London-wide Transforming Local Infrastructure Fund Bid Outcomes Frontline civil society organisations can access a wider range of high quality support, networking and volunteering brokerage opportunities and value them more highly. There is stronger local leadership for civil society organisations which contributes to better partnerships with local businesses and the local statutory sector. Infrastructure organisations, including volunteering infrastructure, are transformed so that they are more efficient, effective and are able to learn and grow with less dependence on state funding.

London-wide Transforming Local Infrastructure Fund Bid developing new and/or redesigning existing services restructuring or moving to a different business model, including redundancy costs where necessary moving services to or from other organisations developing new partnerships, alliances, mergers and/or shared services staff training, for example to enable you to take on different kinds of support roles which are more suited to meeting the needs of frontline civil society organisations leadership development activities getting expert advice and support.

London-wide Transforming Local Infrastructure Fund Bid Timeline so far 15 July -Fund announced and opened for registrations 4 August - Initial meeting called by LVSC for potential interested partners 5 August – Registrations Closed 1 September – KP met with Peter Lewis (CEO LVSC) to talk in more detail 2 September – Expression of Interest submitted with LVSC as the lead agency 7 September – Follow-up meeting at City Hall with interested organisations

London-wide Transforming Local Infrastructure Fund Bid Areas agreed for exploration Development of a consortium to bid for London-wide work Building links with the private sector, possibly based on the United Way model Research and mapping of existing infrastructure Representative voice for London’s VCS Fund for mergers and collaborations

London-wide Transforming Local Infrastructure Fund Bid London-wide consortia bid development: Agreement that this would transform the contracts that VCS groups in London could bid for and would allow infrastructure organisations to support more smaller organisations to deliver specialist and local services. Models need to be developed that underwrite and manage the risks of these but do not incur large management and administration costs. The models will also need to respond quickly and effectively to work with a range of sub-sectors. It was agreed: To explore the Limited Liability Partnership and co-operative models (including £60,000 loan hub fund) and insurance options in more detail. To support existing consortia (possibly an extra part of mapping exercise) Explore co-ordination with sub-regional and local consortia

London-wide Transforming Local Infrastructure Fund Bid Work with the private sector: Agreement that this should be pursued. There was some concern about the feasibility of how the US-based United Way model would work in the UK, how this model would effectively collaborate with the work of Community Foundations and concern that we would be adding a new body when the bid should concentrate on rationalising infrastructure. It was agreed: To gather more evidence from the work in Liverpool To develop a local and regional model that builds on existing CVS and community foundation work: this should not develop new legal structures. To work to translate the United Way model more effectively to the local and regional structures and culture and diversity of London's private and voluntary and community sectors,

London-wide Transforming Local Infrastructure Fund Bid Research/mapping: This would only fulfil the bid criteria if there was funding to implement its findings. It was agreed:: This would be 'quick and dirty' (budget around £15-£20,000) to assess the impact of Transforming Local Infrastructure funding in London, link with the consortia mapping and possibly VCS-private sector working It needs to build on existing research (ChangeUp, NCVO, NAVCA, Children England) It needs to pay attention to the needs of equalities infrastructure organisations, that are particularly threatened. The final report needs to show some thought for sustainability / developing income: could it be sold / sponsored? It needs to look at national, London-wide, sub-regional and local infrastructure and the 'market' for their services. It should consider re-naming as a bench marking project so that results can be compared at beginning and end of funding.

London-wide Transforming Local Infrastructure Fund Bid Voice: This was the weakest area of the bid and least met the funding criteria. However, there was still strong support but a need to distinguish it from existing work. It was agreed: It should be linked with needs assessment and impact measurement needed in the United Way model to address issues of sustainability. It needs to bring VCS leaders together It needs to emphasise the current gap it fills for Government (e.g. Department of Education is currently asking for regional policy work with the VCS) We need to sell it in a different way: a consultancy, market research or user involvement function of access into London's VCS - a service which then looks like we can charge for it? (see Synovate(?) website) It needs to harness and test the use of new technology.

London-wide Transforming Local Infrastructure Fund Bid Merger Fund: It was agreed this should not be used to pay external consultants but may be used for legal costs. It should explore the use of pro bono consultancy (Cranfield Trust?) It needs to cover issues such as agreement on merging, involving staff and trustees and facilitate discussions on these within organisations It could use 'merger mentors' from the VCS It needs to explore current work of Fairbridge, Prince's Trust, Fidelity, Private Equity Foundation, Ethical Property Foundation, LawWorks, Community Matters

London-wide Transforming Local Infrastructure Fund Bid Questions for GLV members What do you think of the proposals? Is there anything significant missing (bearing in mind it’s only £400,000 maximum)? Which of the areas mentioned ought to have the strongest GLV representation? Anything else?