Re: examples of rigidities in the current NOF or CF application processes.
Specific problems with CF applications are:
A: Salaries and employment
- Limitations on salary increases to 3% pa, which does not allow for increments as well as cost of living increases and encourage staff retention. This means that any CF-funded project is a drain on our core resources as the budget is prevented from reflecting our internal policy of staff rewards. A 6% pa increase would be more appropriate.
- One of the CF advisers told us that all lottery-funded staff should be on short term contracts for the duration of the CF grant. In our case the project was to continue as a development and had never been intended as a time-limited project. Short term contracts represent poor employment procedures. They are not compatible with employment law or our obligations as a recipient of an Investors in People award. Neither of these strategies is compatible with the CF's wish to put itself forward as an example of a good practice funder.
B: Organisational Overheads
- The new organisational overheads are very limited, eg to directly supervising staff. Yet if as a result of our application we take on staff or other new development responsibilities, there are always a lot of additional overheads - staff/bills have to be paid, staff require training and personnel services, IT support, and immediate managers require management themselves. In any good organisation the strategic management and trustees need to keep a handle on major project development, requiring reporting back procedures all of which have indirect cost implications which can be significant to a smaller organisation's budget, etc. Someone also has to monitor and report back to the funder, which can be time consuming and takes them away from other work. This role often falls to the fundraiser. None of the costs of these additional duties are normally accepted by the CF unless there is an increase in hours worked by existing staff as a part of the project. What often happens is that other work is sacrificed - this can be especially significant for example, if it takes a fundraiser away from other application work, and can undermine the security of a small organisation with a very small fundraising resource.
- We welcome the new facility to include a share of current accommodation costs in the organisational overheads. We additionally welcome the pre-application facility. At the time of writing we are unable to obtain guidance on the level at which we can cost into our development grant application (requesting 3 more years support for a new development of an existing grant) the cost of essential existing services and existing staff currently funded on a tapered CF grant, now down to 40%. We hope the staff handling the pre-application procedure will obtain clarification of these considerable funding issues, but so far no one has been able to answer whether we can start again at 100% or 40% of costs. There is still a lot more flexibility needed on additional essential costs to a project. The ACEVO template offers an example of good practice that should be recommended to the CF and NOF.
NOF application criteria are very limited. Although we have been very fortunate to also have funding from NOF, we can no longer apply under their current criteria. We are very concerned that the merger of the two funders will introduce further limitations in the range of grant criteria.
However, NOF staff are more inclined than CF staff to use email and telephone, which facilitates understanding and negotiations and speeds up procedures. CF staff are good at confirming agreements in writing. We have had to request written confirmation, eg of variations in use of budgets, from NOF staff in order to satisfy our auditors.
U:\Word\Lottery\CF and NOF limitations - ACEVO request.doc