Call for Evidence on the Funding of Voluntary Sector Organisations

Bridgend Association of Voluntary Organisations (BAVO)

BAVO is the County Voluntary Council (CVC) for Bridgend County and as such the umbrella organisation for third sector organisations across the County.  BAVO has over 330 organisations members and over 450 contacts.  In 2006/07  BAVO dealt with over 500 funding related enquiries and 94 projects received funding support.

BAVO’s purpose is to support, encourage and promote the development of a third sector in Bridgend County that is effective and efficient, informed and influential and that makes a positive impact on peoples lives.

Our work is guided by a set of values, which help to determine work priorities and our overall style of working.  We recognise Bridgend County is a diverse Borough and that everyone has a contribution to make and a right to equality of opportunity.

We believe that

• Our services should be as accessible as possible to all sectors of the community, and no person should suffer discrimination or lack of opportunity based on race, gender, beliefs, sexuality, disability, age or class
• All people should have the opportunity to play an active part in their community.
• All people should have rights to social justice and to participate in decision-making processes and local action
• Priority should be given to working with groups whose full participation in society is limited by economic and / or social disadvantage
• Integrity, professionalism and quality should be at the core of BAVO’s work.

Response to the Inquiry

BAVO welcomes the inquiry and this response aims to raise a number of practical issues as evidence in response to some of the questions posed.

BAVO currently manages a small community grants scheme (delegated funds) awarded under the Wales Assembly Government Community Facilities and Activities Programme (CFAP).  We are delighted that we are able to manage this key fund and it works well for both the local community groups and for BAVO  in that  as a CVC, we already have good links with groups in our geographical area and so we are able to build on the core support we are able to offer these groups. It also strengthens our links with local groups by opening doors for dialogue and engaging them in best practice (and best practice fundraising) - developing their capacity, skills and knowledge, so in effect this key fund encourages and supports the development of CVCs’ relationships with these groups, which is extremely positive and has a knock on-effect in terms of our representational role.

The Grassroots Fund pilot recently introduced and managed by CVC’s on the WAG’s behalf recognises that small amounts of pump-priming to smaller local groups can actually make a difference in local communities and has a positive effect on local services.  However, there is potential for difficulties in allocating the funding as a number of our local wards are highlighted within the Welsh Index of Multiple deprivation, and the majority of local groups eligible are based in Communities First areas and are accessing Communities First Trust Fund money, very often taking them over the £5000 eligibility criteria threshold.  This may be an issue that is particular to Bridgend County only, and may not reflect other CVC’s experience.

The other issue around funding is the fact that it is becoming increasingly more capital based, this is prevalent across grant givers and funders, and it is very often the revenue element that is a necessity for groups.

In terms of the small grant programme we manage, we are able to use our match funding to support revenue costs (approx 25% of each bid). This is a lifeline to local groups who are finding it increasingly difficult to continue to deliver their core / current services, as obtaining ongoing funding for existing services and projects is one of the most difficult things for third sector groups to find.  Funders are increasingly pushing for 'sustainable’ or 'innovative new’ and/or 'additional’ services to be provided for- it seems there is very little value placed on what is already needed or being provided for, and there is also very little understanding as to the value citizens and communities actually place on these services.

To a degree BAVO understands the need for pushing services forward to improve quality, access and range, but we also understand the need for this to be balanced with what is currently being provided.

Example: Age Concern Bridgend, where a recent application to the 'Older Peoples Strategy Grant’ was refused as their proposal was to fund current services and this was ineligible.  BAVO was involved in the grant making decision, which was a professional and democratic process involving multi-agencies.  However the panel was tied to the WAG criteria.  Indeed, BAVO received an enquiry from Carwyn Jones AM seeking clarification on behalf of Age Concern Bridgend on this particular issue.

2. Ease or difficulty in complying with constraints or conditions placed on funding

This ties into item 3 below, where funding is allocated or rolled out late in the financial year, the requirement to spend it by March 31^st often follows, this places difficulties on most third sector organizations.

Example:  if there has been an award for a staff post, getting that agreed and then the post recruited can take considerable time, and an 'underspend’ may occur as a result of little delivery taking place or a person nor being in post the full period.   Carrying forward that 'underspend’ over the next year is sometimes difficult to get agreed, or takes a substantial amount of time to get approved.

In terms of capital expenditure, they may have to go first through a local multi-agency grant panel / application process, wait for the outcome of that before progressing for example, a planning application (which takes a number of weeks).  The same issues apply.

Timescales sometimes do not allow for adequate planning and do not therefore foster 'best practice’ in this respect.

3. Issues related to the duration or timing of funding

Following on from (2) above, in terms of  issues relating to the duration or timing of funding, BAVO host a number of partnership posts, some are very short term (1 or 2 year posts) This presents issues in terms of recruitment, high staff turnover, loss of skilled and knowledgeable staff and investment in individual’s development being lost fairly quickly.  Many staff in short term /fixed term contracts will start seeking out their next post anywhere up to a 12 month prior to their contract ending.  This makes it very difficult to sustain quality and quantity of services, as the remaining period of the post is usually fairly short and results in the post being impossible to appoint to for the remaining period.   This often results in a number of remaining staff picking up the work between them, but in terms of the budget still looks like 'underspent’.  It however can have further cost implications on the organisation in providing time off in lieu to staff who have covered the post.

Example: the delayed notification of the HSCWB Facilitators post receiving ongoing funding.  Clearly we were delighted funding was eventually approved,  but as a result of the extended delay we lost a very knowledgeable member of staff (3 years in post), who actually held out to the very end of his contract awaiting news of continued funding.  Unfortunately, the post remained vacant for over 6 months, despite a full recruitment campaign and has since resulted in a secondment.

The situation of short term funding also has an impact on planning processes, the delivery of consistent services and the ability to be responsive to local needs.

In recent years there have been a number of other schemes that have been  rolled out quite late in the year.

Example:  Community Focused Schools.  This rolled out initially Autumn 05 (due to be spent by March 06).  Where such programmes are managed by the public/statutory sector bodies, the information and call for proposals /bids are very often rolled out to the sector very late in the process, (or not at all). This does not give local groups the time to seek authority from their management committees or indeed seek support from their local CVC to support them with a bid.

4. Other issues

With the opportunity that EU Convergence funding brings to our area, there is a lot of concern that smaller groups will 'miss out’ in terms of investment in their services.  They fear that the larger, national organizations, some of whom are not currently operational in Bridgend County will be able to offer  EU 'subsidised’  services to local commissioning bodies, and this will be at the expense of services currently provided for by the local sector.

There is also a body of work that needs to be done to ensure the local sector (and the sector pan Wales), is geared up for a mixed funding economy.  EU funding as well as the development of Local Service Boards (in relation to developing citizen-focused services) will bring procurement to the forefront . The sector is not opposed to this, indeed  a mixed economy approach to funding will go some way to providing a more secure & sustainable funding base for some third sector organizations.  However, there is concern as to whether additional layers of bureaucracy will follow alongside inconsistent commissioning and procurement procedures, and excessive monitoring requirements.

There is also concern that procurement; tendering and commissioning for example, will substantially replace grant giving, and we would welcome clear procedures for determining when grants or procurement should /could apply .

Finally, the value WAG places on the voluntary sector and its role in delivering services to the public is very much welcomed and appreciated.    This value is recognized in a number of WAG strategies and documents, and these often act as a catalyst for local partnerships to involve the sector and work in a much more cohesive, effective and efficient way.

We find this extremely positive, and feel that without this guidance at the highest level, better partnership working and indeed, the 'making the connections’ agenda would not be fully met, as many partnerships may ignore the voluntary sector as providers of 'public services’, choosing to solely focus on the delivery of 'public sector’ services.

However, there is of course a real cost to that level of involvement (time, expenses etc) and with the increasing requirement of the sector to be involved in more and more partnership working, this is likely to place even more pressure on voluntary sector budgets.

In closing, BAVO would like the panel to review and consider the following points:

• CFAP (WAG) to be able to award revenue as well as capital funding.
• WAG to continue the Grassroots Fund at the end of the pilot and to establish it as an ongoing and reliable source of funding for marginalised communities, but with the income threshold in terms of the eligibility criteria increased.
• Longer term funding arrangements to be considered to encourage better service planning (3 years +)
• Adequate timescales in place so that application processes are equitable across sectors.
• Fair and consistent guidance to all sectors and bodies on approaches to funding the third sector in terms of procurement and commissioning
• Continued WAG guidance to involve, and provide an equal status for the third sector in terms of decision- making powers, particularly with local commissioning and procurement structures

Heidi Bennett

Interim Director