Community Fund strategic plan II

back to the contents page

We asked a cross-section of people with an interest in the CF’s new plan to give us their initial impressions

Make sure you receive your fair share of lottery cash - take out a no-obligation trial subscription today.

Trevor Gardner, 
Community Development Manager, Palace Gate Project

In principle we welcome existing core costs being eligible for funding. In the past projects have had to do ‘new things’ or ‘developments’ to qualify for funding, sometimes at the detriment of the existing core work of the organisation.

We have never supported taper funding by any funders, particularly government departments, but feel with the Community Fund being a reducing pot, it will give the right message for the second term of funding to applicants, that the Community Fund has never been designed to be an ongoing source of funding and that exit strategies are essential.

Likewise creating priority areas and specific beneficiary groups is understandable with a reducing pot, but worrying that many visionary and greatly needed and supported projects that don’t neatly meet the Fund’s current criteria will be rejected, and may never now come to fruition.

Alan Lawrie,
Independent management consultant specialising in organisational development and strategy

The strategy goes some way towards addressing the issues facing the Lottery and shows that the Community Fund has been listening to people’s concerns.

On organisational costs, the strategy indicates some movement but is short on detail. The application process rightly focuses on an organisation’s capacity to properly manage its affairs, but the Community Fund is reluctant to make any contribution to the necessary costs of organisational management. Who does it expect to pay for an organisation’s infrastructure?

The strategy is strong on the Community Fund working with other distribution boards as well as other agencies and funders. This is welcome. Local organisations are in danger of sinking under the weight of programmes and initiatives that do not connect up.

The strategy talks of the possibility of the Community Fund moving to an ‘investor’ model of funding and working with applicants and grantees to secure outcomes. This sounds good, but much work has to be done to turn a strategic intent into practical action.

Martin Sime, 
Chief Executive, Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations

Two conflicting themes have been evident throughout the life of the Community Fund and the new Strategic Plan confirms that both still exert a strong influence.

Of all the Lottery distributors, only the Community Fund has based its priorities and methods around extensive consultation. When they talk to their customers they usually get things right. Hence the shift of policy back to a sensible recognition that running projects carries real costs to organisations and that many charities could not exist without realistic contributions to overheads from the services they run. These changes will be widely welcomed, it seems almost churlish to point out that the ‘no core costs’ edict should never have existed in the first place.

Despite being streets ahead of their fellow boards, the Community Fund still gets in a tangle on some pretty major areas; designing policies based on the size of organisation is one. I suspect that much of the thinking here – small grants only to small organisations and large charities having to meet all their overheads – is based on deeply held but wholly fallacious ideas that they can influence the size and shape of the sector. Surely the Community Fund is concerned with outputs and outcomes –what the grant delivers – rather than the size of organisation which makes the application?

The rest of the plan is sensible given the new and depressing drop in funds now at their disposal. Tighter priorities, smaller size of grants, tapering to avoid silting up – these kind of adjustments will be recognised as reasonable by the voluntary sector. The real villain of the piece, of course, is the Government, who now divert a third of all good cause money to the New Opportunities Fund. The Community Fund ought to make clear the reasons they face a future of high demand and a big drop in their income.

Stephen Bubb 
Chief Executive ACEVO

Two key issues jump out of the five-year plan – part funding of core costs and strategic partnerships with other agencies and organisations. Lack of funding for core costs has always been an issue. But there is more than one type of core cost. It can be broadly divided into three categories – full project funding, development funding and strategic funding. It is a bold step from the CF to acknowledge the issue by agreeing to ‘full project funding’. This obviously ties in with one of their key aims of ensuring that funds achieve long-term benefits. It must be said, however, that it is often voluntary and community groups / organisations working in the most deprived areas that find it hardest to find not just project funding but also strategic and development funding. Long-term benefits to communities can only be achieved if funders allow for the creation of mature and stable voluntary organisations able to take opportunities and maximise their contribution. This is only possible if they fund strategic and development costs. CF has made a start and we would like to see other funders follow suit.

CF will also be working with other fun-ders and agencies to deliver a more strategic approach to funding. This will hopefully reduce a lot of duplication. In fact we have already set up a sounding board of ACEVO members which will enable the Community Fund to discuss strategic and operational issues with sector chief executives. 

Lorraine Wilson, 
Senior information officer, Community Futures

The goal posts have moved again – and this time more radically than ever before. Yes, we know that there is less money and therefore targeting is required, but from an initial and quite brief read of the information received we have a number of concerns for groups in Lancashire. With just two Fair Share areas, Burnley and West Lancashire, and three priority groups for 2002/03 of refugees and asylum seekers, BME groups, and older people, I can see many more groups, who have worked very hard with their applications, being disappointed, and probably very good bids being leapfrogged at the assessment stage. As the Community Fund themselves state on their website, if your project does not meet one of the listed priorities you can still get a grant but it is less likely – what effort should these ‘other’ groups make?

Many groups will probably give up the ghost and not bother – they’re not in a Fair Share area, they’re not a priority group for 2002/03 – what hope do they have? But what’s the alternative? If they are in a Fair Share area and/or are a priority group, then what about all the other information they now need to take on board about core costs, match funding, continuation funding and the contentious issue of capacity building. The question of ‘tapering’ with second-term grants, especially with just a 25% contribution in the final year, is going to be an almighty hurdle to overcome for many groups and tying that in with the need for a robust exit strategy will possibly prove for many to be akin to climbing Mount Everest! Personally, I think a grilling from Ann Robinson on The Weakest Link would be preferable! 

Tony Williams, 
Director of Fundraising & Public Relations, Quarriers

Not everyone, particularly the larger charities, will agree with all results of the Community Fund’s strategic plan consultation. However, the new policies are clear and will enable fundraisers to develop their own strategies.

Three points herald significant changes:

l The reintroduction of limited ‘core funding’ is to be welcomed. This will be a great help to smaller charities struggling to manage projects effectively with limited central resources.

l CF will be promoting increasing ongoing consultation with statutory bodies, funders, voluntary organisations and others to share information and good practice. Partnership working is not without practical problems but, if done effectively, can maximise the use of scarce resources, skills and experience. One specific area in which CF could have a valuable influence is in brokering partnerships between large and small voluntary organisations, in which the skills and experience of the larger charity can support and develop a smaller charity’s capacity to expand its horizons and areas of work.


‘Creating priority areas and beneficiary groups is understandable with a reducing pot, but worrying that many visionary and greatly needed and supported projects, that don’t neatly meet the Fund’s current criteria will be rejected’

l The proposed introduction of an outcome-based evaluation is to be commended. It will, however, need to be introduced carefully: smaller community groups in particular will need clear guidance as to what is expected. If the CF grant process becomes perceived as being subject to excessive monitoring and evaluation (however valid), it could be counter-productive in putting off applications from the very constituency of community groups that CF aims to support more in the future.

The Community Fund has achieved so much over the last seven years across the country and internationally and across all types of need. A significant part of this has been through large projects (£500,000 or more), which just would not have been possible before. I accept that there is significantly less money available and CF grants must try to reach all parts of the country and all need. But I would urge the CF to explore how it might still accept routine applications (ie, not in exceptional circumstances) for a limited number of larger grants. Finally, on a technical point, it would have been helpful if the consultation paper had specified how many and what types of groups responded, and had been more quantitative in indicating the responses to individual questions –rather than the use of terms such as ‘most responders’, 'widespread support’, ‘high priority given’, etc.

Lucy Maggs, 
Editor, ‘Third Sector’

Lottery money from the Community Fund has provided a life line for many small organisations in the past. It’s sad to see that the changes to the Community Fund’s strategy boil down to the fact that there is less money for voluntary organi-sations due to a decline in Lottery income. The aim of the new strategic plan seems to be to focus on getting Community Fund money to smaller, less mainstream projects that may have difficulty getting funding from elsewhere.

Organisations working with black and minority ethnic groups, refugees, the elderly and in areas that have tended not to apply to the Community Fund should find they benefit from the new plan. But more mainstream organisations will find it harder to get money.

Small groups should also be pleased with the strategy, particularly the concession on core costs, although most organisations will feel that it hasn’t gone far enough. Only one tier of management costs, those directly supervising projects, will be funded. But it was good to hear that a rethink is being considered and more money may be given for core costs in the future. It seems a sensible decision to concentrate core cost funding on smaller organisations. Larger ones can afford to keep themselves afloat but core cost funding is essential to smaller organ-isations to give them a sense of continuity.