Issue - decisions

Matter for Decision

This was the second year of the Community Grants fund for voluntary and community not-for-profit organisations. The Officer’s report provided a brief overview of the eligibility criteria, support provided and process undertaken.

 

Applications received were detailed in Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report, alongside recommendations for awards.

 

The Officer’s report also detailed the budget available for Area Committee Community Grants 2016-17.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

Approved the Community Grants to voluntary and community organisations for 2016-17, as set out in Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report, subject to the budget approval in February 2016 and any further satisfactory information required of applicant organisations.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Community Funding and Development Manager.

 

The Executive Councillor for Communities made the following comments in response to the report:

       i.          Thanked Officers for their hard work.

     ii.          There was less funding available this year to support community and voluntary organisations. This was because last year there was a special, one off, ‘transition fund’ of £75,000 to take into account changes to the eligibility criteria and the overall Community Grant fund pot.

   iii.          Officers were doing all they could to support applicants and maximise their value for money.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Community Funding and Development Manager said the following:

       i.          A range of applications had been received from community/voluntary organisations, some were strong (ie met criteria for funding) and some were not.

     ii.          Officers had provided a range of support for applicants who sought funding such as offering training to help them progress their applications. Organisations known to be interested in making applications were approached to signpost assistance available. Help guides had been updated to make the application process as user friendly as possible.

   iii.          An annual monitoring report would be produced for all councillors circa June 2016.

   iv.          It was difficult to compare the number of projects to last year as some forms contained multiple applications for funding, some organisations had submitted multiple applications.

    v.          Applications could be made for more than one funding stream, so officers allocated them to the most appropriate.

   vi.          There were a similar number of organisations that made applications for this year’s funding round compared to last year.

 

There were 15 applications supporting mental ill health.

 

The Community Funding and Development Manager undertook to circulate figures regarding the number of organisations who had made applications to councillors. Specifically the number of applications and funding awarded for this year and last broken down by categories for comparison.

 vii.          Officers would advise applicants if projects could attract funding from multiple sources. If projects could apply for more than one source of funding, this may affect the amount the City Council was prepared to offer them.

viii.          Funding had been offered to the University of Cambridge over various years where their projects benefitted the community and contributed to outreach work, and could not be funded through ‘usual’ University sources.

   ix.          Community/voluntary organisations did not have to pay the living wage in order to get funding under the current scheme, this would be reviewed in future. The grants team are collating information regarding the living wage from funded organisations. A lot of applications were made by voluntary rather than paid staff, so they would not be covered by living wage criteria.

 

Officers undertook to review the impact of the living wage policy on general partnership working arrangements, and report findings back to councillors.

 

The Executive Councillor for Communities offered to liaise with any Councillor regarding living wage policy outside of the meeting.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.