Tania Mason takes issue with one of the Leadership 20:20 Commission’s recommendations.

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed a new and worrying trend relating to charity funding criteria?

It used to be that when a charity wanted to apply for a grant or contract, it filled out the application form or tender document by setting out what it would do with the money to solve a particular problem related directly to its charitable objects.

Presumably, the applicant charity realised that the higher proportion of the money it could spend directly on ‘the cause’ – however it chose to slice and dice that – the better the chance of success. And presumably this knowledge helped to improve efficiency and keep admin costs to a minimum, so that as much money as possible did get spent on the cause.

But nowadays it seems as if there are ever-increasing demands attached to those funding pots. Recommendations seem to be flying thick and fast from various corners as to extra commitments that should be required from charities if they are to win funds.  

First it was the requirement to measure the impact that the funding has had, as mooted by the Inspiring Impact Group in January.  Now the latest wheeze, from the Leadership 20:20 Commission, is that funders should also build in to their criteria the “expected level of management and leadership development, and reporting requirements against these”.

Now, I think many of the Leadership 20:20 Commission’s recommendations are sound, and efforts to boost the sector’s leadership diversity must be applauded.  But going so far as to require fundraisers to include such detail in their applications, and service-delivery teams to cover it in their contract negotiations, is a step too far in my view.  

Every new requirement needs resourcing, and the more that money is diverted to impact measurement and leadership development, the less it is spent on 'the cause'. Where will it end?  Before long there may be no money left for the actual project.