November 2009 Quick Survey Analysis

By Jay Kennedy, Policy Officer, Directory of Social Change

In our October Quick Survey we asked:

What type of government funding would your organisation most benefit from?

• 20% - Contracts
• 77% - Grants
• 1% -   Loans or other investment
• 1% -   None of the above
• 1% -   Don’t know

There were 487 responses, including 126 written comments.  A selection of the comments is provided below, following the main themes of opinion which appear in bold.

Many readers described government contracts as restrictive and prescriptive, which inhibited flexible responses to needs and innovation:

"Commissioning and contracts stifles innovation which is the best reason to invest in the voluntary sector…Can we please get to awarding grants to the organisations with the best plans for achieving outcomes broadly defined by the funder and set the creativity of the sector back to work again."

"We would like to be able to secure funding for the work we know from users is the work they want us to do. Contracts etc., would imply doing work the government thought users wanted…We are now in the grip of the Government in effect micro managing front line organisations through the way they direct funding."

"A grant would allow some autonomy for the organisation. Contract allows nothing but instruction on whatever they want us to do."

"All have their downsides, Contracts for voluntary organisations can be damaging for existing groups - almost like trying to do a deal with Satan!"

"Grants enable the VCS to 'get on with the job' Contracts restrict us to Statutory interests that often do not tackle the real problems."

"Grant funding allows us to be flexible and responsive to meet need as it presents. Contracts are controlling and prescriptive."

"Contracts can be restrictive in the wrong way. We work accountably, can provide evidence of what we have done, and contracts are not helpful."

"The move towards more and more contractual funding is a dangerous one. Many smaller charities will lose out or be forced to put in bids which are unrealistic in order to meet strong competition for contracts. Whilst grants are obviously the most preferable source of funding for our charity as they leave us able to use the money where it might make most impact, loans or investment would be preferable to contract funding, as the latter is not sustainable."

"The move towards commissioning and tenders has disadvantaged small community groups, who are now finding increased competition for the few available grant sources. Our grant income decreased by 50% this year from last year."

However some readers stated a preference for contracts, sometimes with reservations, mainly because they were perceived as being more dependable or providing a clearer legal basis for the funding relationship:

"3/5 year contracts give us financial security enabling us to plan and manage our work force."

"Contracts hold out the prospect of being more long-term and they would also let us provide the level of services that would meet the demand."

"Contracts should provide clarity, more stability and longer term funding however the tenders I have encountered are far too complex and onerous for a small charity to able to cope with without increasing resources and therefore overheads.

"Ideally, a mix of contracts and grants so we have a mix of unrestricted and restricted income. But if only one stream, contracts are probably best."

"A legally binding contract would prevent pulling the rug out form under a Charity which has "agreed" a funding programme running for a number of years. Project funding is unsuitable for establishing long lasting beneficial schemes. It suits only eye catching short term projects - and of course keeps grant funding bodies busy!!"

"Contracts as opposed to grants enable the charity to plan staffing needs and continuity of employment."

"Grants are nothing but hassle as Govt depts do not understand VAT and the reporting arrangements are a real pain."

Many readers focused on why grants were a better option for them, typically because they were felt to be easier to manage, more flexible, or because the nature of their work simply made other types of funding irrelevant:

"grants are easier for smaller third sector organisations to manage."

"[grants] enable us to still be flexible and inclusive rather than target driven which overlaps us into not being fully inclusive to all."

"The old fashioned grant provided by local government, NHS etc gave sufficient freedom to the receiving organisation to develop projects, often funded core needs and still allowed sufficient scrutiny by the funding body."

"We need grants because our service users - young people - are not in a position to pay for the services that we provide and they need - out of school social and cultural education in an informal setting - what used to be called youthwork"

"Grant funding is our vehicle of choice as any other form of funding places too many restrictions on further activities .We are an organisation that by our very nature of being a rural partnership means that our aspirations have to cover many field that have an individual group in a town setting."

"We are a free entry arts organisation so loans and contracts would not be much help."

As the statistics indicate, there was very little enthusiasm for loan funding overall, although a few readers did argue that they could be beneficial:

"Deprived Areas cannot benefit from Loans and most of the organisations which provide services in these areas are too small to take on contracts which in themselves are an expensive process."

"Loans are of little use, and available from other sources."

"We could actually do with loans and or investment as well to ensure facilities are modernised and kept up to date. Currently one has to jump through so many hoops only to fail to get a grant that we do not bother even trying. This prevents us from expanding ourselves into the community more."

"We still need grants for training the unemployed. We do not generate sufficient funding to repay loans."

"Loans are meaningless for our medium sized local group. Any fees we earn are better spent direct within the organisation."

A number of people focused less on the funding type and argued that the length of time, the potential to receive unrestricted income, and the need to support core costs were the real issue:

"some unrestricted funds to allow us to breathe would be manna from heaven"

"What we most need is core funding, which is extremely difficult to obtain."