col_logo_2col_blk_cmyk_hi reduced

The City Bridge Trust
Five-year Review
Consultation Questionnaire
Introduction
Context
This is our second five-year review of our grant-making policies and processes. Your views on where we should focus our attention over the next five years are important to us.  

With finite resources, we are not able to fund everything. We are seeking your views on what you think we should prioritise in order to focus on London's most pressing needs, that are both appropriate for an independent grant-making trust and will help us have the most impact.
The Questionnaire
The questionnaire is divided into three sections concerned with grant-making priorities; grant making processes; and evaluation and learning from grant-making. Some of the questions require some prior knowledge of how the Trust works. If you do not feel able to answer a question, please leave it blank and move on to the next one.
You can move between the three sections of the questionnaire by clicking on the 'Next>>' and '<<Back' buttons at the bottom of each page. Clicking on the 'Reset' button will clear all the responses you have entered and enable you start again.

You can save your answers and return to the questionnaire another time by clicking on the 'Save' button. The 'Print' button enables you to print your questionnaire if you wish to keep a hard copy.

When you have completed the questionnaire, please click on the 'Submit' button at the bottom of the final page to send your responses to the Trust.

Our revised grant-making policies and procedures will be announced in spring 2008 on our website, www.citybridgetrust.org.uk.
For further information please contact Jenny Field, telephone 020 7332 3716 or email jenny.field@cityoflondon.gov.uk
Section 1: Grant-making Priorities
We currently run five grant programmes on our Main Grants Scheme as follows:

1.  Access for Disabled People
    - Access to transport
    - Strengthening families (including disabled parents and families with disabled members)
    - Access to arts and leisure
    - Access to buildings
2.  London's Environment
    - Environmental education
    - Enhancing London's diversity
    - Reducing London's environmental footprint
3.  Children and Young People
    - Children and young people at risk
    - Responsible living
4.  Older People in the Community
    - Improving quality of life
    - Enhancing life in residential care
5.  Strengthening the Voluntary and Community Sector
    - Governance and accountability
    - Standards
    - Sustainability
As you can see, they are currently very 'client group' focussed. On the one hand this can make it difficult for people working generically with specific communities to access our funds. On the other, there are many current and important issues and challenges facing the groups we fund that touch all communities. We feel it is important that we consider moving from a 'client group' approach to subject themes and we have identified 13 key issues we believe are important for London, following a future scanning exercise undertaken by the Young Foundation.
Q1 Please rank which of these you think we should place greatest priority on.
 
         
  1. Climate Change:        
  2. Immigration, Asylum and Migrant Labour (trafficking; modern day slavery):        
  3. Mental Health (including children & young people's health services; reaching BMER communities):        
  4. Domestic Violence (including honour killings & elder abuse):        
  5. Issues in Residential Care (both older people and children & young people):        
  6. Community Cohesion (including citizenship; leadership; bridging divides):        
  7. Guns, Gangs & Weapons:        
  8. Penal Affairs (including the justice system; rehabilitation & resettlement; victims of crime):        
  9. Ageing (including dementia; Alzheimer's; frail elderly):        
  10. Social Inclusion:        
  11. Caring Responsibilities:        
  12. Obesity & Eating Disorders:        
  13. 2012/Olympics        
Q2
We recently commissioned an evaluation of our Access to Buildings programme. Our grants on this programme have ranged from contributions to multi-million pound developments, through to medium sized projects where we are the majority funder and to modest adaptations. The evaluation has led us to question how we should proceed with this programme and we want to collect views on a number of questions.
Q3 In a climate where our funds are under increasing pressure, should we say 'No' to capital projects over a certain size (e.g. £1m)?  
 
 
Q4 Should we put a cap on capital grants (excuse the pun), regardless of the size of project?  
 
 
Q5 If we did introduce a cap, what should it be?
Please select one:
 
 
 
 
 
Q6
Q7
Section 2: Grant-making Processes
Currently, the maximum period that we will fund a project or activity is three years, although work of an exceptional nature or of particular strategic importance to London can be considered for a further two years, making 5 years support in total.
Q8 Given that extending the maximum period of grant impacts the number and value of grants we are able to award, do you think that we should continue this policy?  
 
 
Q9 Should we:  
 
 
Q10 Currently, an organisation in receipt of a grant over three years is eligible to apply for another grant when that funding comes to an end provided that the application is for another purpose. If an organisation wishes to apply for the same purpose, there should be a three year gap between the old grant ending and a new application being submitted. Please indicate below the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements.
 
         
  a) The current policy is a fair way of balancing reducing over-dependency on the Trust's funds and providing sensible funding opportunities:        
  b) There should be a 12 month gap at the end of a 3 year grant from the Trust before you can re-apply:        
  c) There should be a 3 year gap at the end of a 3 year grant, with no option of applying for a different purpose:        
Q11 For several years, the Trust has funded strategic initiatives in order to complement our reactive grant-making and to enable us to commission specific pieces of work that will inform our policies and add value to our grants. Bearing in mind the pressure on resources, please tell us your views on the following:
 
The Trust has got the balance between strategic and reactive grants about right:
 
 
 
 
Q12 Given the pressure on resources, we are interested in your views on the following:
 
         
  a) Higher priority should be given to organisations that involve large numbers of volunteers in their work over those that involve few or none:        
  b) The Trust should concentrate on medium sized and smaller organisations with an income of less than £10m:        
  c) The Trust should commission specialist organisations to undertake work of strategic importance that will underpin the Trust's other grant-making. What do you think?        
  d) The Trust should consider using some of its funds for alternatives to cash grants, for example, in the form of loans or asset building:        
  e) The Trust should concentrate on innovation:        
  f) The Trust should concentrate on unpopular causes:        
Q13
Section 3: Evaluation & Learning
Q14 The Trust's monitoring and evaluation requirements are currently proportional to the size of the grant. A simple form is used for grants of less than £10,000 and a more detailed form for grants of more than £10,000. We think it timely to review the threshold and would like your views:
 
Should we:
 
 
 
Q15 Please tell us your opinion of the following statements:
 
         
  a) The Trust should use more of its resources to spread learning, best practice and encourage replicability, even if this means making fewer grants: