The Future of Community Learning The story so far and some options ahead

1. The Future of Community Learning The story so far and some options ahead North Yorkshire Community Learning Partnership June 2014 Jon Gamble

2. Principles (1) 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 distinctfrom yet complimentary to learning funded through the adult skills budget

3. Principles (2) • 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 efficaciouslybut 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

4. What next? • Value of Community Learning is not in question • 2013/14 sees all 318 Community Learning providersbeginning 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

5. Proposition • Create a national brand / franchisefor 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

6. Features • ‘Franchises’ a mix of publicly and privately fundedproviders • 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

7. Challenges • 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

8. Approach • 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?

9. Some Options? 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

10. More Options? Provider selection and funding options: • Maintain status quo – continue to allocate the same amounts to the same providers? • Maintain current provider base and redistributefunding? • 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/invitemost appropriate providers? • Make 0 – 100% of the budget contestable and open to all providers on the Register? • Variations on all of the above?

11. And finally . . .