I want to talk about how we can scrutinise grants in local authorities and I’ll start by providing an example from Bristol.
Under Marvin Rees, mayor of Bristol, eight council grant funds were combined to create the Bristol Impact Fund (BIF). This was supposedly part of a new strategic approach to grant investment aiming to tackle inequality. The first round completed in 2021.
How did they get on?
An evaluation of the first round of BIF carried out and written by consultancy firm Vivid was published in spring 2022.
Vivid consultancy group is run by Judith Taylor and Helen Bone. They also use ‘associates’ such as Di Robinson. https://vividregeneration.wordpress.com/judith-taylor/who-we-are/…
The Bristol Impact Fund distributed £3.4 million per year over 4 years, for a total of £13.6 million from 2017-2021.
Specifically:
This was distributed through large and medium grants allocated over the 4 years, as well as a small grants pot allocated every 2 years.
Large and medium grants were tapered by 10% and 5% in years 3 and 4 respectively to encourage sustainability.
The second round has distributed a total of £5.8m in the medium to large grants category.
Vivid tell us that the BIF achieved significant reach into disadvantaged communities, addressed key challenges through holistic support, leveraged additional resources, and started to facilitate more collaborative ways of working.
Some ways it did this in its first two years were by:
Engaging over 84,000 participants in funded projects and activities.
Reaching disadvantaged communities and equality groups, including 32,485 people from equality groups.
Enabling 26 organizations to receive council funding for the first time.
Addressing key challenges, especially reducing isolation/improving wellbeing, improving access to services, and enabling participation.
Unlocking an additional 67% in match funding from other sources, and
Involving over 7,000 volunteers who contributed support worth over £10 million.
There are more achievements suggested in the report but, in general, this all sounds very positive.
But then we need to examine a bit more about how this fund works.
As I mentioned at the beginning of this article, Vivid use associates such as Di Robinson. Robinson happened to be the Neighbourhoods service director at the time the BIF was implemented. In fact, she was the contact point for the Cabinet decision to approve the Bristol Impact Fund in March 2017: the https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=7483&PlanId=120&RPID=0
I contacted Vivid to ask them about this potential conflict of interest but they haven’t replied.
My questions to them:
1. How was Di Robinson's involvement with setting up the Bristol Impact Fund related to Vivid receiving the work for evaluating the fund?
2. What was her involvement with the report? was she the BCC staff you consulted and liaised with?
3. How did you deal with obvious conflicts of interest, such as being associated with the person who set up the programme you evaluated?
Where we, the people, come into scrutinising grants
Tracking Bristol City Council grants matters.
Understanding where grant money goes is vital—it's like illuminating a dark room. It enables you to see the council's genuine priorities. The budget invariably exposes the reality behind political assurances.
In Bristol, various types of grants are available, ranging from community initiatives to environmental projects. These grants are provided to a variety of entities such as local charities, businesses, or individual residents.
Understanding the distribution of grants helps reveal the story of our city's priorities and commitments.
When the BIF was created, an impact assessment was also promised to evaluate what would happen with the £13m but there are still unanswered questions about, and from, those who assessed it.
The need for further investigation is clear.
Necessary tools for research
Knowing that grants need to be assessed isn’t enough. It’s important to know how to do it.
You need data about the grants
You need to know how to analyse the data. Some brief tips although by no means comprehensive include: Check the amounts, recipients, and the purpose of each grant. Are there noticeable trends? Maybe a particular sector seems to get a lot of support.
You can employ Freedom of Information requests to obtain even more data.
Monitor changes over time. Mapping data over the years to identify trends that spreadsheets couldn't illustrate effectively is a very useful tool.
Once you have the information, you need to communicate it.
Remember, your participation is crucial. Transparency and accountability are the bedrock of a well-functioning society.
Thanks for sharing Joanna as you know from.Twitter we had the Beautiful Ideas CIC. Take the Citizens of this City for Ride BiCo
Investigative reporter.Matt O Donahue. Struggled for two years for suppressed reports from.the Council that was heavily redacted the the three protagonists got away with Fraud to a. Breach of the Nolan principles
Yes, understanding where grant money goes is vital. This effectively ‘in-house’ assessment, employing Di Robinson, is an assessment in name only I think. It’s yet another example of how those who govern us try to obfuscate their real activities behind spin and guile. This is simulated democracy.
My daily experiences in Bristol lead me to believe that there’s an awful lot of money being poured into shadowy projects which, ostensibly, don’t exist. And I believe too that BCC and A&SP know what’s really going on. Obviously it’s very difficult to provide evidence for these beliefs. But what I suspect is happening is that some of the recipients of the grant money are involved in activities not expressly indicated by their ‘front’, be it a charity, trust or whatever. Or, you could put it like this: perhaps BCC are ‘outsourcing’ certain activities covertly to certain people, concealed by their ostensible status, because it daren’t be seen to pursuing these activities openly. But the SEND spying scandal has shone a light on the shadowy, and frankly sinister, activities at the heart of our local administration, where moral boundaries are barely recognised. And I also suspect there’s quite a bit of ‘cash for my mates’ going on.
We desperately need more transparency and accountability. Where to start? Well, one could start by examining how democracy functions more as it should in other places around the world: Switzerland? Iceland? Denmark? I think we need much more direct citizen participation in legislatures and scrutiny committees. I was talking to Henry David Carey (you might know him) a while back, and he mentioned how the process used to select citizen juries could feasibly be extended into other areas, like policy formation and governmental scrutiny. I like that idea.