The Impact of Funders’ Processes and Practices on Voluntary
Organisations’ Equality Work in London April 2015
Executive Summary
This small piece of practical research identified key points where changes in funders’
practices have an impact on voluntary organisations’ equality work, ie. work to ‘put right
the harm done by inequality and discrimination’, ‘increase agency’ and/or ‘prevent future
inequality and discrimination’.
Participants identified ‘Necessary Conditions’ for equality work to be effective:
>
>
>
>
>
flexibility in how they use resources,
knowledge and open learning, inclusive systems, not labelling,
experience and commitment, stability,
inclusive communication channels and infrastructure,
space and time to negotiate appropriate partnerships.
Data, application processes, monitoring and evaluation, quality of funder’s grant staff and
adequacy of direct communication with the funder’s grant staff plus contracts and
conditions attached to funds are key points where changes in funders’ practices shape
these conditions and lever changes in voluntary organisations’ ways of working, with both
positive and negative impacts on equality work.
Voluntary organisations have changed their resource management and relationships with
members/users, partners and funders in response to funders’ own changing practices.
Some felt they had no choice “If we lose, we close” and avoid risks in relationships with
funders.
The practices funders adopt, and therefore the relationships and conditions within which
voluntary organisations work for equality, appear to be shaped largely by two factors,
a) whether or not a funder is committed to equality and b) whether or not it believes
voluntary organisations can deliver services. Four broad types of funder practices can
be identified by combining a) and b), with implications for equality work:
o
o
o
o
High commitment / Low belief : Tight control by funder of planning and management.
High commitment / High belief : Dialogue, outcome-focussed, structures, inclusion, policy.
Low commitment / Low belief : Service-oriented, set targets, little equality analysis.
Low commitment / High belief : Cost / delivery targets negotiable but ‘wrap round’ and
equality not rewarded.
Overall, participants’ experiences reflect well known concerns but the urgency, spread
and depth of concern they felt was unexpected and participants felt they face crisis.
Evidence-based dialogue is now essential but difficult to achieve given the imperative
many feel to “avoid any risk in the relationship: …do not criticise funder”. Voluntary
organisations and funders need to:
 create communication channels, probably via third parties, that enable honest
feedback to funders.
 lay out relevant and clear standards relating to equality work so funders can mark
their own quality, with potential to publish their conclusions.
 consolidate and quantify data on experiences to weigh arguments for change.
1
The Impact of Funders’ Processes and Practices on Voluntary
Organisations’ Equality Work in London April 2015
Section 1 Introduction and Scope
This small piece of practical research has explored and recorded voluntary organisations’
experiences of funders’ practices such as application processes and monitoring
requirements, and what impact voluntary organisations believe funders’ practices are
having on their work for equality for Londoners. In doing this it identified key points
where changes in funders’ practices change organisations’ use of resources and
relationships, seen as having both good and bad results for equality. Through review of
HEAR’s Intersections research (2014) and previous work by HEAR and others, online
survey, focus group/roundtable and confidential, hour-long interviews with staff of 13
voluntary organisations1 the findings come directly from the actual experiences and
perceptions of people who work in London’s voluntary sector in 2015. By identifying risks
and current difficulties in regular interactions between funder and funded, voluntary
organisations and funders can together prioritise actions that will facilitate effective
equality work in London.
1.1
Why?
The demand for this work emerged during HEAR’s ‘Intersections’ research (2013/2014,
Launch Event May 2014) whose diverse participants spelled out several concerns about
the unintended impact of practices funders have been adopting to help them manage the
funding relationship. For example organisations found the way some funders had set up
their application processes made it difficult to show the real complexity of equality work;
others felt some funders lack understanding of equality work and ask for unrealistic
monitoring data, especially for intersectional work and work supporting individuals.
Following that, participants in this research also gave reasons why they felt attention to
funding relationships is now critical, highlighting issues facing the voluntary sector in
London generally (closures, loss of specialist bodies and infrastructure, tighter control by
funders eg. commissioning and commissioning-style approaches / project funding rather
than core / emphasis on evidence and outcomes / use of contracts and payment by
results). They also explained why changes in the wider context have made them feel it is
essential to look at funder/funded transactions now (how best to apply the Equality Act,
recession and austerity, the political tide and popular debate often moving against
equality and human rights). Participants felt that in London ‘super-diversity’ and
equality/discrimination are huge issues, and that if we learn from the richness and
complexity of London the lessons can benefit all the UK and EU.
1.2
Defining the scope of the research and key terms
With limited time available the scope was restricted to the impact of funders’ practices,
processes and requirements on the equality work of voluntary organisations in London.
We did not feel it was useful to generate a wish-list of demands, but to identify points in
funder-funded relationships where quite small changes might make a difference to all
parties.
2
Several important and emerging questions had to be left for another day: wider impact on
the voluntary and/or equality sector as a whole; the impact of getting funded (or not) on
individual organisations; the experiences of very small member-based and community/
identity-based organisations; daily experiences of hands-on staff; power, accountability
and governance. This was not an evaluation of individual funders 2, nor why funders
adopt certain practices, though participants readily acknowledged that funders are under
intense pressures which shape how they manage their funding relationships.
Both ‘funder’ and ‘equality work’ were defined broadly for this report.
‘Funder’ Any formal organisation with decision-making power over resources that is
currently providing resources – mostly money – to voluntary organisations working in
London. This includes Local Authorities that commission services and ‘prime
contractors’ (profit and non-profit) that sub-contract to smaller bodies.
‘Equality work’ Anything done by a voluntary organisation (whether or not it would
define itself as an ‘equality organisation’) to reduce current and potential inequality and
discrimination now and/or in the future. Participating organisations described a wide
range of work, grouped here under three headings, based on the kinds of change they
want to make happen:
Putting right the harm done by previous/existing inequality and discrimination:
eg. services to fill gaps, address disadvantages, good referral for complex needs,
eg. creating, ensuring and improving access,
eg. redress, enforcement.
Increasing agency (empowerment) of individuals or a population with shared
protected characteristics so they are more able to resist discrimination and be
stronger in the face of other powerful parties:
eg. work to strengthen people in their extensive and unequal power relationships,
eg. voice, mobilisation, organising/movement, facilitation, (ensuring participation).
Preventing future inequality and discrimination:
eg. improving structures, lobby/legislation, research, public awareness,
eg. specialist services for special needs,
eg. their own organisation’s equality audit/compliance/best practice.
These three headings can be used as broad background questions when considering
how and whether funders’ practices help equality work: Is this application requirement,
that grant condition, or the other monitoring process going to help organisations ‘put right
harm done’, ‘increase agency’ or ‘prevent future inequality’ - or not?
1.3
Necessary Conditions for Effective Equality Work
Participants described what their organisations needed to be capable of to ensure
effective equality work (particularly to put right harm done and to build agency). They
also described the conditions that were necessary for them to be capable of working like
this, with clear implications for funders (see table below). The ‘necessary conditions’
described would certainly benefit any voluntary organisation, but importantly participants
said that these conditions were not just desirable for equality, but utterly necessary – if
these conditions are not in place, equality work is far less effective.
‘Capability’
We need to be able to….
‘Necessary Conditions’
To be able to do that, we need…
respond to unique and changing situations.
respond to complexity, intersectionality and
compounded issues.
have awareness, knowledge and a deep
understanding and willingness / action to listen
flexibility in how we use resources.
knowledge and open learning processes,
inclusive systems, not boxing, labelling.
experience and commitment, potential to
respond to emerging needs.
3
and learn and rethink.
have time to build on what we know works.
have information, access to information when it is
needed, referral, networks and connections,
because no one org. can know and do it all.
be able to collaborate and work in partnerships
with other equality-minded organisations.
work strategically, have a vision, a view, clarity,
an analysis.
stability.
inclusive communication channels and
infrastructure.
space to find appropriate partners and able to
negotiate manageable relationships (time,
flexibility, trust).
commitment, ‘lead in’ time, review over time.
Funders and voluntary organisations together can use the ‘Necessary Conditions’ in the
right hand column of the table as a set of criteria to examine funding practices.
Section 2 Experiences of funders’ practices and perceived impact on equality work
2.1
Leverage Points
Participants identified key leverage points - where they saw changes in funders’ practices
levering changes in their own organisations’ ways of working.
Data:
- The kind, detail and quantity of evidence required for bids, monitoring and
evaluation.
- Processes and methods required by funders to obtain, collate and present that
data eg. set forms/questions, requirement to submit case studies of individuals,
set financial categories.
Application/bidding/tendering process:
- Eligibility, scale, priorities/criteria, costing,
- Accessibility of forms eg. Some access software cannot read online forms and
PDFs; design of forms, eg. word limits particularly when necessary to make a
case for complex and/or intersectional work,
- Whether language used is managerial or more like daily English, clear and
consistent, and the level of English required - particularly of written English,
- Targets proposed and set, requirements for organisational management and
partnerships,
- Having sufficient information about criteria, scoring and competition for applicants
to be able to judge risk of failure.
Monitoring, evaluation, processes, requirements (see also Data):
- Timing, frequency, quantity,
- Which specific issues in a project the funded organisations are expected to report,
- How funder expects organisation to measure or evidence ‘outcomes’,
- Requirements relating to monitoring equality characteristics,
- Relevance to organisation’s own needs for learning,
- Fit with organisation’s existing monitoring systems and IT.
Quality of Funder’s Grant Staff:
- Specialist experience in relevant sector, understanding of specialist issues
especially for intersectional work,
- Time in post.
Adequacy of direct communication with the funder’s grant staff:
- Trust,
- Willingness and capacity of funder’s grant staff to discuss and give clear and
accurate feedback and guidance, including bad news,
- Completeness, accessibility, clarity of published information and guidance,
4
-
Grant staff’s own understanding of their employer’s criteria and requirements eg.
how the concept of ‘equality’, ‘outcome’ or ‘evidence’ is used by this funder,
Scope for negotiation,
Voluntary organisation’s executives’ relationship to funder’s Grant staff and
executive.
Contracts and conditions, eg. Whether contracts constrain the organisation’s policy or
voice work by conditions on use of data, intellectual property.
Most participants described different funders having diverse practices at each of these
‘leverage’ points, some with positive benefits and some negative.
2.2
Evidence of outcome of funder practices/processes for voluntary organisations
Participants described changes their organisations had made in recent years in response
to funders’ practices. The changes are mainly in two areas: resource management
(financial and staff skills and time) and relationships (with members/users, partners and
funders themselves). Some funder-influenced changes were made willingly with a sense
of improving their work (eg. strengthening an evidence base, increasing staff’s
understanding of equality); some through incremental responses to multiple funders’
changing practices over time. But some organisations felt they had made changes they
were not happy about. Where this was the case, participants often related their current
situation to survival and saw the struggle for income as limiting their options and space
for negotiation with funders: “If we lose, we close”. In particular reduced income means
that:
o part time working is now the main model, staff time is reduced overall and for
each member of staff;
o redundancies have left gaps in organisational knowledge, memory and staff
skills, and created intense staff anxiety about job security;
o organisations have no reserves or slack left;
o but compensated by increasingly effective networking and positive collaboration
(informal and formal) with like-minded organisations and individuals.
a) Changes in resource management
Cash, finance:
- Reduced or no core income > leaves organisations vulnerable, less able to
respond to unexpected need, dependent on meeting externally set targets,
- Increased staff time for bid-writing > can only be funded from insufficient
remaining ‘untied’ income (reserves) which would previously have helped flexibility
in productive work, or by relying on staff to contribute substantial unpaid time,
- Increasing proportion of senior staff time and skill dedicated to negotiating funding
and managing funding relationships > leaving proportionally less time on frontline
work and policy/knowledge.
‘Hands on’ staff and activities:
- Staff more aware of equality legislation, equality monitoring/ characteristics,
- Staff asking members/users for more detailed data > staff sometimes
uncomfortable and concerned about relationship with members/clients, but opens
new conversations with members/clients,
- Staff learning new activities, skills to meet funders’ requirements, eg. data
gathering/inputting, writing case studies and increased proportion of paid working
time away from clients, sometimes in blocks eg. end of quarter monitoring >
widening individual skills but often not what motivates them,
- Staff increasingly subsidise work from unpaid time > raised questions about
paying the equivalent of the Living Wage or even the Minimum Wage,
5
-
Staff feel under pressure from managers/executive for reasons other than quality
of ‘frontline’ work > knock on effects on morale, frustration, resentment, cynicism,
tensions in organisations.
Management/Executive:
- Senior staff give higher priority and time to evidence of need and of the value of
the organisation’s work > chance to review strategies, support policy work, pride
and confidence,
- Competing demands for time and shift in time management towards funders >
less involved in ‘policy’ work, cancel plans for policy-related activities because of
funder deadlines (also because of being short staffed),
- Increasingly subsidise work from unpaid time,
- Less involved in frontline work, less or no ‘hands on’ time,
- Having to calculate risks very carefully, weigh risk of investing time in this bid or
that: very difficult if the communication with funder’s staff is not clear,
- Redesign whole internal information systems, database, new ICT, retraining staff.
Staff profile, roles:
- Recruitment, Job Descriptions and Person Specifications now give higher priority
to proven skill in fund-raising and funder-relationship management,
- Range and level of skills required for funder-relationships gets higher while
number and range of senior staff is cut > organisations becoming dependent on
single executive staff member.
b) Changes in relationships
Organisation and member, user, client:
- Requiring clients’ time, personal details, life stories, to pass on to third party
including some issues client may actively want to hide because of stigma, identity,
lack of trust in third parties > members/clients anxious, dismissive, risk alienating/
breaking trust,
- Asking questions clients haven’t been asked before eg. re. protected
characteristics > mixed response, seen as irrelevant, imposition, bemused,
labelling but also subject for new discussions, opportunity to raise new awareness,
- Applying eligibility criteria eg. post codes that are not relevant or appropriate to
need or capacity to deliver, or organisation’s ethics > people in need excluded,
- Designing and defining services in relation to just one or two characteristics >
people’s lives are complex, multiple characteristics and intersectional, eg.
isolation, mental health, hate crime.
> Struggle to provide holistic, ‘wrap round’ meaningful services to serve
people’s real needs, respond to crises, emerging needs,
> Label people according to one or two characteristics, consolidating groups
of people as ‘other’.
Organisation and partners:
- Conforming to funder criteria on partners eg. location, size or those you can trust
to help you meet funders’ requirements eg. for monitoring data > select partners
for post code, number of clients, management capability instead of knowledge and
reach, or shared understanding/vision, or success of previous collaborations;
potential and actual partnerships limited,
- Forming new partnerships in tight timescales with unfamiliar organisations chosen
to meet funder criteria/management demands > shallow and often unsuccessful,
conflictful inefficient relationships,
- Constant renegotiation and re-creation of existing and new partnership to reflect
project by project funding > very inefficient, insufficient time, resources for real
cost of negotiating and managing relationships.
6
Organisation and funder:
The relationship with each funder was completely different and depended almost entirely
on that funder’s approach and attitude. Participants described some very good
experiences in which the relationship was a genuine asset to the organisation because of
insights, dialogue, funders taking on policy issues etc. It was clearly seen as a power
relationship in which the funders have all the power, particularly as organisations ran out
of funds.
-
-
-
Organisations’ work is now largely designed in response to funders’ priorities and
agendas: previously voluntary sector made a case to persuade funders to provide
or invest resources to address a specific need; now you make a case about your
organisation’s ability to deliver on the priorities and service they have identified:.
> sometimes funders are wrong,
> sometimes funders are right but too specific and leave out other important
issues such as ‘wrap around’ services,
Try to get funders to trust you > Relationships are increasingly about presentation,
‘sales’, need to know who to speak to, how to speak to them, give them
confidence in you, develop relationship with individual staff, reputation and ‘brand’
is crucial – felt to be easier if you are familiar to them or have a shared
culture/background,
Trying to persuade funders to go outside their set criteria > relies on being able to
communicate with funder’s senior staff, very cultural skill,
Avoid any risk in the relationship > avoid negotiation, conform to all requests and
requirements, avoid discussing difficulties, do not criticise funder.
Section 3 Conclusions and Actions
3.1 Funder’s perceptions and conditions created by their funding practices
In terms of the conditions within which voluntary organisations’ do equality work, it
emerged that there are two significant questions about funders’ perceptions that shape
their practices and have a potential impact on voluntary organisations’ effectiveness:
How committed the funder is to equality and
How far the funder believes voluntary organisations can deliver services.
If we combine these two questions we can look at four broad types of funder practices.
High commitment to equality/
Low belief in VCS
Strict criteria, eligibility, goals, characteristics etc.
defined by funder. Funder sets planning,
delivery, management processes including strict
evidence requirements (eg. targets, set
output/outcome data and methods), eg. Funders’
own equality monitoring forms.
Compete with generic & commercial providers.
Low commitment to equality /
Low belief in VCS
Project and service-oriented with set targets, little
or no equality perspective and limited
understanding of legislation, characteristics,
intersections.
High Commitment to equality/
High belief in VCS
Dialogue on method, process, emerging
priorities. Outcome-focussed.
Concern about structures, power
relationships, exclusion/inclusion.
Policy and influence.
Low commitment to equality/
High belief in VCS
Cost / delivery targets negotiable but
based on quantity
Unlikely to include wrap round support
Bid/Planning process may include Social
value, inclusion, single characteristics
but equality low priority so not rewarded in
scoring bids, evaluation etc.
7
3.2
Spread and Depth of Concern
Participants’ experiences reflect many well known areas of concern but the urgency,
spread and depth of concern was unexpected and participants emphasized repeatedly
that matters that have always been concerns had become crises eg. lack of untied funds,
proportion of workload dedicated to managing funder relationships.
For example, HEAR’s Intersections research indicated some irritation with inconsistent
use of the idea of ‘outcome’, sometime by different staff within a single funder. But this
research revealed that difficulties with monitoring and evidencing ‘outcomes’ to funders
who did not seem to understand the concept fully themselves was causing almost all
participants genuine anxiety. Also, for example, the organisations acknowledged they
had always relied on staff subsidising the organisation from unpaid time to some extent.
But the sheer scale of dependence on unpaid staff time currently needed to serve
funding relationships was widely seen to be unsustainable, particularly as organisations
had no remaining untied reserves to fall back on. It would be useful to quantify this.
3.3
What next?
This seems to be a good moment for an evidence-based dialogue between funders and
voluntary organisations, particularly relating to equality work which is still developing
rapidly in the wake of the Equality Act 2010 and in the face of unpredictable policy
debates. However the imperative many feel to “Avoid any risk in the relationship: …do
not criticise funder” will continue to make this difficult. Absolute confidentiality was an
important part of ensuring participants felt free to speak honestly in this research without
fear of disloyalty to their organisations or harm to their colleagues.
 Voluntary organisations and funders need to create communication channels,
probably via third parties, that enable honest feedback to funders on specific issues to
help funders evaluate their practices.
 Relevant and clear standards relating to equality work need to be laid out so funders
can mark their own quality, with potential to publish their conclusions. The Definitions
and Necessary Conditions for equality work used here may be a starting point.
 It would be helpful to consolidate data on experiences and perceptions recorded in
this research; with some data quantified (eg. time dedicated to bids, to managing
funder relationships) so we can weigh arguments for change.
 Some questions beyond the scope of this work, such as funders’ impact on
relationships between hands-on staff and members/clients; and the experiences of
very small identity-/ member-based community organisations need proper attention.
 The voluntary sector in London has potential to act on common experiences together
to improve conditions for equality work across the capital.
Endnotes
1
Included diverse voluntary organisations: from unfunded to £million+ bodies; equality specialist and not, plus
infrastructure, and some staff who also had funding experience.
2 Over 40 different funders were referred to by participants, including Public Authorities.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS With thanks to all participants and ‘Intersections’ research contributors:
Also Christine Goodall-HEAR Coordinator & HEAR Steering Group, London for All Partners –
LVSC, RoTA, WRC, LASA & London Councils, London Funders, LVSF, REAP.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Christine Goodall, HEAR, hear@reap.org.uk
8