Supplementary memorandum from the Department
for Culture, Media and Sport
Question 41 (Mr Touhig): On actions taken
by organisations to simplify the grants applications process
ARTS COUNCIL
ENGLAND (ACE)
Activity |
Action | Outcome |
Information from website | Enhanced Grants for the Arts web page with step-by-step process requiring applicants to check their eligibility.
| Greater understanding of & preparation for eligibility criteria by applicant.
Means applicants less likely to submit incomplete and/or ineligible applications.
|
| Information through Enquiries team | Enhanced eligibility advice to applicants delivered by Enquiries team.
| Means applicants less likely to submit incomplete and/or ineligible applications
|
| Application pack | Application form re-formatted with a reduced number of questions.
Separate monitoring/reporting information from project information required for assessment
| Application form is clearer for applicants.
Clarifies what information is required for monitoring and assessment.
|
| National Activity definition | Revise National Activity definitions from six to two:
— National touring—activity in three or more regions
— Activity that is of national strategic significance—activity will be required to fulfil one or more of the requirements in the following criteria (criteria to be further developed):
Strategic:
— Activity that significantly meets the strategic priorities listed in the Corporate Plan 2008-11
— Sector and/or art form development
— Developing infrastructure in underdeveloped geographic areas or arts sectors
— Scale of immediate or future impact of the activity
— Clear strategy for financial sustainability
National:
— Relevance to a national marketplace
— Sufficient quality to attract national audiences
— Breadth of artistic reach
— Breadth of audience reach
| Gives applicants a clearer idea of what projects they could put forward for funding from the National activities budget.
|
| Early rejection | Strengthen assessor's ability to make applications ineligible as being underdeveloped at early review stage.
| Gets the decision to the applicant quicker.
|
BIG LOTTERY FUND
BIG was launched in 2004 and all its application materials
were revised at that date, streamlining requirements and ensuring
that all information requested was information actually required.
Last year, we tightened our outline proposal system in England,
and at the same time reduced the turnaround time on Outline Proposal
Forms from 15 days to 10.
In Scotland, we've introduced a "traffic light"
system at outline proposal stage to give applicants a better impression
of the likelihood of their project eventually being funded.
In addition to this, in the short term, we continue to:
— Provide support and guidance to applicants through
our regional outreach work, which we do in collaboration with
"helper agencies," such as CVS's in each region.
— Review and improve our guidance in response to
feedback. For example in November 2007, we revised the "Awards
for All" application form and guidance notes in response
to customer feedback through our complaints handling process,
and staff observations.
— Use the outline proposal stage to ensure that
applicants who are not suitable for funding do not spend time
completing full applications. Last year, over 60% of applicants
to our Reaching Communities programme were advised not to proceed
at this stage.
— Provide development grants on programmes where
two-stage applications are used and where a significant investment
of time/money is needed to complete the application process.
— Design our programmes in partnership with experts
in the field. For example, by engaging Play Wales to provide expert
advice and support for applicants to BIG's Child's Play (Wales)
programme, we encouraged partnerships and the identification of
strategically important projects early on.
In the longer term, our business process re-engineering project
will further improve the customer experience by making the process
simpler, more transparent and giving greater clarity. This will
include:
— The ability to apply online which will save on
applicants providing information repeatedly and help prevent incomplete
applications from being submitted (which causes extra work for
BIG and for applicants).
— Ability to log on and view accounts. This will
allow customers to update information, follow the progress of
their application, look at assessment reports, check when payments
are due, fill in monitoring information and sign up for information
on other programmes.
ENGLISH HERITAGE
The joint Places of Worship grant scheme (JPOW), launched
in 1996-97, proved so popular that it had to be closed to new
applicants in May 1997 whilst we addressed the backlog of cases.
During its existence, much was learned about how it could be improved,
leading to a radically different approach being taken when the
Repair Grants for Places of Worship scheme (RGPOW) was introduced
to replace the JPOW, in 2002-03. The RGPOW has been reviewed and
updated again for the next phase, running from 2007-08, however
this has been an evolutionary process as feedback on the scheme
is that it is working well and applicants and their professional
advisors understand the processes.
Over the course of the RGPOW, a number of improvements have
been made which have simplified the application process, bearing
in mind that most applicants have little or no experience of organising
major works to repair historically significant, and in many cases
ancient, buildings. The scheme is structured so that applicants
are offered a first stage grant before the detailed input, so
they can commission technical assistance in putting together their
detailed proposals.
The following initiatives have already been implemented:
— Clear and simple funding priorities, to minimise
the number of applications submitted for works outside those supported
by the scheme. Under the previous scheme eligible works included
bells, organs, building services, contents and new facilities,
as well as urgent works.
— Batched application rounds by grade, to ensure
that applicants know when to apply and are clear on whether they
are potentially eligible for grant. This also allows us to identify
the most urgent cases.
— Pre-application advice to potential applicants,
to ensure that only those proposals with a good chance of receiving
grant are developed and to advise potential applicants when they
need to undertake further work prior to submitting an application.
This has significantly reduced the number of congregations completing
applications for projects that are clearly ineligible.
— A number of seminars for potential applicants
(and later, grant recipients), to explain the processes and discuss
whether their proposals are likely to be considered a priority.
— Working with faith groups to explain the scheme,
its priorities and its workings, to ensure that they can encourage
the most appropriate projects to be put forward. This operates
at many levels, from regular liaison with area faith leaders (eg
archdeacons etc.) to capacity building grants to identify buildings
most at risk and provide congregations with support from those
with project management or fundraising knowledge.
— Requiring a second signature on each application
from a senior member of the faith group, to ensure that the faith
group itself is behind the project and will support the congregation
(for example, the Archdeacon in the Church of England). Counter-signatories
are asked to confirm that the congregation has the ability to
complete the project.
— We advise (although do not require as a cost is
likely to be involved) potential applicants to engage a professional
advisor to assist them with their application.
The RGPOW application pack has always been available online
(and in other formats if required). In 2007 we produced an electronic
version of the application form which allowed applicants to type
answers. However, because we require signatures on the application
form, a fully automated process was not developed at this point
in time.
The following initiatives are proposed:
— Following a successful pilot, we are considering
introducing a series of Places of Worship Support Officer posts
in partnership with the different faith groups to develop historic
building strategies for their buildings which will identify priorities
and in part will work with congregations to encourage the development
of good applications for the most urgent works. Support Officers
will also help congregations understand their buildings and the
importance of maintenance, which can reduce the need for public
funding in the future.
— Introducing on-line application forms to allow
electronic submission of applications. This process is unlikely
to ever be fully electronic as most applicants only have hard
copy supporting documents and for the time being, we require two
hard copy signatures for audit purposes.
— An expansion of the pre-application work and advice
we give through further outreach activities, including potentially
increasing the number of pre-application seminars. A small research
project is commencing to expand our knowledge of where the most
effective faith group contact networks exist to facilitate this
outreach work.
SPORT ENGLAND
Sport England has taken a number of steps to simplify the
process for grant applicants. These steps include the creation
in 2004 of an online application process to bid for funds from
the Community Investment Fund. Sport England estimates—at
today's prices—that this delivered an annual efficiency
saving of £437K. We also know from feedback from applicants
that they found the online process user friendly. Sport England
also created on 1 April 2008 a new shared grant service based
in Loughborough. The service provided advice and support to applicants
to draw up and submit their applications. Also a simple online
application process, managed by the shared grant service, has
been introduced to replace the time-consuming paper based "Sportsmatch"
application process. The shared grant service will be fully operational
by the end of the year.
In addition, Sport England intends to take a. number of further
steps to simplify the application process. The steps were announced
as part of Sport England's three year strategy (2008-11) which
was launched on Tuesday 10 June. The steps include:
— First, centralising all grant making and overseeing
the process via the new shared grant service.
— Second, introducing a single streamlined online
application process for all funding streams.
— Third, replacing the multiple funding streams/programmes
available to National Governing Bodies of Sport—the National
Sports Foundation, Community Club and Development.Programme, Whole
Sport Plan Funding, Club and Coach Funding into a single funding
pot.
— Fourth, replacing the Community Investment Fund
(subject to public consultation) with themed rounds (a facilities
fund, an innovation fund and a small grants fund) managed via
the shared grant service.
Question 104 (Mr Bacon): Information on the breakdown of
awards in the "Grants for the Arts for Individuals' programme"
GRANTS FOR
THE ARTS
FOR INDIVIDUALS
AWARDS MADE
IN 2006-07
The awards have been broken down by the number of awards
and amount invested in the art-forms supported by Arts Council
England as part of our Grants for the Arts Individuals programme.
| Art form | Total
| Total
£ |
| All art forms | 40 | 188,885
|
| Combined arts | 73 | 362,856
|
| Dance | 138 | 1,097,623
|
| Literature | 250 | 1,678,476
|
| Music | 133 | 577,779
|
| Not art form specific | 7 |
21,824 |
| Theatre | 220 | 1,463,208
|
| Visual arts | 805 | 4,450,774
|
| Grand Total | 1,666 | 9,841,425
|
Question 122 (Mr Dunne): Information on the general principles
of "geographical spread" of investment
GEOGRAPHICAL SPREAD
Under the National Lottery Act, the Department issues "policy
directions" to UK / England Lottery distributors on matters
which they must "take into account" when making decisions
on Lottery funding. In each case there is a direction relating
to the principle of equal access to funding as well as reducing
deprivation where appropriate. The Department does not direct
distributors to put funds into particular areas. This is because
the actual decisions on which projects to fund are solely for
the distributors to make, independently of Government.
The specific policy direction issued to the UK Film Council,
which they must take into account, is:
"The importance of ensuring equality of opportunity and
the desirability of reducing economic and social deprivation and
of ensuring that all areas of the United Kingdom have access to
the money distributed."
Question 126 (Mr Dunne): On UK Film Council's Digital Screen
Network
DIGITAL SCREEN
NETWORK (DSN)
Mr Dunne asked whether the DSN was only installed in cinemas
in urban areas.
This is not the case. In fact the DSN covers all types of
cinema in rural and urban locations. A number of rural cinemas
are part of the DSN including the Aldeburgh Cinema in Suffolk,
Barn Cinema in Dartington, Carlton Cinema Westgate on Sea, Thanet;
Palace Cinema Malton, Yorkshire; Royalty Cinema Bowness, South
Lakeland, Theatr Mwldan, Ceredigion; Wotton Electric Picture House,
Gloucestershire; Zeffirellis Ambleside, South Lakeland.
Funding to rural areas
In addition to the DSN, the UK Film Council provides £75,000
per annum to the British Federation of Film Societies (BFFS) The
BFFS support, sustain and develop the community cinema movement
in the UK, and deliver public value to community cinema audiences
throughout the UK.
The UK Film Council also made a number of Lottery awards
totally £500,000 to support rural access to cinema through
its Digital Fund for Non-theatrical exhibition. These awards include
funding to Flicks in the Sticks.
Digital Screen Network
The aim of the DSN is to promote the widest possible enjoyment
and understanding of cinema throughout the nations and regions
of the UK. Given the focus on using cinemas to reach people in
the UK who did not have easy access to non-mainstream film, it
was recognised that successful bids would most likely come from
urban areas. However, the UK Film Council took steps to ensure
that there was a good geographical spread and range of cinema
types. Extensive efforts were undertaken to encourage all cinemas
in the UK to apply with the result that many rural communities
are served by the DSN.
Application and assessment process
Assessment of each application involved scoring against elements
such as access, marketing strategy for specialised films, the
public benefit aspects demonstrated by the application and the
cinema's diversity strategy. Criteria impacting most significantly
on the Access scores were the increased volume of programming
(of specialised film) offered over the baseline for each cinema
in 2003, whether the cinema was in an area of adequate current
provision, its proximity to other cinemas and whether the cinema
contributed to the top 70% of specialised box office in the UK.
All the individual element scores were weighted, and a final score
for each cinema reached. All scores were then revisited in order
to check for scoring consistency.
Geographical spread was then considered. Where it was judged
that a particular city/area had too many potentially successful
applicants, the lowest scoring of these were dropped and the highest
scoring, underserved locations were promoted. Final selection
was made during a meeting that was overseen by an independent
Chair at which, inter alia the data was examined for consistency
and accuracy and were necessary the panel suggested relevant alterations.
Question 142 (Mr Mitchell): On information on Dobroyd Castle
DOBROYD CASTLE
Losang Dragpa Buddhist Centre
The Losang Dragpa Buddhist Centre applied to the Repair Grants
for Places of Worship (RGPOW) scheme in 2006-07 for funding towards
repairs to the grade II* listed Dobroyd Castle in Todmorden, West
Yorkshire.
The monks applied for structural repairs to the tower and
roof, including re-roofing and the repair of rainwater goods (gutters
etc.). Estimated eligible costs at application were £199,000,
which meant that the application was considered at a regional
level.
Following the first sift of grade I/II* RGPOW applications
Dobroyd Castle was visited by an English Heritage (EH) historic
buildings architect to determine the urgency of the works, identify
the repairs needed and estimate total project costs. The region's
assessment of financial need calculated a funding deficit of £127,000.
At the second sift of applications in December 2006 it was
agreed that the works needed were clearly urgent compared to others
in the batch and therefore the region decided to offer a grant.
The grant was made up of a stage-one offer of £15,000—to
develop the project, undertake any necessary investigative works
and obtain tenders for the repairs—and an "in principle"
stage-two offer of £112,000 towards the cost of repairs;
an 80% grant in total.
The grant was offered on 20 December 2006 and was accepted
on 15 January 2007. The first 50% grant payment for stage-one
(£7,500) was made on 29 January 2007.
The EH Regional Office was notified of the proposed sale
of the building in February 2007. The grant contract states that:
"We will stop paying the Grant and you must repay what
you have received in full or in part if:
(c) the Place of Worship or any part of it ceases to be
in the ownership or possession of the person who owned or possessed
it at the date of this Contract, or that person sells or otherwise
disposes of or encumbers the whole or any part of the Place of
Worship or any interest in it."
As a result, as soon as EH was aware of the proposed sale
all grant payments were halted. When considering whether or not
the Grant must be repaid, and if so, how much, we consider:
(a) the extent to which the event in question was a result
of factors beyond control;
(b) how feasible it would be to remedy the defect; and
(c) any parts of the Development Works completed successfully.
In the case of Dobroyd Castle, it was agreed not to seek
repayment of the first payment, since a number of elements of
the stage-one project development had been successfully completed
and could be used in future to assist the repair of the building.
However, English Heritage will seek repayment of the £7,500
grant paid once the sale has been completed.
|
