East Midlands ESF Community Learning and Skills Grants Programme Evaluation. Final Report to Enable January 2014

Transcription

1 East Midlands ESF Community Learning and Skills Grants Programme Evaluation Final Report to Enable January 2014

2 Contents I feel treated as an individual and I am encouraged and not treated as a problem

3 CONTENTS Page 1. Acknowledgments 4 2. Executive Summary 8 3. Consultancy brief scope and objectives of work Introduction to the Community Learning Grants Programme and Context Quantitative assessment Qualitative assessment Key lessons learned and features of success 55 Appendices: Appendix 1: Targeted Areas Appendix 2: List of Grant Recipients Appendix 3: Capacity Building Actions Appendix 4: Participant Feedback Analysis Appendix 5: Top Tips for Making Funding Applications 3

4 1: Acknowledgments I have started to look forward [in my life] now, whereas before it was an achievement to get to the end of the day (and out of the house) 4

5 1: Acknowledgments We would like to express our sincere thanks to the following for their time, views and help during the course of the study. Client Lead: Melanie Phythian Enable Stakeholders: East Midlands Steering Group Members Don Hayes Karen McCourt Janet Farr Enable JobCentre Plus Lincolnshire Learning Alliance Sub Regional Panel Members: Susan Barker Ann Bourne Matt Rowe Liz Gumbley Kerry Gray Sean Tizzard Noel Singh Alison Goddard Mick Taylor Helen Goldsborough Helen Kearsley-Cree JobCentre Plus JobCentre Plus Big Lottery Community Action Derby Leicester City Council Big Lottery Leicestershire County Council Lincolnshire Action Trust TayloriTEX CIC Nottinghamshire County Council Nottingham Community & Voluntary Service Other support: We would like to thanks Alexis Rich of Enable and Paul Randall of Enable who developed the Survey Monkey template for the Project Managers and assimilated the feedback. 5

6 Project Managers (survey): 25 Project Managers responded to the survey. A few had experience of delivering more than one funded project and the number of grants are set out in brackets after their organisational name. Some provided feedback confidentially without providing a name. The projects we know responded we d like to thank include: Julie Mitchell Nisha Kaunda David Heathcote Helen Power Shamsher Chohan Debbie Stacey Bob Clark Martin Buchannan Jean-Didier Mualaba Sally Etheridge Gillie Wilkinson Gail Dunn Ayaz Ahmed Mark Picksley Farhad Neghipooran Ric Ellis Paul Davies Kate Williams Lainy Wills Sanbella Sadiq TaylorITEX CIC Embrace in Community Ollerton and District Economic Forum (3 grants) Hope Springs Horticulture CIC Nottingham Equal Riverside Access and Training Centre, Gainsborough Access2Advice CIC Cooke e-learning Foundation (2 grants) Belong (2 grants) Wesley Hall Mammas Eton Avenue Growers Association Abbey Access Training (2 grants) Vernon Community College Gainsborough Furniture Resource Centre Persian Cultural Association Apex Works Loundsley Green Community Trust (3 grants plus 2 with Clowne Enterprise) Groundwork Northamptonshire Phoenix Therapies Asian Aid (2 grants) 6

7 Project Managers (Case Studies): Clare Rhule Nicola Griffiths Wayne Brewin and Tony Barlow Simon Redding and Paul Davies Gail Dunn Nottingham Photographer s Hub, Nottingham The Livity Centre, Northampton The Signing Network, Leicester Loundsley Green Community Trust, Chesterfield Abbey Access Training, Lincoln Participants or Beneficiaries: We did not record the names of all the beneficiaries we met (those who had participated / were participating in ESF supported projects), but we would like to reiterate our profound gratitude to the 30 individuals we met and spoke to, across the 5 Case Study projects. Their views on their own real life experiences were invaluable in providing a rich vein of information and feedback for this evaluation. How their lives and circumstances have changed as a result of the ESF funded projects led by community organisations across the Region has given a wealth of qualitative information to inform this evaluation study. 7

8 2: Executive Summary He [Project Manager] has been a great help he gave me the ability to see that I could do this for myself and gave me the confidence to do it 8

9 2: Executive Summary The selected quotes throughout this report (in the section headers ) are from individuals who have been participating in grass-roots based projects designed to help them into work and / or boost their confidence and self-esteem to equip them to look forward positively and increase their chances of success in the jobs market. These are quite powerful messages! Having talked to almost 30 unemployed people, across 5 very different communities and 5 grass roots projects as part of the Case Study work I did to evaluate the impact being made by a small grants programme, their feedback provides a rich resource to the funders and partners of the ESF Community Learning Grants Programme. They have all benefited from the East Midlands ESF Community Learning and Skills Grants programme which offered grants of up to 10,000 to small voluntary and community organisations (charities and social enterprises etc.) to enable them to deliver projects which: engage with local communities deliver a range of skills and employment support activities to help people into work or equip them for employment targets people from the hardest-to-reach communities, experiencing multiple disadvantage, to make progress towards the labour market. The programme was co-financed by the SFA: Skills Funding Agency (UK Government agency for adult skills and education) and the European Social Fund (ESF). The programme in the East Midlands was managed by Enable, a learning and skills consortium that provides a range of support to the community and voluntary sector and they acted as the Grant Co-ordinating Body. A Regional Steering Group oversaw the overall programme but key decision making happened at sub-regional (county) level whereby key stakeholder agencies (representatives from local authorities, community support agencies, other funding bodies etc.) came together to assess applications, share expertise and knowledge and make decisions on projects to support. Between June 2011 and December 2013, 576,000 of grant funding was allocated through this programme and 105 grants were issued to community groups. The average grant award was 5,486. This helped 1,458 people across deprived communities of the East Midlands, equating to 395 of grant per person supported. The programme has offered excellent value for money by any measure and achieved and exceeded all of its targets (apart from the proportion of 50+ group but this should be balanced when considering the overall number of people supported is 46% higher than the target of 1,000). See Section 5 for the quantifiable assessment. The evaluation placed a high degree of emphasis upon a qualitative review process to get feedback from those involved in overseeing and managing the programme, those involved in assessing the applications, the projects themselves and finally (but crucially) ascertain the views of those who had benefitted from the project work to see how the support had made an impact upon their lives. This has enabled candid and useful comments to be captured over and above the numbers tracked through programme monitoring of achievements versus targets. 9

10 It is worth highlighting this here for the reader within the Executive Summary: Key ingredients for success grass roots organisations helping people into work For the beneficiaries (or participants as they are called) the people who are out of work and wanting support their stories were unique and varied. However there were a number of common threads that emerged from the discussions I had with them on what works for them and these are the factors we observed: The personality of the Project Manager the key relationship is between the participants and the person heading up the community project or the person at the community group they have most contact with. If that relationship is positive, then many other things flow from it, including the points below Being treated as an individual common sense really, but so many said that they felt they were treated as an individual and their own needs and circumstance were taken into account the community organisations were all excellent at putting the individual at the centre of their work and taking an holistic approach to supporting them Being nurtured each, in their own way, was nurtured by the project they took part in helping them feel wanted, safe, cared-for and not seen as a problem to society. The community organisation was on their side doing all they could to help them and where they are encouraged to express their views and develop Being encouraged whether that be to exhibit some art work, to try self employment as a serious option or to apply for jobs. For many it was their first real experience of anyone placing belief in their abilities and giving them the confidence to learn, try out new things, and encouraging them to move forward The right environment at a grass-roots level each of the projects has a good understanding of its own community and the physical environment they operate from (office / project base) is seen as a crucial component of what works from the participants perspective. Often these people have had poor or negative experiences of school, college, their local Job Centre or any formal institution the community group s base is seen as friendly, welcoming and a supportive place to go Flexible support - the support given by the project managers was flexible and they made themselves available to help and provide advice, even outside of allocated time slots very much a case of going the extra mile Motivation as well as providing support, advice and guidance and nurturing their participants, many commented on how well they had been motivated by their project managers and their self belief and self esteem had grown significantly. In summary, the feedback across all consultee groups - has been highly positive and supportive of the programme. Some suggestions on how the programme could be slightly enhanced have been proposed but overall, the general consensus is the programme worked very well and provided targeted support for quite innovative schemes. Other programmes designed to help people back into work or enhance the employability and prospects of quite challenging target groups would be advised to take stock of some of the features of success of this programme. 10

11 3: Consultancy Brief I couldn t get this level of support anywhere else. JobCentre Plus isn t flexible enough and there is a huge barrier without a signer to help interpret. Here I feel I am wanted and feel part of a community of like minded people 11

12 3: Consultancy brief scope of works and objectives 3.1 Introduction and Purpose Chimera Consulting was approached by Enable in autumn 2012 to carry out an evaluation of the ESF Community Learning and Skills Grants Programme across the East Midlands. An Evaluation Plan was proposed by Chimera and agreed in September The purpose of the assignment was to evaluate the impact and effectiveness of the programme in line with the original tender specification and the contract issued by the Skills Funding Agency. 3.2 Scope of Works and Methodology To make an assessment of the impact and effectiveness of the programme, Chimera s proposed methodology was designed to assess: Accessibility and awareness of the programme how effectively the programme was promoted to its target audience aiming to ensure all eligible groups who could make use of the fund would be aware of it; also, to understand how accessible the application process was. Impact and achievements understanding the difference the grant (and the services made available by the funded activity) have had on the individuals concerned and their communities. Management and delivery how effective and fair the decisions making process was and how well managed and administered the scheme had been. Key features of success and aspects for improvement. To make an assessment of the above we focussed our efforts on qualitative aspects through Primary Research techniques to gather opinion and feedback from those involved with the programme those involved in management, decision making, recipients of the fund and participants on projects the individuals who were the intended beneficiaries of the programme. Section 6 sets out all of these findings from our primary research work and in Section 7 we conclude on some of the key features of success. We wanted to gather views from people and organisations across all levels of the programme and therefore targeted. The qualitative survey work aimed to obtain and analyse the views from 3 key audiences within the grants programme process: Stakeholders those with responsibility for overseeing and managing the programme and those involved in the decision making process. This included members of the East Midlands Regional Steering Group and members of the 5 Sub-Regional (county-wide) Grants Panels Projects Managers of community organisations that had applied for and received funding through the programme 12

13 Participants people who had been supported by participating in services delivered through the funded project work. We aimed to provide everyone with the opportunity to give their views and feedback. Working to a very limited resource plan, we used a methodology to gather feedback efficiently. This involved: A bespoke questionnaire issued to Stakeholders for self completion and return by or an option for a phone consultation if preferred A bespoke questionnaire for Project Managers converted into an online format for self completion The selection of 5 Case Study projects (one in each County) for direct interviewing and for the opportunity to meet and consult Project Participants. 3.3 Definitions and process: Stakeholders: The Stakeholders were identified as those who play a part in the management and decision making process. Those who have a role in determining which projects succeed in the application for funding, including members of the Steering Group and the Sub-Regional Panels. A bespoke questionnaire was issued to all Steering Group Members and all Members of each of the 5 Panels (for Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Lincolnshire, Leicestershire and Northamptonshire). We received feedback from 11 stakeholders and their aggregated feedback is contained in this paper. We also sat in as an observer at a Leicestershire ESF Grants Panel (September 2012), to gain a direct understanding of the decision making process, to view the dynamics of the group in action and observe the level of discussion and assessment. We attended the Regional Steering Group in May 2013 to further see the decision making process in operation at the highest strategic level. We also presented our key findings paper at this meeting as this tied in with the conclusion of the primary research aspects of the evaluation Projects: To obtain the views from the organisations / projects that had been successful in receiving ESF Community Learning and Skills Grant support, we developed another bespoke questionnaire developed in an online format (Survey Monkey). This was disseminated out, by Enable, to all project managers, of the projects that had been supported at that point, for self completion. A total of 28 project managers responded to the survey with their views. 13

14 3.3.3 Participants ( Case Study Projects ) We believed it was essential to consult with and get feedback from the people who were participating / had participated in courses funded by the ESF programme, as their experiences, views on how it had helped them and how they had progressed as a direct result of the project would provide a rich vein of real-world experience on how the programme was making a tangible difference on the ground. To do this we were guided by the client in selecting one project / one organisation in each of the 5 counties (sub regions of the East Midlands) as a Case Study. We arranged a half to full-day session whereby we met and interviewed the Project Manager or person with lead responsibility within the organisation for delivering the ESF funded activity. In tandem with this, the Manager arranged for us to interview Participants either in group or one-to-one formats. Their views and perspectives are also included within this report. The Case Study projects interviewed were: Northamptonshire The Livity Community Derbyshire Loundsley Green Community Trust Case Studies Nottinghamshire Nottingham Photographers' Hub Leicestershire Signing Network CIC Lincolnshire Abbey Access Training 14

15 4: Introduction to the Grants Programme This [the work I have done and exhibiting my work at a photography exhibition] is the first time I have ever felt proud of anything I have done 15

16 4: Introduction to the East Midlands Community Learning and Skills Grants Programme 4.1 Introduction and Aims of the Fund The East Midlands ESF Community Grants programme was launched on 15 June 2011 running through to the end of December A programme co-financed by the European Social Fund and the Skills Funding Agency, the programme provided 576,000 of grant funding over 6 open and competitive application rounds and supported 105 projects over that period. The programme provided grants of up to 10,000 (reduced to an upper limit of 5,000 for the 6 th and final round in 2013) to small, third sector, voluntary and community organisations to engage with local communities to deliver a range of skills and employment support activities to enable people from the hardest to reach communities, experiencing multiple disadvantages, to make progress towards the labour market. 4.2 Application process and eligibility With the funding programme aimed at smaller voluntary and community groups, the main essential criteria for those considering applying were the need to: Be a charity (not necessarily registered), a community group or a not-for-profit organisation. Be established and based locally and provide their services in the East Midlands. Have a written constitution, or set of rules, which has been formally adopted (e.g. agreed at a meeting of the membership and signed and dated by officers of the organisation). Have a bank account in the organisation s name with a minimum of two signatories Have a safeguarding policy and have appropriately trained and CRB checked their staff and volunteers. The criteria of size of the organisation was guided by their income in the first 3 rounds but from the 4 th round, smaller groups continued to be prioritised but geography and target group were the primary ways of determining support for a project: for example, if the group was larger but based and in and run by people from one of the target areas (Note: see Appendix 1), and could demonstrate that there were no smaller groups able to deliver in that area, they would be eligible to apply. Comprehensive guidance notes were provided to groups looking to apply and they were also required to contact Enable to get advice on developing their application. 4.3 Management and Decision Making The programme was administered by Enable, selected by the SFA to act as the Grant Co-ordinating Body. Enable is the Voluntary and Community Sector Learning and Skills Consortium. It was established to enable voluntary organisations and community groups to effectively engage in the development and delivery of the local learning and skills agenda and to make a full and distinctive 16

17 contribution to meeting the learning, skills and economic development needs of the communities they serve. Enable worked with voluntary and community sector organisations in each of the region s counties to promote the funding opportunity. At a regional level, an ESF Community Learning and Skills Grants Steering Group was established to strategically develop the programmes policies and procedures and oversee the implementation of the programme. At a county (sub-regional) level, applications were reviewed, assessed and selected by sub-regional selection panels. The selection process for applications was competitive and involved: The use of a simple transparent scoring framework An eligibility assessment Application appraisal by a representative sub-regional panel Endorsement of that selection panel s recommendation by the programme Steering Group (ensuring an overview of the Regional picture was maintained) In consideration of the assessment of an application, the following were taken into account: The level of deprivation within delivery area How well the project met the aims of the programme Participant priority Community Grant track record (for groups previously in receipt of a grant) The project s contribution to appropriate regional and local strategies The amount of funding available The need to achieve an equitable distribution across the sub-region. 4.4 Typical Project Proposals Projects needed to be designed to help unemployed or economically inactive people (who are at a particular disadvantage in the labour market) move towards employment and be activities designed by/or in collaboration with the target group. This could cover a wide range of activities including: First contact engagement activities, e.g. activities which help people who are not normally in contact with official organisations, for example by arranging events or training in places that such people feel comfortable to visit. Projects to improve confidence, motivation and social integration, e.g. sport, gardening, music, art and other creative activities. Developing local networks and groups to support people to get a job or access learning e.g. Work Club/Enterprise Clubs or Learning Champion type activity. Softer skills development e.g. assertiveness, anger management and motivation. Innovative approaches to attract under-represented groups into learning. 17

18 Projects could include aspects of the following: Volunteering and work experience opportunities Non accredited first steps learning Tasters to encourage the take up of learning Basic help with Skills for Life Job search support. Priority was given to actions supporting the Government s Get Britain Working initiative. 4.5 Target Groups The target group for the ESF Community Learning and Skills Grants Programme was unemployed and economically inactive people aged 18 years and over who were from the hardest to reach communities and who havd difficultly accessing mainstream provision. There was to be a particular focus on benefit recipients inactive in the labour market, people with no qualifications and/or Skills for Life needs, communities of interest under-represented in the labour market and individuals low in confidence and aspirations. Priority was given to projects which supported the following groups: People with disabilities, learning difficulties and health conditions (where progression to employment was a likely outcome) Lone parents People aged 50 or over (but still seeking to enter the labour market) People from ethnic minority groups. The aim of the programme was to move people closer to the labour market, therefore all participants needed to be either registered unemployed or economically inactive. Projects could not support people already in employment. 18

19 5: Quantitative Assessment They motivate you to achieve what you want to achieve and make you believe you can achieve 19

20 5: Quantitative assessment 5.1 Key Targets and Achievements The key target for the ESF Community Learning and Skills Grants Programme was to issue 100 grants, this was achieved with a total of 105 grants issued across the target areas of the East Midlands see Appendix 2 for details of these grant awards. In total 291 applications for grant were received across the 6 application rounds held, giving a success rate for applicants of 36%. Other targets related directly to the numbers of participants supported, the positive outcomes* achieved and the numbers of participants from key target groups. Achievement against these targets is set out below. *Positive outcomes are defined as progression to employment (full-time, part-time or selfemployment or progression to further learning/training or progression to voluntary work. Target Achieved % difference Number of people to be supported 1,000 1, % Proportion BME * 21% 41% + 95% Aged 50 or over 18% 15.6% - 13% Number of people with learning difficulties, disabilities or health conditions 22% 29.9% + 36% Single parents 12% 14.3% + 19% Immediate positive outcomes % *BME includes white other As can be seen, the programme significantly over-achieved on 5 of its 6 main targets. Only one target, the proportion of people to be supported aged 50 or more, was not achieved. However based on the original target of the programme supporting 1,000 people and a target of 18% of people aged over 50, i.e. a real target of 180 people in that age category, it is harsh to say the target wasn t achieved as in real terms the programme supported 227 people aged 50 and over. The Enable team monitored the delivery of the programme throughout and the detailed figures are lodged with their systems. 5.2 Actual Outturn Gender Numbers % F M Grand Total

21 Ethnicity Numbers % Arab Asian Black Chinese Gypsy/Traveller Mixed Other Not stated White other White British/Irish Grand Total 1458 Age Numbers % Grand Total 1458 LDD (learning difficulties, disabilities, health condition) Numbers % 1: Yes : No : Not stated Grand Total 1458 Additional Monitoring Group Numbers % Refugee Ex Offender Single Parent Homeless None/Not Stated Grand Total Employment Status at Start Numbers % 11: Not in paid employment and looking for work : Not in paid employment and not looking for work Data Not Migrated for 11/12 Starters Grand Total 1458 Destination Numbers % Full Time Employment Part Time Employment Self Employed Found Voluntary Work Entered Further Education Entered Higher Education Full Time Education or Training Other (Including Pregnancy) Economically Inactive Not in Education, Employment or Training Unemployed Destination Unknown Grand Total

22 6: Qualitative Assessment This was the first time I have ever felt proud of anything I have done. 22

23 6: Qualitative Assessment 6.1 Introduction In this section we set out the feedback we received from the consultation programme that gathered opinion from those involved in managing, funding, delivering, decision-making and those benefiting from community-led projects helping them into work or developing their confidence to enhance their employability skills / outlook. Feedback is grouped into 2 sub-sections based on consultations with: Stakeholders Projects (Project Managers of funded schemes) Participants / Beneficiaries. 23

24 Stakeholders 24

25 6.2 Stakeholders Issue 1: Accessibility and awareness of the ESF Community Grants programme 1.1 Is it easy for community groups to find out about the ESF Community Grants programme and what it could do for them and their communities? The majority of Stakeholders thought that the grants programme was well publicised through the website, partner organisations alerts, Learning Community meetings, workshops and surgeries and newsletters and via VCS organisations and Funding Advisors / Development Officers. Some reflected that more could be done to reach out to smaller groups and also to attract interest from new groups (and stimulate interest in some areas that seem to miss out on the programme) as it can be the same organisations coming back time after time to apply for funding. That said, the management budget is restricted and this impacted on the capacity to promote the programme more significantly. Observations: Some additional funding for marketing and promotion would help and making use of existing VCS infrastructure networks to get the message out particularly targeting areas that qualify but are under-represented. 1.2 Is it relatively easy for them to engage with the application process? Is there anything that needs to change with the application system? The vast majority of Stakeholders thought that the application form itself struck the right balance between asking for sufficient information and being as accessible to the applicant as possible, with nothing or little to change. One said that it also gave us (Panel members) a good idea about the applicant s ability to deal with a grant should they be successful. In terms of any potential improvements to the form, one commented that where there are a number of elements needed in answering a question, it would be helpful if the form broke this down into bite-sized sub sections as some applications come in with missing elements and one stakeholder thought that it might be a bit repetitive in some aspects of the form. In terms of accessibility, there were plenty of positive comments about the support made available to applicants (and this is seen as a very good feature of the programme: open dialogue at an early stage / pre-application stage) and this can cut out or reduce speculative bids. A simple crib sheet for the Grants Officer to use to open up dialogue and check eligibility would be useful. Workshops and surgeries are available too but more funded support / capacity to then help some applicants put together their case for funding would be useful not currently affordable. 25

26 Observations: Strong consensus that the support to help groups at enquiry and pre-application stages are good and an understanding that the form itself has to strike a balance between being easy to complete with a need for sufficiently detailed information to enable robust decisions to be taken [and to satisfy EU / funders requirements]. Some very minor improvements were suggested. 1.3 Is there anything more that could have been done to promote the programme and target community groups in areas that have been so far under-represented? On this issue there was a sense from all bar one of the Stakeholders that more could be done. This wasn t a case of expecting Enable to do this (with recognition of the capacity constraints), rather across the stakeholders themselves and making use of all their links and networks. The constraints being time / capacity and money / resource but suggestions made included: Make time to visit some of the under-represented areas at the start of the programme phase, make links with local umbrella agencies and find out if there are networking events that can be attended to promote the scheme Run some promotional sessions / pre-application workshops, working with local infrastructure organisations and target these in some of the areas in question Publicise who has been awarded funding to raise the profile and encourage referrals Maximise the use of Voluntary Action / Volunteer Centres / CVS and Community Development expertise in the areas and make as much use as possible of Funders Fairs and other planned events. Observations: More can be done to promote the programme and to target under-represented areas. Recognition that capacity and finance to do more is limited, but positive outlook from Stakeholders on wanting to try and maximise the use of available Community Development networks, contacts, and events perhaps allied with some additional open events to raise awareness. 26

27 Issue 2: Impact and Achievements 2.1 Generally speaking what is your view on the impact that is being made by the ESF Community grants programme? The view, from those who felt able to comment, was that the programme makes a significant impact. A large number of beneficiaries have been supported through funded projects and there is a sense that the programme offers good value for money. Some of the main positive aspects are reported as being: It enables organisations, often trusted within their local community, to deliver short term projects that would not otherwise happen It offers the opportunity to try out new ways of working, in pilot schemes and for organisations wanting to take a risk in trying something a bit different It can often be the first grant a group accesses, which in turn can help them establish a track record and good reputation to make it more viable to approach other funders The impact made upon the participants can be long-lasting as for many it is about building confidence, helping them with skills development and steps towards or into work. That front end intervention made with ESF resources can therefore make a significant impact upon the individual It reaches communities that are not touched or supported by other programmes For some it s their first opportunity to access ESF which can be very complex and daunting for larger ESF programmes. Observations: Excellent value for money, supporting high impact work in communities much in need. It can offer a first step on the funding ladder for organisations looking to establish a reputation. It is flexible in its ability to support projects that are pilot schemes or trying innovative ways of helping people into work. 2.2 Do you feel it is on track to achieve its ambitions and objectives? Most stakeholders believed the programme was on track. It may be that some projects are more successful than others in making an impact and one expressed a slight concern that some of the smallest community groups may be missing out. One considered response stated that the aim to help those who are further from the labour market is very valid but these are the people who require lengthy and sustained support and this programme s grant size may not be large enough to provide sufficient help to those in most need. Observations: Most think the programme is achieving its objectives. The funded projects are often aimed at supporting people with significant needs to help them get closer to the jobs market and the size of grants available through this programme are not large however the Case Study reviews indicated that a lot was being achieved with fairly small amounts of resource. 27

28 2.3 What key achievements and success stories have been realised? Comments received were that the programme has been very successful in engaging BME communities; progressions have been very good; groups who would not generally be able to access ESF funding have been able to access the Community Grants programme. Also that many projects have delivered the outcomes set out in their applications and are beginning to build their capacity and have made an impact in very disadvantaged communities. One other feature noted by a Stakeholder was the success of putting together, at the local level, the agencies that span economic development/skills and community sector support and this has improved the connections made across the geography and hopefully resulted in unfunded applications progressing towards other external funds. Observations: Good local knowledge brought together (via the Panels) to assess applications it s a good mechanism. Programme is reaching out to groups who may not otherwise be able to get funding and it helps them establish a track record / reputation from which they can up their chances of success with larger funding opportunities. 2.4 Are there any advantages to this programme in comparison to other small grants scheme? The comments on this included: This programme is more specifically focussed and has measureable targets that impact on unemployment, skills and economic development Funding decisions are taken locally to ensure there is a need for the projects and duplication is avoided It fits with local and national strategies and contributes to local targets It has helped one organisation [Leicester City Council] to adopt some aspects of the decision making system to help the NLDC Community Fund (Neighbourhood Learning in Deprived Communities) process It has a clear and specific purpose (to improve and enhance employability by providing access to training, education, learning, skills development) but it is good that there appears to be a focus on more vulnerable communities, where the need is evidently greatest There is positive support available to the organisations both at pre and post-application stages The programme does operate within a landscape of financial investments for the sector. Could operate better with JCP (Jobcentre Plus) funding (Flexible Support Fund) e.g. be structured to enable pilot activity to be funded through ESF and scaled up delivery funded through more mainstream programmes. Observations: Positive in terms of support available pre-application stage (and post), localised input, clear and specific purpose. Also, it enables quite innovative and flexible project ideas to be supported and tested. 28

29 Issue 3: Management and Delivery 3.1 How well has the programme been managed / delivered so far? (what features have worked well and in what way?) The views received on this issue were extremely positive with all stakeholders commenting that the programme is being managed and co-ordinated very well and effectively. We understand it has had successful audits with the Skills Funding Agency and the European Commission. In particular, the construction and methodology of the county-wide (sub-regional) panels was warmly endorsed. A flavour of the comments on this were: The structure of local panels and a moderating regional panel works well It helps that Enable s Co-ordinator has experience of managing European funds At each panel each bid has been discussed, views canvassed and a decision made and information is provided well in advance of panel meetings Members of the panel have been encouraged to participate and give their thoughts and the meetings are well organised and have been well delivered and this has enabled detailed discussions and a robust decision making process The meetings run smoothly and Enable s Co-ordinator manages the debate and helps us reach a decision. Some analysis of bids is done beforehand Administration budget does not really extend to allow for enough contact with Funding Advisers/Development Workers though. Construction of the Panels, Panel meetings and Grant Assessment methodology works really well. Observations: Strong support and respect for the decision making process, its clarity, how it is managed and co-ordinated, the quality of discussions regarding bids etc. 3.2 Are there any aspects that could be improved to enhance the impact, efficiency or effectiveness of the programme at strategic or operational level? Any challenges or barriers that need to be addressed? Few improvements were suggested by stakeholders, no doubt reflecting their overall positive support for the programme and how it operates. Those that were suggested: Resources the management fee does not cover costs. It also only allows for a part time Coordinator to cover the whole region which is insufficient The reduced funding has also limited coverage to wards with the highest levels of deprivation excluding small pockets of deprivation within less deprived wards How areas are prioritised needs reviewing in future It would be good to get feedback on what happens to projects after they have been funded to see the impact of our decision making. Also to see their success and help build their reputation amongst funders and strategic partners 29

30 Maybe consider a scoring system for the applications. This is something that was done for the previous programme. This could make it easier for Panel members to evaluate the applications. At the moment, the evaluation is very qualitative (which is important) but maybe scoring would make it easier to come to a decision Some organisations have great ideas for projects but may not have researched the feasibility/ need / their capacity to deliver. Observations: No significant changes suggested, however more administrative resources would be welcomed; feedback on what happens to projects once they have been funded (part of the role of this evaluation!), and some more front-end feasibility and development work by organisations looking to apply (to test project ideas and their viability) would also help. 3.3 Any comments on the Panel and Steering Group arrangements? Have we got the right mix of membership of key partners, knowledge and expertise to enable an effective decision making process? The general consensus was that Panels have about the right mix of organisational representation (of statutory agencies, VCS support agencies and funders) and bring a very robust knowledge and expertise base to the meeting and the decision making process. Getting the right people as well as the right organisations is also important for the dynamics of the meetings. Most (all bar one) of the respondents were Panel Members rather than Regional Steering Group members and therefore did not feel able to comment on the Steering Group s arrangements. Effective and objective decision-making and all applications getting a fair hearing were reported and observed. Where there have been issues, it has tended to be around the fact it has become harder to secure the involvement of some agencies who could make a contribution to the panels (due to staffing cuts and less staff resources available to attend meetings). There have been some county panels where turnout has been low but the impact of this, to some extent, has be ameliorated by them forwarding their thoughts on the bids which have been shared at the meeting. One suggestion was: If workable, the Steering Group / selection panel could be made up of a higher number of members to allow for times when not all current members can make the meeting. A selection panel of approximately 6 at any one time could be made up from a selection of maybe 12 members. Other ideas were for: Panel members having their profiles shared across the panels so that everyone is aware of the background and specialisms brought by each member, and to Secure the involvement of high level JCP Officer to make links across to their mainstream programmes and accurate information on what is complementary. 30

31 Observations: The mix of organisations and people at Panel level was very strongly supported. There are some issues around occasional low turn-out and also the links back to the national policy and programme level. From observing one of the panels, it was clear that applications were given very serious consideration; the quality of discussion regarding the application and the sponsoring organisation was robust; and the mix of partners around the table was strong and appropriate with a good mix between infrastructure support for the VCS, funders and statutory agencies. There was a clear desire to want to support good projects and the where the ideas were generally supported but the application form had not done justice to the organisation, there is a feedback mechanism which encourages an organisation to review their bid and re-submit subject to further work being done on the application. 3.4 Is there any form of additional support that community groups require to maximise their chance of success in applying for funds? There was a mixture of responses to this question, with many believing the pre-application support and the guidance being more than adequate to meet organisational needs, backed up by recognition of the support available through the workshops and surgeries that are delivered. The offer of preapplication support is also a good aspect to the programme, with the ability for panel group members to challenge any weaknesses and then the organisations are given further support to make changes. A few stakeholders commented on issues such as: Not paying attention to the guidance about the purpose of the funds and submitting inappropriate applications Guidance on completing the application form is offered but not all groups take this up. All groups could do with help in writing a good application Some small organisations have difficulty with the application We get the impression that some groups are applying for activities they have already done or been funded for! Ideas suggested included: Might be good to explore ways of promoting / marketing the grant programme more widely or making more use of regional open events and include a section related to application and support Devise a matrix of ESF funded activity so applicants can see what is funded, make judgements on duplication / complementarity etc. Also, to connect with existing grant holders as an informal peer network Programmed awareness-raising bid surgeries in partnership with Funding Advisers/Development Officers to ensure that community groups have the support available should they deem it appropriate. 31

32 Observations: Pre-application support is made accessible (and not all funding regimes offer this kind of support) but more could be done and this is reflected by other comments made about project feasibility and development work and getting a good quality application case put together. Some clearly need more help and hand-holding than others, but support resources are limited. 32

33 Summary 4.1 State ONE aspect of the ESF Community Grants programme that you think makes the most impact or is the best feature? Comments made: Its reach Small grants made to local organisations enabling them to make a difference For small groups, especially those getting their first grant, this helps them develop a pilot and develop a track record to help them in the future to go for larger grants and establish a reputation Its focus on enhancing employability and skills for vulnerable communities Simple application process encourages small organisations to apply Best feature of the community grants is its flexibility The financial support it gives to help organisations infrastructure to deliver in very disadvantaged communities Dimensions of the budget are not too prescriptive this enables each applicant to apply for the real costs of delivery rather than those externally imposed e.g. only 10% allowed for management/administration. Although some case study projects would argue that the grant often doesn t fully cover their delivery costs. 4.2 State ONE aspect or feature you would change (and why)? Comments made: Some groups seem to pay no attention to the guidance about the purpose of the funds and submit inappropriate applications Guidance on completing the application form is offered but not all groups take this up. All groups could do with help in writing a good application Feedback to the Panel on what the projects delivered Scoring system for Panel members in assessing applications The application form is unwieldy for the size of grant available Have a more centrally localised venue for the selection panel to attend. Lincolnshire is a big county to cover Closer monitoring of projects to flag up any support needs or changes to the project at the earliest possible stage Vagueness of type of activity that can be funded. Maybe a set of prompts during the application form that gives the applicant the chance to constantly be drawn back to the aims and objectives of the fund. When small grants are announced there will always be a vast range of interested groups, and having an example menu of initiatives that are in line with the objectives would be of real value. 33

34 Projects 34

35 6.3 Projects To enable as many projects as possible to provide their views on the programme, we designed a bespoke questionnaire and with Enable s help this was converted into an online / self completion survey (using the Survey Monkey software) and issued to all Projects that had been funded up to Round 4. A total of 28 responded. Not every respondent answered every question so the following pie charts show responses as a proportion of the total that answered the specific question Awareness of the Programme how did you become aware of it? Project Managers were asked how they heard about the programme based on 5 main options, which were not mutually exclusive they could tick more than one awareness prompt. In order of the most popular routes to hearing about the programme: of the 28 (46%) were members of Enable and therefore receive bulletins (Qualification note: many were not Enable members at the time they applied for a grant but subsequently became members when this was built into the application process) (36%) also were alerted to it by another contact / community group 3. 9 (32%) found out through a funding website 4. 6 (21%) found details on the Enable website, and 5. 4 (14%) found out about it at an event. How groups became aware of ESF Community Learning and Skills Grants I am member of Enable and receive bulletins On the Enable website Finding out about it at an event Being alerted to it by another community group / contact Finding out about it through a funding website Number of Responses 35

36 6.3.2 Application process how easy was it? Project Managers were asked how they found the application process in terms of ease / difficulty in developing and completing an application (32%) said it was very straightforward / commensurate with the size of grant being sought (50%) said it was easy enough / no real problems completing the form 3. 5 (18%) said it was quite a challenge, and 4. 0 said it was really difficult. An overwhelming 82% therefore stated that the application process was straightforward enough (stating very straightforward or easy enough ) and only 18% found it a challenge. Ideally none should find it too much of a difficulty but grant applications usually provide a set of challenges to most small community groups. How easy was the application process? 18% 0% 32% Very straightforward / commensurate with the size of grant being sought Easy enough and no real problems completing the form Quite a challenge Really difficult 50% 36