An Investment Fund for Voluntary and Community Sector Public Service Delivery

A NIACE response to the HM Treasury consultation proposals on futurebuilders

Published: July 2003

1. The National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (NIACE) works to encourage more and different adults to engage in learning of all kinds. Its functions include research, development and consultancy; advocacy to inform and influence public policy; information services and dissemination; campaigning for, and celebrating the achievements of, adult learners. Established in 1921, NIACE is an independent non-governmental organisation, a registered charity (No. 1002775) and company limited by guarantee (No. 2603322). Its corporate and individual members come from all sectors concerned with adult learning: colleges; local authorities; universities; voluntary and community organisations; churches; broadcasters and unions. While receiving core grants from the DfES, National Assembly for Wales and through the 1988 Local Government Act, the majority of its income is earned through research, development and consultancy work - including contracts with the UK government, the EU and the national lottery.

2. Since 1998, NIACE has managed the Adult and Community Learning Fund (ACLF) on behalf of the Department for Education and Skills. The ACLF is a £25 million fund set up to support community based organisations developing new learning opportunities for adults. ACLF aims to draw more people into learning, especially those who may have been wary of education in the past. Heavily oversubscribed, it supports activities that take learning into sectors of the community not reached by traditional educational organisations, providing opportunities that are relevant to the people involved and delivering them in ways that will interest and attract those who are hardest to reach. Entailed in this is a high degree of support for small VCS organisations with little experience of Government funding.

Overall response

3 We welcome these proposals, and the intentions behind them. There is much within them that is right, imaginative and useful. NIACE has a great deal to offer in developing and implementing HMT’s ideas, based on our extensive experience of similar activity with voluntary and community sector organisation through five years’ management of the Adult and Community Learning Fund (ACLF), which has strong parallels with Futurebuilders. The majority of the comments and suggestions that follow are drawn from this experience.

Principles

4. We agree that allocating small amounts to a large number of projects is not the answer, and that it is a better investment to provide sufficient funding, albeit to fewer organisations, to make a real and lasting impact. We agree too that participants should be chosen so that wider good practice lessons can be learned from their experiences (and that one condition of receiving Futurebuilders money should be agreement to participate in good practice collection and dissemination). However there are potential tensions between this aim and the desire to bring in new organisations which have previously missed out on Government funding: HMT should not be too conservative in “picking winners” but be prepared to take some risks.

5. It is also sensible to consider sustainability from the start, and to make bidders themselves think about it, but potential beneficiaries cannot be expected to have all the answers at the application stage: this could disqualify or discourage the new organisations HMT wants to attract.

6. We support the view (paragraph 2.10) that, of all proposed principles for FB, “improving services to users” must be the ultimate and overriding aim. The involvement of service users in all these aspects of the work is crucial (paragraph 2.11) but suggest line 1 should be strengthened to read “ should occur” instead of “might”.

7. We agree with paragraph 2.14 that it is right to stress obligations on purchasers too. Futurebuilders must be complemented by consistent pressure on the demand side to alter practices and observe the Compact (and make sure efforts reach right down into organisations and don’t stop at token sign-up by figureheads). We would urge Government to ensure that all public bodies (for example, in the area of post-16 education, the Learning and Skills Council) are reminded of the Government’s expectations in this respect.

8. Since economy of scale (paragraph 2.16) is an important element of Futurebuilders, it makes sense to look for partnership and collaboration in bids (and genuinely so - not just “shotgun marriages” contrived solely for the purpose of bidding). Local authorities are mentioned as potential partners, and NIACE presumes that this would be in the role of ‘informed purchaser’. The proposals do need some clarification here and HMT will need to approach the issue mindful of the uneasy relationships that some local authorities have with their local VCS.

9. Bidding criteria (paragraph 2.17) need also to ask what organisations have done to get potential purchasers onside. However it is important for VCS organisations to be the fundholders, passing money on to purchasers if they are to be involved, since this places the VCS in a stronger position in relation to statutory agencies.

10. NIACE believes that the application process should include a requirement to research similar activity and show how the new proposal is different and innovative in comparison (which is consistent with current procedures for the Adult and Community Learning Fund).

Priority service areas

11. NIACE concurs with the areas of activity identified by Government departments as potential beneficiaries of Futurebuilders. From NIACE’s particular point of view it is extremely welcome to see adult learning (paragraph 3.13) featured. We draw the attention of HMT to paragraph 4.42 of this month’s skills strategy white paper (‘21st Century Skills: Realising our Potential’) however the key point here is that many organisations’ activities will span one or more of the four Futurebuilders themes (a project tackling drug abuse, for example, might straddle all four) and that it is often this ‘joined up’ approach that makes for success.

12. NIACE suggests that Office of the Deputy Prime Minister be added to the list Government departments with a potentially significant interest in Futurebuilders, since the voluntary and community sector figures largely in the implementation of the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal (NSNR), and crime, education and health are three of the five NSNR “themes”. The Community Empowerment Fund is provided explicitly for capacity building within the sector, and sector organisations also benefit from many other neighbourhood renewal-orientated funding streams (Community Chest, Community Learning Chest, Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, New Deal for Communities, Community Cohesion etcetera).

Assets and finance

13. The document implicitly acknowledges that the 80/20 capital/resource split is unhelpful, and NIACE would endorse such a view. Staff development and capacity building are significant needs within the voluntary and community sector but the low proportion of resource funding will limit what can be done about this.

14. We believe that the Adult and Community Learning Fund (ACLF) provides a sound model which could be adapted by Futurebuilders in respect of administering funds (paragraph 4.18 et seq.) A ‘managing agent/organisation’, advising the fund-holder and building bidders’ and recipients’ capacity, working especially with organisations unfamiliar with Government funding and/or taking on new roles and responsibilities seems both effective and efficient. Independent evaluations of ACLF show that projects and their host organisations would not have succeeded - or done nearly as well - without this intensive and empathetic support. Evaluations also support the view that such support is a worthwhile investment but there is no escaping the fact that it is costly, and having to cover these costs from scarce resource funding, as proposed in the document, would be a big handicap. There may be a case for top-slicing the entire Futurebuilders budget to secure such a function.

15. The proposed functions for the Futurebuilders support organisation are largely those that NIACE and our sister organisation, the Basic Skills Agency successfully carry out now for the Department for Education and Skills on ACLF. We have a familiarity with the proposed subject areas and target audience, and skills in generic issues such as project management, as well as a regional presence through our Regional Agents and would welcome the opportunity to discuss with HMT the potential for transferring this capacity to a similar monitoring and networking role with Futurebuilders.

Miscellaneous/ issues not raised in the document

16. Going beyond the text of consultation document NIACE makes the following observations to assist the Treasury team in constructing effective administrative mechanisms for the fund, and on the basis of ACLF, can assist HMT in making judgements on them:

Allocations
It is unclear whether HMT envisages a 4-way split between the themes identified; a 9-way split between regions, or some combination thereof. Within the Adult and Community Learning Fund there are no hard-and-fast allocations, but monitoring activity to track where the money goes and use of other more subtle weighting (e.g. promotional activity or ‘tweaking’ the prospectus) to ensure that under-represented groups/areas receive support. NIACE would advise against devolving management of Futurebuilders down to regional level since capture and dissemination of good practice is harder if managing organisations are fragmented.

How much and for how long?
HMT needs to articulate a clear position about what sums might be offered to each bidder, and/for how long an applicant might receive funding. At present the aims of Futurebuilders suggest the relationship might last for more than one year, and we would support this in principle. HMT also needs to be aware that, in order to avoid the constraints of annuality, a flat funding line across the budget as a whole (the same budget for each of three or more years) is unhelpful - the ideal is a bell curve (gradual start, peak activity, then wind-down).

Open bidding vs. targeting
The former is transparent and can garner some unexpected and genuinely innovative ideas, but risks over-subscription and disappointment. The latter can be perceived as too directive and denying less established organisations a proper chance (the “usual suspects” syndrome), but gives a better chance of Futurebuilders as whole adding up to a useful body of knowledge with lasting impact and from which lessons can be learned.

Measuring impact, monitoring and evaluation
Before Futurebuilders is rolled-out, HMT needs to be clear about what it expects in terms of outcomes/indicators of success/effectiveness/quality. If it wishes to set baseline standards, these will need to be well-defined. Alternatively negotiable performance measures may be appropriate, based on each recipient’s position and client group. NIACE would strongly advise against an exclusive focus on hard outputs / ‘monitoring by tick-box’ which would work against Futurebuilders aims and target audience: ‘soft’ (but rigorously applied) outcomes will be important here.

Regional and sub-regional stakeholders
At present it is unclear what (if any) role is envisaged for Government Offices and Regional Development Agencies, local Learning and Skills Councils and local voluntary and community sector fora. This should be clarified as a matter of urgency.

b) NIACE has developed a streamlined approach to each stage of the Fund that successfully balances accountability and flexibility and is popular with voluntary and community sector groups. The following could be replicated in Futurebuilders:

18. NIACE would be pleased to discuss any aspect of this paper with HM Treasury officials. Please contact Alastair Thomson, Policy Officer (e-mail alastair.thomson@niace.org.uk) telephone 0116 204 4241.

National Institute of Adult Continuing Education
20 Princess Road West
LEICESTER
LE1 6TP

Top of page