Publication - FOI/EIR release

Cashback For Communities Phase 6 Achieve More Scotland: FOI release

Published: 4 December 2023
Directorate: Safer Communities Directorate
Topic: Public sector
FOI reference: 202200334364
Date received: 14 December 2022
Date responded: 2 February 2023

Information request and response under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.

Information requested

Thirty-three questions and requests relating to the Cashback for Communities (CfC) programme in general and the Achieve More Scotland application for Phase 6 of that programme in particular, specifying that the penultimate request should be treated as being made under FOISA. Questions 3-5 related to Phase 6 criteria. Questions 6-21 related to the nine points which were relayed in our notification letter as ‘Areas for Development’.

1. Can you confirm that the panel did not consider the impact of the work of Achieve More Scotland over the past three years, including our response to the pandemic and our success in establishing a comprehensive programme of activity (per our Phase 5 application), despite the Scottish Government having invested £500,000 in the organisation?

2. Does the Safer Communities Directorate believe an investment of £500,000 awarded at the start of a global pandemic, which limited the opportunities to fully deliver on key outcomes, and subsequently withdrawn at the earliest opportunity represents a value for money investment?

3. Which of these criteria did our proposal not meet?

4. Did the panel expect all applicants to meet all of these criteria within their funding bids?

5. Did all successful applicants meet all of these criteria?”

6. (cf. point 1) Can you give examples of what the decision makers would describe as ‘clear evidence that the project would provide person-centred support’ and where we failed in this regard?

7. (cf. point 2) Can you give examples of what would have made our response more specific to the question asked?

8. (cf. point 3) Can you advise on what further could have been stated to strengthen this response within the limits of the 200 words available per question?

9. (cf. point 4) On the basis of the information provided, do you and the Safer Communities team stand by the statement?

10. (cf. point 4) Can you specifically detail what the concerns were that were raised by the decisionmakers with regards to risk management, experience and capacity?

11. (cf. point 4) Can you confirm whether those on the decision-making panel were aware of the experience and capacity of our organisation?

12. (cf. point 4) If risk, experience and capacity were concerns for Safer Communities or for Inspiring Scotland why were these not addressed with Achieve More Scotland during Phase 5 and why would the Scottish Government invest £500,000 in the organisation for Phase 5?

13. (cf. point 5) What further measures would the Safer Communities Directorate and decision-making panel suggest were included that weren’t highlighted in our application?

14. (cf. point 6) Can you be more specific and support with examples?

15. (cf. point 6) Can you explain to us why, if the panel identified this as one of the strengths of our application – information that is well-documented across multiple governmental reports – why is it identified also as an ‘Area for Development’?

16. (cf. point 6) Can you explain to us why, if this information is commonly ‘known’ to the decisionmakers, would we be expected to re-specify this information and, as such, waste word count?

17. (cf. point 7) What does this actually mean? From the Scottish Government - ‘THE PLACE PRINCIPLE: It promotes a shared understanding of place, and the need to take a more collaborative approach to a place’s services and assets to achieve better outcomes for people and communities. The principle encourages and enables local flexibility to respond to issues and circumstances in different places’.

18. (cf. point 7) Can you explain what further detail the decision-making panel required in reference to the ‘Place Principle’ that would have enabled us to score better on this aspect?

19. (cf. point 8) In the limited space available for answers in the Phase 6 application, can the Safer Communities Directorate clarify what more we could have done to make our commitment to Children’s Rights more ‘explicit’ and where this ‘explicit’ commitment should have been detailed?

20. (cf. point 9) Can you confirm exactly where in the Phase 6 application does it specifically ask organisations for an ‘organisational policy on positive climate’?

21. (cf. point 9) What aspect of our response to this question (55) does not clarify our stated aims and commitment to contributing towards positive climate change?”

22. Can you confirm that all of the projects that have been successful for Phase 6 funding met all of the funding criteria?

23. Can you confirm how many organisations being recommended for Phase 6 have been funded in every Cashback phase?

24. How many organisations funded in Phase 5 are NOT being funded in Phase 6?

25. What effect do you and the Safer Communities Directorate – and Inspiring Scotland - believe that withdrawing these services after 18 - 20 months of an incredibly positive impact (as reflected in impact reports and feedback from young people participating in the Phase 5 Project) will have on young people who are, and feel, marginalised already?

26. Does the Safer Community Directorate understand that those who will be adversely impacted by the decision to withdraw the investment which has previously made such a positive impact, are the very young people your documents, policies and statements indicate you are most concerned about – those with multiple ACE’s, limited life opportunities (even more so given the current economic climate), do you and your colleagues understand that these are THE VERY YOUNG PEOPLE THAT ARE RIPE FOR INVOLVEMENT IN CRIME due to lack of services, opportunities and the like?

27. Do you and the Safer Communities Directorate believe that the decision-making process was thorough, that due diligence was done on all 158 projects who applied for Phase 6 funding and that the scoring of applications truly reflected the quality and potential impact of each of the proposed projects?

28. Does the Safer Communities Directorate and the wider Scottish Government understand the adverse impact of withdrawing these services from the most deprived communities in the country?

29. Can you inform us of who was involved on the decision-making panel? This will be helpful to understand the background and knowledge of those making key decisions on Cashback funding and their knowledge and experience of the organisations they are making funding decisions about.

30. Can you clarify exactly what was the decision-making process/scoring?

31. Can you clarify whether those making the decisions took into account how those funded in Phase 5 had responded to the pandemic and whether they utilised Cashback resources to benefit the communities they were funded to serve?

32. Can you grant us access to all of the successful Phase 6 applications and the scoring for them, as well as the scoring for our funding bid. If required, please consider this as a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

33. In order to expedite this process, can you clarify whether a request from MSPs for access to these applications would require to go through an FOI process?

Response

1. In order for the process to be as inclusive and fair as possible, assessments were based solely on the information which applicants chose to include in their submissions, rather than external factors or established relationships. For all applicants, regardless of whether they are or are not currently part of Phase 5 of CfC, that allowed an equal opportunity to provide information about their track record, not least during the pandemic.

2. It is fully recognised that the pandemic presented enormous challenges for a huge range of organisations in achieving their prior ambitions and that, despite the exceptional efforts made by many to mitigate the impact of the pandemic, the opportunities to deliver will have been impacted. That, of course, applies to organisations regardless of whether or not they were funded through Phase 5 of CfC. Funding has not been ‘withdrawn’ from Achieve More Scotland. The Scottish Government entered into an agreement to provide funding throughout the three years of Phase 5 of CfC (i.e. 2020/21 - 2022/23) and that agreement is being honoured in full. There was no commitment to provide funding beyond that three-year period, either for Achieve More Scotland or for any of the other existing partners. Indeed, all applicants for Phase 5 of CfC were required, as part of their proposals, to consider and explain the level of sustainability that their work would achieve by the end of that phase and/or the exit strategy. Each 3- year grant award is time-limited, which is again made clear to partners in the Grant Offer Letter signed at the start of each phase. There is no implication that funding will necessarily continue beyond that phase.

3-5. We have appended a document (Enc 1) with this response which provides detail about how your own organisation was scored by the panel of Scottish Government officials. As per the published guidance, it was specified that applications would need to demonstrate that their project meets all the criteria of Phase 6 of CfC. Any application being deemed eligible and then being scored highly enough to be a contender for funding in Phase 6 of CfC will indeed have been judged to have met the criteria to a sufficient degree. However, meeting all the criteria was not, in itself, sufficient to lead to selection for funding. This reflects that a very large number of applicants met the criteria, that in aggregate they were seeking funding which far outstripped the significant but finite monies available, and that therefore only the applications which had been scored and ranked most highly through the assessment process could be successful.

6-21. Supplementing these questions, you also provided a range of information and argumentation. It is important to clarify aspects of the assessment process and notably that, in order to try to support its independence, the assessment of applications was undertaken through an initial review by our Delivery Partner, Inspiring Scotland, which was followed by a panel process which did not directly involve members of my Cashback management team. Consequently, you will appreciate that there are significant limits on the information that is available to us to pass to you, beyond that already provided in our letter of 1 December. While we cannot speculate or elucidate further as regards the details of the panel’s assessments, we are able to supply you with a copy of the guidance (Enc 2) that was provided for its members; this is appended. In accordance with section 17 of FOISA, we must notify you that further information to respond to these questions is not held.

22-24. As already stated above, the published guidance specified that applications would need to demonstrate that their project meets all the criteria of Phase 6 of CfC. Any application being deemed eligible and then being scored highly enough to be a contender for funding in Phase 6 of CfC will indeed have been judged to have met the criteria to a sufficient degree. Information about the organisations which have been funded through CfC prior to Phase 6 is already in the public domain and is available at the website,

https://cashbackforcommunities.or g

A decision about which organisations will be funded in Phase 6 has not yet been made public. We anticipate that a decision will be announced in the next few weeks. At that point, we expect that the information to answer questions 23 and 24 will be readily available. An exemption in section 27(1) of FOISA allows public authorities to refuse to disclose information if they already plan to publish it within the next 12 weeks. This exemption is subject to the ‘public interest test’. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information now outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exemption. While recognise that there is some public interest in rapid release as part of open and transparent government, and to inform public debate, we conclude in this instance that this is outweighed by the strong public interest in maintaining the ability of the Scottish Government to proceed with the commencement of the Phase 6 of CfC in an orderly manner.

25-28. As regards the potential impact of the outcome of the process, and with specific reference to the suggestion that investment is being withdrawn, as detailed earlier, the Scottish Government entered into an agreement to provide funding throughout the three years of Phase 5 of CfC. That agreement is being fully honoured. There was no commitment to provide funding beyond Phase 5, either for your organisation or for any of the other existing partners. Each 3-year grant award is time-limited, which is made clear to partners in the Grant Offer Letter signed at the start of each phase. There is no implication that funding will necessarily continue beyond that phase. Indeed, all applicants for Phase 5 were required, as part of their proposals, to consider and explain the level of sustainability that their work would achieve by the end of that phase and/or the exit strategy.

More broadly, the Scottish Government indeed recognises the scale of need in the communities which you serve, and in other communities across Scotland. The fact that the Scottish Government is aiming to proceed with CfC at all, despite the very extreme financial pressures that it faces, is testament to a recognition of that need and of the value that is attached to work to address it. As stated above, the funds available for CfC are significant but finite, and that is why the Scottish Government is able to support some but not all of the very compelling proposals that exist. The rolling programme of renewal aims to help ensure that finite funds are invested as effectively as possible in this important area.

We remain confident that this assessment process gave fair and equitable treatment to each of the proposals received for Phase 6, based on the information which applicants chose to submit in the application form.

29-33. We can advise that, following the closure of the application period on 12 August 2022, Inspiring Scotland and the Scottish Government’s CfC management team undertook an initial sift of applications to establish which were and were not eligible. Early notifications were issued to those deemed ineligible, while the remainder of the applications proceeded for assessment. All eligible applications were subject to an Inspiring Scotland review where all sections of the application were considered and scored either poor, adequate or good, together with relevant comments where required. The resulting sift form from Inspiring Scotland was incorporated into the assessment form and included in an assessor pack that was issued to all panel members. Panel members were drawn from across a wide range of Scottish Government policy areas. We tried to balance a mix of grades and match policy experience with application types where possible.

Once an agreed score had been provided for each application, these were collated with scores from Inspiring Scotland, and views of CfC-experienced Young People. An overall score was then established, comprising 55% Scottish Government panel; 40% Inspiring Scotland; 5% CfC-experienced Young People. A ranked list of scored applications was then produced.

Those involved in the assessment of applications will have taken into account how those funded in Phase 5 had responded to the pandemic and whether they utilised Cashback resources to benefit the communities they were funded to serve, insofar as that information was set out in their application forms.

In relation to your penultimate point and your wish for it to be considered as a request under FOISA, we can advise as follows. Exemptions under section 30(c) of FOISA (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and section 33(1)(b) of FOISA (commercial interests and the economy) apply to much of the information requested.

With specific regard to section 30(c), disclosure of the requested information under FOISA would be likely to prejudice substantially the effective conduct of public affairs. This is because there is a significant probability that substantial prejudice would arise, in that release in this case would be likely to lead organisations to perceive that future applications and scores would also be released to others, including potential rivals. This may deter some from applying fully and candidly, or at all, to contribute to the delivery of work of public benefit.

With specific regard to section 33(1)(b), disclosure of the requested information under FOISA would be likely to prejudice substantially the commercial interests of other organisations which applied. There is a significant probability that substantial prejudice would arise, in that grant application is a competitive process requiring applicants to disclose a significant quantity of potentially sensitive information about themselves, their operations and their plans, and the disclosure of such information to others, including potential rivals, would be likely to lead to potential detriment in their future competitive position and ability to raise funds.

These exemptions are subject to the ‘public interest test’. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exemptions. We recognise that there is some public interest in release as part of open and transparent government, and to inform public debate. However, this is outweighed by the strong public interest in maintaining the ability of the Scottish Government to invite and receive applications on the basis that their contents are treated in confidence.

Notwithstanding the exemptions noted above, we are able to provide three documents which we hope will be of interest. As previously mentioned, one (Enc 1) gives some detail about how your own organisation's application was scored by the panel of Scottish Government officials. Another (Enc 3) - with the names of other organisations redacted for the reasons given above (notably the exemptions provided by section 27(1) and 30(c) of FOISA - gives information about the overall scoring / ranking of the eligible applications. A further document (Enc 4) gives some detail about how your organisation's application was scored by our Delivery Partner.

Finally, we can advise that we endeavour to be as helpful and forthcoming as possible in relation to all requests, taking account of the law and the public interest, regardless of whether or not FOISA is specifically cited. As stated on the website of the Scottish Information Commissioner, www.itspublicknowledge.info, 'elected representatives have the same FOI rights as any other citizen'.

In summary, while we sought to provide applicants for Phase 6 of CfC with greater information / guidance at the outset than in the past (e.g. through online information sessions), as well as providing a longer period to submit applications than in the past, the actual assessment process was essentially consistent with past practice.

About FOI

The Scottish Government is committed to publishing all information released in response to Freedom of Information requests. View all FOI responses at http://www.gov.scot/foi-responses.