Transition Fund under fire for short deadline 6

Finance | Gareth Jones | 13 Jan 2011

The application window for the Transition Fund is too short and the conditions too difficult to satisfy, New Philanthropy Capital has said.

Writing in the organisation’s blog, head of charity analysis Iona Joy (pictured) said she was disappointed to see that the deadline was 21 January 2011 as the original press release had talked about it being available over the “next 13 months”.

She said: “Under any scenario, a 7½ week application window is tight, let alone the fact that it runs over a busy family holiday period.

“Few charities will be able to meet this deadline, as they have only the haziest notion of which local statutory funders are going to cut them and how badly.”

She added: “If the fund is available for 13 months since November 2010, what is the timetable until December 2011?

“Funding decisions will apparently take until March for most, some for May, with all disbursements made by July 2011.

“Surely decisions could have been phased over a longer period?”

On the entry conditions, she said they require charities to have either evidence or “substantial reason to believe” that they will face a funding cut of at least 30 per cent.

According to Joy, most will be in the second category and “may struggle to compute the >30 per cent figure”.

Not helpful

Similar concerns were expressed at the CFDG London Members' Meeting yesterday.

Pesh Framjee, head of not-for-profit at Crowe Clarke Whitehill, referred to the short application window, saying it “isn’t particularly helpful, the approach to how this has been set up and managed”.

This then prompted a finance director in the audience to highlight the “logic trap” that was presented by the requirement to demonstrate a 30 per cent funding drop.

He said he himself did not yet know how his charity’s funding is going to be affected and didn't wish to send out a negative message to funders by speculating.

The Cabinet Office did not respond to questions.

Who's Who: Martin Brookes

Place a comment

Keith Dally
Finance & Resources Director
CAN, Drugs, Alcohol, Homelessness
17 Jan 2011

Our problem is that our overall total statutory funding might not drop by 30% but some of the funding on individual statutory-funded projects may well do. BIG told me that if a grant was awarded, it could be used for an individual project within an organisation. So why take the charity's overall income figure into account? Along with the DoH's Financial Assistance Fund, the devil is in the detail.
Lots of time taken to read and inwardly digest - for nothing (again)

[Reply]

Simon Hebditch
Civil society consultant
14 Jan 2011

The breakneck speed with which the government is moving will lead to both unfair decisions on funding programmes and inadequate preparation periods for change. As the first Chief Executive of Capacitybuilders, which I see is being abolished in the cull of quangos, I was acutely conscious of the need to ensure that there was a reasonable application period for grant programmes and their implementation.

What on earth has happened to Compact principles? The government has apparently backed the idea of the Compact but is now involved in wholesale breakage of the codes of practice on consultation and funding.

[Reply]

L Walker
CEO
Bliss mediation
14 Jan 2011

I agree about the deadline. There was lots of finance information to collect. The main area for me was DIMINIMUS funding. What it was and how do we measure this. I contacted County Hall finance who did not know, so it was read on internet and there is so much different information. It said £170,000 over three years but what was classed as diminimus. It was many who did not know. The presentation in Newcastle never touched on this area. So lets hope I have done it right.
At least it was not more funding for other to train the sector, I for one am trained out. We need finance to put the work in action. The government appear to help by giving to larger private companies to provide training they make a nice profit. We need one to one help, or a bid writer allocated to so many organisations.

[Reply]

Steve Kerr
Policy Officer
LVSC
13 Jan 2011

The tight deadline is just one problem with the fund...

How about the elligiblity criteria requiring that groups already have 60% funding from statutory sources (which excludes most smaller and medium sized groups)?

And the fact that European Social Fund (ESF) cannot be counted as taxpayer funding to reach the 60% eligibility threshold? This is despite the fact that European money is ultimately UK taxpayers' money too, and that half funding for ESF projects comes directly from tax-payer funded public sector co-financers (in London, that's DWP, SFA, LDA, London Councils, and NOMS).

[Reply]

Bernard Dainton
Business Development Consultant
Dainton & Kalema Associates
13 Jan 2011

I concur about the eligibility criteria being too tight. No less than 7 of my clients were interested in applying, of which only 2 turned out be eligible for one reason or another!

[Reply]

Howard Lake
Director
Fundraising UK Ltd
13 Jan 2011

But then the Transition Fund at £100m doesn't even make up for the estimated £140m extra that charities will have to find as a result of the 4th Jan VAT increase.

OK, cheap jibe, but undue haste does seem to be the hallmark of many decisions of this government.

[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.