er eval sustainability report summary

7/31/2019 Er Eval Sustainability Report Summary

1/48

Big Lottery Fund ResearchIssue 35

Early indications of sustainabilityat the Big Lottery Fund


2/482

Title Early indications of sustainability at

the Big Lottery Fund

Code ISSN 1744-4756 (Print)

and ISSN 1744-4764 (Online)

Further copies available from:

Email [email protected]

Phone 0845 410 20 30

Textphone 0845 039 02 04

Ourwebsite www.biglotteryfund.org.uk

AccessibilityAlsoavailable upon request in other formats including large print.

Our equality principles

Promoting accessibility; valuing cultural diversity; promoting participation;

promoting equality of opportunity; promoting inclusive communities;

reducing disadvantage and exclusion. Please visit our website for more

information.

We care about the environment

The Big Lottery Fund in Wales is working towards sustainable development

and the use of sutainable resources.

Our mission

We are committed to bringing real improvements to communities and the

lives of people most in need.

Our values

We have identified seven values that underpin our work: fairness;

accessibility; strategic focus; involving people; innovation; enabling;

additional to government.

The Big Lottery Fund is committed to valuing diversity and promoting

equality of opportunity, both as a grantmaker and employer. The Big

Lottery Fund will aim to adopt an inclusive approach to ensure grant

applicants and recipients, stakeholders, job applicants and employees are

treated fairly.

Big Lottery Fund is the joint operating name of the New Opportunities

Fund and the National Lottery Charities Board (which made grants under

the name of Community Fund).

Big Lottery Fund, February 2007

Written by Stacy Sharman


3/48

Executive summary 2

Introduction 4

Factors that influence sustainability 9

Planning 10

Delivery 16

Interacting with the external environment 24

Supporting sustainability 28

Conclusions & recommendations 40

Key success factors for sustainable projects 40

Issues for BIG in supporting sustainability 41

Recommendations 44

Appendix 1: Research approach 45

Contents


4/482

Executive summary

This research aims to help the Big Lottery

Fund understand the early indications of

progress towards sustainability within its

projects and programmes. It investigates

approaches followed by BIG and others topromote sustainability and provides

practical recommendations around

developing an approach to sustainability.

Sustainability was initially defined as the

continuation of the benefits and/or

activities of projects once BIG funding has

ended. Sustainability is not simply about

the continuation of projects or services

post-Lottery funding. It can also be about

lasting improvements in partnershipworking, long-term impacts on beneficiary

behaviour or attitude or increased capacity

for organisations and individuals.

Sustainability is influenced by factors in

planning, delivery and interaction with the

external environment. Early planning for

sustainability is essential, as are

determining end of grant strategies,

including planning for mainstreaming. Indelivery, capturing and using knowledge

generated by projects and programmes,

capacity building and management are

factors that play a role. Achieving a good fit

with national and local strategies and

improving partnership working are key

activities when interacting with the

external environment.

BIG and other funders have taken different

approaches to supporting sustainability.

Planning for sustainability and providing

intensive support to grant holders are both

areas in which BIG, and others, haveexperience. Balancing the risk of investment

in relation to sustainability is a challenge for

funders. Measuring change is an important

issue, both in terms of deciding what to

measure and how to measure it.

To develop its approach to sustainability, it

was recommended that the Big Lottery

Fund should consider

Establishing a broad, common definitionof sustainability This definition

should capture sustainability and other

'legacy' effects in the broadest sense

and be sufficiently flexible to be applied

across the range of BIG programmes.

Improving the information base

Sustainability should be explicitly

included in the remit of every evaluation

that BIG commissions. Further research

to establish which projects and their

outcomes have successfully been

sustained and how this has been

achieved would provide learning and

opportunities for replication elsewhere.

Promoting and supporting sustainability

The development of a framework is

proposed to promote and support

sustainability throughout the funding

cycle. A series of measures issuggested, beginning at the programme

planning stage, moving through

application and delivery stages, ending

at project and programme completion.


5/48


6/48

This report presents the findings of a short

study commissioned by Big Lottery Fund

(BIG) into the approaches taken by BIG

(and its predecessors the New

Opportunities Fund and Community Fund)to promote the sustainability of grant

funded activities and benefits. GHK

Consulting were commissioned to carry out

the research and this report is our short

version of the findings. The full report is

available on our website at

www.biglotteryfund.org.uk

Aims of the studyThe aims of the study were to:

G assess how effective BIG's approach to

sustainability to date appears to be in

relation to projects and programmes

G inform decision-making at BIG about the

contribution it can make towards

encouraging sustainable benefits and/or

activities of our projects and

programmes, identifying good practice

and developing new ways of

encouraging sustainability.

More specifically, the requirements were

for the study to:

G identify the approaches followed to

support project sustainability

including the programme and project-

level factors which influence the

likelihood of sustainability, and if

differences in approaches exist by

programme and country

G identify the emerging impacts of these

approaches in terms of any early

indicators of sustainability reported in

existing evaluation reports

G develop an understanding of the keycircumstances and factors associated

with effective project sustainability

including project, programme and

external factors, as well as the

circumstances where sustainability is

less desirable

G explore the steps taken by BIG to

support and enhance the sustainability

of projects funded by it and identifyfurther steps which could be taken

G examine the approaches followed by

other grant-making bodies which have

been found to be effective, to allow

learning from steps taken elsewhere.

The study was designed to examine early

indicators of sustainability rather than to

assess evidence of the achievement of

sustainability. It was intended to inform afuture large-scale study into the impacts of

BIG funding and their sustainability that

would include direct contact with projects.

Introduction

4


7/485

The Big Lottery Fund is a non-departmental

body public body distributing Lottery funds.

It makes short-term grants to specific projects

rather than organisations, although in some

cases organisations are set up purely to deliverthe grant. Short-term funding previously

meant three years but recently BIG has moved

towards providing funding for up to five years. In

many cases, projects receivefunding from a

number of sources, of which BIG is one.

These circumstances have an impact on

sustainability issues because in some cases it

can be difficult to identify exactly the parts

of the project that have been funded by the

BIG grant. Therefore it becomes problematicto attribute the continuation of any activity or

benefit to one particular source of funding.

These difficulties exist even where it is clear

which elements have been funded by whom

because sustainability is not simply about the

continuation of a project but other more

intangible outcomes (see below for

definitions).

BIG's interest in sustainability in all senses lies in

the continuation of project activities and

benefits post-Lottery funding. The notion of

sustainability was one of the New Opportunities

Fund values and is reflected in BIG's values also,

for example in involving people and working

with communities to effect lasting change. BIG

has recently adopted an outcomes funding

approach where the emphasis is on the impact

and difference made through its funding, rather

than the services or activities delivered.

Applicants are expected to identify the outcomes

they want to achieve through their projects and

BIG funding can be seen as one component in

progress towards a longer-term aim.

BackgroundBIG was created in 2004 by the merger of

the New Opportunities Fund and the

Community Fund, and is responsible for

distributing half of all National Lottery goodcause funding across the UK. It has made

more than 6 billion available to initiatives

with national, regional and local partners

from the public, voluntary, charity and

private sectors, with a further 2.3 billion

to be distributed between 2006 and 2009.

BIG has a particular focus on combating

disadvantage and improving the quality of

life in communities, by supporting

appropriate, effective and sustainableresponses to identified need.

In fulfilling its objectives, BIG must consider

both the need to support innovation (and

the accompanying risk of failure) and the

sustainability of the investments it makes.

Given the range of policy and practical

areas covered by BIG's programmes, a wide

range of potential approaches to supporting

sustainability are possible, including measures

such as the requirement for match funding,

encouragement of partnership working,

provision of networking opportunities and

learning events, and the contracting out of

programme-specific support packages. In

addition, the opportunity exists for previous

practice and experience to influence steps

taken in the new programmes.


8/486

Research approachThe study was based on a review of

programme evaluation and other research

reports commissioned by BIG. This was

enhanced through a series of interviewswith BIG staff and a sample of other grant

funding agencies and others involved in

supporting the charitable sector in the UK

and USA.

A full description of the research approach

is given in Appendix 1.

It is important to recognise some of the

limitations of this method relating to the

document review, not least the reliance onreported findings. Coverage of

sustainability was variable between reports

as a result of the following:

G sustainability was not an explicit focus

of every evaluation or research

document

G final evaluation reports were normally

produced at the end of the funding

period which meant that evidence ofactual sustainability was limited

G evaluations were based on a sample of

projects rather than a comprehensive

programme audit and this meant that

sustainability was discussed at a project

rather than programme level

G the extent to which different aspects of

sustainability were explored was limited

and reports rarely described thebreadth of 'legacy' effects that might

have been expected.

Introduction


9/487

Defining SustainabilityAt the outset, sustainability was defined as

'the continuation of the benefits and/or

activities of projects once BIG funding has

ended'. This broad definition included arange of potential benefits, dependent on

the nature, objectives and context of the

projects in question. These included:

G the continued use of facilities provided

as part of capital investment projects

G new services developed and delivered

as a result of BIG funding

G the use of skills developed among

project beneficiaries and project staff

G the establishment of new or

strengthening of existing partnerships

and other collaborative working

arrangements

G sustained behavioural change among

individuals

G contributing to the body of knowledge

of effective approaches to meeting arange of needs even if this knowledge

was not utilised immediately.


10/488

Introduction

Sustainability through infrastructures,

for example as a result of social

enterprise or the creation of employment

opportunities such as Scottish Land

Fund, CALL ICT and TYS programmes. Sustainability through alignment

with local priorities/national policy

which usually focuses on getting the

service or idea funded by a statutory

body, as with Green Spaces and

Sustainable Communities (GSSC),

Activities for Young People (AYP) and

Out of School Hours Childcare

(OOSHC) programmes.

Sustainability through long-term

impacts on attitude/behaviour, usually

targeted on improving social or health-

related behaviours as with Splash Extra,

AYP, Positive Activities for Young People

(PAYP), Do it 4 Real programmes.

Given the broad range of sustainability

outcomes that are associated with BIG's

funding programmes, it is not surprising

that there is a wide range of potential

'sustainability routes' through which these

outcomes could be reached. The means of

delivering sustainability will not only

depend on the programme in question but

the local environment where it is based.

The report now looks at the findings of the

research, firstly at factors that influence

sustainability and secondly at supporting

sustainability.

While sustainability was most commonly

defined by BIG staff in terms of continuation of

service delivery, it is important to recognise that

this is not the only possible outcome. Early

indications of the achievement of sustainabilitycovered a wide range of outcomes that can

be grouped into the following seven categories:

Sustainability of an approach/concept

trialled through a programme as

opposed to sustainability of the

programme itself, as with Healthy Living

Centres (HLCs) and Do it 4 Real.

Sustainability of partnerships, either

for continued delivery of a service or asan end in itself. Here, the emphasis is on

the development and/or improvement

of multi-agency working in addressing

social issues such as in the Out of

School Hours Learning (OOSHL), CALL

ICT Content and Activities for Young

People (AYP) in Northern Ireland

programmes. This was probably the

most common and in many ways the

most powerful, sustainable outcome.

Sustainability through building capacity

within organisations/community networks,

particularly as an important precursor

to delivering a programme's objectives,

such as with the Scottish Land Fund,

Transforming your Space (TYS) and

Countryside Communities programmes.

Sustainability of a product/service/

programme through further fundingand/or integration into the statutory

sector, which under-pinned the OOSHL

and Reducing the burden of CHD,

Stroke and Cancer programmes.


11/489

Factors that influence sustainability

A number of factors emerged that

appeared to have an influence on the early

indications of the sustainability of activities

and benefits of projects and programmes.

Sustainability is not simply considered interms of continuation of activities post-

Lottery funding but across the range of

outcomes outlined above.

The factors can be grouped into three

categories: planning, delivery and

interacting with the external environment.

Factors that are important in planning are:

G early consideration

G determining end of grant strategies

G planning for mainstreaming.

Factors that are important in delivery are:

G capturing and using knowledge

G capacity building

G management and business planning

G performance management.

Factors that are important in interacting

with the external environment:

G fit with local and national strategies

G improving partnerships.

The factors are presented in turn below.

Throughout the following sections, positive

indicators are discussed together with

potential barriers.


12/4810

Planning

Early considerationA key factor influencing sustainability was

the early consideration of and planning for

sustainability. This process would involve

making decisions about what the goals arein relation to sustainability, whether it is the

intention to sustain the project as a whole

or simply elements of it. The outcomes for

sustainability would also need to be

considered, whether these go beyond

continuation of activities to sustainability

through building capacity or long-term

impacts on behaviour for example. The

issue is likely to be complicated where BIG

is a part-funder of a project because of thedifficulties in attributing sustainability

outcomes to any one pot of funding.

Projects that aimed to develop a

sustainable product, service or approach

through further funding or integration into

the statutory sector best demonstrate the

importance of focusing on sustainability

issues from the outset. Early consideration

meant that projects and stakeholders

incorporated sustainability into their

planning and focused on the need to devise

longer-term strategies. For example, Fair

Share is an initiative targeted on the

development of sustainable communities

and the voluntary sector.

The early planning which took place in this

programme was linked both to the

imperative to incorporate sustainability

issues from the outset and to the fact that

the programme was testing an approach tosustaining communities. Putting in place a

monitoring system was a key part of the

planning process, as this would allow the

effectiveness of both the programme and

the approach to be assessed.

The Reducing the burden of Coronary Heart

Disease (CHD), Stroke and Cancer

programme illustrates an approach to

sustainability that was designed to promote

integration of services into the statutorysector, in this case the NHS. The aims of the

programme were to reduce the risk of

chronic heart disease, stroke and cancer

and improve access to high quality services

and facilities. The fact that most projects

have been successfully embedded into

existing health care structures reflects the

extent to which activities developed by

projects and the programme aims were

aligned from the start.


13/4811

Reducing the burden of CHD,Stroke and Cancer

Successful approaches to sustainability

can already be picked up from the

earliest of project activities, where

potentially sustainable working

practices and/or infrastructures were

already emerging. The focus across the

three countries (Scotland, Northern

Ireland and Wales) where the

programme operates has been on:

Increasing service capacity through

early moves to improve co-ordination, standardising referral

processes and the involvement of

the voluntary sector.

Improving and maintaining quality

standards by ensuring equal access

to 'user friendly' information,

agreeing the use of specified clinical

guidelines, and introducing training

initiatives.

Developing and nurturing

partnership arrangements between

service providers, between users

and providers and between

community groups.

Conversely, a failure to plan represents a

significant threat and it was evident from

programme evaluations that sustainability

was not always addressed from the outset.

This may be explained by a number offactors including a lack of awareness or

understanding of the issues and time

pressures. In the Out of School Hours

Learning (OOSHL) programme, a number of

projects found that sustainability was more

of an issue from the mid-point of their

grants and in some cases, it was never

considered. According to the evaluators,

many grant holders did not have an

appropriate understanding of planning andhow it would fit with future survival.

Time pressures in the initial set-up of

projects and programmes can have a

negative impact, denying sufficient time

for planning and compromising delivery.

In CALL: Digital for example, complex and

ambitious outcomes were expected within

a very tight timescale. The planning of

activities in a relatively unrealistic

timeframe had, perhaps, already doomed

the outcomes before delivery had started.

A lack of time may not only damage

planning and prospects. Too much time in

the lead-in phase prior to delivery meant

that some Out of School Hours Childcare

(OOSHC) projects were set up under

different circumstances than those under

which they had been planned. This had a

knock-on effect in terms of the demand

not matching what was expected and the

loss of supportive parents. Ultimately, this

meant that levels of take-up of services

were not as high as predicted.


14/4812

Determining end of grant

strategies

End of grant strategies are plans that detail

a project's options for the future after

funding ends. In the past, BIG has used the

terms 'exit strategy' and 'sustainability plan'

to mean the post-Lottery future of projects.

Exit strategy referred to project closure and

sustainability plan to continuation. In practice,

the two terms could be used interchangeably.

BIG would expect both exit strategies and

sustainability plans to be written during the

delivery of the project, normally one or two

years before funding ended. Having

strategies or plans in place supports

sustainability as it can influence project

development and highlight key factors in

achieving the project's desired objectives,

whether these are around continuation or

closure. Without an appropriate strategy or

plan designed to leave something in place

when the project or programme ends, there

is the risk that knowledge and good

practice will be lost.In some situations, exit strategies did inform

the vision that guided project development.

In the Living with Cancer programme,

schemes working with black and ethnic

minority groups varied considerably: some

were of a very limited duration and

designed to produce a specific output, such

as a single piece of information; others

were funded for three years and then

closed and others were mainstreamed.

But most projects had succeeded in their

aim of reaching groups that had previously

been excluded or marginalised by standard

cancer services. Even projects where the

intention had never been that they shouldsurvive post-Lottery funding left a legacy

in terms of products and partnership

working. Translated materials, cancer

directories of local services and improved

partnerships between sectors and

professionals are examples of the

sustainability outcomes that were achieved

in this programme.

However, there were indications that

projects may well lack an understanding ofwhat an 'exit strategy' is. In some

programmes, for example Fair Share and

Transforming Waste (TW), the absence of

exit strategies was recorded. The lack of

exit strategies meant that early

consideration was not given to what

needed to be measured and monitored

throughout the life of a project to provide

evidence to support continuation or to

assess the impact of a project. It also

meant that project activity and

development were not directed by a clear

picture of where the project wanted to be

at the end of their funding, thereby

undermining the potential for sustainability.

Planning


15/4813

Requiring grant holders to produce exit

strategies or sustainability plans does not

always solve this problem, as was the case

in TW. Projects that saw their services as

finite provision and did not intend to beself-sustaining produced plans that were

not felt to be realistic or feasible because

they were not felt to reflect what would

really happen. While not every project will

be sustained, there was no evidence of how

these projects planned to measure their

key success factors. Even where projects

do not intend to continue, collecting

evidence of success or otherwise is still

important as it enables projects to assesstheir impact. The confusion and uncertainty

around sustainability plans and planning in

general undermines the chances of success,

whether for continuation or assessing impact.

In some cases projects, rather than

programmes, found it easier to talk in terms

of 'exit routes' rather than sustainability. For

example where OOSHL provision involved

coaching in a particular sport, the projects

would be informing participants about how

they could develop their skills further through

joining local sports clubs that ran youth sections.

The same was also true for music, dance and

drama activities. Some projects that had used

non-school sites, such as environmental

centres, thoughtthat the initial exposure of

young people to these locations would

encourage them to make use of the facility

as individuals in the future. This meant that

on OOSHL, as elsewhere, while the

intentions were clear, the ways in which

these would be measured were not.


16/4814

It should be recognised that not every

project will want to pursue the

mainstreaming option. Many voluntary and

community sector organisations value their

independence and feel that their ability tomeet the needs of their users would be

compromised by such a move. For projects

that consider mainstreaming to be a

desirable option, understanding and

communicating good practice to mainstream

providers is the first step in developing a

mainstreaming approach. But before being

able to communicate evidence of what works,

projects must first understand what it is

that works and how it can be transferred orreplicated. Where full-scale sustainability is

unlikely, this process can help to identify

the parts of the projects that work and

which are worth mainstreaming.

Many different approaches to mainstreaming

emerged, even within the same programme.

On the OOSHL programme, the intention in

Blaenau Gwent was for summer schemes to

be included in the LEA's School Improvement

Plan alongside moves towards obtaining

accreditation through the National Youth

Agency. In other cases school budgets were

seen as a route into mainstream activities,

while elsewhere this was perceived as

making a scheme potentially vulnerable if

there were unforeseen demands from the

main school curriculum. There were also

differences between projects in their

mainstreaming objectives. For example in

Transforming Your Space (TYS), these

varied from who might maintain

playground equipment to maintaining

community participation in the long-term.

Planning

Planning for mainstreamingThe most common 'exit route' was

mainstreaming. Mainstreaming is the term

generally used to describe the process of

transferring policy, good practice oractivity into the core of mainstream service

provision. The term 'mainstreaming' has

been used by BIG to mean obtaining

statutory funding following the end of the

Lottery grant. However, one of the

principles of Lottery funding is that it

should be additional to statutory provision.

The expectation that projects that were

deemed to be additional at the outset

should seek to obtain mainstream, statutoryfunding at the end of the grant clearly creates

tensions. Often projects can demonstrate

that they are meeting previously unmet

needs and in doing so are providing services

that are highly valued by beneficiaries. Over

time, these services become essential and

are considered important enough to

warrant mainstream funding.

While there is value in ensuring that funding

programmes are aligned with statutory

provision, as seen above in the Reducing

the burden of CHD, Stroke and Cancer

programme, this is unlikely to be sufficient

to enable the transfer. Activities such as

networking, disseminating progress and

achievements to influencers including

statutory agencies and engaging with

national and local government priorities

(see below) can help the transition into

mainstream funding.


17/4815

There was also evidence of national

variations, as in the Activities for Young

People (AYP) initiative. This programme

was targeted at young people to support

life transitions and to help them re-engagewith education, careers and guidance

systems. Activities and practices in

Northern Ireland and Wales were found to

be more likely to be mainstreamed than

those in England. Although this was mainly

due to services being more flexible and

tailored to local needs in these countries,

the fact that England already had an

established local infrastructure and

services in place through another agency(Connexions) was no doubt significant.

And neither was mainstreaming always a

linear process. In Northern Ireland

Barnardo's had been working with 11

schools in Belfast on OOSHL projects. Both

Barnardo's and school staff made the

suggestion that the provision should be

'mainstreamed' in some way, so that it

would become an entitlement for all young

people. Senior scheme staff lobbied the

Department of Education in Northern

Ireland to adopt the scheme and the

Minister of Education seemed to recognise

the potential when he agreed to sustain the

provision until longer-term funding was

found. The scheme was re-launched in

September 2002 under its new name

'Learning Together'. At that time,

Barnardo's applied to the Children's Fund

for three years of funding, but when they

were unsuccessful they continued to look

for other sources.

An alternative approach was to

complement mainstream delivery and

assist mainstream services to meet their

targets. This was achieved by projects that

created a niche for themselves by acquiringspecialist knowledge about specific client

groups or techniques. In some cases, there

will be high levels of service integration

between projects and mainstream

providers, including joint planning and

management arrangements and even

pooling of resources to meet joint aims. As

a result, there is the potential to drive a

demand for which projects have the

specialist skills to respond. In the PalliativeCare programme, the integration of

mainstream and specialist services proved

to be key to encouraging sustainability. BIG

funding had prompted a considerable

diversification of services, with new

services reaching new client groups using

fresh approaches to delivery. This meant

that projects were able to tailor services to

local conditions, meeting hitherto unmet or

under-served categories of need.


18/4816

Capturing and using knowledgeDelivering any grant scheme generates

knowledge and learning and the effective

use of this knowledge was found to

support sustainability. Ensuring thedistribution of ideas, good practice and

acquired knowledge throughout the funded

organisation was essential. When this did

not happen, there was the risk of losing

knowledge. This was the case in the Better

Off programme where much of the

knowledge resided with individual staff

members, resulting in a great deal of re-

learning when new staff were appointed.

There were very few examples whereprojects made conscious decisions to

counter this.

Knowledge distribution is not only

important within individual organisations.

The CALL ICT Content evaluation

recommended that a network be

developed to support projects and enable

the effective transfer of expertise and

experience not only between organisations

but also across programmes and sectors.

However, this did not happen in the CALL

ICT Learning Centres programme. This

programme offered grant holders the

opportunity to test more flexible learning

and community engagement opportunities

in order to demonstrate their potential for

mainstreaming. At the end of the funding

period however, many projects were still

unable to fund flexible, proactive learning,

just as they had been at the start of the

programme.

Taking a broader perspective, it is

important to recognise that however good

a service might be, it is unlikely to be

sustained if it is not visible. Regular

dissemination of materials andpresentations to partners and other

agencies helps to raise and maintain

awareness of a successful project,

approach, programme and/or outcome.

And the earlier a project comes to the

attention of national and local policy

audiences, the more time there is to lobby

for support.

Working with leaders from across the

community and building support of broadconstituencies can also contribute to the

future survival of projects. Fair Share, for

example, was well publicised through the

local press and television covering visits

from the local MP and others. Similarly the

importance of local champions of childcare

for OOSHC projects located in areas of

disadvantage was particularly significant.

These clubs were very unlikely to reach a

position of sustainability on fees alone and

required the support of a local champion

who had the skills, including the ability to

identify and write bids, to pursue different

funding streams.

Strategic partnerships can also raise the

profile of projects and help with

mainstreaming, as where local authority

staff were able to convince elected

members that OOSHL activities werecontributing to the achievement of local

authority objectives.

Delivery


19/4817

In addition to projects' dissemination of

progress and awareness-raising, the

presence of some form of additional

validation further supported claims for

continuation. While this could be providedby evaluation, it was also linked to

increased motivation to achieve and

become exemplars of good practice. For

example, where OOSHL projects received

Quality in Study Support (QiSS) status, it

proved that they were carrying out their

functions efficiently and effectively. The

fact that they could also play a role in

nationally recognised bodies such as the

Extended Schools Forum and ContinYoustrengthened this view. Although Ofsted

inspections found that the quality of

provision for out-of-hours activities was

good in four out of five schools, it pointed

to ways in which it could be strengthened.

In recommending that schemes could

improve their activities, it sent the

message that the activities were worth

sustaining, albeit in a more robust form.

Capacity buildingCapacity building refers to a range of

processes that help a project, organisation

or a community to work more effectively

and confidently to reach its goals. At aproject level this might involve training for

staff, volunteers or beneficiaries and at an

organisational level for example, it could

mean helping a group to develop new

systems of fundraising or management.

The issue of capacity building is critical to

continuation both in terms of whether

capacity has been built during the project

but also whether it is used and maintained

afterwards. Capacity building is importantin all projects but particularly for innovative

projects and where community

organisations are central to the delivery of

services. Having a critical mass of staff

and/or volunteers to develop supportive

relationships and contribute diverse skills

and new knowledge was fundamental to

sustainability, as found in the Community

Fund's evaluation of Grants to Large and

Medium sized projects.

In Do it 4 Real, capacity building across

organisations was one approach to

ensuring that projects continued from year

to year. Youth Hostel Association (YHA)

staff reported that their involvement with

Do it 4 Real had a positive impact on the

organisation and on themselves.


20/4818

It helped the YHA to raise their profile,

particularly with young people who would

not normally have considered becoming

involved with the organisation. Staff

reported that they had developed skills andtechniques in dealing with difficulties such

as inappropriate behaviour, challenging

attitudes and prejudices. They also felt that

they had gained personally from taking part

in the programme, particularly in building

the confidence required to provide high

quality pastoral care and guidance,

sometimes in difficult circumstances.

But it is also worth considering the

challenges involved in attempting to buildthe capacity of organisations. For example,

the Fair Share programme was focused on

opening up access to Lottery funding for

disadvantaged communities and improving

their capacity to take advantage of the

money available. But it was found that

grants were sometimes too large for some

groups that did not want to employ

individuals or take on responsibility for a

major project. In the Countryside

Communities initiative, stakeholders

welcomed the focus on capacity building

within the voluntary sector but they did not

believe that sufficient additional resources

had been made available for this to be done

effectively.

Acquiring capital assets is another way of

promoting capacity building and

community development. The ScottishLand Fund (SLF) is one of the clearest

examples of how sustainability was linked

to capital investment, as described below.

Delivery


21/4819

The Scottish Land Fund

The Scottish Land Fund's aim was to contribute to sustainable development in rural

Scotland by assisting communities to acquire, develop and manage local land or land

assets. The fund, administered by Highlands and Islands Enterprise in partnership with

Scottish Enterprise could be used to support three types of projects:

Planning and preparation of bids to acquire or manage land and land assets.

Acquisition of land that could involve large areas of land on which communities

intend to undertake a range of management and development projects. It could also

involve smaller plots of land for environmental or recreational uses.

Land development projects that could include initiatives to develop land,

investment in management of natural resources, infrastructure developments to

meet local servicing needs, and the provision of facilities with clear economic andsocial benefits.


22/4820

Management and businessplanningThe evaluation of the OOSHC programme

refers to Gatenby's (1998) finding that

management ability is a significant factor indetermining sustainability. This is

supported by the evaluation's findings that

OOSHC clubs with a business plan were

more likely to make a profit. The evaluation

concluded that a business orientation

impacted on sustainability, as did a realistic

approach to fee structures and collection.

The need for ongoing assistance with

business planning and management was

also highlighted in OOSHC, and severalother programmes. One childcare

partnership commissioned a health check

of all its OOSHC provision which showed

that the majority of clubs did not

understand what needed to be in place.

Project management and business planning

require review and adjustment. This means

that projects have to be able to adapt to

changing circumstances and flexibility was

found to be an important way of strengthening

impact and ensuring continuation. This was

demonstrated in Better Off projects, where

almost a quarter had to change their

services in the first year to meet client needs.

Flexibility was also key at the programme

level, as identified in Fair Share, in relation

to making relationships at the local level.

The evaluation made it clear that it was not

enough to identify one type of local institution

and expect it to work in the same way in

each place. While local bodies, such as Local

Strategic Partnerships, local councils andvoluntary groups will always need to be

contacted, their engagement and contribution

will vary, which will impact on the shape of

projects and the decisions they take.

In addition to flexibility in approach,

another important factor in management

was the ability to attract additional funding.

Sometimes the very fact that a Lottery

grant had been received attracted in

further funding, as was the case in thePositive Activities for Young People (PAYP)

and New Opportunities for Physical

Education and Sport (NOPES) programmes.

But this approach did not work for some

Healthy Living Centres (HLCs). Despite the

grant mobilising additional resources at the

outset, including funding, premises and

seconded staff from partner agencies, this

did not continue at a level necessary to

secure their future.

Delivery


23/4821

When some OOSHL schemes encountered

similar problems, it was suggested that

they should establish a new organisation

separate from the school in an effort to

become more distinct and thereforeattractive to other funders. In other

circumstances, sustainability was

synonymous with grant funding and

fund-raising, especially in more deprived

areas. According to the OOSHC evaluation

(round three), 60 per cent of clubs based in

disadvantaged neighbourhoods were

submitting further grant funding

applications compared with 38 per cent of

those with 'average catchments'.Despite the contribution to immediate

security, additional funding was rarely the

only factor that influenced survival of

projects. One recurring challenge was the

recruitment and retention of staff.

Recruitment issues were common in the

initial stages of a programme where a large

number of posts were created in a very

short period of time. For example, in the

Palliative Care programme, 260 new

paediatric posts were created at the start

of the funding programme. It can also be

difficult to recruit staff with the

appropriate experience on short-term

contracts, particularly in the voluntary

sector. HLCs found themselves competing

for a limited pool of workers where the

alternatives offered better rates of pay and

more secure employment.

Similarly, retention of staff was a challenge,

particularly where the grant period was

three years. In these circumstances, the

typical project took at least a year to set up,

including staff recruitment, before startingto deliver services. The second year was

focused on delivery but the third year was

taken up with continuation issues and at

this point, staff were likely to leave.

This not only reduces the impact of the

project but undermines the chances of

successfully sustaining activities. BIG has

now moved to making grants available for

up to five years in an attempt to alleviate

these problems. Retention issues did notonly affect paid staff but volunteers too. An

over dependence on volunteers can also be

a risk to sustainability as was the case in

OOSHC. The originating committee

members of one club were going to resign

because their children were about to move

to secondary schools. This meant that

without replacements the club would close,

despite having a waiting list.


24/4822

Performance managementCollecting evidence of effectiveness is not

only important for performance

management but also for providing

evidence in support of the case forcontinuation. Grant holders were required

to provide information to BIG about their

performance on an annual basis. This

enabled BIG to monitor grantees' progress

and helped fulfil its public accountability

responsibilities. For projects, the ability to

demonstrate the impact of services and

evidence achievements was essential to

make the case for continuation to

influencers and potential funders.

The failure to collect evidence of

effectiveness, including establishing key

indicators of success, was a barrier to

sustainability. This was the case for HLCs.

While HLCs could demonstrate the

contribution they were making to their local

communities, including improvements to

capacity building and social capital, these

were not the kind of hard outcomes sought

by those holding health budgets. HLCs

further suffered from a general lack of

agreement as to how the effectiveness of

HLCs could and should be measured. This

left them unable to demonstrate what they

were achieving according to objective

criteria, which meant they were unlikely to

be funded by statutory commissioners.

Strong beliefs held by staff in what they do

and its impact, as found in a number of

other evaluations, are unlikely to be

sufficient to convince potential funders.

However, establishing indicators and collecting

evidence is not always an easy task. The

management team of PAYP was faced with

a difficult problem in developing an

effective exit strategy. Sustainability wouldhave to be assessed in terms of influencing

young people's attitudes and thereby

affecting their lives in the long-term. This

would mean judging success against soft

outcomes. Soft outcomes are results that

projects achieve but which cannot be

measured by traditionally recognised

indicators, such as transitions into

employment or education. Any exit

strategy would have to be based on theneeds of the individual engaged with the

projects and would depend on evidence of

distance travelled, which programmes,

such as PAYP, found difficult to accumulate.

A similar problem was encountered in the Do

it 4 Real programme where the adoption of

broad aims created difficulties in monitoring

effectiveness and measuring impacts. Many

of the outcomes were related to perception,

and as such, were difficult to measure. In the

end monitoring was confined to the targets set

for providers: the total number of participants

and ensuring that 20 per cent of participants

came from low income groups. Across all BIG

programmes, there were few successful

attempts to prove effectiveness across

programmes and an over-reliance on soft

evidence rather than more robust, systematic

data. This may be partly due to the fact that

evaluators were usually appointed once the

programme had started which meant that

the evaluation process was often laid on top

of, rather than integrated into, planning.

Delivery


25/48


26/4824

Interacting with the external environment

Fit with local and nationalgovernment prioritiesThe researchers found that there was a

relationship between the extent to which

programmes fitted with national and localpolicies and the support, although not

guarantee, this afforded towards sustainability.

A good example was the AYP programme in

Northern Ireland (NI) and the fit with the

priorities of the NI Alternative Education

Service and the Careers Service, as well as

other key policies which put planning for

individual children at the centre. This

allowed the AYP schemes to gain a much

higher profile as well as access to strategicplanning and delivery partnerships across NI.

But policy also shifts, evolves and is

moderated over time. A policy change or

re-alignment can have significant

consequences for the survival of projects.

The OOSHC programme was influenced by

policy developments such as Sure Start and

Extended Schools. While positive in the

sense of offering projects the opportunity

to engage with the new structures, it could

also be negative as the new or revised

services had the potential to compete with

BIG-funded projects.

Even where projects are making important

contributions to certain objectives, they can

still be sidelined by policy objectives that

emphasise different priorities. This was the

case with HLCs where key policy documents

have failed to mention HLCs. The evaluationsuggested that the approach taken by HLCs

was too broad to fit within one policy area

and that there was the risk of them falling

between different policy agendas.

Furthermore, positive changes in policy,

such as the introduction of Working

Families Tax Credit, do not always have the

expected positive impact. In the case of

OOSHC, parental reluctance to access thefinancial opportunities offered, together

with concerns over making payments in

advance, meant the potential influence on

possible fee incomes was reduced.

In some cases, there have been conflicting

priorities of national and local government,

with programmes and projects being

caught in the cross-fire and suffering as a

result. In Do it 4 Real for example,

government policy direction at one pointwas to provide residential courses for a

wide range of young people, based on the

assumption that these were beneficial. In

response, BIG expanded the Do it 4 Real

programme and devised a range of

outcomes that should result from young

people's participation in the programme.

However, the nature of the policy direction

and the short timescale for implementation

meant that the rationale for the link between

the activities delivered and the desired

outcomes had not been well developed.

As well as conflicting priorities between

national and local government, there are

also differences in policy that shape the

context differently at the national level. In

Northern Ireland, the lack of an assembly

and clear policy positions and/or directions

limited the potential for projects toinfluence or be influenced.


27/4825

The forthcoming restructuring as a result of

the review of public administration will add

to the uncertainty as it is likely to result in a

major shake-up in every statutory

organisation. A further challenge lies in themake-up of the voluntary and community

sector in Northern Ireland. This is a complex

and highly fragmented sector that

combines organisations with UK-wide

responsibilities with smaller organisations.

Finally, many projects in Northern Ireland

are dependant upon grant funding for their

continued existence. This fact could restrict

projects' perceptions of sustainability to

simply identifying partner sources of grantfunding for continuation.

A similar grant dependency culture is also in

evidence in Wales. Large parts of Wales are

among the poorest in Europe and qualify

for appropriate European Commission

funding. The money is expected to decline

significantly, and as many voluntary

organisations in Wales rely on European

funding, this is seen as a significant threat to

sustainability. Different issues are found in

Scotland. A key challenge in Scotland relates

to the delays in setting budgets for local

authorities experienced by the Scottish

Executive because of the need to wait for

the annual Comprehensive Spending Review.

Improving partnershipsThe researchers found some clear evidence

of how robust partnerships contributed to

sustainability, principally in terms of making

lasting improvements to the ways in whichpartners worked together. Therefore the

extent to which projects were able to

establish good working partnerships was an

important factor in supporting

sustainability. Partnerships were used in

two different ways: those developed as an

essential part of service delivery and those

that were developed as a specific objective

of the programme.

Partnerships developed to assist service

delivery were a feature of the HLC

programme. The programme was designed

to improve health and reduce health

inequalities through local community

action. Based both in health and in local

communities, HLCs were well positioned to

contribute to discussions about the shape

of future services and to the establishment

of a role within them. The evaluation

identified the key role that HLCs played

both in bringing partners together and then

allowing partners to clarify future

boundaries and roles.


28/4826

Partnerships and networks are often

considered a cornerstone of successful

community development and are generally

viewed by rural stakeholders as an

effective means of implementingcommunity projects and achieving shared

goals. The important contribution that local

communities can make to sustainable

activities and infrastructures was

emphasised by the TYS programme, but

also applied to other environment-focused

programmes. The Countryside

Communities initiative also highlighted

partnership working as the determining

factor required to establish and maintainsustainable communities in rural areas.

Although partnerships were critical in rural

areas, there were challenges associated

with location. Despite the fact that Better

Off projects were successful in attracting

clients in rural areas and the biggest

increases in new clients entering treatment

were within more rural areas, it was still

disproportionately difficult to get these

projects integrated into strategic and

delivery partnerships. A rural location was a

significant threat to some projects, bringing

challenges such as higher transport costs

and difficulties in attracting sufficient

numbers of users. Similarly, projects

located in disadvantaged areas also faced

difficulties, as in OOSHC where

unemployed parents did not need the

consistent childcare on offer.

Interacting with the external environment

The Better Off programme in Scotland was

an example of how improved multi-agency

working was seen to be key to achieving

sustainable and holistic services to people

affected by substance misuse. Theprogramme was developed and delivered in

partnership with Scotland's Drugs Action

Team network that then helped to facilitate

future work. The evaluators concluded that

in many cases the legacy was likely to be a

more integrated approach to project

development, with some stakeholders

believing that mainstreaming the ethos of

Better Off was more important than the

survival of individual projects.Time is needed to build partnerships and

the CALL programmes produced some of

the most successful partnerships because

they were allowed to develop through

negotiation before the partnership

structure was finalised. Partnerships

created in haste can be vulnerable, as

shown by those developed in the AYP

programme in England and the newly

created Connexions service. Where new

services are still negotiating their

relationships with partners or where groups

feel pressurised into working with

organisations not of their own choosing,

with different objectives and cultures,

there is the potential threat to sustainability

from a real or perceived lack of ownership.

A related issue is the incompatibility of

funding cycles, where differences in the

length of funding between partners makes

it difficult to achieve shared buy-in to

sustainability.


29/4827

Although clubs provided part-time care,

they relied on a majority of parents paying

full fees or they would need another source

of income. In deprived locations, as in rural

areas, there was a high dependency ongrants and time-limited public funding,

which meant that sustainability was

defined almost solely in terms of the ability

to attract continuation funding.

Location was not the only challenge to

developing partnership working. One of the

biggest threats was the almost continuous

re-structuring and re-alignment of

services in some sectors. This impacted on

a personal level, where individuals wereuncertain about their agencies' future, but

also on the willingness and ability of

agencies to commit to and sustain

partnerships. Programmes within the

health sector particularly, such as HLCs and

Living with Cancer, experienced and were

affected by these issues.


30/4828

Supporting sustainability

As well as identifying the factors that

appear to influence early indicators of

sustainability, the research also explored

the contribution that BIG could make, as a

funder, to support sustainability. To answerthis question, the researchers drew on the

approaches taken by BIG to date and also

the experience of other funders.

It is important to recognise that many of

the challenges and barriers to sustainability

are beyond the direct influence of BIG (and

other funders), including project capacity

and capabilities and the sector of

recipients. In addition, the range of

programmes and grant holders supportedby BIG makes generalisation across

approaches difficult. However some

common themes emerged from the

analysis of approaches that BIG has taken

to date:

Projects were considered to be aware of

the importance of the requirement to

be sustainable, although there could be

a lack of clarity in terms of their rolesand responsibilities.

There was not one consistent approach

followed by BIG and there were

differences between programmes and

countries.

BIG's approach to sustainability

sometimes lacked clarity but developed

over time. In most cases, approaches

were developed in response to need orwhere resources permitted.

Although sustainability is rarely, if ever, in

the gift of any one agency1, there are clear

opportunities for BIG to influence the

potential for sustainability to be achieved.

A range of approaches (not exhaustive)that BIG has taken to date is discussed

below, alongside examples from other

funders. They are presented in six broad

categories of supporting sustainability:

G a focused approach to planning

G support to grantees

G time for sustainability

G balanced approach to riskG rigorous approach to measuring change

G choosing the right indicators.

1Leat, D and Kumar, S (2006) Investing in our programmes -maximising the impact of grant making. London: Big Lottery Fund


31/4829

A focused approach to planningPlanning is an important factor in terms of

influencing sustainability and BIG has

supported this by adopting a planning

approach in three phases: initial awarenessraising, encouragement of project planning

and continued reinforcement of the

importance of sustainability.

Initial awareness raising was undertaken at

the outset of programmes, to

communicate sustainability requirements.

This process took several forms, starting

with reference to sustainability in

programme materials, for example

application forms and guidance notes, and

in workshops to potential applicants. In

some programmes, it also formed part of

the application process, where potential

sustainability routes or initial sustainability

plans were required. In the CALL

programmes, for example, applicants were

required to describe their potential future

funding options, and the training needed to

support continued delivery.

Whilst raising awareness of sustainability at

the outset, for example at the application

stage, was important, it was also

recognised that too much 'crystal ball

gazing' at such an early stage can annoyprojects. Where sustainability issues had

been raised early on, it was felt that

following up on these issues during project

delivery and reinforcing key messages

about considering sustainability was

essential. Sustainability plans are a common

way of achieving this and most

programmes required the production of

such plans. Sustainability plans were varied

in content and coverage and the examplebelow from the AYP programme in

Northern Ireland illustrates the breadth of

sustainable benefits that could be

considered.


32/4830

Sustainability Plans AYP in Northern Ireland

In the AYP programme in Northern Ireland, a term was included in the grant conditions

that required the submission of a detailed sustainability plan halfway through the

funding period (i.e. 18 months into the three years of funding). The sustainability plans

were based around addressing the following questions:

What are the projects' plans/strategies for sustainability? with a detailed

description being requested. If projects had no plan in place, they were asked to

explain why, and what the barriers were to developing one.

What local, regional and national strategic plans have projects been incorporated into?

What links have projects established between other agencies? which provided

some surprising answers, in terms of the number of projects where no such links had

been made.

To what extent has the local community been involved in project design and

delivery? and if this involvement had promoted ownership and support.

What are the projects' evaluation plans? to provide evidence to support the

projects' cases for sustainability.

What training have project staff, volunteers or beneficiaries received? to identify

what would be retained following the funding period, and how these skills could be

used in the future.

If projects are unsuccessful in their efforts to sustain themselves, what are their

plans (if any) for wind-down/exit strategies?

What lessons have been learnt by the projects? from programme-focused lessons

to wider learning to inform the 'body of knowledge' on effective interventions for

young people.

Although follow-up work to assess the extent to which sustainability is achieved under

BIG has been limited, the AYP programme in Northern Ireland used programme under-

spend to undertake research beyond the funding period. Although still in draft form, theemerging study findings suggest that projects had achieved/made good progress

towards achieving sustainability, either by securing funding for continuation, by

absorption into statutory sector activities or more general mainstreaming effects.



33/4831

The timing of the requirement for

sustainability plans varied from the

application stage to the last year of

funding. However, staff considered that the

best approach was to request an outline ofpotential sustainability routes at the

application stage, followed by a more

detailed plan in the penultimate year of

funding. It was also recognised that

support was often needed to produce the

plans and report on progress. Skills such as

business planning, financial analysis,

evaluation and communication alongside

the ability to engage with potential funders

and influencers were considered to beessential and there was variation between

projects' skill bases. A further consideration

was the sector of the recipient, with the

statutory sector described as being less

used to identifying, competing for and

reporting on funding an area in which the

voluntary sector excels.

In terms of continuing to reinforce the

messages around sustainability throughout

the life of projects, two activities in

particular were seen as key. Both

programme monitoring and networkinghave a crucial role to play. The inclusion of

sustainability in monitoring processes such

as annual reports and visits both reinforced

its importance and allowed projects to

report on progress. The CALL programmes

took this approach further by providing a

series of seminars for projects, which

included how to report on sustainability,

and the importance of celebrating success

to support mainstreaming efforts. Inaddition, programme underspend was used

to fund capacity development activities for

grant holders, which also influenced their

ability to find effective ways of continuing

their work.


34/4832


Staging networking events for projects,

which allowed the exchange of experience

and practice within programme areas, was

also important in reinforcing sustainability.

Although not employed by all programmes,these events were considered to be helpful

in identifying areas of difficulty and

providing appropriate support, as well as

exchanging good practice and effective

engagement practices. In some cases,

these events would include representatives

of the programme sector, to keep them

informed of projects' progress as well as

facilitating potentially useful links. In

Northern Ireland, for example, programmemanagers and policy advisers also attended

'funders' forums', as an opportunity to

inform and influence the influencers as

well as inform them of the findings from

project and programme evaluations.

Other organisations also recognise the

importance of planning, among them the

National Council of Voluntary Organisations

(NCVO). NCVO believes that planning is the

key to sustainability and as a result has

developed planning and development tools

to support this. The organisation has

already received three year funding from

BIG to develop the infrastructure of

voluntary organisations. During the period

of the grant NCVO ran many workshops

around the UK. Should future funding

become available, the intention is to

concentrate more on providing training for

umbrella bodies and extend work on the

development and implementation of

outcome monitoring.

Support to granteesClear opportunities exist to provide

grantees with additional support beyond

that of the grant award. For BIG this has

taken many forms including financialsupport, as in the implementation of full

cost recovery, which means securing

funding for or 'recovering' all an

organisation's costs, including the direct

costs of projects and all overheads relating

to those projects. A more common

approach has been to focus on capacity and

skill development, as noted in the above

example from the CALL programmes,

where capacity development was providedto grant holders. But the most intensive

support was provided through the

Development and Support Contract for

HLCs. Funded through programme

contingency monies, the contract was

designed to respond to the complexities of

promoting the continuation of HLC projects.

Around 75 per cent of HLCs received

support through the contract, the main

elements of which are summarised on thenext page.


35/4833

Healthy Living Centre Development and Support ContractThe contract had a number of stages and started with a scoping exercise to analyse

the characteristics of the programme and its sustainability requirements. Following this

four main 'sustainability options' were developed, namely:

Closure with an exit strategy to manage project close-down.

Becoming fully fledged social enterprises i.e. generating continuation

funding themselves.

Contracting with the statutory sector i.e. continuing delivery as providers to the sector.

Being fully mainstreamed into the statutory sector.

Projects then selected the option that was most appropriate for their particular

circumstances, with the sector of the grant holder being an influence but flexibility

encouraged. Although these were the four main options, other possibilities were alsoconsidered including hybrids and combinations of the options. It should also be noted

that the options could apply to projects as whole or elements of them.

Following the selection of options a series of initial workshops were held, featuring

regional networks of HLCs and facilitated by regional staff and health professionals. The

workshops aimed to get projects to consider possible sustainability options, and

featured projects undertaking SWOT analyses, using tools to map themselves against

the four options, and identifying any service gaps. Following the initial events, a series

of more specific workshops were held on each of the potential options, with each being

explored in detail.

The support programme also featured a Pathfinder element, where 15 HLCs received

around 20 days consultancy support to develop their approaches to sustainability.

The findings from the Pathfinders' experiences were shared across the programme, as

well as providing learning points for BIG itself. The programme also featured an 'early

finishers' exercise, to provide support to projects who completed early.

A number of additional steps to promote sustainability were also delivered, including a

newsletter, a website providing information and links to other sites and a search

function to identify projects.

The support programme was considered to be effective, based on the fact that it was

well received by projects and helped to build capacity within them. However, it remains

too early to assess the actual impact in terms of sustainability achieved.


36/4834


It should be noted that this type of contract

would not be appropriate for all programme

areas and can be particularly resource-

intensive in terms of consultancy costs, BIG

staff time and project involvement.Other organisations have adopted similar

approaches by providing support to grantees.

The Children's Board of Hillsborough County

in the USA is one example. Funded via a

property tax, the Board currently funds

150 projects undertaking preventative

work with families and children from pre-

natal through to eight year olds. The Board

supports its grantees in moving to a

position of ownership of their projects,helping them operate more effectively and

guiding them in evaluation and choosing

appropriate tools to measure hard and soft

outcomes. Training for grantees is provided

through the Sustainability Training Institute

and is based on individual needs and

priorities. It includes role-play, facilitating

mock sustainability planning processes and

help with developing and implementing

long-term sustainability plans.

The Impetus Trust set up by venture capitalists

is based on the idea of venture philanthropy

in the UK. It seeks to use the investment

principles and management tools of venture

capital, including high levels of engagement

between the funder and the funded over an

extended period, to support voluntary

organisations through a step change. The

Trust offers an integrated package ofinfrastructure finance, ongoing support to

management, and targeted capacity

building to support the organisations

through change and on to sustainability.

This means that it only invests in a charity

after an intensive analysis of all aspects of

the organisation, including strategic and

business planning, the calibre of senior

management, operating systems andmarket strength. The relationship lasts for

three to five years and involves regular

review of agreed milestones, ongoing

support to the CEO and a leveraging of the

Trust's resources and contacts.

Another approach to providing support to

grantees was examined through the work of

the Sustainable Funding Project, operated by

the NCVO. The project has been established

to encourage and enable voluntary andcommunity organisations explore and

exploit a full range of funding options, as

well as to develop a sustainable funding

mix. The emphasis is on supporting the

move away from grant dependency,

towards becoming more business like,

capable of earning income, developing an

asset base and considering loan finance.

NCVO accepts that the message about

charging for services and/or operating as a

business can be difficult for organisations

used to operating in the not-for-profit

sector. In this respect NCVO has

sometimes found trustees to be the

stumbling block, both in terms of being

risk-averse and in adopting a cautious

attitude to their roles and responsibilities.

But where trustees have brought skills and

attitudes from business NCVO has often

found that they have been the catalyst for

action, although NCVO recognises that it is

hard for smaller voluntary organisations to

attract trustees with this experience.


37/4835

Time for sustainabilityThe venture capitalist approach discussed

above recognises the role that time can

play in supporting sustainability as it is

based, amongst other things, on engagementbetween the funder and funded organisation

over an extended period of time. An

independent fundraiser also felt that time

was a critical factor for small community

development projects. She argued that the

primary concern for these projects is the

need to obtain further funding and that as

they are usually located in areas that face a

range of existing challenges, it is likely to

take up to 10 years for projects to sustainthemselves, much longer than the typical

three years' worth of start-up funding.

Achieving an independent income is a

challenge for many projects, especially for

those located in deprived or rural locations

(see above). The tendency is to rely on

time-limited grant funding and this can

create problems, given that many funders

want to fund new and innovative projects

and do not want to fund the continuation ofexisting services or activities.

An organisation that has developed these

ideas is the Carnegie UK Trust. The Trust

has operated in the UK and Eire for around

90 years and provides grant funding of

1 million per year. About five years ago,

there were a number of concerns about the

applications the Trust were receiving,

including the numbers of requests from

projects that had previously had short-

term funding and the increasing numbers

relating to policy areas that would have

been statutory responsibilities, such as

health and education.

As a result, the Trust adopted a radically

different approach. The Carnegie Commission

was set up and one of its key findings was

the importance of linking in with local

planning mechanisms to ensure fit withlocal priorities, strategies and agreements.

There was also concern about the damage

caused by short-term funding that often

meant, in the Trust's view, that little was

achieved from the investment made:

You can encourage a thousand flowers to

bloom by scattering a little bit of money

everywhere. However once you move on

to your next batch of activities those

flowers have nothing left. And there is littleor no evidence of impact.

The Carnegie UK Trust now concentrates its

rural programme on commissioning work

designed to influence public policy and

deliver long-term sustainable change. The

Trust will not support an initiative for less

than 10 years and will usually fund for 15.

These changes have been accompanied by

a shift to a 'creative philanthropy' modelwith closer engagement between funder

and grantee. Once a project is approved, it

is regarded as the start of a relationship

with that organisation, one where they can

expect to receive a great deal of support

and advice.


38/4836


Balanced approach to riskFunders use different approaches to

manage the risk of investment in relation to

sustainability. The Heritage Lottery Fund

(HLF) for example, follows an approachbased on the sector and size of the

recipient. HLF was set up to give grants to a

wide range of projects involving the local,

regional and national heritage of the UK. It

distributes a share of the money raised by

the National Lottery for Good Causes and

has awarded 3 billion to more than

15,000 projects since 1994.

Grants made by the HLF can be divided into

three groups with different challenges and

risks in relation to sustainability. Grants

made to local authorities were seen to carry

the least risk, partly due to the conditions

imposed by HLF. For example, when funding

public parks, HLF required local authorities to

provide enhanced maintenance contributions

for a ten-year period after the grant ended,

thus ensuring the investment had in-built

sustainability. Although the risk remained that

the commitment could lapse, the lever of

future applications to HLF remained (local

authorities wanting to apply again will not

want to be seen to be defaulting on a pledge)

and HLF also established a monitoring

system to check on compliance after one,

five and 10 years.

When making capital grants to charities and

trusts, HLF will usually also invest in an

associated business proposition, such as a

shop or other facility. Although this should

enhance sustainability, HLF recognised thatsustainability could be more of a challenge

for smaller bodies than for large charities.

The third group of grants were those to

small groups and these were seen as the

riskiest in relation to sustainability, especially

as they were often given for a one-off

activity or event. Here the funding decision

had to be based on a judgement that there

were benefits to others beyond the

immediate recipients. Only in cases whereactivities potentially had an element of

sustainability did HLF expect the issue to be

addressed. For example, a local history project

had to explain where its findings would be

lodged and if they had agreed an appropriate

format to ensure their future use.

The Baring Foundation adopts a proportionality

approach in terms of sustainability based

on the size of its grants. The Foundation

was established in 1969 and gives around

3 million per annum in capacity building

grants. For small grants of 10,000, a

limited emphasis is placed on exit strategies

but for larger amounts, (of 50,000 to

250,000) that form the majority of grants,

more attention is paid to sustainability. In

general, however, considerable emphasis

appears to be placed on capitalising on the

knowledge gained from individual grant

investments, for example by hosting seminars

where grant recipients provide feedback to

a wider audience.


39/4837

The Scottish Community Foundation (SCF)

adopts a similar proportionality approach

but focuses on the organisation that will

receive funding rather than the project

itself. In its small grants programmeproviding grants of up to 5,000, the SCF

aims to ensure that the recipient organisation

will be stable for the period of funding and

able to deliver the agreed output. When

asked to contribute towards something more

durable such as renovation or consultancy

costs, it seeks to establish whether the

recipient has a sustainable future.

One organisation that uses an approach of

risk taking in order to innovate, push atboundaries and agitate for change is the

Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF). JRF

targets its funds to build evidence needed to

initiate change, and has a strong reputation

for conducting research that is

disseminated widely, targeting influencers

in a position to bring about change. The

Foundation also has an operational arm, the

Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust, allowing

research and practice to be combined in an

attempt to demonstrate new approaches in

housing and social care. The research it

funds is regarded as a tool to influence

policy and practice, and support sustainable

change. Sometimes the JRF identifies an

ongoing issue and commissions research to

explore and understand it further. At other

times it takes a question or challenge and

works backwards. For example, it has

currently identified what it will take to end

child poverty.

Rigorous approach to measuringchangeThe ability to measure change to evidence

effectiveness was identified above as a

factor that can influence sustainability.Some organisations have developed their

approaches to sustainability around this

issue. One of the more rigorous approaches

is followed by the Juvenile Welfare Board

(JWB) in the USA. The Board has a budget

of $50 million raised from a property tax

and supports 100 agencies engaged in

prevention and early intervention work

with children and young people. It has clear

er eval sustainability report summary

Documents