There is legitimacy on both sides of the funding battle

While on holiday recently I was struck by the behaviour of fellow guests at the breakfast buffet.

There was a wide choice and you could go back as often as you liked.

But once again I was taken aback by how many folk simply piled everything on to one plate – bacon, beans and eggs on the same plate as Danish pastries, fruit and chocolate muffins!

Quite apart from the fact that it must have tasted awful all mixed together like that, I can’t understand why they simply didn’t go back once they had finished the savoury plate and have the sweet dishes.

Coming home to the news that some trusts are closing for new funding applications, while they rethink their approach, reminded me a bit of that breakfast buffet.

I can understand why folk feel a bit resentful and cross. We would all love the luxury of being able to afford to stop doing some work in order to take time to think and improve what we do.

But does that mean we should begrudge those who can afford it taking the time out to do what they do better and more effectively for our sector?

The reality is that funders are carrying the burden of increased demand because of the paucity of state funding and that surge has led to two things: a huge backlog of applications and a realisation that their current criteria are producing a wholly unmanageable flood of applications.

So by demanding they step into the funding breach we’re asking a lot and some are crumbling under the pressure.

Although it seems to me that they could usefully use their collective voices to point out the consequences of inadequate state funding.

I doubt for any of them it was an easy decision – and I bet that there was a bit of a battle on foundation boards with some trustees thinking it was a great idea to pause and others deeply worried about the impact on those they serve.

But part of the panic may be because many charities don’t really understand how trusts and foundations work.

Many are woefully understaffed. Foundation boards are typically reluctant to spend their money on their own staff as they feel that by so doing they are taking away money that could go to a charity – and indeed the inevitable criticism from the sector if they’re perceived to be funding their own people – but it’s a double edged sword as many of the problems they face are because they don’t have enough people to deal with the demand.

And remember that some funders only closed for applications for a short time and then re-opened, and others are spending the same money but simply being clearer about the fact they don’t have any left in this year.

I’m reminded of Mark Twain: “Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.”

Nonetheless, at the same time funders need to recognise the legitimacy of the upset and not expect be thanked or praised for walking away for a bit.

Although trusts and foundations only account for about 10 per cent of all the money into the sector – many, especially smaller charities, and those working with unpopular causes such as refugees or criminal justice, are completely reliant on them.

And to suddenly have a major funder say, “Sorry, we’re taking a long break,” is terrifying.

I think when you play such a critical role in society, it is important not to close down for too long, especially when the consequence of closing funds, even temporarily, could be so catastrophic for some.

For those funders considering a pause – is another option to increase staff numbers, even if only temporarily, to deal with backlogs and large numbers of applications whilst still rethinking the approach?

But notwithstanding that – it seems to me to be sensible, if you can afford to do it, to separate the food on your plate – to take the time to consider if you really do want both beans and pastries or if there are better approaches.

I suspect the end result may well be a better breakfast for all of us.

This article was originally written for and published on the Third Sector website.