Place-based giving

Institute for Voluntary Action Research & London Funders research findings and framework

AIMS

• Map the field of place-based approaches used by UK trusts and foundations• Arrive at a common language to describe the phenomenon of place-based funding• Identify the pitfalls and successes of a range of place-based funding approaches

APPROACH

• Collaborative study – working with London Funders and steering group of six foundations• Rapid review of existing literature – available at ivar.org.uk or londonfunders.org.uk• Sample of 21 trusts and foundations engaged in thinking about place• Interviews with more than 50 staff, trustees and partners – perceptions, experiences and

opinions

Research overview

Participants

BIG Lottery Fund (Our Place Scotland)Building Change TrustCity Bridge Trust (City Philanthropy) Comic ReliefCommunity Foundation Tyne & Wear and NorthumberlandCripplegate FoundationEast End Community Foundation (Newham Giving)Esmée Fairbairn FoundationGarfield Weston FoundationHackney CVS (Hackney Giving)

Joseph Rowntree FoundationLankelly Chase FoundationLloyds TSB Scotland Local TrustQuartet Community Foundation Rank FoundationSir George Martin TrustJohn Lyon’s CharityTudor TrustUKCFWade’s CharityWales Funder Forum

What is place-based funding?

Based on the research and subsequent discussions, it seems that a useful way to describe place-based funding by trusts and foundations is:  Targeted investment in defined geographic areas We use the term ‘investment’ to describe a package of support which might comprise funding (large sum or multiple grants), ‘capacity building’, networking/convening, influencing activity, etc.

Why useplace-basedfunding?

1. Way of achieving change by working in discrete area

2. Responding to external environment/context shifts (both positive and negative)

3. Desire to engage more ‘meaningfully’ with an area

4. To give more effectively and respond to need by being more informed

5. Better coverage/getting the money ‘out’

HOW IS PLACE-BASED FUNDING DELIVERED? Range of approaches in use: one-off project to whole scale strategy; run centrally to locally governed and delivered FIVE CROSS-CUTTING THEMES 1. Where to work – including purpose, identification, scoping and existing

capacity 2. Routes in – use of trusted intermediaries (community anchors; community

foundations; leaders; other funders3. Understanding your role – purpose, contribution, exploring new/different

role 4. Partnerships and relationships - Commitment to partnership working and

efforts to reframe funder/grantee relationships. Wide range of partners 5. Community-led approaches – some indication that using these

approaches raises the same questions, challenges as other place work but perhaps intensified

If you are a national funder wanting to support change in a local place, make sure you have got the right people on board an you know what the levers are, who can pull them.

“

”

WHAT IS SUCCESS?

Evaluating/assessing impact is hard generally – not just in place-based work

Changes being sought at area level are likely to take time and long-term nature of the work can make understanding success tricky

Desire/need to understand the role and contribution of funder above and beyond individual grants but many struggling

Place-based work often about learning and trying new ways of working - also means thinking about success and measurement in a different way

Awareness of the importance of process in place-based work

Enables working long-term on complex issues with a focus on learning

What are the perceived benefits of working in this way?

Funding is more informed by local knowledge and insight

Getting the money out or maintaining spend

Multi-year funding commitment gives confidence to communities and enables organisations to plan

Working in partnership helps get buy-in, build momentum and means delivery on the ground is more informed

Access and reach into communities is improved – particularly through work with community foundations

1 2 3 4 5 6

What are the challenges of place-basedfunding?

1. Articulating/being clear about the vision (and engaging others with/in it)

2. Partnerships and collaboration – take time to manage; getting the right match of partner and process; managing expectations

3. Being national/operating locally – how to stay informed, build relationships

4. Time – resource intensive, organisations and staff may need capacity built to work long-term

5. Risk and uncertainty – different types of funders have different relationships with risk; managing trustees expectations; mismatch between aims and processes/policies

Be willing to take a risk and make investments that might not always turn out as you would like.

“

”

Emergent framework of understanding

Findings suggest that there are a number of questions that it is helpful to ask when considering place-based investment.

01. What is your motivation?

Targeting an issue

Addressing ‘cold spots’

Responding to policy

context

Testing a model or approach

Targeting areas of

high deprivation

Being based there

02. What contribution do you hope to make?

Responsive

Funding of ‘good things’

Strategic

Systems or community change

03. What is the geographic focus/remit?

Street/neighbourhoodWard/villageBorough/districtTownCityRegionCounty

Most of the examples in our study are at this level

Based on these choices, at least eight questions will need answering with the ‘sliders’ positioned accordingly …

Funder-driven Community-led

01. Where will control sit?

Risk averse Comfortable with risk

02. What is your attitude to risk and uncertainty?

Learning about what happens

Tangible, measurable, difference

03. What is your position on impact?

“You don’t know and shouldn’t know what a catalysing effect might have.” “From a governance perspective it was a very different approach for us … so we have had to do things differently. If you endow an independent body then it is independent and that has challenged some of our more traditional approaches and thinking … it moves away from our traditional monitoring and impact measurement processes.” “There is an element of plate spinning and responding to change that is harder to measure.”

Transactional Relational/ partnership

04. What kind of behaviour is required?

Low High

05. What commitment of staff time/effort is needed?

Short-term Long-term

06. What duration of involvement is required?

Low High

07. What is your existing knowledge level of the area?

Quick Intensive/slower

08. How long will setting up take?

Strategic

High

Targetan issue

Respond to policy context

Test a model

Address‘cold spots’

Being based there

Target areas of high deprivation

Responsive

Low

Street CountyContributionGeographic level

DesignControlRiskImpactExisting knowledge of the area DeliveryDuration of involvementStaff time and resourcesBehaviour/level of engagementSet-up time

StrategyMotivation

Funders in their own words

Take a long time, spend a lot of money! Take time getting to understand communities and don’t just parachute in ... and don’t just rely on desk-based research – take time to understand areas and go out and meet people.

There are plenty of examples where a funder is pursuing a valid initiative, but because they don't talk to local people they duplicate. They get their own people, get their own office. They use up resources, time and energy when some of us are sitting here saying that there is already stuff going on. It's about being joined-up.

It’s all about relationships. Important to have clarity on who you want to influence and what you want to achieve. Important to get into it in the right way and with the right people, not necessarily just working with the people you know or those who shout loudest.

“”

“

”

“

”

Be willing to take a risk and make investments that might not always turn out as you would like.

“”

01. Could the framework be a useful tool?

02. What is useful about it? Is there anything that doesn't work or that is missing?

03. What are the challenges/opportunities that you have found in place-based funding?

04. What have you found works/helps in using place-based approaches?

Discussion in groups

ContributionGeographic level

DesignControlRiskImpactExisting knowledge of the area DeliveryDuration of involvementStaff time and resourcesBehaviour/level of engagementSet-up time

Strategic

High

Targetan issue

Respond to policy context

Test a model

Address‘cold spots’

Being based there

Target areas of high deprivation

Responsive

Low

Street County

StrategyMotivation