In the Autumn of 2022, the Local Authority was awarded £40,000 for social prescribing from the DH Health Inequalities Fund, and through discussions with Matt Scott, in his role representing BD_Collective on the Social Prescribing Working group, agreed that it was more appropriate for this to be distributed and managed by the social sector. The Council wanted to maximise the fund and decided to match the £40,000 with additional Council funds.
Social Prescribing offers an important link between the health service and the community. It is an approach that connects people to activities, groups and services in the community to meet practical, social, and emotional needs.
The Community Chest was the first fund managed within BD_Collective that was entirely led by a Steering Group made up of members. It felt like a forerunner of how things should be coordinated with BD_Collective.
In the Autumn of 2023, the Council concluded to commission around £45,000 from NHS Northeast London which is match funded by the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. The same Steering Group led this year’s process building on the lessons learned from Round 1.
Jenny Fribbins, from the BD_Collective secretariat, took the opportunity to interview Georgina Alexiou, one of the Steering Group members, about the process and outcome.
BD_Collective convened a Steering Group of five active voluntary groups who took on the planning of all aspects of the fund: Barking and Dagenham Youth Dance (hereafter referred to as BDYD), Green Shoe Arts, Thames Life, Radiant Ambition, and Tots and Tunes.
Georgina runs BDYD, a small grassroots charity that started around 20 years ago, supporting approximately 160 young people each week, aiming to give them a voice through dance classes, social action, and leadership training.
Georgina became involved in the Community Chest process due to a real concern with the power dynamic in the borough when it comes to how funding is distributed. She feels that it’s the smaller groups that often get overlooked, despite working directly alongside those in the borough who might benefit from social prescribing. Also, another motivating factor is that she sees how broken the social prescribing system is, and wants to see real, lasting change.
Meeting regularly, alongside those responsible for the social prescribing system in the borough, the Steering Group decided upon a participatory grant funding approach, where those competing for funding would also get a say in who received the money via a voting system. They wanted there to be access for groups who weren’t always able to obtain funding in the borough, and they wanted to spread the money widely, so offered smaller grants of around £3-5,000.
The fund in total was £80,000. Though that sounds like a huge sum of money, Georgina and the others are more than aware that it is still a drop in the ocean when tackling the vast health and social inequalities faced by Barking and Dagenham residents.
The Steering Group had to learn to help groups manage their expectations in terms of what they hope to achieve with the grant money. Whilst £3-5,000 sounds a generous sum, it is important that the organisations bidding are realistic – there is no point promising the earth, only for them to underdeliver.
In the first round of funding, in 2023, they hit a snag – one which may be seen as both positive and negative. There weren’t enough groups bidding for the money, so all were funded. Whilst this was probably seen as a positive by the groups seeking funding, it doesn’t create a clear standard that groups have to aim for – provision for social prescribing could easily become poor, and therefore not fulfil its aim. The sense that groups, after completing their four-minute presentation, would get a voice on who else they thought would be worthy of funding, is also weakened – there is no meaningful selective process. However, despite this, they were still able to release £65,235 of funding.
Frustrating though that was, it spurred on the Steering Group to work out those kinks for the following round of funding. It was decided that they would not automatically give all groups funding, even if there were not enough groups bidding for the money.
Thankfully, with word about the funding available being spread, round two was more successful. The organisations going for the funding had also learned from round one of the process, exploring different ways in which they could present what they were able to offer, creatively demonstrating to whom, and how, their organisation could be beneficial in a social prescribing capacity.
The voting system, done via paper rather than digitally this time, was helpful: groups were given feedback as to what they could have done differently, and not all groups were funded. Whilst there was some frustration coming from those who felt ‘the best presentations’ got the funding, rather than the groups that deserved it, the Steering Group felt there was evidence to dispute this. Perhaps more support for those to whom presentations do not come easily for the next round could be helpful if the opportunity comes around again. This year, they were able to release £83,316.4 of funding.
From Georgina’s perspective, the direction in which the Steering Group had taken the dispersal of funds was effective. Many small voluntary and community groups were present. Organisations that the Steering Group had not yet come across in the borough, despite a wealth of experience between them, showed up to bid and were successful. And even for those not successful, they were in the room, where there was useful networking happening, with perhaps even more opportunity in the future for the voluntary sector to come and support one another in their mutual endeavours, which the participatory fund facilitated.
The Steering Group is keen to grow, inviting those who were part of the bidding process this time round to come and join them, and contribute to making the process better. There’s recognition that the invitation to join them may need to be done differently, to help groups understand the purpose and benefit of being part of the Steering Group.
The whole thing is a learning process, and that’s important. Georgina hopes that more decision makers, e.g. GPs, can join them in the future, gaining better insight into what can be provided, and how successful the social sector can be at helping solve some of the borough’s greatest needs. Though progress is being made, there is no need to stop here; let’s hope for bigger and better things to come.
Community Chest Fund Yr 1 document
Community Chest Fund Yr 2 document
We invite you to read the full independent evaluation report and to find out more about the Community Chest model.
Recent Comments