Last Monday I wrote about Burngreave New Deal for Communities (NDC). What has NDC to do with web design? I’ll show you how online and real life activities can support each other. This Mutuality category is mostly about real-life community relationships and as it develops, you’ll see how it hangs together with online content. Sources of finance for community projects are crucial to their success and sustainability.
NDC offered £50 million of grant money to Burngreave over 10 years. Grant money (and sometimes loans and contracts) can be counter-productive. I support many grant aided initiatives but I’ve seen over and again the negative effects they can have on community initiatives. NDC was a massive programme and I think it demonstrates some of the reasons grants can be problematic.
Some Problem Caused by Grants
I’ll develop these in future posts.
- Grants do not build relationships. These days a lot of effort goes into monitoring and evaluating grant funded projects. The Government monitored NDC very closely . But monitoring and evaluation does not build relationships; too often it abdicates relationships because the funding body undertakes no financial risk. If the government can afford to spend £1.71 billion on a programme it can afford that sum whether or not the programme is a success. When the programme is over the funding body walks away with its statistics and has no further interest in what it has funded.
- Grants create dependency. Dependency has real consequences for sustainability. Too many community projects apply for grants before they build their business. If their activity is not viable before funding, it is not likely to be viable once the money runs out. Projects become viable in various ways; trading is one but is not practical where the activity does not easily draw down revenue, eg additional teaching in schools. So, the NDC programme suggested existing authorities would invest mainstream funding once an activity was proven. This could happen in theory but is it likely if there is no mainstream commitment before funding is invested?
- Grants obscure the difference between vision and practicality. It’s easy to have a good idea but more difficult to show the idea can be sustainable. A big injection of cash too early can obscure the fact that an activity is not viable.
- Grants offer false social proof. Once one grant is approved, other funders will follow suit. Before you know it a good idea has lots of support before it runs into the sand because it is not sustainable.
- Grants create divisions within communities. During the nineties Sheffield City Council had a policy of funding ethnic minority economic regeneration centres. These divided neighbourhoods in two ways. (1) Each ethnic group (including White British) had their own centre. There was plenty of funding in those days. Where are they now? (2) Most of these centres was internally divided between those who controlled the assets and those who did not.
- Grants are not sustainable. Many good ideas flourish for a few years before the money runs out. NDC was a ten-year programme and now, 3 years or so on from its closure, there is little to show for its work. Whilst a few people and families can point to interventions that helped them, the neighbourhood as a whole has nothing to show for the investment.
- Grants undermine the purpose of recipients. This is sometimes called ‘mission creep’. What happens is someone has a good idea and then their fundraisers find the closest fit between the idea and the grants available. Before long the community group finds it is mainly doing stuff for the funding body and not their own agenda. Call me fussy but if I’m not being paid I’d rather work for my group than for a funding body.
Do Grants Ever Help?
OK I do believe grants have a role, where an idea has proven its viability. Until then we should be more cautious about offering grants without evidence of viability.
Next time: I’ll focus on NDC and its national evaluation.
Do grants help or hinder community development? Have you examples to support your view? Share your view in the comments below.
