This consultation closed on 8 December 2009.
In April 2009, DFID announced the commissioning of a series of reviews of its work to build support for development in the UK over the last decade. The reports were completed in July and a public consultation opened on their recommendations. This ended after 12 weeks on 23 October 2009.
The reports contain a series of recommendations to DFID on changes to its approach and programmes for building support for development in the UK. Key recommendations focused on:
60 organisations responded to the consultation. A summary of the main views expressed is given below.
We have considered carefully the findings of the reviews and the inputs to the consultation and propose to move forward as outlined below. Please note that our proposals regarding the future of the Enabling Effective Support (EES) programme and the Development Awareness Fund (DAF) are subject to a further one month period of consultation, starting 9 November 2009. The consultation question is as follows:
All responses to this question should be sent to bsdr@dfid.gov.uk by 8 December 2009.
At the conclusion of this consultation period, comments made will be taken into account by DFID’s ministers in making a final decision on the future of the EES programme and the DAF.
All consultation responses will be analysed carefully and we will publish a summary of the responses. However, DFID is unable to acknowledge individual responses to the consultation question.
As made clear in DFID’s 2009 White Paper, DFID is committed to building support for development issues in the UK. This is essential if the UK is to play its part in addressing the key global issues of our time. Our overall goal for our work is that:
People in the UK appreciate the interdependence of our world and take pride in Britain’s role in reducing global poverty.
In its longer-term work and funding, DFID will seek to build support for development:
As our White Paper, Building Our Common Future, stated, young people in particular need to be encouraged to think about development issues for themselves and come to their own conclusions. What children learn in school has an enduring influence and shapes their adult lives. So if we want young people to grow up caring about global poverty and supportive of government efforts to address this, we need schools to engage them on global issues.
The reviews highlighted some important achievements. In particular they noted that DFID has contributed to integrating global issues into the curricula in England and Wales, as well as enabling a plethora of initiatives to support schools that will have made a significant impact on school children’s understanding of global issues.
However, the education review also made some important observations about areas that we could strengthen. To address the key findings and recommendations, we propose to make five key changes to our education funding and approach, as follows:
1. Phase out the EES programme and the DAF, replacing them with a new programme of support for global learning in England at regional / local levels, and separate programmes of support in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The new programme for England would be designed in collaboration DCSF and experts in this field and put out to a competitive tender in the New Year. We would create opportunities for all interested stakeholders to contribute to the design. The new programme would integrate capacity for lesson learning and dialogue with policy bodies.
We will separately take forward discussions with partners in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland over the coming months about the best way to continue our support to global learning in these parts of the UK.
If this proposal is implemented, all current DAF projects would continue to their conclusion. The current DAF funding round would also continue, with the last grants allocated in February 2010.
Why we’re proposing this: The DAF predominantly supports projects in the education sector. Combining the support we currently provide through the EES and the DAF in a new programme would enable us to create a more coherent approach, as well as to support a tighter outcome and results focused management structure. Importantly, it would also reduce DFID’s transaction costs, thereby ensuring greater value for money, as well as freeing up DFID staff time for more strategic work.
Other options we considered: We considered two other options, as outlined below. However, DFID’s preferred approach is as stated above, for the reasons given here:
2. Develop a global education strategy with the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) to promote global learning and sustainable international partnerships between schools. We will work on this over the coming months, for finalisation in summer / autumn 2010.
3. Develop relationships with the key statutory education bodies, with a view to taking concrete initiatives with them in the future, which we may fund.
4. Focus our work in schools on the 7-14 year old age group and create more opportunities for the 14+s to get involved. For example, we will be continuing our support to the Platform2 youth volunteering scheme and expanding our support to the Global Student Forum. We will be continuing our school linking scheme. However, this will be subject to an independent impact assessment in the coming year, and we will of course consider carefully its findings and recommendations.
5. Establish strong collaboration with our Programme Partnership Arrangement NGO partners on work with schools and young people.
The mass media remains the key source of information and influence on global poverty issues for most people, and the media review broadly supported DFID’s approach. Therefore we intend to continue funding our current key programmes to increase development coverage in the media. We will put these on a longer-term and sounder footing, increasing the focus on evaluation and impact. We will also be establishing a development awareness media strategy panel, to advise us on maximising development coverage and assist in identifying strategic opportunities.
We propose to continue and strengthen our Mini Grants Scheme, increasing the ceiling for grants to £25,000 per year and focusing them on support for projects by diaspora, faith, church and community groups. We believe that this is the best way to cater for these groups, who have found it hard to access DAF funding in the past. The new Mini Grants Scheme will not fund projects targeting schools.
We intend to put the scheme on a sounder footing, with a national managing agent and mechanisms for lesson learning, evaluation of impact and dialogue with DFID. We also propose to include support for capacity building for grantees, e.g. for financial management systems.
We will continue our community linking and diaspora volunteering programmes.
We are continuing our support to trade unions through our new Programme Partnership Arrangement with the Trades Union Congress. Trade unions would also be able to access support through the Mini Grants scheme.
The consultation question was: What are your views on the recommendations in the review reports?
Sixty organisations responded: 13 from regional coordinators of the EES programme, 18 from development education centres and 29 from other bodies, such as managing agents and advisers of programmes funded by DFID, diaspora organisations, education institutes and trade unions.
Most responses welcomed the reviews, noting that education and youth work policies and approaches had moved on since DFID’s BSD strategy was first launched, and it was time for an update.
Many agreed with the recommendations: for a revision to the Building Support for Development vision and objectives, for greater monitoring and evaluation of project impact; for DFID to be more joined up with DCSF, relevant non-departmental public bodies or tie in with national initiatives such as Sustainable Schools, Every Child Matters or Community Cohesion.
Three recommendations elicited the most widespread comment. These were:
Most respondents agreed that DFID should continue working in the formal education sector as a key means to build development support and that the EES should have a revised vision with a clear outcome, clear monitoring and evaluation and a communications plan. Views on whether to continue with the current EES format were divided, but most noted that support for the formal education sector should achieve an impact at local, regional and national level.
The key recommendation in the review was to phase out the Development Awareness Fund. However, most consultation responses favoured maintaining the DAF in some form, many noting the scope the DAF currently provides for innovation as a key point of added value. Several noted that phase-out of the DAF would threaten the continuation of some development education centres.
Many responses commented on the proposed changes to the MGS, with views divided on the proposal to increase the limit to MGS grants. Many suggested that if the DAF were maintained, then there would be no need to increase the MGS. Others noted that higher levels of funding would allow an expansion of the innovative work funded under this scheme.
Bookmark with:
What are Bookmarks?
