"How can we encourage grant giving organisations to provide continuation funding for core – rather than having to “reinvent” the work to look like something new and innovative?"
This sits at the base of all funding issues. 'Bottom-up' could be workable. I've suggested we should create a database of information: what does a charity do, who does it, where, when and how - and (importantly) what cash, assistance, training, premises or whatever - does it need in order to do that work. Does it have aspirations - a simplified business plan or statement.
Recently we applied for five small grants, all under £2,000 each. They required (on average) 15 pages of information, much of it duplicated. We estimate it took a working week to gather all that information together. All had to be project- based, all required us to modify our own intentions to meet the aspirations of the fund-givers. We didn't get any of these awards (hence my chagrin) but look at the overall cost of all these applications across all charitable support applications. There has to be a better way.
I suggest it may be more workable, and cheaper, to reverse the problem. I'll tell you I need £50K for staff, £10K for premises and office admin, £20K for equipment, travel and other costs - and I'll give you a tailor-made community radio station. If so, send cheques to Felixstowe Radio
I think that each charity has to make the best possible case for why it should be supported. If a charity has a relationship with a grant giver then it may be possible to explain the need for continuation funding rather than a string of projects.
However, most funders do not want a charity to be completely reliant on them for its continued existence. We can also try to diversify our sources of funds, to reduce reliance on one type of funder. This will strengthen our case for support.
We also need to make sure that if we are "packaging" some of our work as projects that we are using a cost model that recovers core costs properly. Our committee has recently decided not to actively pursue grants which do not enable us to do this.
As Lockwood points out it can be a particular problem if a charity is having to respond to an agenda set by grant givers that may not entirely match its own aims. This probably applies increasingly to statutory funding.
Lockwood, have you heard of the Big Give website? It allows you to describe your project for an audience of philanthropists (sounds a bit like your database idea). It might be worth having a look at for Felixstowe Radio, although it has only just started, so isn't tried and tested yet.
I agree with Lockwood. Huge amounts of time and money are wasted on duplication of information and particularly for sums of money so insignifcant in themselves yet necessary for the development of an organisation. We all know a little can go a very long way.
We have developed a potential income generator but cannot attract any core funding to set it up. Two of us are expected to effectively subsidise a business personally and do all the work (planning, marketing, accounting, sales, admin, funding applications, HR, legal, advertising, research, training design and delivery) unpaid and still pay all our overheads and our personal bills out of very little.
We don't want to take out loans and risk debt. We are working to retain our independence and move away completely from grant funding. We want to be able to tender for public contracts but that's another unfunny joke...
Other businesses are not expected to jump through hoops in the way voluntary orgs are nor are they treated with such contempt as we are by funders.
OTS logo
Ann
This sits at the base of all funding issues. 'Bottom-up' could be workable. I've suggested we should create a database of information: what does a charity do, who does it, where, when and how - and (importantly) what cash, assistance, training, premises or whatever - does it need in order to do that work. Does it have aspirations - a simplified business plan or statement.
Recently we applied for five small grants, all under £2,000 each. They required (on average) 15 pages of information, much of it duplicated. We estimate it took a working week to gather all that information together. All had to be project- based, all required us to modify our own intentions to meet the aspirations of the fund-givers. We didn't get any of these awards (hence my chagrin) but look at the overall cost of all these applications across all charitable support applications. There has to be a better way.
I suggest it may be more workable, and cheaper, to reverse the problem. I'll tell you I need £50K for staff, £10K for premises and office admin, £20K for equipment, travel and other costs - and I'll give you a tailor-made community radio station. If so, send cheques to Felixstowe Radio
I think that each charity has to make the best possible case for why it should be supported. If a charity has a relationship with a grant giver then it may be possible to explain the need for continuation funding rather than a string of projects.
However, most funders do not want a charity to be completely reliant on them for its continued existence. We can also try to diversify our sources of funds, to reduce reliance on one type of funder. This will strengthen our case for support.
We also need to make sure that if we are "packaging" some of our work as projects that we are using a cost model that recovers core costs properly. Our committee has recently decided not to actively pursue grants which do not enable us to do this.
As Lockwood points out it can be a particular problem if a charity is having to respond to an agenda set by grant givers that may not entirely match its own aims. This probably applies increasingly to statutory funding.
Lockwood, have you heard of the Big Give website? It allows you to describe your project for an audience of philanthropists (sounds a bit like your database idea). It might be worth having a look at for Felixstowe Radio, although it has only just started, so isn't tried and tested yet.
I agree with Lockwood. Huge amounts of time and money are wasted on duplication of information and particularly for sums of money so insignifcant in themselves yet necessary for the development of an organisation. We all know a little can go a very long way.
We have developed a potential income generator but cannot attract any core funding to set it up. Two of us are expected to effectively subsidise a business personally and do all the work (planning, marketing, accounting, sales, admin, funding applications, HR, legal, advertising, research, training design and delivery) unpaid and still pay all our overheads and our personal bills out of very little.
We don't want to take out loans and risk debt. We are working to retain our independence and move away completely from grant funding. We want to be able to tender for public contracts but that's another unfunny joke...
Other businesses are not expected to jump through hoops in the way voluntary orgs are nor are they treated with such contempt as we are by funders.