All Wales Ethnic Minority Association [AWEMA] - Funding of Voluntary Sector Organisations - Response for the Communities & Culture Committee of WAG

Commentary to the Main Document

Executive Summary

1 Preamble

1.1 On 26 November 2007, the Chief Officers of Partner Organisations to the Advisory Group On Race (AGOR) met to provide evidence and respond to the call for evidence on the funding of voluntary sector organisations.

1.2 The participating partner organisations are set out under 1.6 of the Commentary to the Main Document.  This response document provides the Conclusions and the Recommendations on four issues as set out in the paper, Call for Evidence in the Executive Summary at the front of this document.

1.3 The second part of this document [pages 5-13] provides a general commentary followed by discussions, conclusions and recommendations under each of the four issues for which views have been sought by the Communities & Culture Committee of WAG.

1.4 In total, 18 Conclusions and 15 Recommendations have been made.

2 Conclusions

Ease or Difficulty of Obtaining Funding

2.1 Despite the fact that more than 30,000 third sector organisations in Wales benefit from grant funding in excess of £1 billion, there is considerable concern that organisations working in the field of race equality do not get any significant benefit.

2.2 Irrespective of the size of the funding application (whether small or large), similar conditions and criteria are demanded from organisations making applications.

2.3 There is no national funding body or ring-fenced funds that enable voluntary sector organisations in the field of race equality to undertake its work.  

2.4 No umbrella organisations have been identified in the field of race equality to ensure that there is a fairer distribution of grants to third sector organisations undertaking race equality work.

2.5 When consultations are undertaken and the exercise is complete, no attempt is made to feed back on the findings.

2.6 There is no on-line facility on WAG’s website to enable third sector organisations to register an interest in accessing funding streams.

2.7 Within the voluntary sector, the race equality strand lacks resources, expertise and skills when completing Funding Application Forms.  

2.8 There is a perception within the race equality sector that knowing individuals within the civil service is the only route to successfully access funding applications.

2.9 There is a view and a perception that the EHRC will overlook and marginalise race equality work when it starts to distribute resource allocations for the work that needs to be done.  

Ease or Difficulty in Complying with Constraints or Conditions

2.10 There is a lack of capacity or depth of understanding different concepts or jargon when completing Funding Application Forms.

2.11 It would seem that when Grant Panel Members are making their decisions, the decision appeared to be subjective rather than objective, based on outcomes.  There is evidence to suggest that individual and personal bias creeps into the decision making processes.

2.12 Empirical evidence suggests that there is institutional bias against BME- led organisations as they tend to be less successful in attracting funding.

2.13 Some organisations have experienced a curtailment in their budgets in the second and third years without a curtailment in the objectives required.

2.14 It is the experience of some organisations that inflationary uplifts in grants are not permitted in succeeding years.

Issues Related to the Duration or Timing of Funding

2.15 Funding cycles of one to three years is far too short.  

2.16 Obtaining core funding for the sustainability of BME organisations is a major problem.

2.17 There is lack of on-going support from funders for the duration of the projects.

2.18 Current funding policies mitigate against small organisations that lack the ability to ensure sustainability.

3 Recommendations

Ease or Difficulty of Obtaining Funding

3.1 Small grant funding applications need to be simplified along with the criteria.

3.2 There is a need to ring-fence funding for race equality work within the third sector.

3.3 An umbrella organisation such as the All Wales Ethnic Minority Association (AWEMA) needs to be identified through which grants can be distributed to those third sector organisations that undertake race equality work.

3.4 When civil servants and funding bodies undertake consultation work, it must be a part of their remit to disseminate their draft reports before they are sent to politicians or policy makers for further consideration.  This is absolutely necessary to ensure transparency and accuracy of reporting.

3.5 The Welsh Assembly Government [WAG] must make available on its website third sector organisations to register their interest in undertaking grant work.  This is already being piloted as good practice by the Welsh European Funding Office, with project ideas being invited in an open and transparent way.   

3.6 It is strongly recommended that human and financial resources are made available to an umbrella organisation which provides dedicated support to race equality organisations when they are preparing and completing funding applications.  

3.7 It is highly recommended that the Equality & Human Rights Commission [EHRC] ensures that it develops and works in partnership with partner organisations within Curiad Calon Cymru.

Ease or Difficulty in Complying with Constraints or Conditions

3.8 Funding applications must be judged on outcomes and outputs as a pre-requisite and bias from Panel Members not allowed for.  

3.9 Research needs to be carried out to establish the level of disadvantage for BME organisations that are led by BME professionals.  

3.10 Realistic objectives need to be set that are consistent with the level of grant.

3.11 Inflationary uplifts in grants must be included in funding cycles.  

Issues Related to the Duration or Timing of Funding

3.12 Funding cycles need to be of four to five year duration, rather than one to three year duration.  Funding bodies need to consider supporting organisations to cover their core costs over seven-year duration.  This needs to be linked to objectives that encourage organisations’ ability to lever in additional project funding.

3.13 Funding organisations need to collaborate and support BME organisations during the life of projects.

3.14 An initiative that supports the funding of small organisations to ensure their sustainability is needed.

Any Other Comments Relevant to the Inquiry

3.15. AGOR highly recommends that a full equality impact assessment is undertaken of all funding bodies and organisations.  This is to ensure that it is fair and consistent in its approach to organisations working within all the equality strands of race, age, gender, religion, sexuality, language and disability.

1 Commentary

1.1 This is a response to the call from The Communities & Culture Committee of Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) to an enquiry into the funding of voluntary sector organisations in Wales.

1.2 There is a suggestion in the Call Paper that there are some 30,000 voluntary and other third sector organisations in Wales, with a total income in excess of £1 billion.

1.3 However, the Call Paper does not suggest or even limit as to how the 30,000 organisations are spread in sectoral terms, or how the £1 billion income is distributed, and through which principal source.

1.4 The Paper does not indicate how a third of the government funding is distributed within the voluntary sector, and where the real benefit of this funding resides.

1.5 This response to the Call for Evidence is being provided by the All Wales Ethnic Minority Association [AWEMA] on behalf of the Advisory Group On Race [AGOR].

1.6 The composition of AGOR includes the following organisations that attend its meetings on a regular basis:

a) Access for Black Children with Disability (ABCD)

b) Black Association of Women Step-Out (BAWSO)

c) Bangladeshi Welfare Association , Cardiff

d) Black Voluntary Sector Network Wales (BVSNW)

e) Cardiff and the Vale Coalition for Disabled People (CVCDP)

f) The Henna Foundation Wales

g) The Lynk Reach - Education Arts & Community Health Charity

h) Minority Ethnic Women’s Network (MEWN) Swansea

i) North Wales Race Equality Network (NWREN)

j) South East Wales Race Equality Council (SEWREC)

k) Somali Integration Society (SIS)

l) Support to Others through Volunteering Action (SOVA)

m) TAI PAWB

n) United Arab Association of Wales

o) Valleys Race Equality Council (VALREC)

p) Welsh Refugee Council

1.7 Members of the group met on 26 November 2007 to formulate a joint response on funding of the voluntary sector organisations for consideration by the Communities & Culture Committee of the National Assembly for Wales.

1.8 Consideration was given by AGOR on the Terms of Reference that would be considered by the committee. The group was pleased to note that 'gender budgeting’ has started to feature in the lexicon of WAG.  The group then went on to consider each of the issues outlined in its Paper titled 'Call for Evidence’.  The issues under consideration were:

a) Ease or difficulty of obtaining funding from the Welsh Assembly Government or relevant national funding bodies.

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

c) Issues related to the duration or timing of funding.

d) Any other comments relevant to the inquiry.

2 Ease or Difficulty of Obtaining Funding

2.1 Group Discussion

a) Anxiety was first expressed by the group as to who the principal beneficiaries are.  The background information provided indicated that  30,000  third sector organisations in Wales have an income in excess of £1 billion. The group expressed its concern that those organisations working in the field of race equality were not the principal beneficiaries of this funding.

b) Members of AGOR were of the view that when applications for funding are made, the funding bodies give little importance to the size of the grant when setting out the criteria, the activities and the outputs of the funding.  Members were of the view that organisations applying for £20,000 of funding have to meet similar requirements and conditions as those organisations that make applications for funding of over £200,000.

c) Members found it difficult to decide how relevant national funding bodies were defined.  The question posed was: Are these funding bodies Wales-wide or local authorities, and did they include the Welsh Council for Volunteering Action (WCVA)?

d) The members of AGOR were of the unanimous view that we all worked in the voluntary sector undertaking equality work in general, but race equality work in particular.  It was the unanimous view of the members that there is no national funding body that provides AGOR’s sector with funding that is specific to its work.  

e) It was also agreed that the WCVA is supposed to represent the entirety of the voluntary sector, embracing all the strands of work within that sector.  It was the group’s view that if there were any specific amounts of grants given to the WCVA for race equality work, race equality organisations do not have any benefit from such grants.

f) A member of AGOR also expressed the view that a staff member from the Strategic Equality and Diversity Unit (SEDU) of WAG contacted a few voluntary sector organisations within our sector to get some form of feedback on the problems of securing funding.  Frustration was expressed that having had this feedback, nothing had been heard about the outcomes of the findings to date.

g) Another member of AGOR expressed the view that an on-line facility is available on the website of the Home Office to register interest in accessing funding streams.  It was noted that such a facility is not available within WAG.  The North Wales Race Equality Network member of AGOR expressed the view that it is impossible to access WAG funding unless the organisations within the voluntary sectors of Wales are Wales-wide organisations.

h) Some voluntary sector organisations within AGOR’s membership also stated that due to the lack of resources, expertise and skills, they struggled to complete Funding Application Forms.  They expressed the view that no support or guidance is provided by the WCVA, WAG or some of the other funding bodies to help and assist in the completion of Application Forms, where the criteria for funding is always set far too high.

i) It is the experience of some members that even within WAG, it is more a question of who you know and not what you know, when applying for funding.  If your organisation is favoured, then it is frequently provided with useful tips to complete the funding application.

j) Members of AGOR expressed the common view that they will soon be a new pot of funding to be managed and distributed by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).  The group was of the view that an organisation such as the EHRC with a broad base approach to equalities work would overlook organisations within specific equality sectors, when determining how the funding is to be distributed.  The group expressed concern, anxiety and great reservation that race equality work will be marginalised and not provided with funding and resources to ensure that its work is allowed to continue and develop.

2.2 Conclusions

a) Despite the fact that more than 30,000 third sector organisations in Wales benefit from grant funding in excess of £1 billion, there is considerable concern that organisations working in the field of race equality do not get any significant benefit.

b) Irrespective of the size of the funding application (whether small or large), similar conditions and criteria are demanded from organisations making applications.

c) There is no national funding body or ring-fenced funds that enable voluntary sector organisations in the field of race equality to undertake its work.  

d) No umbrella organisations have been identified in the field of race equality to ensure that there is a fairer distribution of grants to third sector organisations undertaking race equality work.

e) When consultations are undertaken and the exercise is complete, no attempt is made to feed back on the findings.

f) There is no on-line facility on WAG’s website to enable third sector organisations to register an interest in accessing funding streams.

g) Within the voluntary sector, the race equality strand lacks resources, expertise and skills when completing Funding Application Forms.  

h) There is a perception within the race equality sector that knowing individuals within the civil service is the only route to successfully accessing funding applications.

i) There is a view and a perception that the EHRC will overlook and marginalise race equality work when it starts to distribute resource allocations for the work that needs to be done.  

2.3 Recommendations

a) Small grant funding applications need to be simplified, along with the criteria.

b) There is a need to ring-fence funding for race equality work within the third sector.

c) An umbrella organisation such as the All Wales Ethnic Minority Association (AWEMA) needs to be identified, through which grants can be distributed to those third sector organisations that undertake race equality work.

d) When civil servants and funding bodies undertake consultation work, it must be a part of their remit to disseminate their draft reports before they are sent to politicians or policy makers for further consideration.  This is absolutely necessary to ensure transparency and accuracy of reporting.

e) The WAG must make available on its website for third sector organisations to register their interest in undertaking grant work.  This is already being piloted as good practice by the Welsh European Funding Office, with project ideas being invited in an open and transparent way.   

f) It is strongly recommended that human and financial resources are made available to an umbrella organisation which provides dedicated support to race equality organisations when they are preparing and completing funding applications.  

g) It is highly recommended that the EHRC ensures that it develops and works in partnership with partner organisations within Curiad Calon Cymru.  

3. Ease or Difficulty in Complying with Constraints or Conditions

3.1 Group Discussion

a) Members of AGOR felt that generally, financial questions in funding applications pose a certain degree of difficulty because they always feel constrained by the ability of being able to generate additional income.  This is particularly so, where concepts of match funding are required.

b) One of the biggest issues and challenges with funding applications is that the outcome is not always objective but often subjective.  As such, members of AGOR were of the view that the Grants Panel has always already got their own views about certain organisations which influence their decisions, to the detriment of organisations making applications.  Several examples were given when it was strongly felt that this was the case.  One such example was where grants through Communities at One were lost to an organisation within the field of race equality, where personal vendettas and vindictiveness of Panel Members had obviously been allowed.

c) Most of the members of AGOR in this part of the group discussion held the view that if you worked and represented a BME organisation that was led by a BME person,  it had less chance of securing funding than if it was an organisation that was led by an indigenous person.  This part of the discussion was the most animated because strong views were held and numerous examples given of experiences of several of the members of AGOR.

d) Members of AGOR posed the question, 'What can we, as BME organisations, led by BME officers do, to change the perception and assumptions of decision makers and staff involved in making decisions in funding applications in the public sector?’

e) Where three-year funding cycles are agreed, it is the experience of BME organisations that often in the second and third years, the budgets are suddenly curtailed whilst the initial objectives remain the same.  This was seen to be unfair.

f) It was the experience of some members that inflationary uplifts in grants are often not permitted in years two and three of funding cycles.

g) This leads to the budgets not being effectively co-ordinated in resource terms with the action plans.

3.2 Conclusions

a) There is a lack of capacity or depth of understanding of different concepts or jargon when completing Funding Application Forms.  

b) It would seem that when Grant Panel Members are making their decisions, the decision appeared to be subjective rather than objective, based on outcomes.  There is evidence to suggest that individual and personal bias creeps into the decision making processes.

c) Empirical evidence suggests that there is institutional bias against BME- led organisations as they tend to be less successful in attracting funding.

d) Some organisations have experienced a curtailment in their budgets in the second and third years without a curtailment in the objectives required.  

e) It is the experience of some organisations that inflationary uplifts in grants are not permitted in succeeding years.  

3.3 Recommendations

a) Funding applications must be judged on outcomes and outputs as a pre-requisite, and bias from Panel Members not allowed for.  

b) Research needs to be carried out to establish the level of disadvantage  for BME organisations that are led by BME professionals.  

c) Realistic objectives need to be set that are consistent with the level of grant.

d) Inflationary uplifts in grants must be included in funding cycles.  

4 Issues Related to the Duration or Timing of Funding

4.1 Group Discussion

a) Members of AGOR were of the view that the short term nature of funding cycles is getting worse.  Organisations are either on one year or three year funding cycle.  For those on a three-year cycle the first year is often taken up in establishing either the organisation or the project.  By the time they begin to settle into delivering the project in the second year, they have to start looking for a new project to be funded from the middle of the third year, such that the cycles of funding are sustained.

b) Securing of core funding is proving to be increasingly difficult for members of AGOR.  It is this part of the funding that members of AGOR felt WAG needs to give particular consideration and address, as a matter of urgency.

c) Members of AGOR were of the view that they frequently fail to get the support from funders when project work is on-going for the purposes of monitoring the action plans and the possible revision of the budgets.  

d) It was the view of some members of AGOR that the way in which current funding policies are being developed mitigate against small organisations that often lack the ability to ensure their sustainability.

4.2 Conclusions

a) Funding cycles of one to three years is far too short.  

b) Obtaining core funding for the sustainability of BME organisations is a major problem.

c) There is lack of on-going support from funders for the duration of the projects.

d) Current funding policies mitigate against small organisations that lack the ability to ensure sustainability.

4.3 Recommendations

a) Funding cycles need to be of four or five year duration rather than one to three year duration.  Funding bodies need to consider supporting organisations to cover their core costs over seven year duration.  This needs to be linked to objectives that encourage organisations’ ability to lever in additional project funding.

b) Funding organisations need to collaborate and support BME organisations during the life of projects.

c) An initiative that supports the funding of small organisations to ensure their sustainability is needed.

5 Any Other Comments Relevant to the Inquiry

5.1 Group Discussion

a) The main point raised by members of AGOR was to question as to whether a full equality impact assessment of funding policies which is required by law has been carried out.

5.2 Conclusions / Recommendations

a) AGOR highly recommends that a full equality impact assessment is undertaken of all funding bodies and organisations to ensure that it is fair and consistent in its approach to organisations working within all the equality strands of race, age, gender, religion, sexuality, language and disability.