External Affairs / Policy / Consultations Consultations
Young people's fund
9 May 2004
Ms Helen Coath, Young People's Fund Consultation
New Opportunities Fund, 1 Plough Place, London EC4A 1DE
Helen.coath@nof.org.uk
Dear Madam
NOF CONSULTATION ON YOUNG PEOPLE'S FUND
Thank you for giving The Institute for Outdoor
Learning the opportunity to comment on your very important proposals
about the above fund. We are delighted with the news of the funding
opportunities that will be made available for the benefit of young
people over the next three years and then hopefully having some
permanence, so that applicants can have a strategic long term programme,
enabling them to concentrate upon delivery rather than using resources
in searching for funds and making applications.
The Institute, as a registered charity, was formed three years ago
as the result of the convergence of six organisations, and represents
a broad spectrum of outdoor learning. Our members include employers
and employees involved in learning and development in the outdoors.
Our members work in the statutory, voluntary and private sectors,
and are represented in outdoor centres and educational establishments,
including schools, and as lone providers. Much of their work is
with young people.
Question 1: Focus
The broad age range gives you an opportunity to fund a wide range
of opportunities. It is difficult to focus on a particular age group
because the needs of age groups will differ from one area to another.
Whereas nursery provision may be excellent in one area with large
numbers attending in a rural area the numbers may be low and facilities
poor and the need greatest. In many authorities, the full time youth
service has been decimated by local authority cuts. Certainly from
about the age of seven significant changes can occur in young people
that will influence their behaviour, attitude to society and their
future employment prospects.
Question 2: Targeting
Whilst we appreciate the need for targeting when resources are limited,
we do not think funds should only be targeted on disadvantaged areas.
There is a case for judging bids on their own merits, in relation
to local need, and there are some less disadvantaged areas, particularly
rural, where public services fall far short of addressing the needs
of local young people. Moreover, we think that all young people
should have the chance to reach their potential, because they all
have development needs that the Fund should help to meet.
Question 3: Ensuring the involvement of young
people
It is not always necessary that young people should be directly
involved, e.g. on a project management group. The important aim
is to get the needs and wants of young people, howsoever ascertained,
at the heart of funding bids. For example, if a national body, local
Council or local strategic partnership has conducted surveys of
young people's needs, and a bid is based on the findings, it should
not be rejected because there is no young person on the management
group.
The question rightly distinguishes between needs and wants; sometimes
professional bodies are better able than young people to define
needs (as distinct from wants) by virtue of their wider knowledge
of what can be made available, and what is known to work elsewhere.
However, you should not ignore the leaders who have worked for many
years with young people in all sorts of situations - they know what
works!
Question 4a: Grants to individuals/groups
Although such bids should be eligible for funding, it should be
understood that they are likely to be more risky than if a professional
body is also involved and can offer support.
Question 4b: How grants should be delivered
Lessons should be learned about the delivery of previous grants,
such as those under the PE and School Sport scheme. That delivery
method thwarted the government's intentions and proved ponderous.
Even now, not all the funds have been drawn down. Some Local authorities
failed to consult the voluntary sector, which was intended to be
one of the beneficiaries to benefit from the scheme. The requirement
that money should be spent on outdoor centres (including voluntary
sector centres) was not met by some local authorities.
One of the major reasons for this was the extremely short time period
for response. It is essential that organisations can have the time
to evaluate, research and put bids together that will be sufficiently
robust to deliver 'youth inclusion'. Otherwise, value for money
will not be achieved. Local authorities and national organisations,
including the voluntary sector are all suitable outlets. However,
you will require to use an existing national organisation that can
evaluate and recommend to you the worth of bids, without creating
one and wasting valuable resources.
Question 5: Proportions of support
It would be difficult to define small groups and rather than have
a maximum amount to go to such groups, it may be better to evaluate
all the bids against the policies and aims of YPF and decide which
will most likely deliver the outcomes required. Whilst not wishing
to stifle enterprise, there is something to be said for preferring
to support activities with a proven track record of success.
Question 6: Other grants
Yes, there are other funds, such as the Nestlé charitable fund for
youth clubs. Such funds could be used to complement the YPF if the
aims and objectives are compatible. An important principle would
be to allow joint funding of projects and thereby increase their
value and return.
Question 7: Eligible age groups
All ages as stated in our reply to Q1.
Question 8: Types of projects/activities
We recommend that as far as possible the funding builds on projects
and activities that have already been shown to be successful (e.g.
PAYP). There are now a number of voluntary and charitable organisations,
known to the Connexions Service, which have consistently delivered
good value for money. Outdoor activities, for example, when purposefully
designed and professionally delivered, are a prime target for funding.
However, this does not imply that future funding should be funnelled
through Connexions and local authorities. What is also important
is that no project or scheme should stand in isolation but should
be part of an overall scheme of development with strong support
for the participants within his or her community.
Question 9: Target group
The young people can be of any age group but need to be members
of an organisation that can support them, whether a nursery school,
swimming, youth or church, school or sports club.
Question 10: Rolling programme?
For the reason given above, proven programmes that have operated
successfully for some years, are particularly worthy of support,
as this enables set-up costs to be recovered over a period of years.
You could manage expectations by sample monitoring of a number of
individual participants.
Question 11: Complementary funding
This is difficult to generalise; each case would have to be judged
on its merits and would depend upon the impartial advice of local
advisors.
Question 12: Grant size
The ceiling should be generous; if a particular project or activity
has been expensively developed and can be replicated by a national
organisation in several locations, so that the setup costs can be
spread, then a national voluntary organisation should be eligible
for a large grant. However, flamboyant schemes that use disproportionate
amount of funding on a select few should be avoided. Value for money
and economies of scale are important.
Question 13: Local or regional?
There appears to be no compelling reason for not funding national
projects, locally or regionally delivered. This would bring the
advantages of scale.
Question 14: Sustainability
The secret of sustaining benefits is to have follow-up support for
those who have participated in the project or activity. The project
or activity should start and end in the local community.
Question 15: Duration of grant
Whilst three years may be appropriate in some cases, there should
be no overall maximum if you want people to devote resources of
staff, equipment etc. You have to appreciate that for some providers
to take on these programmes they may have to displace other activities
and they may be reluctant to be involved for short time periods.
Question 16: Strategic grants
There is something to be said for allocating generously to strategic
projects with significant national impact, but these would need
to be carefully selected to ensure that there is a genuine new need.
Some established programmes could perhaps be adapted to new circumstances
without incurring the high development costs of 'reinventing the
wheel'.
Question 17: Gaps in provision
We think that the availability of outdoor residential activities
for young people at a key stage in their lives is far too patchy
across the country. We should like to see part of the YPF allocated
to remedy this situation, so that all young people get an opportunity
for participating in this type of activity regardless of where they
live. However, to remedy this you would have to carry out some basic
research upon the existing provision. Please come back to us if
you would like help on how this might be carried out.
There is also a gap in provision of capital funding for the voluntary
sector.
Question 18: Sustainability of benefits
Bids should specify how sustainability is to be achieved. However,
it must be recognised that good quality youth work will always need
public subsidy; pump-priming funding is often insufficient, so worthy
projects offering good value for money all too often become non-viable
after this has dried up. A proportion of the set-up costs are thereby
wasted. Sustainability will be also enhanced where there is permanent
revenue funding for local organisations to continue and be heavily
involved and supported by the community that they serve.
Yours faithfully
Steve Lenartowicz Chair Institute for Outdoor Learning
Please note that any response should be directed
to:
Brian Lamb, Executive Member, Greystone Cottage, Bere Ferrers, Devon
PL0 7JX
01822 841 309 Briankay1@talk21.com