CC(3) VS26

Re: Committee Enquiry - Funding of Voluntary Sector Organisations

We would like to feed back our feelings regarding funding of the Voluntary Sector in response to the Committee Enquiry.

Our views on:

1. Ease or difficulty of obtaining funding from the Welsh Assembly Government or relevant national funding body

We have so far only received funding from the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) through grants such as Cymorth & Extending Entitlement (formerly New Burdens), which are administered through our local YPP.  

We have found that we don’t always meet the remits of what the WAG priorities are, or in some cases have too high a turnover (eg: for CFAP funding).   We are open access, and feel that despite the government appearing to realise the need for this type of provision, to give young people somewhere to go, off the streets, thereby reducing anti-social behaviour, alcohol/drugs misuse, there appears to be little funding available for our type of preventative work - which in the long-term is far more cost-effective than picking up the cost of young people who have resorted to crime, drug/alcohol misuse.

2. Ease or difficulty in complying the constraints or conditions placed on funding?

Providing realistic targets and expected outcomes are set, this is not an issue.  Issues only arise when for example a project is delayed in starting, and therefore maybe time-limited and not have enough time to actual show any real long-term benefit.  Additionally funding may be spent un-necessarily just to meet a deadline in accounting periods - whereas if for example slippage could not be so short-term, and need to be used up in a relatively short period of time, it could be far more beneficial if it could be "rolled-over” to the next funding year

3. Issues related to the duration or timing of funding:

Mainly there is always a need to get the project up and running once funded - this may be delayed due to recruitment, or other factors.  This may delay the start date and shorten the time to actually "produce results”.  Additionally to have short-term funding exacerbates this problem - often with staff looking for alternative employment before the end of the grant period, particularly if only a one-year grant.  Longer-term (minimum of 3 years funding) would give greater staff retention/stability, and ensure projects have a better chance of making a positive impact in the long-term.  (I realise there will always also be projects just seeking short-term funding)

4. Any other comments relevant to the inquiry?

Just from our own perspective of having been fortunate to receive 3 x 3 year grants from the National Lottery - it is very hard to replicate this funding, or find alternative sources of funding once this funding ends.  The funding enables a project to set up and grow quickly, it is very hard then to reduce a project once it is up and running and has expanded accordingly, and if the need is still there.   We have lobbied through Westminster on this, and feel that consideration should be given to at least partial continuation funding from the Big Lottery for projects which are on-going, and have proved they can effectively monitor and account for themselves.  Alternatively, there could be some "tampering” of funding, over subsequent years - to go from getting £100K per annum, to nothing, makes it very hard for projects to continue, even if they are still giving value to their community and young people.

Alison Mawby
Project Manager
KPC Youth
Off Pyle Inn Way
Pyle
BRIDGEND
CF33 6AB