Public Document Pack
The City Bridge Trust Committee
Date: THURSDAY, 14 JULY 2016 Time: 1.45 pm Venue: COMMITTEE ROOMS, 2ND FLOOR, WEST WING, GUILDHALL
Members: Alderman Alison Gowman (Chairman) Ian Seaton (Deputy Chairman) Deputy Billy Dove Karina Dostalova Simon Duckworth Stuart Fraser Marianne Fredericks Deputy Stanley Ginsburg Deputy the Revd Stephen Haines Jeremy Mayhew Alderman Vincent Keaveny Vivienne Littlechild Edward Lord Wendy Mead The Rt Hon the Lord Mayor, The Lord Mountevans (Ex-Officio Member)
Enquiries: Philippa Sewell tel. no.: 020 7332 1426 [email protected]
Lunch will be served in the Guildhall Club at 1pm NB: Part of this meeting could be the subject of audio or video recording
John Barradell Town Clerk and Chief Executive
AGENDA
Part 1 - Public Agenda
1. APOLOGIES
2. MEMBERS' DECLARATIONS UNDER THE CODE OF CONDUCT IN RESPECT OF ITEMS ON THE AGENDA
3. MINUTES To agree the public minutes and non-public summary of the meeting held on 24 May 2016. For Decision (Pages 1 - 10)
4. OUTSTANDING ACTIONS Report of the Town Clerk. For Information (Pages 11 - 12)
5. PROGRESS REPORT Report of the Chief Grants Officer. For Information (Pages 13 - 32)
6. THE CITY BRIDGE TRUST DRAFT BUSINESS PLAN 2016-18 Report of the Chief Grants Officer. For Decision (Pages 33 - 44)
7. GRANTS AND STRATEGIC INITIATIVES RECOMMENDATIONS AND ASSESSMENTS To consider the Chief Grants Officer’s reports on grant recommendations as follows:- For Decision (Pages 45 - 46)
a) Strategic Initiative: Access and Sustainability Advisory Service (Pages 47 - 52)
b) South London Botanical Institute (Pages 53 - 54)
c) Sutton Community Farm (Pages 55 - 56)
d) St Mungo's Broadway (Pages 57 - 58)
e) The Brandon Centre (Pages 59 - 60)
f) Action Space London Events (Pages 61 - 62)
g) Stratford Circus Arts Centre (Pages 63 - 64)
h) Tender Education and Arts (Pages 65 - 66)
i) Age UK London (Pages 67 - 68)
j) Lewisham Refugee and Migrant Network (Pages 69 - 70)
k) The Hackney Foodbank (Pages 71 - 72)
l) Spark Inside (Pages 73 - 74)
m) Inclusion London (Pages 75 - 76)
8. TO CONSIDER REPORTS OF THE CHIEF GRANTS OFFICER AS FOLLOWS:-
a) Applications recommended for rejection (Pages 77 - 84)
b) Investing in Londoners - monitoring data report - September 2013 to March 2016 (Pages 85 - 98)
c) Philanthropy Review (Pages 99 - 144)
d) Grants/expenditure considered under Delegated Authority (Pages 145 - 146)
e) Withdrawn and Lapsed Applications (Pages 147 - 150)
f) Variations to grants awarded (Pages 151 - 152)
g) Events attended (Pages 153 - 160)
9. QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE
10. ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS TO BE URGENT
11. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC MOTION – That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act.
Part 2 - Non-Public Agenda
12. NON-PUBLIC MINUTES To agree the non-public minutes of the meeting held on 24 May 2016. For Decision (Pages 161 - 162)
13. PIPELINE OF PRO-ACTIVE STRATEGIC GRANTS Report of the Chief Grants Officer. For Information (Pages 163 - 166)
14. QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE
15. ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT AND WHICH THE COMMITTEE AGREE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHILST THE PUBLIC ARE EXCLUDED
3
This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 3
THE CITY BRIDGE TRUST COMMITTEE
Tuesday, 24 May 2016
Minutes of the meeting of The City Bridge Trust Committee held at Guildhall, EC2 on Tuesday, 24 May 2016 at 1.45 pm
Present
Members: Deputy Billy Dove Alderman Vincent Keaveny Marianne Fredericks Vivienne Littlechild Alderman Alison Gowman Edward Lord Deputy the Revd Stephen Haines Wendy Mead Jeremy Mayhew Ian Seaton
Officers: Philippa Sewell - Town Clerk's Department Steven Reynolds - Chamberlain's Department Anne Pietsch - Comptroller and City Solicitor's Department David Farnsworth - Chief Grants Officer Jenny Field - The City Bridge Trust Ciaran Rafferty - The City Bridge Trust Jemma Grieve Combes - The City Bridge Trust Jack Joslin - The City Bridge Trust Julia Mirkin - The City Bridge Trust Shegufta Rahman - The City Bridge Trust Tim Wilson - The City Bridge Trust Stephanie Basten - Communications Office
In Attendance: Sarah Greenwood, Trussell Trust Together for Mental Wellbeing The Poetry Society Age Exchange Theatre Trust Centre 404 Streetgames Voluntary Action Harrow Salvation Army
1. APOLOGIES Apologies were received from the Right Hon. the Lord Mayor Alderman the Lord Mountevans, Karina Dostalova, Simon Duckworth, and Stuart Fraser.
2. MEMBERS' DECLARATIONS UNDER THE CODE OF CONDUCT IN RESPECT OF ITEMS ON THE AGENDA Alderman Alison Gowman declared two non-pecuniary interests: in St Hilda’s East, by virtue of her firm carrying out pro-bono work for the organisation, and
Page 1 in Toynbee Hall, on the list of withdrawn applications, by virtue of volunteering for them.
Ian Seaton declared a non-pecuniary interest in Chicken Shed, which was on the list of rejected applications, by virtue of his Livery Company supporting them.
Alderman Vincent Keaveny declared a non-pecuniary interest in St Hilda’s East, by virtue of his firm carrying out pro-bono work for the organisation.
Vivienne Littlechild declared a non-pecuniary interest by virtue of supporting Islington Giving which was listed on the attended events.
3. ORDER OF THE COURT OF COMMON COUNCIL The Committee received an Order of the Court of Common Council of 21 April 2016 appointing the Committee and approving its Terms of Reference.
4. ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN The Committee proceeded to elect a Chairman in accordance with Standing Order No.29. The Town Clerk read a list of Members eligible to stand and Alderman Alison Gowman, being the only Member who expressed her willingness to serve, was duly elected as Chairman of the Committee for the ensuing year.
5. ELECTION OF DEPUTY CHAIRMAN The Committee proceeded to elect a Deputy Chairman in accordance with Standing Order No.30. Jeremy Mayhew, as the immediate Past Chairman, confirmed he did not wish to serve as Deputy Chairman for this year. The Town Clerk read a list of Members eligible to stand and Ian Seaton, being the only Member who expressed his willingness to serve, was duly elected as Deputy Chairman of the Committee for the ensuing year.
RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: THAT the Members of the City Bridge Trust Committee express their sincere thanks to:
JEREMY PAUL MAYHEW
for the knowledgeable, humorous, and warm-hearted manner in which he has presided over the business of The City Bridge Trust Committee for the past 2 years.
As Chairman, Jeremy has considered almost 1,000 applications and awarded over £36m in grants. He has been a well-informed and committed Chairman, and his understanding and strategic oversight has helped ensure that the Committee has a clear focus, despite the continued challenges and pressures on public expenditure and the impacts on the charitable sector.
Jeremy has demonstrated a sincere commitment to representing The City Bridge Trust Committee in all manner of public events and activities with charm and professionalism. In fact, he has even been prepared to go into prison on behalf of the Trust! During his Chairmanship, Jeremy has overseen the significant development of the Trust’s bridge between grant making and social Page 2 investment through the Stepping Stones fund work, and secured surplus income of the Bridge House Estates charity to be used for the City Bridge Trust’s Grants Programme. This allowed for more proactive grant making and a more strategic response to the ever-changing needs of London and its civic society without affecting the monies available for the regular grants programme, allowing the Trust to enhance its role as London’s largest grant-making trust in a time when capital, resources, and guidance for London’s charitable sector is immeasurable.
Jeremy’s wisdom in overseeing the Committee and administering the Trust’s criteria with transparency and objectivity has ensured that hundreds of organisations large and small from across London, and the thousands of Londoners they serve, have all been supported by the Trust.
We warmly thank Jeremy for his leadership of the Committee and the continuing success of the Trust. It is the hope of his colleagues that he will continue to serve on the Committee and the City of London Corporation for many years to come and that he will be proud of the significant contribution that he personally has made to the achievements of the Trust.
6. TRUSSELL TRUST The Committee received a presentation from Sarah Greenwood, London Foodbank Network Manager at the Trussell Trust, after which Members had the opportunity to ask questions.
Ms Greenwood thanked the Committee for their current and previous funding, and detailed some of the key work the Trussell Trust had been able to undertake, including opening new foodbanks, facilitating mental health and Health and Safety training, re-training for struggling foodbank members, and a number of public appearances, including on the BBC news. Ms Greenwood advised Members that there were 39 foodbanks and 96 centres in the network and the oversight allowed by the Network Manager post allowed for best practice and stress management information to be disseminated across the network, and a strategic team to be assembled to address the underlying reasons for poverty.
In response to Members’ questions, Ms Greenwood reported that most referrals came from statutory agencies (primarily Citizens Advice Bureaux and Job Centres). Ms Greenwood advised that there was an increase in footfall but the Trussell Trust focussed on reducing the number of return visits, and increasingly on enabling people to solve the underlying problems affecting them, e.g. through provision of debt management advice.
The Chairman thanked Ms Greenwood for her presentation.
7. MINUTES RESOLVED – That the public minutes and non-public summary of the meeting held on 18 March 2016 be agreed as an accurate record.
Matters Arising Members noted that the West London Gay Men’s Project had changed their name to Spectra. Page 3
8. APPOINTMENT TO THE SOCIAL INVESTMENT BOARD Members noted that the composition of the Social Investment Board included the Chairman of the City Bridge Trust Committee, for the time being, or his/her nominee. The Chairman confirmed that she would be taking up the appointment.
9. OUTSTANDING ACTIONS RESOLVED – That the Outstanding Actions update be noted.
10. QUINQUENNIAL REVIEW The Committee considered a report of the Chief Grants Officer regarding the next City Bridge Trust Quinquennial Review of its funding priorities. Members discussed the proposals, including a timeline from May 2016 to March 2018, an appropriate methodology, and the resource needs to support the Review.
Members agreed that this be discussed at the Committee Away Day scheduled for the morning of 20th October 2016.
RESOLVED – That the proposed Quinquennial Review principles, methodology and timeline be agreed, and a budget of £190,000 be approved to support the Review.
11. PROGRESS REPORT The Committee received the regular progress report of the Chief Grants Officer and discussed the updates provided, including the London Living Wage accreditation and media coverage for the Trust received since the last meeting. Members noted that some applications were still outstanding over many months and the Chief Grants Officer agreed to consider these and ensure they would be resolved without delay.
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
12. GRANTS AND STRATEGIC INITIATIVES RECOMMENDATIONS AND ASSESSMENTS
12a St Clement and St James Community Development Project APPROVED - £94,500 over three years (£30,000; £31,500; £33,000) towards the salary of the full-time Adult Learning Manager and a contribution to project on-costs.
12b British Refugee Council APPROVED - £112,000 over three years (£36,200; £37,300 and £38,500) towards staffing, running-costs and overheads of a counselling service for refugees in London.
12c Community Activities Project Ealing - CAPE APPROVED - £91,000 over three years (£30,300; £30,200; £30,500) for a full- time Outreach Worker and associated running costs.
Page 4 12d Nafsiyat Intercultural Therapy Centre APPROVED - £98,850 over three years (£32,800; £32,950; £33,100) towards the costs of therapy provision; the psycho-social holding groups; the part-time (2 days per week) Community Link Worker; and a contribution to overheads.
12e Thames Reach Housing Association Limited APPROVED - £90,000 over three years (3 x £30,000) towards the costs of Thames Reach's Mental Health Matters project delivering support to entrenched rough sleepers with undiagnosed mental ill-health. The award is conditional on the organisation using its own reserves towards the balance of funds needed for the project.
12f The Log Cabin APPROVED - £62,300 over three years (£20,600, £20,700, £21,000) for the salary of a part•time counsellor (14 hours per week) including external clinical supervision costs.
12g Together for Mental Wellbeing APPROVED - £111,270 over 2 years (£56,000; £55,270) for the salary of a full- time Peer Support Coordinator and related costs of a peer support programme in liaison and diversion services in North and West London, conditional on a revised monitoring framework.
12h Limes Community and Children's Centre APPROVED - £119,850 over three years (£39,150, £39,950, £40,750) for the salary of a part•time (21 hours per week) Project Manager, Sessions/staff costs and associated project costs.
12i Poetry Society APPROVED - £100,000 for access and related Improvement works at Poetry Place in Covent Garden.
12j Sycamore Trust U.K. APPROVED - £112,100 over three years (£36,600; £37,400; £38,100) for a full- time Family Services Coordinator and related overheads.
12k Women's Resource Centre APPROVED - £220,000 over three years (£85,000; £75,000; £60,000) towards securing the long-term sustainability of the London Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) Consortium.
12l Age Exchange Theatre Trust APPROVED - £96,700 over two years (£47,850, £48,850) for the costs of the 'Inspired Caring' project for older carers and the people that they care for who have dementia, with the funding being released on receipt of satisfactory quarterly management accounts.
12m Age Concern Brent APPROVED - £102,400 over three years (£33,900; £34,000; £34,500) for salary costs of a full-time Home Advocacy Worker and related running and volunteer costs for a project working with isolated people aged 75 plus.
Page 5 12n Attend APPROVED - £120,000 over three years (£39,000; £40,000; £41,000) towards the part-time salary (0.6 full-time equivalent) and associated running costs of a Friends of Dementia Project Lead, to strengthen the links between care home residents with dementia and their local community, on condition that satisfactory quarterly management accounts during year one are provided.
12o Centre 404 APPROVED - £119,800 over three years (£38,700; £39,900; £41,200) for the salary of a full-time Case Worker - Older Carers and associated running costs.
12p Redbridge Carers Support Service APPROVED - £136,200 over 3 years (£44,750; £45,050; £46,400) for the salary of a part-time (28 hours per week) Carers Wellbeing Coordinator and towards related overheads and associated project costs.
12q The Parochial Church Council Of The Ecclesiastical Parish Of St. Luke's Oseney Crescent APPROVED - £86,300 (£15,850, £33,150, £31,300) towards a part time Project Manager (22 hours per week) and Administrator (15 hours per week) and activity costs to work with those aged 15 and over.
12r Ealing Law Centre APPROVED - £155,400 (3 x £51,800) towards the wages of two 0.6 full-time equivalent Caseworkers, running costs and overheads of providing legal advice on housing and welfare rights.
Members noted the increase in applications from Law Centres, and it was agreed that an update on the context and wider picture, including the Trust’s links with the network of City Law Firms, should be provided at a future meeting.
12s Home-Start Barnet APPROVED - £75,000 over three years (3 x £25,000) for the salary of a part- time (21 hours per week) Coordinator and related costs of providing support services, including money management guidance, to vulnerable families with young children in Barnet.
12t Mary Ward Legal Centre APPROVED - £125,800 over three years (£42,100, £41,500, £42,200) for the salary of a full-time Welfare Benefits Caseworker and Volunteer Supervisor (all one post), together with associated project running costs.
12u Paddington Law Centre APPROVED - £165,300 over three years (£54,200; £55,100; £56,000) for the salary and on•cost of a part-time Housing Caseworker (2.5 days per week) a Welfare Rights Worker (2 days per week), and a Project co-ordinator (1 day per week); plus associated running costs.
Page 6 12v St Hilda's East APPROVED - £117,000 over three years (£39,000 per annum) towards the costs of a 4 days per week Project Co-ordinator, 1 day per week Advice Worker, and associated running costs.
12w Waltham Forest CAB APPROVED - £142,800 over three years (£46,500; £47,400; £48,900) towards the 0.8 Outreach Project Worker's salary, 0.2 of the Chief Executive's salary and project costs.
12x Reach Volunteering APPROVED - £90,000 (2 x £45,000) for a further two years' contribution to the salaries and operational costs of the TrusteeWorks service for London.
12y StreetGames APPROVED - £123,170 (£38,750,£45,550, £38,870) over 3 years towards the costs of a part time (3 days per week) Project Field Worker and on-costs for a volunteer management support programme for 60 Doorstep Sport organisations across London.
12z Voluntary Action Harrow APPROVED - £85,200 over three years (£27,200; £28,200; £29,800) towards the salary of a part-time (21 hours per week) Monitoring, Evaluation and Impact Development Manager and project running costs.
13. TO CONSIDER REPORTS OF THE CHIEF GRANTS OFFICER AS FOLLOWS:-
13a Applications recommended for rejection The Committee considered a report of the Chief Grants Officer, which recommended that twenty two grant applications be rejected for the reasons identified in the schedule attached to the report. Members queried rejections owing to grant applications from charities being submitted before three years had elapsed since their last grant, and officers undertook to add an additional warning before applications were commenced on the online portal.
RESOLVED – That twenty two grant applications detailed in the schedule attached to the report be rejected.
13b Grants/expenditure considered under Delegated Authority The Committee received a report of the Chief Grants Officer which advised Members of eighteen expenditure items, totalling £312,625, which had been presented for approval under delegated authority to the Chief Grants Officer in consultation with the Chairman and Deputy Chairman. RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
13c Withdrawn and Lapsed Applications The Committee received a report of the Chief Grants Officer which provided details of fourteen applications which had been withdrawn or had lapsed.
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
Page 7 13d Review of eligibility cap on capital requests The Committee received a report of the Chief Grants Officer reviewing the appropriateness of the current eligibility threshold on the total costs of redevelopments in relation capital grants. The current policy stated that up to £100,000 can be awarded for works which are part of a redevelopment or refurbishment of an existing building (not stand-alone or new build), and that the total cost of such redevelopments must not exceed £10m.
RESOLVED – That the current threshold of £10m for the total cost of building developments eligible to be considered for a capital grant should remain at £10m and that it be reviewed again as part of the next Quinquennial Review.
13e Future of London's Voluntary Sector Infrastructure Support The Committee received a report of the Chief Grants Officer on the outcome of the research commissioned by the Trust into the future of infrastructure support for London’s voluntary section, and noted the proposed next steps. The report recognised that civil society support provision in London was currently uneven, and proposed a ‘hub and spoke’ model with a London Hub providing support at the pan-London level. Members noted that the structure of the London Hub could be a formally constituted organisation or a virtual network of different organisations delivering different functions, with the ‘spokes’ connecting the central hub and local communities varying according to local conditions.
Members noted that LVSC and GLV will each convene network meetings of their constituents (local councils for voluntary service and volunteer centres respectively); Heart of the City will bring together businesses and business brokerage services; and London Funders will convene a meeting of independent funders, in order to discuss the report’s findings and agree how to move forward, and a meeting will also be sought with the new Mayor of London to discuss the GLA’s engagement with the review and its recommendations. Members noted that the transition from the current position to the new model would not be easy and would be a gradual process.
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
13f Reports on Monitoring Visits The Committee received a report of the Chief Grants Officer about two visits that had taken place. The Chairman encouraged Members to attend visits wherever possible, and Members requested that monthly and quarterly emails advertising upcoming visits be continued.
RESOLVED – That the report be received.
13g Events Attended The Committee noted a report of the Chief Grants Officer regarding the key meetings and events attended by Members and officers since the last meeting.
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
14. QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE There were no questions. Page 8
15. ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS TO BE URGENT There was no other business.
16. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC RESOLVED – That under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act.
Item No. Exempt Paragraphs 17 - 19 3 20 -
17. NON-PUBLIC MINUTES RESOLVED – That the non-public minutes of the meeting held on 18 March 2016 be agreed as an accurate record.
Members received an update on the UK Consortium LGBT.
18. PIPELINE OF PRO-ACTIVE STRATEGIC GRANTS The Committee received a report of the Chief Grants Officer outlining the pipeline for strategic grants.
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
19. QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE There were no questions.
20. ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT AND WHICH THE COMMITTEE AGREE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHILST THE PUBLIC ARE EXCLUDED There was one item of business.
The meeting ended at 3.00 pm
Chairman
Contact Officer: Philippa Sewell tel. no.: 020 7332 1426 [email protected]
Page 9 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 10
The City Bridge Trust Committee – Outstanding Actions
To be Officer completed/ Item Date Action Progress Update responsible progressed to next stage 5. Law Centres 6. Officers report back at a future meeting as to the context and wider 1. 24 May 2016 picture regarding the increase in CBT Team July 2016 Included within CGO report applications from Law Centres, Committee including the Trust’s links with the network of City Law Firms. Rejections Officers undertook to add an
Page 11 Page additional warning on the online For launch of 2. 24 May 2016 application portal regarding grant CBT Team new website On track applications from charities being in July 2016 submitted whilst they were in their fallow period.
Visits 3. 24 May 2016 Monthly and quarterly emails CBT Team ASAP Forthcoming visits circulated advertising upcoming visits be sent. Agenda Item 4
Communications Plan Officers investigate the scope for 4. 24 May 2016 CBT Team July 2016 Included within these papers encouraging promotion within the Committee current policies.
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 12 Agenda Item 5
Committee: Date: The City Bridge Trust Committee 14 July 2016
Subject: Public Progress Report
Report of: For Information Chief Grants Officer
Summary
This is a regular report by the Chief Grants Officer.
Recommendation
That the report be noted.
Main Report
The Work Continues
1. Against the backdrop of the fast-changing domestic political context, your work continues in the communities across London. In the past two weeks your Chief Grants Officer has continued with his visits to your grantees: these have included participating in an impressive art class with early dementia sufferers at Dulwich Picture Gallery – a combination of social and therapeutic care through the medium of art; and a visit to a Harrow Youth club, part of your grantee, London Youth‟s network. This involved conversations with their youth council, a defeat at table football and a meeting with the HRH The Duke of Edinburgh, their patron of 69 years standing. As ever, Members are very welcome to come along to these visits – so often so inspiring.
London Friend
2. You may recall that you awarded a three-year grant to Friend Counselling (London) Limited (known as London Friend) in July 2014 for one-to-one and group counselling for the LGBT community, much of which is coordinated and delivered by Volunteers. On 2nd June 2016, during Volunteers Week, it was announced that London Friend had won the Queen‟s Award for Voluntary Service, considered the highest award a voluntary group can receive in the UK. Earlier this year, London Friend won a GSK IMPACT Award for its work tacking „Chemsex‟, a national award run in partnership with the King‟s Fund that recognises excellence in charities improving health and wellbeing in their communities.
Quinquennial Review
3. At your last CBT committee you considered and approved the thinking, timeline and resources relating to the Quinquennial Review. By way of update, a secondee to the Project Manager role is currently being sought (closing date 5 July) and a draft literature review brief of evidence of need in Page 13 London will also be finalised by 5 July. The review will be concluded by the end of August to inform the autumn analysis and consultation.
Stepping Stones
4. The third round of this City Bridge Trust grants programme was launched in early June, and awards will be made in December 2016. Thanks to co-funding from UBS, up to £700,000 is available in round 3. This programme provides funding to charities and social enterprises in Greater London who wish to engage with the social investment market and is part of our efforts to build pipeline. So far 32 organisations have shared £1.6m to prepare themselves for repayable finance. UBS has been a partner since launch, contributing significant amounts of pro-bono time through its corporate volunteer programme, and co-funding rounds two and three. The Trust is running information sessions for prospective applicants, so if any Members know of charities and social enterprises in London who may be interested, please direct them to City Bridge‟s website for more details: http://www.citybridgetrust.org.uk/CBT/Grants/SteppingStonesFund/
5. The majority of organisations funded through the first round of Stepping Stones started their project work in Spring/Summer 2015 with 12 – 18 month delivery timetables. As such, they remain „active grantees‟ and have not yet reported on final outcomes, but interim monitoring shows that several organisations have increased revenue, improved impact measurement, developed new products for market, strengthened business skills, and prepared themselves to engage social investors.
6. Three organisations have completed their Stepping Stones funded work: Pure Leapfrog; Women‟s Resource Centre; and Media Trust. Funding for Pure Leapfrog‟s project manager led to the organisation developing a new business plan and securing a cornerstone investor for a £15m community energy project fund. Pure Leapfrog is planning to develop a new energy efficiency fund which could be of interest to the City. The Women‟s Resource Centre developed its business plan for a Women‟s Building in London. At the end of the grant, further work was deemed necessary before any loan finance could be sought but the organisation had a clearer sense of how best to focus its resources. Media Trust wished to explore the potential of generating revenue from charity sector clients at greater scale, and undertook market research as well as business planning. It concluded that social investment would only be suitable if based on media sector revenue and that further testing was needed before seeking loan finance. For the current Stepping Stones portfolio organisations, officers are arranging investment pitching sessions, giving them the opportunity to engage with a range of finance providers.
Livery
7. We continue to work to build connections with the Livery and arranged a meeting with eight Livery Companies at the Guildhall on 29th June. Held under Chatham House rules the agenda included discussion of grant-making, philanthropy and social investment. There is evidence of the Livery‟s growing interest in social investment, but also that each has some work to do before Page 14 resources can be committed. We have offered advice and collaboration to support social investment plans, and continue most frequent engagement with Clothworkers and Mercers. Other Livery Companies may be interested in meeting the Social Investment Board in due course. Another meeting with the Livery will be scheduled for December 2016.
Social Investment Board
8. Social Investment Board Members were joined by guests from the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, Social Finance, Bates Wells Braithwaite, Clothworkers‟ Company and the Mayor‟s Fund for London at a thought-provoking away-half- day on 28th June. A wide range of issues was discussed and, whilst this list is not complete, the debate included: the charitable sector‟s need for working and growth capital; building a balanced, risk-adjusted portfolio; considering the social and environmental impact of other holdings in the Bridge House Estates endowment; the value of clear impact objectives for the Fund and social impact monitoring of investments held; and the possibility of tackling a specific social issue through the range of resources available to the City. There was appetite to build stronger bridges between the work of the Board and the CBT Committee over the coming months, and the quinquennial review provides an excellent opportunity to do so.
9. Although one large deal is subject to legal agreement at the moment, no new social investments have been placed since your last meeting. I will provide details of new investments as they are agreed.
Philanthropy
10. The external review of your philanthropy investments is now complete and this is reported later in your papers. The Chief Grants Officer has also been working with the Lord Mayor‟s Appeal Charity board (a former grantee of yours) to see how better links can be made between their work, City Bridge Trust and the work of the Corporation. All of this work will inform a draft philanthropy strategy which will be brought to you for your consideration at your September Committee meeting.
Communications
11. The City Bridge Trust communications strategy has been reviewed following consideration by officers and a meeting held with your Chairman, Deputy Chairman and your immediate past Chairman. The revised draft is attached at Appendix A for your consideration and approval.
A round up of media coverage is provided in the table below:
Page 15 Charity Publication Circulation Description and embedded link Reach
City City AM Weekly The Lord Mayor has a column published in City AM on City Philanthropy, a “powerful, pertinent initiative” which London Philanthropy 108,315 aims to encourage and celebrate the giving of time, skills and funding in the City. The City Corporation‟s charitable funder, City Bridge Trust, is funding the initiative. CAB Waltham Forest Weekly David Farnsworth, Director of the City Bridge Trust, is quoted in the Waltham Forest Guardian as the City NE London Guardian 12900 Corporation‟s charitable funder grants more than £140,000 to Waltham Forest Citizens Advice Bureau to help fund its work in the borough. Various Charity Times Bi-monthly David Farnsworth is also quoted in Charity Times as City Bridge Trust announces it has awarded over National trade 8500 £780,000 in grants to community organisations in London in the past month.
City Bridge London Live TV Daily reach David Farnsworth, Director of City Bridge Trust, appeared on London Live‟s flagship The Headline Interview. London Trust 232000 The Director discussed his career, the CBT‟s role in tackling disadvantage in London, and the challenges facing the sector. Sycamore Romford Weekly Recent grants from City Bridge Trust to local charities feature in the Romford Recorder. [viewable internally Essex/East London only]. Trust 16 Page Recorder 21400 Charity Publication Circulation Links Reach
St Hilda’s East London Weekly Recent grants from City Bridge Trust to local charities feature in the East London Advertiser [viewable East London East Advertiser 7900 internally only]. Home Start Barnet Times Weekly Recent grants from City Bridge Trust to local charities feature in the Barnet Times [viewable internally only] North London Barnet 77600 Various Charity Times Bi-monthly David Farnsworth, Director of City Bridge Trust, is quoted in Charity Times, as the charitable funder announces National trade 8500 it has awarded grants of nearly £758,000 to help refugees and asylum seekers in the past year.
Stepping Charity Times Bi-monthly City Bridge Trust mentioned in Charity Times following the announcement of the third round of the Stepping National trade Stones 8500 Stones fund in partnership with UBS.
Trusts and City Law Firms Network
12. At your last meeting you asked for some background information on this network which, until very recently, was convened by the Baring Foundation and now by the Legal Education Foundation.
13. The Network meets three or four times per year (and is usually attended by your Principal Grants Officer, Ciaran Rafferty) and includes those organisations “…with a shared desire to support an effective, independent, not-for-profit legal advice sector that is viable, high quality, able to provide value for money and that is able to make the voices of vulnerable people heard.”
14. Trusts and foundations as regular attendees include: Lankelly Chase; Trust for London; Barings; Legal Education Foundation; Big Lottery Fund; Esmee Fairbairn Foundation; AB Charitable Trust; Sainsbury Family Charitable Trust; London Legal Support Trust; and Unbound Philanthropy. The Law Firms usually represented are: Allen & Overy; Clifford Chance; Debevoise & Plimpton; Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer; Linklaters; Hogan Lovells; and, on occasion, Price Waterhouse Coopers Legal.
15. Collectively, the Network provides a significant level of support – whether cash or pro bono – and can provide, through its independence, a different voice in debate and can apply different resources to practical action. An underlying principle of the Network is to think carefully about where to intervene so as to be constructive and effective.
16. The Network provides a valuable opportunity to learn from each other and to harness the collective intelligence to provide better support and voice to the advice sector. It has been of significant benefit to your Trust in this respect and has led to your current support of the London Legal Support Trust to develop “Advice Centres of Excellence” in London; and to your support for the Legal Education Foundation‟s Justice Fellowship programme.
Central Grants Programme:
17. In March 2016, the Resource Allocation Sub Committee and Policy and Resources Committee received a report outlining the work that had been undertaken to date to implement the recommendations of the Effectiveness of Grants Service Based Review (SBR).
18. The aim of the review was to increase the strategic impact of grant-making, ensure that the grants are managed more efficiently and effectively, improve the consistency and quality of the customer experience and so bring consequential reputational benefits.
19. In March 2016, the Policy & Resources Committee agreed four funding themes that would form the basis of the new Central Grants Programme, which will be overseen by the Chief Grants Officer:
Page 17 Inspiring London through Culture, Open Spaces and the Natural Environment, Stronger Communities, and; Education and Employment.
20. In order to manage the Central Grants Programme effectively a new Central Grants Unit was proposed to Policy and Resources Committee, however, Members questioned the ratio of the resources required to run the Central Grants Unit in comparison to the amount of funds it would dispense.
21. Therefore, in order to calculate the wider level of resourcing required and gather evidence to support the level of necessary funding , consultation on the specific eligibility criteria for each funding theme is being undertaken with the corresponding grant-giving Committee. This will be completed by end July 2016. This will identify the number of grant rounds to be run annually, the maximum amount of funding per award, the geographical location for projects or beneficiaries to be supported and any funding sub-themes.
22. Once completed, a report will be submitted to Policy & Resources to agree the required staffing and resource for the Central Grants Unit. This will ensure that the Grants Programme is adequately resourced from the outset and there is no drain on City Bridge Trust resources.
23. When the eligibility criteria have been agreed and all operational mechanisms are in place to receive applications, the Central Grants programme will go “live” (August 2016). The closing dates for applications for each theme will be staggered throughout the year in order to best manage the resources of the Central Grant Unit.
24. A briefing will be prepared in advance of the launch date, to bring Members up to speed on the Grants Programme. The City of London Corporation grants webpage will be updated with all the necessary application processes. A reciprocal link will be provided to the City Bridge Trust on this page, should applicants wish to consider making an application.
25. At its 9 June 2015 meeting, the Finance Committee agreed to relinquish its direct grant-giving role (exercised through the Finance Grants Sub- Committee) and adopt a strategic oversight and performance management role in respect of City Corporation Grants programmes. We are currently working with the Finance Grants Subcommittee to propose a Performance Management Framework, which will ensure that the Grants Programme achieves its objectives and operates in line with the agreed parameters.
Resources
26. The advertisement for the new role of Head of Charity and Social Investment Finance produced a strong field. An offer has been made and has been accepted. This will be confirmed when references have been confirmed. A September start date is anticipated. The Trust will be hosting two or three work experience students and a business trainee over the summer.
Page 18 Growing Localities Awards
27. The Growing Localities Awards event was held in The Horniman Conservatory in Forest Hill on Thursday 30th June. The Awards are held to celebrate excellence in using nature to enhance local communities and the lives of vulnerable and socially excluded people across London. You are supporting the Awards Scheme, as part of the Growing Localities initiative, in partnership with Lemos and Crane, for the fourth year.
28. There were over 60 entries from both large and small well-established organisations across London. This year‟s awards saw a wide range of creative and inspiring projects working to use London‟s green spaces and supporting the well-being of people and communities across the capital.
29. The judges had another challenging time narrowing down the applications to a shortlist of 12 projects, given the quality and diversity of applications, and from these choosing one winner (£2,000), two runners up (£1,000 each) and three highly commended entries (£500 each). Over 100 attended the event. Prize money and award certificates were given to six environmental projects, as well as wonderful gardening gloves very kindly provided by the Worshipful Company of Glovers of London.
30. The Winner of the 2016 Growing Localities Awards was the PTSD horticultural group at Vauxhall City Farm run by SLAM (South London and Maudsley) NHS, which facilitates recovery among traumatised refugees and asylum seekers who have suffered in the countries from which they have fled. Gardening has helped people who are often too frightened and mistrusting to attend mainstream services to find pathways to recovery. For those who have pain and disabilities due to torture, gardening has helped them to move their bodies. Following a 12 week course and follow-on gardening group, which has extremely low drop-out rates, evaluations report reductions in stress, anxiety, depression and better emotional control. People feel less isolated, more connected and as if they now belonged. This project is an inspirational exemplar of the healing power of nature, kindness and community in the face of violence and rejection.
31. Feedback from guests to your officers on the night was very positive. People were grateful to have their work recognised and also pleased to have the networking opportunity in such convivial surroundings.
Grant Applications Summary
32. Your meeting today will consider 54 applications, including 13 grant recommendations as well as 7 grants to be noted as approved/ being considered by delegated authority, for a total recommended sum of £1,810,650. If all recommendations are approved you will have spent 31% of your total grants budget for 2016/17 which is in line with targets. The implications of today‟s recommendations are shown in Table 1 against the grants budget for 2016/17.
33. Your 2016/17 grants budget was increased by £4,000,000 at the Court of Common Council in July 2015. Table 1 shows how this has been allocated to the core grants budget and additional funding schemes.
Page 19 Table 1: Overall spend against 2015/16 budget Grants Grants % spend of budget spend annual budget Core 2016/17 Investing in Londoners grants budget Original Grants Budget £14,950,000
20th anniversary budget uplift (20%) £800,000 Write-Backs & Revocations £163,052 Total Budget Available £15,913,052
Previous Committee meetings May 2016 £3,122,925 20% Sub-total approved spend £3,122,925 20% Remaining budget £12,790,127
Today's recommendations July 2016 £1,810,650 11% Total annual spend £4,933,575 31% Remaining budget £10,979,477
Additional funding streams Anniversary programme: employability (20th anniversary budget uplift (40%)) 2016/17 budget £1,600,000 Carry forward 2015/16 (subject to approval) £1,200,000 Spend at previous meetings £0 Recommended spend today £0 Total spend £0 Balance £2,800,000
Anniversary programme: infrastructure support (20th anniversary budget uplift (40%)) 2016/17 budget £1,600,000 Carry forward 2015/16 (subject to approval) £850,000 Spend at previous meetings £0 Recommended spend today £0 Total spend £0 Balance £2,450,000 Annual funding for Prince's Trust funding (agreed Oct 14) Budget £1,000,000 Total spend £1,000,000 Balance £0
Page 20
34. Table 2 shows the grant awards you have made this financial year under Investing in Londoners and today‟s recommendations by programme. Charts 1 and 2 show the proportion of grants awarded for each programme by number of grants and value of grants respectively1.
Table 2: Investing in Londoners awards and recommendations by programme Value of Grants No. of Grants Fund/Program Year to Today Total Year Today Total date to date English for Speakers of £94,500 £0 £94,500 1 0 1 Other Languages Improving Londoners' £559,920 £308,700 £868,620 6 3 9 Mental Health Improving London's £0 £187,800 £187,800 0 3 3 Environment Making London More £361,950 £253,540 £615,490 4 3 7 Inclusive (ex. Access Audits) Making London Safer £220,000 £100,560 £320,560 1 1 2 Older Londoners £661,400 £113,200 £774,600 6 1 7 Reducing Poverty £781,300 £234,950 £1,016,250 6 2 8 Resettlement and £0 £90,000 £90,000 0 1 1 Rehabilitation of Offenders Stepping Stones £0 £0 £0 0 0 0 Strengthening London's £298,370 £151,150 £449,520 3 2 5 Voluntary Sector Strategic Initiatives £134,805 £370,750 £505,555 8 4 12 Eco-audits £2,600 £0 £2,600 1 0 1 Access Audits £8,080 £0 £8,080 3 0 3 Grand total £3,122,925 £1,810,650 £4,933,575 39 20 59
1 Making London More Inclusive excludes access audits which are shown separately.
Page 21 Chart 1: % grants awarded by outcome area this financial year (by number of grants)
Access Audits 5.1% Eco-audits 1.7% Strategic Initiatives 20.3% Strengthening London's Voluntary Sector 8.5% Stepping Stones 0.0% Resettlement & Rehabilitation of Offenders 1.7% Reducing Poverty 13.6% Year to date Older Londoners 11.9% Today's meeting Making London Safer 3.4% Making London More Inclusive 11.9% Improving London's Environment 5.1% Improving Londoners' Mental Health 15.3% English for Speakers of Other Languages 1.7% 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Chart 2: % grants awarded by outcome area this financial year (by grant amount)
Access Audits 0.2% Eco-audits 0.1% Strategic Initiatives 10.2% Strengthening London's Voluntary Sector 9.1% Stepping Stones 0.0% Resettlement & Rehabilitation of Offenders 1.8% Reducing Poverty 20.6% Year to date Older Londoners 15.7% Today's meeting Making London Safer 6.5% Making London More Inclusive 12.5% Improving London's Environment 3.8% Improving Londoners' Mental Health 17.6% English for Speakers of Other Languages 1.9%
£0 £400,000 £800,000 £1,200,000
Page 22 35. Chart 3 shows the flow of applications received over the last year and action taken, allowing any seasonal variations to be seen. This excludes Strategic Initiatives as they are usually solicited rather than open programmes.
Chart 3: Applications received and action taken in the last 12 months 70 67
60
50
40 36 35 32 33 31 30 28 30 27 27 27 27 24 23 23 19 Today's meeting 20 Pending 10 Declined
0 Approved Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 2015 2016 Grand Total 27 27 24 32 27 33 23 31 67 27 23 36 30 28 35 19 Today's meeting 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 4 2 4 8 6 12 10 0 Pending 2 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 5 10 15 16 25 19 Declined 15 11 5 17 12 19 13 14 32 12 7 11 7 0 0 0 Approved 10 16 19 14 14 12 6 16 30 12 7 7 2 0 0 0
36. Between March 2015 and 29th June 2016 489 applications were received for the Investing in Londoners programmes. 165 applications have been approved and 175 declined (the remainder are pending). The spike in applications seen in November 2015 is caused by the closing date for the first round of the Stepping Stones Fund. Otherwise applications are fairly evenly spread across the year, which is comparable to previous years.
37. Officers are asking you to consider 54 applications at this meeting. Of these, 13 are recommended for a grant and 7 are reported at this meeting as having been approved under the scheme of delegations. A further 23 are recommended for rejection. 11 applications have been withdrawn by applicants. (see Table 3).
Page 23
Table 3: Action to be taken on applications today
Investing in Londoner's applications Action to be taken Number Amount Applications recommended for grant to Committee 13 £1,619,450 Funding approved by delegated authority up to £10,000 (to note) 0 £0 Funding approved by delegated authority from £10,001 - £25,000 (to note) 4 £81,050 Funding approved by delegated authority from £25,001 - £50,000 (to note) 3 £110,150 Applications recommended for rejection 23 n/a Withdrawn applications (to note) 11 n/a Applications lapsed (to note) 0 n/a Total Investing in Londoners applications 54 £1,810,650 Additional funding stream applications 0 £0
David Farnsworth Chief Grants Officer T: 020 7332 3713 E: [email protected]
Page 24 Appendix A CITY BRIDGE TRUST COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY
Aim: To achieve a stronger profile for CBT‟s grantees‟ work, and its own, with target audiences.
Target audiences Londoners Regulators & politicians (Charity Commission; GLA Members and officers; London MPs and special advisers/researchers, Borough Leaders, & Council Officers) Immediate stakeholders (CBT & CoLC Officers & Members; key infrastructure bodies; grantees; potential grantees; City leaders, workers, human resource and Corporate Social Responsibility professionals) Other funders, policy makers & key commentators (Association of Charitable Foundations; London Funders; ARIADNE (European wide funder network); other key infrastructure bodies)
Communication channels National/Local/Charity/trade media; CBT/CoL websites/You tube channels; CBT Annual Review and Investing in Londoners leaflet; social media/bloggers; internal CoL channels – Members & Officer ambassadors; events/briefings.
CBT’s Vision, mission and values
Vision: a fairer London.
Mission: to tackle disadvantage in London through grant-making, social investment, encouraging philanthropy and influencing public policy.
Values: independence, inclusion and integrity.
CBT’s Elevator pitch
The City of London Corporation’s charity, City Bridge Trust, is London’s largest independent grant-maker We fund a broad range of work tackling disadvantage in London.
Key messages The City of London Corporation‟s charity, the City Bridge Trust, builds on 800 years of history and supports disadvantaged Londoners through grant- making, social investment, encouraging philanthropy, and influencing public policy.
In the last 20 years, the City of London Corporation‟s charity, the City Bridge Trust, has made grants of £1/3 billion to over 7000 organisations who are working with the most disadvantaged people in every London Borough.
Page 25
The City of London Corporation‟s charity, the City Bridge Trust is London‟s largest independent grant maker. At any one time, we support over 500 organisations tacking disadvantage in London, and in the last 20 years it is estimated the work we have funded has reached thousands of Londoners.
The City of London Corporation‟s charity, the City Bridge Trust is committed to working with others to grow the social investment market and to promote London as a global hub for social investment. The Trust is pleased to be leading by example through the work of the City of London‟s £20m Social Investment Fund, for investments that provide both a financial return and a measurable social impact.
The City of London Corporation‟s charity, the City Bridge Trust encourages new and more effective giving (of both money and time) by developing initiatives such as „City Philanthropy - a wealth of opportunity‟; Spice Time Credits; and „London‟s Giving‟.
In its 20th anniversary year, the Trust has increased its annual grant-making to around £20 million in each of the next three years, meaning that it will be able to help even more people and good causes across London.
We fund a broad range of work focused on tackling disadvantage in London: from improving Londoners‟ mental health (for example, improving access to mental health services by London‟s BME communities), to services that strengthen London‟s voluntary sector (such as helping voluntary organisations improve their volunteer management);
from making London more accessible for disabled people (for example, by helping young disabled people make the transition into adulthood), to reducing poverty (through work tackling food poverty as well as the provision of debt and legal advice services).
4.0 TARGET MEDIA
National – e.g. The Guardian, The FT London – e.g. City AM, Metro, Evening Standard, Time Out, BBC London, LBC, London Live Local – e.g. Newham/Ilford Recorder, SLP/Mercury Trade – e.g. Third Sector, Charity Finance Online media & blogs with a London or Charity focus
5.0 EVALUATION Each strand of publicity can be measured via coverage and social media impact to assess its success – targets to be set via weekly media „GRID‟ for each activity and outcomes recorded post publicity – and reported back to Members and senior colleagues.
Page 26
SUGGESTED ACTIVITY & KEY DATES
Date Event COMMUNICATING/PUBLICISING w/c 04/07/16 CBT Website Relaunch Press release and social media: twitter #dogood #charity #london 22/09/16 CBT Committee Meeting Draft press release highlighting 5/6 grants in one category 11, 18 or CBT Dinner Comms tbc 19/10/16 (TBC) 12/11/16 Lord Mayor‟s Show (TBC) Joint activity with the LM show to include: press releases, social media, Op-eds, interviews 24/11/16 CBT Committee Meeting Draft press release highlighting 5/6 grants in one category 10/01/17 CBT Committee Meeting Draft press release highlighting 5/6 grants in one category 17/02/17 CBT Committee Meeting Draft press release highlighting 5/6 grants in one category 11/05/17 CBT Committee Meeting Draft press release highlighting 5/6 grants in one category 15/06/17 CBT Committee Meeting Draft press release highlighting 5/6 grants in one category 27/07/17 CBT Committee Meeting Draft press release highlighting 5/6 grants in one category 20/09/17 CBT Committee Meeting Draft one press release highlighting 5/6 grants in one category Highlight 6/7 grants to press release 23/11/17 CBT Committee Meeting Draft one press release highlighting 5/6 grants in one category Highlight 6/7 grants to press release
Awareness events
Date Event COMMUNICATING/PUBLICISING w/c 16/05/2016 Mental Health Awareness Publicise relevant grants through Week press release, also seek media ops e.g. interviews and opportunities for media to attend grantee visits w/c 06/06/16 Carers Week Publicise relevant grants through press release, also seek media ops e.g. interviews and opportunities for media to attend grantee visits
Page 27 1 – 12/06/16 Volunteers‟ Week Publicise relevant grants through press release, also seek media ops e.g. interviews and opportunities for media to attend grantee visits 20/06/16 World Refugee Day 2016 Publicise relevant grants through press release, also seek media ops e.g. interviews and opportunities for media to attend grantee visits w/c 20/06/16 Refugee Week Publicise relevant grants through press release, also seek media ops e.g. interviews and opportunities for media to attend grantee visits 10/07/16 Disability Awareness Day Publicise relevant grants through press release, also seek media ops e.g. interviews and opportunities for media to attend grantee visits 30/07/16 World Day against Publicise relevant grants through Trafficking in Persons 2016 press release, also seek media ops e.g. interviews and opportunities for media to attend grantee visits w/c 08/08/16 National Allotment Week Publicise relevant grants through press release, also seek media ops e.g. interviews and opportunities for media to attend grantee visits 12/08/16 International Youth Day 2016 Publicise relevant grants through press release, also seek media ops e.g. interviews and opportunities for media to attend grantee visits 16/10/16 World Food Day 2016 Publicise relevant grants through press release, also seek media ops e.g. interviews and opportunities for media to attend grantee visits 1 – 30/10/16 Black History Month Publicise relevant grants through press release, also seek media ops e.g. interviews and opportunities for media to attend grantee visits 20/11/16 Universal Children's Day Publicise relevant grants through 2016 press release, also seek media ops e.g. interviews and opportunities for media to attend grantee visits
Page 28 25/11/16 International Day to End Publicise relevant grants through Violence against Women press release, also seek media 2016 ops e.g. interviews and opportunities for media to attend grantee visits 05/12/16 International Volunteer Day Publicise relevant grants through for Economic and Social press release, also seek media Development 2016 ops e.g. interviews and opportunities for media to attend grantee visits
Questions & Answers
Q: Where does City Bridge Trust‟s money come from? A: The money that supports City Bridge Trust‟s grant-making has its origins in the 12th Century when funds were raised to replace the then wooden London Bridge with one made of stone. Over the years, money from tolls, rent from property on or around the bridges, related property development, and, historically, donations to „God and the bridge‟ have all accumulated and now form the basis of the assets of the underlying charity Bridge House Estates. The first call on the charity‟s investment income is the maintenance, repair and (if necessary) the replacement of London, Tower, Blackfriars, Southwark, and the Millennium Bridges (at no cost to the tax-payer), but careful management of the assets by its corporate trustee, the City of London Corporation, has meant that since 1995, it has been able to make grants for charitable purposes across Greater London.
Q: How do you decide on what to spend your money? A: Every five years, the Trust reviews its grants programmes, policies and processes in the context of London‟s changing needs. Each review usually begins with an analysis of grants awarded during the previous five years - what has worked well, what not so well; extensive consultation with other funders and charity leaders to consider where the Trust can most effectively direct its attention; and futures-scanning research to help us understand some of the key issues that are likely to affect Londoners during the coming five years.
Q: How do you know your grants make a difference to Londoners? A: The Trust has robust systems in place for monitoring each of its grants. The Trust funds independent evaluations of the impact of both individual grants and on a programme-wide basis. Lessons of what is working well or less well are shared within the sector and used to adjust individual projects or programme criteria if needs be.
Page 29
Q: What is the relationship between the City of London Corporation and City Bridge Trust? A: The City of London Corporation is the Trust‟s corporate trustee.
Q: How do we apply for funding? A: You should visit our website at www.citybridgetrust.org.uk , look at our grant criteria and guidelines, and then complete the online application form.
Q: How much money do you give away? A: The Trust makes grants of approximately £20m annually.
Q: Would you fund X project? A: X should visit the Trust‟s website at www.citybridgetrust.org.uk and look at our guidelines. If X then has any questions regarding the Trust‟s priorities, they are welcome to ring the Trust and speak to one of our team of grant-making professionals.
Q: What is City Philanthropy: a wealth of opportunity? A: It is an initiative of the Trust that aims to encourage more giving, of both time and money, by City professionals. There is a particular focus on those early in their career.
Q: What is social investment? A: Social investment is the term used to describe investments that are made to provide both a financial return and a measurable social impact. For example, a property development which provides supported accommodation for young adults with learning difficulties: there is a return for the investors and an improved quality of life for those young people.
Q: What kind of social investments do you make? A: We invest in organisations working towards charitable ends or with social purpose. Our investments are a mix of direct loans and pooled funds across London, the UK and the global south. Examples include a loan towards the conversion of an Edwardian factory that will provide affordable office space for organisations working in the social justice field; a five-year bond that will be used to provide employment, training and mentoring to ex-offenders through a property refurbishment programme; and an investment to provide accommodation and resettlement support to homeless families and individuals.
Page 30 Q What are your overheads? A: The Trust‟s overheads are approximately 6% of its grant-making budget.
Q: Who decides what you spend the money on? A: The elected Members of the City of London Corporation (“the Court of Common Council”), acting on behalf of the City of London Corporation as trustee, elect a Committee (“the City Bridge Trust Committee”) comprised of 15 Members which makes decisions on grants of up to £500,000. Grants above this sum are approved by a meeting of all elected members based on a recommendation from the City Bridge Trust Committee. On a grant-by-grant basis, the decisions are informed by the robust analysis and due diligence of an employed team of funding professionals. The Members‟ decisions are informed by a rigorous 5 yearly review of London‟s needs involving independent research and consultation.
Q: Who is on the Committee? A: The City Bridge Trust Committee Members are currently as follows: Jeremy Paul Mayhew MA MBA Alison Gowman Alderman William Harry Dove MBE JP Deputy Karina Dostalova Simon D'Olier Duckworth DL Stuart John Fraser CBE Marianne Bernadette Fredericks Stanley Ginsburg JP Deputy The Revd Stephen Decatur Haines MA Deputy Vincent Thomas Keaveny Alderman Vivienne Littlechild JP Charles Edward Lord OBE JP Wendy Mead Ian Christopher Norman Seaton The Rt Hon the Lord Mayor, Jeffrey Mountevans, Alderman (Ex-officio Member)
Q: How many Londoners benefit each year from the Trust‟s funding? A: Tens of thousands of Londoners benefit from the Trust‟s funding annually. The number of beneficiaries of each grant varies depending on the type of work. Some grants support highly specialised services that give high levels of care to a relatively small number of people. Other work reaches many thousands of Londoners, for example web- based information services or telephone helplines.
End.
Page 31 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 32 Agenda Item 6
D R A F T City Bridge Trust Business Plan 2016/18
Page 33
Summary Business Plan Template
City Bridge Trust: Summary Business Plan 2016-18
Vision: A fairer London
Strategic Aims: To tackle disadvantage in London and make it a fairer place to live and work To further develop London as a global hub for philanthropy and social investment
Our Key Performance Indicators are: Description: 2016/17 performance 2017/18 target Page 34 Page Develop the Trust’s role as a strategic, collaborative and influential funder. Draft 2018-2023 strategy completed Maximise the impact of the funding available from the underlying charity Bridge £20M awarded in grants of £20M awarded in grants of House Estates. which upto £4M in which upto £4M in strategic initiatives. strategic initiatives. Grow the London social investment market £5M committed for social £5M committed for social investments. investments. Encourage more philanthropy and the effective giving of time, talent and money Philanthropy Strategy across London. Implemented. 4 new London borough Local Giving schemes up and running. Fit for purpose: To ensure the Trust is led by strategic decisions, is customer focused Grantee Perceptions and is resourced appropriately to deliver quality outcomes. Survey completed Head of Charity and Social Investment Finance in post
City Bridge Trust: Summary Business Plan 2016-18
Our Financial Information: 2015/16 2015/16 2016/17 2015/16 Forecast Outturn 2014/15Actual Original Revised Original (latest) Budget Budget Budget £000 £000 £000 £000 % £000 Employees 734 854 926 806 (10) 1,144 1 Transport 2 4 4 3 - 4 Supplies & Services 264 341 372 338 (3) 226 Grants 19,870 15,950 19,618 18,343 (10) 20,000 2 & 3 Page 35 Page Total Expenditure 20,870 17,149 20,920 19,490 (10) 21,374 Total External Income 42 104 339 30 9 - 107 4 Total Net Expenditure Before 20,828 17,045 20,581 19,181 (10) 21,267 Recharges Support Services and Capital 108 127 132 145 - 137 Charges Total Net Expenditure 20,936 17,172 20,713 19,326 (10%) 21,404
Notes on Financial Information: 1. The revised employees’ budget for 2015/16 and the further increase for 2016/17 is mainly due to an additional allocation of £50,000 in 2015/16 and of £215,000 in 2016/17 for additional officer time required for the management and evaluation of the increased grants budget and a dedicated City Bridge Trust accountant. The anticipated underspent of £97k (10%) is due to delays in recruitment of a Head of Charity and Social Investment Finance and a Monitoring and Compliance Officer 2. The revised grants budget for 2015/16 comprises the standard grants programme of £15m, the Prince’s Trust allocation of £1m, an additional allocation of £3m from the surplus income of the Bridge House Estates (£4m in 2016/17; £5m in 2017/18) plus a carry forward of £618,000 from 2014/15.
3. A total underspend of £1.5 million on the 2015-16 grants budget is to be sought from the Chamberlain and Resource Allocation Sub- committee to carry forward into 2016-17 and relates to the additional funds allocated for the employability and the infrastructure programmes during 2015-16. 4. External income comprises the income from the Wembley National Stadium Trust (WNST) contract (£104,000 in 2015-16) plus £235,000 from UBS towards the Stepping Stones grants programme. City Bridge Trust: Summary Business Plan 2016/18
Our Staffing is made up of 17 employees with an FTE headcount of 15.4. Staff turnover, at 23.5%, is above the City of London average by 8.38%. Sickness absence is significantly below the City’s average of 6.19 working days lost per employee, at 2.59 days and there has been no long term absence in the last financial year.
There are almost twice as many females to males in the department, with 65% of employees being female. Apart from at the very highest level, there 36 Page is representation of women at all grades, including senior management. The majority of staff are employed on full time contracts although there are 4 employees who work part-time. The ethnicity of the department is diverse and reflective of London’s demographic and the groups with whom we work. There is also a diverse range of age groups that make up the workforce with almost half being aged between 21 to 40. Length of service varies with a significant proportion remaining with the organisation for at least 5 years and many with tenure of up to 20 years.
Notes on Staffing Information:
1. Staff numbers are relatively low for a grant-making trust such as this Trust. Part of the Strategic Resource and Impact Review that took place in the last financial year includes a number of recommendations with regards the organisation of our work and resources which will form part of the Trust’s workforce plan for 2016/17 to ensure maximum impact delivered by a healthy staff team with appropriate capacity.
2. Whilst staff turnover is higher than the corporate average, a turnover of 23.5% is not considered a concern and we believe this creates a good balance between the valuable knowledge and skills of existing staff and skills and knowledge that new employees bring from their experience in other organisations.
Learning & Development:
The Trust is strongly committed to the development of its staff team. As well as formal training opportunities, there are a wide variety of ways in which staff can learn ‘on the job’, including:
Attendance at and active participation in funders’ networks where issues relevant to our funding priorities, as well as good practice in grant-making, are discussed. Attendance at and active participation in conferences and seminars on topics relevant to our grant-making. Opportunities for administrative staff to accompany Grants Officers on assessment and monitoring visits. As board members of organisations, including London Funders, the Association of Charitable Foundations and NCVO. Making presentations on the Trust’s work to London’s voluntary sector.
During the year, a number of team training sessions are planned on the following topics: disability equalities; governance and charities; SORP 2015; Anti-Fraud; Mergers and acquisitions. Page 37 Page
Key Improvement Objective Template
Objective 1 Develop the Trust’s role as a strategic, collaborative and influential funder.
Priority and rationale (why are you doing it?) As London’s largest independent funder, the Trust has a responsibility to London’s communities, especially those most disadvantaged.
Actions / Milestones Target Date Measure of Success Responsibility Resources Timetable for June 2016 Committee agreed Chief Grants Officer Officer time; local risk and Quinquennial strategic completed timetable grants budgets. review (Q) and resources and associated resource agreed. needs. Q project manager in place July 2016 Project manager Chief Grants Officer Officer time (including HR and literature review contract in place and team) and budget. commissioned working from the
Trust’s office. Q communications and Chief Grants Officer Officer time (including stakeholder consultations: Comms. team) and budget. Plan in place September 2016 Key stakeholders feedback they understand and have Consultations complete January 2017 participated in process. Other Q research September 2016 Research briefs Chief Grants Officer Officer time (including commissioned complete and procurement team) and researchers signed budget. contracts. Analysis of research and March 2017 Research conclusions Chief Grants Officer Officer time. consultation complete published Draft Strategic plan for Page 38 Page 2018 – 2023 completed.
Objective 2 Maximise the impact of the funding available from the underlying charity Bridge House Estates. Priority and rationale (why are you doing it?) The needs of Londoners are greater than the resources available and it is essential that the Trust aims to maximise its impact.
Actions / Milestones Target Date Measure of Success Responsibility Resources The Trust’s re-vamped Phase 1 July 2016 Positive feedback of Communications Officer Staff time (including I.S. website is launched. user-friendliness of team); budget. Phase 2 December 2016 new site; up-to-date and dynamic nature of content. Stability of the site
(minimal downtime) The grants budget is March 2017 Even grant spend Chief Grants Officer Full team supported by expended in full. throughout the year Chamberlain’s. meeting notional targets (50% deployed by October 2016) Strategic Initiatives On-going 20% of the grants Deputy Chief Grants Full team supported by continue to complement budget is committed Officer. Chamberlain’s. the Trust’s responsive to strategic grant-making. initiatives. The Grants Manual is in October 2016 The quality and Deputy Chief Grants Staff time. place. consistency of grants Officer and lead Grants Page 39 Page assessment and Officer. management is improved. The Service Based September 2016 Appropriate resources Chief Grants Officer and Staff time supported by Review on the CoLC’s to deliver the decisions the Senior Grants Officer City Solicitors and the grant-making is following the review lead. Chamberlain’s teams. implemented. are approved.
The revised ColC goes live and receives quality applications.
Members and Officers understand the grants that may be applied for.
Learning and development June 2016 and on-going Members of grants Deputy Chief Grants Staff time. plan in place. team assigned as Officer subject leads. Members of grants team assigned as borough leads. Members of grants team actively participate in external networking and learning events. The Trust continues to On-going London’s Giving Management team Staff time. develop 40 Page its relationship continues to grow in at with London Funders as a least 4 more boroughs. strategic partner. The Trust identifies initiatives to fund under the infrastructure support strand of its uplifted grants budget. Analysis and evaluation of December 2016 Principal Grants and Social this strategic plan Investment Officer commissioned & complete
Objective 3 Grow the London social investment market
Priority and rationale (why are you doing it?) To diversify and increase the funding available to achieve social impact.
Actions / Milestones Target Date Measure of Success Responsibility Resources At least a further £5m (tbc) March 2017 Contracts will be signed Chief Grants Officer Officer time and Bridge of the Social investment with investees to the value House Estates charitable Fund committed. of at least £Xm by (DATE) assets. and £Ym by (DATE) A further two rounds of January 2017 £1m Stepping Stones Principal Grants and Social Officer time and grants Stepping Stones grants are Fund is fully Investment Officer budget, UBS employee awarded. committed. time and grants resource.
Page 41 Page Partnership with UBS continues for these two rounds. New partners are identified, including from the Livery. Board Strategic Away-Half June 2016 Discussions of day lead to Chief Grants Officer Officer time, external Day improvements to strategy speaker time. and related activity. A Communications Plan December 2016 Trust Officers, Social Communications Officer Officer time, including for social investment is in Investment Board communications team. place. Members and CoL’s leading executive officers are clear on its key messages.
Objective 4 Encourage more philanthropy and the effective giving of time, talent and money across London. Priority and rationale (why are you doing it?) To increase the resources available to civic society
Actions / Milestones Target Date Measure of Success Responsibility Resources The Philanthropy Review July 2016 A report with clear Deputy Chief Grants Officer and grantee time (covering City recommendations for Officer and research budget. Philanthropy and its the Trust’s future related activities; London’s strategic role in this Giving and its related arena is produced. activities; Heart of the The Trust’s relationship City; Spice; and the Lord with these various
Mayor’s 42 Page Appeal Charity) is initiatives is clearer. completed. The relationship amongst the funded projects themselves is clearer. A philanthropy strategy is September 2016 A philanthropy Chief Grants Officer. Officer time and developed (working across strategy is agreed and consultancy budget. the Trust and with ColC this is understood and and Mansion House). informs working across the Trust/ColC/and Mansion House To increase the giving of On-going Local giving schemes are Deputy Chief Grants Officer time and grants time, talent and money at established in at least 4 Officer. budget. the local level across boroughs by March 2017. London.
Objective 5 Fit for purpose: To ensure the Trust is led by strategic decisions, is customer focused and is resourced appropriately to deliver quality outcomes. Priority and rationale (why are you doing it?) The extent of disadvantage in London is greater than the resources available to tackle the problem: it is essential that the Trust maximises its impact by making best use of all of its assets.
Actions / Milestones Target Date Measure of Success Responsibility Resources A programme of themes is May 2016 onwards Members feel better Chief Grants Officer Officer time and grantee continued for each (Strategic initiative focused informed about the speaker time. Committee meeting – to meeting November 2016). focussed areas of the include one focused Investing in Londoners meeting on strategic programme (including
initiatives 43 Page . strategic initiatives). The Trust’s Committee On-going and March 2017 All new Members Chief Grants Officer Officer and Member time. Members are able to play receive a full induction their full part in the within 2 months of governance of the Trust’s joining the Committee. work. Each Member attends at least 2 grantee visits/events and strategic away-half day. Grantee perceptions January 2017 Results analysed and Principal Grants and Social Officer and grantee time survey completed. improvements embedded Investment officer and research resource. in policy/process/culture (Commissioning resp.) Recruitment of a Head of August 2016 - Successful appointment Chief Grants Officer Officer time (including Charity and Social of a Head of Charity and Chamberlain’s and HR). Investment Finance goes Social Investment Finance. ahead. The Trust’s financial due March 2017 - positive feedback Head of Charity and Social Officer time including diligence requirements received from applicants, Investment Finance Chamberlain’s and and processes are officers and members Internal Audit. reviewed. The Trust’s staffing October 2016 - The grants team has clear Chief Grants Officer Officer time (including resource and structure is lines of accountability in HR). reviewed (esp. in light of place. Corp. grants work). - The central grants function is integrated and working efficiently as part of the CBT team.
Page 44 Page Agenda Item 7
Page 45 Page 46 Agenda Item 7a
Committee Dated:
City Bridge Trust 14/07/2016
Subject: Public Strategic Initiative: Access and Sustainability Advisory Service
Report of: For Decision Chief Grants Officer
Summary
This paper seeks your approval to continue to fund the Access and Sustainability Advisory within the Centre for Accessible Environments (a project of the housing association, Habinteg) for the next five years in orderto support applicants to your Access to Buildings programme, as well as the wider voluntarysector in London.
Recommendation(s)
Members are asked to:
• Note the report. • Approve the sum of £311,000 over five years (£61,000; £61,000; £62,000; £63,000; £64,000) towards the salary and associated running costs of the Access and Sustainability AdvisoryService, withthe grant subject to external evaluation after three years.
Main Report
Background
1. Since December 2005, you have commissioned the Centre for Accessible Environments (CAE) to provide an Access and Sustainability Advice Service in order to support applicants to your Access to Buildings programme as well as the wider voluntary sector in London. CAE merged with the housing association, Habinteg, in 2004, to become its consultancy division. Habinteg has been instrumental in developing the concept of Lifelong Homes for disabled people and state-of-the-art design in the built environment. The merger is therefore highly beneficial to both parties.
2. You asked CAE to create the post delivering this service because applicants to your Access toBuildings programme often found it difficult to secure the full range of good quallty advice and information neededwhen making access improvements. Therewas a great need for information on areas such as what an access audit is; how to find an access auditor; finding and appointing architects and quantity surveyors; what is liable for VAT; and disability equalities training. "Sustainability''was built into the job title in order to
Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 52 Agenda Item 7b
Page 53 Page 54 Agenda Item 7c
Page 55 Page 56 Agenda Item 7d
Page 57 Page 58 Agenda Item 7e
Page 59 Page 60 Agenda Item 7f
Page 61 Page 62 Agenda Item 7g
Page 63 Page 64 Agenda Item 7h
Page 65 Page 66 Agenda Item 7i
Page 67 Page 68 Agenda Item 7j
Page 69 Page 70 Agenda Item 7k
Page 71 Page 72 Agenda Item 7l
Page 73 Page 74 Agenda Item 7m
Page 75 Page 76 Agenda Item 8a
Committee Date:
The City Bridge Trust Committee 14th July 2016
Subject: Public Applications recommended for rejection Report of: For Decision Chief Grants Officer
Summary
This report and the accompanying schedule outlines a total of 23 grant applications or Eco-Audit requests that, for the reason(s) identified, are recommended for rejection.
Recommendation
Members are asked to:
Reject the grant applications detailed in the accompanying schedule
Main Report
1. There are a total of 23 applications recommended for rejection at this meeting. They are listed within categories in the accompanying schedule. In each case the “purpose” that is used to describe the application is that provided by the applicant organisation. All the recommendations are based on criteria set out in your Policy Guidance.
2. Copies of these application forms are available to view in the Members’ Reading Room. If any Committee Member wishes to query any of the recommendations, this can either be done at the meeting, in which case the decision may be deferred while full details are provided to the Member concerned, or by contacting the Trust office in advance of the meeting so that an explanation can be provided prior to or at the meeting.
Ciaran Rafferty Principal Grants Officer T: 020 7332 3186 E: [email protected]
Page 77 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 78 CBT IiL Recommended for Rejection The City Bridge Trust Committee - 24th May 2016 Summary of Recommendations for Rejection - Investing in Londoners Ref & Purpose Reason for Amount Grants Officer Organisation Recommendation for Rejection Requested & Area
English for Speakers of Other Languages 13346 To provide ESOL learning and The applicant states that your funding would £40,000 JXM
Adult Training Network qualifications opportunities for 60 be used to help address a reduction in Ealing (ATN) disadvantaged BAME learners from statutory funding from the Skills Funding Hounslow, Southall (LB Ealing) and Agency, and as such the request does not Hayes (LB Hillingdon). meet your criteria. There are also concerns about the organisation's financial sustainability. Page 79 Page Total English for Speakers of Other Languages (1 item) £40,000
Improving Londoners' Mental Health 13372 Carefree Kids - charity delivering The charity uses unqualified volunteers to £150,455 TB Carefree Kids successful mental health services offer play therapy to children and young Waltham Forest through therapeutic play to children and people with psychological difficulties, young people in north east London, in including complex issues. Your officers are partnership with schools. not satisfied that core competences and adherence to professional standards are reflected in this application.
13430 Learning Well: a programme of free Although applying under your Mental Health £93,254 CR EFA London language, literacy, numeracy classes for programme the organisation has little Tower Hamlets people of Bengali origin with a history of experience in this field, whilst the mental mental health problems and learning health outcomes are weak. Equally, the difficulties. proposal cannot be considered as an ESOL project as three years have not elapsed since your previous grant in this area ended. Ref & Purpose Reason for Amount Grants Officer Organisation Recommendation for Rejection Requested & Area 13284 The purpose is to employ counselling This application, which is to support work £152,070 JNM Everyman Project staff to consolidate and expand services with perpetrators of domestic violence, falls Islington to help families break free from cycles between CBT's Mental Health and Safer of violence. London programmes, but it fails to meet the outcomes for either. The application does not demonstrate that beneficiaries fall into your specific target groups to meet the criteria of your mental health programme. 13358 To fund the annual salary of an Although the information requested was not £61,509 CR Migdal Emunah Independent Sexual Violence Advisor provided it is likely that the grant requested Barnet (ISVA) for the Orthodox Jewish would, annually, amount to considerably Community more than 50% of the organisation's income. Despite the speciality of the work proposed,
Page 80 Page the job brief for the post does not stipulate that any formal qualification is needed, which would be a concern.
13376 We are launching a new initiative in a This organisation has sufficient free £3,000 SD Miracles London prison drug rehabilitation unit reserves to fund the new project 'pilot' in Outside London running music and songwriting Wormwood Scrubs over 2 years. Draft workshops helping to combat accounts for 2014/15 show an improved depression and aid rehabilitation. financial position on the previous year. 13361 Employ a Community Outreach Nurse The job description to which you are asked £26,300 SFJ The Vineyard to provide a dedicated outreach and to contribute includes a requirement Richmond Community Centre visiting service that integrates our connected with the promotion of religion, guests physical, psychological, thus being restrictive and is therefore emotional, pastoral, and social health. outside your criteria for support. Ref & Purpose Reason for Amount Grants Officer Organisation Recommendation for Rejection Requested & Area
13449 To increase access to mental health The proposed work does not entail delivery £163,800 TB Widows and Orphans services for 180 traumatised, vulnerable of specialist mental health services and Barking & International and isolated refugees and asylum therefore does not meet your Improving Dagenham seekers. Londoners' Mental Health programme criteria. Total Improving Londoners' Mental Health (7 items) £650,388
Making London More Inclusive 13233 Multi-year funding for an Activities The organisation is based in Stoke with no £102,327 SFJ Caudwell Children Co-ordinator to deliver our Sports and office base in London and has little Outside London Arts Can-do project in London to knowledge of disability organisations or Page 81 Page children doubly disadvantaged by those that provide sports or arts to disabled poverty and disability. people in London. The proposal has not identified how activities will be delivered and by whom and as a result your officer cannot be assured about the quality of the outcomes and outputs of the project. 13354 To ensure that young people with A one-year project which does not provide a £39,050 JGC SportInspired disabilities in Barking and Dagenham strong case of the longer term impact of the Tower Hamlets receive inclusive and empowering work proposed. The application fails to opportunities to participate in sport and demonstrate track record and expertise of physical activity, alongside peers. working with disabled young people. 13375 To support our programme "roadmap Organisation is too closely aligned to Swiss £75,000 RG Swiss Cottage School for life", a partnership between school, Cottage School, in terms both of Camden Charity agencies, community and stakeholders governance and activity, and therefore is to support people with SEND to become ineligible. independent. Total Making London More Inclusive (3 items) £216,377 Ref & Purpose Reason for Amount Grants Officer Organisation Recommendation for Rejection Requested & Area
Making London Safer 13429 Enable 5 soldiers to compete in an Proposal does not meet any of your criteria. £5,000 CR Household Cavalry Endurance Race in Mongolia to improve Kensington & Mounted Regiment their welfare and raise money for Chelsea in-country charities.
13427 London Tigers are embarking on a The proposed work does not sufficiently £99,618 TB London Tigers project to help victims and vulnerable match your Safer London programme Westminster people who have or may encounter hate outcomes, and the applicant is crime. inexperienced in work focused on supporting victims of hate crime.
Page 82 Page 13341 We would like City Bridge Trust to fund Application has been made under the Safer £135,000 JF Royal National the Assisted Boarding of 10 vulnerable London priority. However, whilst it talks Outside London Children's Foundation children from Greater London, over a about working with vulnerable/ three-year period. disadvantaged children, it does not refer to the needs of children affected by domestic violence. No evidence of how residential schooling will assist the children concerned overcome the impact of domestic violence. 13428 To understand and prevent sexual and This application is to support an £17,538 CR The Jack and Ada domestic abuse, through brain imaging experimental research programme City Beattie Foundation and an innovative programme using consisting of medical elements and, as Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy such, falls outside your criteria on several with the perpetrators of abuse. counts. Free reserves held, as shown in most recent independently examined accounts, are extremely low. Total Making London Safer (4 items) £257,156 Ref & Purpose Reason for Amount Grants Officer Organisation Recommendation for Rejection Requested & Area
Older Londoners 13232 Towards a better informed healthier The grant, if awarded, would equate to more £19,845 SAR
Association of Eritrean community elderly than 50% of the organisation's turnover. Hammersmith & Jeberti in the UK When previously supported by the Trust the Fulham (AEJUK) organisation was advised to diversify its income, but this does not seem to be any further forward, potentially creating reliance on your funds. 13431 Creating a community osteopathic clinic A very high, general, request to establish an £196,686 CR Centre for Osteopathic offering low cost and free treatments, osteopathy clinic, which does not meet your Hackney Research & whilst mentoring new graduates and criteria. Excellence CIC performing research.
Page 83 Page 13268 The Song Always Stays: a three year This application lacks focus as it claims to £81,500 JNM Live Music Now! participatory music project tackling target both older people and dementia Camden isolation and loneliness to improve sufferers, groups with distinct needs. It wellbeing/quality of life for older people, cannot draw on an evidence base that many with dementia. demonstrates that the proposed approach can bring about your stated programme outcomes for the majority of beneficiaries. 13274 To fund the Southwark Playhouse The proposal is unlikely to deliver outcomes £45,900 TB Southwark Playhouse Elders Company, a drama group for in keeping with your priorities and is Southwark people aged 65 and over in our local insufficiently targeted at people aged 75 and community, for performances, projects over. and workshops. Ref & Purpose Reason for Amount Grants Officer Organisation Recommendation for Rejection Requested & Area
13470 To support the development and The principal participants of this project will £29,450 CR Visible Theatre production of Roundelay, a dynamic be a small number of older professional Haringey Ensemble new play written for a cast of 9 actors. The level of general, meaningful, performers their 60s, 70s and 80s. engagement is insufficient to warrant funding as requested. Total Older Londoners (5 items) £373,381
Strengthening London's Voluntary Sector 13272 To build the capacity of 3rd sector The application does not reassure your £99,518 JF Council of Mosques Islamic organisations to engage officer that the organisation has the skills Tower Hamlets (CoM) volunteers, plan and measure activities and qualifications necessary to train others [including financial management] and in the subjects proposed. Current financial engage females inclusively. information points to a risk of the Trust Page 84 Page becoming the principal or sole funder. 13215 To extend our volunteer-run The proposal focuses on the professional £99,486 JF Professional peer-to-peer support network for early development of early years practitioners - be Bromley Association for years practitioners, particularly in this within the private, statutory or voluntary Childcare and Early disadvantaged areas of London and sectors. Membership of the organisation is Years improve how we evidence its impact for individual professionals, not organisations. There is no focus on building capacity within voluntary sector early years childcare provision.
13444 To provide support during the next two The organisation does not operate as a 2nd £80,000 SFJ The West India years whilst we revise our constitution, tier body and is, therefore, ineligible to apply Westminster Committee relocate, rehouse our UNESCO under this programme. The proposal itself is inscribed archive whilst improving our to support the charity whilst it revises its management of volunteers. constitution, relocates its UNESCO inscribed archive and improves its volunteer management thus improving the skills of a single organisation. Total Strengthening London's Voluntary Sector (3 items) £279,004
Grand Totals (23 items) £1,816,306 Agenda Item 8b
Committee: Date: The City Bridge Trust Committee 14 July 2016 Subject: Public Investing in Londoners – monitoring data report – September 2013 to March 2016 Report of: For Information Chief Grants Officer
Summary
This paper provides an analysis of data collected from annual grant monitoring reports received in the first two and a half years of your Investing in Londoners grants programme which ran from September 2013 to March 2016 (the first monitoring reports were received in February 2015). 145 reports are examined including the quality of work and reporting; wider impact of grants on organisations; and number and location of beneficiaries. An in focus qualitative analysis is provided of the Older Londoner‟s programme.
The report concentrates on applications and awards made under the Investing in Londoners programmes which are open to all eligible organisations through your standard application process. Programmes with bespoke monitoring processes (Arts Apprenticeships, London Youth Quality Mark, Hardship Fund, Stepping Stones Fund and Strategic Initiatives) are not included in the analysis.
This report is produced on a yearly basis. A report providing statistical analysis of grant applications covering the first three years (September 2013 to August 2016) of the Investing in Londoner‟s programmes will be due at your November committee meeting.
Recommendation
That the report be noted.
Main Report
Introduction
1. The Investing in Londoners programmes were launched in September 2013 and the first grant awards made in January 2014. At the end of each year of a grant, grantees are required to submit a monitoring report to the Trust. This report is the Trust‟s key mechanism to find out how well work has progressed against the outputs and outcomes agreed at application stage. It includes an opportunity for grantees to share feedback from their users/beneficiaries, provide a statistical breakdown of users/beneficiaries and to report on the relationship with the Trust more broadly. We also ask grantees to share any learning from the grant including what worked well and what worked less well. Investing in Londoners launched an online system of collecting monitoring data which has meant that the data provided can easily be looked at in detail for the first time. It also means that there are some areas where we are testing data collection methods for the first time and may want to refine these moving forward. Page 85
2. This report deals with all monitoring reports due from when the Investing in Londoners programmes were launched to 31st March 2016. The first monitoring reports were received in February 2015. In this period 154 monitoring reports were due of which 145 were received. Of those received, 111 have been processed by Grants Officers.1 The monitoring reports received are distributed across the grants programmes as shown in table 1.
Table 1: number of monitoring reports received by grants programme
Fund/Program Total English for Speakers of Other Languages 8 Improving Londoners' Mental Health 24 Improving London's Environment 8 Making London More Inclusive 32 Making London Safer 8 Older Londoners 19 Reducing Poverty 21 Resettlement and Rehabilitation of Offenders 7 Strengthening London's Voluntary Sector 18 Grand Total 145
3. Programmes with a bespoke monitoring process (Arts Apprenticeships, London Youth Quality Mark, Hardship Fund, Stepping Stones and Strategic Initiatives) are not considered in this report.
Quality of grantees’ work and monitoring information
4. Grants Officers review monitoring reports received and give an overall rating of very good, good, satisfactory or poor depending on how well the grantee has achieved its outputs and outcomes, on the quality of evidence provided (qualitative and quantitative), on how well the work achieves the Trust‟s outcomes and on the steps the organisation is taking to reduce its carbon footprint. Grantees are encouraged to be honest about what worked well and what did not. Flexibility is given where targets have not been met as long as good reasons are given for this and a way forward is agreed. The size and scale of the organisation and grant will be taken into account.
5. Table 2 shows the overall ratings of the 111 Investing in Londoners monitoring reports processed by Grants Officers (please note that 5 access audits have been excluded as these are not ranked in the same way by officers).
Table 2: Grants Officer’s ratings of monitoring reports from grantees Overall Rating Total % Very Good 10 9 Good 59 56 Satisfactory 36 34 Poor 1 1 Grand Total 106
1 Please note that the data in this report was extracted from the database in April 2016 and progress may have updated since then. This report does not include the Working with Londoners reports that officers also reviewed in this period. Page 86
6. Positively, most grantees are providing good or very good reports which suggests that work being delivered is of a good quality and the organisations are collecting good evidence to show how their work is making a difference. For many of the satisfactory reports it is likely that the Grants Officer was satisfied with the work delivered, but that the report lacked detail in some respect, particularly provision of more detailed evidence of beneficiaries and difference made. This can be seen in Chart 1 where objectives receive good scores but monitoring statistics and user feedback receive more poor and satisfactory scores. In these cases feedback is given on how the report can be improved in future years. There was also the case of one poor report. This was followed up with a monitoring visit which gave the Grants Officer an opportunity to discuss in detail what is expected.
Chart 1: Grants Officer rating of monitoring reports received 120
100
80 Very Good 60 Good 40 Satisfactory 20 Poor
0 Overall Objectives Monitoring User Impact Carbon Trust's Rating Stats Feedback Footprints Priorities Reduction
Wider impact of grant
Effect on fundraising 7. The Trust is aware that its funding can have a positive effect on grantee‟s ability to secure further funding. Of the 136 reports received (excluding access audits) 75% said that their City Bridge Trust grant had had a positive effect on their fundraising efforts (see Table 4).
Table 4: has your City Bridge Trust grant had an effect on your other fundraising results?
Effect on Fundraising Total Strong positive effect 34 Positive effect 73 No effect 28 Negative effect 0 Strong negative effect 0 No response 1 Grand Total 136
Page 87 8. When asked to expand on this there are five key reasons given as to how City Bridge Trust funding has had a positive effect:
Endorsement: many grantees report that a City Bridge Trust grant can help assure other funders of the quality of their work because the Trust is a „well-respected‟ organisation. In some cases organisations have received match funding. “Having the support of the City Bridge Trust enables us to demonstrate to other potential funders that our work is recognised by a highly respected grant-making organisation. This generates confidence in other funders and helps us to secure funding from other sources to maintain our charitable activities.” Evidence base: City Bridge Trust places an emphasis on grantees monitoring and evaluating they work they do in order to demonstrate the difference they make. Some grantees report that the data they have gathered as a result has been useful to use in other funding bids. Process: the Trust conducts a rigorous assessment and grant management process which in itself can help skill up particularly smaller organisations: “This grant has shown that we are able to manage large projects, the associated budgets, and deliver to set outputs and outcomes. This has enabled us to go to additional funders quoting the success of this project application”. Enabling: core funding in particular has allowed some organisations to take on development projects and risks they would not otherwise have been able to: “core funding…has enabled the [organisation] to take on the risk of some Legal Aid funded work and to secure funds from this that we would otherwise not have been able to”. Multi-year funding: City Bridge Trust awards grants of up to three years or five in exceptional cases. This has helped some grantees to plan ahead more strategically: “Knowing that this post is funded for three years allows the Senior Management Team to better plan fiscal and business strategies and activities.”
Non-financial benefits 9. 95% of grantees stated that their City Bridge Trust grant had brought benefits beyond financial ones to their organisation. As can be seen in Chart 3 the key benefits were around number and reach to different types of users/beneficiaries. However, improved partnership working was also experienced by a significant 66% of organisations. Other benefits cited included better consultation and communication with service users, increased use of social media and an increased number of volunteers.
Page 88 Chart 3: What benefits has the City Bridge Trust grant brought to organisations beyond financial benefits?
Better press coverage 18%
Improved monitoring and evaluation procedures 42%
Improved partnership work with other organisations 66%
Support for the organisation's core functions 59%
Development of an evidence base 46%
Improved reach to different types of users/beneficiaries 70%
Increased number of users/beneficiaries 76%
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Relationship with the Trust 10. Table 5 shows how grantees rated their relationship with the Trust. Although findings are overwhelmingly positive (90% good or very good and no not satisfactory reports) it should be noted it can be difficult for grantees to feel they can be critical of funders so the results may not be entirely accurate.
Table 5: How did you find your dealings with the City Bridge Trust?
Dealings with Trust? Total Very Good 94 Good 28 Satisfactory 14 Not Satisfactory 0 Grand Total 136
Users/beneficiaries
11. Grantees are asked for the total number of users/beneficiaries that have benefited from their grant over the last year as well as to provide breakdowns by equality and location. The total number of users/beneficiaries stated in the monitoring reports2 received was 2,884,794. However, it is important to note that some grantees work with very large numbers, for example, through helplines. If the 3 grants working with particularly large numbers of beneficiaries are excluded3 the total beneficiary number is 106,599 with a median of 130 beneficiaries.
2 Excluding access audits and supporting the voluntary sector (as users are more likely to be organisations rather than individuals). 3 CALM: 115,353 beneficiaries, SANE: 1,390,341 beneficiaries, Disability Rights UK: 1,272,541 beneficiaries Page 89 12. The information on beneficiaries must be interpreted with the following caveats. The quality of the data relies on what grantees are able to provide and different organisations will be able to do this to varying degrees of accuracy. It will also depend on who they consider to be users/beneficiaries: is a user/beneficiary a regular user of a service or someone who has attended a one-off event? It also does not reflect the level of service provided - for example a mental health project may work intensively with comparatively few young people, whilst an environmental project may work less intensively with many young people. A typical challenge is where an organisation states a high beneficiary number as they have published web resources, although direct users/beneficiaries are low.
13. The Trust also asks grantees to provide a breakdown of their users/beneficiaries by gender, age, ethnicity and disability. This provides helpful information for the Grants Officer reviewing the monitoring report to understand the reach of the grantee. However, there is a significant amount of poor quality data provided, which collectively means that equality data cannot be helpfully analysed at the moment. The Trust will explore alternative methods to collect and analyse this data.
User/beneficiary location 14. The location of 60,086 users/beneficiaries from 92 monitoring reports has been analysed by borough (56% of the total number of users/beneficiaries reported). This excludes data from access audits and the supporting the voluntary sector programme as explained above, 25 reports where data was not provided or not usable and the 3 grants with disproportionately large numbers of users/beneficiaries. Whilst the numbers mean that care should be taken in interpreting this data, it is still useful to give an indication of overall trends by borough. To interpret the data, the number of users/beneficiaries by location has been ranked against the relative position of each borough in the Government‟s 2015 Indices of Multiple Deprivation (Table 6). The Indices combine economic, social and housing indicators into a single score, allowing areas to be ranked against each other according to their level of deprivation. To make sense of the range and to identify anomalous boroughs, the measure of dispersion (standard deviation) has been calculated. The rows in Table 6 are shaded to help show these anomalies:
Dark grey: significantly less or more users/beneficiaries than expected Light grey: slightly less or more users/beneficiaries than expected White: in line with expectations
15. It should be noted that amongst the monitoring reports analysed there was still a high number of users/beneficiaries whose location was unknown (5275). This could be for a number of reasons including that users/beneficiaries do not want to disclose this information. There were also 765 users/beneficiaries reported from outside of London. This is not necessarily a cause for concern as often this is where City Bridge Trust funding contributes to a wider project and the grantee has mistakenly reported users/beneficiaries for the entire project. In all cases the Grants Officer would check the Trust‟s funding is only being used for work to benefit London. A number of grantees reported beneficiaries as „transient‟: the Trust may want to include this as a formal category in its data collection in the future.
Page 90 Table 6: City Bridge Trust grant users/beneficiaries by Borough compared to relative position on the Indices of Deprivation (IoD)
Relative Rank by SD from the rank on borough IoD rank - mean Borough IoD benefit Trust rank (benefit) Barking and Dagenham 3 22 -19 -2 Enfield 12 29 -17 -2 Hounslow 20 32 -12 -1 Waltham Forest 7 19 -12 -1 Hackney 2 12 -10 -1 Newham 4 13 -9 -1 Haringey 6 14 -8 -1 Hillingdon 23 28 -5 -1 Islington 5 10 -5 -1 Bromley 27 31 -4 0 Croydon 17 21 -4 0 Brent 13 16 -3 0 City of London 31 34 -3 0 Tower Hamlets 1 4 -3 0 Sutton 29 30 -1 0 Richmond upon Thames 33 33 0 0 Barnet 25 24 1 0 Ealing 18 17 1 0 Hammersmith and Fulham 16 15 1 0 Merton 28 27 1 0 Bexley 26 23 3 0 Harrow 30 25 5 1 Camden 15 9 6 1 Greenwich 14 8 6 1 Havering 24 18 6 1 Kingston upon Thames 32 26 6 1 Lambeth 9 3 6 1 Westminster 11 5 6 1 Southwark 8 1 7 1 Lewisham 10 2 8 1 Wandsworth 22 11 11 1 Kensington and Chelsea 19 7 12 1 Redbridge 21 6 15 2
16. Overall there is a good correlation between the Trust‟s ranks by number of users/beneficiaries and relative rank in the Indices of Multiple Deprivation. 12 boroughs show no or a very small difference between the two ranks indicating that the number of users/beneficiaries is in line with expectations. A further 18 boroughs show a small difference and 3 boroughs show a much larger difference than expected. Please note that these are indicative comparisons only because they do not take population size into account. Page 91
17. The trends seen are broadly similar to those identified at the application stage (which considers grant spend by borough against indices of deprivation). Barking and Dagenham remains an underserved area. Your officers are working with „London‟s Giving‟ and the Leader of the council to tailor an approach to target effort and resources in Barking and Dagenham. Enfield appears slightly lower on the Trust‟s ranks at monitoring stages than at application stage, and officers will need to keep a watching brief on potential reasons for this.
18. There are however some differences at monitoring stage compared to application stage. At application stage Greenwich surprisingly appeared low on the Trust‟s rankings compared to its deprivation score. Officers were unable to identify a cause at the time and the monitoring report figures suggest this was an anomaly as Greenwich is now doing better than might be expected given its deprivation ranking. Redbridge at monitoring stage has a higher number of beneficiaries than might be expected but at application stage it was in line with expectations. It is too early in the Trust‟s programmes however to identify whether this is a new trend.
In focus: Older Londoners
19. Grants Officers manually review a huge amount of qualitative and quantitative information through the monitoring reports they receive. The information they read including lessons learned and challenges identified helps inform the Trust‟s grant- making but it can be hard to quantify this information. The following section aims to give a flavour of the information received by focusing in depth on your Older Londoner‟s programme. 19 monitoring reports were received. The total grant amount for the reporting organisations was £1,547,960. 5975 beneficiaries were reported, ranging from 11 to 1628 per report with a median number of 100. No monitoring visits for Investing in Londoner‟s Older Londoner‟s grants were conducted during the time period (although 7 Working with Londoner‟s Older Londoner‟s grants were made).
Quality of work and reporting 20. Just over 50% of Older Londoner‟s monitoring reports were considered of a „good‟ quality by Grants Officers. Table 7 shows how reports were graded by the 5 outcome areas under Older Londoners.4 The outcome of „people living with Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia having a better quality of life‟ shows less strong reporting though all reports have been satisfactory. It is too soon in the grants programme to establish whether this is a trend but officers will need to keep a watching brief on this and make sure they discuss monitoring expectations of the Trust at assessment stage.
4 Please note that in this section the primary grant outcome area for each grant has been considered, though of course some will tackle more than one area. Page 92
Table 7: rankings of monitoring reports by Older Londoner’s grant outcome areas.
Programme Outcomes Very Good Satisfactory Poor Not Grand Good yet Total scored Carers aged 65 years and over better 0 3 0 0 0 3 able to access support, advice and respite Fewer older Londoners aged over 75 0 1 0 1 0 2 years with depression and more reporting improved well-being Older Londoners aged 75 years and 0 4 2 0 1 7 over living more active and healthier lives Older Londoners having increased 0 0 1 0 0 1 awareness of benefits, finance, housing and other rights People living with Alzheimer's and 0 0 3 0 3 6 other forms of dementia having a better quality of life Grand Total 0 8 6 1 4 19
21. An example of issues that are sometimes identified by Grants Officers in the monitoring reports include:
The organisation has not always kept the Trust well informed of any significant changes. For example if the postholder has changed. The annual monitoring report makes sure that these changes are picked up by the Trust but grantees are reminded that in the future they need to speak to the Trust as soon as changes are planned. Grant Offer letters now make it explicit that grantees must contact the Trust immediately with any significant organisational changes. The work has fallen short of targets/ varied from their application. This may be due to unforeseen difficulties and in the first year can be due to organisations taking longer to get the project up and running than expected. In some cases it can be because targets at application stage were unrealistic, although Grants Officers usually identify this at application stage. Any changes will always be discussed/agreed with the Grants Officer to ensure the work delivered remains in the spirit of the grant awarded. Participants are not all in the 75+ target age group. There were several instances of this, especially in the early days of the Programme as a focus on this age group took time to embed within the organisations. Overall, user/beneficiary numbers were large enough for this not to be of undue concern but grantees were asked to focus their efforts in the future. Outcome data and understanding is not strong. This is relatively common as historically there has been a trend for organisations and funders to require more information on what has been delivered. Grants Officers are skilled at being able to identify the difference between poorly delivered work and poorly evidenced work (that may be well delivered). Monitoring visits are an additional tool that help organisations that do not provide strong written evidence of impact to demonstrate it in practice. Page 93 Financial concerns. Annual monitoring reports ensure any financial concerns are picked up as current budgets, budget forecasts and accounts are examined. Where there are any concerns the Grants Officer will carefully review this and may make quarterly or even monthly payments conditional on receipt of updated information to ensure the Trust‟s funding is put at minimal risk.
Whilst these issues are dealt with on a case by case basis, they give an idea of the common issues experienced as part of the grant management process.
What was delivered? 22. A huge range of projects have been funded by the Trust including dance projects, work in hospices, befriending and advice and support. A flavour of some of the activities that were delivered by grantees include:
10 workshops using art to inspire, produce and perform an opera for 127. 40 weeks of structured activity sessions with a Reminiscence Arts Practitioner. 254 psychology appointments delivered to 84 new patients. 36 social and therapeutic group gardening sessions. 44 One to One interventions for information, advice and support (face to face and telephone). 12 dance workshops for people diagnosed with early stage dementia and their carers. 8 monthly weekend museum tea parties for 115 people. Befriending visits to 20 people with dementia and their carers. 1475 lunches served at 84 lunch clubs to at least 57 individual clients. 11 attended a new monthly peer support group for older carers caring for a family member with drug or alcohol problems. 77 end of life carers assessments completed. 35-40 activities, groups and meetings every month to older LGBT Londoners. 4576 attendances in total.
What difference did the grants make? 23. All grantees are asked what difference their work has made. Some common themes can be identified across the Older Londoner‟s work. Chart 9 shows where more than 2 grantees have explicitly reported outcomes in an area.
Page 94 Chart 9: Common outcome themes for older people's grants
Social interaction/ reduced isolation Wellbeing Physical wellbeing Confidence Carers respite Independence Increased social activity Happiness Awareness of services Knowledge and understanding Working with other organisations Economic wellbeing
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
24. The examples below give an idea of the types of outcomes and feedback the Trust receives under each outcome area.
Participants genuinely found a connection in each other's lives and created a community based on their shared experience as professional cast members. Older On a physical level all groups showed increased coordination, Londoners aged increased strength and range of movement, engagement and over 75 years stamina. living more Gardening group: the average confidence level of the group has active and risen by up to 79% from the start to the end of a session. healthier lives Targeted computer classes have allowed older people to access services such as online shopping, such as Tesco‟s home delivery, that they would otherwise not have been able to take advantage of. “(Without the minibus) I would not be able to get down to the Lunch Club. Even the ordinary buses are difficult.”
Fewer older Londoners aged over 75 years 61% felt that LGBT older people's project has benefitted their with depression mental health. and more 84% said LGBT older people's project has benefitted their social reporting wellbeing. improved well- being
“It was a very therapeutic experience, sharing experiences and working with a nine year old as he seemed very interested in my life and feelings. I learnt to look at things through the eyes of a very young person'” Page 95
Older Londoners having The weekly group meetings have had a positive effect on loneliness increased among the elderly users. Users that have otherwise been awareness of completely isolated have shown to engage with their peers and benefits, establish strong social networks. finance, housing and other rights
People living with Alzheimer‟s People are happier and more able to cope with their caring and other forms responsibilities. of dementia We believe work has reduced number of GP appointments made having a better (but don't have data). quality of life “I appreciate that this group is for both carers and the people they care for. [My husband] attends another dementia group at another venue on a Thursday, but I don't get to join in and interact with him there.”
80% service users accessing the Community Support Volunteer service reported reduced isolation and increased confidence. Relaxation sessions have increased the wellbeing of carers and Carers aged 65 given them back the energy to carry on. This means patients years and over have been able to remain at home longer and to continue to be better able to cared for by their family/carer. access support, advice and Older carers often struggle with a chaotic home life: drug and alcohol addiction is often described as a journey, with many ups respite. and downs - and, as a result, a consistent, steady improvement
in the categories above can be difficult to achieve. End of life carers are more confident in discussing matters relating to death and dying with their dying friends or relatives. "I have been putting off my own health appointments for months because I just can't leave him (patient) at home on his own and I have no-one I can call on for help. Having the volunteer sit with him meant I could attend my hospital appointment. I also think the companionship did him good, as it's just us two now. I never knew a service like this existed.”
What did grantees learn from their work? 25. The Trust asks grantees what they have learnt from their work and officers in turn try to use this learning to inform grant-making. Learning that may benefit organisations more widely included:
The importance of a personalised approach The importance of building relationships with other organisations. The need to make sure evaluation tools are in the right language for participants. People with dementia need to be considered as a person with life experience and skills and be treated as a valuable citizen who wants to be more involved. Carers are often reluctant to ask for help and instead focus on the needs of the person with dementia they care for. Intergenerational work was reported as working particularly well.
Page 96
26. Grantees also report challenges that may be important for others to note:
A holistic approach means that clients may need to be supported for much longer than anticipated. Cuts in legal aid have increased demand and local authority cuts on equality training have reduced the impact organisations can have on adult social care services. Whilst partnership work is important, communication with some service providers is slow, and it can be hard to get buy in (an example of working with care home staff was cited). It can be hard to sign off clients when there are no further services to signpost them to. Demand was much higher than expected in several cases. Travel has been an issue for some participants. Some found it difficult to recruit carers for reasons including not all clients have live- in carers, lack of time, lack of respite and a tendency to think of the needs of the cared for person rather than themselves.
27. Finally it is worth reflecting on a moving incite from one project leader:
"The limitations of older people, and in particular, those with dementia, seem to be often imposed upon them, rather than something which is a result of their age or the disease itself. The ambitious concept of not only performing, but creating an opera with a group of older people, including people with dementia, seems outlandish until of course, you witness the end result. It was an incredible, funny, slightly mad-cap (in the best way) and ultimately, an incredibly moving performance."
Conclusions
28. The first two and a half years of your Investing in Londoners grants programme have seen the return of 145 annual monitoring reports were received, the majority of which have been processed by Grants Officers. The quality of the information provided in monitoring reports was generally considered good by Grants Officers though monitoring statistics and user feedback were weaker areas of reports.
29. 75% of grantees reported that City Bridge Trust funding had had a positive effect on their wider fundraising efforts and that they had received non-financial benefits from their grant including increasing their reach to users/beneficiaries and improved partnership working.
30. An estimated 106,599 users/beneficiaries were reached by the work delivered, excluding grants delivered to very high numbers. Overall there was a good correlation between the location of these users/beneficiaries by borough and the boroughs‟ relative rank on the Indices of Multiple Deprivation, although Barking and Dagenham and Enfield had proportionately fewer users/beneficiaries than expected. However all users/beneficiaries data must be treated with caution due to concerns with data quality and the difficulties of comparing very different grants such as those that reach a few users/beneficiaries intensely and those that reach many with a light touch.
Page 97 31. Data from 19 Older Londoner‟s monitoring reports was looked at in detail. A huge range of project activities were delivered spanning dance projects, work in hospices, befriending and advice and support. Outcomes varied by project but common themes included increasing social interaction, increased mental and physical wellbeing, increasing confidence and providing respite for carers. Learning included the importance of a personalised approach, the importance of partnership working, the difficulties of engaging carers, travel can be an issue for some users/beneficiaries and the difficulty in signing off clients. Feedback from users/beneficiaries reveals that in many cases projects have delivered truly life- changing work:
'It has been an inspiring and invigorating experience for both of us. It's relaxing and full of fun, truly participatory and creative.'
Jemma Grieve Combes Grants Officer (Monitoring and Evaluation) T: 020 7332 3174 E: [email protected]
Page 98 Agenda Item 8c
Committee Date:
The City Bridge Trust Committee 14 July 2016
Subject: Public Philanthropy Review
Report of: For Decision Chief Grants Officer
Summary
This report sets out the main findings of the Philanthropy Review that you asked City Bridge Trust staff to commission at your September 2015 meeting. The full report is appended at Appendix 1.
Recommendation
Members are asked to:
Note the report. Based on the outcome of your deliberations today, instruct officers to bring proposed next steps to your September Committee Meeting. Based on the outcome of your deliberations today, instruct officers further to bring specific proposals for the future funding by the Trust of City Philanthropy – a wealth of opportunity, Spice Time Credits and London‟s Giving to your September Committee Meeting.
Main Report Background
1. At your September 2015 meeting, you agreed to review the work you had supported to „encourage philanthropy‟ (this being part of your mission: “To tackle disadvantage in London through grant-making, social investment, encouraging philanthropy and influencing public policy”). Its purpose was to look at the effectiveness of the various strands of work supported by the Trust to encourage more giving – of time, talent and money – and to make recommendations for the Trust‟s future strategic direction in this arena. It was agreed that the Review would include the following projects currently funded: City Philanthropy – a Wealth of Opportunity, together with Beyond Me, the City Funding Network and the Beacon Awards. London‟s Giving and the related grants to Islington Giving and East End Community Foundation. Heart of the City. Spice. The Lord Mayor‟s Appeal Charity and City Giving Day.
Page 99 2. Working in conjunction with the City of London Corporation‟s Procurement Team, a tender was drawn up outlining the scope of the Review. This was circulated amongst a number of networks, including Association of Charitable Foundations and London Funders; the websites of UK Evaluation Society; and Monitoring and Evaluation NEWS; as well as the Corporation‟s procurement portal.
3. The Trust received five bids in total and the Chief Grants Officer and the Deputy Chief Grants Officer interviewed the two strongest applicants. Rocket Science was able to demonstrate the strongest understanding of the brief and the operating context and was therefore appointed.
4. A budget of £24,475 for the review was agreed through the delegated authority of the Chairman, Deputy Chairman and Chief Grants Officer. Work on the Review commenced at the end of March 2016.
5. The final report of the Philanthropy Review is provided at Appendix 1. In addition, an interim report was provided in May 2015 and „mini-reviews‟ were provided for each of the five projects under review. These are available to Members on request.
Summary of recommendations
6. Overall, the Review found that the Trust‟s support in this area had been largely positive. However, it also found that more could be done to better co- ordinate the five projects in order to maximise their impact.
7. The key recommendations are as follows:
Develop a new, joint philanthropy strategy for City Bridge Trust (CBT) and the City of London Corporation CoLC), supported by a clear communications plan and some key metrics for measuring success. Focus future funding and support on two philanthropy brands: City Philanthropy – a wealth of opportunity and London’s Giving. Together these would deliver the joint philanthropy strategy as stated above. Establish and resource a new philanthropy unit within Guildhall, alongside CBT, Economic Development Office, Heart of the City, City Philanthropy and the Lord Mayor‟s Appeal Charity, led by a new post of Head of Philanthropy. Re-focus the charitable work of the Lord Mayor‟s office so that it has a more strategic aim of increasing awareness about philanthropy in London, the UK and globally. Assist the realignment of the Lord Mayor‟s Appeal Charity towards raising funds to support priority themes, rather than the personally selected individual charities of each Lord Mayor. These themes would align with those of City Bridge Trust, Economic Development Office and other grant-making of the City Corporation. The post of Director of the Lord Mayor‟s Appeal Charity is currently vacant, and it is proposed that this is replaced by the Head of Philanthropy post as set out above.
Page 100 Commission a formative evaluation1 to support and shape the philanthropy strategy. Build on the findings of More to Give2, together with the evaluation findings above, to report biennially on the state of philanthropy in London and establish this as the authoritative, biennial survey Capital Giving – the state of philanthropy in London. Use the coincidence of the Trust‟s Quinquennial Review and the restructuring of the Lord Mayor‟s Appeal Charity to convene an international conference in 2017 to showcase London as a global centre of philanthropy.
City Philanthropy – a Wealth of Opportunity
8. As well as reviewing City Philanthropy itself, Rocket Science also reviewed the work of the three projects sitting under the City Philanthropy banner, also funded by the Trust: i) Beyond Me: Established in 2012, it runs funding syndicates (or „teams‟) in City firms. Each team identifies a charity with which it wishes to engage. It raises funds from the individual members of the team who also give their time to the charity concerned over a period of a year. Funds raised are matched by the firm‟s partners. It currently has 112 teams with more than 1,000 City professionals involved. Over £200,000 has been raised for 90 charities, with 12,000 hours of volunteering time also being provided. Since 2012, you have granted a total of £123,000 to Beyond Me. This funding ended in March 2016 and the organisation is now self-financing. Funds raised by this network do not necessarily go towards London or UK charities. ii) City Funding Network: You awarded The Funding Network (TFN) a grant of £30,000 over three years in 2012 to establish City Funding Network, targeting young City Professionals. In this model of crowd funding, three charities make a „dragon‟s den‟ style pitch at each event. The charities then leave the room to enable a pledging session to take place. Each event raises up to approximately £15,000 for each organisations. TFN ran two events per annum during the life of the grant which ended in March 2016. In total, 18 small charities have been supported, raising over £160,000. Funds raised by this network do not necessarily go towards London or UK charities.
During the life of the grant, TFN approached the Trust because it was having difficulty in raising funds to cover its core costs and a further £30,000 was approved. However, this is supporting TFN‟s wider work with other funding networks. iii) Beacon Fellowship Awards: These are biennial awards, run by UK Community Foundations on behalf of the Beacon Charitable Trust. You have supported a category of Beacon Award for City Philanthropy in 2012/13 and in
1 A formative evaluation takes place alongside a project rather than retrospectively. This means that emerging findings can be used to shape the project as it develops. 2 Research commissioned by City Philanthropy to look at giving amongst London’s millennials and published in November 2015
Page 101 2014/15 with grants of £32,500 and £50,000 respectively. A request to support the 2016/17 awards is currently under consideration. Whilst the awards ceremony itself is well received by those who attend, UK Community Foundations would admit that not enough has been done in the past to sustain the growing network of Beacon Fellows who have the potential to act as mentors for future generations of philanthropists. A newly appointed Chief Executive of UK Community Foundations plans to address this with the 2016/17 awards.
9. City Philanthropy – a Wealth of Opportunity: Its overarching aim is to encourage a new generation of City philanthropists and promote London as a global centre of philanthropy. Its work comprises three strands:
To co-ordinate, collaborate and communicate philanthropic activities in the City. To educate, inspire inform and enable the next generation of City Philanthropists. To encourage peer-support, networking and mentoring amongst philanthropists in the City.
Recent outputs from City Philanthropy include: The launch of the „donorWISE – Effective Giving for Millennial Donors‟ half- day course in March 2015 at Cass Business School. The course has been repeated on two further occasions. Commissioning research to establish a baseline of how philanthropy is taking place in the City. This was undertaken Cass Business School‟s Centre for Charitable Giving and Philanthropy. The resulting publication, More to Give, was published in November 2015. It highlighted how millennial workers in London are taking a lead in driving forward the giving and philanthropy agenda. 80% of those surveyed believe that millennial employees are increasingly seeking companies that share a drive for social and environmental, as well as business, gains. Considerable press and media coverage, including the Finance News‟ “Extra Mile 40” which celebrates 40 people in the City each year who excel in charitable work. Promotion of several City-based giving networks. It is estimated that more than 1,000 young professionals in the City have become involved in Giving Circles, supporting over 100 charities and donating time and money valued at over £1.5 million. Active promotion of the Lord Mayor‟s City Giving Day. Active promotion of Giving Tuesday, since its launch in the UK in 2014. Panels from the „Philanthropy – City Story‟ exhibition were displayed outside Guildhall during the summer and autumn, moving to Pudding Lane in tome for the Lord Mayor‟s Show in November 2015.
10. The Review found that the Trust could do much more to drive City Philanthropy‟s strategic direction and make much better use of its various projects and initiatives in order to facilitate co-ordination and add value to the wider work of the Trust. City Philanthropy is currently hosted by the
Page 102 Association of Charitable Foundations. The Review recommends, therefore, that City Philanthropy becomes part of City Bridge Trust as part of a joint philanthropy strategy of City Bridge Trust and the City of London Corporation.
11. Funding for City Philanthropy is due to end in December 2016. Officers recommend that proposals for its future funding and location are brought to your September Committee Meeting.
London’s Giving
12. Inspired by Islington Giving, you are funding London Funders to develop London‟s Giving. You awarded £100,000 in 2014 for this purpose, with a further £32,000 being awarded in May 2016 to enable the work to continue until December 2016, whilst the Philanthropy Review took place. As a result, two freelance consultants have been appointed to work on this initiative, Clare Thomas (former Chief Grants Officer of City Bridge Trust) and Deborah Xavier (former Chief Executive of The Brokerage Citylink). As well as this initiative, the work of Islington Giving and the East End Community Foundation, both of which you fund, were also looked at by Rocket Science as part of this Review.
13. London Funders‟ website has provided a digital platform for London‟s Giving where various resources can be found, including a toolkit and regular guest blogs/ Following the launch of London‟s giving in February 2015, a series of master classes have been held.
14. Local giving schemes are now established in Islington, Hackney, Kensington and Chelsea and Kingston, with new schemes recently launched or about to launch in the boroughs of Camden, Hammersmith and Fulham, Lewisham, Southwark, Barnet, Sutton, Newham, Tower Hamlets and Richmond.
15. There is undoubtedly a growing appetite to develop local schemes and London‟s Giving is definitely gathering momentum. However, it needs to be borne in mind that it takes time to establish a successful scheme, perhaps between five and ten years, depending on local conditions. Dedicated staff time is needed to undertake the development work. Apart from your support of Islington Giving and the East End Community Foundation, you are funding the development of local giving schemes in Lewisham, Southwark, Barnet, Sutton and Hammersmith and Fulham, these five grants totalling £87,300. In each case, your grant is helping to unlock other local funding.
16. The Review recommends that CBT continues to fund and champion London‟s Giving but it also recommends that the Trust works with other funders to establish a funding pot to facilitate the development of local giving schemes. It further recommends that this should complement the implementation of the findings of The Way Ahead, which was presented at your last Committee in May and you will recall looked at the future infrastructure needs of London‟s voluntary sector. Both strands of work have the potential to play a vital role in building stronger communities in the context of public sector funding reductions and a reducing role for local authorities. It is recommended that
Page 103 you ask officers to bring proposals for the future funding of London‟s Giving to your September Committee Meeting. i) Islington Giving: Since its inception in 2010, Islington Giving has raised over £4.1 million and involved more than 4,000 volunteers. One of its key strengths is its detailed knowledge of the borough combined with its ability to bring together „unusual suspects‟. You have made grants totalling £239,000 to Islington Giving since 2011 and the Deputy Chief Grants Officer is a member of Islington Giving Board.
Another of its key achievements has been the establishment of Businesses for Islington Giving (BIG) which now has 13 companies in membership, giving time and skills to Islington‟s voluntary sector.
Your funding will come to an end in March 2017 and it is likely that Islington Giving will submit a proposal to enable it to strengthen its business links, as part of the next stage of its future strategic development. ii) East End Community Foundation is developing local giving schemes in Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Newham and has been awarded £172,500 over three years from the Trust towards this work.
Launched in 2014, Hackney Giving has raised just under £400,000 and has supported 42 local voluntary organisations. Also launched in 2014, Newham Giving has raised just under £250,000 and has supported 14 local organsations. The development of Tower Hamlets continues as a work in progress, although it has enormous potential given that it is home to Canary Wharf.
The Development Worker post that you are funding is currently vacant and at the time of writing this report, recruitment of someone with the right skills set is proving a challenge. It is sharing its learning, experience and practice with the London‟s Giving network and it is hoped that Clare and Deborah can provide support with the recruitment.
Heart of the City
17. Heart of the City (HOTC) supports the business community in developing high quality corporate social responsibility strategies. It currently comprises a network of over 800 small, medium and large businesses. Since 2009, you have made grants totalling £563,276 to HOTC. Your most recent grant, of £297,776 approved in March 2015, was awarded to enable Heart of the City to develop as a London-wide programme, beyond the City-fringe boroughs.
18. With the grant, HOTC plans to grow its network to 1,000 businesses and to be more strategic in its bridging business and the voluntary sector. With respect to the latter aim, HOTC is working more closely with voluntary sector infrastructure organisations and with London Funders. It is also playing a valuable role as part of the reference group overseeing the implementation of
Page 104 The Way Ahead. It is working to develop web-based platforms to engage new business and to be more effective in its direct support to charities.
19. With its plans to reach out to new boroughs, HOTC has considerable potential to complement the work of both London‟s Giving and the implementation of The Way Ahead. Rocket Science‟s report highlights that communication between HOTC and the other projects that were part of this Review could be considerably strengthened and it will be a priority to ensure that CBT has sufficient resource, that is, officer time, to facilitate this.
20. Whilst CBT funding of HOTC does not end until March 2018, the Review also touches on the longer-term sustainability of HOTC, if it is to reduce its dependency on CBT for funding. The Review recommends that CBT and HOTC work together to explore alternative funding sources for the longer term.
Spice
21. You are supporting Spice‟s Londoner Time Credits initiative as a new model of volunteering. It is a form of time banking whereby every hour volunteered („time in‟) is rewarded with a time credit („time out‟) in the form of a Spice „pound‟ which can be used for a variety of activities, including at leisure centres, theatres, cinemas, libraries, museums and galleries. Since it began work in London in 2011, it has successfully engaged a wide variety of „spend‟ partners, including the Barbican, Thames Clippers, the British Museum and Millwall FC.
22. Your most recent grant, £385,200 over three years, was approved in February 2014. Prior to that you had approved grants of £163,980 and £164,500, making a total of £713,680.
23. To date, Londoner Time Credits has engaged over 9,500 volunteers, with the number of „spend‟ venues increasing from 157 venues at the end of 2015/16 to an anticipated 203 during 2016/17. The model is proving successful in engaging those who have not previously volunteered – approximately 47% according to Spice‟s data. Londoner Time Credits is currently operating in the boroughs of Haringey, Westminster, Lewisham, Tower Hamlets, Southwark, Kensington & Chelsea, Islington, Newham and Brent. The model is especially suited to “co-production”, whereby service providers work with their communities to actively design services rather than turn them into passive recipients of services. At the heart of co-production is the assumption that everyone has something to offer.
24. Its 2015 annual evaluation provides evidence of the benefits of volunteering, not only to gaining new skills but also in increasing health and well-being. 62% of those surveyed said they give their time at least once a week. 81% said that participating in time credits had had a positive impact on their quality of life and 23% reported having less need to go to the doctor.
Page 105 25. The Trust‟s current grant will end in March 2017. The Review highlights the longer-term sustainability of Londoner Time Credits. As a model, it is highly relevant to both London‟s Giving and HOTC (and early discussions have taken place with London‟s Giving). However, establishing Londoner Time Credits in a locality costs money and it is not clear if local partners would want to fund these costs alongside those of a local giving scheme. The Review questions whether the Trust should continue to fund Londoner Time Credits and if so at what level. The Review argues that if City Bridge Trust funding were discontinued, then the scaling of the Londoner Time Credits model would be severely curtailed. The Review makes two recommendations with regard to future funding: Support Spice in developing and rolling out its digital platforms and other online tools, including a digital monitoring and reporting tool to help local schemes manage the currency; and an easy to use online „earn‟ and „spend‟ platform. These developments should help Spice to reduce the unit cost of Londoner Time Credits, thereby making it a more attractive model at the local level. Pilot a joint project within a couple of the emerging places where a local giving scheme is in development to look at how Londoner Time Credits might be built into a local scheme. Officers recommend that an outline proposal for this is brought to your September Committee Meeting.
Lord Mayor’s Appeal Charity
26. In July 2012, you awarded a grant of £65,000 towards a new post of Development Director of the Lord Mayor‟s Appeal Charity, in order to bring continuity and transparency to the annual appeal. The original recommendation was for funding for three years (making £195,000 in total). However, Committee felt strongly that the post should be self-financing after the first year. The Review included the Lord Mayor‟s Appeal in order to make recommendations as to how it could fit with a new City Bridge Trust and City of London Corporation strategy on philanthropy.
27. The Lord Mayor‟s appeal is currently staffed by a team of seven. In addition, the post of Director is currently vacant.
28. Whilst the establishment of the Lord Mayor‟s Appeal Charity has enabled more continuity and sustainability to the fundraising efforts of the Mayoralty, the Review found that much more could be done to align the Appeal Charity/Mansion House, the City of London Corporation, City Bridge Trust, HOTC and City Philanthropy.
29. The Review therefore recommends that work, currently underway, is completed to restructure and reposition the Lord Mayor‟s Appeal Charity along thematic lines and three-year partnerships which are relevant to London and its most pressing needs and which reflect the priorities of City Bridge Trust, Economic Development Officer and the City of London Corporation‟s wider grant-making.
Page 106 30. This would be achieved by co-locating the Lord Mayor‟s Appeal Charity alongside City Bridge Trust, Economic Development Office, Heart of the City and City Philanthropy. The Chief Grants Officer is currently assisting the Lord Mayor‟s Appeal Charity Board in relation to these matters.
Conclusion
31. A philanthropy strategy that is shared by City Bridge trust and the City of London Corporation will make the work of the Trust in this arena more effective and better joined up. If supported by a clear communication plan and some key metrics for measuring impact, the Trust will have the tools with which to measure its success.
32. The establishment of a new post, Head of Philanthropy, to oversee the strategy and its implementation will help to ensure that the various projects funded are better co-ordinated and joined up.
33. In the current climate, the encouragement of philanthropy and more effective giving is more important than ever, as is the development of strong, local communities.
34. This Philanthropy Review has provided an evidence base to inform a future philanthropy strategy and will also feed into the forthcoming Quinquennial Review.
Appendices
Appendix 1 – “Review of the Trust‟s Strategic Initiative on Philanthropy”.
Jenny Field Deputy Chief Grants Officer
T: [e.g. 020 7332 3715 E: [email protected]
Page 107 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 108 CBT Review of Strategic Initiative on Philanthropy – Final Report
Review of CBT’s Strategic Initiative on Philanthropy – Final Report Page 1
City Bridge Trust
Review of the Trust’s Strategic Initiative on Philanthropy Final Report
June 2016
Rocket Science and the galaxy logo are registered trade marks of Rocket Science UK Ltd.
Page 109 Rocket Science UK Ltd 2016 Review of CBT’s Strategic Initiative on Philanthropy – Final Report Page 2
Contents
1. Executive Summary ...... 4 2. CBT’s Strategic Initiative on Philanthropy ...... 8 3. Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 14 3.1 Coordination 3.2 Communication 3.3 Convening 3.4 Collaboration and co-investment
Annex (1) City Bridge Trust grants to promote and encourage philanthropy ...... 20 Annex (2) Stakeholders interviewed for the Review ...... 22 Annex (3) Setting the Scene ...... 23 Annex (4) Examples of effective philanthropy ...... 31
Page 110 Rocket Science 2016 Review of CBT’s Strategic Initiative on Philanthropy – Final Report Page 3
Page 111 Rocket Science 2016 Review of CBT’s Strategic Initiative on Philanthropy – Final Report Page 4
1. Executive Summary
1.1 Purpose and scope of the Review
In March 2016, City Bridge Trust (CBT) commissioned a review of its strategic investments which, since 2011, have aimed to embed a culture of philanthropy and encourage the effective giving of time, money and resources in order to benefit London’s disadvantaged communities. The Trust’s investment has supported a diverse range of projects and activities, including significant grants to City Philanthropy – a wealth of opportunity (promoting individual giving, particularly by young city professionals); Heart of the City (enabling corporate community investment, particularly targeting SMEs), and Spice Time Credits (rewarding the giving of time)1. This independent review is intended to assist CBT to identify the connections and potential for greater interaction between these and future investments, and recommend how the Trust can better steer their strategic direction
Our recommendations focus on how CBT can do more to leverage its “philanthropic brands” which in addition to the Trust brand itself, includes City Philanthropy (A Wealth of Opportunity) and London’s Giving (place-based funding); how the Trust can exert greater impact on philanthropy in future, both internally in terms of its coordination and communication of philanthropic initiatives within the City of London Corporation, as well as externally via the City’s influence as a convenor and collaborator/ co-investor with other stakeholders in London. These “4 Cs” provide the framework for our conclusions and recommendations which are set out below and in detail in section 3.
1.2 Drivers and challenges for the Trust2
Some of the original internal drivers behind the Trust’s investment in promoting philanthropy, such as the perceived need to redress the image of the City of London in the wake of the banking crisis, may have weakened. However, in the meantime, the biggest retraction of state spending since the Second World War, has given both individual and corporate philanthropy heightened relevance to the Trust, not least in the context of its ongoing and parallel strand of work to invest in and strengthen London’s voluntary sector. This new backdrop, and some of the drivers referred to below, present City Bridge Trust with the challenge of redefining its strategic initiative on philanthropy in order to exert greater influence on the Square Mile and leverage more non-statutory resources for London:
· London is an increasingly unequal city with growing disparities between its wealthiest and most disadvantaged citizens. The capital has been particularly affected by cuts to local authority budgets which have weakened the capacity of the capital’s VCSE sector.
What is CBT’s role in forging a cross-sectoral response to London’s problems and how can its initiative on philanthropy encourage a more collaborative and strategic approach to redressing wealth inequalities and growing demand for services?
1 A list of the Trust’s investments to promote philanthropy, and all the projects within the scope of this Review, are included in Annex 1. 2 The changing context to the Trust’s work on promoting the philanthropy is detailed in Annex 3, Setting the Scene
Page 112 Rocket Science 2016 Review of CBT’s Strategic Initiative on Philanthropy – Final Report Page 5
· The extent of recent austerity measures across the public sector has increased interest in individual philanthropy and corporate giving, but is also a symptom of the level of distress in the voluntary and community sector; as charities and civil society organisations are compelled to “fish in the same pond”, it is unclear where this will end up, but points to the need for greater coordination and collaboration among funders, and between funders and donors.
How can CBT work with partners to exert greater influence over the choices of donors so that these become more closely aligned with London’s most pressing needs, whilst recognising that at the heart of philanthropy is the giver’s freedom to choose?
1.3 Headline assessments of the Trust’s philanthropy initiatives
There is unanimity among those whom we interviewed as part of this Review3 that City Bridge Trust’s promotion of philanthropy has had a largely positive impact. One recurring concern, however, is that there has so far been “too much initiative and not enough strategy.” CBT’s vision and objectives on philanthropy are not clear. The Trust has an opportunity, therefore, to shift some of the focus away from funding individual projects which have, for example stimulated and supported millennials’ giving, and think more about the strategic-leadership and influencing role of the City. The two approaches are by no means mutually exclusive, but there is a sense that London is at a moment when it has the opportunity to make more of its philanthropic past and its future potential, and that this can be strongly influenced by the City in order to leverage more resources for London.
This will not, however, be straightforward. As well as a lack of coordination and coherence to the Trust’s strategic initiatives to date, the highly particular and personal nature of much of the City’s philanthropy as well as the internal politics of the Corporation of London/Mansion House could prove to thwart the Trust’s ambition. We have detected a significant degree of silo working, if not competition and a concomitant lack of trust between some of the projects funded by the Trust.
Further strategic development of philanthropy in London is a huge undertaking, encompassing everything from London-wide, big ticket items to individuals’ engagement with particular causes or places. The City Bridge Trust has a key role in this endeavour, but as part of a much bigger ecosystem of London’s funders.
The potential prize is significant. By addressing the weaknesses and exploiting the opportunities identified in this review, City Bridge Trust can capture greater synergy from philanthropic initiatives across the City of London and the capital as whole. Not only will this complement the Trust’s future priorities, soon to be as confirmed by its Quinquennial Review and, potentially, echoed in the thematic refocusing of the Lord Mayor’s Appeal Charity (LMAC), but also send a clear message to other London funders in a call to arms to address the crisis currently facing civil society in the capital.
1.4 Summary recommendations
3 A full list of interviewees is provided in Annex 2 to this document
Page 113 Rocket Science 2016 Review of CBT’s Strategic Initiative on Philanthropy – Final Report Page 6
Seven overarching recommendations from the Review are set out immediately below, followed by a number of proposed actions for the Trust to consider under each of the “4 Cs” (ie Coordination; Communication; Convening and Collaboration):
1) Signal a step change in the philanthropic work of the City of London Corporation and Mansion House by refocusing the charitable work of the Lord Mayor’s office so that it has a more strategic aim of increasing awareness about philanthropy in London, the UK and globally. The Trust should support proposals to reinvigorate the Lord Mayor’s Appeal Charity (LMAC)4 so that it too becomes more strategic, providing a lead for other philanthropy within the City, raising funds to support priority themes (eg employability; health and well-being) rather than for the Lord Mayor’s personally-selected individual charities. These themes need to align with those of CBT, the Economic Development Office and other grant making of the City Corporation. 2) Establish and resource a new philanthropy unit at the Guildhall, alongside the City Bridge Trust, EDO, Heart of the City and City Philanthropy, in order to effect more collaborative working and reduce the propensity to operate in silos. Repurpose the currently vacant post of Appeal Director and establish a new post of Head of City Philanthropy to lead the unit (see Figure 1 below). 3) Articulate a new City Strategy on Philanthropy supported by a clear communications plan, including a few key metrics for measuring impact and assessing the effectiveness of the Trust’s future investments. 4) Commission a formative evaluation in order to support and inform the output and outcomes from the Trust’s strategic initiative and its reshaping of philanthropy in c21st London. 5) Use these tools to report bi-annually on the state of philanthropy in London – ie building on The Philanthropy Review (2011/12) - and establish this as the authoritative, bi-annual survey Capital Giving - the state of philanthropy in London. 6) Focus future investment and support on two philanthropy brands which provide the outlet for delivering the City’s strategy – City Philanthropy: a wealth of opportunity (issues/causes) and London’s Giving: place-based fundraising (places). 7) Use the coincidence of the Trust’s Quinquennial Review and the completion of the restructuring of the Lord Mayor’s Appeal Charity to convene an international conference in 2017 to showcase London as a global centre of philanthropy.
Coordination (and leadership)
· Broker more introductions and connections between projects (eg Heart of the City jealously guards its corporate contacts when some of HotC’s Newcomers may be potential beneficiaries of BeyondMe, or possible co-sponsors of City Funding Network). There are also links to be better exploited between Spice/Heart of the City and local place-based giving schemes as these develop in different parts of London. · “Walk the Talk” – given that “charity starts at home” it has been noted how there is currently no giving circle/network, or BeyondMe team, at the City of London Corporation. This is something which City Philanthropy is currently looking to address.
4 Please see the separate review of the LMAC which explores this opportunity in more detail
Page 114 Rocket Science 2016 Review of CBT’s Strategic Initiative on Philanthropy – Final Report Page 7
Communication – monitoring and reporting
· Set clearer strategic and evaluation frameworks for a future initiative on philanthropy, including a baseline (ie drawing on City Philanthropy’s commissioned research) and targets that the Trust would like to achieve over the next five years. · Demand more from the Trust’s investments in projects, such as better tracking and follow up with new donors attending funding networks, or requiring the Beacon Awards more actively to mobilise the experienced Beacon Fellowship as an asset for promoting more City philanthropy. · Investigate the potential of funding a City of London crowd-funding/philanthropy technology platform which can be accessible and provide different levels of functionality to different types of user (ie funders, philanthropists, and charities/civil society organisations).
Convening
· Coordinate the setting up of thematic advisory groups, each of three years’ duration, comprising networks of city professionals and key stakeholders in order to support the new- look Lord Mayor’s Appeal Charity, but also to provide strategic support and advice to the Trust’s other philanthropic initiatives, including the Trust itself. · Identify opportunities to collaborate with the new LSE Marshall Institute on Philanthropy, something which the Beacon Awards/UKCF are already exploring, and the Mayor’s Fund for London/City Hall in order significantly to raise the profile of London as a leading global centre of best practice in philanthropy.
Collaboration and co-investment
· Support a 100 City Philanthropist Leaders Network – potentially co-opting past winners and fellows of the Beacon Awards along with both leading City High Net Worth Individuals as well as some of the new breed of Millennial givers. · Market test the viability of a bonus giving pledge from within the City’s financial/ professional services sector and the most appropriate and tax efficient vehicle for its disbursement (potentially via City Bridge Trust) on agreed priority issues and needs. · Redirect the Trust’s funding and contract management of the City Funding Network via City Philanthropy in order to ensure greater tracking and sustainability of millennial philanthropy. · Continue to support London’s Giving capacity building service with a focus on four aspects: o Communication and influencing – using events and networks to promote and inspire local areas to explore the opportunity of a place-based giving scheme o Direct advice and support – providing capacity building through consultancy or peer- to-peer support to help schemes get off the ground o Creating a seed/development fund to support emerging schemes in different areas of the capital which are perceived to have the requisite capacity and leadership o Sharing learning within the London Funders’ community as local giving schemes develop, focusing on their sustainability in line with the direction of travel for future
Page 115 Rocket Science 2016 Review of CBT’s Strategic Initiative on Philanthropy – Final Report Page 8
support of London’s civil society organisations as presented in The Way Ahead review.5
City Philanthropy City Funding Network C London’s Giving Place-based giving
B LMAC City Giving Day T
Responsible Business Place
Heart of the City Prosperity
People
Figure 1: The City Bridge Trust’s strategic initiative on philanthropy in relation to the Corporation of London’s cross-cutting themes of People, Place and Prosperity
2. CBT’s Strategic Initiative on Philanthropy
2.1 Objectives of the Review
The Trust commissioned the following independent review of a series of its investments amounting to around £2.8m which, since 2011, have sought to embed a culture of philanthropy and encourage the effective giving of time, money and resources in order to benefit London’s disadvantaged communities.6 The City Bridge Trust’s strategic initiative on Philanthropy has been described as largely
5 The Way Ahead: Civil Society at the Heart of London, City Bridge Trust and London Funders, April 2016 6 A list of the Trust’s investments, and those projects within the scope of this Review, are included in Annex 1.
Page 116 Rocket Science 2016 Review of CBT’s Strategic Initiative on Philanthropy – Final Report Page 9
“organic” and “opportunistic” in its development. It is not so much a single initiative as a varied programme of grant-aided projects, several of which have acquired considerable traction and amplification over time.
As the Trust’s grants officers concur, the use of the term “strategic initiative” rather gives the projects a degree of coordination and coherence which has not always, or perhaps sufficiently, been apparent. This Review is intended to assist the Trust to identify the connections and potential interaction between the projects, and recommend how these and other investments can achieve greater strategic impact.
The outputs from the review, undertaken during April and May 2016, comprise an interim scene- setting paper, which assesses the changing context of philanthropy in London, as well as five “mini” reviews, one on each of the Trust’s main investments in promoting philanthropy.7 Together these provide the evidence base which underpins this report and its recommendations.
2.2 A changed backdrop to CBT’s promotion of Philanthropy
Some of the original drivers behind the Trust’s investment in promoting philanthropy, including the perceived need to reposition the City of London in the wake of the banking crisis and the threat from the Occupy London movement, may have weakened. However, they have been more than overtaken by a realisation, both in and outside the City that, in the context of the biggest retraction of state spending since the Second World War, both individual and corporate philanthropy have acquired significantly renewed importance to the future of London’s civil society.8
Unsurprisingly, therefore, in the four years since the CBT Committee considered its response to the City of London Corporation’s Strategy on Philanthropy,9 the nature of philanthropy has changed and become increasingly diverse in its expression (though the continued use of traditional language and terminology does not readily convey this). It also encompasses an array of different forms of giving. Philanthropy in the City is far more sophisticated than simply the donating of money or its transfer from rich to poor. It covers a wide range of motivations from purely altruistic charitable giving to the increasingly sophisticated social investment. London’s “philanthropy market place” is also becoming quite crowded with different initiatives, brokers and connectors enabling both individual and corporate givers to support and engage in civil society.
Philanthropy tends by its very nature to be based on personal or private choice. Whilst “letting a thousand flowers bloom” has been one approach to enabling philanthropy in London, in a reflection of the current zeitgeist there is growing interest in a city-wide effort to harness greater philanthropic giving as an agent of social change in the capital. Millennials employed in the City are increasingly beginning to change the way some of the large financial/professional services companies engage with charities and Voluntary Community and Social Enterprises (VCSEs). New programmes, including some supported by CBT, designed from the bottom-up to empower employees are replacing traditional top-
7 The 5 separate mini reviews comprise reports on: City Philanthropy: A Wealth of Opportunity; London’s Giving; Heart of the City; The Lord Mayor’s Appeal Charity; Londoner Time Credits. 8 These themes, and their significance as drivers of a new era of philanthropy, are explored more fully in the Context and Scene Setting paper (Annex 3). 9 See City Bridge Trust Committee papers, 27th September 2012
Page 117 Rocket Science 2016 Review of CBT’s Strategic Initiative on Philanthropy – Final Report Page 10
down corporate giving models, such as “Charity of the Year”, which have tended to channel and co- opt staff fundraising and volunteering.10
2.3 What have we learnt from the review of CBT’s work on philanthropy?
CBT’s vision and objectives on philanthropy are not clear; what does the Trust want to achieve from a new strategic initiative? Is its focus the celebration and hence promotion of philanthropy per se in all its guises – ie the effective giving of cash/resources in-kind; time and expertise - or a concentration on the stimulation of new forms and models of philanthropy (targeting the City’s millennials)? As one of the Trust’s partners asked, is this about the quantity or quality of City philanthropy (or both)?
Some believe the Trust should be looking to make a clearer distinction between philanthropic giving and social investment - the former is made in the hope of achieving a social benefit, but without expectation of this necessarily being achieved or demonstrated; in the case of the latter there is a clear and pre-agreed expectation of a financial return as well as social benefit. Similarly, others argue that the Trust is muddying the waters by including City companies’ Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) under its banner of philanthropy. CSR encompasses an increasingly broad range of activity, essentially all aspects of how a company interacts with society, of which community investment may only be a small part. Larger companies’ tendency to use their community programmes as an adjunct of their brand positioning and marketing, as opposed to a more charitable endeavour, means that they are also more likely to seek differentiation and competitive advantage, rather than a strategic partnership and common purpose.
Linkages and connections between projects funded by the Trust are being missed. In part this is a consequence of the lack of time or resource which needs to be devoted to making this happen, but it is also in part a reflection of the competitive and proprietorial nature of projects ie they are not naturally doing it themselves and may need stronger incentives from the Trust to do so. It is paradoxical that intermediary organisations funded by CBT, which share a common goal of increasing philanthropy, can become highly competitive and self-promoting to the point that behaviours become anti-collaborative. 2.4 How does the Trust measure success?
Each of the philanthropy projects funded by CBT is very different. However, their lacking an overarching evaluation framework or set of metrics, perpetuates the tendency to measure and count inputs/activities and outputs, rather than assess outcomes and impact. Inconsistency also exists in the projects’ different approaches to the possible monetization of non-financial giving.
Whilst recognising the danger that the process of measurement can become disproportionate, overwhelming projects which may not have sufficient capacity to meet a funder’s expectations and distracting them from their raison d’etre, there is still a sense that this field is lacking in terms of harder evidence of the outcomes and effects of stimulating philanthropy. Opportunities exist to learn and share more from each other and to develop a few key metrics, such as an agreed measurement of leverage (ie the ratio of giving, including value in kind, secured from the money invested) and more
10 BeyondMe is a good example of one such programme which features in our separate review of CBT’s support of City Philanthropy: A Wealth of Opportunity
Page 118 Rocket Science 2016 Review of CBT’s Strategic Initiative on Philanthropy – Final Report Page 11
consistent and effective tracking and follow up of philanthropists, in order to assess the sustainability and duration of engagement by individuals and of corporates (ie as givers; as partners with charities; as recruiters of others to a particular place or cause).
2.5 An investment framework for a strategic initiative on philanthropy
Drawing on the recommendations from the 5 mini reviews, the following framework is intended to help CBT articulate both the kind of investment it should be making in philanthropic initiatives and the rationale for the timescale and balance of that investment over the next five years. We have identified five areas that require investment, all at different levels: · Researching and evidencing – this is an important area of work in order to help demonstrate the potential role of philanthropy in supporting civil society in c21st London. However, it has to be focused, clearly linked to the strategic aims and objectives of the Trust and an opportunity to collaborate with others. · Innovating and testing new ideas – CBT has proved it has been an enabler of new models of giving and it should continue to be so. This review suggests that, whilst the Trust has invested significantly in innovating and testing new ideas over the past 3-4 years, future investment should focus on better coordination between initiatives as well as supporting the scaling and replicating of some of these. Having a smaller discrete fund for testing new innovations, as and when they arise, will ensure that the Trust remains open to supporting new ideas. · Scaling and replicating ideas – CBT has amassed a wealth of practice and experience from taking forward initiatives such as place-based giving. If this is to have a greater impact for Londoners, it needs further investment in order to scale up and complement future support for civil society organisations, as identified in The Way Ahead.11 Extending place-based giving in areas of the capital with high levels of need will take time and probably require the greatest level of investment. · Supporting and inspiring others - CBT is an exemplar funder and needs to use its connections and influence to support and inspire others to take up and fund new forms of giving through co-investment and/or providing complementary support. We think this is a discrete function for investment, either into bodies such as London Funders for London’s Giving, and/or into a dedicated post or unit within the Trust to take this work to other funders and investors. · Supporting a sustainable future (funding exit) – The challenge with necessarily funding initiatives over a long period of time is the risk of organisational dependency on the funder. Organisations often find it difficult to create the time and space to think critically and objectively about their future. A discrete fund needs to be made available to projects to help them exit from CBT funding within the last 18 months of their grant, using independent advice and support to secure a sustainable future. This will help to protect both the organisation and safeguard CBTs original investment.
In the following table, we have suggested notional allocations of funding, purely to illustrate where we feel the balance of investment needs to lie across the Trust’s supporting philanthropy portfolio. We also suggest the timeline and pre-requisites for investment, particularly when scaling and replicating
11 The Way Ahead: Civil Society at the Heart of London, City Bridge Trust and London Funders, April 2016
Page 119 Rocket Science 2016 Review of CBT’s Strategic Initiative on Philanthropy – Final Report Page 12
ideas; this is an important message as results can take time, requiring a longer funding commitment and possibly significant shifts in the balance of the Trust’s future grant-making.
Page 120 Rocket Science 2016 Review of CBT’s Strategic Initiative on Philanthropy – Final Report Page 13
Researching and Innovating and testing new Scaling and replicating ideas Supporting and inspiring Supporting a sustainable evidencing ideas others future (funding exit)
Example Place based giving report Spice (Year 1 and 2) Heart of the City/Place-based City Philanthropy/London’s Organisational support City Philanthropy research Giving/Spice Giving
Key Short sharp insights Test new models of delivery/ideas Existing evidence that it works Supporting wider messaging Helping established projects features relevant to area of work for harnessing giving and has potential to scale and strategic working with to exit from CBT funding other funders to scale and Developing evidence to Require evidence of Seeding projects in new areas replicate – establish joint Focus on organisation and enable change need/potential funds/match sustainability support Supporting existing projects to May have been developed develop further Providing consultancy advice Flexible, but include duns- elsewhere and now linking into and support raising/access to other London investment Page 121 Page
Conditions Ideally matched with other Clear link to funding outcomes Potential match funding Within existing network Existing grant-holders who for funding funding identified and/or dedicated available have been funded for longer Independent evaluation with resource than 5 years Clearly linked to funding recommendations for Clear link to funding outcomes outcomes/key areas of scaling/replication and working with others Experts and resources Targeted to protect work including evaluation available (possible CBT post) investment by building a sustainable business model Collaboration/links to Clear plans for on-going Clear monitoring and post exit other funders/initiatives sustainability and fundraising performance metrics/client Independent assessment of feedback needs/support
Allocation 5% 15% 60% 15% 5%
Timelines As required 1-2 years 3-5 years 3-5 years Within last 1-2 years
Figure 2: An investment framework for CBT’s strategic initiative on philanthropy
Rocket Science UK Ltd 2016 Review of CBT’s Strategic Initiative on Philanthropy – Final Report Page 14
3. Conclusions and Recommendations
The City Bridge Trust’s grants for encouraging philanthropy have been broadly categorised as having one or more of the following aims12:
· Evidencing the need for more philanthropy – and trying to establish how much giving of time, talent and money is taking place in an informed and effective way · Educating more people in philanthropy · Inspiring and encouraging more philanthropy · Coordinating and networking people interested in philanthropy to each other and areas of need.
Our conclusions and recommendations reflect the extent to which the Trust’s investments have so far contributed to achieving these aims; what it might stop doing or do differently, and how it can further “encourage, support and celebrate responsible City businesses and workers to change the lives of hundreds and thousands of Londoners.”13 These are presented under the following headings – Coordination, Communication, Convening and Collaborating/Co-investing - in order to differentiate between the future types of intervention and investments the Trust might make. Those highlighted in bold type face comprise the strategic/overarching recommendations.
3.1 Coordination (and leadership)
There is unanimity among those whom we interviewed as part of this Review14 that City Bridge Trust’s promotion of philanthropy has had a largely positive impact. One recurring concern, however, is that there is “too much initiative and not enough strategy.” Several of the projects which have come under the umbrella of the strategic initiative suggested they would benefit from having greater focus if there was stronger coordination and leadership from the City of London Corporation and the Trust.
Recommendations the Trust should consider, therefore, are:
· Support the work which is currently underway to restructure and reposition the Lord Mayor’s Appeal Charity along thematic lines based on three-year partnerships with a handful of charities which are relevant to London and its pressing social needs. · Use the repositioning of the Lord Mayor’s Appeal Charity and the Trust’s Quinquennial Review as an opportune moment to launch a new City of London Corporation Strategy on Philanthropy, fleshing out the one-page Core Message on Responsible Business, Philanthropy and Giving.
12 City Bridge Trust – report of Chief Grants Officer, 23 September 2015 13 “Core message on responsible business, philanthropy and giving” prepared by the Director of Communications of the Corporation of London, 2016 14 A full list of interviewees is provided in Annex 2 to this document
Page 122 Rocket Science UK Ltd 2016 Review of CBT’s Strategic Initiative on Philanthropy – Final Report Page 15
· Bring the Lord Mayor’s Appeal Charity into a new philanthropy unit at the Guildhall, alongside the City Bridge Trust, EDO, Heart of the City and City Philanthropy, in order to effect more collaborative working and reduce the propensity to operate in silos. Repurpose the currently vacant post of Appeal Director and establish a new post of Head of City Philanthropy to lead the unit. · Broker more introductions and connections between projects (eg Heart of the City jealously guards its corporate contacts when some of HotC’s Newcomers may be potential beneficiaries of BeyondMe, or possible co-sponsors of City Funding Network). There are also links to be better exploited between Spice/Heart of the City and local place-based giving schemes as these develop in different parts of London. This would avoid duplication whilst ensuring that the Trust gets greater impact from its investment, something which it might achieve also through introducing more of its mainstream grant recipients to sources of philanthropic support which is what Heart of the City’s new technology platform is designed to achieve. · “Walk the Talk” – given that “charity starts at home” it was noted how, for example, there is currently no giving circle/network, or BeyondMe team, at the City of London Corporation. This is something which City Philanthropy is currently looking to address.
3.2 Communication – monitoring and reporting
There have been various efforts to try to communicate the connections and inter-relationships between the various projects and investments which comprise the Trust’s strategic work to promote philanthropy.15 It is a difficult balance to strike between this search for order and the desire to systematize everything, and an acceptance that philanthropy (like the charitable sector it tries to sustain) is inherently unpredictable and difficult to control.
A more appropriate representation of the Trust’s investments than a rigid organisation chart is a Venn diagram (see Figure 1 p.8) which better conveys both the actual and potential fluidity of projects’ inter-relationships, as well as their place in terms of the City of London Corporation’s priority cross- cutting themes of People, Place and Prosperity. The apparent messiness created by the current raft of projects does not necessarily matter (ie a potential business philanthropist will not be interested in which particular initiative is delivering a service) so long as the communication and collaboration between them, and any handover from one initiative to another is seamless; the proposed single philanthropy unit will facilitate this process.
The core message on responsible business, philanthropy and giving issued by the City of London Corporation’s Director of Communications, is an effective, but largely internal communique which conveys how different initiatives relate to the shared objectives to “encourage, support and celebrate” City philanthropy. This now needs to be developed into a communications plan in order to support the delivery of a philanthropy strategy.
In developing the strategy, CBT needs to decide whether it continues to treat philanthropy and charitable giving as distinct from social finance and investment. City Bridge Trust currently describes
15 For example, see Appendix 1 of City Bridge Trust committee paper “Philanthropy” 23rd September 2015
Page 123 Rocket Science 2016 Review of CBT’s Strategic Initiative on Philanthropy – Final Report Page 16
itself as having 3 key areas of activity: grant making; social investment and encouraging philanthropy. In undertaking its forthcoming Quinquennial Review and repositioning its work on philanthropy, the Trust will need to reflect on how it ensures these three elements are more closely aligned if not increasingly co-joined.
Philanthropy encompasses a wide array of individual and organisational motivations from pure altruism, via notions of “enlightened self-interest” to encompass those looking potentially to turn the meeting of social needs into a quasi-commercial market. In short, a different form of communication is needed externally in order to target would-be and existing philanthropists, both corporate and individual; one which focuses less on structures and initiatives, and more on the potential philanthropic journey which a business or employee may go on, along with clear signposts to the different entry or starting points on the journey and how they can be supported along it (eg via City Philanthropy’s networks and workshops). As several people have commented in the course of this Review, “today’s philanthropists are potentially tomorrow’s foundations” (see Figure 3).
Figure 3: From Philanthropic Journeys by Beth Breeze, University of Kent, for Pilotlight, 2013
A critical foundation of the Trust’s ability to communicate the importance and value of its work on philanthropy is an effective process of monitoring and reporting on the impact of its investments. We have been struck by how the same degree of rigour which is applied to projects’ development and due diligence pre-grant, is not currently applied to their monitoring, analysis or reporting. This is partly a consequence of the Trust’s grants officers’ being insufficiently resourced to undertake this work to the level required. It is also a reflection of the lack of a monitoring and evaluation framework which can be applied across such a diverse range of projects. However, some of the same technology platforms which are now being used to tap new or latent sources of giving, including crowd funding, also offer
Page 124 Rocket Science 2016 Review of CBT’s Strategic Initiative on Philanthropy – Final Report Page 17
funders like CBT a potentially more efficient and appropriate means to track and measure the effects of philanthropic initiatives.
Recommendations the Trust should consider, therefore, are:
· Articulate a new City Strategy on Philanthropy supported by a clear communication plan, including a few key metrics for measuring impact, assessing the effectiveness of the Trust’s future investments. Set clearer strategic and evaluation frameworks for a future initiative on philanthropy, including a baseline (ie drawing on City Philanthropy’s commissioned research) and targets that the Trust would like to achieve over the next five years. · Increase the internal programme/grant management resources available within the Trust in order to monitor, analyse, support and manage its philanthropic initiatives, 2017-22, as part of the setting up of the proposed philanthropy unit within the Guildhall. · Demand more from the Trust’s investments in projects, such as better tracking and follow up with new donors attending funding networks, or requiring the Beacon Awards more actively to mobilise the experienced Beacon Fellowship as an asset for promoting more City philanthropy. · Investigate the potential of funding a City of London crowd-funding/philanthropy technology platform which can be accessible and provide different levels of functionality to different types of user (ie funders, philanthropists, and charities/civil society organisations). Indeed the Trust needs to consider how its different investments to support technology platforms (eg the Trust’s own re-vamped website; for City Philanthropy and Heart of the City) might achieve more through shared connectivity and on-line tools. · Mark the launch of the City of London Corporation’s Strategy on Philanthropy by publishing a London Philanthropy Review - building on The Philanthropy Review (2011/12) and look to establish this as the authoritative bi-annual survey Capital Giving - the state of philanthropy in London.
3.3 Convening
At present the potential of using the Corporation of London and the Mayoralty in order to leverage effective philanthropy for the benefit of London is not being fully realised. In part this is because of the different silos that exist within the Corporation of London and Mansion House, which are then played out in the competitive rather than collaborative way their respective projects and initiatives choose to work. But it also seems to be a consequence of the hitherto narrowly-focused approach to fundraising on an annual basis for the Lord Mayor’s charities of choice.16
Recommendations the Trust should consider are:
· Coordinate the setting up of thematic advisory groups, each of three years’ duration, comprising networks of city professionals and key stakeholders in order to support the new-
16 These issues are explored more fully in a separate review of the Lord Mayor’s Appeal Charity
Page 125 Rocket Science 2016 Review of CBT’s Strategic Initiative on Philanthropy – Final Report Page 18
look Lord Mayor’s Appeal Charity, but also to provide related support and advice to the Trust’s other philanthropic initiatives, including the Trust itself. · Signal the strategic shift in the charitable work of the Lord Mayor’s Appeal Charity by convening a London Philanthropy Summit in 2017 to raise the City’s profile and set the debate on how best to harness corporate and individual giving in the interests of London’s civil society over the next decade. · Identify opportunities to collaborate with the new LSE Marshall Institute on Philanthropy, something which the Beacon Awards/UKCF are already exploring, and the Mayor’s Fund for London/City Hall in order significantly to raise the profile of London as a leading global centre of best practice in philanthropy.
3.4 Collaborating and co-investing
The Trust’s considerable investments in promoting philanthropy over the last 5 years have created a number of assets in the form of complementary philanthropic brands (ie City Philanthropy and London’s Giving), communication tools and access to numerous City giving networks. The latter range from groups of Millennials, starting out in philanthropy, to highly-experienced groups of High Net Worth Individuals; from individual local giving coalitions to a network of London funders committed to a programme of place-based giving across London.
In conducting this review, we were left with a strong impression that the Trust has the opportunity to make more of these assets by identifying ways it can continue to support collaboration between giving initiatives and funders of philanthropic activity, both within the City and outside, and to co-invest with them. Among the opportunities, which were mentioned in the course of the review, and which come under one or other of the Trust’s main brands for promoting philanthropy are:
City Philanthropy – a wealth of opportunity
· Supporting a 100 City Philanthropist Leaders Network – potentially co-opting past winners and fellows of the Beacon Awards along with both leading City High Net Worth Individuals as well as some of the new breed of Millennial givers · Rigorously market testing the viability of a bonus giving pledge from within the City’s financial/professional services sector and the most appropriate and tax efficient vehicle for its disbursement (potentially via City Bridge Trust) on agreed priority issues and needs · Redirecting the Trust’s funding and contract management of the City Funding Network via City Philanthropy in order to ensure greater tracking and sustainability of millennial philanthropy · Showcasing the latest innovations and application of technology further to promote and celebrate the City’s giving.
London’s Giving – place-based fundraising
Page 126 Rocket Science 2016 Review of CBT’s Strategic Initiative on Philanthropy – Final Report Page 19
· Continuing support for the London’s Giving capacity building service over the next three years with a particular focus on: o Communication and influencing – eg using events and networks to promote and inspire local areas to explore the opportunity of a place-based giving scheme, as well as communicate the offer and potential to other funders and investors o Direct advice and support – providing some direct capacity building through consultancy or peer-to-peer support to help schemes get off the ground o Sharing learning within the London Funders’ community as local giving schemes develop, focusing on their longer-term sustainability and embedding system change in line with the anticipated direction of travel for future support of London’s civil society organisations presented in The Way Ahead review.17
· As place-based giving challenges traditional approaches to philanthropy and existing forms of civil society support, we recommend investing in an independent view of how London’s Giving develops over the next three years. This could be in the form of a formative evaluation or annual review, seen through a wider public policy lens. An independent evaluation should add credibility to local initiatives and encourage more thinking on what this strand of 21st century philanthropy needs to be like in London. · Finally, we recommend that some development funding is ring-fenced to support emerging schemes in different areas of the capital. The size of each grant will depend on local need and be related to the perceived capacity of the local infrastructure and its leadership. This seed fund should go hand in hand with capacity building support. Working with London Funders, CBT should co-invest with others who are interested in place-based giving, such as the Big Lottery Fund, the GLA/LEP and relatively new elements of local infrastructure support such as Business Improvement Districts and the Community Infrastructure Levy, in order to develop matched funds to support and add to the CBT’s own investment.
17 The Way Ahead: Civil Society at the Heart of London, City Bridge Trust and London Funders, April 2016
Page 127 Rocket Science 2016 Review of CBT’s Strategic Initiative on Philanthropy – Final Report Page 20
Annex (1) City Bridge Trust grants to promote and encourage philanthropy
City Philanthropy: a Wealth of Opportunity is a project of the Association of Charitable Foundations (ACF). Its vision is that every young professional entering the City is empowered to maximise their potential as a force for good and it aims to expose young professionals in the city to philanthropy, to provide support to people on their philanthropic journey and to promote philanthropy in the city. Its key role is to connect with young professionals through a range of initiatives to co-ordinate, collaborate and communicate philanthropic activities in the city. Initiatives include: philanthropy networks; events; educational resources; advice and bulletins.
City Philanthropy, and its predecessor, Philanthropy UK, has received £462k since 2010. Under the umbrella of City Philanthropy, CBT has funded three city funding networks: The Funding Network; the City Funding Network and Beyond Me, as well as a new category in the Beacon Awards for City philanthropy.
· The Funding Network: describes itself as “the friendly Dragons' Den for charities and potential donors. It brings people together at live crowdfunding events to raise vital funds, transform lives and create lasting social change.” It is a membership organisation. · Beyond Me: describes itself as “a movement dedicated to promoting generosity in leadership. We believe that by being generous, leaders can substantially improve society, their businesses and themselves.’” It was awarded £41k in 2012 over 3 years · The Beacon Awards recognise individuals whose philanthropy has achieved demonstrable impact. The bi-annual awards were given a grant of £32,500 in April 2012 to create a new category award, the Beacon Award for City Philanthropy. A further grant of £50,000 was awarded in May 2014 towards the 2014/16 Beacon Award for City Philanthropy.
Heart of the City was founded in 2000. It is a network of 700 small medium and large businesses committed to sharing their experiences and their time with others in order to measurably improve society, particularly by making corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) easily accessible. It has been awarded £543,828 since 2009, though only its latest grant of £278,328 is in the scope of this review.
London’s Giving (place–based giving initiatives): Islington Giving: received £239,500 in two grants 2011 and 2014. It works to tackle poverty and inequality in Islington. The East End Community Fund: awarded a grant in 2015 of £172,500 to develop local giving networks in Hackney, Newham and Tower Hamlets. London’s Giving: awarded £100k in 2014 to develop place-based giving in other Boroughs. London’s Giving is hosted by London’s Funders. A grant of £20,000 was awarded in December 2015, to establish a local giving scheme in LB Sutton, through its local CVS.
Spice volunteer time-banking - Spice was awarded grants in 2011, 2012 and 2014 totaling £713,680 to develop its innovative approach to time-banking in London. Spice works through a partnership of the private, public and voluntary sectors. Volunteers earn time credits or ‘spice pounds’ that can be exchanged for leisure and recreational activities or donated.
Page 128 Rocket Science 2016 Review of CBT’s Strategic Initiative on Philanthropy – Final Report Page 21
Lord Mayor’s Appeal Charity and City Giving Day - £67,500 was given to establish the Lord Mayor’s Appeal Charity in 2014. In 2015 the Director of City Philanthropy worked closely with the Lord Mayor’s Appeal charity over the development of City Giving Day.
· Philanthropy: the City Story - CBT funded the City Philanthropy exhibition in partnership with Charterhouse and the Museum of London in 2013 with a grant of £152k, and a grant of £15k to fund an accompanying book, of which £7,216 was returned from book sales. · Other research which supports the promotion of philanthropy - grants totaling £55,000 to London Funders to commission scoping research into the future of civil society support in London; a grant of £19,000 to Centre for London, to undertake the first phase of a wider strategic review of giving in the capital. A grant of £5,000 to IVAR towards a place-based funding review.
Projects Grant 1 Grant 2 Grant 3 Grant 4 Total grants City Philanthropy £80,000 £160,000 £222,000 £204,000 £666,000 The Funding Network £30,000 £30,000 £60,000 Beyond Me £41,000 £71,750 £112,750 The Beacon Awards £32,500 £50,000 £82,500 Corporate Giving Heart of the City £278,328 £278,328 Place-based giving Islington Giving £119,500 £120,000 £239,500 East End Community Fund £172,500 £172,500 London's Giving project £100,000 £32,000 £132,000 Sutton - local giving project £20,000 £20,000 IVAR - place based giving research £5,000 £5,000 Volunteering Spice – Time Credits £163,980 £164,500 £385,200 £713,680 Lord Mayor's Appeal Lord Mayor's Appeal Charity £65,000 £65,000 Miscellaneous City Philanthropy Exhibition £152,000 £152,000 Publication £15,000 £15,000 Future of Civil Society commission £50,000 £55,000 Centre for London /CASS £19,000 £19,000 TOTAL £2,788,258
NB: The grants shown in italics (£246,000 in total) were outside the scope of this review.
Page 129 Rocket Science 2016 Review of CBT’s Strategic Initiative on Philanthropy – Final Report Page 22
Annex (2) Stakeholders interviewed for the Review
We are particularly grateful to the following for giving up time and sharing their insights with us in order to inform the Review:
Rob Abercrombie, New Philanthropy Capital * Sufina Ahmad, Big Lottery Fund * John Barradell, City of London Corporation Mark Boleat, City of London Corporation Noa Burger, City of London Corporation Charles Bowman, City of London Corporation Cheryl Chapman, City Philanthropy – a Wealth of Opportunity William Chapman, The Lord Mayor’s Office Neil Chrimes, The Lord Mayor’s Office Paul Double, City of London Corporation Peter Estlin, City of London Corporation David Farnsworth, City Bridge Trust Rosie Farrer – Spice Jenny Field – City Bridget Trust Graham Fisher, Toynbee Hall Fabian French – UK Community Foundations / Beacon Awards Charity Kristina Glenn – Cripplegate Foundation/Islington Giving Alison Gowman, City of London Corporation / City Bridge Trust Carolyn Housman – Heart of the City Kate Marsh, The Funding Network Bridget McGing, Pears Foundation * Bharat Mehta, Trust for London Karen Millen, The Funding Network Lakraj Minhas – Westminster City Council Rosie Mockett, Big Lottery Fund Matthew Patten, Mayor’s Fund for London Ben Rogers, Centre for London Jackie Rosenberg – Paddington Development Trust Ian Seaton, City of London Corporation Liz Skelcher – City of London Corporation Clare Thomas – London’s Giving Mike Tuffrey – The Corporate Citizenship Company * Tracey Walsh – East End Community Foundation David Warner – London Funders Karl Wilding – National Council of Voluntary Organisations * Deborah Xavier – London’s giving
* Denotes a member of the project reference group/advisory panel. We also convened a focus group with grants officers from the City Bridge Trust.
Page 130 Rocket Science 2016 Review of CBT’s Strategic Initiative on Philanthropy – Final Report Page 23
Annex (3) Setting the Scene
London: a city of increasing inequality and growing demand
London is a city of contradictions. It is the wealthiest part of the country, but also its most unequal, with some of the highest levels of poverty in the UK.18 According to London’s 2015 Poverty Profile, the capital contains the highest proportion (15%) of people in families with incomes in the bottom tenth nationally and the second highest proportion (15%) of people in the top tenth, after the South East (see Figure 1).19 The London Fairness Commission suggests that for every £1 of wealth owned by the bottom 10% of London households, the top 10% owns £172.20 In short, London is ‘becoming a city of great divides’.21
Figure 1: The proportion of the population across the UK in the bottom tenth (purple) and the highest tenth (pink). Source: London’s 2015 Poverty Profile
The level of inequality in London has remained consistently high since the mid-1990s. It rose in the late 1990s, fell in the early 2000s, before rising again in the late 2000s, but these changes have been relatively small. One of the major drivers of inequality in London is the disparity in wages between
18 The Observer’s view on London’s wealth gap, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/08/observer-view-on-london 19 London’s 2015 Poverty Profile, Trust for London 20 London Fairness Commission 21 London Communities Commission
Page 131 Rocket Science 2016 Review of CBT’s Strategic Initiative on Philanthropy – Final Report Page 24
high paid and low paid workers. London has the most unequal pay distribution of any part of the UK. The top 10% of employees in London earn at least £1,420 per week, whilst the bottom 10% of employees earn no more than £340. Inequality in London is being driven by the wealth of those at the top.
Although wealth inequality fell between 2006/07 and 2011/12, the London’s 2015 Poverty Profile suggests that this trend is likely to be reversed largely owing to the huge growth in property prices. Property is the largest component of wealth and the value of the most expensive properties is rising faster than the rest, while a growing proportion of Londoners rent in an increasingly unaffordable housing market.
At the same time, as Local Authorities across the country are experiencing severe budget cuts, councils in London are affected than others. According to the Institute of Fiscal Studies22, London boroughs face budget cuts of 6.3% on average in 2016 compared with 1.9% faced by shire counties. London boroughs have also seen the largest average cuts to spending per person (31.4%). Public spending per head in the capital has decreased from £10,943 in 2010/11 to £9,840 in 2014/15.23 Mayor Jules Pipe, Chair of London Councils has stated:
‘London has taken a disproportionate share of the pain in helping to address the deficit and managed almost a 50 per cent reduction in core funding from government over five years.’’24
The significant cuts to Local Authority budgets in London have had a considerable knock-on effect on civil society organisations in the capital. The voluntary, community and social enterprise (VCSE) sector is losing the capacity to respond to growing demand among London’s poorest and most disadvantaged residents owing to declining grant funding and the shift to greater commissioning of services.25 At the same time, many local authorities have also significantly cut back, or even removed their funding of civil society support organisations. According to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) there will be a £4.4 billion shortfall in sector funding across the UK.26 The public spending decisions outlined in the March 2016 budget further undermine the ability of voluntary and community sector organisations (VCSOs) to deliver a positive impact for their beneficiaries.27
London faces the dual challenge of increasing polarisation of wealth and growing demand for public services, a position which is potentially the greatest risk to its success as one of only a handful of truly global cities. “*T+he most likely threat to London is that it becomes a sort of mass gated community of the world’s richest people. It would be a city without young people (except heirs) and without poor people (except those who sneak in or are admitted for brief service deliveries). Then London would
22 http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7621 23 House of Commons Briefing Paper (2015) Public expenditure by country and region, http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04033/SN04033.pdf 24 http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/node/28157 25 London Communities Commission (2016); The Way Ahead – Civil Society at the Heart of London (2016) 26 NCVO (2015) A Financial Sustainability Review 27 Murray, P. and Gripper, R. (2016) ‘A Balancing Act: Charities and the 2016 Budget’, NPC, March
Page 132 Rocket Science 2016 Review of CBT’s Strategic Initiative on Philanthropy – Final Report Page 25
end up looking rather like a massive chilly Monaco – but with high taxes to support all the excluded Britons outside the gates.”28
This apparent “re-Victorianization of London” has also brought back into prominence the great nineteenth century philanthropists, such as George Peabody and Angela Burdett-Coutts, whose altruism was certainly influenced by the perceived threat to the social fabric of London from the massed urban poor. Hence, in its recent call to arms (“Time for a ‘Peabody’ moment?”), the London Fairness Commission talks of “a new philanthropic age *believing+ that the time is ripe for London’s wealthiest residents and businesses to come together in an exemplary social philanthropic effort.” It singles out the Mayor’s Fund as the vehicle for opening a new dialogue with business and wealthy donors.29
Key messages/questions for City Bridge Trust
· London is an increasingly unequal city with growing disparities between its wealthiest and most disadvantaged citizens. The capital has been particularly affected by cuts to local authority budgets which have weakened the capacity of the capital’s VCSE sector. · How can the public and private sectors work with civil society to create a more just, equal and inclusive capital? · What is CBT’s role in forging this cross-sectoral response to London’s problems and how can its initiative on philanthropy encourage a more collaborative and strategic approach to redressing wealth inequalities and growing demand for services?
Philanthropy in an era of austerity
The sustained cuts to public sector budgets and the reduced capacity of the VCSE sector has led to discussions about the need to find alternative funding sources, one of which is philanthropy.30 A new book on philanthropy, published by Charities Aid Foundation, suggests that it will only be when we find a means of combining the efforts of the public, private and VCSE sectors that we will be able to address London’s complex and seemingly intractable issues.31
Philanthropy can be defined as the effective giving of money, time and other resources, such as influence and insight. In the context of austerity, there is increasing interest in the possibility of harnessing the wealth, time and skills of both corporations and individuals to benefit disadvantaged communities. As the Centre for Philanthropy questions:
28 Kuper, S. (2015) This is Freedom – London’s Reinvention. Centre for London Essays, April 2015 29 London Fairness Commission 2016 p53. 30 Harroe, J. and Jung, T. (2016) Philanthropy and community development: the vital signs of community foundation? Community Development Journal 31 Davies, R. (2016) Public good by private means. Charities Aid Foundation
Page 133 Rocket Science 2016 Review of CBT’s Strategic Initiative on Philanthropy – Final Report Page 26
‘Is voluntary charitable giving the best hope for replacing – or at least mitigating – the inevitable cuts in public expenditure?’32
The suggestion that voluntary charitable giving could make up for the cuts in public expenditure is problematic, however, for two reasons, which have been termed ‘philanthropic insufficiency’ and ‘philanthropic particularism’. The former refers to the idea that philanthropic activity will never replace the redistributive role of the state because it is unable to meet the scale of need. In 2014/15, for example, London local government received approximately £21.9 billion of funding to spend on local services.33 This is almost four times greater than the total cash giving by private sources in London (£5.6 billion).
The latter, ‘philanthropic particularism’, refers to the idea that donors choose which causes to invest in and, therefore, respond to needs which they relate to rather than on the basis of objective evidence.34 New Philanthropy Capital has observed that only around 1/5th of donors give rationally, seeking out information to inform their giving.35 Indeed, philanthropy is based on donors’ being able to choose where they direct their gifts. This gives philanthropic activities their strength, but also means that they cannot ensure consistency and equality.36 As Beth Breeze and John Mohan emphasise in a recent article:
‘Reliance on charitable endeavour is inevitably associated with inadequate and inequitable provision.’37
In addition to its relative insufficiency and subjectivity, two other criticisms are often levelled at philanthropy. Philanthropy can be patronising and dehumanising owing to the perceived unequal power relationship between donor and recipient.38 Another is the perceived lack of accountability and transparency within philanthropic institutions.39
Philanthropy will never be able to replace state-funded provision. Nevertheless, it does have the transformative potential to mitigate public sector cuts by meeting needs that lie outside the responsibility of the state, as well as to supplement existing but often diminishing state provision. Indeed, as recent histories of the welfare state tend to emphasise, individual and corporate philanthropy has a far longer history than public spending in shaping the capital and in tackling its social needs. This is not to underplay the influence of the state, but rather to put its recent shrinking in its proper historical context.40 Taking the long view, the current reduction in state spending may not
32 https://www.kent.ac.uk/sspssr/philanthropy/documents/Kent-mag-article-on-Centre-for-Philanthropy-June- 2012-3-year-review.pdf 33 http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/our-key-themes/local-government-finance/local-government-funding- and-expenditure/total-funding 34 Mohan. J. and Breeze, B. (2015) The logic of Charity: Great Expectations in Hard Times 35 New Philanthropy Capital, Money for Good (2013) 36 Davies, R. (2016) Public good by private means. Charities Aid Foundation 37 Breeze, B. and Mohan, J. (2016) ‘Charity in a time of austerity: great expectations in hard times’ New Statesman, 21 January http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/welfare/2016/01/charity-time-austerity-great- expectations-hard-times 38 Davies, R. (2016) Public good by private means. Charities Aid Foundation 39 Sasaki, D. (2016) ‘What is Philanthropy For?’ http://davidsasaki.name/2016/04/what-is-philanthropy-for/ 40 Bradley, K. (2009) Poverty, Philanthropy and the State: Charities and the Working Classes in London
Page 134 Rocket Science 2016 Review of CBT’s Strategic Initiative on Philanthropy – Final Report Page 27
be a temporary or short-term measure, in which case the next phase of the CBT strategic initiative on philanthropy, takes on considerable added significance.
Key messages/questions for City Bridge Trust
· Although there are concerns about philanthropy in relation to its scale and subjectivity, it has the potential to mitigate some of the public sector cuts, and certain of these weaknesses can be turned into an advantage by, for example, recognising and exploiting philanthropy’s capacity to innovate and fund riskier projects. · The extent of recent austerity measures across the public sector has increased interest in individual philanthropy and corporate giving, but is also a symptom of the level of distress in the voluntary and community sector; as charities and civil society organisations are compelled to “fish in the same pond”, it is unclear where this will end up, but points to the need for greater coordination and collaboration among funders · How can CBT work with partners to exert greater influence over the choices of donors so that these become more closely aligned with London’s most pressing needs, whilst recognising that at the heart of philanthropy is the giver’s freedom to choose?
Philanthropy in London
Wealthy residents in the UK are amongst the most generous in the world; they give away the highest percentage of their declared net wealth at 12.3% and have the second highest average lifetime sum of $32.7 million.41 Although it seems that for the first time since 2011 levels of giving by the FTSE 100 have decreased in real terms, a recent report by Charities Aid Foundation42 suggests that the overall decrease in corporate giving can be attributed to a fall in donations by a handful of organisations. The majority of corporate citizens have increased their charitable donations as a proportion of revenue.
Whilst the exact level or proportion of giving in London is unknown43, recent research suggests that the trend of significant individual and corporate philanthropy across the UK is sustained, if not heightened, for London. Cash giving in the capital is estimated at £5.6 billion a year from all private sources, accounting for 29% of all UK giving. This is a significantly greater proportion than London’s contribution to UK GDP (22%).44 In terms of volunteering, a recent report by City Philanthropy45 found that 39% of London employees volunteer on an ad hoc and/or regular basis.
41 London Fairness Commission 42 Corporate Giving by the FTSE 100, Charities Aid Foundation 43 Centre for London has been commissioned by City Bridge Trust to scope a strategic review of giving in the capital. This piece of research will benchmark giving in London, looking at how donating time and money has developed over recent years and how it compares with similar cities elsewhere. 44 Pharoah, C. and Walker, C. (2015) ‘More to Give: London Millennials networking towards a Better World’ City Philanthropy 45 Pharoah, C. and Walker, C. (2015) ‘More to Give: London Millennials working towards a better world’ City Philanthropy
Page 135 Rocket Science 2016 Review of CBT’s Strategic Initiative on Philanthropy – Final Report Page 28
The City Philanthropy report also suggests that millennials46 are more likely than older employees to be engaged in philanthropic activities in London. The report found that of the 80% of workers who give money, 78% of these are under 35. Similarly, 43% of employees aged under 35 in London volunteer for VCSOs, compared with 37% of those aged 35 and over. In London many younger employees have high expectations of how they, their employers and the wealthy should give money, time and insight to benefit London’s disadvantaged communities.
In the year in which London assumed the mantle of European Volunteering Capital, it is timely also to assess the economic value of the giving of time to the making of civil society in London. The Chief Economist of the Bank of England, Andy Haldane, recently argued that because the societal gains from volunteering are not captured by official GDP statistics, its value tends to go unrecognised. Seeking to rectify this, he estimates that an army of 1.25m people across the UK create an annual economic value of at least £50bn;47 proportionately, this is worth £13bn or more per annum to London (equivalent to nearly 1.5% of national GDP).
In terms of motivations for giving in London, friends and acquaintances are the most important role models. 32% of respondents to the City Philanthropy survey cited them as the primary source of influence on their philanthropic activities. The second largest influence on the giving of time, money and insight among Londoners is workplace schemes and initiatives.48 These findings for London are at odds with those of a recent report by New Philanthropy Capital (NPC) suggesting that, across the UK as a whole, donors are more likely to be motivated by cause than personal links, such as requests from friends, family and colleagues.49
Key messages/questions for City Bridget Trust
· CBT’s strategic initiative responded to research which identified the particular interest and motivation among millennials working in the City to give something back. Initiatives like City Philanthropy – A Wealth of Opportunity, BeyondMe and the City Funding Network recognise and exploit the potential of peer groups, corporate teams and networks to increase both the quantity and quality of city philanthropy. · Should CBT continue to prioritise projects which focus on the mobilisation of millennials? How can it do more to encourage the joining up of similar initiatives in order to support individuals’ philanthropic journeys over the course of a career working in the City?
Could London give more and more effectively?
Whilst the UK in general, and London in particular, are generous in terms of the amount of money, time and insight given to charitable causes, there is a strong and growing perception that London and Londoners could do more to scale up philanthropic activities in the capital. For those organisations, like City Bridge Trust, which have set an objective of encouraging more philanthropy, this raises two
46 Millennials – also known as Generation Y – are individuals who were born between the early 1980s and 2000. 47 Haldane, A. (2014) In giving, how much do we receive? The social value of volunteering 48 Millennials – also known as Generation Y – are individuals who were born between the early 1980s and 2000. 49 NPC (2013) Money for Good UK: Understanding donor motivation and behaviour
Page 136 Rocket Science 2016 Review of CBT’s Strategic Initiative on Philanthropy – Final Report Page 29
key questions - where best to focus its effort? And, whether its goal should be to increase the quantity (ie the overall amount), or the quality and effectiveness (ie the demonstrable impact) of giving in London?
Although London has the infrastructure necessary to become a global centre for philanthropy – including expertise, innovative models, as well as favourable tax and regulatory regimes – it cannot currently be seen as such.50 As Pharoah and Walker ask:
‘With Britain’s top 1% owning the same share of wealth as its poorest 55% should we be raising the bar on what we expect from London as a philanthropy hotspot?’51
Indeed, there are 11,500 ultra-high net worth individuals (those with a net worth of at least $30 million) based in the UK, more than half of whom live in London.52 The capital is home to far more billionaires than any other city in the world. The 80 billionaires who inhabit London are worth an estimated £258.044 billion (see Figure below).53
Whilst these figures are striking, they do not say anything about the motivations of these High Net Worth Individuals, or, more specifically, their propensity to link their charitable giving with an affinity to London. Many of these billionaires regard themselves as global citizens, as likely to give money to international charitable causes as they are to addressing the needs of the UK capital; unlike Peabody (London), Cadbury (Birmingham) or Rowntree (York) of old, their attachment to a particular place is weaker. Models of place-based giving (including the London’s Giving initiative) are more likely to appeal to individual and corporate philanthropists who are clearly rooted in a particular community of London.
Still, the goal of increasing the quantity of philanthropy in London is by no means unattainable. There appears to be a strong desire among the working population – particularly the younger generation – to become more philanthropic. In particular, 35% of those aged under 35 and 21% of people aged 35
50 Stephen Lloyd (2012) A capital idea: London as a global centre for philanthropy 51 Pharoah, C. and Walker, C. (2015) ‘More to Give: London Millennials networking towards a Better World’ City Philanthropy 52 London Fairness Commission 53 ibid
Page 137 Rocket Science 2016 Review of CBT’s Strategic Initiative on Philanthropy – Final Report Page 30
and over are recorded as wanting to give more money than they do.54 Engaging just 1% more of London’s population in giving networks is estimated to raise an extra £20 million for charitable causes and offer thousands more hours of pro bono support.55
Businesses in London would also like to see themselves better integrated within their wider community to have greater social impact. Companies told the London Fairness Commission that they would like to have the opportunity to scale up their successful philanthropic initiatives so as to reach a greater proportion of London’s population.56 The arguably harder challenge of making philanthropy more effective seems closely linked to one of the inherent weaknesses in private giving; the difficulty of influencing individual or corporate activity so that it can be better coordinated and directed at meeting the most pressing needs of disadvantaged Londoners. This is likely to be contentious on at least two counts. Firstly, reaching a workable consensus on what are the priority needs for London and, secondly, agreeing on the most appropriate vehicle to coordinate and (re)distribute philanthropy alongside public, trust and foundation funds.
There is, however, a discernible impetus among London’s funders from across all sectors to address these challenges. The Greater London Authority is considering recommending the establishment of an advisory panel, akin to the London Enterprise Panel, which would advise a new Mayor on future strategic priorities for civil society in London. The Big Lottery Fund, on the back of recent research by Collaborate, is recommending the mapping of London’s funding ecology. This might better equip the funding community in London to align and complement their work, resulting in more effective distribution of funds to meet the needs of Londoners.57 Indeed, businesses also told the London Fairness Commission that they would like their engagements with VCSOs and the wider community to be more meaningful and effective. Many examples of effective philanthropy highlight the enabling of funders to collaborate (Annex 4).
Key messages/questions for City Bridge Trust
· London’s citizens, including corporate citizens, appear to want to give more and to do so more effectively. How can CBT encourage Londoners to scale up their giving activities? · What would it take for London to become a global centre of philanthropy and harness this resource to its strategic advantage?
54 ibid 55 Pharoah, C. and Walker, C. (2015) ‘More to Give: London Millennials networking towards a Better World’ City Philanthropy 56 London Fairness Commission 57 A New Funding Ecology – A Blueprint for Action (2015)
Page 138 Rocket Science 2016 Review of CBT’s Strategic Initiative on Philanthropy – Final Report Page 31
Annex (4) Examples of effective philanthropy
There appear to be several areas in which the capital can act in order to become a truly ‘global centre for philanthropy.’58 This section draws on some examples from the US and Europe, including the harnessing of technology, which demonstrate the key components of effective modern philanthropy and which, for the purposes of this review, we synonymise with being more strategic. The key features illustrated here by these initiatives include:
1. Leadership and influence 2. Clear set of achievable goals 3. Commitment to collaboration 4. Use of appropriate impact measurement 5. Capacity to harness technology platforms
1. Leadership and influence
Recent New York City Mayors – Bloomberg and de Blasio
The Mayor’s Fund to Advance New York City has been a cornerstone of the former and current Mayors’ philanthropic initiatives. The Mayor’s Fund facilitates public-private collaborations that support initiatives which respond to the needs of the city’s most disadvantaged communities. The Fund leverages donations from private individuals, corporations and foundations to facilitate citywide community development. Between October 2014 and March 2015 it raised $11.8 million from at least 72 donors. The Fund connects public agencies to donors with shared goals for the city and its residents. There are currently three priority areas: youth workforce, mental health and immigration. These have been identified in response to a needs assessment of the city’s population.
The former Mayor of New York City used his leadership and influence to promote philanthropy in various other ways. Michael Bloomberg, who was Mayor from 2001 to 2013, has a strong belief in the power of philanthropic activity. Bloomberg recognises that although philanthropy cannot reach the same scale as public spending, it has the potential to test new ideas that governments may deem too risky or controversial.59 During his Mayoralty he set up Bloomberg Philanthropies, a foundation that leverages donations to fund projects in five key areas: public health, arts and culture, the environment, education and government innovation.
One of the key initiatives of Bloomberg Philanthropies is the Cities of Service scheme. This was set up in 2009 by 17 Mayors across the US. The coalition of Mayors has a shared belief in the potential of harnessing the time of volunteers to respond to the most pressing needs of a city. New York City of
58 In a recent Centre for London Essay, Danny Sriskandarajah argued that just as the Mayor plans to secure London’s place as a centre of tourism, overseas inward investment, and higher education, why not develop a plan for maintaining and building upon London’s role as a centre for global civil society? 59 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/26/your-money/private-citizen-bloombergs-philosophy-on- philanthropy.html
Page 139 Rocket Science 2016 Review of CBT’s Strategic Initiative on Philanthropy – Final Report Page 32
Service works with public agencies, over 500 VCSOs, and thousands of volunteers to improve the city's neighbourhoods, youth education, resident wellbeing, and provide opportunities for immigrants. The current Mayor, Bill de Blasio, has continued with this mission. In particular, the 2014-15 Service Strategic Plan has set a goal of engaging 50% of all New York City residents as volunteers.
One of the key initiatives of Bloomberg Philanthropies is the Cities of Service scheme. This was set up in 2009 by 17 Mayors across the US. This philanthropic initiative focuses on harnessing the time of residents to benefit the city’s disadvantaged communities. The coalition of Mayors has a shared belief in the potential of volunteering to respond to the most pressing needs of a city. New York City of Service works with public agencies, over 500 VCSOs, and thousands of volunteers to improve the city's neighbourhoods, youth education, resident wellbeing, and provide opportunities for immigrants.60
In addition to promoting the Cities of Service initiative, de Blasio has made other attempts to harness the resources of individuals and corporations, particularly to redress income inequality in the city. De Blasio’s outreach to investors and corporations is coordinated by an Office of Strategic Partnerships. This has a clear mandate: to encourage cross-sectoral collaboration to address income inequality and opportunity gaps in the New York City. In particular, de Blasio promotes public-private partnerships as a means to take advantage of the resources and flexibility of the private sector for public benefit. 2. Clear and achievable goals
The Cripplegate Foundation
People tend to invest time and money in causes they know rather than to further social justice. The Cripplegate Foundation counters this criticism of traditional philanthropy. Although already a key component of CBT’s Strategic initiative on Philanthropy, it is an innovative example of effective place- based philanthropy. As a recent report by the Office for Public Management suggests61,
‘Place-based philanthropy involves locally-embedded charitable organisations working together – with each other, with the community and with outside organisations and stakeholders – to tackle need in a defined geographical area.’
Critically, place-based philanthropy starts with the priorities of the place, not the priorities of the donor or funder. Having established these priorities, a place-based funder then pools effort, expertise, influence and resources from the local community and external organisations to address them. A place-based funder has intimate ties to its area, in-depth understanding of its problems and a willingness to work with anyone – from resident volunteers to national agencies – who can contribute to its aims.
60 The Cities of Service model has been imported into the UK, supported by the Cabinet Office, under a programme managed by Nesta. The seven pilot cities, which included among others Portsmouth, Plymouth, Barnsley and Swindon, were funded until March 2016. The initiative is currently the subject of an evaluation. 61 Office for Public Management (2013) Giving Together: How Islington Giving is transforming local philanthropy http://www.islingtongiving.org.uk/website_/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Giving-Together-full-version.pdf
Page 140 Rocket Science 2016 Review of CBT’s Strategic Initiative on Philanthropy – Final Report Page 33
Islington Giving is the Cripplegate Foundation’s key charitable campaign. It seeks to tackle the most pressing issues facing the London Borough of Islington. The foundation explores the lived experience of disadvantaged residents of Islington as a means to inform their campaign. One of Islington Giving’s aims is to deliver services that tackle its three key themes: investing in young people, tackling poverty and confronting isolation.
Community Foundations (Vital Signs)
The Community Foundation is based in Newcastle upon Tyne but individuals, voluntary groups, businesses and public bodies in Tyne & Wear and Northumberland are eligible to become members of the Foundation. The principal area of benefit is Tyne & Wear and Northumberland. The Community Foundation is the largest in a network of 48 community foundations across the UK. From 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015, the Community Foundation made 1,355 grants worth £5.4 million from funds established by our donors and partners – an increase of £0.2m on the previous year.
The Community Foundation promotes a form of place-based philanthropy. In 2013, the Foundation began publishing Vital Signs, an initiative that seeks to identify the challenges facing Tyne & Wear and Northumberland as a means to inform donors about the best ways to make a difference with their philanthropy. The Vital Signs initiative seeks to align donor interests with the most pressing needs in the benefit area. It supplements research on need and existing grant-making with insights from local people through a ‘priority poll’ – which enables people to identify their top three thematic priorities – and an ‘asset survey’. These tools enable the Community Foundation to produce reports which present a comprehensive analysis of need to the philanthropic community.
The Community Foundation based in Merseyside similarly carries out a Vital Signs review to identify the most pressing needs in the area. In particular, the foundation’s mission is ‘to provide strategic grant-making that meets the needs of local communities’. The Vital Signs UK model is based on an original project by the Toronto Community Foundation and the country-wide Vital Signs initiative co- ordinated by the Community Foundations of Canada. 3. Commitment to collaboration
Ford Foundation
The Ford Foundation based in New York City is committed to strengthening democratic values and reducing poverty and injustice. The foundation sees itself as not solely a funder, but also a collaborator, helping partners and stakeholders to network to leverage shared resources. Collaboration takes place internally, as the Metropolitan Opportunity team works with other internal programmes to address common issues.
Grantees often provide metrics that the Ford Foundation adopts and shares for use in other programmes. The foundation supports this exchange of information and has institutionalised the practice internally through the dissemination of reporting materials. Reports are compiled to highlight successes, as well as mistakes of the initiatives. The Ford Foundation also supports efforts to share experiences externally; this is in support of transparency and greater effectiveness across
Page 141 Rocket Science 2016 Review of CBT’s Strategic Initiative on Philanthropy – Final Report Page 34
philanthropic initiatives. Through collaboration, the Ford Foundation seeks greater impact through shared, focused and strategic engagement with its funded organisations.
Living Cities
Collaboration between funders can also be improved. As a recent report by New Philanthropy Capital (NPC) suggests62, there are huge benefits of different types of funders coming together to support a project. This is known as ‘layered funding’ because it combines funders with different approaches and priorities: more traditional funders providing grants and subsidies work alongside venture impact investors, each with their own requirements around risk and return. Philanthropic grants often form the first layer, with social investment providing the next.
Living Cities is a US-based organisation that was founded in 1991 and seeks to harness the collective power of 22 of the world’s largest foundations and financial institutions to build a new type of urban practice that improves the lives of disadvantaged urban communities. Its members include: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; Citi Foundation; Ford Foundation; and the Rockefeller Foundation. Each member institution contributes to the general operating support that underwrites the plan of work approved by the Board of Directors.
Members also participate in the Catalyst Fund by providing loans that are combined with loans from other Living Cities members to enable the creative use of debt to further programme activities and leverage grant and private sector loan funds. 4. Appropriate impact measurement
The growing acceptance of impact measurement tools such as Social Return on Investment (SROI), which attempt to provide a meaningful measure of the value of philanthropic interventions, shows that for both donors and beneficiaries it is increasingly important to have evidence that their chosen approach is delivering the outcomes they are trying to achieve63.
The Robin Hood Foundation
The Robin Hood Foundation in New York City is a grant-funding organisation that invests in organisations which seek to counter poverty in the city. It was founded in 1988 to find, fund and provide support to organisations that serve poor and disadvantaged New Yorkers. In 2013 the Robin Hood Foundation granted more than $126 million to over 200 frontline organisations to fight poverty in the city.
The foundation has developed a methodology for comparing the impacts of dissimilar programmes by measuring them on the same scale: how much the programme is going to increase future earnings and income. The first stage in this measurement process is to identify each project-relevant outcome generated by a grant. The second stage is to assign a monetary value to the outcome. This is followed
62 NPC (2014) 10 Innovations in Global Philanthropy, http://www.thinknpc.org/wp- content/uploads/2014/10/10-innovations-in-global-philanthropy_FINAL.pdf 63 Davies, R. (2016) Public good by private means. Charities Aid Foundation
Page 142 Rocket Science 2016 Review of CBT’s Strategic Initiative on Philanthropy – Final Report Page 35
by comparing what happens to participants in programmes. The cost-benefit ratios produced by this process can then be used to compare the impact of the different grants.
Realdania
Realdania is another example of the application of impact measurement to philanthropy. Realdania is a private philanthropic organisation with approximately 150,000 members across Denmark. Any real estate owner in Denmark can become a member of Realdania. Its Cities for People project aims to create cohesive, sustainable and resilient Danish cities.
In terms of measurement, Realdania measures impact from a variety of different perspectives, including predefined performance indicators and goals, though it does not overly emphasise the importance of metrics. A baseline is created at the start of activities to guide programme measurement, and key performance indicators are measured throughout the length of the grant. The foundation is increasingly embracing failure as a tool for organisational learning. It is now delving deeper into the examination of project challenges and potential reasons why an activity did not produce the intended result. 5. Capacity to harness technology platforms
In the context of declining income streams, increasing numbers of civil society organisations are having to look towards alternative forms of finance, such as crowdfunding and social investment.
Crowdfunding
Crowdfunding is an innovative way that VCSOs can respond to growing demand for their services at a time of declining income to the sector. Crowdfunding is a form of alternative finance that enables the funding of organisations or projects from a large number of small donations rather than from a small number of large contributions from specific funders or lenders. Organisations or individuals typically set targets to attract funding. If the target is met or exceeded the organisation keeps the money raised, but if the target is not met it stays with the individuals who made the donation.64
Nesta, working with the University of Cambridge65, has identified four models of crowdfunding:
1. Reward based: this enables people to contribute to projects and receive non-financial rewards in return, usually operating a tiered system where the more you donate the greater the reward you receive eg Crowdfunder, Kickstarter, We Fund;
2. Lending based: organisations or projects seeking debt apply through the platform by presenting their pitch. Anyone can then take on a small proportion of the overall loan eg Funding Circle, Lending Circle and Kiva.
64 NPC (2015) New funding sources: an introduction for trustees 65 Nesta and the University of Cambridge (2014) Understanding alternative finance
Page 143 Rocket Science 2016 Review of CBT’s Strategic Initiative on Philanthropy – Final Report Page 36
3. Equity based: this enabled the general population to invest for equity or revenue sharing in organisations or projects eg Crowd2Fund, Lending Circle, Microgenius;
4. Donation based: this allows VCSOs, or those who raise money for charitable projects, to receive donations online eg Chuffed, Global Giving and Just Giving.
Nesta’s research also finds that only around a quarter of people making pledges on reward-based or donation-based platforms say that they would have otherwise used that money for traditional charitable giving. In addition to engaging new supporters, crowdfunding also enables campaigns to extend their geographical reach and draw in match funding by demonstrating popular support. Initial backing for an online campaign can be the start of deeper engagement, such as volunteering.
Crowdfund Plymouth
Crowdfund Plymouth was set up by Plymouth City Council with technical support from Crowdfunder as a way of validating public support for potential projects. Projects that have successfully reached their fundraising target are provided with additional match funding from the Council (from a pot of £60,000 of Community Infrastructure Levy money from developers). £437,943 has been raised for 111 projects so far. A number of crowdfunding organisations now exist, providing on-line platforms and technical support to facilitate individual giving, but also to enable funders to use match funding strategically, as in Plymouth. Proponents of crowdfunding also point to the additional skills and capacity it brings into civil society organisations, which by raising investment in this way are forced to hone their sales and marketing, communications and relationship management skills.
These tools and technological aids make a useful complement to place-based giving initiatives, like London’s Giving, but also to live crowdfunding events such as those of the City Funding Network. In the latter’s case, a complementary technology platform would potentially enable The Funding Network, as the broker, more easily to track and monitor the extent to which an initial contribution to a particular organisation or cause becomes a more sustained engagement, something TFN currently struggles to do.
Page 144 Rocket Science 2016 Agenda Item 8d
Committee Dated:
The City Bridge Trust Committee 14 July 2016
Subject: Public Grants/expenditure considered under Delegated Authority Report of: For Information Chief Grants Officer
Recommendation
Members are asked to:
Receive this report and note its contents
Main Report Following the approval of the Court of Common Council on 16th October 2014, the Chief Grants Officer may make decisions on applications of up to £10,000. Decisions on applications of over £10,000 and up to £25,000 may be approved by the Chief Grants Officer in consultation with the Chairman and Deputy Chairman.
Decisions on applications of over £25,000 and up to £50,000 may be approved by the Chief Grants Officer in consultation with the Chairman and Deputy Chairman, with reference to the Chamberlain.
The total amount of expenditure and number of items approved under delegated authority this financial year (inclusive of those below) are shown in Table 1.
Requests < £10k
None
Requests £10k - £25k
Core Arts £21,300 towards the cost of a part-time (21 hours (Approved 23rd May 2016) pw) Nursery Manager.
Hammersmith United Charities £15,000 towards the development of (Approved 25th May 2016) Hammersmith and Fulham Giving, as part of the London's Giving initiative.
University of Bedfordshire £20,250 towards the evaluation of the Barnardos/ (Approved 23rd May 2016) NSPCC hub and spoke model for children at risk of sexual exploitation in London.
Voluntary Action Lewisham £24,500 towards the development of Lewisham (Approved 25th May 2016) Local as part of the London's Giving initiative
Page 145
Requests £25k - £50
Rephael House Counselling £31,200 over three years (£10,100; £10,400; Centre £10,700) towards the costs of Rephael House’s th (Approved 24 June 2016) play therapy and counselling services for 4 – 25 year olds.
Aidis Trust £42,000 over three years (£14,000; £14,000; (Approved 25th May 2016) £14,000) towards core costs, including a contribution to the Training Manager’s salary, travel, equipment and oncosts.
Community Accountancy £36,950 over two years (£17,985, £18,965) Project towards the costs of an accredited training (Approved 23rd May 2016) programme in financial management for small VCSOs.
Table 1 – Funds approved under delegated authority in financial year to date.
Applications < £10k £10k - £25k £25k - £50k reported to Committee £ No. £ No. £ No. May 2016 £26,940 7 £86,545 4 £62,000 2 July 2016 0 0 £81,050 4 £110,150 3 Total for year to £26,940 7 £167,595 8 £172,150 5 date
Ciaran Rafferty Principal Grants Officer T: 020 7332 3186 E: [email protected]]
Page 146 Agenda Item 8e
Committee Date:
The City Bridge Trust Committee 14 July 2016
Subject: Public Withdrawn & Lapsed applications Report of: For Information Chief Grants Officer
Summary
This report informs Members of applications received which subsequently have been withdrawn by the applicant, or lapsed due to the absence of the information required to undertake a full assessment.
Recommendation
Members are asked to:
Receive this report and note its contents
Main Report
Organisation Purpose of Request
Withdrawn Applications:
East London Advanced The purpose of this capital project is to develop Technology Training and modify ELATT's Hackney learning centre so that it meets the needs of people with disabilities. - Following discussions with your officer around an unusual leasehold arrangement, the applicant has decided to withdraw this application.
English Folk Dance & Song To install hearing loop technology in our public Society spaces/halls and to pilot a programme of accessible events. - The charity wishes to submit a proposal which is more of a match to your criteria and so has withdrawn this application.
Parish Church of St John the We are applying for funds to create accessibility Baptist, Epping through disabled access, toilet facilities including disabled toilets, and a lift. - Application was for access work to an entirely new building, which is outside your policy.
Spinal Injuries Association To offer clinical advocacy to all spinal cord injured Londoners to improve the quality of care they
Page 147 receive when admitted to hospital. - The project presented problems as regards general eligibility and match to the programme's outcomes. Your officers advised the organisation to withdraw this application so that a more suitable proposal is submitted at a later stage.
Somerset House Trust To produce an access audit of New Wing, enabling us to apply for funding to improve disabled access at Somerset House. - Organisation now intends to commission an audit from its own reserves.
Federation of Refugees from Promote a healthy lifestyle, access to equality of Vietnam in Lewisham choices and take more control of their lives through essential advices and support. - The organisation has withdrawn the application after discussion with your officer.
Marie Curie To provide occupational therapy at the Hampstead Hospice to help patients rehabilitation - enabling them to be able to return home and complete certain tasks. - The proposal did not meet eligibility criteria as it is for a service for which statutory funds are available. Other aspects of the work of the Hospice fit your criteria better and the applicant might lodge a new application at a later date.
Tamil Relief Centre To encourage, empower and improve the physical, social, financial and mental well-being of older people (75+) in Enfield and the surrounding boroughs - The proposal does not target, sufficiently, those aged 75+. The organisation wishes, instead, to consider applying for a different project.
John Carr's Charity To increase the impact of and ensure the effective running of the debt advice centre. - Application has been withdrawn whilst the organisation develops a robust fundraising strategy which ensures that any funding from CBT is less than 50% of turnover.
Migrants Resource Centre To address food and fuel poverty in Westminster through provision of specialist advice services at foodbanks and community venues. - Proposal withdrawn as the organisation in intending to merge with another charity.
Page 148 Royal Statistical Society To fund the Project Officer post who will develop the delivery of the pro bono service being offered by the Society to the charity sector.- While the proposal had potential to be of great benefit to London charities, the applicant has withdrawn this request to conduct market research to more robustly evidence likely demand and inform a model of delivery that would best respond to this demand.
Lapsed Applications
None
Ciaran Rafferty Principal Grants Officer
T: 020 7332 3186 E: [email protected]]
Page 149 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 150 Agenda Item 8f
Committee Date:
The City Bridge Trust Committee 14 July 2016
Subject: Public Variations to grants awarded Report of: For Information Chief Grants Officer
Summary
This report informs Members of 7 grants where variations have been agreed by the Chief Grants officer since your last meeting.
Recommendation
Members are asked to:
Receive this report and note its contents
Main Report
Since your last meeting, variations to the grants outlined below have been agreed by the Chief Grants Officer, in line with the revised delegated procedure for the amendment of grants as agreed by your Committee in October 2004.
Community Links Trust Ltd You awarded the above £76,000 (payable over two years) in October 2013 for the salary of the Community Development Worker and ESOL programme costs. Unfortunately the organisations was unable to deliver all the programme as originally intended which led to an underspend in the final year of £12,853. This sum has been now been returned.
Akademi South Asian Dance UK You awarded Akademi two grants of £2,000 each (in January 2015 and in September 2015) under your Arts Apprentice programme. The Apprentice recruited under the January grant left after six months, requiring the return of the third quarterly payment of £500 plus revocation of the final payment of £500 (ie £1,000 in total); whilst the organisation was unable to recruit a second Apprentice within the timeframe of the co-funder (Arts Council). That sum (£2,000), therefore, has also been revoked.
CREST – Waltham Forest £1,500 was awarded to CREST in January 2015 to commission an independent access audit. The actual cost of the audit was £1,140 so the £360 balance was revoked.
Page 151
Deptford Methodist Mission In February 2010 you awarded a grant of £18,525 over three years for the running costs of introductory computer classes for elderly and disabled people. Difficulties encountered by the organisation in delivering the project resulted, ultimately, in an underspend of £11,152 which has now been written back.
Forest Young Men’s Christian Association of East London You awarded the above £80,400 in September 2015 towards the salary of a f/t Farm Education Officer at Brooks Farm in Leyton (which is managed by the charity). Recently, however, the charity decided to refocus its work and has now relinquished its management of the Farm. No monies were drawn down therefore the full amount has been revoked.
North London Hospice In March 2015 you awarded the Hospice £90,000 over three years towards the salary costs of a f/t Psychosocial Therapies Lead within its day service programme for the benefit of older people (patients and carers). Monitoring of year one showed that, in fact, older people were not the primary beneficiaries whilst the support to carers had not taken place. Following extensive discussions with the grantee outputs have been re-focussed and significantly reduced for year 2, and the grant period reduced from three years to two. Consequently the sum of £30,000 has been revoked.
Crossness Engines Trust This organisation received a capital grant of £50,000 in 2007 towards disabled access provision at the Crossness Pumping Station in south east London. The project was delayed over several years whilst the balance of funds needed was raised. Eventually, part of the grant (£11,500) was drawn down in June 2013. Since then, however, the organisation has failed to keep the Trust informed and which has now led to the balance of £38,500 being revoked.
Ciaran Rafferty Principal Grants Officer T: 020 7332 3186 E: [email protected]
Page 152 Agenda Item 8g
Committee Date:
The City Bridge Trust Committee 14 July 2016
Subject: Public Events attended
Report of: For Information Chief Grants Officer
Summary
This report incorporates a schedule of the key meetings and events attended by Members and officers since your last meeting.
Recommendation
Members are asked to:
Receive this report and note its contents
Ciaran Rafferty Principal Grants Officer
T: 020 7332 3186 E: [email protected]]
Page 153 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 154 CITY BRIDGE TRUST
Professional Development Events, Conferences and Seminars Attended 5TH May to 29th June 2016
Date Organisation Type of City of London’s Location/ Summary Event Representative Borough 05/05/16 Cripplegate Seminar Ciaran Rafferty, Islington A meeting of potential providers of youth Foundation Principal Grants services in Islington, following your officer’s Officer chairing of a previous consultation group. 11/05/16 Channel 4 Panel Ciaran Rafferty, Channel 4 An insightful and valuable discussion on Discussion Principal Grants Studios, supporting disabled people into and in Officer Westminster employment. 12/05/16 Trust for London Meeting Ciaran Rafferty, TfL office, A meeting of the Moving on Up project Page 155 Page Principal Grants Smithfield management group. Officer 17/05/16 Association of Seminar Tim Wilson, Principal Kings Cross A meeting of Foundations interested in Charitable Grants & Social monitoring and evaluation, which your Foundations Investment Officer officer chairs. 18/05/16 Public Policy Conference Jack Joslin, Grants Strand Palace A one day conference looking at the future Exchange Officer Hotel of youth services.
19/05/16 City Bridge Trust Away Day City Bridge Trust Team London EC2 A day away from the CBT office, to focus on planning for the next Quinquennial Review.
19+20/05/ BBC Children in Grants Ciaran Rafferty, White City A 2-day meeting to consider applications for 16 Need Committee Principal Grants the London & SE Region. (Your officer has Officer been invited to return to the Committee) 20/05/16 Trees for Cities Visit Chief Grants Officer London SW16 A visit to a CBT grantee, to see the work that the grant is funding; accompanied by the Leader of LB Lambeth. 23/05/16 City Bridge Trust Meeting Tim Wilson, Principal Guildhall A meeting of the Stepping Stones Fund Grants & Social steering group, involving UBS, Access Investment Officer Foundation, CAF Venturesome and BWB (among others). 25/05/16 Dragon Awards Preliminary Deputy Chief Grants The City The Deputy Chief Grants Officer was a Judging Officer Centre preliminary judge in the Community Partners category. 26/05/16 Paul Hamlyn Meeting Tim Wilson, Principal Kings Cross A meeting of staff from large grant-making Foundation Grants & Social foundations to discuss evaluation and Investment Officer learning. 26/05/16 City of London Lunch Chairman; Old Bailey Lunch at the Old Bailey with some of CBT’s Corporation Immediate Past grantees. Chairman; Chief Grants Officer
Page 156 Page 31/5/16 London Youth Meeting Deputy Chairman Islington A meeting with the CEO of London Youth (in your Deputy Chairman’s capacity as Chairman of the Benefactor’s Committee of his Livery Company). 03/06/16 Locality Seminar Shegufta Rahman, London-wide ‘Community Organisations at Financial Risk’ Grants Officer roundtable – follow up to breakout session ‘Supporting Community Organisations at Times of Crisis’ at ACF Conference November 2015 03/06/16 St Ethelburga’s Visit Immediate Past London EC2 A visit to a CBT grantee, to learn about the Chairman; work the grant is funding. Keith Bottomley, CC; Chief Grants Officer; Two CoL Officers 06/06/16 NCVO Trading Deputy Chief Grants Society The Deputy Chief Grants Officer is a trustee Board Officer Building, of NCVO and also sits on its trading board. Meeting London N1 09/06/16 Woburn Place Meeting Chief Grants Officer Guildhall A regular meeting of funders, to look at Collaborative issues affecting them all, hosted, on this occasion, by CBT 10/06/16 Dulwich Picture Visit Chief Grants Officer London SE21 A visit to a CBT grantee to see (and Gallery participate in) the work that the grant is funding. 22/06/16 Lord Mayor’s Appeal Breakfast Ciaran Rafferty, Standard One of a series of seminars under the Charity Seminar Principal Grants Chartered Power of Diversity banner. This one focused Officer on disability & employment, with examples of businesses which were at the forefront. 22/06/16 London Youth Meeting Jack Joslin, Grants London N1 A morning event discussing the ‘Defining Officer Success’ project.
22/06/16 NSPCC Conference Julia Mirkin, Grants London Your officer attended afternoon sessions Officer that focussed on children’s mental health.
23 & NCVO Board Deputy Chief Grants The Scout An opportunity to reflect on some of the Page 157 Page 24/06/16 meeting and Officer Association, major issues for the voluntary sector and the trustee Gilwell Park future strategic direction of NCVO. annual awaydays 28/06/16 City of London Meeting Chairman, Jeremy City of London The annual strategy away-day of the Social Mayhew, Chief Grants Investment Board, during which discussions Officer, Tim Wilson, were held about possible future Principal Grants & collaboration with City Bridge Trust. Social Investment Officer 29/06/16 City Bridge Trust Meeting Deputy Chief Grants Guildhall A meeting of City-based funders including Officer, Ciaran several Livery Companies, City Philanthropy Rafferty, Principal and London Funders, to discuss areas of Grants Officer and Tim common interest in grant-making, social Wilson, Principal investment and philanthropy. Grants & Social Investment Officer General Events and Receptions Attended 5th May to 29th June 2016
Date Organisation Type of Event City of London’s Location/ Summary Representative Borough 06/05/16 Amnesty Youth Awards Chairman Shoreditch An event for the presentation of awards to International (UK young people involved with Amnesty section) International (UK section). 10/5/16 Access Reception Tim Wilson, Principal City of London A reception to discuss the first year’s work Foundation Grants & Social of a foundation established with funding Investment Officer from Big Lottery, Cabinet Office and Big Society Capital. Opportunities to collaborate on your Stepping Stones Fund were discussed. th
Page 158 Page 12/05/16 Barnardo’s Royal Garden Immediate Past Buckingham An event to celebrate their 150 Anniversary Party Chairman Palace and to thank their supporters, in the presence of HRH The Duchess of Cornwall. 17/05/16 Prince’s Trust Royal Garden Immediate Past Buckingham An event to celebrate their 40th Anniversary Party Chairman; Palace and to thank supporters of the Prince’s Chief Grants Officer Trust. 24/05/16 Royal Court Summer Jeremy Mayhew; Sloane Square An annual event for supporters and funders. Theatre Reception Ciaran Rafferty, Principal Grants Officer 09/06/16 Commonweal Reception Tim Wilson, Principal Barbican The 10th anniversary reception of an Housing Grants & Social organisation who has received investment Investment Officer from the City’s social investment fund for work with vulnerable migrants. 28/06/16 Joseph Rowntree Lecture/ Chief Grants Officer, London SW1A A lecture by Julia Unwin, Chief Executive of Foundation/ ACF Reception Jack Joslin Grants JRF, looking at the role of philanthropy in Officer reducing poverty in the UK today. 28/06/16 Ethical Property Reception Chairman London SE1 A celebration of the 10th Anniversary of the Foundation London Property Advice Service. 29/06/16 London Youth Reception and Chief Grants Officer Cedars Youth & A reception and dinner to celebrate the work Dinner Community of London Youth and it members, in the Centre, HA3 company of its Patron, HRH The Duke of Edinburgh.
City Philanthropy Events Attended 5th May to 29th June 2016 Date Organisation Type of Event City Philanthropy Location/ Summary Representative Borough 12/05/16 Better Society Better Society Helen Atwood Mayfair Presented award at this award ceremony. Awards An evening awarding private businesses leading the way in corporate responsibility practices. 07/06/16 Impact for Social Breakfast Helen Atwood; Cheryl Westminster Social policy debate on London’s Housing Justice Chapman crisis. A breakfast with Housing Minister as Page 159 Page the key note speaker. 08/06/16 City Philanthropy Breakfast Helen Atwood Camden Networking breakfast on women and climate change. An exploration on the climate change space and women’s role and contribution to it. 15/06/16 Shelter Charity evening Helen Atwood Camden Celebration of 50 years of homeless charity, celebration Shelter. 16/06/16 Lord Mayor’s Breakfast Helen Atwood City of London Lord Mayor’s Giving Day information Appeal breakfast. Information providing session and networking breakfast. 27/06/16 Impact for Breakfast Helen Atwood Canary Wharf Impact for Breakfast: Modern Day Slavery. Breakfast A panel and roundtable discussion on the role of business in this space and networking breakfast. 28/06/16 City Philanthropy Evening focus Cheryl Chapman; City of London City Philanthropy’s 1% Bonus Pledge think group event Rosie Mitchell- tank. An evening to hear from City bonus Hudson; Helen receivers about the possibility of launching a Atwood 1% City bonus pledge and exploring the appetite for it.
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 160 Agenda Item 12 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Document is Restricted
Page 161 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 13 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Document is Restricted
Page 163 This page is intentionally left blank