Involving beneficiaries in grant-making

ACF Conference, 2013

Outline

• Introduction to the IVAR research• What we already know• Two sets of research findings• Presentation by Cripplegate Foundation• Implications for future practice• Discussion

A note about terms

• ‘Beneficiary’: individuals who would potentially benefit from a funding programmeOR

• Actual or potential grantees (specifically, small social welfare voluntary organisations)

• ‘Involvement’: wide variety of methods, including panels, conversations, focus groups, facilitated discussions and online participation

What do we already know about purpose and benefits?

• A way of respecting the knowledge and insights of people directly affected by grant-making decisions

• Communities best placed to judge what’s needed• Consensual grant-making strengthens the legitimacy and

relevance of a funder• A belief that answers to the problems that funders are

seeking to address lie within the community• And that grantees and members of the community are well

suited to play a role in setting the agenda for change• Shift from ‘transactional’ philanthropy to ‘transformational’

What do we already know about challenges?

• Conflicts of interest• Burden on beneficiaries: need for training and induction• Burden on foundation staff: time and facilitation costs• Dilemmas for Boards: balance between devolved decision-

making and legal responsibilities• Risk of disrupting the status quo and relinquishing some

power and control• Understanding where and how to bring beneficiaries into

grant making practices

Beneficiary involvement in funding processes at BIG - outline

www.ivar.org.uk/publications/beneficiary-involvement-funding-processes-big-lottery-fund

• ‘Beneficiary’: individuals who would potentially benefit from a funding programme

• ‘Involvement’: panels, focus groups and online participation

• Document review; interviews with BIG staff; Case studies of 4 BIG programmes; Interviews with other funders; Participation in a learning session

The BIG study: 12 programmes varied according to:

• Stage – Needs assessment (less common)– Programme design– Programme award

• Intensity – From one-off, through episodic to ongoing

• Method– One size does not fit all– Focus groups for needs assessment and programme design– Decision-making panels, public voting on-line for awards

The BIG study: Perceived benefits

• Reflected BIG core values and modelled good practice: ‘doing what we ask projects to do’

• Legitimacy and reputation: ‘shows we’re serious about engagement as a principle’

• Enhanced efficiency and effectiveness: ‘results in more grounded and robust outcomes’

• Learning all round (beneficiaries and staff): placing experiences and opinions in a wider context

The BIG study: Actual benefits

• Accessing harder to reach groups, through more thorough and engaged needs assessment

• Challenging BIG’s thinking and changing subsequent decision-making practice

• ‘Providing a human face rather than a corporate BIG face’

The BIG study: Challenges

• Being taken seriously: ‘we had to explain they [beneficiaries] were one cog in a much larger machine. However, the group thought they were the main cog’.

• Representation• Support: ‘We have a duty of care. We could open up a can of

worms and there is a risk and danger if we are not addressing this’

• Resources and value for money, eg. recruiting and supporting a range and balance of views

Recession Watch study outlinewww.ivar.org.uk/publications/trusts-and-foundations/duty-care-role-trusts-and-foundations-supporting-voluntary-organ

• Purpose: Helping 5 trusts to develop grant making practices through open dialogue with grantees

• Method: Series of events bringing funders and grantees together to identify ways in which things might adapt or change for the better

• Focus: less on what to fund, more on how to fund• ‘Beneficiary’: actual or potential grantees of trusts

and foundations

Recession Watch:Experience of grantees

• Feeling heard• Opportunity for two-way dialogue• Greater understanding of funders’ perspective• Helping funders to understand grantees’ context and

needs• Realising both parties are working to achieve the

same aims

Recession Watch:Key points arising from involvement

• Relationships• Processes• Influence• Flexible funding

CRIPPLEGATE FOUNDATIONHelping since 1500

We transform lives for people in Islington.We’re independent, and trusted.

The money we give improves lives forlocal people, building a better future for us all.

Islington

• Has the second highest level of child poverty in London• Has the shortest life expectancy of men in London• Has the highest level of male suicide in London• Is the most densely populated local authority in England• Has the least open space in England• Is one of the most expensive places to live in London. You

need to earn over £90k a year to buy a flat in Islington• Inequality is widening

We know Islington

How have people’s lives changed in the last 5 years?How do people feel about living in an unequal borough?What might the future hold?What can we do about it?

Our funding approach

• We use all our assets – our funding – only £2m a year, our partnerships and our independence

• We visit all applicants – 230 in 2012- to assess applications, and then we visit during the life of a grant

• We can be flexible -fund for one year, ten years, offer capital, revenue, planning grants, change the purpose of the grant

• We can give advice, bring organisations together to pool resources and develop better work

To what end?

• To meet our ambition to enable people to transform their lives we need to work with organisations

• To better understand local need and issues• To ground our work in local evidence• To encourage innovative responses to tackle

poverty and inequality• To use the intelligence from local organisations

to shape our priorities• To put evidence about poverty in Islington in

the public domain

Why not?

• An expensive way of grant making. It is resource intensive

• Raising expectations of local organisations• Not ‘independent’ research • Local focus could distort priorities

Benefits

But engagement with organisations is a powerful tool and helps to

• to support practical initiatives that can make a difference to people’s lives today

• to partner with others to prevent problems and achieve long term change

• to influence wider change where it will benefit local residents

Implications for future practice

• Being clear about the offer: ‘shared space’ or ‘invited spaces’*– Why they are being involved– What is expected of them– How their contribution will be used– Invited spaces more common – however, this constrains

the level of influence a beneficiary can have and raises questions about the authenticity of ‘co-design’

*Gaventa, J. (2006) ‘Finding the spaces for change: A power analysis’, IDS Bulletin, 27, 6, Sussex: Institute of Development Studies

Implications for future practice

• A spectrum: ‘different kinds of involvement might be appropriate at different stages and for different stakeholders’*– Horses for courses– Selective: driven by the type of programme/initiative,

stage of development and type of beneficiaryOR

– Universal (and standardised)?

*Taylor, M. (2011) Public Policy in the Community, London: Palgrave