Funding problems at Glasgow Rape Crisis

[ProfessorDavey]

And again wrong, I wasn't taking a position, you were.

Taking a posiiton on what?

You have reiterated numerous times a view that the Centre had their funding withdrawn (itself clearly not true) because they didn't do enough for men - the latter refuted by CiN. I struggle to see how this is not 'taking a position'.

All I am trying to do is get you to realise the challenges of making decisions on funding applications where the application value massively  outstrips the available funding, and indeed where the value of excellent funding applications still way outstrips the available funding.

Now my experience is in medical research, where the 'human cost' (as Rhiannon would have it) is not immediate on the basis that funding applications may lead to new treatments in years or decades that could save lives or massively increase quality of life. But whenever I've been on a panel making those funding decisions I have never failed to wish we could have funded a few more projects, as many excellent and clearly fundable projects ended up unfunded due to lack of resources.

[Nearly Sane]

Taking a posiiton on what?

You have reiterated numerous times a view that the Centre had their funding withdrawn (itself clearly not true) because they didn't do enough for men - the latter refuted by CiN. I struggle to see how this is not 'taking a position'.

All I am trying to do is get you to realise the challenges of making decisions on funding applications where the application value massively  outstrips the available funding, and indeed where the value of excellent funding applications still way outstrips the available funding.

Now my experience is in medical research, where the 'human cost' (as Rhiannon would have it) is not immediate on the basis that funding applications may lead to new treatments in years or decades that could save lives or massively increase quality of life. But whenever I've been on a panel making those funding decisions I have never failed to wish we could have funded a few more projects, as many excellent and clearly fundable projects ended up unfunded due to lack of resources.

Stop lying

[ProfessorDavey]

You can't liken giving a grant for a rape crisis service to medical research. This project funded a key worker to work with young women who have been raped and some of whom are suicidal. This kind of project doesn't come to an 'end'. By refusing to fund it further these women are left high and dry without their support and new victims can't even begin to access that support. In order to keep funding the service cuts have to be made elsewhere. I have experience of something similar personally and it is pretty inhumane to do this to the victims here.

Setting aside that much of the project funding was for outreach programme in schools, hence its relevance to CiN, let's deal with your point head on.

You make an absolutely compelling case for services of the type you describe to part of core provision funding from the public purse and I'd agree with you 100%. Sadly David Cameron's Big Society initiative was based on the premise that public funding could be reduced by offloading core public service provision onto the charitable/third sector. I've never agreed with this - charitable/third sector provision should extend but never replace core public services.

But once you enter the world where core public service provisions should be provided by the charitable/third sector, which has limited resources, you end up in a world where things we thing should be core public service provision are required to compete against each other for limited the charitable/third sector resource and not all can be funded.

So you might want the work proposed in the centre's application to be funded, and I wouldn't disagree. But that isn't the question - the question is whether you'd choose this application against another that you and I would also agree should be part of core public service provision. but where there isn't enough funding to support all the projects. So for example:

1. A project that supports young carers to allow them to have a childhood
2. A project that provides independence to severely disabled children
3. A project aimed at providing mental health support to the most severely children affected who may be considering suicide.

Or even:

4. A very similar project in another part of the country where this kind of support isn't embedded.

Now I'm glad I don't have to make key funding decisions between these types of application (mine are much more prosaic and less immediate), but I imagine the CiN funding panel members will be doing this all the time, and again sadly as you, I and no doubt they wish this wasn't the case and they could fund all if there were sufficient resources. But ultimately don't rail at CiN, rather get angry with governmental decisions to offload core service provision to the charitable/third sector which make these horrible decisions necessary.

[ProfessorDavey]

Stop lying

About what?

[Rhiannon]

This is the project's website:

https://www.roseyproject.co.uk/content/about/

It's clear that it's main purpose is one to one therapy for women under 18 (aka 'children') who have been the victims of sex crimes. Currently we are told that these number 20 young women, some of whom self harm, some who are suicidal.

The outreach project is secondary to that but if even one encounter with the outreach worker prevents sex crime then I don't think it can be argued with. Incidentally, the website makes clear its policy on LGBTI inclusivity.

My issue is that this project has been funded for two cycles. I can get the argument that if faced with three completely new projects, it may be necessary to priorities something that reaches a hundred kids rather than 20. But this project has been deemed worthy for six years now and it is very odd that suddenly it isn't. CiN have not given a firm reason for why they acted as they did.

[Rhiannon]

It was a good enough project for CiN to feature in one of their 'please give us dosh' films.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p037s93j

[ProfessorDavey]

This is the project's website:

https://www.roseyproject.co.uk/content/about/

It's clear that it's main purpose is one to one therapy for women under 18 (aka 'children') who have been the victims of sex crimes. Currently we are told that these number 20 young women, some of whom self harm, some who are suicidal.

The outreach project is secondary to that but if even one encounter with the outreach worker prevents sex crime then I don't think it can be argued with. Incidentally, the website makes clear its policy on LGBTI inclusivity.

My issue is that this project has been funded for two cycles. I can get the argument that if faced with three completely new projects, it may be necessary to priorities something that reaches a hundred kids rather than 20. But this project has been deemed worthy for six years now and it is very odd that suddenly it isn't. CiN have not given a firm reason for why they acted as they did.

Yes I'd already read this - the project is about both support and outreach into schools as I'd already pointed out. The project is also co-funded by another organisation, the R S MacDonald Charitable Trust - it is described as follows in the Centre own report to the charity commission in Scotland:

This project provides services to young people. Those services  includes support and advocacy, and prevention workshops in youth projects and schools. Funding covers salary costs, travel costs, workshop costs and a contribution to the overheads of the project.

You or I have no idea about the balance between the support and workshop element of the application, but they will have had to have been clearly indicated in the application.

Regarding the issue of two full funding cycles - well firstly having been funded once provides no guarantee of a successful application, and a successful second application provides no guarantee of a third.

But there is a more significant point. Many funding bodies have a sustainability criteria as part of assessment - effectively how are you going to keep this going post-the funding period. The implication being that the applicant must 'ween' itself off long term funding from the funding body. The challenge here is that to get the first (and perhaps second) grant you need to provide a compelling argument as to how the project can be sustained without the CiN (in this case) funding in the medium term. The challenge being that providing a compelling case for sustainability provides a strong supporting argument for funding in the first or second grant. But if you don't deliver then it is negative. The very notion of reapplying for a third 3-year grant (which is a demonstration that you hadn't achieved the alternative funding) when you might have made a compelling case for medium term sustainability in a second or third stage application might be a deal breaker.

[ProfessorDavey]

My issue is that this project has been funded for two cycles. I can get the argument that if faced with three completely new projects, it may be necessary to priorities something that reaches a hundred kids rather than 20. But this project has been deemed worthy for six years now and it is very odd that suddenly it isn't. CiN have not given a firm reason for why they acted as they did.

Each new round of application is different. It might be that CiN considered that other applications to the same level would deliver greater benefit to greater number of kids than this one, given (as always) the notion that given unlimited resources they'd like to fund all.

But unless you fund everything in perpetuity, and given finite resources, whenever you want to fund something new (as was the case for this centre in 2012) something else will fall off the funding. Hence the sustainability criteria that is fairly standard - the notion being that you pump prime projects that can maintain themselves in the medium term via other funding allowing a charity to fund new projects without jeopardising the existing project. This has proved to be the case here, albeit not in the managed manner you'd hope for.

[ProfessorDavey]

But this project has been deemed worthy for six years now and it is very odd that suddenly it isn't.

I think you are missing the point - CiN are likely to determine, as a first stab, those projects that are fundable (in other words worthy of support) - but then the hard task starts - where you have £5M worth of projects but only a £1M budget how do you determined  which £1M worth of project (all of which are worthy) and which £4M worth of project (all of which are worthy) you cannot support.

That you have been funded in two previous rounds isn't a compelling argument at all, firstly from the sustainability criteria, but also from the need to refresh your funding. It could be, of course, that one of the projects funded because this project wasn't was for rape/sexual abuse services for children in Cambridgeshire, where perhaps support is less developed than in Glasgow.

[ProfessorDavey]

It was a good enough project for CiN to feature in one of their 'please give us dosh' films.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p037s93j

In November 2015, when they were funded rather than in 2018, where their application wasn't considered to be ranked high enough for funding.

It may be that the outcomes of their 2015 funding were great but there were other more compelling cases for the limited funded funding pot. It may be that the outcomes of their 2015 funding weren't considered to have the level of impact expect. I, and you, don't know.

[Rhiannon]

I think you are missing the point - CiN are likely to determine, as a first stab, those projects that are fundable (in other words worthy of support) - but then the hard task starts - where you have £5M worth of projects but only a £1M budget how do you determined  which £1M worth of project (all of which are worthy) and which £4M worth of project (all of which are worthy) you cannot support.

That you have been funded in two previous rounds isn't a compelling argument at all, firstly from the sustainability criteria, but also from the need to refresh your funding. It could be, of course, that one of the projects funded because this project wasn't was for rape/sexual abuse services for children in Cambridgeshire, where perhaps support is less developed than in Glasgow.

So because Cambs is close to me you throw that in. Nice. Should I care less about Scottish girls?

[Harrowby Hall]

So because Cambs is close to me you throw that in. Nice. Should I care less about Scottish girls?

I have been following this discussion. Throughout, Prof D has been (very patiently) providing an objective description of the way in which grant awarding institutions behave. At no time has he made any comment about the circumstances of the present situation in Glasgow. He has simply described the process involved and the mechanism by which a particular funding decision may have reached. He has not been concerned with the merit of any decision merely the decision making itself.

Rhi and NS appear to be berating him because he has not not made any subjective comment which would agree with their own subjections. My own conclusion is that it is pointless being rational - you will only be attacked.

[ProfessorDavey]

So because Cambs is close to me you throw that in. Nice. Should I care less about Scottish girls?

Or Cornwall.

Point being that continuing to fund this Centre simply because it was deemed worthy of funding in 2012 and 2015 means that £120k worth of projects cannot be funded elsewhere - or indeed even in Glasgow. Those alternative projects might have had more impact on children than this one - certainly CiN thought so which is why they were ranked higher.

Imagine if you were involved in one of those projects (let's say a rape support project aimed at children in Cornwall) and you were told you hadn't got funding but that a project ranked lower than yours had been for no other reason than they had two previous successful applications.

[Rhiannon]

Or Cornwall.

Point being that continuing to fund this Centre simply because it was deemed worthy of funding in 2012 and 2015 means that £120k worth of projects cannot be funded elsewhere - or indeed even in Glasgow. Those alternative projects might have had more impact on children than this one - certainly CiN thought which is why they were ranked higher.

Imagine if you were involved in one of those projects (let's say a rape support project aimed at children in Cornwall) and you were told you hadn't got funding but that a project ranked lower than yours had been for no other reason than they had two previous successful applications.

Ranked how? By whom?

What I can tell you is that I know what it is like to lose a key worker through cuts, and it isn’t good. And I’m an adult with the inner and outer resources to at least get by. Goodness only knows how it is for these girls. Or was, until the funding was found.

[ProfessorDavey]

Ranked how? By whom?

By the CiN funding panels - how on earth do you think funding bodies make decisions on which applications to fund?

[Rhiannon]

By the CiN funding panels - how on earth do you think funding bodies make decisions on which applications to fund?

And the project in Cornwall would be told that the one in Glasgow is ‘lower ranked’? Otherwise your comment makes no sense.

I note you have decided not to comment on my personal experience. Why is that?

[ProfessorDavey]

And the project in Cornwall would be told that the one in Glasgow is ‘lower ranked’? Otherwise your comment makes no sense.

The principal remains regardless of whether the ranked order is made public.

But yes it is extremely common (certain for public funding bodies) for the ranked order of applications to be made available - in the interests of openness and transparency.

[Rhiannon]

Ok, if you want to be free to be out there with your experience of awarding funding but won’t acknowledge my experience as a service user in this discussion then I don’t think there’s a great deal of point in continuing. It’s not secret, it’s not something I find difficult to talk about and I don’t put myself at risk by doing so. If you want to ignore it or think I should be silent then there’s not much else to be said.

[ProfessorDavey]

What I can tell you is that I know what it is like to lose a key worker through cuts, and it isn’t good. And I’m an adult with the inner and outer resources to at least get by. Goodness only knows how it is for these girls. Or was, until the funding was found.

I don't have the same experience as you, but I can completely understand the effect the loss of a key worker with which a victim has developed a personal relationship will have, regardless of whether that key worker is made redundant due to a charity application being unsuccessful or leaves for other reasons.

But what you are implying is, in effect, that CiN should fund this centre in perpetuity, as otherwise there will always a point where a new application may be unsuccessful. And, of course in the interests of fairness, if CiN simply continue funding for this project as failing to fund a new application will have a detrimental effect, they should do so for other projects meaning that no new projects can ever be funded and that cannot be right.

What you are alluding to is what I was discussing last night - effectively that if this is a core and essential service it should be funded through the public purse, not via a series of 3-year charity funding applications where funding is limited and there cannot be a guarantee that a new application will be successful.

[ProfessorDavey]

Ok, if you want to be free to be out there with your experience of awarding funding but won’t acknowledge my experience as a service user in this discussion then I don’t think there’s a great deal of point in continuing.

But the issue here isn't the importance of the service - we all agree on that. The issue is about how funding decisions are required to be made in circumstances where the value of applications to the scheme far outstrips the available funds.

And I'm sure all the projects coming forward to CiN (or at least those considered fundable, regardless of whether there are sufficient funds actually to fund them) are extremely important and the decision to fund or otherwise will have a significant impact on the lives of children.

[ProfessorDavey]

I have been following this discussion. Throughout, Prof D has been (very patiently) providing an objective description of the way in which grant awarding institutions behave. At no time has he made any comment about the circumstances of the present situation in Glasgow. He has simply described the process involved and the mechanism by which a particular funding decision may have reached. He has not been concerned with the merit of any decision merely the decision making itself.

Rhi and NS appear to be berating him because he has not not made any subjective comment which would agree with their own subjections. My own conclusion is that it is pointless being rational - you will only be attacked.

Thanks HH - I appreciate it.

[Nearly Sane]

I have been following this discussion. Throughout, Prof D has been (very patiently) providing an objective description of the way in which grant awarding institutions behave. At no time has he made any comment about the circumstances of the present situation in Glasgow. He has simply described the process involved and the mechanism by which a particular funding decision may have reached. He has not been concerned with the merit of any decision merely the decision making itself.

Rhi and NS appear to be berating him because he has not not made any subjective comment which would agree with their own subjections. My own conclusion is that it is pointless being rational - you will only be attacked.

I understand that that is your perception but I would suggest it is  wrong for the following reasons:

First, the point of the post is the specific case. I don't see that what Prof D has posted in regards to the general process as relevant to that discussion. I have not attacked him for that, just ignored it as irrelevant 

Sevond, while his description of the general process has been objective, as far as I can se, his position as regards the specific case here has not been. When in the course of discussion, the CIN statement came out, he accepted that as being true and the statement from the Rape Crisis Centre as therefore being incorrect. I don't know who is correct in the specific case and an unwilling to assume that one side is correct. Indeed it may be that both sides are in part correct and in part wrong.

At this stage I will note that I apologise to Prof D for saying I was lying. I don't have enough information to justify that what I see as a significant misrepresentation of my position here was deliberate. I will just emphasise the point though that I don't see that we can dismiss what the Rape Crisis Centre said to accept what CIN said. That isn't taking a position on who is correct here.

Finally, I may be simply seeing a pattern that isn't there and being 'triggered' but the idea of women only spaces is getting attacked generally because of our continued confusion of sex/gender in terms of rights. As mentioned at the start of the thread, if there is a push to award funds in the basis of insufficient support for the other sex in such support groups, I suspect that more because of trans rights arguments, such as what has lead to the women's officer in the Labour Party being trans, than anything else. I may be wrong but I think it is a worrying problem.

[Rhiannon]

I agree with NS’s last paragraph. But to note, that isn’t a problem with the Rosey project.

https://www.roseyproject.co.uk/content/lgbti/

[Rhiannon]

I was talking to a social worker yesterday about this case and he said it’s inhumane. In his experience a lot of these decisions are made by tick box and bare data rather than looking at individual projects on their merits and the the humans involved at the forefront of the decision making process.

He also made the point that prevention is always, always cheaper. Why axe something that may relieve at least some of the demand on the crisis service, not to mention saving young lives from the consequences of sex crime?

[Udayana]

I understand that that is your perception but I would suggest it is  wrong for the following reasons:
...

What balderdash! Both organisations were probably entirely honest and correct throughout. It is just that the "debate" was not based on any verified facts.
 
And as for approving or condemning the outcomes of entirely hypothetical cases .. ? Really?