panel ensures that projects funded using FST monies are good projects and meet
local needs. Meeting needs is the gauge against which all projects are judged. It is the
cornerstone of Fair Share, and has shown itself to be very powerful. Box 7 summarises
the way the Panel in Ellesmere Port and Neston described its role.
Box 7: How the Panel at Ellesmere Port and Neston sees its role
•
Making sure that projects reflect local needs and don’t duplicate existing services.
•
Engaging in the process of developing and approving applications.
•
Giving preference to projects that come out of local organisations rather than those
delivered by external parties, although this hasn’t always been possible.
•
Ensuring projects produce long-term, measurable benefits, a more vibrant voluntary
and community sector, and more successful applications to all mainstream funders,
not just BIG.
•
Providing ‘seed-corn’ funding for local umbrella organisations, e.g. the Ellesmere Port
and Neston Association of Voluntary and Community Organisations, the Volunteer
Bureau, and the Credit Union, to help generate new applications from new
organisations.
5.8
Strictly, Panels give advice to the local Agent and do not make the final decision on an
application, because this power is vested in the Trustees of the local Agent. In the early
stages of the programme, it seemed this might cause difficulty because Panel members
felt that they were not being given real responsibility. However, the way that local Agents
have since worked with their local Panels means that this has proved to be a continuing
cause of friction in very few places. Details of the processes surrounding project
procurement and decision making on applications are in chapter 7, including the ways that
Panels are involved in reaching decisions.
5.9
In the best cases, the Panels are fully engaged in identifying needs, working with the
Agent in terms of the sort of projects they want to fund, groups they want to commission to
do the work, and getting applications brought forward and negotiated. By the end of this
process, and assuming that the application is delivering what the Panel wants and that
appropriate considerations relevant to grant making are in order, then approval by the
local Agent becomes a formality.
5.10 One thing is completely clear. The Panel is a key part in a process which works to reach a
consensus on the application. It is extremely difficult to imagine any situation where the
local Agent would later take (or promote to the Trustees) a decision which went against
the consensus, assuming that the process had properly considered all relevant matters.
The evidence from the case studies is that the approach being taken to decision making in
Panels is a significant success factor in the FST process (see for example the section on
the Panel role in scrutiny).
5.11 In consequence, something that initially seemed as though it might be a stumbling block in
the Panel approach has not been so because of the way it has been handled by the
Agents.
5.12 Panels are also involved in the processes of priority setting and review. This is discussed
in chapter 6.
40
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.13 The Panel has an important role in linking FST to the wider community, but some Agents
feel that Panels could do more in this respect than they have to date. This is particularly
the case in raising wider awareness of the programme, gathering feedback, and
encouraging applications. There has been some suggestion that Panels may sometimes
act as ‘gate-keepers’, influencing the flow of information in ways that are not always
transparent, particularly where some or all members represent community organisations.
Panel composition
5.14 The Agent is responsible for appointing the Panel. Advice to Agents sets out a preferred
Panel membership29 (see box 8).
Box 8: Recommended Panel composition
Voting members
• Between 6 and 16 members (12 optimum).
• One of the local Agent’s Trustees to act as Chair.
• One representative of the Local Strategic Partnership.
• Four local residents (minimum).
• Representatives of local black and minority ethnic groups.
• Young people or someone to represent them where they are a neighbourhood priority.
• Representatives of groups and organisations with relevant expertise such as community
associations, faith groups, tenants’ and residents’ associations, existing local
partnerships, housing associations, police, schools, local employers.
Advisory members
Advisory members can be appointed to the Panel. They can contribute to Panel
discussions but not to Panel decisions i.e. they do not have voting rights.
5.15 Judged by the case studies30, this composition proved difficult to achieve at the outset.
Many Agents found themselves confronting an initial reality that a group of people of the
composition described in the guidance, who were willing, able, and between them fairly
representative of the area, would be difficult to assemble. They accepted that, in areas
like the FST neighbourhoods where levels of voluntary and community sector (VCS)
activity and volunteering are mostly endemically low, there is a finite (and sometimes very
small) group of people willing and able to engage in this type of activity. They properly
took the pragmatic route of working initially with whoever was willing, and adapting
membership over time. A number of the case studies began with only a small Panel, then
allowed it to grow.
5.16 The case studies also show that no single pattern of membership has emerged from the
Community Foundation Network (CFN) guidance. Each is shaped to local circumstances.
So, for example, whilst the same category of stakeholder tends to come up again and
again, their status on the Panel varies from place to place. Thus the police are voting
members of the Panel in Enfield, but advisory members in Bolton. Furthermore, getting a
good pattern of initial membership does not automatically mean that stability will continue.
A Panel is a social group and change and development are inevitable.
5.17 To get a better understanding of this, the evaluation survey asked Agents to comment on
their current satisfaction with Panel composition:
• In England, Agents in just under half of the neighbourhoods (49%) are unreservedly
happy with their current Panel composition; 31% are happy but expressed some
reservation, and seven (20%) were currently unhappy
29 The Fair Share Trust Programme – Local Agent Guidance Pack, version 2, February 2006, section 3
30 See annex 7 for details of Panel composition and changes in the case study areas
41
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
• in Scotland, the Agent is unreservedly happy with the composition in 50% of
neighbourhoods, is happy but currently has some reservations in 25%, and is unhappy
about 25% (3 in number)
• in Northern Ireland, where the arrangements are different, the Agent is currently happy
with the Panel’s composition
• in Wales, the Agent is happy in 100% of neighbourhoods.
5.18 The comments made by Agents show that, where the Panel is working well, it includes
local residents and representatives of statutory and voluntary sectors, some of whom are
also residents. This mix accords with CFN guidance. Between them, Panel members have
good background knowledge of the area, its needs, the organisations already working in
the area, and services being delivered there. Together, they are able to make informed
decisions.
5.19 Case study findings show that Panels themselves take seriously their responsibility to be a
locally ‘representative’ body which is able to act on behalf of the neighbourhood. They
keep an eye on ensuring that they have a proper balance of interests. At least two of the
case study Panels have worked through a categorisation of each member (e.g. as resident
stakeholder, community stakeholder, strategy stakeholder etc) and have looked for a
representative balance. In both instances, this led to a perception that there would be
advantages in large Panels but the evidence suggests that neither location would be able
to sustain such a mix. Because of an inevitable ‘churn’ in membership, combined with
changing requirements as the Panel pursues new directions for delivering its priorities,
there are continual needs to re- think current representation. Panel membership, and
attracting new members, is a regularly occurring item on many Panel agendas.
5.20 From both the survey and the case studies we can look at the types of problems needing
to be addressed. They are principally:
• Insufficient representation of local residents, which is proving difficult to resolve at a
number of locations.
• Difficulties getting beyond the ‘usual suspects’, particularly to get local residents who
are not affiliated to local organisations.
• Insufficient representation of young people, which is proving difficult to resolve in a
substantial number of locations; the problems relate both to recruitment and retention,
though two of the case study Panels now have two young people on them, who have
been attracted to a Panel role after participating in Fair Share projects.
• An over-representation of ‘professional’ Panel members from the statutory sector and
large voluntary sector organisations.
5.21 The Agent for one neighbourhood thinks that there are too many local residents who each
bring their personal agenda to the Panel. This view appears to be exceptional and
perhaps reflects the initial selection and the Agent’s interest in drawing value from
diversity.
5.22 Within the challenges above, perhaps the most important are the familiar community
development difficulties in attracting young people, and local residents who are not
strongly affiliated to organisations that already have a voice.
42
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.23 A particular sensitivity relates to the role of elected members. Most Panels have one or
two elected members, and in some case study neighbourhoods, e.g. Rotherham, they are
an important factor in Panel success. Elsewhere, there is a marked resistance from local
Agents and other Panel members to allowing them to have a dominant role, not least
because of assumptions by Panel members that this could give the local authority
‘perspective’ undue influence. We have no evidence to suggest that there is an easy
answer to the challenges that this presents since much depends on local circumstances.
It appears that part of the success of the FST initiative is its independence from the local
authority, and that Panel members win respect from their peers as a result of the personal
qualities and commitment that they bring to the table rather than the organisation they
represent. To be effective, Panel members have to be able to contribute to the consensus
building approach as an equal, rather than a dominant, partner.
5.24 Details of what constitutes the right balance of Panel members varies with the person
giving their view, but there is widespread support for a mix of local residents, local
organisations, and professionals whose work is engaged with the local area. Together
they need to ensure a wide spread of interests. In other words, the CFN guidance
captures the ideal Panel membership very well and the challenge is in implementing the
guidance on a day-to-day basis.
5.25 Our own view is that Panel membership matters because the Panel needs to be able to
speak for a wide range of interests in the area and to understand their needs, but that
there is no automatic formula. It needs sensitivity and flexibility on the part of Agents –
and constant vigilance by the Panel – to secure an appropriate mix. It also needs
sensitive management of changes in personnel over the 10 years. Our sense is that this
is generally well understood and is being pursued, though sometimes Agents appear slow
in making the necessary moves. It may be that ‘representation’ of the local community in
Panel composition is less important than ensuring transparency, openness and good
communications with the local community – or, in other words, that it is better to focus on
community involvement activities rather than community representation. In many ways,
no Panel membership could be truly representative without also being very large, which
brings its own problems (especially retaining interest over time).
Successes in Panel working
5.26 A valuable starting point in the discussion of how Panels are working is an exploration of
success in some of the best. Rotherham is an example of a neighbourhood where the
Panel works very well (see box 9).
5.27
A number of factors contribute to success in Rotherham. In particular:
• The Fair Share neighbourhood is a geographically coherent and well-established area
with a settled population and where the concept of ‘neighbourhood’ readily applies.
There have been no problems over the real extent of the area or different factions
covering different parts of it.
• Serious attention was paid to Panel capacity building, which was done by external
community development consultants working to the local Agent.
• The Panel is led by the views of local residents. The professional members of the Panel
almost all work in, live in and/or know the neighbourhood very well. There is no tension
between the resident and professional members. All Panel members enjoy good
relations.
• Panel meetings are informal but efficient, sociable (with cakes and chocolate) and highly
productive. People speak their minds and treat each other with respect and warmth.
43
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Box 9: The Fair Share Panel in Rotherham – Panel working in action
How the Panel is working
• A pro-active, positive Panel, really engaging with their task and aiming to do a good job for
Kimberworth Park
• Strong and enthusiastic local residents on the Panel, with residents taking the lead
• Resident members want to understand the area and its needs, and to speak on its behalf
• Advisory members know the area well and have worked there a long time; some live in the
area
• Members enjoy the Panel work, with evidence that they are respectful of each other, warm in
approaches to each other, feel free to openly express views, and are able to crack jokes and
ask questions
• Panel Chair able to ask questions and engage Panel members in thinking about how it will
go about its work
Consideration given to applications and projects
• Applications are discussed at Panel meetings before they come for formal approval, so the
formal approval is very quick, although there are challenging questions even at that stage
• Applications brought to the Panel for approval are of good quality and applicants attend to
answer questions, even though they are likely to have discussed the project with the Panel
previously to get to the formal application stage
• The Panel votes formally on the application at this final stage. None have been rejected
recently because of initial negotiations that ensure projects do not get that far unless they
meet agreed needs
• Panel members are not involved in formally monitoring projects that have been funded and
do not have a detailed knowledge of progress in all the projects, although there is a sense
that they all know what is going on because they are so well aware of their neighbourhood
and its happenings
Projects approved
• Early projects had a strong emphasis on capital spend, including a major project for
upgrading a local park and others providing facilities in local schools
• More recent projects are more people focused and targeted on meeting specific need of
those most vulnerable - the elderly, children and families
• One potential project aims to work with young people between primary and secondary
school by identifying those with potential problems and working with them; it is designed to
work as a social enterprise, raising income from these activities, so that workers working
with the young people can see this as a long term exercise for the community.
• The FST funding marked the beginning of investment in the neighbourhood, and local
people were determined to make good use of it.
• There were already a number of groups (including an active tenants and residents
association) in the neighbourhood, which were ready to expand and develop their
activities given new resources.
• The Panel had the support of professional community development workers from the
beginning, who have been able to co-ordinate local consultation on the review of local
priorities on behalf of the Panel and support their decision making on these issues.
• The local residents involved are committed, enthusiastic and knowledgeable about local
issues. Most are older and have time to give to these activities and they have been
local activists involved on a voluntary basis for many years.
44
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.28 There are also success stories in areas where there is little or no history of people cooperating or doing things together. In Enfield, for example, Panel members are involved
in a wide spread of community activity. Through Panel membership, organisations are
coming together and are seeing the advantages of mutual support, and even of joint
delivery. Panel members are hugely excited about this, and there is a tangible ’buzz’
because they see that jointly they can achieve more than on their own – and that it is
enjoyable. Effectively, there is a ‘trickle down’ effect, with benefits flowing from the Panel
to a wider group of community based organisations. There are elements of the same thing
in Ellesmere Port, Ashfield and Bolton. This is not to claim that the Panel approach is
resolving all problems and, in at least two of them, other changes have also been
happening in the area which have contributed to the improved situation, but Fair Share is
an important contributor to that change.
5.29 With this strong evidence of successes from Panel working in mind, it is useful to explore
the survey findings. Agents were asked whether the Panel is contributing to the success of
Fair Share. 92% of responding Agents said that they are, with only four Agents saying
they are not (out of 53 responses).
5.30 The principal reasons for success given by local Agents are that the Panels:
• Seriously engage with the grant making process, including setting priorities, generating
ideas for projects to be funded, and helping to shape the projects to be funded.
• Bring local knowledge and experience of the local neighbourhood, its needs, and the
organisations in it.
• Play a role in promoting Fair Share to groups and the wider community, and in visiting
projects and providing advice.
• Get actively involved in a project which is being funded.
5.31 There are provisos, with Agents commenting that the Panel could do more (for example by
promoting Fair Share to local groups), that the results could have been achieved in other
ways (one Agent only), and concerns about retaining commitment and enthusiasm.
5.32 In the four neighbourhoods where the Agents said that the Panel is not contributing to
success, two attributed it to friction between different members of the Panel, one to low
levels of commitment, and one made no comment. The latter two neighbourhoods are
both ones where open grants are responsible for more than 80% of the money awarded to
date, an issue discussed in chapter 7.
Panel perspectives on success
5.33 Comment has already been made about the challenges of Panel working. However, the
case studies also show that Panel members gain a great deal of satisfaction from the
successes of Fair Share. They value:
• The quality, range and types of projects being funded, and the benefits these are having
for the local community.
• The work done on understanding needs and setting priorities.
• The work done with likely applicants to ensure applications are tailored to local needs.
• The help that the Trust approach is giving to infrastructure organisations.
45
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
• The benefits for Panel members themselves; they learn a lot, develop confidence and
morale, and have a sense that they are contributing to the creation of something
worthwhile.
• The confidence in the accountability role in considering applications and receiving
progress reports.
• The value of spending a local ‘pot’ of money in accordance with local needs and
priorities.
5.34 Acknowledged weaknesses included insufficient feeding back of information by the Panel
to the community as a whole, dissatisfaction with information levels provided by local
Agent (particularly where summaries of applications are provided and with respect to
levels of spend to date), and concerns about levels of leadership from local Agents (both
too weak and too strong).
5.35 Box 10 shows examples of wider perspectives on the success of Fair Share (i.e. beyond
simply the Panel process) from Panel members in the case study areas.
Box 10: Panel members’ satisfaction with their achievements in Fair Share
Dudley
• Building up relationships with young people and the young people's response i.e.
getting involved in the Panel and developing new projects.
• Major capital improvements e.g. multi-use games area.
• Increased accessibility to facilities for the wider community.
• Setting up of new all inclusive youth clubs to engage young people in positive
activities and build trust by drawing in people from different estates, not just the one
where the club is located.
• Reduction in ASBOs by 40%.
• Breadth of projects funded to meet needs of all age groups.
• Intergenerational projects and especially those in the most isolated, disadvantaged
and fractured estates.
• Setting up of new community infrastructure organisations.
Enfield
• The commitment from the panel is now very good.
• Feeling that it is ‘our’ money is very good; FS supplies the money – the groups do the
work based on their understanding of local needs, and feel more confident about
applying for it because it is ours.
• Good project results with real benefits for local people.
• Projects we have funded can only happen because of Fair Share.
• It is not just about money; the restrictions on getting the money make groups
strengthen themselves (i.e. capacity building).
• The Fair Share process we are using is good: identify local needs, provide money,
bring out local talent, lead on to change in Ponders End.
5.36 Apart from the satisfaction gained through Panel working, there are other benefits as well.
The Panel process is building capacity in Panel members and in the wider community and
voluntary sectors (see box 11). Since Fair Share neighbourhoods are typically areas
where joint working on a consensus building model has not previously been part of how
things get done, the benefits are particularly pronounced.
46
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Box 11: Examples of capacity building through Panel process
Capacity building in members of the local community
• “I was dragged kicking and screaming into the Panel and for the first few meetings I never
ever said anything, but now I am able to contribute fairly. I began by thinking it would be a
process where we sat and listened to the professionals, but instead we have developed our
own learning and can speak out with what we think is right.” (Local resident Panel
member, Basildon)
• Two young people have gained such confidence and life skills through one of the projects
that they’ve been able to progress on to the Panel. (Bolton)
• Panel members going on to play strategic decision making roles in other forums, e.g.
central forum for tenants’ and residents’ associations (Dudley)
• Gains in personal confidence and morale (e.g. South Lanarkshire Rural Panel)
Capacity building in local community based organisations on the Panel
• Where Panel members are significantly involved in development of applications, they learn
good practice because they start to understand much better what is expected of
applications; and they gain fuller understanding of what they need to do with respect to
their own applications (Enfield).
• Panel members having the confidence to go and get funding for their own organisation
independent from Fair Share (Dudley).
• How to think about the difference between investment and expenditure, how to work out
priorities, how to think/plan over a 10 year period, how to work with a limited budget, how to
see a wider picture and not just own pre-occupations (Ellesmere Port and Neston).
Capacity building in more experienced voluntary sector organisations
• Learning from other applications as they come in and from the local Agent, which feeds
through into improvements to their own applications and their ability to identify solutions to
their own problems (Northern Ireland).
Capacity building for all
• Being able to help one another and learn from one another (e.g. Dudley).
Challenges in Panel working
5.37 Panel working brings challenges as well as benefits. The survey asked about ways, if any,
that the Panel made Fair Share delivery more challenging than it needs to be. Just over
one third of responding neighbourhoods reported that there were no such ways.
5.38 The most frequently reported problem is argumentative behaviour and tensions between
Panel members. Others include difficulty in seeing the bigger picture, personal agendas
being brought to the Panel, and jostling for position. Time taken to get Panel members
(local steering groups in Northern Ireland), on board with the Fair Share approach to grant
making and an outcomes focus are also mentioned, plus problems of Panel mix and
difficulties in retaining Panel commitment. When Agents were asked what changes to the
Panel would help with delivery of Fair Share, the biggest single category of response was
recruiting new Panel members, particularly local residents.
5.39 It is hard to be certain how many neighbourhoods are experiencing really significant
challenges with their Panels. We do know, for example, that a number of Panels have
faced very significant problems:
• Three Panels have been dissolved because of behavioural issues in Panel meetings
(e.g. conflicts between members), with new Panels being formed following work by the
Agent to attract new members.
47
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
• One Panel was suspended and re-formed due to low attendance and lack of interest
among the initial members; again the Agent worked to attract a new group of members.
• One Panel no longer acts as a grants Panel; this is in a English neighbourhood which
was divided into two, and the award was only £214,000, of which £114,000 has been
spent and the Panel doesn’t know what to do with the remainder
• One Panel was suspended and no longer meets due to conflicts between members and
with the Agent.
5.40 From the case studies, we have clear evidence of the way that friction between Panel
members and between Panel members and the Agent can be debilitating for all
concerned. Again, the problems are not static and have mostly been managed or
overcome through the work of the Agent or community development worker or with
external help.
5.41 These findings need to be considered in the context of the benefits gained through Panel
working, and the fact that even in areas where Panel working has been its most
challenging, the very great majority of Agents appear to believe that the results could not
be achieved without the Panel. In the words of one of the most challenged Agents, “The
Panel has had a profound effect on the quality of projects and the extent to which they are
meeting local needs. They take great care and, in consequence, we (the Agent) have to
get it right. The Panel makes us go that bit further, and do everything absolutely properly”.
What is distinctive about Fair Share Panels?
5.42 It is not part of the evaluation brief to undertake a review of Panels used elsewhere in the
local distribution of grant money. However, CFN have shown considerable interest in this
point, and BIG are interested in the wider lessons for approaches to grant making. We
have therefore brought together information gleaned during the course of the evaluation.
5.43 In the survey, we included a question on behalf of CFN about how grant making through a
Fair Share Panel differs from other grant making through local Panels. This showed that
grant making with Panels was familiar to the very great majority of local Agents prior to
their involvement in Fair Share. Altogether there are responses for 48 neighbourhoods.
Nine did not respond, for example because they didn’t have the relevant experience to
enable them to have an opinion.
5.44 Agents in a significant majority of neighbourhoods (69%) believe that Fair Share offers a
programme which is better than their experiences with other Panels. For 17%, there is no
difference, and for 14% the Agent is either ambivalent or thinks that it is worse. The
reasons they gave are in box 12. They emphasise the importance of local knowledge and
experience, commitment to the local area, and the ability to be strategic in a variety of
ways. The neighbourhoods that reported no difference between Fair Share and other
programmes using a local Panel were all in England. Seven out of eight in England were
making extensive use of open grants (more than 80% of awards made to date), which may
be a contributory factor.
5.45 A number of Agents also made a comparison between Fair Share and grant programmes
that do not make use of local Panels. There is a clear concurrence that use of a Panel
like Fair Share enables a much more strategic approach to funding, and brings process
benefits such as capacity building, more local knowledge, and greater local accountability.
48
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Box 12: Agents’ views about how FST Panels compare with others
Ways it is better: local commitment
• The extent of involvement of local people.
• The extent of the Panel’s local knowledge and experience of issues and groups,
including at the grass-roots level.
• Panel ownership of how Fair Share impacts on the lives of local people and the well
being of the local community.
• It is a devolved local scheme with considerable local impacts, with local people able
to shape the place in which they live.
Ways it is better: process
• The Panel’s ability to be strategic, by virtue of their involvement in the whole process,
their role in setting priorities, the 10 year timescale which allows the programme to
develop, and the greater depth of Panel involvement (as opposed to simply reviewing
what is in front of them).
• The Panel’s ability to input to projects before a submission is finalised and during
delivery; projects benefiting from their knowledge and experience.
• The ability to focus on outcomes.
• The quality of assessment of the funding applications.
• It is about making a difference which is sustainable.
• It is about making a difference which is inclusive.
• The flexibility and informality of the process.
Ways it is worse
• Panel working limited by perspectives of local residents and its corollary that
corporate Panels are more effective because they do not have the same degree of
personal involvement.
• The mix of local authority, voluntary sector and local residents is difficult due to
distrust from local authority representatives about the capacity of other Panel
members.
• The process isn’t working.
5.46 In some case study locations, Panel members have also commented on the difference
between the Fair Share approach and other regeneration programmes in which they are
engaged. For example:
• Ashfield: There is a local partnership for the Neighbourhood Renewal area, but Panel
members involved in both prefer Fair Share. They comment that Neighbourhood
Renewal is not going to leave a legacy, and feel, that Fair Share will leave a legacy,
which draws them on to do more. The critical factors appear to be the emphasis on
local needs and that it has been a very grass roots process.
• Rotherham: The FST programme was initiated at almost the same time as European
Social Fund Objective 1 funding, which required establishment of a Community
Partnership. Many of the same individuals are involved in the Panel and the Community
Partnership. The feedback from Panel members is that the Partnership processes are
more bureaucratic and rigid, with much less creative thinking about the future of the
area. Communications with funders are complex, distant and delayed, and there are
long decision times over funding and then strict limits on spending within deadlines
which causes many problems locally. By contrast, FST is informal, productive, efficient,
responsive, satisfying and inspirational, and there are good communications with the
funder through the Agent.
49
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Future of the Panels
5.47 An emerging issue is the future of the Panels, with some neighbourhoods already thinking
about their ongoing role. This is because they see value in their networking and in
continuing to work to achieve their vision for the local area. For example:
• In Rotherham, where much of the FST funding is now allocated, the Panel wants to
keep going because they feel they are working well together and it would be waste of
the investment in building an effective Panel to disband it just when they are able to
develop and commission projects that are making a real difference to the estate. They
feel that real change is being achieved, and they want to continue to see it through. The
Panel has provided a very positive, new and independent forum for the estate, beyond
traditional organisations with complex histories of past conflicts.
• The rural Panel in South Lanarkshire are also still keen to meet (unlike some other
Panels in Scotland who feel the programme is coming to an end and that, without any
money to distribute, there is no reason to meet). ALVO (the Association of Local
Voluntary Organisations), which is a key infrastructure organisation in the rural areas
and a major beneficiary from Fair Share funding (see box 22 in chapter 9 for details) is
looking for alternative tasks they could undertake that would make use of their now
extensive knowledge of funding management and local activities across the rural area.
• In South Ayrshire, the Panel is exploring a future role as the community body for
distribution of monies accruing from a nearby wind farm that may be coming to the area.
5.48 There is, however, no inherent reason why Panels should stay together, and Fair Share
was never intended to build a constituted body to last beyond the initiative period. Some
places are already clear that they do not want to continue, for example:
• In situations where Panels have seen their role very much as grant giving, they see no
point in continuing once the money is spent. Both the case study areas where this
attitude is evident have been operating essentially open grant programmes.
• In situations where the defined Fair Share neighbourhood has no meaning to local
people, the Panel would bring people together with no sense of community or common
purpose beyond the life of Fair Share.
5.49 It is likely that the Panel in areas where Fair Share is finding it hard to make progress will
also not want to continue.
5.50 However, it is too soon to know what will happen in this respect. Overall, those who have
greatest confidence in their successes seem most likely to find a continuing role. In some
places, closing down the Panel may not matter in terms of empowerment and enhanced
infrastructure. In others, particularly where there is little or no alternative VCS
infrastructure, Panel members may want to consider in what form the Panel may continue.
Either way, Panel members can be expected to take their new experiences and skills on to
new roles in the community, whatever they may be.
Evaluators’ commentary
5.51 In reviewing the Panel approach, it is critical not to over-emphasise the problems. The
two most important are the issues which arise out of human frailty (deriving from history,
personal animosity, and inexperience in some Panel members) and difficulties in attracting
and retaining an appropriate balance of Panel members. Such challenges are to be
expected, since this is a community level programme. Furthermore, if everything had
50
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
always functioned well, they probably would not have been Fair Share areas in the first
place.
5.52 Overall, we conclude that there is no perfect combination of Panel members (although
there needs to be a reasonable number of local residents, as the guidance states). A
Panel is good because of chemistry. There has to be a mix, with local residents who
understand local needs and local organisations, and enabler organisations and individuals
who know where funds are, and what other programmes are doing. Enablers, who may
be as varied as detached youth workers or Police Community Support Officers, can
transfer their skills about setting up activities and projects to the local people, and the local
people can provide the critical components of local knowledge and experience. What is
important, however, is that both Panels and local Agents continue to be diligent as they
review Panel membership and consider whether it is fit for purpose.
5.53 Substantial benefits flow from the Panel role in Fair Share. It can exploit its local focus,
and can involve local people, local groups and advisers on the local area. It is drawing on
real knowledge and experience of the area, and is therefore able to operate at a deeper
level of knowledge from programmes operating across much larger areas.
5.54 There are three key issues which merit further investigation:
• First, is the Panel process really making the difference that Agents and Panels identify
to the quality of projects, to how well those projects meet local needs, and to how much
capacity building and social capital building is taking place?
• Secondly, is the Panel a legitimate way to represent the local community?
• Thirdly, what is the wider role of the Panel locally in terms of contributing to the
sustainability of the achievements of FST and of the VCS locally?
5.55 These are returned to in later chapters of this report.
51
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Chapter six: Understanding needs and setting priorities
‘In this area, the provision of skills and training opportunities was identified as a Priority, which
was highlighted by the lack of suitably qualified Development Workers and subsequently Youth
& Children’s Workers. We have been able to use the FST funding stream to address these
needs in an imaginative and unique way, and there has been a great deal of interest in this
model of working.’ Blaenau Gwent, Community Foundation in Wales
Scope of chapter
The chapter discusses the ways that an understanding of local needs has been incorporated
into the Fair Share Trust (FST) process, and how priorities for grant making have been set.
Summary of key findings
• Understanding local needs, local service provision, and the capacity of local organisations
to grow and deliver new services in the neighbourhood are important precursors to effective
grant making.
• The initial assessment of needs was frequently and probably inevitably inadequate.
Additional work has been done in some areas, and this would anyway have been
necessary given the timescale of the programme.
• Neighbourhood Priorities Documents (NPDs) provide the strategic framework for grant
making. Their ability to be strategic is diminished where the wording is so broad as to be
all-encompassing, and the impact of this is increased where open grants are the
predominant form of project procurement.
• A number of local Agents and Panels have used the review of the NPD as an opportunity to
review their overall direction, explore their priorities, think about future grant making, and
build capacity.
• Such a review is important in a ten year programme, and thought needs to be given to a
more planned, thorough and pro-active review process across the whole programme.
Introduction
6.1
Understanding the real needs in local areas and determining the priorities for tackling
them are key elements in the Fair Share Trust (FST) process. Steps in this are:
• Preparation of a ‘Neighbourhood Assessment Document’ (NAD) for each
neighbourhood, which was done at the outset of the programme, and has not been
repeated at a later stage. It was done by the relevant local authority, and has been
discussed in an earlier evaluation report31.
• Preparation of a ‘Neighbourhood Priorities Document’ (NPD), which followed from the
NAD. It was prepared by the local Agent, working in collaboration with the Panel, and
was discussed in the earlier evaluation32.
31 Fair Share evaluation, Second Report, December 2007 Chap 5 www.biglotteryfund.org.uk
32 Fair Share evaluation, Second Report, December 2007 Chap 5 www.biglotteryfund.org.uk
52
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
• Review of the NPD after three years of grant making (in England and Wales). It too has
been done by the Agent, working in conjunction with the Panel.
6.2
The earlier evaluation found many instances of supplementary work to enable Panels and
local Agents to more fully understand local needs and priorities33. The following section
summarises findings, and then moves on to wider perspectives based on our current
understanding.
Understanding local needs
6.3
In an initiative with a strategic purpose such as the FST programme, understanding of
local needs, local service provision, and the capacity of local organisations to grow and
deliver new or extended services, is an important precursor to effective grant making. This
is the purpose of the NAD. According to the guidance for Agents, the NAD is intended to
be a ‘framework’ document from which the Panel and Agent can set local priorities. The
NAD should set out the characteristics of the local neighbourhood, for example in terms of
indices of deprivation, employment characteristics, and relevant local issues such as local
needs and service availability.
6.4
On the evidence of the case studies, there were a number of difficulties with NAD
preparation. The process was difficult for Agents because they had no line management
responsibilities for the relevant local authority officer. There were many delays, and some
local Agents eventually undertook the writing themselves. Most NADs had insufficient
detail, and many fell short of the expectation of being the framework from which priorities
could be set. The weakness related to both process and content.
6.5
In terms of process, the isolated way that the NADs were prepared, without consultation or
debate, means that they were much less useful than they could or should have been.
They were a missed opportunity in terms of raising local awareness about the FST and of
involving the local community in identifying local needs.
6.6
In terms of content, the earlier report noted that challenges in understanding local needs
are much wider in their relevance than Fair Share34. Fair Share communities are
acknowledged to be disadvantaged, and have been identified as such through national
data including the Index of Multiple Deprivation. It has been a surprise to the evaluators to
discover the relatively weak understanding of specific problems and needs in these areas,
and the relatively sparse level of information about the services that are available in them.
6.7
In many areas work is done to supplement the NAD as part of developing a better
understanding of local needs. Typically, it includes one or more of the following:
• More effective use of already available material, for example existing surveys, inputs
from key partners, information from local authority members’ case loads, inputs from
Panel members.
• Funding of external agencies or consultants to map information on service provision,
and to undertake consultations to identify what is needed to fill gaps in provision.
• Work by the local Agent with the local community and voluntary and community sector
(VCS) services providers to better understand local needs, local service provision, and
local priorities.
• Work by a community development worker to work with the local community and local
VCS organisations to better understand local needs and priorities.
33 Fair Share evaluation, Second Report, December 2007 chap 5 www.biglotteryfund.org.uk
34 Fair Share evaluation, Second Report, December 2007 Chap 5 www.biglotteryfund.org.uk
53
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
• Preparatory activity undertaken by local service providers as they develop proposals to
form the basis for a funding bid.
Setting Priorities
6.8
NADs link directly into the next step in the FST process which is the preparation of the
initial Neighbourhood Priorities Document (NPD). The Agent works with Panel members,
VCS organisations, the statutory services and the local community in the FST
neighbourhood to identify and prioritise areas for funding. The priorities are approved by
Panels and are intended to reflect the issues identified in the NAD.
6.9
NPDs are intended to express priorities in specific terms, and identify the budget for each
priority for the funding period under consideration. They should include the means by
which the Panel intends to ensure that relevant projects are brought forward (solicited
bids, commissioning, or open grants). Agents make use of NPDs because they contain
the budgeted spend, and applications have to be justified by reference to them. However,
the previous round of evaluation found that the usefulness of these initial NPDs varied
between areas35.
6.10 In as far as we were able to ascertain it, the preparation of NPDs involved open debate,
but rarely effective consensus building. In consequence, some appeared to be drafted to
accommodate (or not offend) a range of views and provide flexibility for later,
unanticipated issues.
6.11 The FST programme is strategic in intent (see paras 7.3-5). To be strategic, there needs
to be clarity of purpose so that actions can be directed to appropriate ends. The strategic
framework is provided by the NPDs.
6.12 Given this context we have suggested that broadly-worded NPDs can lead to problems.
To show why we have looked at one of the case studies in detail. This is Bolton (see
annex 10 for details), where the approach to grant making is currently wholly through the
use of open grants. Where open grant applications are the predominant way of procuring
projects, the primacy of the NPD increases because other ways of influencing applications
(for example, through detailed negotiation of terms of reference for an application) are not
normally available.
6.13 In Bolton the priorities cover four main areas:
•
•
•
•
Community capacity building and cohesion.
Liveability, environment and health.
Community facilities/assets.
Crime, anti-social behaviour and community safety.
6.14 Their wording means that almost any project of good intent could be said to meet the
priorities. It should be noted that Bolton is not alone in this. Whilst we have not examined
all the NPDs, very few that we have looked at are succinct and focused, and able to give a
substantial steer on priorities.
6.15 The resulting projects have been examined for their contribution to the FST programme’s
objectives. What we see is that three projects out of nine perform very well, two are
middling, and four are relatively poor. This does not mean they are ‘bad’ projects, and
they do fit within the NPD. Yet much more could have been achieved if the weaker
35 Fair Share evaluation, Second Report, December 2007 Chap 5 www.biglotteryfund.org.uk
54
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
projects were closer to the better ones in performance and if the strategic approach being
looked for by Community Foundation Network were being taken.
6.16 A review of Panel minutes (2006-08) indicates little overt discussion of how project
applications fit Priorities. It also shows that Panel members and the local Agent have been
searching for a more strategic approach, but that this has not been achieved.
6.17 Somehow, opportunities are being lost. A number of Panel members are very
experienced in committee working at the community level, but this is not being capitalised
on. In the absence of either a community development worker or commissioned work to
establish local needs, there is no framework for greater detailing of the Priorities to
produce real focus, and there is a lack of developed strategic thinking.
6.18 It may be the case that Agents and Panels prefer an all-encompassing set of so-called
‘priorities’, because it gives maximum flexibility. In this situation, they are able to fund
whatever projects are brought forward by the community, subject to normal grant making
considerations. But it remains the case that setting priorities requires making choices, so
as to enable more strategic outcomes. Without that, the full potential of Fair Share is not
being realised.
Reviewing the Neighbourhood Priorities Documents
6.19 The review of NPDs amongst our case studies has been confined to the English
neighbourhoods36 (our case studies in the other three nations have modified delivery).
There is a marked divergence of practice. Three (Ashfield, Enfield and Rotherham)
embarked on a process which constituted a genuine review of the priorities. From these
three, the following can be observed:
• Undertaking the review involved special events and changes to the normal pattern of
Panel activity, i.e. it required commitment.
• In one, the review resulted in significant changes to the priorities, retaining an earlier
priority for youth, and extending it to cover four additional ones (social enterprise,
learning and skills, older people and debt management).
• In two, existing priorities were confirmed as a result of the review, with minor
modifications to wording.
• In all three, changes included moves to improve alignment with work being done by
other strategic partners and initiatives.
• In all three, the process involved the Panel in ways that are likely to have built their
capacity.
• In all three, the thinking was taken back to the starting point of ‘what are the needs?’
that are being addressed. At one of the locations this was done by drawing on needs
assessment work done by other local agencies (e.g. the local Senior Citizens’ Forum),
and in the remaining two this was done through consultation exercises involving the
local community.
• Where consultation exercises were done, the approaches were extensive and, to an
extent, innovative. They were done in ways which build capacity in the local community.
36 See annex 9 for details of revisions to NPDs
55
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
• In one, changes to the approach being taken resulted, with an amended focus on
empowerment and inter-agency working.
• In all three, working in these ways will have built capacity in the local Agent.
6.20 In all these areas, the review of priorities has gone wider than the required task (a revised
NPD and associated budget). It has been seen as an opportunity both to rethink and, if
necessary, to reshape activity, and as a means of building capacity. Even when there was
essentially no change to the wording of the priorities, the process of review renewed
enthusiasm and visibility for the programme locally because of the community
involvement.
6.21 The remainder adopted a more perfunctory approach, using normal Panel meetings and
not engaging a wider constituency. Some Panels and Agents have felt that circumstances
have not changed sufficiently in just three years to warrant a major review of priorities,
given other workloads, particularly if there is little money left to allocate. However, those
neighbourhoods that have undertaken a review have found that it refreshed interest
among Panel members and reminded people why they were involved. In terms of capacity
building and sustainability - and social capital where there was wider community
involvement - good review processes have provided valuable contributions.
Evaluators’ commentary
6.22 With the passage of time, the importance of both the NAD and the NPD have been better
understood. Needs assessment is a critical part of the FST process, and is much more
than something that happens only at the outset of the programme. It feeds into the setting
of priorities and underpins grant applications that clearly fit those priorities. Given the
length of the programme, a review of needs and priorities should be seen as a recurring
activity. The same is true for the setting of priorities.
6.23 Deciding priorities to last for three years at the outset of a major process of bringing
together a disparate Panel, finding effective ways of joint working, and moving on to joint
decision making on recommendations for funding, is a major challenge. In addition, any
conclusions at that early stage of the Panel's life were likely to be provisional. A review
can confirm those initial views, or allow for changes to be made in the light of experience,
where appropriate.
6.24 The perspective that we presented at the end of the previous round of evaluation was that
in the early days of a lengthy process-oriented programme, the challenge is to reach the
‘good enough’ level of knowledge to proceed without spending too much time on research
in the initial stages. We suggested that this could be combined with a recognition of the
need for an early revisit of priorities once the Panel has settled in (say after 18 months).
Nothing has happened to change this view.
6.25 Well developed second stage NPDs should be less generic and more tightly focused, in
order to promote the strategic approach to grant making envisaged for Fair Share. The
research into needs that underpins it should be more focused than the original NADs
because it would be driven by the Panel who already have some sense of the needs of
the area and the priorities that they wish to pursue. A process of preparation would be
needed which is genuinely collaborative and based on consensus building. It needs to
open up a debate about needs/priorities and then go through a process of focusing in on
the most important ones and transparently and explicitly agreeing them so that the
priorities have genuine buy-in and legitimacy and can be linked to allocation of funds. At
many locations, this process is likely to take longer than the initial preparation of the
NPDs, and certainly much longer than has been taken in many locations over the
revisions to the NPDs.
56
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6.26 Finally, but very importantly, a programme such as this needs a thorough review after it
has been running for five years. With nearly five years to go, there is every reason to
have a thorough look at all aspects of the programme at the local level. There is still time
to re-direct and re-focus activity where the review shows that more could be achieved
through adjustments to the way of working and the intended outcomes.
57
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Chapter seven: Project procurement
‘Strategic grant making is a more effective method of grant making. It serves the community
better because it looks at their needs.’ Hyndburn, Community Foundation for Merseyside
‘Once the priorities had been agreed by the Panel, a number of the local Panel representatives
expressed an interest in applying to the programme. If there was little uptake under a specific
priority, the Chair of the Panel made contact with local and regional organisations and invited an
application. Development workers who were employed by local organisations encouraged
groups to apply to the programme.’ North Lanarkshire, Scottish Community Foundation
Scope of chapter
This chapter looks at the concept of strategic grant making, and how it is being interpreted in
FST neighbourhoods. The ways that are used to procure projects are then examined,
together with the way that the role of the Panel in procuring projects and determining their
outcome works in practice.
Summary of key findings
• A fundamental aspect of FST funding is that grants should be ‘strategic’ i.e. they should
meet local needs which have been determined through a proper process, they should be
outcomes focused, they should be mutually reinforcing and inter-dependent, and they
should be lasting in their effects.
• A variety of routes to project procurement are in use.
• Commissioning is a pro-active approach to grant making. It ensures needs are met,
enables the Panel and local Agent to shape the funding process, and secures the right
project deliverers. It is driven by the needs of the area rather than by the agenda of the
application organisation. This is the sole means of procurement in Northern Ireland and
Wales, and is extensively used in both England and Scotland.
• Open grant making is more prevalent than anticipated, though the approach is mitigated in
a number of ways.
• Extensive use is made of negotiation between the local Agent, the Panel and potential
applicants to ensure a fit between proposed projects on the one hand and a
neighbourhood’s needs and priorities on the other.
• Overall, project procurement has become a sophisticated part of the FST process. It can
ensure that projects are tailored to meet the needs of the community, and contributes to
wider objectives of capacity building and sustainability.
• The Panel takes its role in grant making seriously and feels responsible for securing value
for money. Panels work to ensure probity and transparency in their operations, and feel
accountable to their local communities. There is no evidence that Panel members get
favoured treatment of any applications they are involved in.
58
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Introduction
7.1
In the Fair Share Trust programme, project procurement is as much a part of the overall
process as identifying local needs, involving local people, and working through the local
Panel. It is one of the factors in capacity building and the creation of social capital.
Agents and Panels have significant scope to develop ways of working that suit their local
circumstances.
7.2
This chapter shows that the opportunity to use the grant making process well is being
eagerly grasped in many of the FST neighbourhoods. There are direct links to the
preparatory work on needs and priorities. A clear and focused strategic framework,
combined with targeted approaches to grant making, means that neighbourhoods can
make good use of the possibilities that Fair Share presents.
A strategic approach to grant making
7.3
The aim is to make ‘long-term strategic grants’ during the life of the programme37. The
guidance from the Community Foundation Network (CFN) to local Agents offers a picture
of what this might mean. The picture has many components, and the bullet points below
set out those of greatest relevance to the evaluation38 :
• ‘these grants should complement each other’
• ‘these grants should... contribute to the achievement of (local) identified aims and goals’
• ‘the projects funded will…create sustainable outcomes without further reliance on
Lottery funding, or will no longer be needed as they have tackled the problems they
sought to address’
• ‘grants made should be part of a 10-year development strategy…i.e. be an integral part
of delivering improved services, activities or facilities over the duration of the
programme that will bring lasting benefit to the community and the people who live
there’
• ‘grants made should be able to demonstrate that the project will benefit from a long-term
investment and that the benefit derived is different from what could be achieved through
receiving a one-off or short term grant’.
7.4
A clear definition of ‘long-term strategic grants’ has been elusive. However, the guidance
from CFN makes a fundamental point. FST funding can and should be about more than
one-off grants. At the risk of further muddying waters, we describe below our
understanding of the strategic approach to grant making in use by the FST as:
• Local in intent, in that awards are to meet local needs as expressed through the
Priorities.
• ‘Outcomes focused’, in that awards are addressing longer term change; services
delivered or capital works undertaken using FST funding are a means to a bigger end.
• Making interdependent awards that, together, are part of achieving an approach in a
neighbourhood that will bring about significant change.
• Lasting in its effects (sustainability).
37 Fair Share Trust Programme, Local Agent Guidance Pack, version 2, February 2006, section 1.5
38 All are direct quotes from sections 1.5 and 1.6 of the Guidance Pack
59
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.5
This is in strong contradiction to a grant programme which looks at each application on its
individual merits and funds those which meet relevant criteria, resulting in a scatter of
projects across an area which do not link up. The target outcomes of the FST programme
are fixed by reference back to the charitable objectives of the FST and of the programme,
namely building capacity and sustainability, building social capital, and improving the local
environment (liveability agenda). Finally, CFN provides useful clarity over sustainability,
by reminding Agents that ‘lasting impact does not imply that projects which continue in
perpetuity are the most valuable. It is the programme’s outcomes – capacity building,
social capital and liveability – that the programme aims to sustain.’ 39
7.6
According to the survey, strategic grant making is being done in the great majority of
neighbourhoods (89%). Only in England are neighbourhoods to be found where the Agent
feels that strategic grant making is not being achieved.
7.7
Most Agents describe strategic grant making in terms of meeting local needs, which all
Agents can claim to do by virtue of their use of Neighbourhood Assessment Documents
(NADs), which relate to need, and Neighbourhood Priorities Documents (NPDs). A
number of Agents also referred to the strategic effect of the processes they are using,
bigger visions of what can be achieved, and issues relating to sustainability. Northern
Ireland stands out because the local Agent there sees strategic grant making as ‘Grant
making that fits within a big picture...Strategic grant making is about ensuring a strategic fit
of our grant-making with the mission and strategy of the Community Foundation. Our
organisational mission is ‘to drive social change by tackling social exclusion, poverty and
social injustice….’
7.8
Overall, however, we conclude that there is no consistent understanding of strategic grant
making, and probably insufficient attention at the local level to what it means.
7.9
Local Agents were given advice by CFN about the types of grants to be used. In particular:
• The focus is to be on revenue projects that achieve the aims of the programme (as in
the Trust Deed), and capital projects will only be considered in exceptional
circumstances.
• The FST programme is not designed to fund tactical, short-term, one-off grants as part
of an open application process, unless the Panel, the applicant and the local Agent can
demonstrate that the process of distributing such grants will produce outcomes that
match the strategic long-term aims of the programme40.
7.10 In practice, numerous capital grants have been awarded in the case study areas. Some
have proved to be strategic in that they have been effective in building community
confidence and aspirations. Future grants programmes may feel that the distinction
between strategic and stand-alone grants is less about preferring revenue over capital
spending, and more about the quality of overall planning and engagement to clarify
strategic objectives and priorities, and the prospects for sustainability. Decisions on the
mix of projects will be those that best achieve the desired outcomes.
Routes to project procurement
7.11 The procurement of projects has become a key aspect of the FST process. Local Panels
may select a variety of grant delivery mechanisms. In summary:
• Solicited bids The Panel may decide to solicit grant applications from identified local
providers e.g. existing local community groups, national voluntary organisations.
39 Fair Share Trust Programme, Local Agent Guidance Pack, version 2, February 2006, section 1.3
40 Fair Share Trust Programme, Local Agent Guidance Pack, version 2, February 2006, section 1.3
60
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
• Commissioning The Panel may identify one or more organisations to bid for an award
to deliver a project identified by the Panel.
• Open grants The Panel may publicise the FST programme in their area so anyone can
submit bids that fit the local Fair Share Trust criteria. The FST is not designed to be
predominantly an open grants programme.41
Solicited bids and commissioning
7.12 As the evaluators, we have found it hard to distinguish in clear terms between soliciting
and commissioning. Scotland uses the term ‘soliciting’ to describe its approach to grant
making, which has much in common with commissioning. The subsequent text uses only
the term ‘commissioning’, but also applies to processes that some call soliciting.
7.13 The survey asked local Agents how they define commissioning. The common feature in
their definitions is use of the term to describe a route to project procurement which is
driven by the needs of the Fair Share neighbourhood rather than by the aspirations of the
project deliverers. Commissioning is being used as a mechanism for procuring projects
which meet needs identified through Fair Share processes.
7.14 Agents were asked to estimate the proportion (if any) of their total FST grant making to
date (by value) which has gone to commissioned projects. The results are in Table 5.
Table 5: Fair Share money allocated through commissioning (October 2008)
No of
Up to
FS
More
and
than neighbo
41-60%
6121None
inc
ur80%
80%
40%
20%
hoods
England
no
%
12
35%
1
3%
3
9%
2
6%
4
12%
12
35%
34
N Ireland
no
%
0
0
0
0
0
5
100%
5
Scotland
no
%
0
0
1
8%
1
8%
4
33%
6
50%
12
Wales
no
%
0
0
0
0
0
5
100%
5
12
1
4
3
8
28
56
21%
2%
7%
5%
14%
50%
100%
Programme wide:
Number of
neighbourhoods
% of
neighbourhoods
Numbers are numbers of neighbourhoods
7.15 This shows that:
41 Fair Share Trust Programme, Local Agent Guidance Pack, version 2, February 2006, section 6.1
61
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
• One third of English Agents (35%) are doing virtually all of their grant making (judged by
value) through commissioning. Altogether two thirds are making some use of
commissioning. The corollary is that one third of English Agents make no use of
commissioning.
• In Northern Ireland and Wales, commissioning is the sole mechanism for grant making.
• In Scotland, half of the neighbourhoods (50%) use commissioning (solicitation) for
virtually all their grant making, and a further 17% expect to be able to say the same by
the end of the programme, making two thirds in all.
7.16 There are differences in the use of the term ‘commissioning’ between countries and
between neighbourhoods.
7.17 England One clear model emerges from the responses of the English Agents. In broad
terms, it involves:
• Identifying needs (beyond the level of detail in the Neighbourhood Assessment
Document) and agreeing priorities about those needs (beyond the level of detail in the
Priorities Document).
• Identifying gaps in provision, and agreeing what needs to be delivered to fill them.
• Identifying preferred suppliers.
• Inviting the submission of an application.
• Thereafter, applying standard grant assessment procedures, which include
consideration by the Panel.
7.18 A key feature in this model is that the steps in the process are linked, and all steps involve
the Panel. An example of this approach is given in box 13.
Box 13: Approach to commissioning in Ashfield
The approach to commissioning of young people’s projects in Ashfield involved a
number of stages:
• Identify needs and agreeing priorities: This has been done through original survey
work, extensive outreach work by the community development worker with the target
groups, and the research of other agencies; the Panel discusses findings and agrees
resulting priorities.
• Establish activities (services) required to fill gaps: The local Agent, CDW, and Panel
decide on the projects they would like to see established; the Agent prepares a
project specification for use in commissioning and the Panel reviews, amends as
appropriate, and agrees it.
• Identify preferred supplier(s): The local Agent, the CDW and Panel all identify and
review potential suppliers, and together reach a decision on who is preferred.
• Preferred supplier(s) invited to submit application: The preferred supplier is given the
project specification, and invited to submit a grant application. At this stage, the CDW
and/or local Agent may work with the supplier to help them to:
- develop their proposals, for example ensuring that outputs and proposed
outcomes are specified
- ensure that the supplier has the skills and capability to deliver what is required, for
example that they have a constitution, and understand accountability and
monitoring requirements.
62
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
• Application considered: Using normal grant procedures, the local Agent reviews the
application to ensure that it is appropriate for approval.
• Presentation to Panel: The supplier is invited to come to the Panel to make a
presentation, and the Panel then makes its recommendation.
7.19 Half of the English neighbourhoods using commissioning have adopted this model or a
variant on it. In a number of cases, it has become very sophisticated. A collaborative
approach may be adopted which engages potential deliverers in project identification and
specification so as to ensure the project is fully attuned to local needs, or a detailed
project specification developed specifying the outputs the Panel wants to see in order to
meet the needs that it has prioritised.
7.20 The other half of the English Agents who report that they are commissioning use the term
to cover a variety of routes to procurement. They include a direct approach to one
organisation for one task, such as approaching a CVS (or a similar organisation) to supply
or manage a community development worker, or use of external agencies to carry out
consultation work and soliciting of applications. Not all are strictly commissioning, which
casts some doubt on the high figures obtained for use of commissioning in the survey, but
all involve a more pro-active approach to project procurement than is found in a typical
open grant programme.
7.21 Northern Ireland A national Panel drawn from a broad spectrum of interests, and chaired
by the Community Foundation Northern Ireland, determined that the FST focus should be
on supporting initiatives that involve young families, youth, or older people. Working
groups facilitated by the local Agent at the local level consider Neighbourhood
Assessment ‘audits’ and agree and prioritise local needs. Discussion with stakeholders,
including relevant groups and funders, identifies how the FST monies could make greatest
local impact. Through this discussion, it is agreed what sort of proposal(s) should be
prepared for Fair Share in that neighbourhood. The formal applications are submitted,
assessed and considered by the Northern Ireland Fair Share Panel before being
recommended for funding.
7.22 What is notable is the extent that stakeholders are drawn into the process. In each Fair
Share neighbourhood, initial contact is made with key community leaders to create
awareness and manage expectations. Awareness is built up through the process of
information gathering for the Neighbourhood Assessment Document and Priorities
Document. Given the history of engagement the Community Foundation Northern Ireland
has with many community and funding organisations, contacts may already be established
and this has made the process smoother. A public meeting is organised involving key
people and groups. Appropriate funders are also informed and invited.
7.23 Scotland The details of the commissioning process vary from place to place. 60% of
Scottish neighbourhoods are using an approach which is similar in broad outline to the
‘model’ identified from the English responses i.e. it involves working with the Panel and
others on understanding and identifying key issues in the area, looking at existing
activities and gaps in provision which need to be filled, identifying and targeting local
organisations with the skills and capacity to deliver the services, and doing any necessary
capacity building to help them to do so. Where local organisations cannot be identified,
regional or national ones have been used. An example is shown in box 14.
63
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Box 14: Approach to commissioning in Thrushcraigs
Following identification of young people as the priority for the neighbourhood of
Thrushcraigs, a consultation was undertaken with them to find out what they would like
to see happening. The results were then fed into a Youth Service Providers
consultative workshop to discuss what was currently being provided locally and what
could be provided if funds were available. A consortium approach to new service
provision was suggested to ensure buy in from the main service providers locally i.e.
Renfrewshire Council, Paisley YMCA and Renfrewshire Council for Voluntary Service
(RCVS).
The key elements of a potential bid were then discussed with each of the three parties
who in their turn formed a Steering Group. The Group oversaw the application process,
decided on the main applicant (RCVS) and drew up a consortium agreement between
all parties outlining the main roles and responsibilities of each partner organisation. It
has continued to meet throughout the lifetime of the project to oversee progress against
outcomes.
7.24 In the remaining neighbourhoods in Scotland, a number of variations can be identified:
• Direct involvement of local people who want to be involved, but not as part of the Panel.
This was done through a Working Party to help identify the changes local residents
wanted, plus the development of a brief for the single project funded. The local Agent
described this process as very effective (one neighbourhood).
• A strongly proactive Panel Chair e.g. making direct contact with organisations to
encourage them to submit bids, providing relevant advice and support, working with
local third party organisations to encourage local groups to apply (two neighbourhoods).
• The Panel working on the priorities, and then people on the Panel submitting
applications for grant funding (two neighbourhoods), subject to extensive Panel scrutiny
and normal grant application procedures.
7.25 Wales Commissioning is described in two ways:
• In the first, the Panel has control of the overall process and commissions as follows:
- it discusses any gaps in service relating to the adopted Priority, and the organisations
able to provide the services are identified
- a Fair Share development worker works with these organisations on projects that fill
the gaps
- the organisations submit an expression of interest for discussion and endorsement by
the Panel
- if the Panel endorse the application, a full application is submitted, and normal
application assessment procedures apply.
• Alternatively, the adopted priority and linked project were identified prior to the FS
programme starting, the priority and project were taken on board by Fair Share and
funded. This is not really commissioning.
7.26 An example of the first approach is shown in box 15 overleaf.
64
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Box 15: Approach to commissioning in Wrexham, Community Foundation in Wales
In Wrexham, a Business Plan has been prepared, covering services to meet the needs
of the agreed target group (new and transient residents, including refugees and asylum
seekers, gypsies and travellers, and migrant workers) for Fair Share funding. The
Business Plan is discussed at local Panel meetings and any gaps in services are
discussed and prioritised by Panel members.
Potential relevant organisations are identified, and the Fair Share Development Worker
supports these groups through the process of submitting an Expression of Interest to be
considered by the Local Panel. If the Local Panel endorses the Expression of Interest,
the service provider then submits a full application to the Community Foundation in
Wales (CFIW) for assessment and consideration by the CFIW Grants Panel. The
applicants are again supported through the application process by the Fair Share
Development Worker.
7.27 Across the four countries, commissioning in some neighbourhoods has developed into a
finely tuned process. At its most refined, it mixes together most, if not all, of the following:
• Engagement of the Panel in all stages of commissioning.
• Good understanding of local needs, and of gaps in provision of services or facilities to
address those needs. This understanding is obtained through surveys, consultation
events, workshops, discussions with key stakeholders, and through drawing on the
experience of Panel members and the local Agent.
• Prioritisation by the Panel of the specific needs to be addressed, and development of
project specifications to fill the gaps, for example setting out required outputs.
• Good understanding of local organisations and their capabilities to address the
identified gaps in provision, obtained through consultations and through drawing on the
experience of Panel members and the local Agent.
• Identification of appropriate organisations to deliver the project.
• Where necessary, negotiation with the applicants to develop the project as they prepare
their application.
• Standard grant assessment procedures by the local Agent.
• Panel review and agreement of the application made.
7.28 Amongst the many benefits of the commissioning approach quoted by local Agents, six
stand out:
• It is a pro-active and strategic approach to grant making, securing a good fit between
agreed priorities, local needs, and the projects funded.
• The process is driven by needs in the local area rather than by the agenda of the
organisation running the project.
• It enables the Panel, working together with the local Agent, to shape the funding
process and the applications approved, with control over the outputs and outcomes that
they want to see achieved through the projects.
65
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
• Potential applicants know what is required and do not waste time putting together
general project proposals or trying to fit their own preferred project to the aims and
priorities for the programme.
• Good choices of organisations with knowledge of the neighbourhood and/or the issues
are ensured because the capability of organisations is known to the Agent and the
Panel.
• It is open and fair because the resulting projects and delivery organisations are never
one person’s decision.
7.29 In Northern Ireland, it might also be added that commissioning enables funder and
community to work together to achieve agreed objectives.
Use of open grants
7.30 An open grant is ‘an open invitation to bid competitively for funding, subject to a number of
constraints which ensure the funding is used to meet the programme’s objectives, for
example, in the case of the FST, matching the local priorities’. Advice to local Agents from
CFN42 described open grants as ‘openly publicising the FST programme…so that anyone
can submit bids that fit the local FST criteria’. As stated above, an open grants approach
is not intended to be the main means for distributing Fair Share Trust funding.
7.31 Despite this, the survey shows that across the programme, open grant making is being
used to some extent in just over half of the Fair Share neighbourhoods (54%), all from
England and Scotland (table 6).
Table 6: proportion of FST money being spent on open grants (October 2008)
Up to
More
None
and
21-40% 41-60% 61-80% than
Total
inc
80%
20%
England
no
%
12
34%
3
9%
5
14%
0
1
3%
14
40%
35
N Ireland
no
%
5
100%
0
0
0
0
0
5
Scotland
no
%
4
33%
4
33%
2
17%
1
8%
1
8%
0
12
5
100%
0
0
0
0
0
5
26
7
7
1
2
14
57
46%
12%
12%
2%
4%
25%
100%
Wales no
%
Programme wide:
Neighbourhoods
Percentage
Numbers are numbers of neighbourhoods
7.32 In England, open grants are being awarded in two thirds of the neighbourhoods. In some
40% of neighbourhoods, it is the predominant approach to grant making with more than
80% of the value of their awards going to open grants to date. It is notable that many of
42 The Fair Share Trust Programme Local Agent Guidance Pack, v2, February 2006, section 6.1
66
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the areas that are substantially favouring an open grants approach have already allocated
a significant proportion of their budget. One has awarded more than £750,000 and
another nearly £750,000 out of an original allocation of £861,000, with a further three
having awarded £600,000 or more.
7.33 Five English neighbourhoods expect open grants to constitute 100% of grant making at
the end of the programme, with a further six expecting it to be between 90 and 100%.
Open grant making is not being used at all in one third of the English neighbourhoods.
7.34 This result is, at face value, something of a surprise. Three factors mitigate this to some
extent:
• Extensive use of negotiation of applications (see para 7.40 on).
• A number of local procedures which give the Panel greater control over the applications
coming forward. One English Agent commented ‘It is not an open grants programme in
the traditional sense. The Panel are happy to consider applications from any reputable
organisation, but they first want groups who are thinking of applying to come and meet
the Panel and discuss their ideas. If the Panel are interested in the idea, we invite the
group to apply but make clear this is not a guarantee that the application will be
approved.’
• What is publicised as an open grants programme may in fact be managed, in whole or
in part, through a process of careful local work by a community development worker;
sometimes to the extent that what actually happens is, in effect, commissioning. This
has, for example, been the case in all small awards made in Basildon.
7.35 The survey suggests, however, that Fair Share is being operated primarily on an open
grants basis in a number of locations, subject to the strictures of the Priorities Document.
7.36 Seven English Agents reported that they are running some form of small grants
programme within Fair Share, with designated money for this purpose. These are typically
awards for community based organisations. They vary in size, with some limiting awards
to less than £1,000, and others being willing to go up to £10,000. One Agent likened this
approach to a ‘Community Chest’, and another is planning to do it as part of ensuring
longer term sustainability of FST impacts by providing small sums for community based
organisations that haven’t otherwise received FST money. In one case study
neighbourhood (Enfield), a small grants programme has been a significant part of the
funding through the first Priorities Document, and has been used to seed activity amongst
local community activists and small groups as part of developing their capacity and
enabling more strategic projects to be developed over time.
7.37 In Scotland open grants are being used in two thirds of the responding neighbourhoods. In
some of these, the amounts involved are substantial, with the three largest open grants
being £228,000, £367,000, and £405,000. In others, the open grant making resulted from
unsolicited applications which met the priorities and had the support of the Panel. One will
use an open small grants scheme as part of its exit strategy aimed at voluntary
organisations which have not received any FST funding to date.
7.38 Northern Ireland and Wales make no use of open grants.
7.39 An open grant project may be high quality and well attuned to local needs. The box on the
Bolton Literacy Trust at the start of this report and the box on the Great Lever Voice
project (chapter 9) are both examples of the best that can be achieved. Open grants do
not necessarily produce poor projects, but the chances that they are helping to contribute
to the full potential of the FST approached are diminished. Unless clearly underpinned by
67
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
an agreed, strategic approach (as in Enfield), an approach to project procurement which is
wholly predicated on open grants is less likely to:
• Be genuinely shaped by the needs of the local community and the Priorities set by the
Panel.
• Arise through capacity building work.
• Have done work on long term sustainability issues.
• Link up with other projects to create ‘critical mass’ of significant change in the
neighbourhood.
Use of negotiation
7.40 In practice, both the survey of Agents and the case studies show that project procurement
in Fair Share is very sophisticated. A major factor is the opportunity provided by the FST
process to use negotiation as a part of project procurement, be it for a solicited
application, a commissioned application or an application for an open grant. The
negotiation blurs even further the boundaries between approaches to procurement.
7.41 Negotiation happens principally through the Panel and the Agent. It should be a
transparent process and happens in a number of ways. Typical examples are:
• The Agent holds discussions with potential applicants at an early stage to hear their
project ideas and help them to reflect the Priorities document (in workshops, community
meetings etc as well as one to one). Such discussions would be common in many grant
programmes and are designed to ensure that applicants do not waste their time
developing inappropriate applications.
• The Agent and/or Panel continues to maintain contacts with local and other
organisations through their normal networks, learn that an organisation has particularly
skills and/or interests that fit the priorities in the neighbourhood, and open negotiation
for work in the area.
• More detailed negotiations involving the Agent and/ or the Panel at a stage when an
application is clearly of interest to the Panel, though such discussions are no guarantee
that an application will be funded; they may include suggestions about aspects of
project design or partnership agreements.
7.42 Notwithstanding its value, negotiation needs to be used with caution. The power of the
Panel approach derives from the fact that it works transparently to meet the needs of the
local community. Because Panel members are often involved in projects under
consideration (see section that follows), the strength of the Panel approach would be
diminished if transparency were not a paramount consideration. It is essential that the
Panel is open about any advanced discussions with applicants and that such discussions
are minuted. In the event that an Agent or FST development worker holds such
discussions, they should be reported to the next Panel meeting.
The role of the Panel in grant making
7.43 Panels have multiple roles in Fair Share, but the ultimate focus of their role is in grant
making. From our observations of Panel meetings, it is clear that Panel members take
their role very seriously. For example:
68
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
• They take ‘local ownership’ of the pot of Fair Share money as a real responsibility, and
work hard to ensure that applications match local needs and do not duplicate existing
services. They want every pound spent to make a difference.
• They are careful over declarations of interest. They know each others’ interests, and
would be resistant to any Panel member who attempted to use their position on the
Panel to influence the scrutiny process and decision making on applications.
• They put considerable effort into the applications coming forward, often reviewing
project ideas in outline in advance, and feeding back their views to help improve the
final application as part of an extensive process of negotiation.
• They use their local knowledge wisely to ensure that applications match needs and that
projects can be delivered.
• They want all organisations applying for money to be treated fairly.
• Some also take a role in the monitoring and review of projects during implementation,
asking for face-to-face reports on progress to the Panel.
7.44 At its best, this is a rounded approach involving project development and project scrutiny
that goes wider than, but encompasses, the straightforward assessment of applications
which is associated with an open grant programme. Panels are demonstrating their
maturity, even in situations where one or more of them have, or have had, an interest in
getting funding through Fair Share.
7.45 The survey asked local Agents about the proportion of grant applications where members
have to declare an interest. In one third of neighbourhoods, members declare an interest
in up to 20% of applications (some of these are none). At the other end of the spectrum,
in one sixth of neighbourhoods, members declare an interest in over 80% of applications.
7.46 Procuring projects through Panel members is relatively common practice, and is found in
all our case study areas. In the early stages of the evaluation, we were concerned that
this might lead to preferential treatment for such applications, but the care taken by Panels
has reassured us that this is not the case. Furthermore, it is clear that, at some locations,
exclusion of projects in which Panel members have an interest because they are part of
the group making the application would result in either far fewer good project applications
or far fewer good Panel members. Fair Share areas were those where the voluntary and
community sector was relatively under-developed and the relatively limited number of
people and groups able to participate in some of the case study areas is a reflection of
that. Nevertheless, there are examples in the case study areas where projects put
forward by, or involving, Panel members have not been approved.
Evaluators’ commentary
7.47 Commissioning has become an extensive and effective means of procuring those projects
which best meet local needs and priorities. Across the four countries, half of the Fair
Share neighbourhoods have awarded more than 80% of their money to date through
commissioning, with both Northern Ireland and Wales using commissioning as their only
approach. It has become a significant feature in the delivery of Fair Share, though it is
likely that the very high level of commissioning that is being claimed is an over-estimate. It
is also clear that commissioning can be a core and inseparable part of the strategic
approach to grant making looked for by CFN.
7.48 At its most developed, the process described as commissioning by local Agents is driving
the Fair Share process. It involves:
69
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
• A proper consideration of needs.
• An identification of gaps in services, facilities and activities to meet their needs.
• A prioritisation of needs/gaps which enables the Panel to decide what they want to fund.
• An identification of potential delivery organisations, who can be local and able to
contribute to the area in the longer term.
• A process of developing the capacity of those providers so that they are able to submit
project proposals and successful funding applications to fill the gaps.
• Full engagement of the local Panel in the process at every stage.
7.49 In this way, the grant making process in itself is part of the strategic approach looked for
by CFN and is a contribution to capacity building.
7.50 There is much more use of open grants than the evaluation team had expected given the
initial criteria for the initiative as a whole. Whilst the potential problems associated with
this have been avoided in some instances, there remains an impression that the tactical,
one-off grants approach which Agents were advised to avoid is in use in some locations.
This makes important links back to the Neighbourhood Priorities Document (NPD). The
more specific and justified the NPD can be, the better any open grants will be because
there is something specific against which to judge them.
7.51 There are clear risks in Panels commissioning, procuring and negotiating projects,
particularly if Panel members are closely involved in the design and delivery of those
projects. Such an approach could undermine the legitimacy of the Panel, as well as
potentially compromising the Agent in managing the accountability for public funds. Panels
observed in the case study areas recognise these risks and take extensive measures to
mitigate them through transparency of process and strict adherence to the rules on
declaring any conflicts of interests. Feedback from other neighbourhoods also
demonstrates the stringent precautions taken to manage these potential risks. On
balance, as long as these risks continue to be recognised and managed, they are strongly
outweighed by the benefits from having projects that are so closely linked to local needs
and priorities.
7.52 Procurement within Fair Share is a highly localised approach in which almost anything that
gets as far as a Panel will have some ‘interest’ link to one or more Panel members. In
many, there will have been Panel or Agent (or CDW) involvement in project development.
In these cases, it is challenging to establish modes of procurement which insist on a
degree of ‘distance’ between applicant and assessor. However, the approach is extremely
successful in terms of the aims of Fair Share, and is demonstrating a fascinating ability to
produce projects which are genuinely linked to local neighbourhoods and their needs.
7.53 There is often little practical distinction between commissioning, soliciting, open grant
making and negotiation. However, the results show that, if managed with an open and
rigorous process, the FST approach stands comparison in terms of accountability with
more formal methods, yet it is normally quicker and always more user-friendly. This is a
critical point in disadvantaged communities where capacity and confidence building are so
crucial.
70
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Part three:
Outcomes from the Fair Share Trust
Programme
_________________________________________________________________________________
8
9
10
Projects in action
Have Fair Share neighbourhoods got more funding?
Building capacity and social capital
71
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Chapter eight: Projects in action
“It’s hard to identify one project as being a ‘success story’ because, in the main, they all have
success stories within them. So perhaps it is best to say success has been achieved in all
aspects of our programme. However, to give examples from different ends of the spectrum:
Friends of Barker Park, with an award of just over £100,000, were able to attract a large amount
of match funding to build a beautiful area within the community which hitherto was ‘very sorry for
itself’. At the other, the 50+ group, with a small award of £5,000, have built a model of working
with older people that has attracted interest from across the borough. The group are now being
asked to share their experience with other similar group” Local Agent for Rotherham Fair Share
neighbourhood, South Yorkshire Community Foundation
Scope of chapter
This chapter looks at the types of projects being funded in the case study areas, both by size
and by types of activity. It examines who is getting the awards, and the problems
experienced in some areas in attracting applications.
Summary of key findings
• The Fair Share Trust (FST) programme appears to be dominated by smaller awards, with
nearly 40% being for £40,000 or less. In some neighbourhoods, use is being made of
awards of £10,000 or less to help deliver strategic approaches to Fair Share.
• There are few awards of over £100,000, but they make up nearly half the funding allocated.
There is a risk that awards of that size may deliver their own target outcomes but skew the
strategic direction of the area’s wider FST priorities.
• Currently, 10% of awards are going to new groups or groups that were not constituted prior
to their involvement in Fair Share. In addition, some 17% of awards are going to providers
of statutory services where it can sometimes prove difficult to ensure that Fair Share
monies are genuinely bringing services to the area which would not otherwise be provided.
• Just over a quarter of projects are about capacity building, nearly 10% involve capital
spend, and the remainder are about the delivery of services and activities to a wide range
of beneficiaries. These beneficiaries represent groups in the population who would normally
be targeted in programmes seeking to address disadvantage. Children and young people
are a particularly important focus.
• In many case study locations, it is still relatively early to be certain about long term
outcomes from the work of the FST. However, early indications are positive.
• When the projects and processes are examined against the indicators, it can be seen that
there is a high level of success with the theme relating to engaging disadvantaged people
and meeting their needs. All projects benefit people who are disadvantaged in some way,
and many also target special need groups such as young people or the elderly. There is
less evidence that disadvantaged people are getting involved in starting and running
projects, but clear evidence of growth in social cohesion resulting from the Fair Share
processes and projects that bring people and groups together.
• Difficulties are being experienced in some areas in attracting applications in an appropriate
number or of an appropriate quality. It is hoped that this may change over time as the
impacts are felt of the capacity building work being done as part of Fair Share.
72
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Introduction
8.1
The previous chapters of the report have been looking at the processes involved in
delivery of the Fair Share Trust programme (FST). This chapter explores the outcomes.
The starting point is the projects that are being funded. Our insight comes primarily from
the case studies. Considering all eleven, they show considerable variation in numbers of
awards made, size of awards, and types of projects being undertaken. Annex 11 gives
details of projects in each case study area by number and size, and annex 12 has a
description of each.
8.2
Fair Share provides a relatively broad framework within which grants can be made. At the
same time, as part two of this report has shown, FST processes promote involvement of
the local community and of community groups in ways that build capacity. At their best,
therefore, FST projects can be expected to be well-attuned to the needs of the local
community and to be delivered in ways which maximise a wide range of outcomes.
Number and size of awards
The most straightforward comparison of awards is across England, as all neighbourhoods
have the same amount of money. The number of projects so far funded per Fair Share
Trust (FST) neighbourhood in England ranges from six in Basildon to 30 in Enfield.
Across the programme as a whole, the range in numbers of awards is from one, which is
in Neath Port Talbot, to the 30 in Enfield. The range in value of an individual project goes
from £600,000 (Neath Port Talbot) to as little as £45.00 (North Somerset). Figure 5 shows
the spread of projects from the case study areas by size and value, and table 7 on the
following page gives numeric values. Whilst this can be no more than a ‘snap shot’, we
have gained considerable confidence through the survey that the case studies do indeed
give a reasonable reflection of the wider programme.
%
45
40
40
35
35
30
30
25
25
20
20
15
15
10
10
5
5
Figure 5: Case study awards by number and value
73
More than £100k
£90-100k
£80-90k
£70-80k
£60-70k
£50-60k
£40-50k
£30-40k
£20-30k
£10-20k
-
Percentage of Total Awards (Number)
%
45
Up to £10k
Percentage of Total Value of Awards (£k)
8.3
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 7: Numbers and value of approved projects in case study areas
(to autumn 2008)
No of
% of total
Total value of
awards of number of
awards of this
Value of awards (£)
this value
awards
size
Up to £10,000
67
42%
£394,160
% of total
value of
awards
7%
£10,001 - £20,000
20
13%
£288,300
5%
£20,001 - £30,000
11
7%
£283,900
5%
£30,001 - £40,000
18
11%
£642,000
11%
£40,001 - £50,000
9
6%
£404,500
7%
£50,001 - £60,000
5
3%
£258,400
4%
£60,001 - £70,000
2
1%
£139,600
2%
£70,001 - £80,000
7
4%
£532,700
9%
£80,001 - £90,000
2
1%
£171,600
3%
£90,001 - £100,000
2
1%
£182,000
3%
More than £100,000
16
10%
£2,560,000
44%
TOTALS
159
100%
£5,857,760
100%
8.4
Two things stand out. First, just under three quarters of the total awards in the case study
areas are of £40,000 or less. Based on the case studies, the FST programme is
dominated by relatively small and medium sized awards.
8.5
Secondly, there are:
• A large number of projects in the under £10,000 category (42% of all awards made), but
these account for only 7% of the total value of the awards.
• A much smaller number of projects of over £100,000 (10% of awards made), and these
account for 44% of the total value of the awards.
Whilst this is, in part, a reflection of the value ranges chosen at the upper end, i.e. the cutoff at £100,000, the size distribution is worth further investigation.
Use of small awards
8.6
Small awards need to be serving a good purpose because they are very demanding in
terms of Agents’ time. Where such awards go to inexperienced groups, they will often
involve the local Agent in significant capacity building prior to the award to help get the
organisation to the point where it is fit for funding. On the other hand, small grants can be
very valuable in a Fair Share context because they enable new organisations to get
awards, they can be the starting point for something much larger, and the process of
getting an organisation fit for funding is one mechanism for the capacity building that the
Big Lottery Fund (BIG) is hoping to see as a result of the programme.
8.7
Judged by the case studies, awards of £10,000 and less are only being made in England.
Two thirds of awards of this size have been made in two case study areas (Enfield and
North Somerset). In both, there has been a clear strategic purpose in using small grants.
Both have a strong focus on capacity building, and it is interesting to note that they are
using small grants in very different ways. Whatever the approach, small grants are an
important component in responsiveness to local groups (see box 16).
74
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Box 16: Strategic use of small awards in Enfield and North Somerset
Enfield
• 28 out of 30 round one awards in Enfield are small grants (£10,000 or less)
• The Enfield FST neighbourhood was a ‘forgotten’ area that had not been a priority
because nearby areas were worse in terms of deprivation statistics.
• There were motivated, energetic and capable people living in the neighbourhood, but
no history of formalised grass roots activity.
• The Agent aimed to ‘kick start’ change through quick wins. Awards were limited to
£10,000 for the early stage of the programme, in keeping with the capability of the
majority of local organisations. The local Agent specifically tailored the grant
application process to the needs and capabilities of new and inexperienced groups.
• This showed partner organisations in the local community, the wider VCs and the
statutory service providers that something was happening as a result of the work of the
FST
• It enabled small and inexperienced groups to develop ideas and successfully apply for
funding. In turn, this enabled identification of groups with the capacity to go on and do
more things.
• It provided a mechanism for identifying ‘gaps’ relating to areas of identified need where
projects are not coming forward (and therefore development work is needed).
• In addition, the small grants were accompanied by two larger commissioned awards,
one to help with the process of understanding existing service delivery for young
people and thereby help identify gaps in provision, and the other to help build capacity
in a key Development Trust operating in the area.
North Somerset
• 15 out of 21 round one awards in North Somerset are for £10,000 or less.
• North Somerset is an area with a troubled VCS. There is a history of attempts at
building the sector through voluntary sector alliances and capacity building initiatives,
without substantial outcomes.
• The local Agent is leading an approach to the work of the FST which is focused on
building local infrastructure and its capacity.
• Small grants are an integral part of the approach, enabling groups to purchase training
or to build capacity through buying in external consultancy help.
• Small grants are paralleled by much larger ones for key infrastructure building projects,
including community development workers.
• An important outcome from this approach, if it is successful, will be that benefits are
much wider than just the FST neighbourhoods (effectively there are three), and are felt
across the whole of North Somerset.
Use of large awards
8.8
At the other end of the size spectrum, are the 16 awards in excess of £100,000. 13 are in
the £100,000 to £200,000 size range, with the remainder being £225,900, £232,500 and
£600,000 respectively. The most extreme example of the large award is the Helping
Hands project for the elderly, with all the funding for the area going into this one scheme
(see box 17).
8.9
Our starting point in the review of large awards is that they have to be very good to justify
the level of resources spent on them. To understand them better, we grouped them into
categories in order to look at where the money is going:
• Capital spend (5 projects): Four projects are improvements to outdoor recreation
space, for both active and passive recreational activities. They include spaces for
children’s play, a Multi Use Games Area, an all weather pitch for football, rugby, netball
and athletics, access routes and paths designed for users with disabilities, and a
75
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
community garden. One is improvements to create an indoor gym and fitness room in a
community centre.
• Capacity building in the VCS (6 projects): Four projects involve capacity building work
with organisations in the VCS. Two of these are specifically for the employment of a
community development worker linked to the FST neighbourhood, and involve work with
the Panel and the wider community, as well as with community groups. The work with
community groups has a strong emphasis on making them fit for funding (including
constitutions, appropriate insurance and child protection policies and practice), and
helping them to think through issues relating to their own future sustainability and
continuation of the work that they are doing in the local community.
• Support for target need groups (5 projects): Two projects have been for development
work with young people, two for work with older people, and one is a family support
project.
8.10 Such a spread of types of large project could have been anticipated, given the terms of
reference of the FST programme, and there is nothing to suggest any intrinsic problems
with the types of large projects being selected.
8.11 The next step was to ask whether large projects are notably better than others, in order to
justify the extent of their funding. The one we know best is in Neath Port Talbot (see box
17). Whilst some of its characteristics are peculiar to the project, we have no reason to
think that the wider conclusions are not applicable elsewhere.
Box 17: Helping Hands Home Maintenance Service
In Neath Port Talbot, a single project (total award value £600,000) has been funded with
the FST money, serving the whole Borough. Helping Hands Home Maintenance
Service (Helping Hands for short) undertakes minor repair works, painting and
decorating, and gardening. It is open to council and housing association tenants whose
major repairs are covered by their social landlords. Part of the rationale for the service is
to enable people to continue living in their own homes thereby reducing the demand for
institutional placements for the elderly. The key target group is the elderly living alone
and/or with disabilities, who cannot afford to pay for commercial maintenance work.
It is part of a wider scheme which includes an intermediate labour market programme
operated by Workways. Trained professionals, work with local, long term unemployed
people in order to build their skills and increase their employability.
Leadership is provided by a Partnership made up of representatives of many groups.
Six organisations make up an operational Task Group to support day-to-day
management of the service, which is provided by Care and Repair Neath Port Talbot.
After two and a half years of the Helping Hands service, 2,056 clients had been
referred, and over 6,000 services provided (i.e. clients get repeat services). Initial
difficulties (e.g. getting accurate and timely assessment of job requirements, review of
client eligibility, and an adequate flow of trainees from Workways) have been identified
and largely resolved. Satisfaction levels (with the work done and the service as a whole)
are now generally high and waiting times have been significantly reduced.
An external evaluation for Helping Hands (August 2007) showed that the vast majority
of clients are over 70, with 70% being either disabled or partly disabled. 24 Workways
beneficiaries have been through the scheme, with 10 going on to further employment.
Helping Hands has been financed mainly from the FST. Other funders include the
former Community Fund (£98,000), from Workways (£185,000), and the Borough
Council (£13,000 of in-kind support). A new application for funding to continue the
service has been made to BIG.
76
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
8.12 At the outset of this discussion, it needs to be recognised that Wales is different from the
other three countries because the National Assembly for Wales did not want to see new
structures put in place through FST. In consequence, Fair Share linked up with existing
Community Strategy processes, and hence took on part of their processes, thinking and
pre-existing work. In addition, the FST covers the whole local authority area and therefore
does not have a ‘neighbourhood’ focus.
8.13 The need for a home repair service, particularly focused on elderly people, was
recognised in Neath Port Talbot through the Community Strategy work. Effectively, it was
a scheme looking for funding, and FST provided the opportunity. It is run by an
experienced local agency of a long established Welsh and UK wide organisation, in
conjunction with a strong local partnership made up of public sector and experienced
voluntary sector organisations. It is delivering a service to a priority group in the local
authority area. It is reliant on continuation funding, and its sustainability is not secure.
Because it is run by already experienced organisations, it is not contributing to
organisational capacity building or capacity building in the local community. By giving all
the money to one project, there is a loss of the ability to support a wider range of
organisations, and thereby a loss of opportunity to build capacity whilst also meeting local
needs. Overall we conclude that Helping Hands is a decent project which meets local
expectations of it. It does not, however, contribute extensively to BIG’s programme
objectives.
8.14 However, we also found evidence that large projects can be:
• Part of a strategic approach in their respective neighbourhoods.
• Based on a good understanding of the local community(ies) and their needs and are,
therefore, specifically shaped to local circumstances.
• Done by the community or through working with the community, and not as something
that is done to them.
• Undertaken by a community based organisation, and hence better placed to achieve
results in terms of engaging local people and groups, bringing them together, and
thinking about ways to bring about change in the future.
• Undertaken with thinking about sustainability being an intrinsic part of the way of
working, producing good prospects for a positive, long term outcome.
8.15 These project characteristics have been identified in other evaluations, and are well
understood43.
8.16 Overall with respect to large projects, we conclude that many are good, and could not
have happened without the local pot of money. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with
making such awards, when they are also meeting overall programme objectives, but
where they do not, they have a high opportunity cost.
43 See, for example, Evaluation of the Green Spaces and Sustainable Communities Programme, Baker Associates for the Big
Lottery Fund, www.biglotteryfund.org.uk
77
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Who gets the awards?
8.17 The survey provides information about who is getting FST awards (table 8).
ex- local authority
services
32%
11%
2%
3%
9%
0
0
34%
66%
0
0
0
0
Scotland
4%
1%
29%
41%
12%
2%
7%
3%
Wales
10%
0
10%
70%
0
0
0
10%
Programme wide
6%
4%
30%
36%
2%
4%
7%
Northern Ireland
11%
other
local authorities providing
non-statutory services
30%
other public services
established groups have
had significant funding
before
5%
England
existing groups
constituted as a result of
FS development work
7%
new groups formed as a
result of FS development
work
established groups not
had significant funding
before
Table 8: types of organisations receiving FST grants (to October 2008)
8.18 The survey findings show that a relatively low number of awards (10%) are going to new
or newly constituted groups. Given the focus on capacity building, a larger proportion
would have been a good outcome. It is possible that this pattern will change over time as
the impacts of capacity building work are felt.
8.19 It is also surprising that 17% of awards are going to local authorities, other public services,
and organisations providing former local authority services (e.g. leisure services
contractors). The guidance for Agents is clear that there must be no funding of activities
that should be provided by others, but this can be hard to identify and achieve in practice.
Furthermore, projects delivered by statutory sector partners, or in a manner akin to a
public service provider, are normally less likely to meet the objectives for the FST by
engaging the community in decision making, building capacity in community organisations,
and building social capital. For this reason, public sector, and quasi public sector, awards
can be difficult to justify in a programme like Fair Share, however good the resulting
services and facilities. We therefore regard 17% as over high.
Who benefits from the FST projects?
8.20 The source for information on what the funded projects are doing is the case studies. We
have begun by exploring the target groups for projects. There are 159 funded projects to
date in the case study neighbourhoods, and their target beneficiaries are shown in table 9.
Many projects have more than one target. Hence a health awareness project may work
with older people on exercise and healthy eating, and younger people on substance
abuse. Where there are multiple targets, the projects have been classified as ‘whole
community’. This category encompasses two or more of the young, the old, minority
ethnic groups, people with health or family problems, people with disabilities and their
carers, people who are unemployed, people with debt problems, and many other subcategories. Overall, it is clear that projects are working with a wide spread of groups.
78
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 9: Project beneficiaries in case study areas
Beneficiary group
% of projects
No of projects
Children and young people
25%
39
Ethnic minorities
11%
17
Older people
4%
7
People with disabilities
3%
5
Women
2%
3
Whole community
55%
88
TOTAL
100%
159
8.21 The aims for the Fair Share initiative expect that projects funded should ‘be run by and for
disadvantaged people’44, and the evaluation terms of reference reflect this by asking the
evaluators to ‘assess the extent of the involvement of people who have experienced
disadvantage and/or social exclusion’ 45. ‘Engaging disadvantaged people and meeting
their needs’ is one of our indicator themes. Table 10 (following page) shows performance
against the three indicators under the theme. For each, the evaluation task is
identification of changes arising as a result of involvement with the FST.
8.22 With respect to the first indicator, there is evidence that new groups are starting and
running projects. The case studies also suggest that in areas with a substantial black and
minority ethnic population, the FST programme is enabling embryonic groups to formalise
and to deliver services that meet specific needs of particular ethnic communities. There is
evidence of growth in volunteering, involving residents in new activities.
8.23 The second indicator is looking for evidence that ‘more disadvantaged people benefit from
funded projects’ as a result of Fair Share. In every forum we visited, this was regarded by
participants as one of the key successes of the FST in their neighbourhood. Not least, all
projects are intended to benefit residents and then, within that, many also target a special
group. The great majority are being done in areas where previously project activity was
very limited.
8.24 This indicator shows that there is a big focus on work with young people. Evidence from
the projects shows a wide range of outcomes for that target group, including improved
ability to communicate and socialise, respect for boundaries, recognition of unacceptable
behaviour in self and others, increased capability to appropriately challenge actions of
others, and enhanced abilities to work together in groups. In turn this is leading to
growing recognition of self worth and a slowly improving perception of young people
amongst other members of the community. Projects maintain that young people who are
engaged with them over a period of time rarely return to anti-social behaviour or criminal
lifestyles.
44 See para 2.8 and table 1 in this report.
45 See annex 3 on evaluation methodology, para A3.4
79
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 10: Engaging disadvantaged people and meeting their needs
Indicators
Evidence from
of change
evaluation workshops, project visits, and survey of Agents
More
disadvantaged
people are
involved in
starting/running
projects (i.e.
disadvantaged
people who
were not
involved
before, are
now)
• Some evidence of new or previously unconstituted groups starting to
run projects (10% of awards in the survey).
• A notable component in this is BME groups; these groups may have
existed in embryonic form and the funding created the opportunity to
develop specific ideas about services to their local community e.g.
lunch clubs, activities for women, sporting activity.
• There is evidence of projects involving beneficiaries in decisionmaking re project running; this is more likely to result from the
philosophy of the group than from any causal relationship with FST.
• Strong evidence of new people of all age groups (who are local
residents) being involved in running local projects.
• In the case of young people, there is a clear (though small) pattern of
young people returning to projects where they themselves have been
beneficiaries and ‘putting something back’.
More
disadvantaged
people benefit
from funded
projects (i.e.
more activities
with/ for
disadvantaged
people)
• All FST projects can be said to benefit people who are disadvantaged
in some way because the FST neighbourhoods are defined as
suffering from disadvantage and FST projects which benefit local
residents by definition benefit disadvantaged people.
• Many projects focus on specific target groups within the above
definition of disadvantage.
• Strong emphasis on young people, particularly with respect to gaining
qualifications, training and going on to get jobs; also gaining life skills,
confidence, self-worth to counteract anti-social behaviour, depression,
substance abuse.
• Other target groups include the elderly, people with disabilities, their
carers, unemployed, people in debt, recent arrivals in the UK.
• Many activities supported by FST funding are free to users, which
enables even the poorest people to take part regardless of ability to
pay.
More funded
projects
contribute to
social cohesion
and inclusion
(individual
projects and
projects in the
area overall)
• Young people (YP), and their relationships with each other and with
other groups, are an important focus.
• Projects are working to improve relationships between YP and their
families.
• Projects are working to help YP take more ownership of their locality
(e.g. projects engage them in environmental activity such as cleanups), and to create mutual respect (e.g. between YP and allotment
holders, YP and the police).
• Evidence of projects which cross cultural and sectarian divides, e.g.
promoting contact between established and new communities,
between cultures, projects linking isolated villages and communities.
• Mutual support networks emerging e.g. amongst carers – exchange
of ideas, people know they are not alone.
• Growth in inter-generational activity.
• Growth of formal and informal support networks between groups
delivering FST projects and groups benefiting from FST capacity
building.
8.25 The final indicator under this theme looks at whether, as a result of the FST, more funded
projects contribute to social cohesion and inclusion. The emerging evidence suggests
that there is a substantial element of change happening as a result of Fair Share. Projects
80
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
are building links, people are volunteering, in some locations Fair Share is holding
celebratory events. People are getting to know each other in ways that they haven’t in the
past, and knowing each other helps to break down barriers and so to reduce exclusion
and build cohesion.
8.26 Overall, we conclude that the evidence shows that more is being done by, and for,
disadvantaged people in the FST neighbourhoods.
What sorts of activities are being done through FST funded projects?
8.27 The data to answer this question is drawn from the case study projects (Table 11).
Table 11: Project activities in case study areas
Type of activity
% of projects
No of projects
Capacity building
28%
44
Projects for children and young people
(excludes skills, health, and drama)
16%
26
Capital projects
9%
14
Skills, education, training, employment
8%
13
Health projects
6%
10
Lunch club and day time activities
6%
9
Drama, music and film projects
5%
8
Credit union and debt counselling
4%
6
Events
4%
6
Projects for people with disabilities
3%
5
Establishing needs (surveys, mapping)
2%
3
Other (all 2 projects or fewer)
9%
15
100%
159
TOTAL
8.28 This is an interesting spread of projects, with no surprises or concerns contained within it.
The way the data is presented partly disguises the strong overall focus on young people.
Also, many FST projects include activities from more than one category (e.g. a lunch club
project that also runs events, activities for people with disabilities, health issues etc). The
analysis here is based on the main activity of the project.
Difficulties in attracting applications
8.29 By definition, Fair Share areas had been making fewer successful lottery applications, so it
was by no means a foregone conclusion that there would be both capability and desire
amongst local organisations to use the funding made available. It is not surprising,
therefore, that a number of areas are experiencing difficulty, and that a substantial phase
of development work is required before grant making can proceed at a significant scale.
There is a clear parallel here with the Community Fund’s experiences in some of its Fair
Share areas46.
46 Fair Share evaluation, Second Report, December 2007 www.biglotteryfund.org.uk
81
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
8.30 Difficulties in project procurement do not need to mean that resulting projects are in some
way weak or inappropriate. One case study neighbourhood in Northern Ireland
(Craigavon) struggled for some time to elicit small projects for older people from the five
individual FST wards, but failed to raise any interest. They finally went through a tendering
process which was advertised in the local press. The resulting project (box 18) was the
single response.
8.31 The project is large (£232,400). It is well aligned with the Priorities across Northern
Ireland and in the local area, and sensitively mixes activities and advice for older people
with capacity building in existing small groups for the elderly.
Box 18: Community Network Craigavon: Helping Older People (HOP)
“I was at an all time low when my husband died, and someone asked me to become
secretary of the widows group. Helping other widows probably helped me more than
me helping them. Sometimes you think it is a thankless task, but them someone says
thank you for running the group and rescuing them … and you keep going…we are a
stepping stone to help women take up with the groups they were involved in before their
husbands died, once their confidence has built up again.”
Community Network Craigavon was awarded £232,400 to be spent over three years to
support and advise older people and help them develop and extend their own projects
and social networks.
It employs two workers. They researched needs, initiated and sometimes ran small
projects and events, organised funding and personal finance clinics, and created links
with other partners to develop a volunteer base to continue the support of older people
after the project finishes. The aim is to enable on-going activity when FST funding is
finished.
They identified groups already delivering projects in the area, and were not surprised to
find that many of the volunteers running them are well into old age. Some had not
realised just how much was already going on in the area which their group might be
able to make use of. Most needed only small amounts of money to run trips, and hire
speakers or facilitators to run craft and fitness sessions. A barrier affecting every group
is the lack of, and/or cost of, transport to get their members to events and activities.
Most of the groups prefer the workers to make their funding application, not least
because of past rejections. The workers aim to build up face to face relationships so
that volunteers have the confidence to advise in the future. All groups have become
more knowledgeable about opportunities in the local area and more competent in
making funding applications and managing their accounts. Some are now more
ambitious about developing the services they deliver to their members and more selforganising.
The groups feel that the needs of older people are not recognised by their wider
community and hope that the project will promote those needs and raise awareness.
Evaluators’ commentary
8.32 Currently, the stage of development of FST project activity varies substantially between
the different case study areas. In the great majority, monies remain to be allocated. Even
where spend is complete or close to completion, many of the sorts of impacts that BIG is
looking for take long periods of time to fully emerge. It follows that findings about
outcomes are necessarily provisional. There would be great value in revisiting aspects of
the programme when a longer time period has elapsed so as to re-examine and properly
verify outcomes.
82
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
8.33 Evidence so far shows that the pattern of awards is dominated numerically by small and
medium grants, with just under three quarters in the case study areas being for £40,000 or
less. Small awards have great importance wherever inexperienced organisations are
looking for funding. They can act as ‘seed corn’, offering a basis for groups to get going,
build their capacity, and provide an opportunity to build success through securing an
award and delivering a project. Two of the case studies, in particular, have demonstrated
that small awards can be used to good strategic purpose in a programme like Fair Share.
The ability of the programme to deliver small and medium sized awards is a key enabling
factor in developing capacity in the local VCS.
8.34 The value of larger awards makes them disproportionately important, with 44% of total
funding in case study areas to date going to the 10% of projects with an individual value of
more than £100,000. Such awards are not achievable by smaller or inexperienced
groups. This does not automatically mean that large awards do not contribute to
achievement of programme aims, but it does make it very important that large awards are
maximising their potential. If they are not there is a high opportunity cost.
8.35 The issue of who gets the awards is also important to outcomes. Across the UK, 60% of
awards have gone to groups that have had significant funding before, or other
experienced applicants (e.g. local authorities). Relatively few awards have gone to new
groups or to groups who have been constituted as a result of capacity building work done
through FST. Whilst it can be anticipated that there will be changes over time as the
impacts of capacity building work their way through the FST process, this is an area where
there is clear potential for more to be achieved through different targeting of awards.
8.36 It appears that insufficient attention is being paid to the emphasis on ‘local’, on capacity
building, and on developing social capital in the FST programme. A larger number of
awards to smaller organisations in the VCS, particularly community organisations, would
more effectively contribute in these respects. Such a focus would require substantial
evidence that large awards and awards to the public sector and large VCS organisations
would make such contributions for them to be approved.
8.37 The chosen beneficiaries for projects are a key factor in the very positive performance of
the FST in the evaluation against the programme aims relating to engaging disadvantaged
people and meetings their needs. This makes any reservations about targeting of awards
even more important. Evident successes could be further compounded by enhanced
targeting of awards.
8.38 An important dimension in our findings about the projects is that we anticipate that the
nature of awards being made through the FST has the potential to change over time.
Where capacity building work has been an important aspect of the programme, more
applications from smaller or relatively inexperienced groups can be anticipated.
Furthermore, as increasing attention is given to the sustainability of the effects of Fair
Share, capacity building may grow in importance rather than diminish, compounding the
impacts of earlier work.
83
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Chapter nine: Have Fair Share neighbourhoods got more funding?
Most of the projects funded would probably not have happened without the Fair Share
infrastructure. People would not have cared sufficiently about the problem to consider doing
something about it – it was always someone else’s responsibility – usually ‘the Council’s’. Being
given the money to spend up front, and told to get on with it, serves to concentrate people’s
minds and makes them want to get involved.’
Skelmersdale, West Lancashire Council for Voluntary Service
Scope of chapter
This chapter examines funding and other resources going into Fair Share neighbourhoods as
direct and indirect results of Fair Share investment in the area.
Summary of key findings
• The extent of allocation of money in the different neighbourhoods is very variable. At a small
number of locations there are concerns about their ability to achieve full spend by the end of
the programme.
• There is evidence of match funding for Fair Share Trust (FST) awards, with an order of
magnitude of half as much again, with further help in kind and support from volunteers.
• Whilst continuation funding is not yet an issue for many of the projects, there is evidence that
some are already finding other sources of funding. However, the current funding climate
means that many may struggle. We anticipate that will be particularly the case where open
grants have been used without significant capacity building.
• Organisations that have benefited from capacity building can feel significant benefits.
Strengthening the capacity building capability in local infrastructure organisations can lead to
demonstrable successes in getting funding amongst the organisations they support.
• Indirect funding benefits are also resulting from Fair Share. Others with time and/or money
to invest have become interested as a result of seeing Fair Share in action, and are investing
their own resources either into a FST neighbourhood or into a local Agent so that they can
work elsewhere.
What question are we trying to answer?
9.1
It is an overall aim of the Fair Share Trust (FST) programme that, by the end of the
initiative, ‘all targeted Fair Share areas will have received a larger share of the total
funding from the good causes (i.e. lottery)’47. For the FST neighbourhoods, the
Community Foundation Network (CFN) set out a demanding expectation, namely that ‘the
projects funded will…create sustainable outcomes without further reliance on Lottery
funding, or will no longer be needed as they have tackled the problems they sought to
address.’48
9.2
The importance of funding is also picked up in the evaluation specification. It asks about
changes in the capacity of the voluntary and community sector (VCS), ‘including their
ability to apply for and win other funding’.
47 See chapter 2, table 1
48 Local Agent Guidance Pack, version 2, February 2006, section 1.5
84
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
9.3
Funding issues are important in the programme, because it arose out of concerns that
some areas were not getting their ‘fair share’ of money through the various lottery
distributors. Fair Share was always about making and winning applications for funding.
However, there are ambiguities in both the aspirations for Fair Share, and the evaluation
specification, with respect to money.
9.4
The overall aim that Fair Share areas will be attracting a larger share of total funding from
the good causes is not straightforward. It may simply be trying to ensure that each area
gets, and uses, its allocation from Fair Share. This would, in turn, in all likelihood mean
that each is getting a larger share, given that hitherto these areas have had very little. It
may, on the other hand, be looking at wider successes with Lottery distributors, as implied
in the evaluation specification. If it is the latter, there is an underlying difficulty. Fair Share
is substantially about building capacity in local communities, and has a strong focus on the
VCS. As already noted, this sector is frequently under-developed in Fair Share areas. The
ability of the sector to successfully compete with experienced organisations across all
sectors and with respect to all sizes of awards is not going to have changed substantially
in the five years since the programme began, though it can be expected that there will be
changes in the types and sizes of awards that the newly strengthened VCS feels
comfortable with. Furthermore, the great majority of programmes of the Lottery
distributors are unsuited to community organisations and very local organisations in the
voluntary sector, and this is where Fair Share has been building capacity.
9.5
Secondly, a Fair Share neighbourhood, which is what we are looking at in this evaluation,
is much smaller than the local authority area in all locations except for Wales. Changes in
a single neighbourhood are unlikely to show up at the local authority level and it is not
possible to get relevant statistics to show changes in the FST neighbourhoods alone.
9.6
Thirdly, the aspiration set out by CFN is, in our view, too optimistic. Projects funded
through the FST are working in disadvantaged areas, and with target groups who are
needy. We have no sense that many of the projects funded can realistically expect to
become self-sustaining in the near future, or that the needs they are meeting will have
gone away. Regeneration and other programmes responding to disadvantage address a
social and economic legacy of many decades standing, and one programme is not going
to resolve the problems. What it can and should do is improve capability in groups, and in
the individuals working in them, to make applications in the future. The next chapter
explores the extent to which capacity to compete in this respect is being built.
9.7
In this chapter we focus on money. The discussion is not confined to money from the
Lottery. It also explores other money that neighbourhoods have attracted in through FST
activity, and other resources attracted in as a result of it, for example help-in-kind.
Ultimately, a good issue to explore is whether there is evidence that the communities and
their organisations in the FST neighbourhoods are more able to compete successfully,
and this is where we are placing our emphasis. In other words, ‘are things moving in the
right direction with respect to their ability to attract resources?’.
9.8
We do not have good, consistent data, and this chapter therefore draws together a
number of observations from the case studies and the survey.
85
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Are the neighbourhoods getting their Fair Share Trust money?
9.9
The money going to each FST neighbourhood is a consequence of pre-determined
allocations based on population size and deprivation. A review of the method used lies
outside the scope of the evaluation. Our concern here, therefore, is whether they will be
able to utilise all their allocation, so as to ensure that they get their ‘fair share’.
9.10 Our case studies provide evidence of very different rates of allocation of monies (making
awards) in different neighbourhoods (table 12). Progress is good in the majority of areas,
though the performance of some raises queries about their likelihood of achieving actual
spend by the end of the programme.
Table 12: Extent of use of the FST allocation in case study neighbourhoods
(autumn 2008)
Size of award £
Amount
%
to area of
allocated £
allocated
benefit
England
Ashfield
£861,000
£536,700
62%
Basildon
£861,000
£255,800
30%
Bolton
£861,000
£462,600
54%
Dudley
£861,000
£444,200
52%
Ellesmere Port
£861,000
£532,600
62%
Enfield
£861,000
£310,900
36%
North Somerset
£861,000
£390,600
45%
Rotherham
£861,000
£787,800
91%
Ballymena
£115,000
£115,000
100%
Coleraine
£125,000
£100,700
81%
Craigavon
£245,000
£245,000
100%
South Lanarkshire – Larkhall
£851,000
£535,200
63%
South Lanarkshire – Rural areas
£379,000
£285,100
75%
£600,000
£600,000
100%
Northern Ireland
Scotland
Wales
Neath Port Talbot
9.11 In Basildon, allocation of 30% of the target spend had been achieved by autumn 2008.
The Agent, the community development worker and the Panel are working hard and with
commitment. Their work has included a major review of Priorities and there has been a
significant increase in the involvement of local residents. The Agent is confident that their
approach to procurement is attracting projects which match well with the revised Priorities,
and that the early years of capacity building and engagement of the local community will
lead to successful FST outcomes in Basildon, including full spend of the allocation.
9.12 In Enfield, the level of allocation to date is 36%. The Agent in Enfield has taken grant
making slowly because of the character of the area and its community. The Panel has
grown to be very sophisticated in its understanding of the FST process, and has recently
86
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
been working with the Agent around the meaning of outcomes funding and the potential
role of commissioning. They are moving on to further develop their second
Neighbourhood Priorities Document (NPD), by better defining prioritised outcomes. Work
was done on this at the time of the review of the NPD, but more is now being done. The
Agent is confident that there are more projects emerging than could be funded, and is very
happy with the slow approach taken to funding because it has allowed time for the
priorities to become clearer and for changes in the local community (as a result of
emerging local authority initiatives) to be fully understood. There is currently no doubt on
the part of the local Agent that spend will be achieved.
9.13 In South Lanarkshire, the two neighbourhoods have achieved allocation levels of 63% in
Larkhall and 75% in the Rural Areas. The problem here is the proximity to the end of the
programme in Scotland. The Agent is aiming to have all money spent by March 2010. Of
the two, Larkhall is of greater concern. Part of the difficulty is that Larkhall received the
largest allocation in Scotland, and probably also has the least capacity in the VCS to
spend it. Furthermore, the Panel is suspended and so the mechanisms for getting the
funding spent are less obvious, although the Agent is working hard with local interests to
identify and bring forward appropriate projects. In the Rural Areas, the Panel is very
proactive and has got many ideas about how to meet local needs and the
contacts/networks to ensure that projects can get developed and delivered quickly. There
is capacity in the VCS to do this.
Match funding and help in kind
9.14 Through match funding, the amounts of money going into FST areas can be extended.
CFN have estimated that nearly £15 million has been obtained in match funding and help
in kind during the first five years of the programme. An analysis of the sources of match
funding for the period June 2007-0849 shows a wide spread of partners, in categories
which include:
• Local councils: examples cited include a wide range of local authority partners and
Local Strategic Partnerships.
• Central Government money: this includes the Children’s Fund, the Learning and Skills
Council, Safer Stronger Communities Fund, Scottish Government, Youth Opportunities
Fund.
• European Funds: European Social Fund, Objective 1.
• Lottery distributors: Awards for All, Big Lottery Fund.
• Partner organisations at the local level: police, housing associations, colleges and
schools.
• Business sector: corporate Trusts, KickStart scheme, local traders’ associations.
• The organisations getting funding: these organisations contribute their own resources.
9.15 We also have evidence that many of the Community Foundations have been making small
awards out of their own endowment funds. This has been an important factor in ‘oiling the
wheels’ of Fair Share. We know, for example, that in Dudley the local Agent used
Foundation monies for small awards when there was frustration over the time taken for
grant making to get underway. A similar situation happened in Ashfield. These examples
have come up in the course of conversation, and we suspect that there will be many
49 Fair Share Trust – Year 5 24/06/07 to 223/06/08 Sources of partnership/ match/ in-kind/ levered funding, Community
Foundation Network, autumn 2008
87
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
others. There is great power in the ability to make small awards at times when there is
pressure for evidence of action.
9.16 Paralleling match funding and help in kind is the role of the volunteer. Many projects rely
heavily on volunteer support for their inception or continuation. Box 19 provides an
example of what volunteers can achieve when the funding is available.
Box 19: The Great Lever Voice project
The Great Lever Voice project comes from the passion of a local resident to help young
people missing out on opportunities for formal education and training. The group
running the project is currently entirely voluntary, though it draws on skills developed
through the ‘day job’ of one of the group leaders.
The group’s main aim is to provide training opportunities for young people in Great
Lever who have had difficulties with the school system and/ or Connexions, because, for
example, they don’t fit in, they have been excluded from school, or they have been
overlooked for courses because they are considered unlikely to achieve. Other aims of
the project are to:
• Encourage young people to have ownership of the well-being of their community.
• Build community champions who are likely to put something back into their community.
• Enable young people to enter further education or find employment.
It is achieving excellent and increasing participation rates and educational outputs:
• In year 1, out of 69 participants, 36 went on to education, employment or training;
between them they had 71 assorted qualifications.
• In year 2, out of 210 participants, 178 emerged into education, employment or training;
417 assorted qualifications were obtained.
This has been done with award values of £10,000 in year 1, and £11,346 in year 2.
There is also evidence of wider outcomes. In both years, young people have undertaken
training with Bolton Council for Voluntary Service as volunteer leaders and have come
back to work with the group as peer mentors. Furthermore, two ex-project participants
have enabled the Great Lever FST Panel to buck the trend of having difficulty in
attracting youth representatives because they sit as young people Panel members.
In year 2, the group moved to their own premises on a local allotment site. Despite
apprehensions from the allotment holders, the relationship with the young people is
working well, and the two groups have worked together to make the area around new
premises look more welcoming. As a follow-on, ‘Greener Communities’ funding has
been obtained so that both groups can work together to renovate and plant the car park
and the site entrance to make it more attractive.
There is yet more. A chance meeting with representatives of the Bolton Gathering of
Organic Growers (which is another FS funded project), has led to Great Lever Voice
joining forces with them, and young men from Great Lever Voice are voluntarily helping
on the BGOG organic allotments. Young men previously at risk are learning skills,
making new friends, and contributing to wider successes in the local area.
The Agent feels that the logical next step for group is to employ staff. He is encouraging
them in this direction. The group has now successfully applied for a third and final year
of Fair Share Trust funding. But nothing would have happened without the commitment
of the volunteers at the outset, and they are likely to remain the driving force.
9.17 Finally, there is a huge amount of unpaid work being done by local resident Panel
members, Panel Chairs, and unpaid representatives from community organisations. Like
the volunteers in the projects, they give their time freely and generously, and Fair Share
would not have many of the strengths that it has without them.
88
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Continuation funding
9.18 Many of our case study projects are insufficiently advanced to have got to the stage of
requiring continuation funding. However, in Bolton, where grant making proceeded faster
than a number of other locations we have evidence about progress from the projects’
evaluation workshop. In particular:
• There was widespread agreement that FST money has been a lever for other funding;
not least, it gives an organisation credibility to have had such an award.
• The Bolton Literacy Trust has been able to build on the success of their FST work and
won funding to continue, for example from UK Online funding.
• The Community Foundation Greater Manchester quality standard logo (for which
organisations must be eligible in order to get a FST award in Bolton) has been used as
evidence of quality assurance by Great Lever Voice when they applied for and won an
additional £10,300 from other funders.
9.19 There is also ‘snapshot’ evidence from the survey of local Agents. The Bedfordshire and
Luton Community Foundation, for example, has an interesting story to tell both about
project successes in getting more funding and its own increased success in getting
funding from other partners for distribution to projects as a result of its work about financial
in the FST neighbourhood in Luton (see box 20).
Box 20: Continuation and additional funding in Luton
A number of Fair Share projects in the Luton neighbourhood are have secured
continuation funding. For example, the Shanthona Women’s Group has used the three
years of their FST funding to increase the numbers and effectiveness of their
Committee, achieve charitable status which enables them to look for money from across
a wider spectrum of funders, increase their command of computer skills (e.g. through
completing the monitoring forms) and improve their daily use of English. In addition to
their Fair Share funding (award size of £35,000), they have secured at £10,000 Awards
for All grant, £7,000 from the Local Network Fund, and £2,000 from Sport Relief.
The Bedfordshire and Luton Foundation is finding that it is able to attract additional
resources for distribution to disadvantaged communities and groups in its area as a
result of Fair Share.
• Luton Borough Council, who are on the FST Panel, are channelling £20,000 a year
through the Foundation for awards to community environmental projects. This money
was entirely unsolicited and arose out of a Panel member understanding how the
Foundation works.
• The Foundation is using its FST experience as evidence that it is a competent and
trusted organisation in its promotional work with private sector partners. This has led,
for example, to £50,000 a year from London Luton Airport for grant making across a
wide range of projects.
• The Foundation has taken a local businessman to the FST area and introduced him
to beneficiary groups. He met and talked with the local community and gained a clear
understanding of what was being done and how, and is making a substantial donation
to the Foundation.
9.20 FST-funded projects, however, are experiencing difficulties with continuation funding for
their work. Fieldwork undertaken by a member of the evaluation team in Brent50 showed,
for example, that there are projects which have developed popular and much-valued
50 ‘Evaluation of the role of the CDW in the Brent FST neighbourhood’, 2008, for the Scarman Trust, unpublished.
89
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
services that are unable to continue when the FST funding ends. For project
beneficiaries, such a ‘stop-start-stop’ approach to service provision is disruptive, and
potentially damaging. What was also evident was that the community groups involved are
not giving up. Having been unable to find continuation funding, they are looking at
alternative ways of delivering a reduced form of the project as an interim measure,
demonstrating an increased capacity as a result of participation in Fair Share. Whilst this
is a cause for celebration, there is an overall reminder that without capacity building, and
without sources of continuation funding, FST projects run the risk of ‘disappearing’ in the
same way that projects funded through open grants can.
Money impacts of capacity building and strengthening infrastructure organisations
9.21 An important feature of the capacity building work is its focus on making grant
applications. It covers, for example, work on identifying aims, devising projects and
making applications, monitoring and evaluation, and on other sources of funding. This is
done either directly through the efforts of a community development worker (as in
Ashfield) or indirectly through strengthening an infrastructure organisation (as in North
Somerset and South Lanarkshire Rural Areas).
9.22 The approach can be very powerful (see box 21). This project had set an ambitious
target of bringing £1 million of new funding to the area. In practice, it has helped groups
bring in a further £1,333,600. This is a major achievement for an area that has traditionally
raised relatively little money for local voluntary and community projects. It has also helped
with new group formation and networking.
Box 21: The ‘Gettin Mair Fae Fair Share’ project
The Getting Mair Fae Fair Share project is designed specifically to build the capacity of
new and small groups in a rural area with little experience and confidence in applying for
funding. The project was run by ALVO, the Association of Local Voluntary Organisations,
which is the rural CVS, on behalf of a consortium of local organisations.
This project employed two development officers (DOs) for just over three years, one
providing general support and one a focus on environment, culture and heritage. Their
role was to build the capacities and abilities of groups to plan, deliver and monitor
projects, and to have better access to external funding streams. The workers also aimed
to improve links between the groups and to promote sustainability.
The DOs started attending meetings, developing contacts and offering support. Part of
their networking role was to help overcome conflict between some of the communities in
the areas.
The project was awarded £226,851 of Fair Share funding in 2005, including a fund of
£5,000 to provide seed corn grants of up to £250 for organisations to cover initial costs in
developing project ideas (postage, phone, printing etc).
By the project’s end, the following had been achieved:
• A total of £1,484,574 was raised from 41 different funders including 45 applications to
Awards for All, 21 to the Fair Share Seed corn fund (all of which were successful), 19
to Scottish Community Foundation, 22 to South Lanarkshire Council and 8 to the Big
Lottery Fund.
• 62 groups had been helped with support and advice on a total of 148 separate
projects.
• Five applications were made to the main Fair Share Trust programme, of which three
were successful.
• 214 individual applications were lodged with funders – more than half of them (126)
were for up to £5,000 (58%). Of these, 50 applications raised less than £1,000 (39%).
21% (nearly a fifth) raised between £5,000 and £10,000, and 20, (9%) raised £11,000
90
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
or more. 8 applications were successful in raising £50,000 or more.
• 214 applications were made in total, of which 155 were successful: this is a success
rate of 72%.
• 20 new groups have been established.
• 28 networking events took place, bringing together 54 groups from across the areas;
each event was attended by more than one person from each group: a total of 262
people.
9.23 It has been noted elsewhere in this report that even applying for funding is a capacity
building exercise for the groups and individuals involved, and that succeeding in this builds
confidence and aspiration.
Ripple effects
9.24 We also postulate that focusing funding and attention on FST neighbourhoods will have
wider and sometimes unexpected benefits. The best evidence that we have of this at
present is in Ashfield. Here two such types of interest can be observed, both of which
have been obtained through other activities of the Panel Chair:
• Sutton-in-Ashfield Rotary Club has aligned their criteria for making small grants in the
area with FST priorities, and a member of the Club has joined the Panel and offers
advice to micro-businesses in the area.
• The neighbourhood is a pilot project for an initiative on familiarising ‘difficult-to-reach’
local communities with the criminal justice system and building their confidence in how it
works and their rights with respect to it. This is being delivered through the Nottingham
Magistrates’ Courts, lawyers, and the police. The value of the work is £100,000, shared
with an area in Derbyshire. Through the early part of the work, a number of people in
Sutton have indicated their interest in applying to become magistrates.
Does a local pot of money make a difference?
9.25 There are many advantages to having a 'local' pot of money, ring-fenced just for that
neighbourhood. There has been a real sense of ownership of the money, with many
Panels and local groups feeling it is 'ours'. Box 22 summarises views expressed by Panels
and groups during our case study workshops.
Box 22: Benefits to local community groups of a ring-fenced local pot of money
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
More realistic (avoids being forced to commit to unrealistic outcomes).
Support from local Agent means that time isn’t wasted on the wrong things.
Information about the money available was good.
Going through the Panel is good; groups can ask questions, applicant can explain
better face to face than on paper, can take beneficiaries along to a meeting of the
Panel i.e. the people who give the money get to meet the beneficiaries.
Fair Share literature and application forms are in a clear language.
There is ‘on-tap’ advice from local Agent.
Fair Share gives you feed back and helps you to develop (“tweak”) your application.
Small area funding gives focus – benefiting people and applicants at a local level.
Quick feedback on likelihood of funding, so don’t waste time on applications that won’t
succeed.
Decisions are made locally, and that feels more comprehensible and fairer than a
distant organisation making decisions.
An opportunity to discuss applications, rather than simple yes or no in writing that
doesn’t necessarily explain reasons for decisions.
Application process clear and simple, so groups can understand exactly how it works
91
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
and what they need to do.
• Local Agent understands the area, so can give good, relevant advice and support.
• More confidence in applying because seen as ‘local’ money that small local groups
have as much chance of getting as big national organisations.
9.26 In particular, groups report that they have more confidence in making applications (less
fear of failure). This may be to do with knowing the local area, knowing the needs and the
value of their own work in the local context, and that they are not in competition with
people from other areas who may be seen as having more experience in gaining funding
and know how to 'tick all the boxes'. This greater confidence enables them to feel it is
worth spending time developing applications.
9.27 The local pot of FST money, together with the local input to decision making through the
Panel, has also been seen in some case study areas as both a very special opportunity
and also a vote of confidence in the ability of local people to find solutions to the problems
in their own neighbourhoods.
9.28 Additionally, the longer time frame of FST means that a small grant can be given to an
organisation as a taster, with the potential for later funding if confidence in the group is
justified (see box 23).
Box 23: Funding a Credit Union in Ellesmere Port and Neston
The Credit Union was set up in 2003. Credit Unions are local, member-run financial cooperatives with a strong national organisation, and with support systems which make it
almost impossible for a Credit Union to go bankrupt. They are recognised as making a
major contribution to local social and economic capital and often lead on to other local
initiatives such as local trading systems and community business initiatives. Aside from
access to credit, membership of a credit union also provides many people with their first
experience of financial literacy. Members get training in deposit taking, loan making, and
book-keeping. All members learn about financial management, interest rates, and
budgeting. Making decisions about who is, and who is not, loan worthy is a practical
example of empowerment.
Though unable to help financially, the Borough Council has always been supportive, and
has established a payroll deduction scheme for local authority employees who are
members of the Union. The County Council were initial funders, but then had to cut back.
It was at this point that the FST stepped in with a small grant to help pay for a part time
co-ordinator and thereby helping to secure the future of the Credit Union. Panel members
were a bit wary at first – mainly as a result of lack of personal experience of Credit
Unions – and stipulated certain performance targets (in terms of membership numbers
and location) which the Credit Union had to meet to secure this funding over three years.
This it was able to do, and has now received a much larger award.
The Credit Union will need continued core funding until it reaches a viable level of
membership – estimated to be around 1,500. There is no reason why it should not
achieve this in a few years’ time.
9.29 There are early signs that some investors are more interested in FST neighbourhoods as
a result of Fair Share. A hoped for, longer term outcome is that local authorities and other
statutory agencies are willing to use small parts of their discretionary spend to continue to
fund new activity that has been developed in the neighbourhoods through Fair Share and
is clearly meeting local needs.
9.30 A downside to the 'local pot' of money has been identified by two Agents, who feel that the
approach leads to less good projects being funded in FST neighbourhoods while better
92
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
project are being refused funding elsewhere. A similar view was held by some of the
Grants Officers of the former Community Fund during their own Fair Share initiative.
Findings against the evaluation indicators
9.31 There are two main indicators for the evaluation theme addressing ‘more funding going to
projects’. As with the disadvantage indicators, the task is identification of changes arising
as a result of involvement with the FST. The first looks at whether the case study areas
have had more Lottery funding. Whilst there is no causal evidence at the neighbourhood
or local authority level that Fair Share had led to more lottery funding, there is, as could be
anticipated, evidence at the individual group level of other Lottery success (table 13).
Table 13: Evaluation theme - more funding going to projects
Indicators of Evidence from
change
projects’ workshops, project visits, and survey of Agents
Case study
areas have
got more
Lottery
Funding
• Some anecdotal evidence that Fair Share has led to more Lottery
funding in the local authority areas as a whole but no detailed data
available to demonstrate changes, and no causal evidence at the
neighbourhood or local authority area level that any increases in
Lottery funding are the result of the FST programme.
• Many individual examples of Lottery success e.g. Awards for All,
Youth Lottery Fund.
• Applications under consideration to other BIG programmes.
• Projects with FST funding have been able to lever in other money,
FST funding
both for existing projects and for new ones (because of successful
has enabled
disadvantaged track record with FST funding).
• Wide range of other funders being applied to by projects funded
groups to get
through FST, e.g. Tescos, London Development Agency, Cleaner
other funding
Greener Grants (local authority grant), Neighbourhood Renewal.
• Groups report that capacity building has given them the knowledge
and confidence to apply for awards, and they anticipate success.
• Evidence that some Agents are working to bring additional funders
into FST neighbourhoods to increase the resources available for
projects by disadvantaged groups in those areas.
Other
evidence
• Funding enables groups to address quality assurance aspects and
this makes them more attractive to funders; e.g. a project that
concentrated on achieving ‘Club Mark Status’ with their local Agent is
now able to attract other funding.
• FST funding provides a period of stability which groups hope to build
on, using the time to get further funding.
• Limited evidence that FST investment is attracting in other funding
directly to the area.
9.32 The second indicator shows how disadvantaged groups have been able to get other
funding. The assumption is made in answering this question that FST neighbourhoods
are characterised by disadvantage. Again the evidence is at the individual project level.
9.33 We note that groups attending our evaluation workshops did not seem to feel that getting
more funding was an important part of FST work. This may be because they were more
interested in other outcomes and saw funding as a means rather than an end. On the
other hand, they valued their own increased ability to seek and gain further funding. This
focus may change over time as sustaining work becomes more of a priority for projects.
93
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Evaluators’ commentary
9.34 This is an era of reducing funding for the VCS. Whilst FST neighbourhoods are receiving
additional money through the FST programme, there is less certainty about their ability to
continue to win funding in the current circumstances. Given this context, we regard a
question about the direction of travel as appropriate for the evaluation, looking to see if
local groups and projects have increased their capability to attract in resources for the
neighbourhood.
9.35 There is evidence is that Fair Share has created opportunities which have built confidence
and capacity in the local community and in local groups with respect to funding in the
future. Some are already demonstrating their successes in this respect, whilst others are
happy that they will benefit in future from their enhanced abilities. The hope is that this will
lead to organisations which are significantly stronger with respect to bidding for, and
winning, future funding in open competition with others. But this is a long term outcome.
9.36 There are concerns where short term open grants, for example for one to two years, have
been used, without any capacity building support. It is not clear that this approach will
produce benefits that are different from any other funding programme.
9.37 What we can see now is that the quality of the funding experience is considerably better
for groups that have been funded through the FST, which is a strongly enabling factor for
them. It suggests that long term outcomes are likely to be positive.
94
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Chapter ten: Building capacity and social capital
‘The development of the local Community Association, although ostensibly set up to help
deal with the FST funding opportunities, will hopefully outlive the life of the FST funding
and will continue to work for the betterment of the residents of the estate in future years.
Our approach is, wherever possible, to involve local residents in the running of the
projects so they will have the knowledge to continue with it after the FST programme has
ceased.
Without a funded community development worker post, it is doubtful if the project would
have worked. The key element which took a lot of time at the beginning was setting up the
Community Association to represent the views of the residents where none existed before.
That done, the development worker now works with action groups set up under the
Community Association to develop project ideas. Without this input, new ideas would be
slow coming forward, and the programme at risk of losing its momentum.
Skelmersdale, West Lancashire Council for Voluntary Service
Scope of chapter
The chapter examines the evidence relating to increased capacity and to the
development of social capital.
Summary of key findings
• Building capacity and development of social capital are long term changes which take
time to emerge. There is, however, already evidence that the FST programme will
prove to be successful in this respect in a number of ways.
• New capacity is emerging in new groups, inexperienced groups, groups with ambitions
to develop further, Panel members, and local Agents.
• The identified capacity relates to practical issues such as governance and insurance,
personal capacity such as skills and morale, and matters such as communications and
networks.
• There has been strong evidence of growth in confidence, skills and morale in groups
and group members, resulting from being involved in a Fair Share funded project.
Participants get access to training and qualifications. Corporate benefits for groups
include increased capacity with respect to administration, compliance with legislation,
forward planning, and aspirations for future activities.
• Such benefits accrue most strongly to new or less experienced groups because they
have more learning to do. There are, therefore, opportunities for amplification of these
outcomes if more funding goes to such groups during the remainder of the FST
programme.
• The wider voluntary and community sector is also benefiting from Fair Share. There is
direct capacity building in the sector in some neighbourhoods, with strengthening of
infrastructure organisations which will outlast Fair Share and operate beyond the
boundaries of the Fair Share neighbourhoods.
• Local Agents have benefited from their role in Fair Share through becoming more firmly
embedded in local areas and with local partners, developing their practical experience
95
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
of working with Panels, and delivering a strategic approach.
• Already there is evidence that people feel their neighbourhood is improving, and that
people are coming together across cultural, social and age divides. There is increased
optimism and reduced scepticism.
Introduction
10.1
This chapter looks at two separate, but linked, outcomes from the work of the Fair Share
Trust, namely:
• New capacity in community groups, other parts of the voluntary sector, and in
individuals involved in Fair Share. New capacity is demonstrated through skills and
abilities that enable groups to take effective action.
• Social capital that has been built as a result of Fair Share; social capital is the linkages
between people that enable them to act together to pursue shared objectives51.
10.2
So the chapter is addressing changes which are significant, which may take time to
manifest themselves, and which need to be sustained if they are to be of substantial
value. In many case study areas, we have seen projects at a time when they are feeling
very positive. They are not that far into project delivery or have only recently finished a
successful project, and there are good feelings from that. The whole issue of
sustainability of effects remains to be tested, and will be fascinating.
Capacity in who and what
10.3
In thinking about building capacity, we are looking at developing optimism, skills,
confidence and the ability to take effective action. The beneficiaries from capacity
building through the work of the Fair Share Trust include:
• New groups, primarily but not exclusively those formed with the support of the Agent or
a relevant community development worker.
• Unconstituted groups that become ‘fit for funding’, for example by putting in place
appropriate governance arrangements, a constitution, a bank account, and essentials
such as insurance.
• Inexperienced groups facing problems that need to be addressed, for example
developing a business plan, extending their pool of volunteers, or searching for
funding.
• Groups wanting to grow in order to cover a wider area, or achieve more things.
• Groups with ambitions to do better or different things, for example by addressing
quality issues, by taking on new beneficiary groups, by adopting a partnership
approach to service delivery.
• Panel members, both experienced and inexperienced in working through committee
procedures and outreach work.
51 Definitions of both these terms are in paragraph 1.8, with a discussion in annex 2.
96
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
• Local Agents who have had a range of opportunities resulting from Fair Share, for
example extending their area of coverage, and increasing their experience of
community development and capacity building.
10.4
In terms of the types of capacity that have been built, the following can be distinguished:
• Topic based: for example capability with respect handling money, child protection
policies, insurance liabilities, or governance.
• Person based: for example, skills, confidence, morale.
• Relationship based: being part of networks, communicating.
Increased capacity in groups and group members
10.5
Judged by reports from Agents, visits to projects, and the project evaluation workshops,
growth in confidence, skills and morale in groups and group members can already be
identified as a notable effect of participation in Fair Share as a funded project. Box 24
provides a good illustration of both capacity building and the growth of social capital.
Box 24: Music, dance and drama activities for young people in Ashfield
“The theory of Fair Share is amazing. Making it work well is a real challenge!” Dot
Tomlinson, East Side Centre
The East Side Centre in Ashfield is providing a performing arts programme for young
people in the Sutton FST neighbourhood. The project uses music, dance and drama as
diversionary and learning activities for sub-teen groups. For all involved, the project is a
major learning experience.
At the outset, the FST ‘community champion’ in the area (the community development
worker) said to the East Side Centre Group, “Look at how successful you are with young
people in your own centre. Could you extend what you do, and use the same formula in
another tough area?”. So whilst this project is not about a new activity for the Group, it
has meant that they have had to take on a number of important challenges - extending
the geographical locations that they work in, developing their planning and delivery skills
to ensure they can take on two years of work, working through a procurement process
which has involved negotiation and agreement with the Panel, learning how to get new
equipment that was needed, identifying ways to attract parents as volunteers, thinking
through long term funding requirements, and how the service can be sustained when
FST funding ends. The Group is finding that there is so much to learn that they are
taking things a step at a time, and so far feel that things are going well. They have had
support from the Community Champion at times when they have felt that they needed it.
Learning through the project comes in many forms and for many different people. First,
the whole approach is focused on young people. They are learning and doing things
that weren’t happening elsewhere – performance skills, social skills, confidence and self
esteem, respect for others, respect for equipment, communication, and the joys of doing
things well.
Secondly, the teachers in the sessions are benefiting too. A drama student is using the
small payments he receives to get to his own drama college in the day. He is extending
his experience and improving his CV. He is learning first-hand how drama can be used
to teach basic life skills. In his own words, he is aiming “to teach self control, timekeeping, working under instruction, listening skills, how to show appreciation of the
performance of others, and the necessity of working co-operatively – and all whilst
having fun.”
Thirdly, volunteering has always been an important part of the East Side Centre
philosophy, and one volunteer currently working on the FST project has recently got a
97
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
university place to study social work, which would have been impossible without the
volunteering experience. Encouraging local people to get involved in volunteering,
particularly parents, is seen as a key component in the whole approach. Volunteering is
an important step in building self confidence and skills.
Finally, capacity building is accompanied by growth in social capital. Positive
relationships between young people and adults are being developed. In addition,
different organisations involved with young people are working out of the same
premises, and are being brought together through the Fair Share process. They are
learning how to work together and help each other out. They are creating opportunities
for cross-referrals between projects and hope to further develop and exploit these as
implementation of Fair Share progresses.
10.6
For the analysis, we have looked at outcomes relating to capacity building under four
indicator headings (table 14).
Table 14: Evaluation theme – skills, learning and group and individual capacity building
Indicators of
Evidence from evaluation workshops, project visits, and survey of
change
Agents
Group
members gain
skills,
confidence,
new
aspirations,
raised morale
• Skills are directly learned through project activity e.g. theatre, music,
creative arts, martial arts, horticulture, parenting skills, flower arranging,
IT, CV writing, and many others.
• Extensive development of project management skills including use of
computers, handling money, following health and safety procedures,
forward planning, marketing, chairing meetings, form filling.
• Development of strategic thinking skills re future of project, group etc.
• Group members learn team working, communication, listening and
respect skills.
• Young people have gone on from being project participants to being
volunteers and/or Panel members (representing YP).
• Volunteers are using the opportunities from volunteering to get training
and education.
• Volunteers are using their volunteering experience to access jobs.
• Many reports of raised confidence, e.g. project participants have
confidence to go on and do other things e.g. run projects, take on new
activities.
• Groups learn new skills – how to listen to beneficiaries and take on their
ideas, flexibility, understanding of beneficiary needs.
• Group learning and activity is inclusive of disadvantaged and/or
previously excluded individuals.
Group
members have
completed
training and/or
gained
qualifications
• Access to key skills through training as part of project (e.g. levels 2 and 3
in Maths, English and Science).
• Work skills training for volunteers on projects (e.g. health and safety,
food hygiene, team working, first aid, fitness training, good child care
practices and many others).
• Access to external training for volunteers (e.g. driving, accounting,
sports, volunteer leadership, health and social care NVQ, gym instructor
training and many others).
Table continued on following page
98
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 14 continued
Indicators of
Evidence from evaluation workshops, project visits, and survey of
change
Agents
Group
members feel
that they can
do more/
different/ bigger
projects and/or
got involved in
other activities
(e.g. contribute
to local
policies,
strategies,
networks)
• Groups are buzzing with new ideas for spin off projects, sparked by what
they have learned and what they can see that could be done.
• Groups feel that they have ‘evolved’ e.g. preparing to go from being
entirely volunteer run to having paid staff, expanding geographical area
of activities, management of ‘individual budgets on behalf of recipients,
acquiring own property.
• Groups want to involve more people e.g. bigger projects and wider
ranges of beneficiaries.
• Some evidence that success of project is leading to take up and roll out
by local authority i.e. projects acting as a template for others.
• Some (limited) involvement in wider local authority activities (e.g. Place
Shaping activities).
Group
members feel
they are better
equipped to
access funds
for what they
want to do
• Groups have confidence to make funding applications.
• Learning from doing Fair Share project has equipped groups for future
applications e.g. understand monitoring and reporting requirements.
• Groups think that FST project sets good precedent for impending funding
applications, because have met targets etc.
• Group reputation has been enhanced which will help with future funding.
10.7
There is overwhelming evidence of gains in skills, confidence and morale amongst
participating groups and their volunteers. Groups reported great satisfaction with doing a
good job for the benefit of their local area, plus boosts in morale from personal learning.
Part of this may be attributable to the strong performance that can also be observed with
respect to the training and qualifications indicator, which shows that Fair Share is
creating opportunities for group members and volunteers to achieve significant amounts
of training, much of which is also applicable in a wider context including with respect to
job opportunities.
10.8
The individual benefits are translated into corporate gains, with groups demonstrating
confidence in their ability to forward plan, to apply for funding, and to go on and do new
things. In some instances, Fair Share funding has brought about a step change. This is
most striking amongst community groups and smaller organisations in the voluntary
sector, some of whom are experiencing this for the first time.
10.9
In contrast, statutory service providers (e.g. colleges) or very experienced voluntary
sector organisations (e.g. well established welfare organisations) are already skilled. The
case studies show that, in consequence, they do not report benefits from learning and
growth in confidence through delivery of a FST project. There was some evidence in
workshops of irritation amongst smaller groups about awards going to such organisations
– a sense that “you didn’t need the funding like we did”.
10.10 Another area of very strong performance is among groups who are doing more, or
different, things than hitherto, and who have great plans for the future as a result of
successful project delivery through the FST. Linked to that, groups are feeling better
equipped to secure funds as a result of the experience they have gained.
10.11 Altogether, we conclude that this is a very promising area of performance. Limitations on
the extent of outcomes do arise as a result of who got the awards. There could be more
capacity building if more awards go to new groups or to inexperienced groups that had
not previously had significant funding. Again this is an area where performance may
99
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
change during the lifetime of Fair Share as capacity building work bears fruit and there
are changes in the proportions of the different types of organisations getting FST awards.
Impacts on capacity of wider VCS
10.12 The previous section looked at groups involved with Fair Share. This one explores
impacts on the wider voluntary and community sector (VCS) within and beyond the
neighbourhood in which the FST process operates. The wider VCS can be defined as
being largely the formal voluntary and community sectors, including VCS infrastructure
organisations (e.g. CVSs). The impacts expected, and to be measured through the
indicators, largely relate to increased support for community action, more groups and
therefore more opportunities for local people to get involved through those groups, more
services and activities provided through the VCS, and more opportunities for the VCS to
get involved in local decision making. The information comes from the case study areas,
and is based on projects, project workshops, Panel discussions, and the views of local
Agents.
10.13 Table 15 sets out performance against the evaluation indicators. Care must be taken with
expectations for Fair Share. At the outset of the Fair Share initiative, FST
neighbourhoods were characterised by low levels of activity in the VCS and high levels of
inexperience. In addition, some of the neighbourhoods have a higher than average
proportion of transient residents or newcomers. In such areas, there is no wide VCS to
impact on, and there may be groups living in the neighbourhood that have a strong
identity which currently they want to protect.
Table 15: Evaluation theme - impact on capacity of VCS as a result of Fair Share
Indicators
Evidence from evaluation workshops, project visits, and survey of
of change
Agents
more support
is available for
community
action from the
voluntary (and
public) sectors
(e.g. an active
'compact',
advice,
training,
networks)
• FST-funded CDWs are working with local communities and providing
support for community based organisations.
• Community groups are benefiting from capacity building provided through
FST-funded infrastructure organisations.
• Infrastructure organisations have the resources to help them address
their longer term sustainability and plans to secure ongoing support for
groups.
• Groups are coming together in informal arrangements to support each
other and help grow the benefits from their projects; projects are wanting
to help each other in the interests of the wider community.
• CDWs working on FST programme placed in infrastructure organisations
such as CVSs to strengthen the organisation through the extra staffing
resources in the immediate and longer term, and to provide more support
for wider community action.
• Some CVSs are directly funded to provide additional support for
community action.
more funding is
available
locally to
voluntary and
community
groups
• Some Agents report work to bring in additional funding to the FST
neighbourhoods from corporate and statutory funders, and other
benefactors (limited evidence to date, but hoped will grow).
• Community Foundations have provided funding to local groups to enable
activity not being funded through Fair Share.
Table continued on following page
100
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 15 continued
Indicators
Evidence from evaluation workshops, project visits, and survey of
of change
Agents
stable numbers
of voluntary
and community
organisations
are functioning
in the area,
including new
groups forming
• Some evidence that new groups are forming and existing informal groups
are getting constituted (e.g. recipients of 10% of FST grants to date, and
anecdotal reports of increasing numbers).
• Growth in numbers, quality, functioning being attributed to the work of
Fair Share in some of the case study neighbourhoods.
more
innovative
services and
activities
provided by the
community and
voluntary
sectors
• Many of the FST projects are providing services and activities which are
very local responses to local needs (and therefore unlikely to have been
done in exactly the same way elsewhere), and because the projects are
so often negotiated between groups and Panels, new approaches are
being developed all the time.
• In some cases, FST funding is allowing local groups to experiment with
new approaches because they have access to resources for the first time.
• Some groups are providing activities and services which are new to the
area, some are rolling out ideas that have worked elsewhere and which
local people want, some are innovating; principal component is activities
and facilities which are new to the area rather than completely new, but
there is some innovation.
• A lot of reference to learning through the projects about beneficiary
needs, which can be expected to feed through into more innovative
services, but no evidence as yet.
• Some evidence of it then being rolled out by other providers, and of
others wanting to learn from it.
more local
people,
involved more
often, in
voluntary and
community
activities
• Projects have been able to increase the role of volunteers, with positive
outcomes for the projects and the individual volunteers.
• Also evidence of problems recruiting volunteers e.g. for young people’s
projects which do require high levels of volunteering.
• There are now whole community activities where previously there were
none.
voluntary and
community
groups feel
they have
access to
wider decisionmaking, and
adequate
influence
• Increased respect for groups gives greater influence in local community.
• Groups feel that statutory agencies take their views more seriously, and
there is increasing interest in inter-agency working.
• Groups running successful projects become recognised as having local
expertise; some have been asked to give their views on wider
programmes (e.g. parks and open spaces).
• Confidence from having been involved in projects (and Panel) has given
some people greater self esteem and aspirations to get involved at other
levels, and has made them more aware of what is going on and how they
may be able to influence that.
• Capacity building enables local people take up opportunities to influence
decision making, but the wider structures of involvement in decision
making need to be there; these opportunities have not been very wide to
date but the new focus on community empowerment and the 'duty to
involve' at local level may significantly increase those opportunities.
101
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
10.14 Some case study areas provide strong evidence that impacts on the wider voluntary
sector will be substantial. There are increases in formal support from FST-funded
community development workers and organisations being funded by FST to provide
capacity building. There is also evidence that infrastructure organisations being funded
through the FST are being helped to think through longer term sustainability issues (and
trying to build their sustainability) so that they can continue with support work in the
future.
10.15 The evidence suggests that groups are providing activities and services which are new to
the area and which are much needed. They are often highly tuned to local characteristics
and needs because of the process of procurement. Whilst they are not necessarily
innovative in the sense of introducing completely new approaches, they are therefore
tailoring and refining approaches which make them sensitive to local conditions in ways
that more conventional programmes cannot achieve. In addition, FST funding is allowing
groups to experiment.
10.16 Local people are getting more involved in local activities through volunteering. Fair
Share has also initiated and/or funded community events which are bring people together
for joint celebration and activity.
10.17 The evaluation has also been looking for evidence that, through their work with FST,
voluntary and community groups feel that they have access to decision making and
influence. The evidence for this is fragile, but there are groups reporting that they feel
that their views are being taken more seriously, and that there is increasing interest in
inter-agency working. Opportunities are also arising for groups to share their
experiences beyond their neighbourhoods and influence wider service delivery.
10.18 A particular problem has been identified here in relation to local authority partners. Local
authorities are frequently funders of organisations such as development trusts and CVSs.
Where local authorities have a negative attitude to the VCS – and this was often an
important contributor to why these neighbourhoods were in Fair Share areas to start off
with – it can be hard to build the necessary confidence in the future. This then impacts
on the willingness of other potential partners such as Primary Care Trusts to fund the
VCS, other than through an extended and formal process of commissioning which is
likely to preclude smaller groups.
Building capacity and status of local Agents
10.19 Fair Share has presented a significant opportunity for local Agents to build their own
capacity and increase their status in the local area. A number of aspects have been
identified by the local Agents in their survey responses and through the case study
interviews:
• The model requires the application of new thinking, for example the concept of
strategic grant making, and a new or extended process for grant making, leading to
increase in capacity in the Agent.
• For many Agents, involvement is increasing their knowledge of the Fair Share area,
and its contacts with a range of key local partners (for example, the police, the Primary
Care Trust, the local authority).
• Having the funding to expand the team over such a long time period increases the
resources of the Agent.
102
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
• The approach has provided practical experience of working with Panels. Many of the
Agents who are Community Foundations had done some work with Panels previously,
but Fair Share has significantly extended the approach, and shown what it can achieve.
• It has provided an opportunity learn more about community engagement and
development.
• Private and corporate donors are more confident in the Agent because they are acting
on behalf of BIG. It provides reassuring evidence that Agents are competent and have
due diligence procedures in place.
Building social capital and quality of life
10.20 The evaluation has been looking for changes in social capital and quality of life at the
neighbourhood level. The case study work shows, however, that not all FST areas are
'neighbourhoods' with their own clear identity. Some are very large (e.g. South
Lanarkshire Rural area covers hundreds of miles with several towns and villages) and
even some urban areas include a range of discrete neighbourhoods with separate
identities. Area rivalries within FST neighbourhoods are not uncommon. In such areas,
‘neighbourhood improvement' is difficult to demonstrate because it is very hard to show
localised change in the way that was anticipated when the indicators were devised.
Again, such changes in social capital and quality of life require a long period to manifest
and fully establish.
10.21 Furthermore, few projects focus on concepts which appear intangible to local
communities. It is, therefore necessary to search hard for this evidence, but there are
sign that it is starting to emerge. It was particularly evident at the evaluation workshops,
where matters relating to growth of social capital emerged without any reference to the
concept being made.
10.22 The indicator themes and findings with respect to social capital and quality of life are
shown in table 16 on the following page.
10.23 Beginning with knowing and trusting each other, which is a key underpinning for growth
in social capital, there are encouraging signs that people feel their neighbourhood is
improving. One of the most commonly quoted outcomes is a sense that there is a
reduction in anti-social behaviour amongst young people. In addition, numerous projects,
courses and events bring people together across cultural, social and age divides.
Certainly at the project level (both the project provider and the participants) there is an
increase in optimism and a reduction in scepticism.
103
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 16: Evaluation theme: impact on quality of life and social capital
Indicators
Evidence from evaluation workshops, project visits, and survey of
of change
Agents
In their
neighbourhoods,
people know
more neighbours, meet them
more often, trust
them, and help
each other
• Courses, events, activities etc bring people of diverse origins,
backgrounds and ages together; promotes understanding.
• Projects have positive impacts through new friendships, including crosscultural ones.
• Barriers between young people and rest of community are diminishing.
• Old hostilities and rivalries are diminishing as people from different
communities come together.
• Community groups are helping each other.
• Bridges are being built between young people and the police.
• Scepticism is reducing; optimism that things can change is growing.
• Beneficiaries stay on as volunteers to mentor new project users; they
want to give something back to others.
• There is less social isolation because of a range of new activities.
In their
neighbourhoods
people feel the
area is improving
• Visible physical environmental improvements raise morale and
confidence in future of area.
• Less anti-social behaviour due to FST projects.
• Healthy lifestyles are promoted in area (growing food, healthy cooking,
exercise).
• Range of local activities and opportunities to take part is much enriched.
• Health and stress levels improved e.g. due to stress reduction from
money being under control, from exercise.
There is
improving quality/
quantity of local
facilities
• New allotments, sports facilities, play facilities, open space, community
gardens, lunch clubs, youth facilities, gym and fitness facilities etc.
• New community learning resources.
People feel their
local area is
becoming a place
where people
from different
backgrounds can
get on well
• Projects are forging links between different cultures.
• People bring together people of different ages e.g. young people and
allotment holders.
• Increased recognition/appreciation of young people – talents/ needs/
contribution to local area etc.
• Some projects are working specifically to bring together communities
who have traditionally not communicated including across sectarian
divides and geographical distances (e.g. villages working together for
the first time).
Community
groups /
individuals have
developed links,
become part of
networks, met
other groups and
formed
relationships of
common purpose
with others with
similar or different
issues / interests
• Local projects are leading to wider engagement of local people in
statutory and non-statutory activity; e.g. people now using e-Gov to pay
bills as result of IT courses.
• Beneficiaries stay on as volunteers to mentor new learners – may not
run own projects, but will hopefully put something back.
• Older members are mentoring younger ones.
• Projects are making referrals between them.
• Projects are sharing facilities with other groups.
• Emerging social enterprises.
• Carer interaction and networking.
• Vertical and horizontal linkages between projects e.g. healthy eating
projects link to allotment holders; young people’s projects in an area
network together; projects link to others with similar interests outside the
area.
104
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 16 continued
Indicators
Evidence from evaluation workshops, project visits, and survey of
of change
Agents
Community
groups /
individuals have
developed links/
relationships that
enable them to
influence policy/
strategy of others
• Groups are getting to know each other and want to work together more.
• Cross-referrals of beneficiaries between groups.
• Groups get to know how other agencies work, including the council,
through running projects and can use those contacts.
• Groups starting to work together in ways that meet shared strategy
objectives (rather than influencing strategy of others).
Community
groups/individuals
feel more
responsible for
improving the
area/quality of life
• Activities like clean-ups; all ages to get involved.
• More willingness to get involved.
• More confidence, optimism, aspiration.
10.24 Fair Share is not producing large scale capital investment improvements (such as better
housing conditions or better transport) which are often part of regeneration schemes.
This is not surprising given the scale and focus of FST. Where environmental
improvements are taking place, however, they are making a difference to people’s
perceptions about where they live, though currently the number of environmental
projects is relatively few.
10.25 Network development is an important part of investment in the VCS through Fair Share,
but has also been occurring spontaneously as a result of the bonding that organisations
in the VCS experience when they are working in the same neighbourhood and for the
same purposes. There was exciting evidence from the evaluation workshops of growing
mutual support as organisations delivering projects network amongst themselves and get
to know each other better. Workshop participants were interested in creating more
regular opportunities for projects to get together for mutual benefit and for the benefit of
the local area. There was an extraordinary sense of anticipation of growing outcomes
and optimism for the future of the neighbourhoods.
Evaluator’s commentary
10.26 The impacts of development processes and grant making on capacity building and social
capital takes time to become apparent. Initial benefits may either be intensified and
extended with the passage of time, or may slowly fade away. The impacts of FST
projects are, therefore, still in their early days, and it is important not to make over
optimistic claims for the programme.
10.27 Notwithstanding this, we are concluding that there is evidence that real changes are
happening as a result of the Fair Share programme. Groups are filled with enthusiasm for
the tasks they have taken on, and are confident in their abilities. They have developed
new skills. They have an enhanced sense of their own worth – both as individual
members of groups and as corporate bodies. They have aspirations to work with others
to build on Fair Share’s achievements, and many are already doing so. Through Fair
Share, local people are being involved in activities which link them to others.
10.28 The reasons for this are complex. The ways that local Agents and development workers
are tackling local issues are a fundamental underpinning of change. It is also clear that a
critical factor is, yet again, the local dimensions of the FST. The evidence for this
105
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, June 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
abounds. Groups have had their confidence built because they were dealing with local
money. They want to work together because they immediately see common interests in
working for the same community and can readily identify ways that they can help each
other. Where funded projects are often far apart, in the case of the FST many are in
close proximity. Being clearly part of an approach that produces a local sense of
common purpose has been enabling and empowering. Benefits can already be seen,
and we expect more to follow.
106
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, First draft, March 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Part four:
Reflections on the Fair Share Legacy
_________________________________________________________________________________
11
12
Reflections
A lasting legacy?
107
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, First draft, March 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Chapter eleven: Reflections
‘If we can crack the sustainability of the changes, we would have a model for change
which produces very real benefits for relatively small amounts of money. It is relevant to so
many things, like neighbourhood management and participatory budgeting. It needs
ongoing engagement of the statutory partners, who are starting to see the success of an
approach like Fair Share. They are putting massive amounts of money into areas of
deprivation through discretionary funding. We only need to get hold of very small amounts
of that money to do successful neighbourhood management at the micro scale of Fair
Share. If we can identify real outcomes that we want (and I think that Fair Share will do
this), then we can do something new. There is no point in carrying on doing more of the
same thing that hasn’t worked in the past. The challenge is to look at the experiences of
Fair Share and demonstrate its effects.’
Acting Partnership Manger at Ashfield District Council, LSP Manager, and LSP rep on
FST Panel Ashfield, Nottinghamshire Community Foundation
Scope of chapter
This chapter reflects on the findings of the evaluation, drawing out those which are of
greatest importance. It looks at the key features in the success of the work of the FST at
the local level, and addresses the extent to which the programme is achieving its
objectives and how it differs from a straight open grant programme.
Summary of key findings
• The FST programme has devolved decision making to the local level, and is bringing
about change.
• A number of areas of under-performance can be identified, some of which can be
remedied and some of which derive from challenges inherent in grass roots level
working. Notwithstanding these difficulties, the model in use for delivery of the FST
programme is clearly fit for purpose.
• The adoption of a process approach has been a key factor in success. All of the key
elements in the process are local in their focus, for example, local Agent, local Panel,
setting of local needs, engagement of the local community. This enables the
programme to work with and for the neighbourhood.
• A clear strategic vision for change in the neighbourhood is an essential underpinning to
the process.
• A crucial factor in success of the process is the flexibility of the model developed by
CFN which enables neighbourhoods to respond to local circumstances and
opportunities. The informality and responsiveness of the process is a further success
factor.
• The local ‘pot’ of money is hugely energising and a major contributor to the FST
approach.
• The Panels are playing a pivotal role in their respective neighbourhoods. Their
legitimacy derives from their scrutiny role and their relationship with the local
community.
108
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, First draft, March 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
• The extended timescale provides time for outcomes to develop from the maturing
process.
• The effects of the local, devolved approach are amplified by use of commissioning or
extensive use of negotiation. The routes to project procurement in use in Fair Share
are achieving outcomes which a normal grant programme cannot. In addition to the
focus on delivering what is wanted locally, they can build capacity in community
organisations, develop partnerships, contribute to a stronger community, and enable
residents to take action to help themselves.
Reflecting on Fair Share
11.1
An evaluation explores areas of difficulty and under-performance as well as successes.
Important ones identified in the course of this report are:
• A lack of clarity with respect to BIG’s objectives for the Fair Share Trust (FST), and the
role of those objectives in the programme.
• Insufficient time given to setting up the programme.
• Operational difficulties in making the Panel process work consistently and well. These
include insufficient representation on Panels of young people and of ‘independent’ local
residents (not affiliated to other organisations represented on the Panel), and problems
at some locations with behaviour in Panel meetings arising from personality conflicts
and long standing differences of opinion.
• Opportunities for community involvement that could be much further developed and
embraced, to the benefit of the programme and its outcomes for the local community.
• An underdeveloped understanding amongst Panels and Agents of the concept of
strategic grant making in a FST context, and over-dependence in some locations on
the use of open grants.
• Sole use of open grant making (without, for example, significant use of negotiation)
appears to produce a lower level of engagement in the Panel and the local community.
Open grants are less likely to achieve the wider objectives of the programme.
• A limited proportion of awards going to new and recently constituted groups. In
addition, we regard the proportion of awards going to statutory services providers as
too high.
• Insufficient attention to the strategic advantages to be gained from a thorough review of
progress.
11.2
None of these issues indicate a systemic failure. The model in use is fit for purpose. The
great majority of the problems could be reduced or overcome by remedial action either in
the remaining life of the FST programme or in any future programme of a similar kind.
The remainder are familiar problems to people engaged in work at the grass roots level,
and are part of this way of working.
11.3
Instead of systemic failure, we have strong evidence that there will be positive outcomes,
though it has to be remembered that at most locations the programme is only just over
half way in its time span. FST neighbourhoods are being given what is, in terms of the
scale of the problems they face, a very small amount of money. Some are getting (or
have had) large amounts of regeneration money from other sources. So the FST money
109
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, First draft, March 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
could have been seen as a drop in the ocean, and indeed was by a number of local
authority partners.
11.4
Instead, there is evidence emerging that it can have a transforming effect on how people
are working together, which hopefully will extend beyond the life of Fair Share, and on
the development of effective projects that really respond to local circumstances and local
needs. Why is this?
11.5
We have identified six key factors. They are:
• The FST programme is very local and is process driven.
• It provides a locally owned ‘pot’ of money.
• A local Panel is appointed and is intimately engaged in the FST process.
• There is an extended time scale which goes beyond the reach of other programmes.
• The approach being taken to procurement of projects.
• A joining up of all the above points so that the whole is more than the sum of the parts.
11.6
The following sections look at each of these in turn. It will be seen that there are many
connections between them. The chapter then discusses two key questions: is the
programme achieving the aims and objectives of Fair Share, and is it qualitatively
different (better) than a straight open grants programme?
A very local, process driven approach
11.7
At the outset of this report, we identified that a key characteristic of delivery of the FST
programme is that it is process driven, and that investment in the process can produce
outcomes as much as the projects do. This is in marked contrast to many other grant
programmes where the principal focus is on getting the money spent on projects.
11.8
.The importance of CFN’s role in devising an approach which allows flexibility in
application of the process at the local level was identified as an important success factor.
11.9
The programme is managed at the local level by an Agent who is independent. Having a
local manager is a critical component in the success of the FST programme. It enables
an approach to be developed which is suited to the needs of the local neighbourhood.
Specific evaluation of the role of the Agent did not form part of our brief, but we have
been asked by CFN to comment on ‘what makes a good Agent?’. The learning from the
case studies with respect to this is set out in box 25
110
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, First draft, March 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Box 25: what makes a good Agent?
• good understanding of grant management procedures and good practice in their
implementation
• maintaining independence and a clear role as facilitator of the whole process
• a commitment to transparency of own dealings with the local community and any
interests in applications
• an ability and willingness to design and deliver good administrative and secretariat
procedures and Panel protocols
• a good understanding of their role in resourcing, supporting and developing the
Panel
• a good knowledge and understanding of relevant local stakeholders and how to
communicate with them
•
either good local knowledge, or a willingness to learn
• either a good understanding of the processes which underpin a community based
initiative (community development work, including outreach, communications,
capacity building and community engagement) or a preparedness to bring in others
with those skills (e.g. through consultants or employment of a community
development worker)
• good interpersonal skills, ideally including knowledge of conflict resolution
11.10 In addition to the Agent, the key elements in the process approach are:
• Working with a Panel (which is discussed in a later section).
• Needs identification, which means that what is most needed in the neighbourhood can
be articulated.
• Priority setting.
• Project procurement.
• Community engagement.
• Capacity building.
11.11 It is important to note that all these elements are local in their focus: a local Panel,
identification of local needs, setting of priorities which are suitable in the local
neighbourhood, procuring projects which meet the local needs, engaging with the local
community, and building capacity in local organisations, the local community and
individuals. This gives the programme an exceptional quality, enabling it to really work
with and for the neighbourhood, rather than quickly doing things to the neighbourhood
and its residents.
11.12 The Agent and Panel can focus on projects that deliver clear outcomes that meet the
priorities. These are not imposed by generic targets of a major programme with its own
(often national) objectives for project types. The objectives of FST are largely 'process'
objectives and therefore allow for flexibility, creativity, and local responses.
111
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, First draft, March 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
11.13 Observable benefits include growth in confidence, local ownership of resulting projects,
formation of new networks, increased capacity in local organisations and in individuals.
None of this would have happened without investment in the process, and where this has
not been a significant priority, the prospects for these outcomes are diminished.
11.14 The success of the process approach appears to be greater where there is a well-defined
strategic vision. The case studies that are achieving the most through the process have
a clear idea of what they wanted to achieve, and some took a decision to go slowly until
such time as a strategic vision could be developed. They thereby avoided decision
making and spend for the sake of it. A strategic vision is an essential underpinning to the
strategic approach for grant making.
11.15 A crucial factor in the success of the FST process is its flexibility. It is able to
accommodate a range of approaches at the local level, each suited to its own
circumstances. Given the complexity of the programme, and the diverse nature of the
FST neighbourhoods and of the people living and working in them, this flexibility is
essential. A programme which sought to be prescriptive would have been virtually
impossible to manage successfully. Whilst each neighbourhood is following the same
broad model, the flexibility allows the Agent and the Panel to ask the important question
‘what will work here?’. Achievements vary because opportunities are different. The very
great majority of neighbourhoods are able to respond to the opportunities and to achieve
changes through Fair Share that would not have happened without it.
11.16 Finally, the informality and responsiveness of the process is a further factor in its
success. Panel members and projects have made repeated comparisons with other
regeneration programmes and grant programmes that they have been involved in. The
quality and style of the FST process makes it understandable by participants, who are
thus more willing to take part. This is an important factor as neighbourhoods start to think
about legacy. Where other programmes are disappointing in their legacy, the
expectation is that the FST will have a much larger impact on the local community
because they have been able to really work with, and respond to, it at the local level.
A locally owned ‘pot’ of money
11.17 Fair Share has demonstrated the energising impacts of a pot of local money:
• The Panel have worked diligently to ensure that applications are appropriately
procured, to meet local needs, and to create genuine additionality. There is clear
evidence that they take their responsibilities with respect to this very seriously.
• Applicant groups, particularly ones that are locally based, feel that Fair Share is a real
opportunity, that they will get a fair hearing, that the Agent will help them with their
application, and will ensure that they do not waste their time on pointless applications.
Perhaps most potently, because they are part of the local community, they feel that the
money is in some way ‘theirs’ – not that they are entitled to have it, but that they stand
a better chance of developing a locally relevant project which will enable them to win
some of it.
• Going through the application process, and delivering a local project using the same
pot of money, can help groups to feel kinship with each other. They are all contributing
to the same objectives in the same small area. They can be quick to identify ways that
they can help each other in order to deliver better projects for the local community, and
even ways that they may work together in the future.
112
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, First draft, March 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
• The local community can be energised by seeing the impacts of a number of projects in
their area. The opportunity for this is diminished if the Agent does not prioritise
publicising Fair Share and so promote community engagement.
• The Agent can provide support based on a good knowledge of the area developed
through close contact over a long period (and by working through community
development workers. The local Agent is seen as being a reasonably local
organisation, even if covers far more than the FST neighbourhood or even borough. In
turn, this means that the applicant groups feel closer to the decision making, and that
they are likely to be given fair consideration when the Agent formally determines
funding applications.
The role of the local Panel
11.18 The role of the Panel in the FST process is one of the big FST success stories. Panels
are engaged in identifying needs, working with the Agent on the sorts of projects that
they want to fund, helping to identify groups to work with, and getting applications
brought forward and negotiated. Yet the Panel approach was a cause of concern at the
outset, particularly to BIG, who were devolving a shaping role in their grant programme to
unknowns. Their principal concern was whether the Panels would be representative, or
otherwise legitimate.
11.19 An important part of the answer to BIG’s concerns is to begin with the question of ‘what
can reasonably be expected?’. Not very many people are willing to engage in this way.
Developing the Panel membership has proved to be just like developing Boards or
management groups for any other organisation. It is necessary to work with whoever can
be persuaded to help out and volunteer, and it is a great strength of the programme that
people have been willing to give their time.
11.20 Panels are appointed. Whilst care is taken over Panel composition, it is clearly difficult
for Agents to attract and retain an appropriate spread of membership at all times.
Notwithstanding this, they can derive legitimacy from two separate sources, namely their
scrutiny role and their relationship with the local community. The evaluation has found
that Panels are strongly engaged with their scrutiny role, working to ensure that projects
meet local needs and deliver value for money. The resulting process is extremely
impressive where it is working well. In contrast, the relationship with the local community
is less developed. With honourable exceptions, there has been less diligence than might
have been expected over working with the local community, engaging them in related
activity (e.g. reviewing needs, setting priorities), and keeping them informed about what
is happening. The legitimacy of the Panel could be further enhanced by attention to this
area of activity.
11.21 As evaluators, we were concerned that the Panel process might be disrupted, or its value
diminished, by the fact that Panel members do not make decisions on the projects, but
make recommendations to the local Agent who has final responsibility. In practice, the
process is sufficiently flexible to allow Agents and Panel to work together through the
process of needs identification, priority setting, and project procurement on a consensus
building basis. When the process is working at its best, the outcome is that projects are
jointly developed and the final decision is a formality. Furthermore, in the great majority
of areas, Agents appear to be working with Panels in ways which promote transparency
and enable all parties to participate.
The extended timescale
11.22 It is often said that one, two or even five years of grant making are not enough for
programmes that are trying to engage inexperienced groups. Building capacity and
113
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, First draft, March 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
drawing in new groups takes time, and the FST programme provides an extended
timescale in most of the neighbourhoods. The Scottish experience is that they felt really
pressurised that they had to get their Panels set up and grants being made because, if
they delayed, they would end up with only relatively short term project funding. Even so,
they have found five years too little, and a consistent comment from the Scottish
neighbourhoods is that they needed more time to make the most of the programme.
11.23 Because many of the outcomes from Fair Share derive from the process and take time to
manifest themselves, it is only in this round of evaluation that we have really started to
hear about the positive benefits. The message about success is much more powerful
now, and it still has more time to run. If this had been a five year programme, and it was
now closed down, there would never have been time for the process to mature because
local Agents would have had to move into finishing mode before successful outcomes
could develop and emerge.
11.24 In some locations in England, there was a resistance from local Panel members to such
an extended time horizon. At early Panel meetings there was repeated questioning
about why the money couldn’t just be spent. Panel members felt that they knew what
was needed, that they could spend the money in a year, and that they didn’t want to
‘mess around’ and delay. It is interesting to observe the extent to which that attitude has
changed. Panel members can see that, by going slower, they have been able to more
fully consider local issues, and the priorities that link to them. A more corporate view of
what can be achieved has emerged as a result.
Project procurement
11.25 Earlier chapters have shown how the routes to project procurement can be at the heart of
the successes of the FST programme. To varying extents, and using various routes,
Agents have devised approaches which ensure that there is a good fit between priorities
and needs on the one hand, and the projects funded on the other. Local needs are the
determinant. At the same time, the approach can focus on using local organisations,
thereby building additional capacity in the area. The opportunities to create positive
linkages are substantial and, at its best, these are being utilised in a strong and creative
manner.
A joined up programme
11.26 It is part of the nature of the FST programme that there are many linkages, and it is
observable that the benefits of FST only accrue because:
• All the linking elements (project funding, Panel, local Agent, local pot of money,
timescale etc) are present.
• All the elements work well together.
Is the work of the FST meeting BIG’s objectives for the programme?
11.27 Any funder such as BIG expects that its programmes will meet its objectives. CFN did
take the objectives on board and provided guidance and interpretation for the Agents52.
However, the objectives are not clearly worded, and it is strongly recommended that
future programmes pay greater attention to this matter so as to help ensure that
programme objectives can be understood and met. Specifically, objectives for such
programmes need to be:
• High level, so offering room for local innovation.
52 Fair Share Trust Programme, Local Agent Guidance Pack, version 2, February 2006
114
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, First draft, March 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
• Clear, so the purpose of the programme can be understood easily by all who need to
know.
11.28 In the first round of the evaluation, we spent time working with BIG on the indicators to
ensure that they reflected the outcomes that they were looking for when they drafted the
objectives53. The question now, therefore, is whether these objectives have been met.
11.29 Given the size of the local pot of money, and the very large scale of the problems faced
in the FST neighbourhoods, it can be argued that the objectives for the programme are
extremely ambitious. In terms of the overall aims for the programme (see table 1, para
2.6), the following can be observed:
• Targeted Fair Share areas are receiving additional monies through the FST
programme. At this stage, there is no consistent data from which to explore the extent
that money is flowing from other Lottery sources.
• The awards being made through Fair Share are involving disadvantaged people and
positively impacting on their lives. The extent to which this is sustainable cannot yet be
determined.
• Community groups are reporting that they feel better placed to secure funding in the
future from a range of funding sources.
• Projects that are being funded reflect local priorities, and many are sensitively tailored
to meeting local needs.
11.30 Perhaps more important are BIG’s objectives specifically for the FST programme (see
table 1, para 2.7):
• Capacity building is an important component in the programme, though it is more
prominent in some neighbourhoods than others. It is focused principally on community
organisations, but includes individuals from within the local community (e.g. through the
Panel, through opportunities opening up as a result of Fair Share, and through events
and other Fair Share activities). It is achieved both directly, through projects that are
specifically funded for the purpose, and indirectly in consequence of the processes
used for delivery of the FST. There are opportunities for this component of the
programme to be further enhanced during the remainder of delivery.
• Sustainability in local communities is taken here to mean their ability to continue to
meet their own needs, and is linked in the objectives to capacity building. The capacity
building underpins future sustainability. Without capacity building, sustainability is less
likely to be a long term outcome of the programme, and this is recognised in the
approaches being taken. Again, there are opportunities for this to be enhanced during
the remainder of delivery.
• Social capital is not an explicit focus for projects being funded through Fair Share, but
is already emerging in some locations as an outcome. In the context of Fair Share,
there is an interesting tension between building of social capital and capacity. Where a
large number of projects in a neighbourhood are focused on capacity building, and few
on funding for community groups/ organisations to carry out projects designed to meet
local needs, then there are less direct opportunities for the activities that lead to the
development of social capital. Theory suggests that, in the longer term, there will be
downstream benefits that flow, and the development of social capital may be one such
benefit, but it is too soon for evidence of this to emerge.
53 Fair Share evaluation, Second Report, December 2007 www.biglotteryfund.org.uk
115
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, First draft, March 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
• The liveability agenda has not had a substantial focus at the local level, with Panels
and communities showing more interest in service based projects than improvements
to local environments. The exception is the ‘safer’ component, where work with young
people has had a strong emphasis on reducing anti-social behaviour to benefit both the
young people themselves, and the wider community. There are a limited number of
environmental improvement projects, and where these have been carried out they
appear to have had the support of the wider community and to be regarded as
successes.
Does the approach to procurement differ from a straight open grant programme?
11.31 The devolved approach to grant making at the local level has enabled the whole
approach to be driven by local needs. The effects of this are amplified by use of
commissioning or extensive use of negotiation. It serves to ensure that the projects
procured are really tailored to meeting local hopes and expectations.
11.32 Two arguments are made against commissioning or an extended process of procurement
instigated by the grant maker. First, ‘the use of commissioning (rather than bidding) as a
method of fund distribution may reduce competition between groups, but raises issues of
transparency around funding allocation. Will the best organisation receive the funding, or
will it be the best networked organisation?’ (Leeds Community Foundation).
11.33 This is something which requires vigilance. However, the FST approach, which draws on
the local knowledge and experience of the Panel, and of any community development
workers, has shown itself to be remarkably transparent, with local interests providing the
monitoring mechanism, and substantial awareness being demonstrated of the need for
‘fairness’. Because the Agent and Panel are locally attuned, they are more likely to be
able to identify the most appropriate organisation to fund for what they want to see
achieved than a normal grant making process.
11.34 The second argument is that commissioning can reduce creativity in applicants, in
contrast with an open grants programme. We have found no evidence to support this
assertion. The way that commissioning and negotiating are being done may even be
encouraging creativity where it involves working with small groups and encouraging them
to address local issues and join up with others to develop new solutions.
11.35 We conclude that the more ‘alternative’ routes to procurement in use in Fair Share are
achieving things which a straight open grant programme cannot. In addition, the process
means that the grant making can be strategic as well as local, and thereby achieve the
objectives of CFN in this respect. For example, the FST approach to procurement can:
• Join up projects and their deliverers, so that more impact can be obtained than through
individual proposals.
• Build capacity in community organisations to deliver beyond the life of Fair Share and
develop understanding of other sources of funding, with increased success anticipated
in securing funding beyond the FST programme.
• Combine local ownership of Fair Share and a broader understanding of the issues that
impact on community life, with a strong focus on the priorities for the area.
• Leave behind more effective and sustainable organisations, better developed
partnerships and a capability to make better funding bids.
116
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, First draft, March 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
• Help projects to see the grant maker as a stakeholder on their side rather than as
someone seeking to catch them out.
• Overcome some of the negative impact of a ‘grants culture’ where the emphasis is on
getting the money rather than on achieving change.
• Help create a stronger community, demonstrated by an increase in social capital.
• Enable residents to take action to help themselves.
• Provide services in a joined up manner, avoiding duplication, and making the most of a
limited sum of money.
11.36 The FST programme is experimental and innovative. The approach has redefined grant
making at the local level. It is based on consensus building in the grant making body and
is embedded in identification of local needs. It focuses on meeting locally identified
needs with an appropriately determined local solution, rather than simply funding projects
which meet the hopes of a speculative project applicant.
11.37 It has devolved decision making to the local level, and is bringing about change. It is
exciting, inspiring and challenging in turn.
117
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, First draft, March 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Chapter twelve: A lasting legacy?
“It would have been very easy just to spend the money quickly. There would have been no
legacy and Fair Share would have been forgotten. But instead we have got real local
flavour into what we are doing – meeting real needs, providing training, bringing people
and groups together, and strengthening local organisations. Having trained up local
people, those skills will last. The legacy will be the lasting impact through investing in
people – local people who are both the users of services and the people involved in
running local groups.” Maggie Hall, CHAT, Ashfield
Scope of chapter
This chapter looks at the local legacy and benefits from the FST programme, the extent
to which it may be a model for public involvement in grant making and the sustainability
of the impacts of the programme. It also considers what could be some key tensions
within the programme design and delivery. Finally, the chapter identifies where
immediate action is needed within the FST programme itself, lessons for future funding
programmes, and questions and issues for any future evaluation.
Summary of key findings
• There are significant local benefits already apparent from the programme for local
people, the local VCS and local quality of life.
• The wider benefits of the FST programme observed through this evaluation suggest it
provides a valuable model for public involvement in grant making in future, particularly
in the decision making structures, community involvement in setting local priorities for
funding, and particularly in disadvantaged areas.
• Although the deep and complex problems of disadvantaged areas will not be solved
during the course of the FST programme, its processes are expected to have
contributed to more sustainable community and voluntary sectors, and more resilient
communities.
• The programme has shown its worth in terms of building local capacity and demand
even in the context of reduced funding budgets. It balances the provision of muchneeded local facilities with investing in engagement, ensuring that the Panels have
become valuable local structures that may or may not be appropriate in the longer
term. It shows that local people in disadvantaged areas are willing and able to take
part in decision making, and that speed and delivery of grant funding can be enhanced
through early and significant investment in capacity building and decision making
processes.
• The FST programme should improve communications with local communities
(especially through a comprehensive local review), make plans to develop exit
strategies (building on experience in Scotland), and build greater collaborative working
between local projects.
• Lessons for future funding programmes include the need for clear objectives, long
timescales and significant investment to build capacity and community involvement.
The benefits of such an approach are substantial. A local pot of money, a procurement
process rather than open grants schemes, and the right sorts of Panel members with
the right support can create real local empowerment and effective grant making.
118
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, First draft, March 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
• Any future evaluation needs to focus on outcomes from projects and impacts on
groups running projects, as the first round of project funding is only now reaching
completion.
Local legacy and local benefits
12.1
The previous chapters have identified the outcomes from the projects and through
building capacity and social capital, which provides a summary of the immediate benefits
and achievements from the programme. This chapter covers the likely contributions of
the programme in terms of its longer term legacy at local level and more broadly, based
on findings to date. At this point in the programme, these points are indications rather
than conclusions, and it will be important to continue evaluating the programme to
establish the extent to which these indications are followed through in practice.
12.2
The most obvious signs of longer term impacts are at local level and include the
following:
• Legacy for local individuals. Local people, whether panel members, leaders and
members of voluntary and community sector (VCS) groups running projects, have
developed skills, confidence and ambition which they will take into the rest of their
lives, whether at work, in other voluntary activities or in their domestic lives. This is a
long term impact and an important element of the Fair Share Trust (FST) programme's
legacy. Future evaluations may be able to follow this through in more detail, possibly
through detailed individual case histories.
• Legacy for the local VCS. The FST programme has provided investment both to the
VCS infrastructure (such as by providing funding for workers within CVSs), and to
support new and existing community and voluntary groups. Both of these strands of
investment have helped strengthen the local VCS in ways that will survive, even if the
funding is removed. The experience, skills and relationships will not be lost. Again, it
will be interesting to see exactly what the longer term impacts of this investment are as
funding becomes tighter.
• Legacy for local quality of life. The FST programme has delivered local facilities (such
as parks, play spaces, arts facilities) that will exist in the longer term. There are
questions about the extent to which limits to future funding will reduce the value of
these facilities if they are not maintained, staffed and promoted. But new facilities exist
which were not available before, and that is an important legacy in communities where
the FST programme is the first chance they have had to see their areas improve and to
have been part of making that happen.
A model for public involvement in grant making?
12.3
At this stage in the FST programme, we have observed the value of a process which:
• Invests in local decision making processes and structures, so that the majority of the
elements of the programme are controlled and delivered locally.
• Provides a mechanism for very targeted, efficient and effective distribution of funding to
specific geographical areas and to the groups of people who need it most.
• Links meeting local needs and aspirations with locally determined priorities for grant
making and project procurement in ways that secure good projects.
119
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, First draft, March 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
• Links meeting immediate needs through project funding with funding that invests in
building the capacity of groups and individuals, and builds social capital, both of which
will contribute to longer term community resilience needed to adapt to social change.
• Delivers strategic local change through projects determined by local people so they are
relevant, appropriate and have local support. The programme is thus both strategic
and locally specific.
• Engages local people through Panel membership, participation in groups getting
funding, growth in volunteering, and engagement in Fair Share funded projects and
activities.
• Includes appropriate and necessary checks and balances to ensure financial
accountability without being dauntingly bureaucratic.
• Operates through a process which is geared to help participants and applicants, rather
than to catch them out. It enables local communities to develop their own solutions
and then gain the resources to implement the activities that they believe will make a
difference.
• Resources existing VCS infrastructure bodies so they can provide support for
community action, which increases investment in the support structures as well as
ensuring community groups have access to the help they need locally.
• Has a ring-fenced pot of money which is for spending in the local neighbourhood,
giving confidence to local groups to apply as well as ensuring that the money is spent
on local projects.
• Joins up all elements of the programme so that the achievements are more than the
sum of the parts; the FST programme genuinely links local input to identifying priorities,
local decision making, formal financial accountability, innovation and meeting real
social need.
12.4
This is a good model for areas of disadvantage because it enables moves towards local
action in ways that are empowering local people by ensuring they are part of the solution
to local problems. Community groups can have ideas and then set about getting the
money. Motivation and commitment from community organisations are much stronger as
a result. Furthermore, positive outcomes accrue to the local community, strengthening
satisfaction with achievements. Development of this sensitive approach to grant making
in small neighbourhoods is in itself an important legacy from the FST programme.
12.5
The benefits from the use of such an approach would apply in a range of settings, and
not solely in areas of disadvantage. The results of the evaluation are emerging at an
opportune time, because the experience from Fair Share has a wider contribution to
make to the successful implementation of recent government initiatives at the local level.
12.6
The majority of this potential contribution focuses on the Government’s ‘empowerment’
agenda, and in relation to the 'duty to involve'. This new approach contains a number of
specific initiatives, many of which involve forms of financial devolution which could place
potentially large sums of money in the hands of the community, neighbourhood or area
level organisations.
12.7
There is still some resistance to the empowerment agenda from those who believe they
have no methods for ensuring that they can manage and distribute often significant funds
fairly, effectively and accountably. If this impasse is not broken, a potentially important
set of initiatives could fail, to the particular detriment of those disadvantaged communities
120
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, First draft, March 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
at whom much of the empowerment work is targeted. The FST model is exactly the type
of innovative yet proven, partnership-based, yet locally rooted format for managing local
funds that empowerment initiatives need as a matter of urgency.
12.8
The FST programme builds on some earlier work (including by the Community
Foundation Network) to use local panels to contribute to managing local funds, but none
had been so widespread across the country, or had been part of such a comprehensive
framework for funding. The FST approach is now being applied to a new generation of
'local panel' approaches, such as the management of ‘Community Benefits’ from wind
energy developments (an initiative already being discussed by several FST Panels).
From this source alone, seven figure sums of money are potentially available to the local
communities. The management of these funds remains a significant challenge for local
communities who nevertheless are determined to retain control and responsibility. The
Fair Share Trust model is a ready-made answer. We believe that effort should be put in
to disseminating the key benefits of the Trust model speedily and widely.
Sustainability
12.9
Sustainability is a key aspect of Fair Share: the original overall aims for the three
programmes refers to awards having a "sustainable impact on the lives of disadvantaged
people in the areas", and the aims for the FST programme refer to the need to "build
capacity and sustainability in local communities”. Community Foundation Network
(CFN) guidance also touches on the issue of sustainability in defining 'strategic grants' as
follows (para 7.3ff): ‘projects funded will create sustainable outcomes without further
reliance on Lottery funding, or will no longer be needed as they have tackled the
problems that they sought to address’.
12.10 In reviewing sustainability, the evaluation has found one result that was entirely expected
by the team: that some of the often very deep and complex problems facing the
disadvantaged areas covered by FST neighbourhoods will not be resolved even in the 10
year timescale of the FST programme, if ever.
12.11 However, CFN guidance does provide useful clarity over sustainability, by reminding
Agents that ‘lasting impact does not imply that projects which continue in perpetuity are
the most valuable. It is the programme’s outcomes – capacity building, social capital and
liveability – that the programme aims to sustain.’ As outlined above in the section on
'local legacy', these outcomes are already apparent and are a major contribution to
sustainability.
12.12 Work for sustainability includes:
• Capacity building work to support community organisations and the voluntary sector on
matters relating to their own sustainability. The skills and capabilities that result
contribute to lasting outcomes in the FST neighbourhood, and are transferable when
beneficiaries move elsewhere. Without capacity building, sustainability is less likely to
be an outcome of the programme, and this is recognised in the approaches being
taken. There are opportunities for it to be further enhanced during the remainder of the
programme.
• Investing in key local organisations to carry on with capacity building work when Fair
Share is over (for example, CVSs, development trusts and community partnerships).
• Responding to the emphasis on ‘strategic funding’ set by CFN. Agents and Panels are
encouraged to think about the long term impacts of the projects they fund. These
impacts apply both at the individual project level, and to them in combination. A
121
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, First draft, March 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
strategic approach to funding, linked to local needs and aspirations, is more likely to
produce lasting benefits than individual, one-off awards.
• Maximising the benefits from targeting award recipients. When Fair Share makes
awards to local groups – and particularly to less experienced ones – it builds their
capacity and builds linkages between them. This in turn strengthens the local voluntary
and community sector and helps build social capital. Awards to experienced groups,
and especially to statutory agencies and the deliverers of public services, are unlikely
to have the same level of impact.
• Nurturing the growth in optimism, and opportunities to celebrate it. Fair Share is
leading to higher morale and hopes for a better future. There is a clear sense that “we
can make a difference”. It derives from the engagement and achievement being
secured through the FST process. This will underpin sustainability.
• Using the FST process to maximise its potential. The process is local. Where it is
working at its best, it is owned by the Panel and (parts of) the wider community. It is
enabling local groups to deliver projects which meet their own needs or those of their
target beneficiaries, and it is engaging the local community, thereby extending benefits
through widening social capital. The evaluation has identified that contributions to
sustainable outcomes from the process would be enhanced by extending the work with
the local community.
12.13 It is important that the rest of the UK learns from the good work being undertaken in
Scotland in planning for exit, to ensure that they build sustainability into their thinking
even if they had not thought about it to any great extent previously. This will require work
with Panels, with groups, with projects that have been funded, and the continuation of
capacity building. CFN is preparing guidance and is working with local Agents to ensure
that this is part of the closing stages of the programme.
12.14 Almost the most important element of planning for exit is to celebrate and build on the
achievements to date, so that the real impacts are understood and consolidated for the
long term, both in terms of the projects and groups funded, and in terms of the structural
investments made.
Issues and tensions
12.15 It is clear that there are already significant local benefits emerging from the programme,
and some immediate links with wider developments in the field. However, there are also
some issues and tensions emerging, including the following.
12.16 Risks of building local capacity and demand in the context of reduced funding budgets. It
is already clear that there is likely to be significantly reduced funding for voluntary and
community action at local level in the foreseeable future, both from the Lottery and from
other sources. This raises the question of the value of building capacity among local VCS
groups when there is much less funding to enable them to develop and deliver projects.
The evaluation findings suggest:
• Although funding is likely to be more scarce, there will still be some available. The
capacity building that the FST programme has achieved has helped new and
inexperienced groups develop the track record, skills and ambition to compete more
effectively for that funding. A strong VCS needs constant new development (as well as
support for existing activities of proven value), and the FST programme has contributed
to that.
122
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, First draft, March 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
• Capacity building not only increases skills in developing projects and gaining funding.
It also builds confidence, morale and a whole range of other practical life skills among
the individuals involved, which are as valuable in the workplace or elsewhere as in
other voluntary activity. These individuals are therefore better equipped to respond
positively even in difficult financial circumstances.
• Capacity building also includes developing networks and relationships between VCS
groups, and also between the VCS and other sectors, particularly the public sector.
These relationships will continue to have value, and are likely to survive, even in the
new funding context. In addition, the understanding of institutions developed through
the FST programme is likely to be valuable to groups and individuals in the longer term.
12.17 Essentially, the achievements of the FST programme will be valuable in an era of scarcity
of funding, as well as in times of plenty. The capacity for growth and development may
be restricted but will not be lost entirely, and the FST programme will have equipped
more groups to continue and thrive even in the most difficult circumstances, and to
survive until funding becomes more available again.
12.18 It is very sad that the investment of the FST programme could not have been followed by
continuing and growing investment to build on and take these achievements much
further, benefiting many more disadvantaged local people and communities. But there
are already benefits that will survive until that becomes possible.
12.19 Balancing investment between 'provision' and 'engagement'. FST areas did clearly need
new facilities and services, and it was important that these were created as part of the
FST programme; partly in themselves and partly to demonstrate that change was
happening in the area.
12.20 However, much greater impacts have been achieved by doing this in partnership with
local people than would have been achieved by providing the facilities without
involvement. For example, the projects are more relevant to very specific local needs that
are unlikely to have been identified without involvement; engagement allows for a much
more 'fine grain' funding response, ensuring that more diverse needs are met through a
good range of activities and facilities. The facilities have real and continuing local support
and so will be protected and used more than conventionally delivered facilities.
12.21 In addition, the programme was intended to build capacity and strengthen the VCS in the
FST neighbourhoods and the simple provision of facilities by local authorities and other
public service providers would not have achieved these additional impacts. Community
engagement in the development and delivery of the projects has provided much wider
and greater social benefits in terms of skills, track record, status, confidence, optimism
and ambition than would have been possible if the projects had been developed in
conventional ways.
12.22 If the FST programme had not had these wider objectives, and had focused purely on
funding the provision of improved local facilities and public services, all the funding could
have gone to public authorities who, with their much larger resources, are likely to have
made highly professional applications, and denied the VCS access to much funding at
all. The focus in Fair Share on building capacity and social capital ensured that some
funding was made available to projects that achieved those broader outcomes.
12.23 Dangers of establishing more new local structures. The establishment of local Panels has
been a core part of the FST programme, and these are becoming important parts of the
local infrastructure in some areas. There may be concern that there are now too many
similar structures, especially in areas where other funding programmes have also set up
123
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, First draft, March 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
local groups or committees. In practice, there were some initial overlaps and confusion
between different local structures. However, over time, the very specific role of the Panel
has become very clear and in many cases the Panel structure has become a particularly
effective vehicle both for involvement and for distributing funding.
12.24 The continuing role of the Panels is something to consider in future planning. In Scotland,
where the programme is already drawing to a close, there is a sense that some Panels
do want to continue and take on different functions (e.g. as a focus for involvement in
community planning), and elsewhere that the Panel members cease to be interested
once the funding management is completed. As always in Fair Share, the value of the
Panel, its legacy and its longevity, will need to depend on local needs and local
circumstances, as well as the wishes of the local Panel to remain in being or not.
12.25 Too much to ask of disadvantaged people and communities. There are two main issues
here. First, overload. It may be felt to be unfair to overload disadvantaged people and
communities with the responsibility of managing their own programmes and helping
develop and deliver their own activities, when they could be provided with better facilities
without such demands on their time.
12.26 The argument for the involvement of disadvantaged people specifically is that they are
more often excluded from decisions about investment in their areas than middle class
and more experienced local activists who make sure their voices are heard and therefore
often gain the resources for themselves. In addition, engagement in Fair Share is entirely
voluntary; no-one is forced into taking part. The evaluation has found that, although
recruitment has been a problem in some area, many of the FST case study areas have
had more people wanting to join Panels than there are places. This shows a demand for
engagement rather than a reluctance to take part.
12.27 Second, responsibility for decision making. It may be felt that local people want to be
consulted about the future of the area, and how local funding is distributed, but that they
do not want to take the responsibility of actually making decisions between different
projects themselves. In practice, the evaluation has found that Panel members do take
their responsibilities very seriously, and do see themselves making decisions on behalf of
their local community, but that they have been more than willing to take on that
responsibility.
12.28 The division in Fair Share of responsibility between the Agent who has financial
accountability for the decision, and the Panel which in practice makes the decision in
partnership with the Agent, may actually be the best possible model so that Panel
members are part of the decision but do not have to take full responsibility alone. It is
partly the experience of decision making in this way that has contributed to the growth of
confidence and generally to capacity building among Panel members. They have had to
balance competing demands for scarce resources and, although it has been difficult in
some circumstances, we have found no desire to give up these decision making
responsibilities.
12.29 Speed and delivery. Questions are being raised about whether the FST approach speeds
up grant making and reduces bureaucracy. The evaluation has found that, in many FST
neighbourhoods, grant making is now very efficient and effective and bureaucracy is kept
to a minimum. This is certainly the perception of some Panel members and applicants
who identify these as among the key strengths of the FST approach. This perception is
probably largely due to the now well-understood process and the sense that the money is
locally owned.
12.30 However, this happy situation has required five years of significant investment and
capacity building which has created the circumstances in which grant making is now fairly
124
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, First draft, March 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
streamlined in terms of both administration and in meeting local needs. The speed and
effectiveness of delivery of funding for local projects would not have been possible
without this initial investment and time.
12.31 Relationships with the statutory sector, especially local authorities. Some FST
neighbourhoods have close links with public service providers – especially the police –
on local Panels. In some cases, local authority officers and councillors are also on local
Panels. Some Panels are now thinking about the need to actually invest more time and
effort into building longer term and deeper relationships with statutory bodies, partly to
spread learning from the projects funded, and partly to ensure that the work has longer
term support from public bodies.
Action needed in the FST programme
12.32 The first and most immediate conclusion from this evaluation is that local Agents and
local Panels need to invest resources and effort in communicating more widely and more
effectively with local communities in FST neighbourhoods and beyond. This is partly in
order to meet needs for local accountability (through improved communications) but also
partly about refreshing and revitalising the FST programme by reaching out to new
groups and interests. This could take the form of an immediate local review at local level.
12.33 The FST programme is now half way through, spending a significant sum in a given area.
It is now the right time for a more comprehensive local review of where the programme
has got to in a given area, how the Panel feels about achievements, and consulting and
communicating with the wider local community to show them what has been achieved
with the money so far, what the game plan is for the second half, and to generate some
support for and modifications to that game plan. Such a review would be an opportunity
to bring in new players, and if appropriate to identify further needs. It would also
potentially help to refresh the Panel and bring in new ideas as well as to trumpet what
have done so far, get reactions, and be responsive. It could include a review of the
extent of use of open grants, and the potential for strengthening capacity building as part
of planning for sustainability.
12.34 The experience of the evaluation team in running workshop events in most of the case
study areas was that there was a real appetite for this sort of review, and great benefits in
helping the funded projects network. In this case, the objective was to enable reflections
among those funded about their own achievements and impacts so far. This approach
could be built on to create wider community events which may also interest wider
audiences (including local media).
12.35 Such a review and celebration would provide an excellent opportunity to communicate
with the wider community, so they are made more aware of what is happening on Fair
Share.
12.36 Immediate action also needs to be taken to start planning nationally and locally to create
clear exit strategies. There is good experience here from Scotland, where planning has
been going on for some time now to prepare for the closure of the programme there in
2010. Exit strategy planning needs to consider what happens when all the funding is
spent, the continuing role of local Panels (or not), and the impacts of local Agents no
longer being able to provide the level of support they have been making available
through the FST programme.
12.37 It would also be very helpful if collaboration between local projects could be increased,
building on the local review mentioned above. That review would enable the projects to
find opportunities for joint working that could increase the value of their activities but it
125
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, First draft, March 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
would also be valuable for the projects to identify the wider learning from their experience
to feed into improved local services, facilities and activities in the longer term.
Lessons for future funding programmes
12.38 The evaluation has revealed a number of lessons from the experience of the FST
programme that need to be taken into account in future programmes. At the national
programme level, it is clear that overall objectives need to be very clear but also very
high level, so there is full scope for local innovation, flexibility and relevance to local
circumstances, within a clear set of aims that provide strategic direction and inspiration.
12.39 It takes a long time and a significant investment of resources to build capacity and
community involvement in setting local priorities as well as in decision making on
applications for funding. However, a programme of funding that includes those features
has enormous additional benefits in terms of relevance of local projects that meet 'fine
grain' local needs and priorities as well as building local skills and confidence, social
capital, sustainability and resilience. The 'process' of involvement is as important as the
'product' of funded projects in achieving these benefits.
12.40 A local pot of money ensures that local community groups feel that the money is 'theirs'
and that they have as much chance of getting their projects funded as other larger more
experienced organisations. This can increase the 'reach' of the programme into those
parts of the community that have been excluded from conventional programmes and
therefore may not have run projects before.
12.41 Processes of procurement that link commissioning to identified local needs and/ or which
involve negotiation with applicants result in more appropriate local projects, as well as
resulting in more robust projects because they have been through a process of challenge
and revision. These forms of project procurement may be good models for the future than
conventional grant application processes
12.42 Community involvement needs to build on people's existing interests and willingness to
participate. It is important that decision making groups (e.g. the FST Panels) attract the
right sorts of local interests, particularly local residents who understand and are
motivated to improve their areas.
12.43 Future funding programmes that include community involvement need to ensure there is
sufficient and appropriate support and resources. The FST programme suffered in the
early days from having underestimated the need and demand for support (from local
Agents, community development workers etc), and is now benefiting from having
invested more heavily in these support services more recently.
12.44 Decision making on grant applications and getting funding to projects can be streamlined
and therefore quicker and easier if there is significant investment of time and money at
the beginning of the process to build the appropriate community involvement and
understanding of the processes. Early 'upstream' investment of time and money can
result in real savings later in managing funding programmes.
Next steps for evaluation
12.45 This is the final report of this evaluation. However, the programme is only half way
through in much of the UK and significant questions are not fully answered, particularly
regarding outcomes, as funding for projects is only just starting in some areas and even
the longest running projects are only now completed or nearing completion. Questions for
any future evaluation and research include:
126
Evaluation of the Fair Share Trust programme
Report on the first five years, First draft, March 2009
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
• Are projects qualitatively different as a result of the procurement process developed in
the FST programme (commissioning by, or negotiation with, Panels based on locally
defined priorities)?
• What lasting impacts does the procurement process have on the groups who have
successfully received funding from the FST programme?
• To what event have FS projects contributed to sustained capacity building in local
communities?
• Are there more successful applications coming through the programme from new and
inexperienced groups as a result of the investment in capacity building work? This
could be tested using some sort of survey across the whole FST programme.
• What is the impact of FST funding on small and inexperienced groups? This could be
tested using in depth case study work following a sample of groups from the inception
of their project to the end of funding.
• What has happened to Panels, Panel members and local Agents by the end of the
programme, and how has the structure and funding through the FST programme
impacted on them?
12.47 In any future evaluations, it will be important to closely link monitoring, learning and
evaluation activities, so that these activities become mutually reinforcing while reducing
the burden on those providing data (especially local Agents). It would also be beneficial
to increase opportunities for sharing and reflecting on experience so that knowledge
about this approach continues to be better and more widely understood.
127