Navca chief attacks Sam Younger's remark as 'technocratic nonsense' 5

Finance | Tania Mason | 21 Oct 2010

Navca chief Kevin Curley has sent an angry letter to Charity Commission chief executive Sam Younger attacking his recent exhortation to the sector to “move from a grants mentality to a contract mentality”.

Younger made the remark in his maiden speech to the sector at Charity Finance Live on Monday. He said that in order to make the most of the opportunities presented by the government’s Big Society vision, the sector must “move from a grant mentality – the expectation that they will be supported because their heart is in the right place – to a contract mentality. To an understanding that you are going to need to bid for support for certain projects, services, or activities in return for demonstrable public benefit.”

After the speech, Curley described the comment as “technocratic nonsense” and said the reference to ‘grant mentality’ was out of step with mainstream thinking.

“All major political parties recognise the value of grant funding and support it as a cost-effective means of getting money to where it’s most needed locally,” he said.

In his letter, Curley told Younger that grants remain crucial to the government’s plans to build the Big Society and are particularly vital for small, local charities.

While Navca did not resist the use of contracts for delivering mainstream public services, an intelligent commissioning approach was needed which involves a “robust option appraisal process for determining the most appropriate funding route”, he wrote.

He concluded: “I would urge you to rethink your views on the role of grant funding and to recognise that appropriate use should be made of both grants and contracts to deliver the best outcomes for communities.”

Bubb: Younger was ‘spot on’

However, Curley’s view of the speech was not shared by Acevo chief executive Stephen Bubb, who described Younger’s comment as “spot on”.

Bubb said this was a message Acevo had been plugging for years, before the current cuts crisis. “You need a diversity of funding and income streams. Over-reliance on grants is dangerous,” he said.

A Charity Commission spokeswoman added: "As you can see from the text of the speech, it's clear Sam wasn't passing judgement on the relative merits of different types of government support for charities - he was reminding charities that to survive during the coming period of austerity, they are going to have to focus ever more energy on demonstrating impact and on reporting the difference they make."

Directory: Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations (ACEVO) | Charity Commission | National Association of Voluntary and Community Action
Who's Who: Sam Younger | Kevin Curley | Sir Stephen Bubb

Place a comment

Paul Midgley
Freelance Arts Facilitator
Drum Runners
22 Oct 2010

Value first, money follows second. Funders could commission the skills and outcomes they are looking for. (i.e reverse the application process). Or put another way I would rather see a funding partner look for us too.

Apart from 2 local funds our organisation has delivered Crime reduction/Community involvement (list goes on..) without applying for funding by doing one simple thing and doing it well.

The Big Society will rely on people being able to enter and exit at different points. The structure should not be built without their consultation and if that means a change in how people apply or are instead approached to be part of a service then perhaps we can get back to the normality of supply and demand that will encourage growth and ownership. Or we could just simply grow another money tree but then all options should be open when re-designing.

[Reply]

Bryn Price
Director
Kent Peoples Trust
22 Oct 2010

I really feel that Sam Younger has got it wrong. With his academic background he should have been able to see that Charities start-up because of a need and if they are successful they then progress to the stage where they can access grants and then contracts. Given this, it seems to show that the best value for money to society is actually from the small voluntary sector charities that work in small communities and don't rely on a government imposed Contracting regime.

[Reply]

Rarry Revan
Ranter
Rantingrules
21 Oct 2010

Innovation is in part about taking risks. The contract environment is not about taking risks, it is about delivering a service at a certain standard for a certain rate.

If we want to get a society (BIG or small) that finds new ways to tackle long term problems we must be able to take a few risks and make a few mistakes. A grants mentailty should facilitate this in a way that the contract environment has failed to do for years.

Much love,

Rarry

[Reply]

Alex Whinnom
Director
GMCVO
21 Oct 2010

In support of Curley - our experience as a voluntary sector support organisation working across the ten districts of Greater Manchester is that small grants and strategic funding are essential components in developing a strong local voluntary sector that includes organisations capable of taking on contracts.

There is a clear correlation between the presence or absence of consistent meaningful investment by public sector organisations and the size and nature of a local sector. It is not a case of a "grants mentality" but of what type of funding is appropriate both for the recipient group and to achieve the outcome desired by the funder.

I agree with Bubb than a diversity of funding is necessary but see no local evidence of "over-reliance on grants".

[Reply]

Andrew Pring
Funding Advice Information Officer
21 Oct 2010

Never mind whether its grant or contract, if there isn't money forthcoming immediately there won't be a voluntary sector left to provide and support the services for all those rich enough to be able to volunteer do free work in our new Big Society.

[Reply]

Comments

[Cancel] | Reply to:

Name *

Email *

Organisation

Job Title

Comments *

Verification *

* Please read our Community Standards

Close »

Community Standards

The civilsociety.co.uk community and comments board is intended as a platform for informed and civilised debate.

We hope to encourage a broad range of views, however, there are standards that we expect commentators to uphold. We reserve the right to delete or amend any comments that do not adhere to these standards.

We welcome:

Robust but respectful debate
Strongly held opinions
Intelligent relevant discussion
The sharing of relevant experiences
New participants

We will not publish:

Rude, threatening, offensive, obscene or abusive language, or links to such material
Links to commercial organisations or spam postings. The comments board is not an advertising platform
The posting of contact details for yourself or others
Comments intended for malicious purpose or mindless abuse
Comments purporting to be from another person or organisation under false pretences
Gratuitous criticism, commentary or self-promotion
Any material which breaches copyright or privacy laws, or could be considered libellous
The use of the comments board for the pursuit or extension of personal disputes

Be aware:

Views expressed on the comments board are left at users’ discretion and are in no way views held or supported by Civil Society Media
Comments left by others may not be accurate, do not rely on them as fact
You may be misunderstood - sarcasm and humour can easily be taken out of context, try to be clear

Please:

Enjoy the opportunity to express your opinion and respect the right of others to express theirs
Confine your remarks to issues rather than personalities

Together we can keep our community a polite, respectful and intelligent platform for discussion.