CC(3) VS42
Communities and Culture Committee - Written evidence from Ceredigion for consideration in the inquiry into the funding of voluntary sector organisations.
The information included below is a reflection of information received by Ceredigion Association of Voluntary Organisations through previous consultation events held with the sector and supplemented by evidence sourced at the Ceredigion Voluntary Sector Forum held on the 28th November 2007. Input has also been sought from voluntary sector representatives on the Ceredigion Joint Liaison Committee.
1. Ease or difficulty of obtaining funding from the Welsh Assembly Government or relevant national funding bodies.
In some cases the promotion of available funding needs to be more open and transparent. Many grant schemes which are distributed through third parties, such as local authorities, are often allocated to the partners which they already have close working relationships with due to limited time and capacity. This can exclude the development of new partnerships and projects.
The response to the Community Facilities and Activities Programme has been great and many applications have been submitted from projects based in Ceredigion due to the relevance of the priorities and the simplicity of the application form.
As advisors to a number of applicants to the Welsh Assembly Governments Community Facilities and Activities Programme, we have received positive comments on the detailed and constructive feedback unsuccessful applicants have received from case officers. This also makes our work as advisors a great deal easier.
2. Ease or difficulty in complying with constraints or conditions placed on funding.
It continues to be problematic for existing voluntary groups to access funding to support core activity and management costs. Much funding has an emphasis on supporting new activity when experienced groups have difficulty in sustaining their valued service.
A number of new schemes have a geographical focus on deprived areas in Wales which excludes projects that are trying to support people who live in smaller isolated pockets of deprivation, particularly in rural areas. There isn’t sufficient flexibility built in to such programmes to accommodate and support areas which are affected by sudden negative economic change.
In most instances a large amount of funding is needed "up front” to allow voluntary community groups who have limited reserves and financial capacity to implement projects. The release of funding in arrears can often act as a deterrent for smaller groups to apply.
All formula must take account of rurality, and the additional costs related to service delivery in rural areas.
It is also felt that the criteria for many grant schemes can sometimes be over prescriptive and reflect national priorities rather than allowing local partners to meet local needs.
3. Issues related to the duration or timing of funding.
The period of time between the notification of available funding and the closing date for some grant schemes needs to take account of the minimum time period stipulated in the code of practice for funding the voluntary sector.
The time between application submission and decision often slips beyond the stated date. This often has an impact on a groups ability to plan the delivery of activities and services.
4. Any other comments relevant to the inquiry.
Consideration should be given to introducing tapered funding to encourage groups at the start of an award to consider and implement their funding continuation strategy.
It has also been suggested that in many instances a preparatory grant would be beneficial. Much research needs to be undertaken before a group is ready to apply for funding to support a project. A small amount of funding to undertake this work would provide a strong foundation for successful projects and result in robust applications for funding based on extensive evidence of need.
The stream-lining of application forms and monitoring procedures across local and central government would save a considerable amount of time for applicants.
Full cost recovery - some funders do not adequately consider this; which can result in significant shortfalls in grants, making it questionable as to the desirability of applying for such grants in the first place.
Taking sick pay and holiday in to account; some grants will only pay costs of employing staff for each day worked, and will not cover periods of sickness or leave - this has caused big problems with at least one organisation in Ceredigion.
Salary levels; I’m not sure how widespread a problem this is, but there seems to be a general attitude that voluntary/third sector organisations are, and should be, 'cheaper’ than public sector.
