Policy paper

Changing Places Fund: explanatory note on the decision-making process

Updated 24 March 2022

This was published under the 2019 to 2022 Johnson Conservative government

Applies to England

This note sets out the decision-making process leading to the confirmation of awards under the Changing Places Fund to unitary and district authorities in England which chose to opt into the fund.

The purpose of this document is to set out the decision-making process behind confirmation of awards made under the first round of the Changing Places Fund to local authorities in England. The context, assessment methodology and decision -making process was set out in the Changing Places Fund prospectus (CPF Prospectus) Changing Places Fund prospectus published in July 2021.

Background

The Changing Places Fund forms part of the National Disability Strategy launched in 2021. The Strategy made a public commitment to make £30 million capital funding available over 3 years to unitary and district councils in England with the objective to increase both the number and geographic spread of Changing Places Toilets (CPTs) and to provide them in venues of greatest need. The CPF prospectus was published in July 2021 inviting unitary and district authorities to submit an expression of interest.

The Fund is an opt-in fund. The CPF prospectus guarantees that local authorities which submit an eligible expression of interest (EoI) will receive an offer of funding equivalent to the average cost of installing at least one Changing Places Toilet in their area (based on cost average assumption of £40,000).

The Changing Places Fund is delivered in partnership with Muscular Dystrophy UK (MDUK), which co-chairs the national Changing Paces Consortium supporting organisations with technical advice and training and maintaining a public register of CPTs.

The design of the CPF included an index of need which considered the ratio of existing CPT provision in local authority (LA) areas to the number of residents with a disability. The index provided an indicative allocation for each area drawn from the £30 million budget. Allocations were categorised into 8 bands providing LAs with a guide to scaling their bids. LAs were however able to bid for more than their indicative allocation.

CPF expressions of interest received

205 expressions of interest were received in September 2021 totalling £27.2 million, ranging from £20k to £790k. 202 (65%) eligible local authorities submitted an EoI, 108 did not. Eleven local authorities EOIs were rejected as out of scope, three EoIs were received from ineligible applicants, leaving 191 for assessment.

The CPF prospectus stated that ministers will make decisions on final funding allocations taking into account the number of EoIs and CPTs that can be delivered, and their geographical spread. In the circumstances of too few EoIs received or insufficient geographic spread to meet the areas of need, the department may choose not to allocate the full £30 million in this round, instead opting to run a further round of EOIs to maximise the number and spread of applications across England.

CPF assessment

The EoIs were assessed in line with the methodology set out in Annex B of the CPF prospectus taking account of both need and quality. For example, 40% of the score for an EoI assessment is based on the index of need and 60% on the quality of the proposal. DLUHC and MDUK officials worked collaboratively to undertake assessment. In respect of quality EoIs were assessed against criteria set out within the CPF prospectus (number of CPTs, amount of match funding, quality of the proposal including user consultation, rationale and deliverability). A total score for need and quality was identified for each EoI ranging between 1 (lowest) and 5 (highest). Scores were then moderated to provide assurance and DLUHC analysts also assured the data.

Allocation Process

Given that the opt-in and assessment process is non-competitive, a two-stage process was recommended with reference to the total score following assessment and the application of a cap on overall funding allocation where bids were exceptionally high relative to the indicative allocation.

The first stage was based on a total assessment score as follows:

• Local authorities that scored 2.6 or more total score should receive the full amount of funding they requested (subject to a cap in a limited number of places, see below). This would represent 181 (95%) of EoIs. A score of 2.6 of the maximum available score represents an appropriate quality threshold giving due regard to value for money and quality and recognises the limited amount of detail provided in the EoI. Those scoring below 2.6 are considered to have failed to have provided sufficient or appropriate details on one or more criteria (e.g. lack of evidence of consultation with users or low levels of match funding) at EoI, which when aggregated generates a low score.

• Local authorities that scored less than 2.6 score (10 LAs representing 5% of EoIs) should receive an offer of £40,000 funding. Along with closer monitoring, this helps address the value for money and deliverability risk of low scoring bids whilst meeting the commitment set out in the CPF prospectus that every local authority that opts-into this programme will be able to receive funding equivalent to the average cost of installing at least one Changing Places toilet in their area (based on an average cost assumption of £40,000).

Three EoIs with a score of less than 2.6 indicated in their EoI that they would not be able to provide a CPT for £40,000 offer. Officials will work with these areas to establish if it is possible to provide a CPT in the area for £40,000, e.g. by changing location. If not, these areas will receive no funding in this round but would have the opportunity to submit an EoI for funding in the future.

The second stage of the process considers capping exceptionally high requests for funding in EoIs.

While there was no formal limit to the amount of funding that a local authority could apply for, most local authorities made applications in line with the bands set out in the CPF prospectus and their indicative allocation as informed by the index of need.

There were a small number of LAs that applied for a substantially greater amount of money, in some instances many times more than the bands suggested. Even accepting that the costs of providing a CPT can vary across the country, these requests were particularly large, and raised concerns that concentrating such large amounts of funding in fewer places would undermine the policy objectives of the programme and would limit our ability to support CPTs in areas with little or no provision through a second round. To mitigate this a cap was recommended as follows.

• Local authorities would be limited to three times the upper limit of the band they were assigned to in the CPF prospectus. For example, a local authority allocated to band C (£90k-£100k) would be limited to £300k. Eleven local authorities in total would be capped. Of these, 9 would receive over £300k and two between £240k and £270k.

The recommended two stage approach would commit £23.5 million to 191 LAs and deliver approximately 500^{[footnote 1]} Changing Places toilets. It would result in 21 local authorities receiving less than the amount requested in their EoIs, 10 as a result of limiting the offer to those LAs that scored less than 2.6 of maximum available score and eleven as a result of applying a cap.

Ministerial decision making

As outlined in Annex B of the CPF prospectus, the minister was to make decisions on final funding allocations considering the number of EoIs and CPTs that can be delivered and their geographic spread. The CPF prospectus states that ministers will be presented with the geographical spread of CPTs to identify poorly served areas thereby ensuring alignment with the strategic goals of the programme.

Ministers will have the discretion to provide additional funding, from unallocated programme funds, to the group of local authorities who chose to opt-in, and/or to run a further funding round, where authorities who have not made a bid will be encouraged to apply.

The discretion to provide greater funding in some cases than indicated through the methodology is limited to where this would result in a substantially higher number of changing places being delivered or a better geographical spread.

In all circumstances, the department will not allocate more funding to a local authority than they asked for in their expression of interest.

Following assessment, the minister was presented with a list of local authorities and suggested allocations that each should receive, as well as a map showing the geographic distribution of recommended CPTs.

The list differentiated between:

• Those local authorities that based on the assessment and allocation methodology should receive the amount of funding requested.
• A list of local authorities that based on the assessment and allocation methodology should receive less than they requested in their EoI.

The final funding decision sat with the Minister for Rough Sleeping and Housing, who also acts as the ministerial lead on disability issues.

Officials considered potential conflicts of interest and how to balance ministerial involvement in decision-making whilst ensuring that ministers do not take decisions where personal, pecuniary or constituency interests may appear to impact their judgement.

The minister was required to recuse himself from the decision-making process if he had prior knowledge of a bid from his constituency or if he had any other personal or pecuniary interest in any EoI featured in the list for approval. The minister confirmed he did not.

In addition, the information submitted to the minister was edited to ensure that any EoI from his constituency could not be identified.

This resulted in the decision being taken by the Minister of State to fund a total of 191 local authorities across England totalling £23.5 million.

Considerations of the equalities impacts of ministerial decisions

Before making his final decision, the minister considered an equalities analysis of the proposed list of areas selected for funding to ensure that the department paid due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the act, recognising that the CPF policy is focused on one specific protected group of the nine identified in the Equality Act 2010, that is those with a disability, and will provide direct benefits to that group.

The assessment concluded that while the funding decisions will directly benefit those with a disability and has potential to indirectly benefit older people, this is not a decision that will have an adverse or disproportionately negative impact on people who share a protected characteristic.

The decision will advance equality of opportunity by providing appropriate facilities to enable access and participation, encouraging and enabling those sharing a protected characteristic (disability/age) to better participate in public life. It will raise awareness and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not by raising the visibility of CPTs and why they are needed across a range of publicly accessible places, providing facilities that will also support families and carers.

1. The exact number of CPT facilities associated with £23.5 million funding allocation agreed in round 1 may vary as the 11 authorities where funding was capped confirm venues in discussion with DLUHC officials. ↩