Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee

Fifth Report - COVID-19: Government Support for Charities

Public Accounts Committee HC 250 Published 9 June 2021
Report Status
Government responded
Conclusions & Recommendations
19 items

No response data available yet.

Filter by:

Conclusions (19)

Observations and findings
2 Conclusion
We are not convinced that the Department’s decisions about how to allocate funds were sufficiently transparent. The Department asserts that in order to help it work at pace it decided to involve special advisers in preparing its advice to Ministers on which charities should receive funding. We did not receive …
View Details →
3 Conclusion
The Department cannot explain the additional benefit it has received from its contract with a professional services firm to perform due diligence on charity applications to The National Lottery Challenge Fund (TNLCF). TNLCF is an organisation that is experienced in distributing funding, which formed part of the justification by the …
View Details →
4 Conclusion
The Department cannot demonstrate how its funding decisions have benefited charities and will not be able to do so until it completes is evaluation of the funding at the end of 2021. The Department has a limited understanding of the impacts of the funding on vulnerable groups and communities. Initial …
View Details →
5 Conclusion
The Department cannot yet demonstrate that it fully understands the financial health and resilience of the charity sector or whether further government financial support will be necessary. The funding covers the period up until the end of March 2021 and any unspent funding will be returned to HM Treasury. The …
View Details →
1 Conclusion
On the basis of a Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, we took evidence from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (the Department), The National Lottery Community Fund (TNLCF) and The Charity Commission on the government’s £750 million funding to charities during the COVID-19 pandemic.1 We also …
View Details →
6 Conclusion
We questioned the Department about how it decided which bids from other government departments it would provide funding for. Special advisers were invited to discuss the initial assessments from the Department’s officials before final advice was given to Ministers.15 Correspondence from the Department showed that in the meeting to discuss …
View Details →
7 Conclusion
Given our concerns that this was an unusual process, the Department contended that it was not different from the normal process by which advice was offered to Ministers. The Department, however, was unable to offer further examples of when such an arrangement has been used.23 Nor was it able to …
View Details →
8 Conclusion
The Department provided £30 million of funding to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), with £7 million allocated to the Zoo Support Fund.27 We asked the Department why the allocation to DEFRA to support zoos came from funding designed to support charities helping the vulnerable during the …
View Details →
9 Conclusion
We also asked about the decision-making process around awards for the Community Match Challenge scheme, where the Department match funded the amounts raised by philanthropic groups, foundations and grant-making organisations. Ministers selected twenty organisations to receive funding, including seven out of the ten highest scoring applications. All four of the …
View Details →
10 Conclusion
The Department reduced the funding allocation to TNLCF from £310 million to £200 million around one week before it was due to start distributing funding.33 When asked why this was the case, the Department told us that it was due to the fact that Ministers wanted more flexibility in how …
View Details →
11 Conclusion
The Department paid £2 million in 2020–21 to a professional services firm, PwC, to provide support on grants and operations, including checks on awards made by TNLCF for the Coronavirus Community Support Fund (CCSF).38 We asked why this additional support had been needed and how the Department ensured that it …
View Details →
12 Conclusion
We have found in our reports on the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, that the need to act at speed can reduce transparency and increase the risk of fraud and error. In our report examining Government procurement and the supply of Personal Protective Equipment, we found that Government had …
View Details →
13 Conclusion
By February 2021, the Department had identified 76 fraudulent applications, 70 of which had resulted in awards. The Department estimated that up to £614,000 had been distributed to fraudulent applicants and had reported cases equivalent to £400,000 to the police. The remaining £214,000 were still under investigation. The Department estimated …
View Details →
14 Conclusion
The Department has not yet evaluated whether the funding package has met its objectives of supporting vulnerable people and relieving pressure on frontline services during the pandemic. It explained that it was in the process of procuring an evaluation and was aiming to produce a report before the end of …
View Details →
15 Conclusion
The National Lottery Community Fund (TNLCF) told us that it undertook regular surveys of customers who were accessing its funding. TNLCF explained that 77% of its customers rated their experience between eight and 10 out of 10, with 10 being the highest score; and 75% of respondents noted that as …
View Details →
16 Conclusion
The National Audit Office found that the information available on the geographical distribution of funding was at times inconsistent or missing, making it difficult to determine the geographical spread of funding awarded. At 19 February 2021, the Department held no information on where funds were being used for 18% of …
View Details →
17 Conclusion
The Department told us that its intention was that the overall funding provided would be of “significant assistance [to the sector] even if it wasn’t able to cover every gap” and that it understood that “charities would have to make difficult decisions” as a result of the pandemic.54 It said …
View Details →
18 Conclusion
The Department recognised that charities had lost traditional sources of income during the pandemic, such as fundraising through large events like the London Marathon and the closure of charity shops. However, it also suggested that moving fundraising online may have increased overall funding levels. In addition, the Department highlighted that …
View Details →
19 Conclusion
We asked about the impact of the pandemic on the financial health of the sector as a whole. The Charity Commission told us that a range of indicators suggest that charities’ finances were worsening. It explained that the number of auditor reports on matters of material significance, that highlight a …
View Details →