A different outlook?
Gerald Oppenheim says it is time to change your funding perspective
KEY POINTS
- Funding U-turns reverse advances of the past 30 years
- Challenge is to deliver at less cost while maintaining standards
- Open funding programmes are better for less popular beneficiaries
Last September, I left the Big Lottery Fund, not only after 15 years there and at predecessor Lottery distributors, but after 32 years as a grant-maker in public sector bodies. The change to a freelance life and one of advising on how to access funding in increasingly competitive and the most difficult circumstances anyone has known for a long time, does rather alter your outlook. A real case of gamekeeper turned poacher perhaps.
Grant making at the GLC
When I got the opportunity to become a funder back in 1978, the country’s economy was hardly in the best state but there was a sense that changes could be made for the better. At that time I worked in the housing department of the old Greater London Council, just at the point where the council had new powers to help single homeless people in London who were not in priority need for housing by local councils, by making grants to charities and voluntary organisations. All of that had been made possible by a pioneering piece of private members legislation taken through Parliament by David Steel MP (as he was then) with government support, to become the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act, 1977.
Building partnerships
At that time I don’t think many people outside the, then closed, world of charitable foundations had much of an idea about grant making and how to do it. There was certainly none of the technology we now take as given to help us keep data and use it to support decision-making and then to help manage the funds awarded. There was little or no guidance on how to make grants, at least where I was. Pretty well everything was stored in paper files, written long hand or typed laboriously. It was, however, the beginning of a higher profile for grant making. Importantly it was also the start of organisations with similar interests trying to work together to achieve common goals for the beneficiary groups all were concerned about. Although in London in the first half of the 1980s, much grantmaking by local authorities became highly politicised for poor reasons, often little or nothing to do with who benefited from grants, what was being done with the money and what the effect was. In the sector I worked in at least there was not only a political by-partisan approach but the early building of partnerships (as we would now say; I don’t recall the term being used then) between funders and those receiving the grants to deliver huge improvements for single homeless people living on the capital’s streets or in outmoded hostel accommodation.
The wrong cuts
Under pressure of financial stringency now, much of that seems to be being lost by public funders in a seemingly desperate attempt to save money without regard to its effects. That is as true for individual charities as it is for groups of them confronted by a potentially huge loss of funding, as is likely to be the case in the capital when London Councils takes an axe to the cross-borough scheme which came into being at the demise of the old Greater London Council. Of course, I declare an interest as the first director of the London Boroughs Grants Scheme from 1985-1995, but it seems a real shame that to an outsider now, so much of value is being casually thrown aside.
Funding driven U-turns
As a trustee and chair of a charity by, with and for people with learning disabilities, I can see the same happening as the senior management team of the charity negotiate hard with local authorities over the contracts we deliver for them. I know we are not alone here (small comfort) but the different approaches public bodies are taking, from a strategic approach (helpful) to what feels like complete panic at the other (bad), does not do those with real needs which are not statutorily defined, any favours. It is very hard seeing the advances of the last 30 years being reversed in funding driven U-turns. We are told that personal budgets and changes to the procurement and contracting regime will give charities and voluntary organisations, huge opportunities to make up for lost grant and contract income, though not just yet. Let’s hope all this arrives in time.
Contract income reductions
In common with so many others, energies are being thrown into negotiating to limit the impact of funding changes in 2011 whilst grant funders are starting to find they are dealing with rising numbers of applications for projects to take the strain until the new utopia is with us. For staff and trustees alike budgeting this year is a hazardous business because there is little, if any, certainty. There is a horrible sinking feeling that where we are successful now in limiting reductions in contract income in the year 2011-12, there will be large reckoning to come in 2012-13. Where local authorities are taking a strategic approach (and some I know are seeking to do that) we do at least have six months to a year’s notice of change and time to work out how to get through. Where there is a social enterprise element to service delivery then the challenge quickly becomes making it work harder and better just as the competition between providers of similar services gets more intense.
Some successes
It is not all gloom though. I know we are still winning new business on our own or as part of a consortium, so we are living the partnership approach. The charity has also succeeded in becoming a sub-contractor for specialist services to three of the prime contractors delivering the new Work Programme arrangements but we have no idea how much we will be asked to do and at what cost, so there is still plenty of risk for the staff and trustees to weigh up. But it is better than not being at the party. The challenge is much more about managing what you do now and working out how to deliver at much less cost, whilst keeping up the hard won standards which your service users have every right to expect to see continue.
Impact
In both this role and as a still relatively new freelance consultant, I’d be less than honest to my past if I did not admit how funder driven everything is. There is a lot of important and admirable rhetoric from funders about the impact they want to see from the funds they offer, whether from grants or contracts, and much about beneficiary involvement in the projects which are submitted seeking funds. That is as it should be and every applicant needs to keep both in mind when drafting funding submissions. Both are about accountability, whether for public, corporate or foundation funds. Yet I have an uneasy feeling that where funders say they want to channel some money to meet particular needs, the reasons why and what might be addressed as a result are driven by a less than rounded view of what is actually happening.
Government ministers and officials tend to talk to those they already know who often have a well-known set of views. It seems there isn’t much of an attempt to broaden out to others when developing policy, reviewing what is going on and above all in this climate, deciding how to direct some of the money.
For funders it can become an issue of managing the huge demand there is out there and that’s understandable if you are cost-conscious about how you go about your task. I cannot help feeling though that the intent behind some of the approaches to funding at the moment is just that, without much regard to what service users might need that charities and voluntary organisations are trying to articulate and make happen.
In search of a wider perspective
For some, it is almost as if little has changed. Corporates are as hard to access as ever and then seem to want to fund in predominantly familiar areas. New philanthropy sometimes gives the impression of wanting to work almost exclusively with children and young people; important of course, they are the future, but what about the needs of an ageing population or people with complex needs who fall short of statutory provision? Many foundations are thinking carefully about how they use their funds to greatest effect and are becoming more public about their interests. However there are still many where it is hard to know quite what their interest is and how they may react to applications they get. Public funders are retrenching of necessity and are not really engaging overly with future development of services.
That leaves my former colleagues and, I hope, good friends in the world of Lottery distribution. You are still the best hope for many, but a plea… don’t make your programmes too specialised or niche. It has taken me a while to own up to it, but I really rather like open funding programmes as a way of responding to need. I never thought I’d say that much but the title of this piece rather gives it away.
Author: Gerald Oppenheim
Gerald Oppenheim has over 30 years in grant making, policy and strategy development and governance in the public sector and in charities.
Until September 2010 he was director of policy and partnerships at the Big Lottery Fund and its predecessors for 15 years.
He is now a freelance consultant and chairs the Camden Society, a learning disability charity.
Previously he chaired the London Bombings Relief Charitable Fund and was vice-chair of the BBC Charitable Appeals Advisory Committee.
There are no comments on this article. Be the first to comment.