It’s SSNOing!

Reflections on the grant allocation for the Scheme to Support National Organisations 2014-2016

Earlier this year the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government announced the third round of this scheme.  There were substantial changes to the parameters of the scheme, the application process for which was now to be managed by Pobail.

This new scheme had a number of clear distinguishing characteristics.  It was for national organisations that focus on disadvantaged target groups (either directly providing services or indirectly by supporting those that do deliver services).  The scheme was for core rather than project funding and emphasis was placed on supporting those organisations with no other source of core funding.

The background documentation identified three strategic priorities: (1) frontline service delivery; (2) organisational development; and  (3) policy development.  The documentation also made it clear that an organisation could focus on one or all of these priorities.  The scheme was advertised as covering 2.5 years, though there is some confusion as the numbers released by the department this week suggest that the allocation is for 2 years (which would imply a bigger annual budget for each organisation).

From an advocacy perspective the inclusion of the last priority was very significant, as this explicit focus had been missing from earlier schemes.  Indeed advocacy was clearly named as an activity that could be funded under this priority.

Speaking to a range of people who prepared applications the process was by all accounts rigorous, complicated, and not well suited to those inexperienced in form filling.

So what happened?

Well two information session organised by the department and Pobail were extremely well attended.  By all accounts they received a phenomenal number of applications.  The general funding environment, the demise of philanthropic and other sources of core funding would have all contributed to this. Inevitably there was very stiff competition between organisations.

55 organisations received funding this time (down from 64 in 2011 and 64 in 2008).  Since 2008 107 organisations have benefitted form the scheme at some stage but only 24 have been funded under all three programmes.  39 of the organisations funded in 2011 do not appear on the 2014 list.  24 are new to the scheme in 2014, while 5 who had lost funding in 2011 rejoined the scheme in 2014.  Assuming the announced allocation is for 2.5 years compared to the 2011 allocations (bearing in mind these were subsequently cut) 17 organisations received less funding this time, while the allocation for eight organisations is up.

The grants this time range from an annual allocation of just under 17,000 to the maximum of 73,000 (on the basis of a two year grant this range is from 21,000 to 91,000). Last time the range was wider with a minimum grant of 20,000 and a maximum of 100,000.  The average grant was slightly higher in the 2011 allocation at just over 60,000, while this time the average is about 58,000.

So what are the emerging trends?  Well first it is remarkable that so many health focused groups which made it into the scheme in 2008 and 2011 appear to have lost out this time.  What are the alternative sources of core funding for these groups? 

Second there is a striking move towards national organisations that have an advocacy focus; this seems to have translated from the criteria into funding commitments.  Does this mark a shift away from the perceived reluctance of the state to fund advocacy?

Finally there remains the reality that while this week’s news would have been very welcome for many organisations, the numbers are well below what they were back in 2008 (and indeed for the predecessor schemes including the National Anti Poverty Networks Scheme). The average grant in 2008 was over 90,000, the maximum grant was 239,000.  Is it really possible to core fund a national organisation for 60,000 a year?


Let me know if you would like a copy of my calculations.  For the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government release see here. Ivan Cooper at The Wheel has been reflecting on how the new criteria and application process here.

My PhD research is concerned with the funding experience of the National Anti-Poverty Networks from 2003 to 2010, this includes the last NAPN programme and the first SSNO programme.

I don't really understand the point of your argument...

Oh... but you don't say that in the paper.

Didn't I?

I had an interesting experience in my annual PhD roundtable presentation this evening.  It felt in some ways more like an attack than a discussion, and I am left trying to think that I learned from the experience.

I presented my first case study, or at least the write up of my first case study on EAPN Ireland.  Its much too long and two immediate things are clear:  (1) there is noway I am going to be doing anywhere near ten case studies; and (2) it does not look like I will be writing up each case study separately. I think the way to go is write them all up and then carve them up by theme.  That should be doable and should make for a more interesting read.  Though I wonder if it then becomes more of a comparison of the organisations rather than an overall assessment of the programme.  I need to think about that.

Back to the roundtable: I tried to circulate something more tangible than a theory chapter in the hope of eliciting more comments, I also flagged a number of questions that I would like to discuss. Neither approach seems to have been especially effective.  That said there were a good few people who did not make it this evening, which is a shame.

What is interesting is in some ways you get the regular questions, and these will remain the first questions asked, so it is useful to polish the answers.  That said I don't have a sense that very many people read the paper, or even parts of it.

What questions did I get:

1. Taking a documentary approach like this does not really address the experience of participatory democracy that people have - what it meant for the people involved (this is an interesting one).
2. What is the theoretical framework (given last year I presented the first of two theoretical chapters, I did think this one was clear, obviously not clear enough).
3. Should you compare these organisations to one that has not received state funding (this one has come up before).
4. Give less information and more tables summarising the findings (I did try to do this, but perhaps not enough?).

Something else struck me, there seemed to be an underlying negative view of organisations like EAPN Ireland - an assumption that they are not working in the best interest of those they are representing.  This is a bit surprising, but not the first time I have faced it... 

For the times that are in it...

"The damage done by fifteen years of being kicked in the teeth cannot be overcome by a kick in the arse" - Mike Allen (1998) The Bitter Word, p. 302 

My first... conference paper!

Annual PSAI conference in Dublin on 20 October... well, it was not a big crowd, which maybe was just as well as I was a bit nervous going into it.

The paper was on the democratic case for CSO advocacy, and went something like this: lots of problems with democracy, one of the answers is more participation, but different ideas of what participation is, CSOs have important role in participation in general (picture),  but also specifically in contributing to decision making through their advocacy work (direct). Hence (participatory) democracy needs CSO advocacy.  I ended up by talking about criticisms of CSO advocacy and (hopefully) presenting the case for why they are wrong with reference to the '7 is too young' campaign. Here's the slides.

What was I nervous about? Two things I guess: (1) that my argument about why participatory democracy is 'better' than deliberative democracy, may not wash with the deliberative democracy people; and (2) that maybe I was just stating the obvious, and that this line of argument is all a bit unnecessary.

An interesting moment happend when another speaker got a question about whether the NGOs she was talking about (in rural India) did not in fact come with their own 'agendas'. After she answered the question (yes, sometimes they do but that not a universal problem), I came back with "actually I think this language of 'agendas' can be pretty unhelpful".  Yes, of course, there is a problem when people in NGOs are more concerned about their own power, the survival of the organisation or the maintenance of salary levels, than the issue that they are there to address, but that in fact often NGO 'agendas' are a good thing.  They are a good thing if they respond to need, are based on a core set of values, and are developed with communities. But sometimes they may well be imposing something from the outside, and while that needs to be done very carefully, it is not necessarily a bad thing for an organisation to bring agendas like environmentalism, equality, rights etc.  I referred to the example of the antislavery movement being in some cases 'outsider' driven... enlightened outsiders imposing agendas on an unsuspecting community.

Well, that was contested.  The response was that 'interests' coming in and imposing their agendas distorts participatory democracy, so I guess that takes care of point (2), or at least suggests a discussion worth exploring.

On the first point, my argument about the difference between participatory democracy and deliberative democracy was not picked up in the discussion, will have to find another place to see how that one goes down.

So despite the relatively small group I would say that overall I am happy I did it.  Good disciple in whittling down the two chapters into one short paper, certainly helped focus my thinking, and met some interesting people... that, and oh, an opportunity to do a snazzy circle diagram!

Just saying...

I felt the need to put the following statement from Irish Aid's policy on civil society, beside a sample service level agreement which the HSE signs with those organisations it funds.

"In the past, civil society organisations often established parallel service delivery functions and tried to replace the role of the state in service delivery. The limitations of this approach are now widely recognised and civil society organisations now tend to seek a complementary role in service delivery, combining service delivery with advocacy  for improved responses from the state" (Irish Aid, 2006: 8) 

"The organization must not use the grant for...(b) campaigns whose primary purpose is to obtain changes in the law or related government policies, or campaigns whose primary purpose is to persuade people to adopt a particular point of view on a question of public policy..." (Section 2.8, Standard Service Level Agreement between the HSE and civil society organisations)

That last post was not too positive.  I am in better form now!

On the edges...

The experience of being a working mother, Phd student and activist is one of being half there.  Involved but not really at the heart of things.

The obvious exemption is being a mother (there is no half way on that one).

I am director of The Advocacy initiative, but in 2.5 days a week I know I am not at every event I should be, don't read everything, and certainly am not as 'in the know' as someone working full time.  I am a PhD student but I can never throw myself into it completely, it is not possible to wallow in interesting side tracks or attend interesting but not really related conferences.  As an activist I do as much as I can, but it is never enough, I am not as involved as I would like to be.  As a primary school parent I go to the odd drinks evening, volunteer to work at the summer fair, and try to make the playground meet ups, but I am not one of the 'in-crowd'.

On many levels it does not sit well with me, I like being involved - I take on 'ownership', but I am having to accept that actually being a part of something is good, being involved is enough.

Its not about settling for being good enough (though sometimes of course it is!), it is about doing my best but finding the confidence to realise that my best does not have to include being in the thick of it.