The Grants Determination sub-committee met to discuss a variety of grant related matters. They agreed to pass £1.134 million to the Mulberry Trust to allow them to buy ICT equipment for the Mulberry London Dock Secondary school. They also noted the performance of the now completed Local Community Fund. The committee received a report on the Mayor's Community Grants Programme. The meeting ended with a discussion about the council's VCS grants programme. The committee noted the grants that had been made under delegated authority.

Mulberry London Dock Secondary School ICT

Jonathan Fox, the Principal Contracts Lawyer for Tower Hamlets, asked the committee to approve the transfer of £1.134 million from the Department for Education to the Mulberry Trust for the purposes of equipping Mulberry London Dock Secondary School with ICT equipment. This money had been paid to Tower Hamlets by the DfE to cover the cost of the school's ICT provision. However, the council had decided it would be simpler to pass the money directly to the school. The money will be paid in stages as the school needs to buy equipment. This is likely to begin in October 2024 when the first pupils arrive. A significant portion of the money is expected to be spent during this first year as the school will need to buy a lot of equipment to begin with. The school is expected to open in September 2024.

The money will be subject to a funding agreement between the council and Mulberry Schools Trust which will specify what the money can be spent on. A schedule of permitted items will be included in the agreement. The school will also need to apply to the council each year for permission to spend the money, and the money will be subject to audit.

The funding was agreed by the committee, and Mayor Rahman asked Councillor Mayim to discuss the possibility of Tower Hamlets Council holding an official opening ceremony at the school with Steve Reddy, the council's Chief Executive.

Local Community Fund Programme

July to October 2023 performance

The committee received a report on the final four months of the Local Community Fund. The programme, which ran from 2019-2023 was extended for four months from April-September 2023 to give the council more time to develop its replacement, the new Arts and Humanities Grants programme. There were also delays in finalising this programme, so it was extended by a further month to the end of October.

The report, which was presented by an unnamed officer, found that the scheme had made good progress towards achieving its targets.

All the projects in the programme have been successful in delivering their overall outcomes and KPIs.

Councillor Coburn asked if there were any regrets from the programme. The officer responded that all of the projects funded by the programme had been approved by the committee, so none could be considered regrets.

October 2022 to October 2023 Performance

The committee received the Local Community Fund's annual report covering the final 13 months of its operation, from October 2022-October 2023.

The report, which was also presented by an unnamed officer, stated that the programme had progressed well during the year, successfully delivering a satisfactory level of service despite the impact of the cost of living crisis on beneficiaries. 70% of the programme's beneficiaries were from Black, Asian or Multi-Ethnic communities, 60% were women, 18,500 were disabled people and 9% were older people.

Councillor Coburn sought reassurances that the council had robust controls in place to ensure the programme's funds were being spent properly and that outcomes were being delivered. He asked if any organisations had been placed on action plans to improve their performance. The officer presenting the report responded that, whilst they could not name them, none of the organisations in receipt of funding had been placed on an action plan. She went on to explain that funding could be withheld from organisations who were failing to deliver their projects or spend their funds properly.

If they were sniffing it under performance, then payments would have been produced. There would have been agreements of action plans to address that.

She went on to explain that organisations delivered quarterly monitoring reports, and that council officers conducted annual visits to each organisation. The organisations also provided annual reports on their projects.

So there were checks and balances there, regular quarterly monitoring checks, annual visits, but also scoped officers had ongoing monitoring relationships with the projects, so they would get in touch to discuss issues of concern and any support required.

Mayor's Community Grants Programme

The committee received a report on the first 5 months of the Mayor's Community Grants Programme which began in November 2023. The report, which was presented by an unnamed officer, covered the period from November 2023 to March 2024.

110 projects received funding from the programme, delivered by 78 lead organisations. Decisions were made on 25 September 2023 and the successful applicants were notified on the 9th of October, giving them just a month to mobilise their projects before the scheme began.

And the mobilization process took several months, and that did have an impact on some projects, but we were able to get through the mobilization process, agree the funding agreements, get the payments made.

All the organisations have signed funding agreements with the council and these have been reconciled.

The report assessed the progress of the organisations involved using a 'RAG' (Red, Amber, Green) rating system. This system is frequently used in local government to quickly assess the performance of projects and programmes. Only one project was rated as 'red', whilst six were rated 'amber'.

Longhouse Welfare Association

The one organisation to have been rated as 'red' by the council was the Longhouse Welfare Association in relation to their project delivering Bengali and Arabic language classes for children and young people.

The project has been plagued by delays. These began before the programme even started, with the project unable to start in November. Further delays mean that the project is now 8 months behind schedule and has yet to deliver a single session. The council has not yet released any money to the organisation. Tower Hamlets is now considering its options. In particular, they are considering whether it is viable for the project to continue at all given the length of the delays, and what impact the delays will have on the project's ability to meet its targets. It is likely that a report will be presented to the committee's September meeting containing a decision on the future of the project.

Several members of the committee expressed concern about the project. Councillor Mayim was particularly concerned by the fact that the organisation's registered office is a private home, 424 Repton Street. He was concerned that this may be linked to the organisation's failure to secure suitable venues.

I understand that the organisation is going for a long, long time. I don't know them, but one of the things the mayor picked up on about the address is the home address. So I think what we need to look at is, is this one of the reasons why they struggled in the last four or five months to find venues and stuff? I mean, they might be charity, they might be everything, but I think that's one of the things we need to look at.

An officer responded to the Councillor's concerns by explaining that charities are allowed to operate from residential properties as long as they do not deliver services from those properties. They went on to explain that the delays had been caused by the council's safeguarding checks, which had taken longer than expected, and problems securing a venue for the language classes.

Councillor Mayim went on to criticise the council's processes, suggesting that the situation should not have been allowed to escalate in the way that it had.

And I'm hoping it can give us assurance we have robust monitoring and evaluation process in place, and I think something like they've got the money and it's been three, four months, five months and they've not been running. I think that doesn't give me eight months, sorry, that doesn't give me that much confidence as well, that we have robust process in place, because I think we need to be strictly careful and clear on the process.

The officer responded by pointing out that no money had actually been given to the organisation.

Accuracy of Reporting

Councillor Kabir Ahmed raised concerns about the accuracy of the officer's report. He pointed out that several organisations in the report were listed as operating in the wrong wards.

You've got a number of wards for organisations incorrect, so I'll give you an example, St Hilda's is in Weaver's Ward and not Bethnal Green East.

He went on to point out that The Weavers Community Forum, an organisation that works in the Weavers Ward, was also listed as working in the wrong area. He urged officers to correct the mistakes, and offered to provide support if required.

So it's not in Bethnal Green East or Bethnal Green West, so we can get that right, please, it's important. Talk to electoral services, they can get the intervention, or come to us, we'll sort it out for you.

Frequency of Spot Checks

Councillor Ahmed went on to question the frequency of the council's spot checks on organisations in receipt of funding. He pointed out that the council is only committed to conducting one announced visit each year to organisations receiving grants. He requested data on the number of spot checks carried out by council officers, the number of organisations each officer is responsible for monitoring, and more information about the processes used by officers.

I mean, not right now, but later on it would be interesting to find out how many visits each officer within their caseloads have made and what the size of these caseloads are in terms of the number of organisations per worker they observe and monitor, and to get a better understanding of the processes and the controls you have in place in order to deal and make sure that these organisations are providing the services that they're billing for.

Officers committed to including data on the number of visits carried out by council officers in future reports. They also pointed out that the council has the right to conduct unannounced visits to organisations in receipt of funding. This is written into the funding agreements signed by the organisations.

VCS Funding Awarded Under Delegated Authority

The committee noted that a number of grants had been made by officers under delegated authority between the previous meeting and this one. The most significant of these was a 40% rent reduction given to the Bow West Community Organisation under the terms of the council's Community Benefit Rent Reduction policy.

Mayor's Small Grants Programme

The bulk of the grants were awarded under the Mayor's Small Grants Programme. 58 grants were awarded, totalling £157,244. Despite this, the council had the resources to award even more grants. Unfortunately, the quality of applications was not high enough, and many did not meet the eligibility criteria for funding.

So we have strengthened the support to the sector, because we want them to be able to access this funding and deliver community events.

Council officers are hoping that the quality of applications will improve in the next round of funding, which is due to close at the end of the week.

Funding for Tenant and Resident Associations

Councillor Kabir Ahmed raised concerns about the funding of Tenant and Resident Associations (TRAs). He noted that some TRAs, in particular those operating on council estates and those affiliated with the council, receive funding from multiple sources in the council, in addition to the grants being awarded by the committee. He expressed concern that the council was not doing enough to prevent organisations double-hatting by applying to multiple sources for funding for the same activities.

Yeah, I just wanted to explore – TRAs applying for grants. TRAs work in conjunction, particularly two TRAs on the list are council TRAs, and they get the sort of money coming in via the council and the council's neighbourhoods team, in order to set up community events and stuff like that. So how does that connect together, and have we explored any of this stuff? And double whammies, they're getting money from other sources, and so getting money from us. So normal TRAs will get money from the housing associations, and they'll get support. So two of them are direct XTHH/council TRAs. So as far as I understand, most of the fun days and events are actually directly run by either the old townless homes, neighbourhoods team, or now directly with the council. I know it's not huge amounts of money, but have we looked at if there is double billing, or how it's match funded, or anything along those?

Officers responded by explaining that applicants are able to declare funding they have received from other sources when applying for grants. They conceded that more could be done to scrutinise applications from organisations receiving funding from multiple council departments and committed to reviewing the council's processes in light of the Councillor's concerns.