With the promise of pain to come in the new Government’s first budget, perhaps now is the time to re-examine the concept of statutory responsibility.
Experienced Fundraisers will be familiar with the sinking feeling that comes when examining a potential funder’s exclusion criteria and encountering the common phrase, ‘we do not support projects/services considered to be a statutory responsibility’.
What does that actually mean? This is a common question clients ask when explaining that they’re not eligible to apply to a particular fund. And it’s a good question, as the definition can vary considerably between different funders. The better question, however, is, ‘Why won’t they fund such services?’
Time To Re-evaluate Exclusion Criteria?
Many charitable trusts and foundations have a decades-old aversion to subsidising statutory contracts, believing to do so will relieve government bodies of their responsibilities. However, as the decades have passed, have they considered what now constitutes a statutory responsibility? For many, the answer will be yes. Several trusts and foundations diligently evaluate their giving criteria annually to make difficult decisions about how best to use their limited funds. Indeed, there can be no doubt that their task has become unenviably challenging in recent times. The last week alone has seen two major funders pause their grant making programmes in the face of unsustainable levels of applications.
However, one also suspects that there are scores of funders for whom this common ground for exclusion has long been present and unchallenged. By funding critical services supporting the needs of older people, younger people, people with learning disabilities, those facing homelessness, those surviving domestic abuse and many more, trusts and foundations can provide much needed support to some of the most vulnerable people in our society. In addition, with charities closing and/or reducing services at an alarming rate, it could be argued that there simply isn’t enough funding circulating to justify such philosophical exclusion criteria. At least, not without further consideration.
Withdrawing From Service Provision?
Alongside this, there have been countless articles about charities withdrawing from service provision due to the chronic underfunding of contracts. Again, this is a valid concern and at Underwood Consulting we wholeheartedly agree that contracts should cover the full cost of service provision. However, whilst the decision to pull out of service provision is understandable for an individual charity, the need for these services is not likely to abate anytime soon. For many charities, the delivery of services to these vulnerable groups is central to their mission, and in Underwood Consulting’s view, charities providing these services is a good thing. Most charities are embedded in their local communities and adept at bringing the compassionate element required to engage effectively with these often ‘hard to reach’ groups. Surely, therefore, the answer cannot simply be for charities to walk away from providing essential services and for funders to exclude them.
Multi-Funder Solutions
Perhaps then, as difficult decisions made by national government filter down and local government bodies look to redefine essential services within the parameters of their statutory obligations, there is a need for all parties to reevaluate this issue and consider multi-funder solutions. Indeed, the flexibility promised in the new procurement bill might just provide such an opportunity.