Agenda item

Draft Framework and Accompanying Notes attached.

2.1       Clare Malster, SBC Strategic Community Engagement Officer, presented the Community Fund Framework which had been put together by the Community and Partnership team to help the Sub-Group in its work.  Berwickshire was really far advanced but there were a few outstanding items for consideration. 

(a)     Membership of Assessment Panel

Keith Dickinson, Chair of the Sub-Group advised that in terms of membership of the proposed Assessment Panel, around 10 was proposed (including 3 SBC Elected Members), although this was not a precise number to allow for flexibility and this could be increased to 11 members.  The Chair of the Panel would chair meetings to assess applications to the Fund and then present the findings of the Panel to the Area Partnership for decision.  Decisions in the Assessment Panel on recommendations to the Area Partnership on applications to the Fund would be reached by a simple majority with all Panel members having an equal vote, and the Chair having a casting vote if required.  A quorum of 5 was suggested for the Panel. 

(b)     Number of Applications

Keith Dickinson advised that it was proposed a two applications could be made to the Fund within a year by the same Group/organisation. 

(c)     Themes/Priorities

Keith Dickinson advised that there had been general discussion within the Sub-Group and there was certainly a desire to reference themes/priorities within the Locality Plan, Action Plans and Place Plans once they became available.

(d)     Communications/website

Details of the Fund and promotion of the Fund would be carried out principally by SBC Communications team through the Council website and social media accounts.  It was anticipated that each organisation would also promote the Fund and provide links to the guidance and application forms. 

(e)     Recommendations to the Area Partnership

Keith Dickinson advised that some applications to the Fund were likely to be recommended for full funding, others for part funding, with some refused or deferred.  While the Assessment Panel would work with a checklist/marked sheet, this would be a reference document and not expected to be considered by the Area Partnership.  Recommendations from the Assessment Panel would be presented to the Area Partnership for decision with sufficient details to show that the Panel had used a rigorous process in assessing applications.  This would ensure applicants had confidence that the process was fair.  There would be a summary of the process and how and why the Panel had come to form their view.  The Panel would come to a view on how the Fund should be allocated and this could include where applications were justified for funding but there were insufficient funds available.  Other sources of funding could be investigated or more funding could be allocated to the Community Fund from the Council during the year.  Any award letter of funding would be issued by the Council after the Area Partnership had made its decision.

(f)      Evaluation and Monitoring

Keith Dickinson advised that the Sub-Group recommended an annual evaluation and it would be better if this was not carried out by the Assessment Panel, although the Assessment Panel could carry out a self-assessment which could be passed on for independent monitoring.  The evaluation and monitoring could be carried out by the Area Partnership or another group from within the Area Partnership.  Clare Malster also confirmed that there would be an evaluation of each project to ensure that expectations had been met. 

2.2       There followed discussion on various aspects of the Community Fund.  With regard to involving the views of the wider community in considering applications, Keith Dickinson advised that the main route for this was an open invitation for people to join the Panel.  The Panel would be meeting in private to consider applications to the Fund, to allow a free exchange of views before coming to conclusion on recommendations.  It would be made clear in the guidance for applicants to the Fund that evaluation of projects was mandatory.  A summary paper would be provided to the Area Partnership with recommendations from the Assessment Panel and should anyone wish further information or explanation this could either be sought from the members of the Assessment Panel in advance of the Area Partnership meeting or at the meeting itself.  Clare Malster confirmed that a communications plan would be developed in conjunction with the Assessment Panel and a year-end report would be provided to the Area Partnership and/or the Council on the funding which had been distributed.  Mr Dickinson then thanked all the members of the Sub-Group who had worked very hard over the last few months and been well supported by SBC officers.  While the original recommendations from the Sub-Group for a Sub-Committee with full delegated decision making powers had not been taken forward by Council at its meeting in March, the proposals being put forward now for the Assessment Panel were a step in the right direction.   It was further agreed that the word “elderly” in the Framework paper would be changed to “older people”.