MPA response to the London Councils’ grants programme

Report: 7
Date: 4 November 2010
By: Chief Executive

Summary

This report presents a draft response to the London Councils’ grants programme consultation for member approval.

A. Recommendation

That

1. Members approve the draft MPA response for submission to London Councils.

B. Supporting information

1. The London Councils scheme currently funds 360 organisations and distributes funding on behalf of the 33 London boroughs. There are 69 priority services and 12 themes. Those of most relevance to the Authority would be children and young people, crime reduction and violent crime. Many of these services receive dedicated support and capacity building from a specialist second tier organisation also funded by London Councils. Funding is awarded for four years and renewed on annual basis subject to agreed outputs and outcomes being achieved. To receive London Councils funding an organisation must operate in at least two London boroughs, be constituted as not-for-profit and cannot be a public or local authority body.

2. London Councils is undertaking an extensive consultation exercise to establish the best way of using its grant resources for the benefit of boroughs, voluntary groups and people living in the capital. This has been precipitated by the move towards localism as well as the state of public sector finances, which has caused local authorities to reconsider the way in which they manage and deliver services. As a result, London Councils is proposing to refocus its grants scheme to London-wide issues only.

3. The consultation is considering whether a London-wide grants scheme is the best way for the money to be used, or whether boroughs can achieve a greater impact by spending money on their own locally determined priorities. The consultation will run until 10 November 2010 and as a subscriber member, the Authority has been invited to submit a response.

4. This is an online consultation, which is structured around several issues some of which are not directly relevant to the Authority. The key questions for the Authority relate to (i) whether or not the Authority is in agreement with the proposed changes, (ii) the way in which the outcomes are categorised as either local, cross-borough or London-wide activities and (iii) the timing for any proposed changes to grant awards.

5. The draft response is attached at appendix 3 and from the Authority’s perspective one of the key concerns is that a full equality impact assessment (EIA) and risk assessment be conducted prior to reaching a final decision. The draft response reiterates this point throughout the document and London Councils have already made it clear that they recognise the need for a full EIA and the data collected through the consultation exercise will inform that process.

6. Although the Authority is a member body of London Councils, we do not directly contribute any funds to the grants programme, although the MPS specifically funds treatment services for children and young people who have been abused through sexual exploitation. However, a key consideration for the Authority going forward, which is addressed in the draft response, is that in determining the future of the grants scheme London Councils recognise the opportunities to align their key outcomes to those of the London Crime Reduction Board. For example, the draft response seeks to re-categorise youth crime prevention and hate crime reduction services as cross-borough services, rather than single borough activities, which would provide opportunities to provide more targeted services in some cases and to deliver better value for money.

7. The question as to whether or not any or all of the committed funding should continue beyond the end of the financial year is a difficult one. The Authority must recognise both the financial imperative and the drive towards localism, which are both central factors in the reconsideration of the London Councils grants scheme at this time. The suggested position that the Authority neither support or oppose the proposals and that the Authority preferred option would be for London-wide activities to continue to the end of the agreed term (even if this is beyond 31 March 2011) and that single or cross-borough services cease on 31 March 2011, reflects these considerations. Were the situation more favourable then officers would be proposing that London Councils honour all its commitments until the end of the agreed term. The least preferred option would be for all funding to cease on 31 March 2011 and the reasons for this are two-fold. Firstly, the timescale for decisions is unlikely to provide sufficient time for service providers to put in place alternative arrangements. Secondly, there is a moral case that London Councils should seek to take appropriate steps to mitigate the broader impact of these changes and to withdraw all funding completely would be unhelpful in this regards.

C. Other organisational and community implications

1. Equalities impact

Equality and diversity are key concerns for the Authority and these have taken on even greater relevance in the context of public sector re-shaping. Our concerns in this regard and the need for a full EIA have been made explicit in the draft response in terms of both the risk to the delivery of priority services to vulnerable communities and the risk to the continued viability of the voluntary and community sector.

2. Met Forward

There are no specific Met Forward implications arising from this report.

3. Financial implications

There are no specific financial implications arising from this report. However, members should note that under the current scheme London Councils’ members currently invest approximately £26m in total and that this is likely to diminish with the proposed modifications to the current scheme.

4. Legal implications

There are no specific legal implications arising from this report for the Authority, but members may wish to note that London Councils is receiving on-going advice around contractual obligations and other issues that might arise through early termination.

5. Environmental implications

There are no specific environmental implications arising from this report.

6. Risk implications

There are no specific risk implications arising from this report. However, any changes to the London Councils grants scheme could carry significant risks to the delivery of key services. These are as yet unknown and the draft response highlights the need for a full risk assessment to ensure the proper identification and management of associated risks.

D. Background papers

None

E. Contact details

Report authors: Natasha Plummer, Engagement & Partnerships Manager, MPA

For information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback