Presentation on theme: "The Future of Community Learning The story so far and some options ahead North Yorkshire Community Learning Partnership June 2014 Jon Gamble."— Presentation transcript:
The Future of Community Learning The story so far and some options ahead North Yorkshire Community Learning Partnership June 2014 Jon Gamble
Key principles underpinning Community Learning now and in the future: Evolution not revolution - Community Learning policy has evolved consistently – enabled the sector to build on progress year on year, maximise value for money and evidence impact Relative stability - Current policy objectives for Community Learning are fit for purpose now and in the years to come Value and relevance - Community Learning is a key part of the learning continuum – learning is at the core but it is deliberately distinct from yet complimentary to learning funded through the adult skills budget Principles (1)
Impact and return on investment are properly understood – concept and value is validated ‘Wiring’ should not distract from the core purpose of Community Learning - public funding has to be used efficaciously but no change to policy or process for change’s sake Proportionality is key in terms of expectations and requirements of the sector – but not at the expense of ambition Principles (2)
Value of Community Learning is not in question 2013/14 sees all 318 Community Learning providers beginning to work as the Community Learning Trust Pilots have done in 2012/13: –Locally-owned delivering networks - planning and partnerships at local level –Engagement with communities and stakeholders –Coherent and relevant offers for local areas –Public funding a starting point – ambition must cost more than public subsidy Need to capitalise on this to articulate and brand the role of Community Learning as a core asset for local communities What next?
Create a national brand / franchise for Community Learning Fund providers to operate a ‘branch of the franchise’ Key concept is that of a ‘Trust’ for local communities – a tangible entity / brand rather than formal Trust models Local delivery partnerships with a single brand and multiple entry points for learners Individual institutions’ offers should be secondary Proposition
‘Franchises’ a mix of publicly and privately funded providers Public funding a contribution to an ambitious strategy Flexible, diverse, shaped by communities Sustainability at the core Adding value to local agendas – LEPs, City Deals etc – and supporting localism, community empowerment and public service reform Features
CSR settlement / single pot implications Budget currently distributed on an arbitrary and historic basis Leverage - provider performance neither rewarded nor penalised Improving efficacy of how money is spent whilst minimising bureaucracy and avoiding destabilisation One Agency – consistent and effective management of a flexible policy with little national prescription Challenges
Following CSR announcements: –Develop the concept of a national brand / franchise for Community Learning and work with BIS, stakeholders and the sector to shape this –Investigate options for how the £210m could be distributed differently – initially a provider neutral exercise? –Link the 2 pieces of work and agree how public funding is best deployed in pursuit of the objective – i.e. maximising funding for the best providers / franchises? Approach
Change the funding model: –Move to formula funding? – ASB approach –Social impact bond model? – private investment up front, public money paid on successful delivery of agreed outcomes –Fund / buy a plan? – contestability –Fund on the basis of outcomes? – agreed proportion paid upfront –Fund partnerships not individual institutions? – geographical funding model Some Options?
Provider selection and funding options: –Maintain status quo – continue to allocate the same amounts to the same providers? –Maintain current provider base and redistribute funding? –Maintain current provider base and top slice budget to allow new entrants / stimulate new activity? –Distribute funding on the basis of geographic need and then select/invite most appropriate providers? –Make 0 – 100% of the budget contestable and open to all providers on the Register? –Variations on all of the above? More Options?