TSEN (Third Sector European Network) response to Lords Inquiry
SUPPLEMENTARY WRITTEN EVIDENCE
With regard to Q81: details of third sector organisations no longer accessing ESF in the current programme
North East:
Review of Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS)organisations accessing Objective 3 in period 2002 – 2005, through direct bidding only, or through Co-financing, or via direct bidding and Co-financing.
A sample of VCS organisations funded through ESF in the period 2002 – 2005 were questioned about their subsequent (i.e. post 2002 -2005) involvement/non-involvement with ESF (note that the category direct bidding (DB) and Co-financing (CF) describes both routes being accessed during 2002 -2005). Excepting national organisations,[1]all ESF-funded VCS organisations in the North East over the period are presented: sub-divided into three lists. A, B, and C, as per access route above. A short conclusion is appended. Only organisations who were contactable and wanted their response to be used are reported in the following. For a full listing of organisations sampled please see Annex 1.
LIST A: VCS Organisations in the North East accessing Objective 3 in period 2002 – 2005 through direct bidding only (the value of last successful bid is indicated in the first parenthesis)
Note on methodology: alphabetical sampling was followed targeting 50% of organisations immediately accessible - constraints of time available meant that where the key person needed to supply pertinent information was not available on that day, that organisation had to be deemed “inaccessible”. As the conclusion will show, it was not felt that the sampling method distorted the validity of the sample data supplied. Organisations that had gone out of business were, with one exception, not sampled as by definition they did not have the same timeframe to potentially access CF/ESF. Neither could this group be included in the final projections of this research. This, of course, is not to assume that the perceived or real availability of ESF subsequently was not a factor in their demise.
1. Access for the Disabled (DB, £392k; no subsequent ESF/CF accessed)
ESF formally provided for ongoing training scheme (15 trainees); were not able to access ESF subsequently under Co-financing (CF); this provision was curtailed as a direct result.
2. Anchor Homes (DB, £75k; no subsequent ESF/CF accessed)
Provided for targeted training. Put off by fact that it wasn’t straightforward. Would, nevertheless, look to the Fund if direct bidding (DB) became an option again.
3. Angelou Centre (DB, £335k; no subsequent ESF/CF accessed)
Considered that ESF is now only for the “big player”. ESF was vital to the organisation over the period of its development, and “Angelou nearly closed down with the loss of ESF” DB when CF came in. “Would totally support the position that an important funding option has been lost” (is in practice, inaccessible now), and would welcome DB being available again, which it would certainly use.
4. Apnar Ghar (DB, £34k; no subsequent ESF/CF accessed)
Loss of ESF has denuded their service provision fundamentally; “can’t do what they used to do”.
5. Blind Society North Tyneside(DB, £70k; no subsequent ESF/CF accessed)
ESF no longer on the radar under the current system; would welcome DB access, in which case would certainly consider it.
6. Blythe Star Enterprises (DB, £134k; no subsequent ESF/CF accessed)
Was vital to development (many times funded). Loss of direct bidding (DB) played a part in their looking to other sources (bureaucracy also a deterrent); certain DB would be factored again, if it were an option and other sources not available.
7. Blythe Valley CAB (DB, £71k; no subsequent ESF/CF accessed)
ESF was central to the viability of their training development. Would “wholeheartedly confirm” the position that they are no longer able to navigate the current system and that ESF is therefore clearly no longer an option for them. They do not access ESF, but would be enthusiastic to bid directly again should they have the opportunity.
8. Bridge Women’s Education Centre (DB, £216k: no subsequent ESF/CF accessed)
ESF was their mainstay for 15 years; in that time they accessed over £1.5 million. The ending of DB meant the loss of a major plank of their funding; CF could not be aligned to their outputs and way of working – in spite of the fact that over the yearsBridge has attained a first class reputation.
9. Chinese ICT Open Learning Centre (DB, £141k; no subsequent ESF/CF accessed)
ESF-funded a number of times. Not successful in bidding under CF. Would welcome opportunity to bid directly to better factor their “bespoke” provision.
10. FinchaleTrainingCollege(DB, £44K; no subsequent ESF/CF accessed)
Would welcome opportunity to bid directly; feel they do not fit in with LSC/JCP priorities – have ruled themselves out of ESF for years.
11. Fishburn Community Skills (DB, £23K; no subsequent ESF/CF accessed)
ESF seen as too complex at the first bite; haven’t seriously considered since. But feel they have the capacity they lacked and would welcome the chance to bid as before. Not involved with CF scenarios.
12. Groundwork; South Tyneside; (DB, £67.5k; no subsequent ESF/CF accessed; affiliated national, but with local autonomy to target projects and funds)
Problems with perceived arbitrariness of Government Office North East (GONE) monitoring of DB – seen as response to Commission being critical of GONE. However, are not deterred; would “much prefer” though to bid directly and target their own agenda and specifications and way of working. Will not “chase the money” if it means distorting their delivery; hence they haven’t been involved since.
13. Killingworth Community Consortium (DB, £30.5k; no subsequent ESF/CF accessed)
Found ESF per se too difficult, so haven’t considered it since.
14. Lynemouth Community Trust (DB, £72K; no subsequent ESF/CF accessed)
Felt that there were things they did not agree with with ESF under DB, but at least accessible; CF specs seen to be geared to larger organisations and are completely outside of community-based working – “just like JCP mainstream” - and specifically stymie innovation, development, and any challenge to standardised approaches. See CF as just about “getting jobs, any jobs”. Would welcome a return to direct bidding opportunity.
15. Northumberland Wildlife Trust (DB, £89K; no subsequent ESF/CF accessed)
Felt to be unsuitable, too bureaucratic.
16. One Voice Tees Valley (OVTT) (DB, £496.5K; no subsequent ESF/CF accessed; organisation ultimately demised)
Far from a negative the need for match funding under DB an excellent way of maximising funding ”leverage” into the sector – double benefit, ESF gave credibility to the applicant in the eyes of other funders, and also effectively doubled their value. OVTT ran a totally innovative modern apprenticeship programme on the back of ESF which drew down significant funds and support from elsewhere. Totally “scuppered” by the redefining of ESF under CF. ESF gave real autonomy to organisations to innovate and challenge the conventions.
17. Pallion Action Group (DB, £25.5K; no subsequent ESF/CF accessed)
Challenged capacity and bureaucratic, but “look at again” if DB available. Feel they have to set their own agenda to address the needs of a highly excluded group that are simply not targeted by the mainstream. See ESF CF as totally in with the mainstream now. Would never compromise their own agenda to “chase funding” via JCP or LSC. Want and need to write their own application that specifies their own longer term progression objectives and way of working. Feel that smaller bespoke providers are sometimes used in partnership window dressing; “not against partnership”, but has to be consistent to their way of working.
List A: Relevant Statistics
Organisations sampled: 17
Inaccessible organisations: 11
Organisations not sampled, or attempted to contact: 17
Organisations closed down post 2002-2005: 13
”Nationals”: 6
Not traceable: 3
Total number of organisations: 67 (listed at 2005 as directly funded through ESF)
Sample rate (excluding closures, not traceable, nationals): 38%
(Sample of max # accessible organisations (ex. nationals): 50%)
Number of organisations accessing ESF subsequent to period 2002-2005 = 0
LIST B: VCS organisations in the North East accessing Objective 3 in period 2002 – 2005 through Co-financing only
1. Adapt: (CF, £123K; no subsequent ESF/CF accessed)
Very successful project - indicated as “best practice” on the JCP website. Project combined real progression to jobs of hard to reach group and the delivery of a valuable service to recipients in the community. With the onset of larger bids post-2005, lead agencies were keen to factor this example of smaller scale best practice into their bids and often canvassed Adapt that they be included in such – then Adapt never heard from them again! Feel not factored because too small scale, too specialised, potentially not as “cost efficient” per beneficiary (were asked to provide placements, at no financial return though). Totally disillusioned with the system, and would be really keen to have the opportunity to bid directly in order not only to deliver locally again the service they have had to truncate, but also to enhance by promoting their model through working in partnership with similar community transport organisations sub-regionally.
2. Amble Development Trust (ADT)(CF, £277.6K;no subsequent ESF/CF accessed)
Has been impossible for a development trust that has a wide agenda to be factored into the specifics of primary contracting (PC) as it now operates to channel ESF. PC may be fine in theory but doesn’t work on the ground, and resourcing ADT’s wide range of services doesn’t give scope to develop and focus on the narrow agenda and outputs of the PCs. Their initial advice and guidance under CF worked well but was not factored subsequently. PCs were “all over them to provide letters of support” indicating how partnership would provide a comprehensive service – but once the bids were in they were never heard from again!” This is something they have confirmed has happened with the other development trusts as well. In the end, they assume the comprehensive service – what they had been asked to support – presumably wasnot delivered. It is obvious that the big providers are not really interested in smaller scale ”ground up” solutions, “probably too complicated and too much paperwork”. Believe organisations on the ground are best placed to come up with the solutions – “embedded in the community and meeting the needs of the community”. An alternative has to be found. Would be enthusiastic for the option to bid directly where they could stand or fall by the writing their own specifications of services needed to meet these problems.
3. Choysez (CF, £36K; no subsequent ESF/CF accessed)
In “niche market” delivering very specifically to meet needs of young people unmet by mainstream services. Worked very well and met with Ofsted approval. Good engagement of hard to reach which the system had failed. With CF increasingly moving on to a larger scale and with the onset of the primary contractor model, became very difficult and despite being a proven successful organisation meeting real progression needs were judged to have failed their PQQ. Feel that everything now is geared to the big organisations (who in the end cannot be bothered with smaller organisations) and bureaucratic systems that seem to be there for their own sake and work to exclude bespoke provision. Would really welcome the opportunity to bid directly; do not feel that finding match funding would be a problem. Feel they currently “fall between two stools” – too small to be factored as serious provider and the current system, but too big for small scale community grants.
4. Equality NE (CF, £148.5K; no subsequent ESF/CF accessed)
Disillusioned with how CF developed – “often asked by Primary Contractor to be part of partnership bid and then hear nothing more” (assume being used for PC to win the contract from JCP or LSC). Early manifestation of CF seemed to work fine, but would really welcome opportunity to bid directly, since ESF not accessible any more and would not distort their service to meet the requirements of PCs – though don’t feel they (PCs) have ever been up to factor their bespoke service. Match funding would not be a problem since have now established a reasonable commercial basis for their services.
5. Fairbridge Teesside (CF, £55.5K; no subsequent ESF/CF accessed)Have really attempted to adapt to primary contracting, but got absolutely no where; comes to nothing; also feel restricted by the “only partner with us” rule that PCs seem to want to apply. Have more than once seemingly been progressed in a bid only to hear – “we are going to deliver that ourselves now”. Would really welcome the opportunity to bid directly themselves and escape all of this; “feel that unless you deliver at more than 500+ they [PCs] don’t really want to know”. “They talk about adding value to their delivery, but when it comes down to it, it just doesn’t work out that way”
6. Hemlington Partnership (CF, £123K; no subsequent ESF/CF accessed)
“Forced out” of ESF – “found more straightforward funding”. Would like to see direct funding and might well go for it - “have opted out as things stand”.
7. Independent Advocacy (CF, £13K;no subsequent ESF/CF accessed)
“Thought it had come to an end!” Reflecting, realised that previous director had said this was the position de facto – i.e. as good as coming to an end because completely out range for them as it was transformed since their early CF success. Their progression work not on the agenda now. Absolutely, 100%, for the possibility of being able to bid directly and reinstate the kind of argument that engaged them in the early days of CF.
8. Nature’s World (CF, £123K; no subsequent ESF/CF accessed)
“In the hands of big players, as things stand”. Seems very difficult to access – very similar to New Deal. Feel that their “hard to reach” client group could be supported if a system of direct bidding was an option. They would go for it and see it definitely as a “better route”.
List B: Relevant Statistics
Organisations sampled: 8
Inaccessible organisations: 4
Organisations not sampled, or attempted to contact: 8
Organisations closed down post-2002-2005: 3
‘Nationals’: 6
Not traceable: 1
Total number of organisations: 30 (listed at 2005 as Co-financed through ESF)
Sample rate (excluding closures, not traceable, nationals): 40%
(Sample of max # accessible organisations (ex. nationals): 50%)
# of organisations accessing ESF subsequent to period 2002 - 2005 = 0
LIST C: VCS organisations in the North East accessing Objective 3 in period 2002 – 2005 via direct bidding and Co-financing
List C is not sampled, nor were organisational representatives questioned about how they perceive ESF, its role and relevance.
AWITT/AICS - no subsequent ESF/CF accessed
Consett and District YMCA - no subsequent ESF/CF accessedCSV Avenues - National
Entrust - subsequent ESF/CF accessed
Fairbridge - no subsequent ESF/CF accessed
First Step - inaccessible
Five Lamps - subsequent ESF/CF accessed
Langridge Initiative - no subsequent ESF/CF accessed
Mental Health Matters - subsequent ESF/CF accessed
North Shields YMCA - no subsequent ESF/CF accessed
SHAW - no subsequent ESF/CF accessed
TEDCO - subsequent ESF/CF accessed
WEA Northern - no subsequent ESF/CF accessed
Wm Morrison Trust - subsequent ESF/CF accessed
YMCA Herrington – no subsequent ESF/CF accessed
List C: Relevant Statistics
Organisations not accessing ESF under post-2005 contracting: 8
Organisations accessing ESF under post-2005 contracting: 5
Inaccessible organisations: 6
Organisations closed down post 2002-2005: 2
“Nationals”: 9
Total number of organisations: 30 (listed at 2005 as DF and CF)
Discussion
The most salient fact that strikes one in reviewing this data is the ubiquity of the fact: no subsequent ESF/CF accessed. It was not possible in lists A and B to find a single example of an organisation that continued to be funded by ESF. The third list, of those organisations progressing from DB to CF (reviewed only in respect of subsequent access), did however supply 5 examples.
Taken overall, this clearly demonstrates that the transitions in question: i.e. the change from DB to CF, and from direct CF to indirect Primary Contracting – have operated to exclude the VCS from ESF in North East England.[2] As always, the devil is in the detail and this review has taken special pains to draw this out in the faithful reporting of the anecdotal, but uniquely informed, views of key individuals involved. Their disillusionment and disappointment with the way the ESF has gone is plain to see, and does not need repeating, but some common themes are certainly worth a mention:
The fact that Primary Contractors time and time again canvas organisations at the bid stage, only to disappoint when it comes to getting back on promises; or else feedback “we do that in house now” – how often, one wonders was this a cynical tactic from the start?
The disproof of the idea that match funding was a major deterrent - certainly, it is not perceived that way now by our sample.
The rejection that mainstream services meet needs. In particular, there is a general “downer” on any belief that primary contracting sub-serving the mainstream can be made to work on the ground and with the most excluded in society.
Again, and again, we find the perception that ESF “is only for the big boys now”. Perhaps, that is just exactly what it is.
And the most universal commonality of all – the clarion call for direct bidding to be reinstated so that organisations can, in effect, detail their own specifications and solutions to the problems they are best placed to see and understand (see especially, Amble Development Trust’s response on this).
This review does not support the contention that CF and, subsequently, primary contracting, could possibly be a good thing for the sector; a painful necessity even (giving scope to “new blood”, possibly more dynamic organisations not counting on traditional match funding). Evidence here, however, shows that CF-only organisations (the ”new blood” List B in our scenario) are equally critical, and turn out to be equally in favour of the direct bidding option (even if it does involve finding match funding). Again, as with previously directly funded organisations, they are not successful in securing a platform in ESF contracting after 2005
List C comprised 30 or so organisations that directly experienced both regimes (DB and CF); five at least were able to access ESF beyond 2005 - the only ones in the 2002 -2005 VCS cohort to do so. It is apparent however, that the latter are also organisations that have established themselves strongly over the years, and were simply alive to the best opportunities going. Lack of time meant that organisations in List C could not be interviewed. What is known is that in one case where primary contracting was achieved, it was viewed as negative by the organisation itself; seen as a restriction of activity, and that the re-introduction of direct bidding was still preferred. Indeed, the majority in List C also did not achieve continuity in ESF.