THE DISTRIBUTION OF LOTTERY FUNDS BY THE
ENGLISH SPORTS COUNCIL
MONITORING
THE
PROGRESS
OF
PROJECTS
32. The Department's guidance confirms the principal
requirements of monitoring during the construction stage of a
project as being the early identification of departures from project
specification, cost or programme.[30]
We asked the Sports Council why, given that their offer letter
contained a standard condition requiring applicants to provide
quarterly reports on the progress of projects under construction,
they had taken the conscious decision not to request these reports.
The Sports Council replied that, because their projects were relatively
small, they found that they had been getting reports on a more
frequent basis than quarterly. They told us that the smaller clubs,
in particular, and their contractors wanted frequent payment and
therefore their invoices usually came in about once a month, backed
by reports from architects, quantity surveyors and the specialist
advisors to the club. The Sports Council could then trace the
progress of the project through the invoices.[31]
33. The Sports Council further told us that they
had now changed their conditions of grant to say that they were
looking for frequent and regular reports, rather than quarterly,
and that they set the frequency of reporting on a case by case
basis. For larger projects, the Sports Council did insist on quarterly
reports and also appointed project monitors, either internally
or externally to the Council, to ensure these reports were received
and also to provide their own reports as well.[32]
34. The visits to completed projects carried out
by the National Audit Office and the Sports Council's independent
project monitors found that the projects had mostly made good
progress in achieving their aims and increasing their membership
and usage.[33] However,
some applicants had not fully complied with the terms and conditions
of the Sports Council's grant offers. For example, a sports facility
had been built without a lift for the disabled and a college that
had been awarded £300,000 to develop a sports hall had only
been allowing the general public in at inconvenient times.[34]
We asked the Sports Council what action they took in such cases.
They stated that, if there was a problem with one of the projects,
they worked with the applicant to try to resolve that particular
problem. The Sports Council told us that they had been disappointed
to look at the monitoring on the first of these projects, that
they had worked with the club to make sure they fulfilled the
contract and that full facilities would be installed for disabled
people. In respect of the second project, the Sports Council told
us that the college had signed an agreement on the level of community
use they would provide and had appointed a community project officer
to link the college with the community. The Sports Council assured
us that in circumstances where an organisation had not fulfilled
its contract with them, then they would take the money back. They
said they had not reached that stage with any applicants so far.[35]
35. We asked the Sports Council what was to stop
a club from selling a lottery funded facility and distributing
the proceeds to its members. The Sports Council assured us that
a condition of the lottery grant would be that if the facility
was not used for the proper purpose, then there was a clawback
arrangement. The Sports Council said they would implement the
clawback arrangement and, indeed, ask the club for the percentage
of sale if it were more than the lottery grant which had been
given in the first place.[36]
36. The Committee further questioned the Sports Council
as to how they balanced their desire to support individual sports
with the need for public accountability for the funds under their
control. They replied that their job was to make sure that accountability
was foremost and that sometimes they had to help organisations,
particularly those in the voluntary sector, to achieve standards
of accountability. They added that they were disappointed when
there were weaknesses, such as those illustrated above, but they
were addressing them and resolving those problems to their satisfaction
first and the organisation concerned secondly.[37]
37. The Department established a Monitoring and Evaluation
Working Group to provide a forum for the exchange of information
and experience on each distributor's project monitoring arrangements.
The group met for the first time in May 1997 and a further meeting
was held in February 1998.[38]
We asked the Sports Council whether the group had recommended
any fundamental changes which they had been able to implement.
They told us that they had found this extremely helpful because
all the lottery organisations were learning from each other and
that one of the issues they had discussed was the extent to which
other distributors were monitoring through the course of the project
as well as at the end of the project. They said they had been
learning from each other about good practice.[39]
Conclusions
38. It is important that the Sports Council monitor
closely the progress of projects during construction to address
the risks to value for money that exist at this stage, such as
changes to the project specification or improper use of the award.
We note that the Sports Council have now decided not to request
quarterly progress reports for the majority of projects, but rely
on information provided by applicants when claiming payment of
lottery funds. Formal quarterly reports are now only required
for larger projects. We consider that this approach fails to provide
the Sports Council with sufficient information as to the progress
of projects. We look to the Sports Council, and the other bodies
responsible for distributing lottery funds, to review their arrangements
for monitoring projects prior to completion to ensure that these
are adequate in meeting their obligations as set out in the financial
directions in relation to the proper use of the funds provided.
39. The visits to completed projects carried out
by the National Audit Office and the Sports Council's own independent
project monitors found that some applicants have not fully complied
with the terms and conditions of the Sports Council's grant offers.
We are deeply concerned that several projects are not being used
fully for the purposes intended and that some applicants are not
providing the promised level of disabled access. For example,
a sports facility was built without a lift for the disabled and
a college that was awarded £300,000 to develop a sports hall
has only been allowing the general public in at inconvenient times.
We note that the Sports Council share the Committee's concerns
and have been working with applicants in each case to resolve
these problems. We recommend that the Sports Council take a strong
line in cases where the project is not used for the purposes intended
and where key issues, such as disabled access, are neglected.
40. We note that the Sports Council are meeting with
other lottery distributing bodies to share information and experience
on project monitoring and evaluation and that this is resulting
in the identification of good practice. We recommend that the
Sports Council and the other distributors should review, and where
necessary revise, their project monitoring and evaluation arrangements
to reflect this good practice.
30 C&AG's report (HC 617 of Session 1997-98), paras
5.5, 5.6 Back
31
Qs 6, 7, 66 Back
32
Q6 Back
33
C&AG's report (HC 617 of Session 1997-98), paras 5.16, 5.18 Back
34
Qs 8, 67 Back
35
Qs 8, 38, 67-68 Back
36
Qs 82-83 Back
37
Q39 Back
38
C&AG's report (HC 617 of Session 1997-98), para 5.3 Back
39
Q52 Back
|
