Tameside VolOrgs Chief Officers Network (VOLCON)

1. A Picture of Current Funding Sources

1.1 Where do we currently get our funding from?

Tameside funds:

o Childrens Fund

o TMBC Maintenance Small Grants

o Youth Service

o NRF Supporting People via New Charter

o Sure Start

o Tameside MBC/LEA

o TMBC Social Care & Health

o TMBC EDU

o Tameside Community Chest

o Tameside & Glossop PCT

o SRB

o Crime & Disorder Reduction Partnership

o Tameside Connexions

Other Local Authorities

o Manchester Youth Service

o Derbyshire Social Services

o High Peak – Living Spaces funding

Regional/Sub Regional

o Big Lottery

o North West Development Agency

o AGMA

o Manchester Enterprises (ERP)

o GM Police Authority

o ESF

o ERDF

o Connexions

o Mersey Basin

Government Funds

o Home Office

o New Opportunities Fund

o Millennium Volunteers

o Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (Community Participation Programme)

o Groundwork UK (ODPM)

o Legal Services Commission Funding

Charitable Trusts

o Lloyds TSB

o Llankelly

o Tudor Trust

o Police Property Fund

Income Generation

o Charity shops

o Insurance sales

o Student placements (daily rate)

o Sale of services to business/social enterprise

Private Sector

o Funding for project development and activities

o Sponsorship

In kind support

o Office space

o Staff time

o Training

o Business Rates (TMBC discretionary 20%)

o Goods (furniture, equipment, materials)

Note: The above is not an exhaustive list – it was drawn from those present at the meeting.

Levels and types of funding vary from £100K to £306K per annum, and between one-off and revenue funding; project funding can make up a high proportion of the funding available. Only 3 organisations present receive core funding specifically for their central management and administration. The trend is for core funding to cover the costs of essential service delivery functions, but there is no/little recognition of the costs of management and administration. This issue of core funding is a key point for discussion and clarification with funders.

This list indicates the level of complexity of funding, and the number of funding streams that voluntary organisations are having to deal with on a day to day basis. It also presents a positive picture of the overall value of the ‘business’; if volunteer hours are costed and added, then it is seen that the VCS is a significant player in the local economy.

The problems and issues arising from current experiences of funding are outlined below.

1.2 Organisations identified by Funders as currently funded groups

Tameside Organisations

Age Concern Tameside

Ashton & District Mencap

Ashton Pioneer Homes

Cycle-Ops

DIAL (no longer operating)

Groundwork Tameside

Hurst Community Association

Hyde BWA

Information Shop for Young People

MIND

Music Stuff

Off the Record

Our Kids Eyes

Pakistani Ittehad

T3SC

TACO

Tameside CAB

TAVYO

TREC

Victim Support Tameside

Volunteer Centre Tameside

Water Adventure Centre

GM/NW Organisations

Alcohol & Drug Services

Barnados

Body Positive

George House Trust

GM Immigration Aid Unit

Lesbian & Gay Foundation

Lifeline

NCH (the Childrens Charity)

Rochdale MIND

Stroke Foundation

Turning Point

2. Problems experienced by organisations in relation to funding

2.1 VCS Issues

Process issues

· No clear processes

· Lack of published timetables

· Funders not delivering their promises on time

· Length of time to make decisions on funding – impacts on whole organisation

· Late payments by funders (Contracts)

· Lack of transparency and consistency in the process

· Short notice of bidding opportunities

· Short notice of audits

· Short notice between acceptance of outline bids to submission of full bid

· Lack of coherence in the process (fragmented approach from agencies)

· Lack of continuity of key personnel

· Inadequate notice periods for cessation of funding

· Lack of communication by funders

· Grace and favour funding to ‘favourites’

Expectations of organisations by funders

· The need to prove delivery but whilst under-resourced

· Adapting to rapid changes in funding structures and bidding requirements

· Sharing of commercially sensitive information with no guarantee of protection

· Quality Assurance

o who decides what standards are appropriate

o how is the cost covered

o dealing with multiple systems form different funders

· Capacity to make complex bids/tenders

· Historical funding base – need regular review of funding arrangements

· Ability to deliver high quality services ‘on the cheap’

· Monitoring

o Requirements should be relative to levels of funding

o Advance information of requirements is needed

Funding levels and arrangements

· Project funding arrangements do not enable management costs to be allocated

· Lack of core funding

· Short term funding does not enable sustainable developments

· Issues re. VAT and TMBC

· Funding in arrears inhibits new/small organisations (restricts ability to be inclusive)

· Contracts costed unrealistically

· Need to develop more capacity within the local sector to manage local contracts for service delivery

Co-operation/co-ordination or power/control?

· Assessing the impact on VCOs of new initiatives

· Lack of joint interpretation of Central Government legislation and regulation

· TMBC setting up/promoting/strengthening in house services rather than building on VCO services

2.2 Funders issues

Can the VCS deliver?

Clarity about services delivered – what services are/can be provided by VCS

Time constraints versus service development

Concerns about signing SLAs

Capacity – eg. Workforce

Capacity of VCS to deliver & ability to deliver

Need for investment in service development

Need for collaborative working

Linking up with other organisations

Lack of partnership

Procurement flexibility

Recognition of difference

How can these needs be shared with other sectors to avoid duplication?

Duplication of services, activity, skills, roles etc

Constraints on Statutory organisations

Joint contracts between PCT and LA and Standing Orders

Standing Orders on Procurement eg. Invitation to tender

Government Targets (Performance) shaping services

Savings targets (short term0 on purchasers

Meeting competitive processes

Budget pressure to purchase most cost effective service (financial) v. social capital

Lack of communication with funders

Ability of VCS to engage in planning of services

Lack of communication

Unrealistic expectations that statutory sector had fewer constraints on it

No information about beneficiaries

Not spending money allocated

Getting information on time

Not flagging up problems in delivery soon enough

Claiming the money!

Clarity re. funding streams – what are the current funding streams & how can they be managed more effectively

Need to take a strategic view

Central & regional funding

Engaging with the new localism

Development of a strategic joined up approach to public spending via LAA model

Shifting resources threatens some VCS groups as well as benefiting others

Need for shared understanding of Stat sector policy drivers and VCS local issues and needs

Political relationships

Need to understand and implement Impact measurement

Lack of measurement of social capital

Lack of externally verified standards leading to purchasers having to monitor standards

How to manage change in funding culture

Mindsets – VCS good/LA bad or vice versa

Change to commissioning culture

‘Grant’ mentality of many VCOs

Lack of funding for core functions – most funding is for service delivery

Change to programme area budgets – how VCOs fit in

End of Joint Finance

3. Ideas to address the problems/issues identified

· Acceptance of VCO collaboration and partnership with funders/statutory bodies

· Clarity

· Honesty

· Willingness to listen

· Recognition of the professionalism of the sector

· Financial recognition of the cost of strategic partnership/involvement

· Recognition of the independence of VCOs

· Joint guidelines/shared best practice between funders

· Monitoring

o Shared systems across funders/accepted by funders

o Relevant and appropriate

o Advance information about monitoring requirements

· Core funding for management and administration

· Full cost recovery through project funding

· Up front payments/payment in advance

· Recognition of financial value and cost of volunteer hours

· Rolling programmes of funding

· Development Contracts to build local capacity

· Risk funding to foster innovation

· Support for a learning environment – no blame culture

· Move to outcomes funding or broad outputs

· Mix of funding regimes – contract, SLA, grant

4. Ideas for joint action on issues

2 Workshop style sessions discussed ideas

Group 1.

Co-ordination of infrastructure support – funding

Proper recognition of costs of services/projects – by both sides

Recognition of value of ‘soft’ as well as ‘hard’ issues in service delivery

Commonality of datasets/outcomes/impact measures

Joint commissioning

Continuity in contact personnel (where practical) – building mutual respect – or knowledge of who is appropriate contact person in the chain

Group 2.

Clear Processes:

1. Strategic

Mapping of resources (needs & mismatch)
Move to commissioning culture
Need to determine role of VCS in this
transparent decision making processes
could be ground rules/working protocol agreements
relationship management
VCS strength – bending services to meet needs
Can be player in strategic commissioning (outcome thinking)
2. Individual/organisational

Balance between funding and monitoring levels
To face challenges that comes with helping each other within VCS – infrastructure support
Marketing
‘playing up’ networks that VCS has for statutory services to promote through and deliver on

4. Next Steps

· To begin to develop a joint action plan, which will inform the Tameside Compact Code of Practice on Funding