3.10 Sobreescritura
4.1.3 Acceso a nivel de
As we enter the mature phase of the relationship, and even during the honeymoon period, it is perhaps inevitable that, given the diversity of the sector, not all parts of the sector engaged with BIG in equal measure, and not all saw the relationships in quite such rosy terms. Equally, not all saw that the journey had been so linear, or indeed that there had been any change in the relationship at all. Within this section we explore some of the complexities: the differentials within the relationship.
3.2.1 A less linear path
The journey, or marital, analogy used above suggests a rather linear development within the relationship, which, while recognised by many of our respondents, was not recognised by all. Some within BIG and the sector felt the relationship was more cyclical, driven by BIG’s programme development and consultation schedule: periods of outward facing consultation and dialogue were followed by periods of introspection and strategy development, which was felt by some in the sector to create ‘certain challenges in terms of maintaining continuous relationships with people’.
There were also respondents who did not recognise any change in the relationship. One respondent from a relatively new infrastructure body did not see BIG as particularly relevant to their
29
members and saw little change in their relationship: ‘it doesn’t feel like it’s very different now than it was three or four years ago, pretty much the same’. Some within BIG also saw less change:
‘I don’t know that there has been that much of a change, we’ve always had the voluntary sector there as our main customer so we’ve just sort of carried that ethos with us all the way’ (BIG, SI)
3.2.2 Engagement mechanisms
Individual organisations within the sector had very different relationship with BIG depending on their own organisational characteristics priorities and the mechanisms through which they engaged with BIG. BIG has put in place, or enabled, many different engagement mechanisms at different levels within the organisation through its strategy and operations.
Within our online survey, for example, we found organisations had engaged with BIG in very different ways, with size of organisation influencing the depth and frequency of engagement (see Table A2.1 in Appendix A). For example, while 39 per cent of respondents from large organisations (those with annual incomes of £1m or more) frequently accessed information on BIG’s funding, this was true for 19 per cent of small organisations (with annual incomes of £10,000-£100,000) and 9 per cent of micro organisations (with annual incomes of less than £10,000). Nearly half of respondents from large organisations occasionally or frequently responded to BIG consultations, compared to just over one-fifth of micro organisations. While half of large organisations attended events hosted by BIG and met with BIG staff frequently or occasionally, this was true for just over one-tenth of micro organisations and less than a third of small organisations.
We identified five key categories of engagement based on these different mechanisms and experiences. Any one organisation may fall into more than one of these categories, over time and at any one time:
Non-applicants - unaware/uninterested/excluded from access/not wanting to access;
Applicants - gathering information, submitting an application, being successful or unsuccessful;
Agents - delivering BIG funded projects, wearing the ‘badge’, subject to grant-management;
Informants - taking part in consultations and meetings to inform and be informed about programmes;
Partners - strategic sharing of learning, influencing.There was a suggestion that a sixth group - ‘competitor’ - may also emerge in the future, as BIG increasingly delivers funding programmes that third sector organisations may also have tendered for the contract.
For those that are ‘applicants’ alone, the application process is central to how they understand and relate to BIG. For many ‘applicants’ BIG’s strategic direction is of limited interest, with seemingly limited knowledge and understanding of BIG, how it operates, and the diversity of programme it funds.
‘Applicants’ are focused on the practical issues of finding out and applying for specific pots of funding.
Reflecting the make-up of the sector, this group is dominated by small organisations.
‘Applicants’ (and to a certain extent ‘non-applicants’ and ‘agents’) often had their relationship with BIG mediated by a third party – a local or national infrastructure or umbrella body which kept them
30
informed and helped with grant application forms. ‘Applicants’ fell into two distinct groups – successful and unsuccessful. Many organisations have experience of being successful and unsuccessful; the real distinction came between those who had never been successful and those who had been successful with at least one of their applications. Experience of being turned down for a grant, perhaps inevitably, shapes perceptions of BIG; if someone is turned down for one application but successful with another these views are mediated.
Through the grant management processes ‘agents’ have a deeper engagement with BIG. Grant officers are key players in ‘agents’ relationship with BIG and a lot rested on them. Again reflecting the make-up of the sector, and the balance of BIG’s funding portfolio, this group is dominated by small organisations delivering projects funded by small grants (see section 2.4).
‘Informants’ are likely to be multiple applicants to BIG, and to be sizeable organisations operating within policy fields that BIG had developed specific programmes in, or infrastructure and umbrella bodies. They are likely to have had enough resources to allow them to take part in different forms of consultation or information sharing exercises, and this was generally seen to be highly valuable.
‘Partners’ are likely to be national (often but not always large) organisations, often either infrastructure bodies or membership organisations. They are likely to have the resources necessary to invest in the relationship. While many ‘partners’ will have received funding from BIG, and/or will be in negotiations about future funding, funding for the individual organisation is not the dominant factor in the relationship; although negotiating funding settlements for a particular sub-sector or interest group may be. They engaged with BIG on multiple levels, but most significantly at the top, in more or less formal ways and on a regular basis. The relationship here is more equal than elsewhere. Whilst
‘applicants’ and ‘agents’ hold relatively little power in their relationship with BIG, ‘partners’ have much more scope to influence BIG. As one respondent put it:
‘It feels like a partnership where, you know, if they’re giving us money it’s because they’re buying value from us, and if they’re not then it’s a real partnership where we’re actually able to support each other’ (SECTOR, KI)
Alongside infrastructure bodies, BIG’s government sponsor department was also involved in mediating relationships, and this happened at different levels and across all types of engagement. For example, in the early days, DCMS reportedly received correspondence from sector organisations complaining of being treated unfairly by BIG either individually or as a sub-sector, in a particular geographic and thematic area. If the issue proved significant DCMS would then negotiate with BIG about its resolution.
It was suggested, however, that these kinds of complaints from the sector had all but stopped. Other, more significant, examples of sector lobbying via government included a demand for greater transparency within solicited grants. The sector also lobbied government directly about its responsibility for setting directions for BIG, including objection to the transfer for BIG funding to the Olympics, and encouragement of 100 per cent BIG funding for the sector.
BIG’s relationship with the sector is, therefore, differentiated according to the nature, and quality, of the engagement individual organisations have had with BIG. These experiential differentials influenced respondents’ views of BIG and its performance.
31
3.2.3 Geographical differentials
BIG’s relationship with the sector is also differentiated by national, regional and local context. We focused on the national level. As BIG is not wholly devolved there are also many commonalities across countries, including relationships with key infrastructure and umbrella bodies, but there are also differences.
Each country has a particular third sector profile, with different infrastructure arrangements and different funding arenas. In Wales, for example, it was suggested that BIG had initially focused more on their relationship with government and had taken longer to build relationships with the sector’s key players. In Northern Ireland, however, the diverse and proliferated sector meant BIG’s relationships with the sector operated via a large range of organisational networks and local infrastructure, alongside a close relationship with the large infrastructure bodies. Wales’ main infrastructure body itself acted as a significant distributor of funds for the Welsh Assembly Government as did the infrastructure body in Northern Ireland, effectively setting up a degree of competition between themselves and BIG. With the Welsh Assembly Government investing in sector infrastructure, Wales was the only country where the BIG committee decided not to run a capacity-building programme (BASIS in England), which was seen to have knock on effects for the relationship. In Scotland, it suggested that close relationships had been built between BIG and both the sector and government, facilitated by the relatively small size of the sector. BIG was seen as part of the sector’s ‘ecosystem’, with the sector having a strong sense of connection and ownership over BIG, and BIG being able to influence both sector and government thinking and policy development.
Differences in physical size were frequently used to explain why England was different from the other three nations. Unlike Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales, where it was possible to pull all the local infrastructure bodies together ‘in the one room’, or where ‘at functions you can meet many of these organisations on a regular basis’, the sector in England was generally viewed as ‘more distant’
and ‘geographically challenging’ to access than elsewhere.
3.2.4 Differentiated by organisational size and type
As we have already pointed out, the third sector is extremely diverse. The overview we provided in the first part of this section is dominated by the views of key national third sector, particularly infrastructure bodies. A more nuanced exploration highlights that the relationships with BIG are differentiated according to the size, scale, tier of operation (front line, infrastructure etc), and function of organisation. The diversity of the sector is recognised by BIG, as are the challenges this creates:
‘So we segment the sector, we don’t see it as this kind of homogeneous thing. [..] We don’t see it as homogeneous in any way, and that’s what makes it so complicated, it’s not homogeneous’ (BIG, KI)
There are many different ways of ‘segmenting’ the sector. One categorisation, which emerged through this research as influencing relationships with BIG, is as follows:
The policy elite - national infrastructure and key national charities who are lobbyists, key stakeholders, and strategic partners in policy making processes affecting the sector;32
Large and medium charities – organisations with expertise in a particular subsector or policy field, ranging from large organisations with branch networks, to medium sized, regionally based organisations.
Generic and specialist infrastructure at local level – membership organisations with a remit of providing a voice for members and often a capacity building function
Small and micro charities – these include many which are entirely run by volunteers, as well as those employing paid staff.Although this is an over-simplification, we tended to find that engagement was wider but shallower at the bottom of the list, and narrower but deeper at the top, in part due to the resources (of different kinds) available to larger organisations (section 3.3.3).