AQW 46754/11-15
Ms Claire Sugden
Independent
East Londonderry
Tabled Date: 05/06/2015
Answered On Date: 18/06/2015
Priority Written: No
Question:
To ask the Minister for Social Development, pursuant to AQW 43284/11-15, to detail the process for assessing applications.
Answer:
In this difficult financial climate my Department’s aim was to maximise the delivery of high quality services to the most disadvantaged though the introduction of a process that delivered within timeframe, ensured funding was prioritised against the highest quality projects, and allowed for a consistent and transparent process. Applications were sought from all existing projects and were prioritised against the following criteria at both at a strategic and project level to ensure uniformity: Linkage to Departmental Policies and Programme for Government priorities Evidence based need Value for Money Impact on area of disadvantage Ministerial Priority Sustainability – Impact of withdrawal/Other funding opportunities These criteria along with regional and local intelligence gathered, feedback from the formal consultation process, our organisational / sectoral experience and knowledge of the funding environment were considered and the following project methodology was introduced. Project Methodology Stage 1 Remove costs relating to projects that would not require DSD funding in 2015/16. This included for example one-off projects (e.g. refurbishments of premises, purchase of equipment, design fees, community audits and so on) and those projects for which alternative funding in 2015/16 had been secured. Stage 2 All remaining projects went through a robust Economic Appraisal process. The economic appraisal ensured that projects had effectively delivered against agreed existing contractual targets and continued to meet identified need and strategic priorities going forward. Those that failed to meet these criteria were no longer considered for funding. Those that passed the economic appraisal were considered suitable for funding. Where possible, efficiencies were identified through the economic appraisal process to improve value for money. Stage 3 Finally, subject projects to the existing Senior level Approval Panel arrangements, where a sample of projects were considered against the set criteria.
|