‘Non-Faith Specific’ Central Government Funding

The Funding Environment

The Third Sector has had a key role in government policy for over a generation but it is only in the last ten years that

• the language of partnership has become all-pervading
• faith communities have been drawn into this framework alongside other sections of the Third Sector

To receive public funding, organisations, including faith organisations, must demonstrate that they are working in ways that enable key policies and strategies to be delivered. Within this context, whilst faith communities have increasingly been seen as groups with much to offer the government agenda, at the same time they are viewed in some quarters with suspicion as a result of:

• an historic assumption that public sector funding should not be used to 'promote' religion
• the perception by some that faith communities are in some sense culpable for some of society's ills such as discrimination, social disturbance, and violent extremism

Politicians have repeatedly stated the importance of faith communities for delivering social change but in practice the funding environment is potentially confusing both for public sector officers and for faith communities. From the perspective of public officials the sheer diversity of organisations and traditions amongst faiths can be overwhelming and the language of faith can be very different from the language of government. From the perspective of faith communities, there is a concern that their independence might be compromised, and about a lack of experience and capacity to engage.

The Faith Communities Capacity Building Fund and, with a much tighter policy focus, the Preventing Violent Extremism Pathfinder Fund primarily aimed at supporting integration and positive civic engagement in the Muslim community, have made steps towards addressing these concerns. In the context of these specifically targeted funds, it is important also to identify the extent to which faiths have been successful in accessing mainstream government funding programmes too.

Despite best efforts, it is not always the case that major government departments co-ordinate their funding programmes. This often means that applicants are faced with a confusing range of potential targets and criteria. The broad policy streams that are supported by funding include:

• Economic development, social inclusion and regeneration
• Healthy Communities
• Community cohesion and integration
• Active citizenship and volunteering
• Delivering more effective public services

Some of the key funding programmes to deliver these objectives include:

• Cabinet Office - Futurebuilders, £150million over four years
• Cabinet Office - Capacitybuilders Improving Reach, £18million over three years
• Cabinet Office - Community Assets Programme, £30million (operated by Big Lottery Fund)
• DCFS - Local Network Fund, £150million over five years
• DCSF - Parenting Fund, £14million over two years.
• DCLG - Connecting Communities Plus, £18million over three years.
• Department of Health - Opportunities for Volunteering, £6.7million in current year.
• Department of Health - Section 64 Grant Scheme, £17.2million in current year.
• Home Office - European Refugee Fund, £1million in current year.
• Government Offices for Regions - Community Champions, £9million over three years.

The focus is on the six funds identified in bold italic in this list as these funds represent a considerable volume of funding for the Third Sector, four different government departments and a range of policy objectives.

It should also be noted that there are a number of other funding sources. These include:

• Government supported or mixed programmes in the arts and sport
• Lottery funding through programmes such as the Big Lottery Fund, Awards for All, and the Heritage Lottery Fund.
• Regional and local regeneration funds
• Learning and Skills Councils
• Connexions
• Primary Care Trusts
• Local authority funding

Some methodological considerations

Data

Given the limited resources for this study it was only possible to survey funds where information was publicly available (on the internet). Although the majority of funds do give good information in this medium, the format and quality varies from fund to fund so comparability is not possible. Some funds have insufficient information and have therefore been excluded from this study.

Websites of recipients of funding have also been used to determine whether they were faith-based organisations or not. This raised further questions, (see below), but in relation to the data itself it should be noted that not all organisations have a website and that the quality of those that do varies.

Timing

The initial time frame for the study was the 2006-7 financial year as it was assumed that this would be the most recent year in which all the funds would have full reporting information. In fact, some of the funds only give information for the most recent funding round (2007-8). Nevertheless all six of the funds have good information available for either one or both of the years from 2006-8 and cross-checking, where possible, showed that there was little difference in the broad patterns over this two-year period.

Classification

This important issue is not just a methodological inconvenience. It also goes to the heart of the discussion about the nature of faith-based organisations and recurs in the analysis of the funding programmes. An important aspect of this is that there is a significant confusion in some cases between ethnic minority organisations and faith based organisations. This points up a more general confusion between ethnicity and race. As far as possible all organisations that claim to be faith based have been classified as such. So, for example, with regard to major national organisations, The Children's Society, Barnardos and YMCA all still claim in their literature to be Christian or Christian-based and this is reflected in their long histories and current governance although it may not be reflected in their staffing, volunteers or users. On the other hand the YWCA, another historically important Christian agency, makes it very clear that they are not a faith-based organisation any longer. A more recent example of this confusion is the Bromley-by-Bow centre in East London. Although it is regularly hailed as one of the most successful faith based social enterprises and was based around the Bromley-by-Bow church, in current literature it is difficult to detect any remaining indication of its faith connections. Where it is not stated but historical information indicates a faith base, it has been included.

Analysis of funding programmes

In each funding programme this report presents a summary of the purposes, criteria and scope of the programme, together with some of the basic figures relating to faith-based recipients. This will be followed by a brief discussion of one or two salient issues that arise from the examination of the pattern of grant making. What is presented here is indicative. Each theme is identified in connection with just one of the funding schemes. There then follows a general summative discussion.

Cabinet Office - Futurebuilders
www.futurebuilders-england.org.uk

Summary

Start date: 05/07/2004 / End date: 30/01/2011

With an emphasis on service delivery, it has become important for government to invest in the Third Sector so that it can actually compete for service delivery contracts from statutory bodies. A key feature of Futurebuilders is that a significant proportion of any funding is in the form of low-interest loans. The loans are paid back with revenue from contracts with public sector agencies such as local authorities and primary care trusts.

Total Fund Value: £150,000,000. The Total Fund Value represents the amount allocated to Futurebuilders for 2004-08. The minimum amount offered is £50,000 in the main programme although smaller development grants are also available.

The website reports that since its launch in 2004, Futurebuilders has offered over £108 million of investments in over 235 organisations, although these figures are increasing all the time as funding decisions are made at any point.

Basic figures

The publicly available information on the website shows funding of £69.2million from the start of the funding, spread over 164 projects. Of these, there are 14 projects that are identifiably faith-based - either by name (League of British Muslims) or clearly stated on their website. These projects are in receipt of approximately £9.5million.

Discussion

In the Futurebuilders criteria, unlike many other funding programmes, there is no mention of faith or religion, either as a qualifying or disqualifying factor. The implication seems to be clear - as long as an applying organisation can show that they can deliver the outcomes required it makes no difference to the funder whether they are faith based or not. Perhaps because of this 'faith neutral' approach, Futurebuilders has attracted a rather different range of recipients than some of the other programmes.

They appear to fall into three main categories.

• Organisations which are clear about, both their faith base and the intention to serve a primarily, although not exclusively, faith-connected community where this is meeting a real need that is unmet in other ways. This includes the Bayis Sheli project for children with special needs in the orthodox Jewish community, and the League of British Muslims offering a range of services to Muslims and others in east London.
• Physical and social regeneration projects centred around church re-building programmes. These include InSpire at St Peter in Walworth, London which, like many inner-city churches is reconstructing its building to serve local needs, and Cottingley Cornerstone Centre in Bradford and All Saints in Birmingham which are both concerned with re-developing 'village' communities on the edge of major cities.
• Most interesting are a third group whose faith and operational profile are significantly different from a previous generation. Primarily Christian, these organisations, are confidently 'up-front' about their religious motivation, but serve a wider community regardless of faith. These include the following (which have been anonymised):
  ******* Christian ******* Project ... Practical, emotional and spiritual needs are cared for during and beyond a person's residency.
  ******* Enterprise is a charity which seeks, out of Christian conviction, to help the most disadvantaged in the local community.
  ******* As a Christian organisation we prayerfully seek to bring out the best in the people we serve, pursuing excellence in all we do.

Clearly the model of 'investment' and loan operated by Futurebuilders has attracted some exciting initiatives but it is equally likely that it has discouraged others who might otherwise be well able to deliver local services. In a mixed funding environment it may be a positive factor to have a range of funding approaches. It is noted that the format of Futurebuilders may change, although it is unlikely to be substantive, from 2008 when the operating authority changes to the Adventure Capital Fund.

Cabinet Office - Capacitybuilders Improving Reach
www.capacitybuilders.org.uk

Summary

Start date: 30/10/2007 / End date: 31/03/2008

Capacitybuilders has grown out of the government's ChangeUp programme to build up infrastructure, support and capacity building services in the voluntary sector. The focus of the Improving Reach programme is to ensure that this initiative is accessible to “frontline organisations working in and with excluded communities; including BME communities, refugee and migrant communities, faith communities and isolated rural communities”. The first round of funding under this programme applied to 2006-8, and it is this round that is discussed here, and a second round of applications for funding in 2008-9, has just closed.

Basic figures

In the two year period of 2006-8 allocations equivalent to a total fund of £10.5million are listed. This fund is spread over 126 projects. The programme currently proposes that in the three year period beginning April 2008 the total fund value will be £18million.

For a break down of funding amongst different groups see the discussion below.

Discussion

The analysis of the Improving Reach funding programme highlights the confusion between the category of 'faith' and the category of 'BME'.

In the funding criteria for 2006-8, four priority categories were identified

• Black and minority ethnic groups (BME)
• Refugee and migrant groups
• Faith groups
• Isolated rural groups

In addition, the fund specified that grants “may not be used to support or promote religious activity.” This phrase or similar phraseology in other programmes has often served more to confuse than to clarify. As has already been seen in the Futurebuilders discussion, there are many organisations which see serving the community as central to their religious activity.

In the end a judgement on these issues needs to be made and more than one approach is possible. In this report the view has been taken that if an organisation did not mention any faith connection anywhere in their self-description, and were not otherwise known as a faith-based organisation, then they were not a faith-based organisation.

A potential confusion arises where an organisation is working in settings where there is an overlap of the BME and faith identification (e.g. Bangladeshi or Somali) and where there is no indication that it is a faith-based organisation. More than one possibility exists - they have made a deliberate choice to focus on ethnicity rather than faith as their distinguishing characteristic, or they may have downplayed their faith character either deliberately or accidentally. Following an 'inclusive' approach which acknowledges applicants as faith based where there is evidence of either dimension, the analysis of the Improving Reach recipients shows several groupings:

• Secular organisations whose target is BME communities including those who mention faith communities. There are 26 of these organisations who are in receipt of £2.2milliion.
• Secular organisations who specifically mention faith communities in their target groups i.e. a sub-set of the above. There are 8 of these organisations in receipt of £644k.
• Faith-based organisations working with any of the priority groups (i.e. including BME, refugee and faith groups). There are 14 of these organisations in receipt of £1.2million.
• Faith-based organisations who are working specifically with faith groups (as opposed to the other target groups) i.e. a sub-set of (c). There are 9 of these organisations in receipt of £710k.

Department of Children, Schools and Families - Parenting Fund
www.familyandparenting.org/ParentingFundHome

Summary

Start date: 09/12/2005 / End date: 31/03/2008

Deriving from the policy emphasis on education - in its broad sense - and enabling children to fulfil their potential, good parenting is seen by the Government as an important strategy. This fund assists voluntary and community sector organisations who support parents where families are at risk, for one reason or another, and who may have not been able to get hold easily of the services they need. The Family and Parenting Institute (FPI) is managing the Parenting Fund on behalf of the DCSF. Funds examined here were allocated in 2006 for a two year period from 2006-8.

Basic figures

In this two year period just over £14milliion has been allocated to 131 organisations.

Of these there are twelve projects working with BME communities which might include faith communities but which are not specified. These organisations are in receipt of £1.2million.

There are six faith-based projects in receipt of funds totalling £724k.

Discussion

Of the six faith based projects, all are Christian organisations - two are Barnardos, two are YMCA and one is the Southwark Diocese in London. The sixth is also a Christian organisation based in south London. This spread of recipients does raise some questions, particularly if it may be assumed that in the locations identified as priorities for parenting support work there is an over representation of BME populations and, whilst the overlap between faith and ethnicity is not clear cut, it could be assumed that many of these people would come from faiths which are newer to Britain.

Is it assumed that either the secular organisations or the Christian organisations work most effectively with those whose prime identification is with their non-Christian faith? In practice this is unlikely to be the case and it may well be therefore that there are existing local parenting support groups who are receiving no support from this fund.

Department for Communities and Local Government - Connecting Communities Plus
www.cdf.org.uk

Summary

Start date: 10/04/2006 / End date: 31/03/2009

The policy focus is the Government's strategy to increase race equality and improve community cohesion. There are two parts of the Connecting Communities Plus programme. A fund for “strategic and project grants” (£12million) and a fund for community grants. We will be focusing on the latter.

The four themes for the fund are

• Improving access and outcomes for Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) communities in education, employment, health, housing and the Criminal Justice System.
• Increasing BME communities' confidence in public services.
• Tackling racism and extremism.
• Bringing together communities from different races and faiths, and promoting a shared sense of belonging (community cohesion).

Basic figures

The total fund value over a three year period is £3million.

In the first round (2006-7) a total of 122 organisations were in receipt of £1.1million. Of these 17 projects mentioned faith or religion at some point in their project description, and were in receipt of £143k. There were five specifically faith based organisations in receipt of £37k.

In the second round (2007-8) a total of 99 organisations received £999k. 20 organisations mentioned faith or religion and were in receipt of £190k. There were eight specifically faith based organisations in receipt of £79k.

Discussion

This fund emphasises ethnic minorities as the prime target for funding so it is not surprising that there is a relatively low level of funding to faith based organisations. But, questions might be raised as follows.

• In order to include as many projects as possible we have included all projects that have even a passing reference to faith. In some it is clear that this is just seen as an extra term to use in a package of other characteristics and there would be some doubt regarding whether the project actually linked to faith communities in any meaningful way.
• Did the funding criteria actively deter faith based applicants? Although faith is mentioned in one of the themes, the following were specified as activities which 'could not be funded'
• services or events where the key purpose is to promote a religious doctrine; mission or proselytisation;
• promotion of the beliefs of a particular faith (beyond basic religious/cultural awareness raising);
• acquisition of religious artefacts or publications for the use of followers in worship;
• the cost of supporting religious personnel in their normal duties in their place of worship;

Although these are all legitimate in themselves, together they give a very off-putting impression and are not necessary for the fulfilment of the programmes objectives. As has been seen in the Futurebuilders criteria, an emphasis on the positive characteristics can be equally effective.

In addition, at a time when government was actively pursuing faith based groups as potential partners it might be assumed that a changing pattern might be witnessed between the first and second round of funding. But, although there is a change, it is relatively small - from five to eight faith-based groups funded.

The total fund is relatively small and the majority of grants were in the £5k-£10k range. Yet there are a huge number of BME and faith-based organisations. This sets up a competitive environment which often leaves those who 'fail' with strong emotions, often directed at successful recipients and at government. This is unlikely to result in a positive environment to foster partnership working.

Department of Health - Section 64 Grant Scheme
www.dh.gov.uk

Summary

Start date: 01/01/1968

This is a long-standing grants programme which originated in the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968. For the 2008/09 funding round there was an over-arching aim of 'making a difference to the quality of people's lives'. The Section 64 scheme then identifies a range of priorities - in 2008-9 there were 32 separate priority themes - in line with departmental policies. Within these themes projects of national significance are prioritised. The Section 64 scheme provides for both project funding and core funding. It is very common for organisations to have several projects funded at the same time as well as a core grant.

Basic figures

In both of the years 2006-7 and 2007-8 the total funds made available were in the region of £17.2million.

In 2006-7 311 projects were funded and 113 core grants made. Of these there were eight projects from faith-based organisations (seven separate organisations) receiving £202k in funding. There was one core grant to a faith based organisation of £140k (this grant is unusual in nature and arose from particular historical circumstances).

In 2007-8 287 projects were funded and 91 core grants were made. Of these there were eleven projects from faith based organisations (ten separate organisations) receiving £437k in funding.

Discussion

National and strategic funding.

The Section 64 scheme is unusual amongst the schemes surveyed in that it places most emphasis on funding national organisations or, at least, projects with national significance.

Clearly for those organisations operating in the health sector - broadly defined - the core funding provided by this scheme is of significance. The majority of the funded organisations are directly related to health provision but there are a few who are receiving a core grant and whose aims are more generally related to a 'healthy society'. But this does raise questions regarding the funding of national or strategic organisations in other sectors.

Department of Health - Opportunities for Volunteering
www.dh.gov.uk

Summary

The purpose of Opportunities for Volunteering is to use the expertise of the Third Sector “to identify new health and social care needs and to contribute to the development of innovative service models that involve volunteers”. Unlike other programmes described in this report, the main channel for distributing the funds is through sixteen 'national agents'. These agents include many 'household names' including the Children's Society, Barnardos and Churches Together in England.

Basic figures

In the year 2006-7 £6.7million was distributed to the national agents who in turn funded 311 local projects.

Discussion

Regional variation.

Several of the funding reports break their narrative down into regional categories so this analysis for this particular fund could be repeated for the others.

In the table (below): column one shows the total amount in grants given for that region, and below that the number of actual projects; column two shows the amount channelled through the faith-based organisations. Below that is the percentage channelled through faith-based organisations and to the right is the number of organisations.

The Children's Society and Barnardos use the majority of their funding to support local projects within their organisations. Churches Together encourages applications from local groups - they say that they should be Christian groups although there appear to be some exceptions to this rule. In addition are a small number of faith based groups who receive grants from one of the other national agents.

The analysis above appears to show considerable regional variation. The most obvious is the case of the West Midlands with no faith-based projects. (The 2007-8 figures were also checked and showed two faith based projects in the West Midlands.)

Without knowing the detailed approach adopted by each of the national agents it is difficult to draw firm conclusions from the clear variation between regions - and it should not be assumed that the national organisations were failing to engage in important work in these regions - possibly, only that they were not using this particular funding stream to support their work. Yet, even at the most basic level, the variation raises some questions about its possible causes. Although not part of this exercise, a parallel analysis was undertaken of projects that indicated work with BME communities and this showed a similar regional variation.

Involvement of minority faith communities.

The three faith based national agents are all Christian organisations. All would claim to deliver their scheme across all sectors of society - although through different mechanisms. Barnardos and Children's Society mainly use this funding to deliver their own programmes, and Churches Together takes applications from local Christian groups who are responsible for delivering local projects. While there is no doubt of the high quality of the work undertaken, there must be a question regarding the ability of these organisations to deliver these services in areas of high need where minority faith communities form a significant part of the population.

General questions and issues arising from the data

What is a faith based organisation?

This study has focused on the receipt of funds from government funding schemes by faith based organisations. But it raises the question, 'What is a faith based organisation'? It may be that a worship congregation (church, mosque, gurdwara etc) is easily defined as such - but there are very few of these who are in receipt of government funds. Is an organisation which was founded 200 years ago out of a strong faith conviction, but is now seen as part of the general voluntary sector, still a faith based organisation? Is an organisation that defines itself in terms of its ethnicity (Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Somali, for example) but is rooted in what otherwise would be recognised as a faith community, a faith based organisation? Is an organisation that includes the name of a faith tradition in its title but, in practice operates on a purely secular basis (i.e. there is no religious motivation to its work) a faith based organisation? Is an organisation founded by a religious cleric, and still with clerics among its staff, but otherwise completely secular in nature, a faith based organisation?

A clear working out of what makes an organisation 'faith based' would be extremely useful. It would have to be developed in partnership and consultation with faiths, however, in order to ensure credibility.

A useful typology might include the following determining characteristics:

• by its governance,
• by the nature of its volunteers, staff and activists,
• by the nature of its users,
• by the nature of its history.

But all of these important policy initiatives will be futile if faith based organisations do not have the capacity and supporting infrastructure to enable them to engage properly with government programmes. Discussions informing this report suggest that much of the good work started under the FCCBF programme will simply cease to exist at the end of this financial year, with little replacement support available.

Some strategic considerations.

Government programmes are far from being the only potential funding source for faith based organisations. But the crowded funding environment does not work to the advantage of organisations and sectors which are low on capacity and experience in the first place. While, in theory, a diverse funding environment may be a good thing, in practice, those who are experienced in negotiating this territory will continue to be more successful, leaving many smaller or less experienced organisations struggling.

Just looking at a small number of Government funding programmes will lead an outside observer to ask why there is such a confusing number and type of schemes. From the perspective of Government the answer is simple - there are many Government departments, each with a variety of policy and strategic objectives and each operating in its own way to engage with the Third Sector as appropriate. From the perspective of faith based organisations, and other Third Sector bodies, it appears to be a confusing and uncoordinated world. At the same time it is a very important world to the Third Sector and the faith communities, as funding is one of the main ways that policy is turned into practice.

There is clearly a need for a mixed funding environment but there is a danger that important organisations may fall between the cracks. These may be local organisations which are unaware of funding streams or lack the capacity to apply to them, but it may also be organisations whose principal function is strategic rather than service delivery. There are a small number of grants being made available at national level for organisations, including faith based organisations, but, as yet there is little funding for regional organisations which often provide a unique role - in touch directly with local 'front-line' groups, and able to take a strategic view on policy and delivery issues.