Funding problems at Glasgow Rape Crisis

[ProfessorDavey]

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

I disagree and in order to understand you need to understand the world of charity grant funding (which I do in the different context of medical research).

A CiN grant is funding to do a particular project - it comes with no overheads, so no contribution to your rent, business rates, electricity, gas etc etc etc. So if you fail to have a grant renewed, effectively you can do less - that project which would have been funded cannot now go ahead. And that would have been the case here, except for the 11th hour reprieve from the Scottish government. It would also have meant that one member of staff's role would have been redundant, but as this person would have been on grant funding he or she would have been on a fixed term contract anyhow aligned to the funding period.

But it isn't in any way an existential threat in the manner that a 7.5% reduction in income might be in a private company, specifically because the grant cannot pay for fixed costs. Bizarrely getting grants of this nature actually makes the fundamental financial situation of an organisation worse - as the grant covers only 'direct costs', but overhead costs (HR costs, payroll, services, estates costs, IT costs actually increase as you have more activity, and this increase in overheads has to be covered from other sources.

Now of course the 'mission' of an organisation, whether a rape support charity or a medical research organisation, means that we wants grants to allow us to do more 'stuff', but actually in financial terms, certainly in the short term, you'd be better off not winning that grant.

Had the Glasgow Rape Crisis not been bailed out by the Scottish government, they'd have made one person redundant, they'd have been able to do less (specifically what that grant application said they would have done), but there would be no existential threat - they'd still have been able to pay the rent, keep the lights on etc because the grant wouldn't provide any contribution to those things.

[Nearly Sane]

I disagree and in order to understand you need to understand the world of charity grant funding (which I do in the different context of medical research).

A CiN grant is funding to do a particular project - it comes with no overheads, so no contribution to your rent, business rates, electricity, gas etc etc etc. So if you fail to have a grant renewed, effectively you can do less - that project which would have been funded cannot now go ahead. And that would have been the case here, except for the 11th hour reprieve from the Scottish government. It would also have meant that one member of staff's role would have been redundant, but as this person would have been on grant funding he or she would have been on a fixed term contract anyhow aligned to the funding period.

But it isn't in any way an existential threat in the manner that a 7.5% reduction in income might be in a private company, specifically because the grant cannot pay for fixed costs. Bizarrely getting grants of this nature actually makes the fundamental financial situation of an organisation worse - as the grant covers only 'direct costs', but overhead costs (HR costs, payroll, services, estates costs, IT costs actually increase as you have more activity, and this increase in overheads has to be covered from other sources.

Now of course the 'mission' of an organisation, whether a rape support charity or a medical research organisation, means that we wants grants to allow us to do more 'stuff', but actually in financial terms, certainly in the short term, you'd be better off not winning that grant.

Had the Glasgow Rape Crisis not been bailed out by the Scottish government, they'd have made one person redundant, they'd have been able to do less (specifically what that grant application said they would have done), but there would be no existential threat - they'd still have been able to pay the rent, keep the lights on etc because the grant wouldn't provide any contribution to those things.

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

[ProfessorDavey]

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

Why would I do that as I have never said that funding shouldn't go to projects focussed on supporting one gender only.

What I have said is that in the world of grant applications where it is not unusual to receive applications for five or more times as much funding as the total amount you have to give out, then that funding body needs to prioritise projects. And that firstly means that excellent projects might not get funded, as there are simply too many applications ranked even better. And also that it is perfectly legitimate for a funding body to take into account the breadth of people who they can support with funding. And this is particularly relevant to CiN, who remember have a mission to support children and the breadth of applications they receive must be vast. Finally Glasgow Rape support demonstrably pitched into the most competitive part of the CiN funding as their bids were at the very highest end of grants that CiN would support. CiN are clear about this on the information for grant applications:

'-Our Main Grants Programme is for grants over £10,000 per year to support projects for up to three years.
-There is no upper limit for Main Grants but we make very few grants over £120,000 (or £40,000 per year) and most grants are for much less.
-Each year we are asked for much more money than we are able to give. Requests for larger amounts are always more competitive.'

They were successful in 2012 and 2015 (in the latter round receiving the second highest grant awarded in Scotland) - presumably in 2018 they simply came up against more compelling applications which were ranked higher. That's how grant funding works - if I had £1 for every time I've received a negative response to a grant where I was told that my application was rated excellent, was clearly fundable but that due to restrictions in funding envelope on this occasion there were other more compelling grants ranked higher so no funding - well I'd be rich, or at least would be able to buy you all a round of drinks.

And also lets knock on the head this notion that their funding was cut - no it wasn't. They applied for funding for 3 years in 2015, were funded and received that full 3-year funding. But that provides not guarantee that further funding applications would be successful. They applied again in 2018 and were not successful. They didn't have their funding cut, they simply had a new application which wasn't successful.

[ProfessorDavey]

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

See my last post.

[Nearly Sane]

See my last post.

Which doesn't condemn that.

[ProfessorDavey]

Which doesn't condemn that.

And what makes you think I should NS, given that I have never stated nor implied as such.

Read what I wrote which is clear on the matter. I have never said that funding shouldn't be given to projects that focus on one gender only. However that doesn't equate to thinking that once a fixed-term grant has ended that a new application for another grant must be automatically approved. That isn't the case. A new grant needs to be assessed against the other grant applications received at that round and the funding body will have to determine a priority ranking for those grants and then determine where the cut off line for funding lies given that the level of application will be many times the amount of money available.

The Glasgow Rape Crisis organisation was successful in 2012 for a 3 year grant, which was at the top end of value that CiN fund. They were successful again in 2015 - against right at the top end for a 3 year grant. They applied again in 2018 and this time weren't successful as CiN clearly determined that there were more compelling (and therefore higher ranked) applications and therefore their grant ended up blow the funding line. That's how grant funding works.

Out of interest NS - have you ever applied for a grant from a competitive grant funding body?

[Rhiannon]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

And what makes you think I should NS, given that I have never stated nor implied as such.

Read what I wrote which is clear on the matter. I have never said that funding shouldn't be given to projects that focus on one gender only. However that doesn't equate to thinking that once a fixed-term grant has ended that a new application for another grant must be automatically approved. That isn't the case. A new grant needs to be assessed against the other grant applications received at that round and the funding body will have to determine a priority ranking for those grants and then determine where the cut off line for funding lies given that the level of application will be many times the amount of money available.

The Glasgow Rape Crisis organisation was successful in 2012 for a 3 year grant, which was at the top end of value that CiN fund. They were successful again in 2015 - against right at the top end for a 3 year grant. They applied again in 2018 and this time weren't successful as CiN clearly determined that there were more compelling (and therefore higher ranked) applications and therefore their grant ended up blow the funding line. That's how grant funding works.

Out of interest NS - have you ever applied for a grant from a competitive grant funding body?

What relevance is anything so have done to you supporting the withdrawal of funding to a women's rape crisis centre because it doesn't do enough for men?

[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.

In which case funding for these services must be provided via different routes. That being the case the focus of criticism should be the public purse for failing to fund essential public services, rather than a charity doing their best to fund as much as they can, knowing that they cannot fund all they'd wish to.

But while it is funded via charitable grant funding, those funding bodies will need to prioritise the applications they receive, in order to determine which ones they can fund within the funds available. That will likely mean that many incredibly important projects cannot be funded, but the charity cannot simply create more money to fund more projects, as much as I'm sure they'd love to.

And don't forget that much of this funding was for outreach projects, running workshops in schools - clearly really important, but not the sort of emergency type service you are implying.

Now I know you might not like this - but funding a project for 3 years provides no obligation, nor should raise any expectation that a new application will also be funded, as each new application has to be assessed against other competing project applications received for that funding round. We don't know what projects were deemed more compelling than this one, but I suspect that they will have been at least equally compelling and that the decision to fund them rather than Glasgow Rape Crisis wont have been taken likely by the panel charged with making those decisions.

[Rhiannon]

Leaving aside the brilliantly patronising tone (again), the human cost is totally escaping you, isn’t it?

[ProfessorDavey]

What relevance is anything so have done to you supporting the withdrawal of funding to a women's rape crisis centre because it doesn't do enough for men?

Firstly CiN have clearly stated that their funding decision has nothing to do with Glasgow Rape Crisis not doing enough for men.

Secondly, of course, their funding hasn't been removed - they applied for a 3-year grant in 2015, was successful and received the full funding of that grant. They applied again in 2018 and were unsuccessful. Their funding from 2018 onwards wasn't withdrawn as it was never approved in the first place.

If gaining funding from an organisation and then being unsuccessful in a new application to the same organisation equates to removal of funding, then I've had funding removed from the EPSRC, BBSRC, BHF, Action Medical Research, HFSP, EU, Dunhill Medical Trust, Wellcome Trust etc etc.

[ProfessorDavey]

Leaving aside the brilliantly patronising tone (again), the human cost is totally escaping you, isn’t it?

No it isn't - in that presumably the grants funded in their 2018 round will be making a huge difference to other children. That's the issue - fund this project and help these children experiencing (or may experience) rape in Glasgow or fund other projects that CiN determined to be more compelling that help other children with huge human effects. The problem is that with limited funding you cannot fund everything you would want to, so fund other projects and there is a human cost here, fund this project and there is a human cost elsewhere.

[Nearly Sane]

Firstly CiN have clearly stated that their funding decision has nothing to do with Glasgow Rape Crisis not doing enough for men.

Secondly, of course, their funding hasn't been removed - they applied for a 3-year grant in 2015, was successful and received the full funding of that grant. They applied again in 2018 and were unsuccessful. Their funding from 2018 onwards wasn't withdrawn as it was never approved in the first place.

If gaining funding from an organisation and then being unsuccessful in a new application to the same organisation equates to removal of funding, then I've had funding removed from the EPSRC, BBSRC, BHF, Action Medical Research, HFSP, EU, Dunhill Medical Trust, Wellcome Trust etc etc.

And again you support the withdrawing of funding for a women's rape crisis centre because it doesn't do enough for men.

[ProfessorDavey]

And again you support the withdrawing of funding for a women's rape crisis centre because it doesn't do enough for men.

Is it your particular opus operandus to read a post and conclude the exact opposite of what is written.

For the avoidance of doubt I have not supported the withdrawing of funding for a women's rape crisis centre because it doesn't do enough for men because:

1. They haven't had funding withdrawn
2. The reason that their new application for funding was unsuccessful (according to the funding body) has nothing to do with their not doing enough to support men.

And for the record, I'm basically with Rhiannon on this one, in that these types of services should be left to the vagaries and limited funds available from charity sources - they should be part of core service provision, provided from the public purse.

[Nearly Sane]

Is it your particular opus operandus to read a post and conclude the exact opposite of what is written.

For the avoidance of doubt I have not supported the withdrawing of funding for a women's rape crisis centre because it doesn't do enough for men because:

1. They haven't had funding withdrawn
2. The reason that their new application for funding was unsuccessful (according to the funding body) has nothing to do with their not doing enough to support men.

And for the record, I'm basically with Rhiannon on this one, in that these types of services should be left to the vagaries and limited funds available from charity sources - they should be part of core service provision, provided from the public purse.

No. I asked you to condemn the idea of a women's rape crisis centre having funding refused because it didn't do enough for men, multiple times. You haven't condemned the idea, so it seems logical to think you support it!

And BTW the centre think they have been refused funding because they don't do enough for men. So nice to know that you have decided they are lying.

[ProfessorDavey]

No. I asked you to condemn the idea of a women's rape crisis centre having funding refused because it didn't do enough for men, multiple times. You haven't condemned the idea, so it seems logical to think you support it!

I think I nailed that one back in reply 52:

'I have never said that funding shouldn't go to projects focussed on supporting one gender only.'

Move on.

[Nearly Sane]

I think I nailed that one back in reply 52:

'I have never said that funding shouldn't go to projects focussed on supporting one gender only.'

Move on.

Nope, because that's just equivocation and isn't condemning the idea.

[ProfessorDavey]

And BTW the centre think they have been refused funding because they don't do enough for men. So nice to know that you have decided they are lying.

And CiN have put out a statement indicating that they didn't. I suggest you take it up with them to determine which is the case, noting that CiN will have provided a summary for the reasons for their decision in their outcome letter to the centre, as per their funding procedures.

[Nearly Sane]

And CiN have put out a statement indicating that they didn't. I suggest you take it up with them to determine which is the case, noting that CiN will have provided a summary for the reasons for their decision in their outcome letter to the centre, as per their funding procedures.

And you in accepting it are calling the rape crisis centre who disagree liars.

[ProfessorDavey]

Nope, because that's just equivocation and isn't condemning the idea.

The idea of what? Something actually related to the case we are discussing, or a hypothetical case where funding was withdrawn from an organisation because it didn't do enough for men (which isn't the case here).

So lets deal with the hypothetical case - lets imagine a situation where a rape support organisation received a 3 year grant, in which they clearly stated that their project was exclusively focussed on women and was funded on that basis, and had that withdrawn after one year by the funder determined because it didn't do enough for men (which they'd never claimed it would). Would I condemn that funding body - damn right I would. But that is nothing like the actual case here.

[ProfessorDavey]

And you in accepting it are calling the rape crisis centre who disagree liars.

Are you calling CiN liars? Perhaps a Freedom of Information Act request to see the letter would sort it out once and for all.

[Nearly Sane]

Are you calling CiN liars? Perhaps a Freedom of Information Act request to see the letter would sort it out once and for all.

No, I'm not but you are calling the rape crisis centre liars and refusing to condemn funding in the basis of what a women's rape crisis centre might do for men.

[Nearly Sane]

The idea of what? Something actually related to the case we are discussing, or a hypothetical case where funding was withdrawn from an organisation because it didn't do enough for men (which isn't the case here).

So lets deal with the hypothetical case - lets imagine a situation where a rape support organisation received a 3 year grant, in which they clearly stated that their project was exclusively focussed on women and was funded on that basis, and had that withdrawn after one year by the funder determined because it didn't do enough for men (which they'd never claimed it would). Would I condemn that funding body - damn right I would. But that is nothing like the actual case here.

That's all you were being asked. Thank you for saying it.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, I'm not but you are calling the rape crisis centre liars and refusing to condemn funding in the basis of what a women's rape crisis centre might do for men.

Nor I am, any more that you are calling the CiN liars.

Bottom line - the CiN received huge numbers of applications for funding against limited resources, which are massively insufficient to fund all the project it might want to support if funding wasn't limited. The Centre applied at a level that was at the very highest end of what CiN would ever support, and therefore in the most competitive part of the funding scheme, presumably because they'd been successful twice before. Prior success is no guarantee (and should provide no expectation) of future success and this time they weren't successful.

Maybe CiN received more compelling applications at the £120k+ level and therefore the Centre fell foul. Perhaps they decided that their precious resources were better spent on a number of smaller grants that CiN determined in sum provided greater beneficial impact on children than the Centre's bid.

Sadly this is what happens when we rely on charitable funding for what should perhaps be essential public services and where the funding within that charitable envelope is both limited and unpredictable. Step forward one David Cameron and his Big Society notion which effectively outsourced core public services to charitable and third sector provision.

[Nearly Sane]

Nor I am, any more that you are calling the CiN liars.

Bottom line - the CiN received huge numbers of applications for funding against limited resources, which are massively insufficient to fund all the project it might want to support if funding wasn't limited. The Centre applied at a level that was at the very highest end of what CiN would ever support, and therefore in the most competitive part of the funding scheme, presumably because they'd been successful twice before. Prior success is not guarantee (and should provide no expectation) of future success and this time they weren't successful.

Maybe CiN received more compelling applications at the £120k+ level and therefore the Centre fell foul. Perhaps they decided that their precious resources were better spent on a number of smaller grants that CiN determined in sum provided greater beneficial impact on children than the Centre's bid.

Sadly this is what happens when we rely on charitable funding for what should perhaps be essential public services and where the funding within that charitable envelope is both limited and unpredictable. Step forward one David Cameron and his Big Society notion which effectively outsourced core public services to charitable and third sector provision.

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