Government funded then scrapped applicant data bank 3

Fundraising | Tania Mason | 21 May 2008

The Directory of Social Change developed a version of a central data bank for charities applying for government grants as part of the governmentfunding.org.uk project, but the Home Office scrapped it just before it got to the testing stage.

The online grant application management tool took around two years to develop and was ready in mid-2006. The tool was dual-facing – with an applicant-facing side which started with a standard application form, and a grant-administrator side whereby individual grants administrators could set up their own accounts.

Applicants could bring up an application form, fill it out and automatically populate it with data from their profile. If they then applied for another grant programme later, much of the form would be automatically completed for them.

Joining up across government

Once the fundraiser submitted their application, the grant administrator would get an email alert, so they could log in and look at all the applications forms on the database and set up a scoring form for each one. “Basically it aimed to replicate the existing offline process, online,” said Ben Wittenberg, the DSC’s head of policy and research. “And it aimed to provide some joining-up across government departments.”

It was funded out of the £400,000 budget that the then-Active Community Unit (ACU) in the Home Office allocated to the DSC to create www.governmentfunding.org.uk – the central website that aims to be the first port of call for anybody applying for any kind of government grant.

But the idea got as far as booking a day to test it before it got canned, said Wittenberg. “The department-facing database was declared out-of-scope.”

He said the ACU seemed to realise it didn’t have enough clout to force other government agencies to use it. “They didn’t even have buy-in from their part of the Home Office. And the person responsible for it changed every six months, so by the time they got to grips with it they were gone.”

DSC ‘could revive it’

If any funder expressed an interest in reviving it, it could “quite quickly be something we could involve ourselves in”, Wittenberg said. “But on our own it would be an enormous undertaking.” The best way to take it forward now would be for some independent funders, foundations or corporates, to team up and test it out, he suggested.

Wittenberg told Charity News Alert about the initiative in response to a story last month in which Trevor Lockwood, director of Social Enterprise East of England, suggested that the sector should set up a central data bank of applicant information for funders to access. This would save charities huge amounts of form-filling time, he said.

Les Hems, director of GuideStar’s data and analysis arm, also submitted a response to Lockwood’s suggestion. He said: “GuideStar promoted this idea about two years ago and hoped the ‘lead funder’ project headed by DWP and DFES would deliver a mechanism that created standardisation and removed wasteful duplication.

“GuideStar already offers such a document deposit service for charities. We are also actively trying to engage with local government and grant-making trusts to use this and other information held by GuideStar – so that we can fulfil the role of an ‘information brokerage’.”

Who's Who: Tania Mason

Place a comment

Trevor Lockwood
Producer
Felixstowe Radio CIC
14 May 2008

It's good to see that there is renewed discussion. I'm tempted to suggest that the DSC reaction has become the norm: start a project, full of enthusiasm, only to back away when the going gets tough, and suggest that another funder be found. That's partly the result of top-down (which often equals lack of commitment, changing staff and lack of understanding) rather than asking the service providers what they want (which invariably is not more support organisations).
For workers in the third sector that does not help.

Life cannot be simply measured in economic terms. We are trying to help, to support, to work within our communities. Supportive investment will bring immeasurable returns. This database suggestion will save charities and others huge amounts of time and energy - but those costs do not appear on government balance sheets, so are not properly considered.

We have the technology - and I suggest that we use freely available software, such as that at www.joomla.org or openoffice.org or to utilise the provision of free software offered by major suppliers, such as Microsoft to charities - and the power of volunteers to help build something useful.

If the Third Sector is to make a proper contribution it requires support and opportunity. In our community media sector that is slowly being recognised, but it's hard work, and very difficult to obtain the small amounts of core funding that will allow expansion, job creation and increased local participation.

That funding can often be provided by giving us a job to do. One of our new funders is a government department using the advertising opportunities local community radio can provide. Good news - we all gain.

Guidestar provides a perfect vehicle, all they need is a little prop to move the project along - and for government it would be money well spent, instead of expecting civil servants and commercial suppliers, both of whom lack the necessary experience, to do the job.

It's time for action - talk to those who know - then let those that can do the job. This country needs this initiative urgently.

[Reply]

Pam Marshall
14 May 2008

What a shame, this would have really made a difference - I invest a lot of time and energy looking into schemes for charities - to have all of this in one place would have been a huge bonus.

[Reply]

Marian Nicholson
14 May 2008

Left hand not knowing what the right is up to? Reinventing the wheel? Par for the course, I'd say!

[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.