Funding problems at Glasgow Rape Crisis

[Rhiannon]

Good to hear - our posts (14 and 15) so you'd answered my question before I'd asked it!

Must admit I'm a bit surprised that you even felt the need to ask.

[Nearly Sane]

Must admit I'm a bit surprised that you even felt the need to ask.

Especially given you had already answered it in the post Prof D replied to when you write



'There are rape crisis organisations for men, and likewise ones for domestic violence; the thing to do it to support both kinds, giving both genders that safe space that is so badly needed.'

[Rhiannon]

Especially given you had already answered it in the post Prof D replied to when you write



'There are rape crisis organisations for men, and likewise ones for domestic violence; the thing to do it to support both kinds, giving both genders that safe space that is so badly needed.'

That and the fact I'm a normal human being.

[Nearly Sane]

That and the fact I'm a normal human being.

And yet you post here!

[jeremyp]

As an aside, you can now become a Mason if you are male, male when joined but transitioned to be female, female but transitioned to be male - but not if you are female. The whole gender/sexuality thing is currently fucked up.

Actually there is a whole masonic organisation just for women. I have no idea if they are accepting trans women.

[jeremyp]

Presumably the funder is mindful of its equality obligations and wants to support organisations that provide services that aren't provided exclusively to one gender. It isn't uncommon for funders to use the power they have to provide or not to provide funding as a means to engender culture change in organisations hoping to receive funding.

Well the reasonable compromise would be to also provide support for an organisation for sexually abused men and boys.

[ProfessorDavey]

Well the reasonable compromise would be to also provide support for an organisation for sexually abused men and boys.

Or to provide funding to an organisation (of which there are many) that provides rape support services regardless of gender. Actually we don't have anything like enough information to know. Perhaps the loss of funding for this organisation was balanced by increased funding for other gender specific rape support organisation, or maybe for ones that support regardless of gender. Perhaps CinN funding priorities have changed so greater funding is being used to alleviate poverty with reduced funding for rape support. We don't know.

Available charity funds are limited and those funding bodies are constantly taking really tough decisions where eminently worthy and fundable projects aren't actually funded through lack of available funds.

[jeremyp]

Disturbing lack of empathy going on here. No woman wants to go into a rape crisis centre and find a man sitting in the waiting area with her and many wouldn't be able to cope with it.

What about sharing a waiting area with a trans woman? I was recently doing some volunteer work and one of the other volunteers was a trans woman although her biology was very obviously male and she was about six foot two. What if she had been in the waiting area?

[Rhiannon]

And yet you post here!

Shit, it's such a giveaway...

[ProfessorDavey]

And to move on, do you think that making a funding decision on the basis of a women's rape crisis centre not doing enough for men, if that is the case, is in any way justifiable?

It depends on the circumstances and the competing applications for funding. Imagine a situation where a funding body considering two applications for funding for rape support and outreach projects, one aimed entirely at women, while the other provided support for both men and women with insufficient funds to fund both. It wouldn't be unreasonable at all to decide to fund the project that supported both men and women, both from an equalities perspective, but also as it would have broader impact.

That doesn't mean that the gender specific application isn't worthy, nor unfundable, merely that another competing project was seen as higher priority for funding.

[Rhiannon]

What about sharing a waiting area with a trans woman? I was recently doing some volunteer work and one of the other volunteers was a trans woman although her biology was very obviously male and she was about six foot two. What if she had been in the waiting area?

I don't know. I'm not qualified in rape counselling and I suggest that it's down to the centres themselves to decide what to do in such circumstances. I guess some victims would be fine with it, others not. FWIW there has been some controversy in the neopagan movement over some women's events not admitting trans women because so many women have been raped and these events are designed to be a safe space for women to talk about their experiences. I can see both sides of the argument but personally I don't feel comfortable with the exclusion of trans women.

[jeremyp]

I'll post the statement from Children in Need that was in Rhiannon's link.

We have been pleased to fund Glasgow and Clyde Rape Crisis since 2012. Glasgow and Clyde Rape Crisis’ three-year grant recently came to the end of its term, and their subsequent application for new funding was unsuccessful. This decision was in no way connected to the support of male victims, we award grants to charities regardless of gender.

Their side of the story is that the funding came to its expected end. The organisation applied for new funding and were unsuccessful for reasons unspecified but nothing to do with gender.

[Rhiannon]

That doesn't mean that the gender specific application isn't worthy, nor unfundable, merely that another competing project was seen as higher priority for funding.

Which also means that the decision has been made that young rape victims, some suicidal, aren't worth helping and, potentially, keeping alive. Because let's not pretend that the NHS will fill the gap. 

[Rhiannon]

I'll post the statement from Children in Need that was in Rhiannon's link.

Their side of the story is that the funding came to its expected end. The organisation applied for new funding and were unsuccessful for reasons unspecified but nothing to do with gender.

Which may be a lie in order to stave off bad publicity. Or not. We've now got into 'we said, they said'. I think that CiN have more to gain by lying than Rape Crisis, who don't have much to gain at all from what I can see.

[ProfessorDavey]

Which also means that the decision has been made that young rape victims, some suicidal, aren't worth helping and, potentially, keeping alive. Because let's not pretend that the NHS will fill the gap.

Not necessarily if there is funding agreed to a different project also supporting rape victims that was deemed to be better and higher priority.

But funding is limited and finite - no doubt CinN receive applications for funding way in excess of the available funds. It has to prioritise and make decisions and many of those will be extremely tough decisions with highly worthy applications ending up below the funding line. And yes where those decisions mean that an organisation isn't funded it will have a negative effect, just as there is an opposite effect when the decision is positive.

That doesn't mean that rape victims aren't worth helping, but it may mean that CinN has determined that another application will have more impact in helping them. Or that an application supporting severely disabled children, or children facing poverty, or children who are young-carers, or an application to support a project aimed at preventing child suicide etc etc etc is higher priority for their limited available funds.

[jeremyp]

Which may be a lie in order to stave off bad publicity. Or not. We've now got into 'we said, they said'.

Well I expect the first part "Glasgow and Clyde Rape Crisis’ three-year grant recently came to the end of its term, and their subsequent application for new funding was unsuccessful" is almost certainly true. It would be easy to verify one way or the other.

I think that CiN have more to gain by lying than Rape Crisis, who don't have much to gain at all from what I can see.

Really? This is portrayed as an existential threat for Rape Crisis in both the posted stories. They have a lot to gain if they can "shame" Children in Need to reverse their decision, or through this publicity, gain funding from elsewhere. Children in Need as an organisation has nothing to gain from this that I can see. However, individuals within Children in Need may be lying to avoid getting fired.

I think the only way to find out whose story is true is for Children in Need to publish the documentation concerning their funding decision.

[Rhiannon]

I think the only way to find out whose story is true is for Children in Need to publish the documentation concerning their funding decision.

I agree with this.

[ProfessorDavey]

Really? This is portrayed as an existential threat for Rape Crisis in both the posted stories.

That certainly isn't true - the loss of the grant of about £45k per year, represent approx. 7.5% of their annual income of about £600k.

Also worth noting that their £135,322 grant was the second largest of any grant award in Scotland that year (the largest being just £1000 more), so CiN have certainly funded them generously. Given that most grants are way, way smaller a consideration might have been that CiN could fund 3-4 other (hugely worthy) projects for the cost of continuing to fund Rape Crisis. CiN will also (as per their funding rules) have expected Rape Crisis to 'provide convincing evidence of the differences our grant has made to the lives of the disadvantaged children and young people you have worked with' in order to be able to apply for further funding. It may be that CiN were not convinced of the impact of their previous funding.

[ProfessorDavey]

It appears that the whole issue is now over.

The Scottish Government has agreed to increase its funding for Glasgow Rape Crisis by £35k (on top of the £218k a year it already provides) to cover the shortfall due to failing in their funding application to CiN. Apparently they've also raised an additional £10k in donations in the last few hours on the back of the publicity.

So overall a good day's work for Glasgow Rape Crisis and certainly shows the power of the media.

[jeremyp]

That certainly isn't true - the loss of the grant of about £45k per year, represent approx. 7.5% of their annual income of about £600k.

Also worth noting that their £135,322 grant was the second largest of any grant award in Scotland that year (the largest being just £1000 more), so CiN have certainly funded them generously. Given that most grants are way, way smaller a consideration might have been that CiN could fund 3-4 other (hugely worthy) projects for the cost of continuing to fund Rape Crisis. CiN will also (as per their funding rules) have expected Rape Crisis to 'provide convincing evidence of the differences our grant has made to the lives of the disadvantaged children and young people you have worked with' in order to be able to apply for further funding. It may be that CiN were not convinced of the impact of their previous funding.

7.5% can be make or break and they were saying they were going to be laying people off and suspending services as a result,

The point is that the assertion that “they have nothing to gain” is refuted. They have plenty to gain and indeed have gained as a result of this, if your latest post is correct.

[Nearly Sane]

It appears that the whole issue is now over.

The Scottish Government has agreed to increase its funding for Glasgow Rape Crisis by £35k (on top of the £218k a year it already provides) to cover the shortfall due to failing in their funding application to CiN. Apparently they've also raised an additional £10k in donations in the last few hours on the back of the publicity.

So overall a good day's work for Glasgow Rape Crisis and certainly shows the power of the media.

Any chance of you condemning the idea that funding should be based on the idea of supporting women?

[Rhiannon]

7.5% can be make or break and they were saying they were going to be laying people off and suspending services as a result,

The point is that the assertion that “they have nothing to gain” is refuted. They have plenty to gain and indeed have gained as a result of this, if your latest post is correct.

'Nothing to gain' by doing what?

[jeremyp]

'Nothing to gain' by doing what?

My mistake, I should have said “less to gain than CiN”

[Rhiannon]

My mistake, I should have said “less to gain than CiN”

Do you mean 'less to gain by lying'? Because there's no evidence that the reason that they have given for losing funding from CiN is what prompted the funding to be found by the Scottish government, only that the Govt have stepped in to replace the funding lost in order to save a vital service. As for the people who have donated... that's up to each individual.

[Nearly Sane]

My mistake, I should have said “less to gain than CiN”

odd idea about charity.