Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
Potential of Institutional Funding
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Potential of Institutional Funding

  • 1,050 views
Published

 

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,050
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3

Actions

Shares
Downloads
14
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. UK Institutional Funding Potential or How to make more out of less… Lysa Ralph, Head of Programme Funding
  • 2. What we will cover…> Definitions, purpose, methodology> Key trends, academic discourse> Results and benchmarking> Findings from external consultations> Recommendations> Questions & sharing your approach
  • 3. Definitions> Institutional Funding (IF) = funding from governmental donors and those with similar behaviour and requirements e.g. Comic Relief and Big Lottery Fund> Grants and contracts, UK (central, devolved & local government) and European Commission
  • 4. Purpose: terms of reference> Establish the size of the Institutional Funding market and the British Red Cross’ position> Learn from our own and others’ success and failure> Identify best practice in the sector> Identify routes in, trends, risks and opportunities towards diversification and growth of IF income
  • 5. Methodology1. Desktop benchmarking, 41 charities, selected as comparators, within top 50 income > Together, they accounted for 13% (£1.5bn) of the £11.9bn public funding to charities 2010 > Income 2006-2011 analysed > Divided into three groups: mainly IF, mainly ‘other’, equal mixture of funding2. Qualitative surveys with nine organisations3. Internal consultations
  • 6. Trends and academic discourse> Shift away from grants to contracts: > 2001 grants worth £4.6 billion, contracts £3.8 billion > By 2008, grants worth £3.7 billion, £9.1 billion worth of contracts> Development of full cost recovery principles to account for ‘hidden’ costs> Increase in ‘payment by results’; Social Return on Investment / Social Impact Bonds> Polarisation of the sector, consortia development> Need to evidence outcomes / impact> Increase in competition> Over dependency on the state
  • 7. Trends and discourse> Variation in government: spending on health and education in devolved gov’ts higher than England: > Wales 8% reduction in revenue > Scotland and Northern Ireland 7% (2011-15)> Compares to UK central gov’t cuts of 19%, local authority cuts 26%> Lottery has followed a totally different trajectory, ticket sales highest ever in 2011, Olympics cash coming back in. Higher spend in 2011, set to continue> European Commission’s proposed budget for 2014-2020 is €1,025 billion, a 5% increase on the last cycle
  • 8. Topline results> Despite the cuts, Institutional funding to charities increase of 4%> Current UK government following trend since 2001, where state funding to the voluntary sector far outpaced general growth in government spending
  • 9. Institutional Funding - Top 10 Charities> ……………….………………….………no British Red Cross 
  • 10. External surveys - participantsGrateful thanks to:Action for Children, Alzheimer’s Society, Age UK,Centrepoint, Mencap, National Trust, The PrincessRoyal Trust for Carers (now the Carer’s Trust) , Scopeand University College London (UCL)……………………………who took part in our survey
  • 11. External survey: findings & recommendations > Invest in programmatic infrastructures, build an evidence base > Value for money / SROI modelling > Involvement of beneficiaries at all levels > Develop a partnership culture and strong governance > Hone your offer > Added value, don’t forget those ‘in kind’ inputs
  • 12. External survey: key findings> Most comparators joined up Trusts & ‘Statutory’> Join up between policy, advocacy and fundraising> Engagement plans for Institutional donors> Integrate funding with service planning, tactical funding planning> Select only the strongest fit programmes with measurable changes for beneficiaries> Clear roles and responsibilities between teams and management of expectations
  • 13. Other tips…> Assessors / advice line: make friends, use their advice during application development, ask questions> Budgeting: NVCO’s historical ‘Compact’ with government on full cost recovery– try & include match> ‘Best practice?’: e.g. for Lottery £300k+ grants - ‘needy’ project, strong project design responding to need / experience / partnerships> Triumph and disaster: treat failures as a learning opportunity, assessment reports , talking to others> Programme cycle approach: invest in fundraiser’s skills / knowledge in this area, spend time shadowing service colleagues> Balance: avoid over reliance on one source of funding
  • 14. Narrative Objectively Means of Assumptions Summary Verifiable Verification / /Risks Indicators evidenceGoal =LotteryoutcomesProject aim Outcome SMART targetsOutcomes Outputs Lottery planningActivities Inputs Costs Aim triangle Logframe Outcomes Working out the donor’s system Activities
  • 15. Questions… sharing your approach??Training courses BOND – project planning using a logical framework / impact assessment etc Charities Evaluation Services – developing your own indicators and outcomes Donor workshops …others? Lysa Ralph lralph@redcross.org.uk 020 7877 7094