Feasibility Study For A Proposed Funding Advisors National Network

Feasibility Study for a proposed
Funding Advisors National Network
January 2008
1
Finance Hub
Charities Aid Foundation
St Andrew’s House
18-20 St Andrew’s Street
London EC4A 3AY
Tel: 020 7832 3016
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.financehub.org.uk
Delivery agent details
Prepared by the National Funding Advice Partnership
c/o fit4funding
93 Lawefield Lane
Wakefield
West Yorkshire
WF2 8SU
Tel. 01924 239063
Web: www.fit4funding.org.uk
2
Content list
1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................. 4

2. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Section 1 ..................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Section 2 ..................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Recommendations............................................................................................. 7
3. Detailed survey results......................................................................................... 8
3.1 Section 1 details .......................................................................................... 8
3.1.1. Qu. 1 – 4 details of those responding................................................ 8
3.1.2 Qu. 5 preferred model for a FANN ....................................................... 9
3.1.3 Qu. 6 - 7 nature of membership............................................................ 11
3.1.4 Qu. 8 - 9 areas of work involved in a FANN ......................................... 14
3.1.5 Qu. 10 who would get involved............................................................. 17
3.1.6 Qu. 11 comments on Section 1 ........................................................... 18
3.2 Section 2 details ........................................................................................ 23
3.2.1 Qu. 13 – 17 preferred model – details ................................................. 23
3.2.1 Qu. 18 – 22 membership – details........................................................ 30
3.2.2 Qu. 26 involvement – details ............................................................... 37
3.2.3 Qu. 27 - 33 revenue funding for a FANN.............................................. 39
3.2.4 Qu. 34 purchase of services................................................................ 44
3.2.5 Qu. 35 sources of revenue funding ..................................................... 46
3.2.6 Qu. 36 definition of a FANN................................................................. 47
3.2.7 Qu. 37 guiding principles ..................................................................... 49
3
1. Executive Summary
Funding advisers from around the country have contributed to this Feasibility Study,
which concludes that a Funding Advice National Network (FANN) should be
established, as a project of an existing 3rd sector infrastructure organisation.
The business plan outlining the development of the FANN should have as high
priority working closely with existing funding advice agencies operating at regional
and district level, and ensure it complements their services rather than competing
with them. It should also be established to deliver long-term sustainability for the
FANN.
Respondents to the study wish to see a sustainable, inclusive national organisation,

which demonstrates added value in the services it provides. It is likely to be funded
through membership fees, income generation through service provision, and grants.
Membership of the FANN will need to reflect local and regional networks, individual
agencies, and organisations providing funding advice. Priority for membership will be
those who have “funding advice” as a key part of their role, and consideration will
need to be given to all publicly funded sectors.
This Feasibility Study is part of a larger development funded through the Finance
Hub, as part of their delivery of services on behalf of CapacityBuilders. The next
stage of development will be preparation of a business plan, and funding
applications, as well as seeking a cooperative agreement amongst existing funding
advice agencies operating at a national level to the launch of a FANN in 2008.
Chris Hollins
On behalf of the National Funding Advice Partnership
January 2008
4
2. Introduction
The survey was divided into two sections – the first (Qu.’s 1 – 11) asked about
organisations, and a broad look at the issues, whilst the second section unpicked the
issues in greater depth.
2.1 Section 1
This Feasibility Study sought funding adviser views on the details of a proposed
Funding Advice National Network (FANN). A national survey was conducted between
the end of August and end of October 2007, which had broad and detailed responses
from individuals and networks across England.
There is widespread support for the establishment of a FANN, and a very small
percentage (5.3%) of respondents who would prefer that a FANN was not
established. This study was designed to “get behind” the broad issues at some
depth, and in doing so has identified a range of key areas requiring careful
consideration. It has also identified that there is strong agreement on some key
issues, which cuts across those who are both in favour of, or against, the
establishment of a FANN, even if their final conclusions are different.
The study has identified the preferred model for a FANN (a project within an existing
3rd sector organisation was the favoured option, though a new organisation providing
FANN services was a strong second). Half of respondents (49.1%) preferred a
combination of network, organisational and individual membership, whilst
membership from most sectors (except private consultants) was preferred by the
majority. 70% of respondents would become a member, and become involved.
Amongst the functions of a FANN which stood out were: Sharing/networking/mutual

support; information on what others are doing; provision of specialist training and
standards and funding intelligence; provision of national funding intelligence and
regional information bulletins, representing the views of funding advisers. It is also
recognized that some functions are best carried out at regional/local level.
Section 1. is summed up by the identification of a range of factors, which it is thought

will determine the success of the proposed FANN. These include:
• The question of time and priorities

• Added value
• Inclusive and diverse
• Avoid duplication and build on the regions
• Sustainability
• Sharing/networking
• Funding includes income generation
• Campaigning/advocacy
• Charges/fees
5
2.2 Section 2
A representative structure is preferred by the vast majority of respondents, though

this was qualified by some people commenting that getting on with the job was more
important that structures.
Detailed examination of the three “models” and types of membership on offer

identified several key issues, which were reflected in comments elsewhere in the
study. However the one which stood out was (see Qu. 14)
• Long term sustainability issues
Whilst other matters backing this up included:
• The need for development of new services

• Potential for sharing of functions/skills
• Problems associated with being part of a larger agency
• Problems associated with buying in FANN services
• The value of individual membership
• Problems associated with time available for a FANN
• The need for representation from all regions
The means of governance of a FANN was examined, and respondents were in

favour of
• Quarterly meetings
• At a central location (but which could be rotated)
And there was very strong support for involvement of staff in the 3rd Sector whose
main function is funding advice
The method of funding a FANN was not so clearly agreed, with income generation
and grants being neck and neck. Though membership fees were less well favoured.
Income generation was seen to provide for greatest long-term sustainability and just
over half the respondents thought they might pay towards specific services offered by
a FANN.
The majority were broadly in favour of the definition of a “Funding Advice Network”
but there were many useful qualifications which will help define it further.
Finally there was very strong approval of all five “principles” which could support the
development of a FANN (see Qu. 37) with greatest approval being given to
“The model should work with the support of existing services, not compete
with them”
6
2.3 Recommendations
2.3.1 A Funding Advice National Network should be established.

2.3.2 The model to be used should be a project within an existing 3rd sector
infrastructure organisation.
2.3.3 The business plan which develops this model further should ensure
that the national network builds upon and works closely with the
existing funding advice agencies already operating at regional and
local level throughout England, and …..
2.3.4 ensure that it works collaboratively with these existing services, does
not compete with them.
2.3.5 Where the FANN finds that its must generate income, it must
demonstrate clear added value.
2.3.6 The model must be one which maximises longer-term sustainability.
2.3.7 The model must have demonstrable involvement, though in working
with what already exists may have to find creative ways of achieving
this.
2.3.8 That the Business Plan develops a three-year strategy for moving
towards this model, with an interim steering group.
7
3. Detailed survey results
3.1 Section 1 details
3.1.1. Qu. 1 – 4 details of those responding
Response Response
Qu. 1 answer options Percent Count
Name 100.00% 276
Job title 100.00% 276
E-mail address 100.00% 276
Telephone number 100.00% 276
Organisation 64.5% 178
Address 100.00% 269
answered question 276
skipped question 1
With well over 250 individuals responding to this survey the results are large enough
to indicate the views of the sector. Not all have indicated the organisation for which
they are responding, though a trawl through e-mail addresses indicates that they are
broadly reflective of those where the organisation has been identified.
Qu. 2 Would you like to be kept informed about
answer options Yes No Response Count

The Funding Advisers National Network (FANN) activities 256 11 267
Finance Hub activities and resources 237 18 255

skipped question 6
Whether individuals or networks, the vast majority of respondents wish to be kept

further informed of both the Finance Hub and the activities of the proposed FANN.
Qu. 3 Which of the options below do you represent? (please tick all
that apply)
Response Response
answer options Percent Count
A funding advice network (please give
16.5% 45
name in comments)
Yourself (funding advice is part of my role) 79.% 215
8
Yourself (funding advice is NOT part of my
9.2% 25
role)
Another organisation (please provide
16.2% 44
name in comments)
Comment 80
skipped question 5
In addition to individual responses, a large number of respondents have identified

themselves as indicating the views of a broader network – these range from
established regional/district funding advice networks, to others having a supportive
role in a different way – for example funders forums, a village trust, a parish council,
a grant officers group.
Qu. 4 What KIND of organisation do you represent? (Please tick one

only)
Response Response
A third sector organisation 69.% 185
A local authority 14.9% 40
A for-profit consultancy 4.5% 12
Other independent funding advice
1.9% 5
organisation
Other 9.7% 26
(please give details) 47
skipped question 9
The nature of the organisations responding is broadly split between those we would
expect to have a stake in the provision of funding advice. Overwhelmingly they are
3rd sector organisations, however there are significant contributions from public
agencies – mainly local authorities – from private consultants (who have brought a
particular viewpoint to many of the later questions) and other agencies such as
Business Link. There are one or two unexpected responses – a university, a police
force. Amongst the 3rd sector agencies, CVS are predominant as would be expected.
3.1.2 Qu. 5 preferred model for a FANN
Qu. 5 Our preferred model for a funding advice national network

(FANN) would be: (Please tick one only)
Response Response
A new organisation that directly provides
31.7% 83
FANN services
A project within an existing 3rd sector
48.9% 128
infrastructure organisation.
A new organisation with charitable aims
that pays another organisation to provide 6.1% 16
FANN services
9
Would prefer there wasn’t a FANN 5.3% 14
Other 8.0% 21
(please give details) 42
skipped question 15
The complexity of issues surrounding the potential for a FANN are explored in
greater depth in later questions, however a clear view emerges in the responses to
this question about how such a national network might be best organised. The “front
runner” by far is for a FANN within an existing 3rd sector organisation, (at 48.9%)
whilst the second favourite is for a new organisation (31.7%) to provide FANN
services.
Respondents were also given the opportunity to say that they would prefer that a
FANN was NOT developed, however this option was chosen by only 5.3% of those
replying.
In spite of the clear expressions here the additional comments around this question
provide a microcosm of the problems facing the “funding advice” sub-sector at the
present time, and may be summarised by the following extracts:
1. Work with what is already there
“….. if one is developed, it would be preferred to pay the current FAWN

facilitator to continue their excellent work rather than another new
organisation.”
“Support to funding advisers is best delivered at a regional or sub regional

level. Members would prefer if resources were made available to better
resource regional FAWNs to enable the continuation of the excellent
support already provided in the North East.”
“I would like to see a collaborative approach, which works with existing

agencies”
“A collaboration of existing funding advice organisations.”
2. Delivery more important than structures
“I don't mind what the structure is as much as ensuring that it delivers

services to those it is instigated to support. A focus upon service delivery and
support should be the driving force NOT upon structure”
“Surely, what is does is far more important than how it is constituted or

governed.”
3. Sustainability
“Although I would like to see an independent organisation, I cannot see

how this would, currently, be feasible in terms of sustainable funding.”
“I don't mind how it's organised, as long as it works and continues to do so.”
10
4. Duplication
“I think there is expertise within existing organisations to provide funding

advice. Setting up another new organisation would be duplicating what
already exists”
5. One size does not fit all
“One size does not fit all - funding advisors need to know the sector and
local circumstances to provide advice”
“I meet with the North East FAWN regularly and I feel that funding advice
worker meetings work very well at a regional level. Circumstances are too
different within each region for a National Network to have a meaningful
impact.”
These main topics crop up time and time again in the responses which follow. The
issues here are reflecting both the scarcity of resources overall for maintaining
funding advice throughout the country, the fact that many services struggle at a local
level, and that national services may compete with what already works on the
ground.
3.1.3 Qu. 6 - 7 nature of membership
Qu. 6 What kind of membership? (Please tick one only)
Response Response
Organisations would be members 24.5% 66
Individual workers would be members 17.8% 48
Representation through a sub/regional
6.7% 18
network
A combination of the above 49.1% 132
Other 1.9% 5
(please specify) 14
skipped question 8
Nearly half of respondents preferred a “mixed” membership, with individuals,

organisations and networks in membership. Where responses preferred just one of
these options, membership through “organisations” was the preference, whilst only
6% preferred membership through a regional network.
A point made strongly was that membership should reflect the needs of the sector:
“Anyone [who] could support the diversification of income streams within the
community and voluntary sector.”
11
“Research customers needs first, develop a suitable specification and see
who can deliver, no matter what their nature. It’s then about quality not
partisan relationships or view points.”
“Flexible approach which maximises the benefit by ensuring those who

need the support get it.”
Whilst one area with a strong regional network nevertheless preferred representation
through the regions:
“Don't agree with the establishment of a national FANN but IF MUST have
one prefer regional representative to represent North East FAWN.”
Qu. 7 Who should be involved as members? (Please tick all that should
be members)
Response Response
Staff in 3rd sector whose main function is
75.6% 204
funding advice
Staff in 3rd sector that have funding
73.3% 198
advice in their job description
Staff that have funding advice in their job
63.3% 171
description, from any public agency
Other funding advice workers (eg.
53.3% 144
Business Link advisers?)
Private consultants 23.3% 63
Other 8.9% 24
(please specify) 36
skipped question 7
This question allowed multiple answers and the additional comments help to illustrate
the responses.
Clearly there are strong responses for those who have funding advice as part of their
role and working for 3rd sector, or publicly funded agencies, to be able to access
membership, whilst there was a lot lower support (at 24%) for private consultants in
membership.
Nevertheless there are arguments for including anyone in membership who could
contribute to the aims of the proposed FANN.
“Anyone [who] could support the diversification of income streams within the
community and voluntary sector.”
“Anybody who gives funding advice to voluntary and community

organizations.”
“If people are giving funding advice from any area they should be supported.
If advisors are excluded who are giving funding advice I can only see this as
detrimental to those the advisors are giving advice to. Private consultants are
often ignored as they charge for the advice they give but my concern is if they
are giving poor advice to the voluntary sector it is the sector itself that
12
ultimately loses out. Ensure an appropriate charging structure is put in place
but please avoid being exclusive. Surely the aim is to improve the standards
and quality of funding advice across the board!!!”
“So much of funding requires partnership that it would be wrong not to

include the relevant organizations.”
Similarly there are comments favouring the specific involvement of volunteers, who
whilst they could represent organisations, were not identified as a category within the
question.
“Volunteers providing funding advice.”
“Could also consider individuals/community activists working on an unpaid

voluntary basis who are also providing funding advice.”
Several respondents felt that inclusion beyond the 3rd sector should be possible, with
the option of other forms of membership:
“Those ticked should have full membership but I do feel that public sector
workers and other funding advice workers should be able to be involved and
have associate membership.”
“Advisers from statutory and business agencies could perhaps be associate

members.”
“There should be charges for membership that relate to the type of

organisation you represent/how much you put in/how much you are likely to
take out.”
“Private Consultants or private companies should pay for the services,

thus helping to fund FANN?”
“If there are membership fees would like to see higher rates for public/
private sector. If no fees for 3rd sector there should be charge for
public/private sector otherwise we are subsidising statutory agencies and
private businesses.”
And there was one respondent who wanted to exclude the 3rd sector
“This should not involve government bodies or third sector who will then
distribute the information for free. Quality funding support is a chargeable
activity which is beneficial to our community.”
And a very strong plea for a wholly inclusive approach, including funders, statutory
agencies though recognising this also has its disadvantages:
“At a local level Funding adviser networks have benefited from local
funders being regularly involved, I think this would also be useful at a
national level. It would encourage funders to work with and inform Funding
advisers. Perhaps funders who have outreach workers, support workers to
help groups apply to own funds and signpost elsewhere would be the key
workers to attend FANN, from funding organisations. Also at a local level,
council staff, pct staff etc have contributed as workers who give out
13
funding pots and advise groups re: alternative sources and using Fan
network to get information to groups - but perhaps this isn't as relevant at
national level - perhaps the FANN would become too big and unwieldy
with such a range of members and loose focus.”
3.1.4 Qu. 8 - 9 areas of work involved in a FANN
Qu. 8 Possible areas of work for a FANN are identified below:
Three main areas for service delivery are:
• Sharing / networking / mutual support for funding advisers
• Provision of specialist training and standards and funding intelligence
• Advocacy and development of funding advice work
(Please score how highly you think these are FANN roles from 0 – 5):
Rating Response
answer options 0 1 2 3 4 5 Average Count
Sharing/networking/mutu
al support for funding
7 3 7 37 49 162 4.28 265
advisers: Opportunities to
share practice
Information on what
others are doing and what 4 5 6 54 84 112 4.06 258
is happening
Provision of specialist
training and standards 6 9 14 34 80 118 4.03 264
and funding intelligence:
National accredited
funding advice 14 17 31 64 49 84 3.45 263
qualification
Quality standards for
7 16 26 52 74 82 3.63 260
funding advice
Provision of national
funding intelligence and
9 7 11 34 72 129 4.07 265
regional information
bulletins
Advocacy and
development of funding 5 11 19 65 76 82 3.73 262
advice work:
Representing the views of
funding advisers 6 11 13 36 74 118 4.01 262
especially to funders
Improving the profile of
9 9 16 50 77 97 3.83 262
funding advice
Other (please describe) 17
skipped question 11
Most significant issue - Sharing/networking/mutual support
14
Issues with rating average over 4.00 – Sharing/networking/mutual support,
Information on what others are doing, Provision of specialist training and standards
and funding intelligence, Provision of national funding intelligence and regional
information bulletins, Representing the views of funding advisers.
Comments ranged from a desire to ensure that provision was countrywide:
“In principal I don't disagree with any of the above - that said the primary
restraint will be around location and distance - If the FANN comes into
existence I would be very disappointed if all delivery took place in and
around London!”
To identifying, and dealing with gaps in provision:
“Identification of market gaps and circulation of market research should be

the priority”
“helping to support the setting up of local/sub regional/regional networks

where none exist and where there is a demand from advisors.”
Whilst networking/sharing have come out as the highest option, there are some
qualifications, indicating the need for clarity in development of services.:
“Sharing, networking and support - is difficult at national level and I think

works better locally. Funding advisers locally should be encouraged to get
together locally and regularly (unrealistic in terms of time/resources and
benefits nationally).”
Other comments concentrated on different aspects of funding advice:
“development of web-accessible resource bank of quality policies, procedures

and documents which would improve quality and efficiency in the area of
funding advice.”
“Enabling more grassroots (e.g. excluded communities) and specialists such

as BME to be funding advisors, and better fundraising opportunities (as
opposed to being advised most of time). Making sure that funders understand
the difference between organisation, and activities, and when they are not
duplication, etc!”
“Research on funding provision and distribution..“
“Representing the views of funding advisers to statutory authorities,

especially government departments offering unreasonably short-term
funding!”
Qu. 9 It is recognized that there are some functions best done at other levels, for
example the regional / sub-regional FAWN’s role is best seen as:
(Please score how highly you think these are regional/sub regional roles)
Rating Response
15
Providing opportunities for
networking, sharing 2 8 10 44 70 124 4.11 258
information, and peer and
mentoring support 3 9 23 64 64 87 3.75 250
Building relationships with
3 6 6 33 75 137 4.24 260
regionally-based funders
Providing (nationally
developed) training and 6 11 26 55 71 90 3.71 259
locally relevant workshops
Disseminating information
on regional and sub- 3 4 12 39 67 134 4.18 259
regional funds
Mutual support from other
3 12 25 58 73 86 3.73 257
advisers
A forum whereby funding
advisers could raise issues 4 14 11 47 86 97 3.88 259
with funders
A means of overcoming
6 9 32 65 60 86 3.64 258
isolation for some
At sub-regional level –
training, network co-
ordination, quality 7 10 18 71 72 78 3.66 256
frameworks applied locally,
county conferences
At local level – one to one
support, and information,
linking to sub-regional level 6 13 29 52 61 99 3.72 260
services for front-line
organizations
Other (please specify) 15
skipped question 14
Most significant issue - Building relationships with regionally based funders
Issues with rating average over 4.00 – Building relationships with regionally based
funders, Providing opportunities for networking, Disseminating information on
regional and sub-regional funds.
The range of activities at regional level appears to be recognised broadly through

responses. The long-term future of existing (and good quality) provision is raised:
“I do not disagree with any of the principles above - the issue is where the
resource are coming from to support FAW networks. As far as I am aware
there is not a long queue of funders within the East Midlands region offering
financial backing, which is clearly needed as FAWNs are not self-financing. In
my view though they are a crucial and invaluable support resource for
FAWs.”
Also offered is a sense of reality about what can be done with existing resources
“Both DEFAN and GEORGE have limited capacity to extend and develop the
range of activities and services they offer.”
The need for inclusion at regional level is also noted:
16
“Needs to have a diverse and reflective membership and be accessible …..
For some groups this is a real issue. Specialist structures such as Black
Fundraisers Network and faith based etc, must be involved.”
And reflecting some of the earlier answers, a plea for action rather words:
“More hands on, less lobbying”
3.1.5 Qu. 10 who would get involved
Qu. 10 Would you become involved - which (if any) individuals could
devote time to supporting a FANN?(Please tick all options that apply to
you)
Response Response
I would become an individual member 40.0% 100
My organisation would be a member and I
70.4% 176
would become involved
I would be involved in a regional/sub-
47.2% 118
regional network
I would put myself forward as a regional
17.6% 44
representative
I would put myself forward for election as
9.6% 24
an individual
Other 6.8% 17
(please describe) 27
skipped question 27
The practical realities of introducing a national network will ultimately depend on

whether individuals are prepared to put their time and effort into making it happen.
70% of respondents would join the national network through their organisation and
47% would be actively involved in their regional/sub-regional network. However only
17% would seek to be involved as a regional representative, and even fewer – 9% -
would seek election as an individual.
From the comments some respondents would like to see how the proposed FANN
works in practice before committing themselves. Others would be put off membership
by large fees, and one thought involvement should be linked to proposals for a
quality assurance scheme:
“Providers of accredited funding advice within the branded QA scheme

should all be members and specify how they want to engage.”
Another thought that involvement could be difficult for a freelance worker
“I would like to become involved but as a freelance adviser, this would be

difficult, financially”
17
whilst other freelance agencies were interested.
And there were a few comments, which suggested that respondents would prefer to
give their commitment to their regional network, eg:
“I take part in the North east FAWn run by FINE which is the most
appropriate use of my time.”
3.1.6 Qu. 11 comments on Section 1
Qu. 11 Please provide any comments you have on any of the above questions
Response Count
53
55
222
The final question of Section 1. asked respondents to provide comments so far. From
a broad cross section of the comments a number of key themes are emerging.
First it must be recognised that a small (5%) but strong voice says “No, we do not
want a national Funding Advice Network”, based upon the excellent regional service
they have available to them, whilst at the other extreme in other regions some
respondents reflect the lack of any network available to them.
“I find my own regional FAWN [facilitated by FINE} meets all of my needs and
do not really see what additional use could be made of a national FANN
other than maybe setting nationally accredited qualifications and quality
standards.”
“The South East is already disadvantaged as it does not have an existing

funding advisors network.”
95% of respondents have however looked positively upon the proposal
“LONG OVERDUE!!!”
This overwhelming positive response does however come with some serious issues
attached, summed up in the following quotes:
i. The question of time and priorities
“The role of local FANs is dependant on the time people can give them, as
they do not have paid staff. What they can in theory do, and what they can
in practice achieve are two very different things.”
“I believe that it would be most useful for the FANN to be a networking

opportunity for sub regional and regional 'coordinators' of networks to
18
come together to share information and best practice and to network
generally. I don't think the individual members within the [local] Network
would attend a national network as a majority don't currently attend the
regional network due to time and cost. I see the purpose of a national
network being most beneficial to people who support networks.”
“I would love to be involved, however, can it be a 'virtual network'? I and my

colleagues have so much work on that we find yet another network
opportunity daunting.”
“Being new in my post I see there is a great need for such a network, But it
has to be relevant to me - i.e. being rurally isolated (so time limited to attend
meetings in far away places!)”
“I have stated that I would like my organisation to be involved but that

carries the proviso that you understand our limitations with regard to skills
and capacity.”
“Funding advice workers often wear many other hats so time constraints
must be taken into account when thinking about the roles of regional reps/
network meetings etc. Email support as in ACRE village hall advisers
would be a good model.”
ii. Added value
“I do wonder what impact it really will have given the disparate nature of
funding advice. I do wonder what value it will add beyond what is already
provided …. I am not an opponent though if sufficient resources are
committed.”
“FANN needs to add value to the local and regional networks, so although
it needs to carry out similar functions, these would need to be done by the
FANN where it makes sense to act at national level and more locally when
appropriate.”
iii. Inclusive and diverse
“….. it is imperative that within the business plan sufficient resources are
invested to ensure that FAWs from all corners of the country are made
aware of the existence of the FANN and how it can assist them through an
effective promotional campaign!”
“Big barriers to involvement are lack of time due to pressures of work, and
geographical distance.”
“I am aware that the term “Funding Adviser”; covers a very wide range of
people with many different functions within the scope of their jobs. I think it
would be a huge challenge to provide a network which would be useful to all
of them. Good luck!”
iv. Avoid duplication and build on the regions
“For me new support resources for FAWs could be developed by the

FANN including training materials BUT it must not duplicate resources
already provided.”
19
“These services are already provided by our regional FAWN to a very high
standard. If a national FANN was developed this would be a duplication of
services. To avoid this the FANN should support current provision and act
as facilitator through existing services.”
“I think that for most funding advisers, support within regions is more
appropriate and useful for funding advisers - local issues are more
relevant and support from funding advisers dealing with similar regional
issues would be better. Meeting up would obviously be easier at regional
level and perhaps mean that the network would be better and more
regularly attended. It would seem more relevant. National information
could be sent out by e-mail.”
“Each region is quite different - most work is best done at a regional level
with perhaps a coming together of representatives to discuss national
issues may be twice a year.”
“You must be careful not to duplicate the valuable work already carried out
by the Institute of Fundraising and the Directory of Social Change.”
“Obviously we need to be very careful to avoid duplication and

undermining of flourishing local Funding Advice Networks. We were
founder members of DeFAN, Devon Funding Advisors Network, which we
feel provides a very good, low cost, supportive information sharing
function. However there is a role for developing common standards,
promotion of funding advisor accredited courses. Both our Development
Worker and I are qualified (OCN level 3) funding advisors, however this
minimal standard does not seem to be a target or requirement to most
funding advisors.”
“Members feel that money would be better spent resourcing regional/sub

regional funding advice work and FAWNs to become more effective before
even considering the establishment of a FANN. Needs to be bottom up
rather than top down.”
“Let's keep the number of new agencies and posts to a minimum.”
“Would want to ensure that work compliments other services and is

cooperative with others, i.e. providing services that I cannot access from the
local funders forum or from institute of fundraising.”
“If the FANN is about advice and support to funding advisor, setting standards
for service delivery, accrediting training etc, then it should definitely be
delivered by existing providers. There is a lot of funding information already
delivered county and district councils, RAISE, Lottery, CVS offices etc. Is
there really a case for something more administratively costly as a separate
organisation, when we have the Finance Hub and the Office of the Third
Sector already?”
v. Sustainability
“While I support in principle the development of a national FAN, it is

imperative that FAN at sub regional and regional level have access to
resources to secure their sustainability. We estimate that, in the SW, access
20
to a grant of just £1,000 per annum would be sufficient to keep our region's
FANs active.”
vi. Sharing/networking
“I think the 'sharing/networking/mutual support' role is crucial for a national

FANN in terms of its relations with funding advice networks at local/sub
regional and regional levels.”
“Those involved in fundraising and funding advice are often isolated from
others in similar roles. There is little opportunity to share good practice
knowledge and skills.”
vii. Not funding, but income generation
“I firmly believe that we should move from the vocabulary of the word
funding, third sector orgs today must have a diverse range of income
streams and the title of any network should reflect that, there should be no
confusion with people thinking this network is about sending round details
of new grants.”
viii. Campaigning/advocacy
“There is also a role for clear campaigning at National and regional levels to
Funders and other bodies on issues impacting on sustainable funding and
funding issues.”
“As for advocacy, isn’t this a role for organisations like NAVCA, the
Institute of Fundraising, Finance Hub, RAISE, and all the other
organisations established to work as a bridge between policy and practice.”
ix. Charges/fees
“Quality funding support is a chargeable activity which should have

professional accreditation. This does not necessarily mean specialist
qualifications. Experience is very important when providing Funding
support. Provision of further free services would be detrimental to the
sector.”
“If the conference and the training course fail because no one is willing to pay
to attend them, then what we are seeing is the market voting with its feet. I
would suggest a bursary scheme or sponsorship programme managed by the
Finance Hub or Office of the Third sector to provide the training at a fraction
of the cost.”
x. General
“This questionnaire is very much focused on the establishment of a FANN

and, apart from Q5 makes no allowances for the opinions of individual and
/ or collective responses who do not want a FANN. Questionnaire is
therefore heavily weighted towards a fait accompli which members of the
North East FAWN very much resent and feel the strength of their opinions
will not be fairly represented.”
21
“I think regional representatives should be people where funding advice is the
main or sole focus of their role, rather than where it forms only a part of it.
They should probably also be attached to non-profit making organisations that
provide funding advice and third sector support as a core part of their work.”
“I worry that all funding advice and guidance would come from one local or
regional source when there is need to understand the sector and local funding
issues.”
“I think a central organisation where smaller vol/comm and learning

centres can go for funding advice is overdue.”
“Would this be a virtual network with communication by email and website?

Would be good to have the opportunity to ask questions if stuck with
anything.”
“I've not been involved in funding networks so far, as although it is part of my

job description, I have a lot of other things to concentrate on. A network which
I could access remotely - eg. by email - would be really useful.”
“I believe there is too much focus on funding rather than thinking about
resource-raising (which is not just about money). Help in kind can be as, and
sometimes more, valuable than cash.”
22
3.2 Section 2 details
Whilst 90.3% of respondents completed the first section (9.7% missed out each
question on average) Section 2. was completed on average by 82%.
3.2.1 Qu. 13 – 17 preferred model – details
Qu. 12 This feasibility study pre-supposes that a Funding Advice

National Network should have a membership representative of the
sector throughout the country, which controls the activities of the
FANN. Do you agree? (Please tick one option only)
Response Response
The FANN should have a representative
81.4% 188
structure
The FANN should find alternative
mechanisms for governance, which don’t 18.6% 43
involve representation
Comment 33
skipped question 46
The overwhelming response to this question was to support a representative

structure for a FANN, with 81% in favour. Nevertheless there were many qualifying
comments, for example some felt that the purpose of the network was more
important than how it is organised:
“I agree with representativeness as a concept but often this gets in the

way of delivering a project etc and all too often is a paper exercise”
“Although I have ticked representative I am not overly bothered about the

structure as long as it delivers for Funding advisors”
Whilst some respondents identified the issues around being a representative:
“Not certain about this one as it is probably a combination of the two – it

should represent the sector but how it chooses to do this can be difficult to
implement and become in its own right non representative. The sector is so
large that frankly it is virtually impossible to have a limited number of
individuals effectively represent it as they will be unable to represent their
whole sector and will still bring to the table their own feelings and ideas even
if they are supposed to be representing a far larger group. In my view you
need people that have a broad interest in the sector but who realise they
cannot represent the sector as each different facet of the sector wants
different things and believes different things. Unsafe to expect a set number
of people even if they are elected to do this effectively.”
“Strong dependence on quality of rep. If person fulfils the function because

“someone has to”; then there is not the required enthusiasm for the job and
23
this frequently happens , whereas if a person is there because they strongly
want to be then they will have more energy for the post.”
“Sometime it's difficult for the independent fundraiser to counter the

increasing influence of public sector advisors”
“Smaller groups often have greater pressure of work and less time to
devote to networks and membership organisation. The needs of these
groups are often greater than the needs of those who have a great deal of
time to devote to carrying out, studying and implementing feasibility
studies.”
“it is not always possible to have representation as there are many calls on
people's time and other resources”
“I don't think it is realistic to expect there will many individuals with the
time to get involved in the rigmarole of a representative structure.”
“The interests of minorities would need to be preserved.”
“The structure should seek to engage a range of geographies,

organisations, themes, and skills.”
“I would like a network open to anyone working in the field, possibly along the
lines of a professional body in the commercial area, where membership is
something to be advertised to show that your skills are up to date, ideally
accessible electronically to avoid too much travel and time out of work.”
And the final words go to:
“I think on balance I would rather not see yet another representative

structure.”
“I think a network should be allowed to evolve as the active membership

wants it to and not be directive driven from a small representative group.”
“It is likely to be more acceptable to the constituency if it is representative,

though I think it could perform its function equally well with an alternative
structure which might be less cumbersome.”
The three models outlined in the first section for the establishment of a FANN were:
Model A – a new organisation with charitable aims

Model B – a project within an existing 3rd sector organisation
Model C – a new independent organisation which pays other agencies
to provide services
The fourth option – to NOT develop a FANN
As outlined in Section 1. Model B was the front-runner.
The following questions explore further the advantages and disadvantages of the
three potential models, and which issues were felt to be most important. These
questions have helped to get behind the broad agreement on the proposed model.
24
The answers to these questions provide a “range” of options between which
respondents are choosing. There are no arbitrary right and wrong answers – just
different shades of grey. The easiest way to compare them is to look at those
responses which were felt to be the most important within that question. Some
questions have generated a much higher average score than others, indicating that
respondents felt that issue was more important. Those questions where the rating
average score is placed at over 4.00 have therefore been identified, as indicating that
these are amongst the issues felt to be most important.
Qu. 13 Model A – a new organisation with charitable aims.
Advantages
Rating Response
Independence from any
19 26 26 43 49 70 3.23 233
other network
Development of new
14 17 22 58 62 63 3.38 236
services
Attracts separate grant aid 16 19 25 61 52 61 3.27 234
Separately identifiable
membership with sense of 14 17 28 56 52 64 3.33 231
ownership
skipped question 41
Most significant issue - development of new services
Issues with rating average over 4.00 – none
This response falls within the pattern of answers to other questions – it is more
important that the FANN delivers services.
The comments raise other issues:
The FANN should be self-sufficient:
“Grant aid not important if it is established as a social enterprise. Training and

networking events and membership fees charged. Profit made establishes a
new grant making trust!”
“Who would grant aid a grant advisor ???”
“I'm not certain that it would attract separate grant aid.”
The FANN if independent could be seen to be objective:
“Seen to be completely independent and therefore able to give objective

information”
“Independent viewpoint on funding issues from those representing the

sector to government, donors, etc.”
25
The potential for competing for grant aid with existing bodies, or need for co-
operation with them:
“Some of these suggest dilution of funding - there is only one ultimate pot of
money and more layers means less money at the sharp end.”
“Networks with other existing structures to enable better reach,

intelligence, etc and does not threaten their activities and sustainability.”
“N/a at this stage. See previous comments re a quality assured

network...not a new organisation...use an existing body to coordinate /
administer”
Qu. 14 Model A – a new organisation with charitable aims.
Disadvantages - Are these important disadvantages? (0 low importance, 5 very

important)
Rating Response
Long term
6 7 13 22 76 110 4.07 234
sustainability issues
Competition with
existing providers of 10 10 23 45 56 87 3.68 231
services
The higher the grant
aid, the greater the
competition for
7 12 21 49 55 89 3.72 233
resources with other
funding advice
services
Extra costs
associated with a
10 12 22 40 57 92 3.71 233
separate membership
system
skipped question 42
Most significant issue - Long-term sustainability issues
Issues with rating average over 4.00 – Long-term sustainability issues
Comments:
Displacing other services:
“I would be concerned about diverting funds away from other groups. If the
FANN is independent it will probably be more expensive to run than if
attached to another organisation. I also think it would benefit from being
placed in a wider context of third sector support work so that it linked into
other agendas, rather than standing alone.”
“why competition? FANN can work without racing with others.”
26
“Extra costs of setting up the new project plus it might lead to disharmony
with current providers and further confusion amongst users”
“This should not just be for the third sector or competition would be an
issue. We do need an organisation with a much wider scope.”
Self-financing/sustainability
“Ah, so you wish to survive on grants, perhaps the new model maybe better
as a CIC, and to prove how effective it is it should take a percentage
deductible before tax from the orgs that have benefited from its service by
securing extra income”
Qu. 15 Model B – a project within an existing 3rd sector infrastructure organisation.
Advantages - Please score (0 low importance, 5 very important)

Rating Response
Potential for shared
costs especially 6 7 15 43 71 89 3.89 234
management
Potential for sharing
of functions/skills
around 5 5 16 42 74 91 3.92 233
infrastructure
support
Steering group to
13 12 22 52 67 68 3.50 234
guide work
skipped question 42
Most significant issue - Potential for sharing functions/skills costs.
Issues with rating average over 4.00 – None.
Comments:
Working with existing organisations:
“Track record of already existing provider would be very important. Costs

which would be put in to new organisation could be invested in new
services.”
“This is the best idea - maybe fit for funding could do it - at least they are
best placed for the north”.
“Sustainability; potential to build on a recognizable/respected brand.”
Need to focus on the objectives:
“ [If] hosted in a non-funding specific structure will dilute the potential

significance and clarity of a FANN.”
27
“It is important structure is representative and does not favour 1 structure
over the other, especially for developing structures aimed at minority and
disadvantaged groups.”
And one consistent comment:
“Don't agree with model B or the establishment of a FANN.”
Qu. 16 Model B – a project within an existing 3rd sector infrastructure

organisation.

important)
Rating Response
Steering group
rather than full 21 25 48 44 40 49 2.9 227
independence
Potential for funding
advice to get lost
8 12 29 46 54 78 3.59 227
amongst other
services
Potential
dominance of host
5 9 24 36 61 91 3.82 226
agency approach to
funding advice
skipped question 50
Most significant issue - Potential dominance of host agency
Comments:
There may be disadvantages but they can be worked with:
“You can write out the potential dominance in two ways: Ensure the Terms of
Reference or constitution are written correctly to ensure this or better still
have a moving host organisation.”
“Would just have to be careful - I think its possible if structured correctly”
“I feel the most important issue is to get a low cost network up and
running-something that will be useful and sustainable because not
distracted by the need to focus on its own survival.”
“…..depends on who it is hosted with. I would recommend NAVCA”
Need for a new approach/independence:
“Nothing fresh and new. Would not attract new members.”
28
“Many groups have disengaged with current infrastructure organisations
because they do not feel they are representative of their needs. They
would be unlikely to benefit from this approach.”
“FANN primarily seen as mechanism to finance other core services of

organization.”
Cross sector approach:
“Over-emphasis on Third Sector contribution rather than cross sector

partnership approach.”
Qu. 17 Model C – a new organisation with charitable aims that pays another
organisation to provide FANN services.
Rating Response
Independence
combined with
22 27 31 70 46 34 2.84 230
potential for lower
costs/cost sharing
Potential for
integrating services
23 22 49 71 42 22 2.67 229
with another
appropriate agency
skipped question 47
Most significant issue - Independence combined with lower costs/sharing
Issues with rating average over 4.00 – None
This question scored a very low Rating Average, indicating that these advantages
were not high up the agenda. This may also reflect the general view that this option
was not well favoured.
Comments:
“My least favourite - I think it would burn out and the money would not go
very far. FANN would have little say after it parted with its funds”
“Paying two organisations to be involved seems likely to be dearer than

one.”
“... too expensive and no added value in my mind”
“This sounds very laudable but experience suggests that this is not
realistic. Would the staff be new to the field and enthusiastic or more
inclined to follow previous models which they have experienced - previous
history suggests the later.”
29
“Duplication can be wasteful, issues over access, diversity, etc; sustainability
of other structures. Needs to be co-ordinated but money to go to more than 1
structure (spread the workload, but ensure cohesive, fair and accessible).”
3.2.1 Qu. 18 – 22 membership – details
Qu. 18 Model C – a new organisation with charitable aims that pays another
organisation to provide FANN services.

important)
Rating Response
Potential for less control
15 13 31 30 63 76 3.5 228
over delivery
skipped question 49
Most significant issue - Potential for less control over delivery
Comments:
There appears to be a strong view that this option would be both more costly, and
difficult to manage:
“Surely this option would be the most expensive, putting in an extra layer of
management?”
“Too many layers of contracting could reduce any benefits, and lead to
problems over quality assurance.”
“It would seem to be a waste of resources to create an organisation just to

pay another to deliver.”
“All the cost and time implications of model A + less control - the worst of all
worlds.”
“Potential for confusion over lines of communication; bureaucracy of

tendering process to appoint delivery organization.”
“Still need for independent governance of FANN, and associated costs to

ensure delivery of services.”
“I would find it difficult to see the value of an organisation using this model
and in this case would think it were better to have just the organisation that
would be paid for FANN services.”
30
The following questions looked at the issues surrounding a structure for membership.
Qu. 19 Option 1. Direct membership of individuals
Rating Response
Direct connection
between individual 9 9 15 51 65 74 3.69 223
members and the FANN
Greater sense of
11 11 22 48 59 69 3.55 220
ownership
skipped question 50
Most significant issue - Direct connection between members and the FANN
Comments:
“In reality, the majority of Funding Advisers won't have capacity to be

involved in sub regional, regional and a national FAN. The national
network should take a more strategic approach to issues across regions
rather than duplicating what already exists.”
“If there is a strong and effective link via a sub-regional network, there
would still be a significant sense of ownership.”
“Especially for those workers not in a local network”
Qu. 20 Option 1. Direct membership of individuals

important)
Rating Response
Costly and cumbersome
8 15 30 45 62 63 3.47 223
membership system
By-passing existing
9 12 28 50 60 62 3.48 221
functioning networks
Regions with few
members may not get 10 6 27 49 68 62 3.55 222
national representation
Extra time commitment
9 7 26 55 49 77 3.61 223
from individuals
skipped question 53
Other (please specify)
31
Most significant issue - Extra time commitment from individuals
Comments:
The need to represent a broad variety of interests
“Sectional interests of marginalised groups should not get swamped by

majority interests.”
“It's more difficult to have sector-specific tiers of membership for individuals

(who may move between sectors).”
“Needs to ensure that local, specialist etc can be represented, and good and
emerging structures sustainability not threatened.”
Resource issues:
“This could result in individuals being asked to pay for their membership of
FANN as a professional association. Many groups also have more than one
person who would benefit from the service and they would have to pay for 2
memberships - something they are unlikely to do. Services who are poorly
resourced may not have a dedicated fundraiser and would be unlikely to put
forward an individual rep as a result - although they are the people who would
be most likely to benefit from the service.”
“Another meeting, more paperwork, and more costs is not what sector
wants. We want things streamlined, cost effective, accessible and relevant.”
“Why does a membership system have to be cumbersome and costly?”
Structural issues:
“Rather than either/or, strengthen each of the options so that each

compliments the other and there is genuine choice for an individual.”
“Representation - what would be the criteria - need or numbers costly

would be comparative to benefit and commitment is a requirement of
success.”
Working with existing structures
“I would not support a FANN which by-passed existing functioning networks.”
Qu. 21 Option 2. Membership through regional networks:
Rating Response
Representation from all
8 5 15 43 58 84 3.83 213
regions
Simple and cost effective
10 4 14 52 54 82 3.75 216
representation
32
skipped question 59
Most significant issue - Representation from all regions
Comments:
Structural issues:
“Not all regions will have a regional FAN, so an alternative mechanism

should be developed to ensure they have representation.”
“Don't agree with a formal FANN, rather it was an informal network of

regional reps meeting at regular intervals to share good practice.”
“How well do they represent?”
“No this is too far from the local-the lowest level of representation should be
county level.”
“Danger that the established/big/strong organisations will.”
Resource issues
“Another structure could be more costly, not cost effective, and can be
costly dependent upon size of region, workloads, income etc to participate
on a regular level. Would reps have Backfill/expenses? What about small
groups just starting to look for funds? Needs to be an effective and
accessible, (cost effective or heavily subsidised/FREE) strand.”
“I think the assumption that Membership through Regional Networks

would be simple and cost-effective is a mistaken one.”
Qu. 22 Option 2. Membership through regional networks:

important)
Rating Response
Regions which lose their
network may not be 5 6 23 37 69 78 3.8 218
represented
Regions have to
represent a “network” 7 13 36 46 58 59 3.42 219
view
skipped question 57
Most significant issue - Regions which lose their network may not be represented
33
Comments:
Structural issues
“Could always have 'reserved' places if networks non-existent, or even

observer/non-voting status to address this.”
“FANN could be working to ensure strong networks so that there was little
danger of the loss of a network.”
“Presupposes that regional networks exist, are functional and

representative.”
Issues with representation
“Regional view may be difficult where there is considerable variation of

social/economic areas within region.”
“Specialists and small groups etc have their own issues, which could be
muffled by the bigger players ….. Many already feel this is the case, and
more structures and opportunities for the big organisations to place them in
positions of advantage will make things worse, not better.”
“The assumption that one bunch of people will wholeheartedly represent

another is also a mistaken one - just take a look at our political parties.”
“Membership restrictions of regional networks would automatically exclude

membership of the FANN.”
“Conflict of local priorities, it is very important to be seen as fair to all

groups.”
Qu. 23 There are 9 English regions. What size should the governing
body of FANN be? (please tick one only)
Response Response
Up to 10 members 27.3% 57
10 – 15 members 41.2% 86
15 – 20 members 22.5% 47
20 plus members 9.1% 19
skipped question 66
The favoured option appears to be a governing body of 10-15 members. However

comments indicated that for some respondents it was too early to answer this
question:
“Think we need to establish the need first and then the governance will
follow”
34
“To far down the line to comment at this stage as I don’t think it necessarily
needs a governing body. There is a need for QA and on going development
of services provided by FANN members.”
Other comments identified some of the issues involved, especially the need to be
inclusive
“15 to 20+ - needs to be inclusive, diverse, representative of types of

organisations, communities, local, regional and national for any kind of
“equitable balance”;. Very difficult to do - especially if specialist sub-
groups are identified as needed!”
Or the need to reflect differences between regions, or not base membership on

regions
“Smaller groups tend to work better, but large and strong networks could have
the option of sending more than one representative as some networks have
membership from more than one sector. Also there is a big disparity across
regions in whether and how many FAW posts exist, how they are funded -
specific or related - capacity (f/t or p/t) FAW and this in turn will affect the
nature and strength of networks.”
“I don't think this has to be tied to regions. Rather who will have the time and
the interest?”
And the need to support regional activity
“Keep regional networks going”
Qu. 24 How often, and in what way, should a governing body meet?
(Please tick those that apply)
Response Response
Monthly 10.1% 22
Quarterly 89.4% 194
At an annual meeting 13.8% 30
skipped question 60
The majority view is for quarterly meetings.
Qu. 25 In what way? (Please tick those that apply)
Response Response
At a central location 71.8% 148
On-line 50.0% 103
Jointly at another national event (eg. an
annual meeting/event of another 30.6% 63
organisation)
35
skipped question 71
Comments:
This question elicited a variety of responses and suggestions, with some

respondents saying it was too early to decide, or that it should depend upon the
needs of members:
“As is appropriate for the meeting and those involved.”
“This will depend on whether this is an independent network or a steering

group in an existing infrastructure organisation.”
“As and when it needs to and in a manner that suits the members to get
governance right and maintain an effective organization.”
Whilst others thought that all three methods of “meeting” would be feasible
“A mix of these would mean that the access is available to all . Completely
online may be faceless but bypasses travel problems central is dependant on
how central to who.”
“Use all three mechanisms to allow best level of involvement.”
“Combination of Annual event and six-monthly event (possibly to coincide

with something else) plus skype conferencing or similar distance methods
in other quarters.”
And the thorny question of what is “central” was raised
“Note that London is not in the centre of anywhere.”
“Perceptions of central locations are different dependent on where you are

based. It is sometimes more difficult travelling east-west than north-south
although distance may look shorter on a map!”
And many respondents felt that varied methods/timing of meeting, perhaps rotating
round the regions would be the most effective:
“Perhaps it could be varied? National meetings could sometimes be

tagged onto regional meetings and move around the country so that
regional members still got a chance to talk to national members from other
regions. This could happen occasionally and other meetings could be
held at a more central location. A national event could be held once a year
as an AGM.”
“Combination of meeting methods - to reduce costs where possible.”
“AGM at a national conference rather than a separate event. Quarterly

meetings at rotating venues - London, Birmingham, York, another SE/SW
location.”
36
“Predominantly on line with periodic meetings rotating in different regions.”
“A mixture of meeting opportunities should be used. Telephone

conferencing is useful, should take the meetings round England,”
“Central location could be in dif areas for each quarter so easier for
representation to be fair as regarding costs to attend.”
“Most FANs meet quarterly. Nationally this would be on different dates. If an

urgent issue needs to be dealt with, monthly meeting for the FANN would
ensure that issues can be dealt with promptly and not get out of date.”
“If monthly could be online but will still require face-to-face at some point.”
“As there are likely to be capacity issues, a flexible approach needs to be

adopted. Meetings could rotate around the centre of the country to ensure
equitable accessibility.”
3.2.2 Qu. 26 involvement – details
Qu. 26 How important is it that the following are involved? Please score (0 low
importance, 5 very important)
Rating Response
Staff in 3rd sector whose
main function is funding 1 1 0 13 51 158 4.62 224
advice
3rd sector workers who
have funding advice in 3 2 13 54 77 72 3.88 221
their job description
Staff that have funding
advice in their job
12 11 20 53 62 59 3.47 217
description, from any
public agency
Other funding advice
workers (eg. Business 22 22 30 55 47 41 2.95 217
Link advisers?)
Private consultants 58 40 30 28 25 21 1.93 202
Comment 18
skipped question 52
Most significant issue - Staff in 3rd sector whose main function is funding advice
Issues with rating average over 4.00 – Staff in 3rd sector whose main function is
funding advice
This question elicited one of the few “negative” responses, on the issue of
membership of private consultants. Many respondents thought their involvement was
not important though comments qualified this:
37
“I think that private consultants' involvement would depend on whether
they provided funding advice to 3rd sector organisations as their main
area of work, as opposed to carrying out fundraising contracts.”
“Please don't marginalise private consultants - they can bring good

practice and cost effectiveness skills. They may also be able to assist in
FANN set up as they could already be involved in other networks.”
“Currently there is an issue with private consultants advising organisations

for profit, instead of making them aware of free alternative and equal (or
better) services. Organisations are paying ….. even if do not get funding
bid.”
“Private consultants aren't all 'money grubbers' - BUT I would say that,
wouldn't I!? Don't mind not having a vote!.”
“We need to ensure that private consultants are giving effective advice,
adhering to standards and not ripping the VCOs off. However, they
should be making a financial contribution for they advantages they gain
from FANN.”
“Too often private consultants are doing fundraising, not funding advice.”
Others sought to emphasise the purpose of the proposed network, and the potential
for contribution/dominance by other sectors
“Might be a tendency for statutory staff to dominate, purely because they are
more likely to have full time, permanent jobs and therefore be able to be fully
involved.”
“It is difficult to say if non-3rd sector individs should be involved due to the
problem that external influence may have. If it is positive (ie. supportive of
3rd sector) fine, but it just serve to dilute our resources as we are very
skilled in the funding advice arena.”
“Input from funders, policy makers on funding, fundraiser and resource

raisers might be helpful, if in ex-officio or invited roles.”
“Need mix of vol sec and public - some council likes are the lead locally for
this type of advice”
“Appropriate not for profits that are funded by non-competitive funding and
could be useful to FANN (eg. currently learning providers funded by the
LSC to up skill in new funding related developments). Possibly restricted
membership for private consultants that match very specific criteria.”
“By engaging all the FANN would get a wider range of views.”
38
3.2.3 Qu. 27 - 33 revenue funding for a FANN
Qu. 27 What percentage of its income should a FANN aim to receive from different
sources (say within three years)?
(Please write in your suggested percentages - all three should total 100.)
Response Response Response
answer options Average Total Count
Income generation from services
provided/contracts (Possible services 37.36 7248 194
described in Section A)
Membership fees/subscriptions 25.92 5028 194
Grants 38.66 7345 190
skipped question 82
Slightly less preference in the responses to this question, for income from
fees/subscriptions. A marginal preference for Grants.
Qu. 28 Income generation/contracts

Rating Response
Independent income in a
4 5 11 46 73 62 3.84 201
marketplace economy
Potential for longer term
4 2 6 23 76 90 4.18 201
sustainability
Services developed
4 2 15 27 74 79 4.03 201
owned by the FANN
skipped question 74
Most significant issue - Potential for longer term sustainability
Issues with rating average over 4.00 – Potential for longer-term sustainability.
Services developed owned by the FANN.
Diverse and opposite views emerge from the Comments:
Income generation seen positively
“Shows they know what they are talking about if they can generate income
(as opposed to potentially funding from potential members and service
users! Should not be competing with them, but developing & strengthening
them.”
“Might help to emphasise the worth of the service provided if a reasonable

charge is added.”
39
“The network may seek some pump-priming funding in the first place and
then work towards the suggested income plan?”
But it has its limitations
“Competing in the market place is commendable but when compared to other

areas where this has happened leads to dilution of quality of service. If this
funding is needed it is because it is difficult to provide in mainstream and so
suggests that this is because of its cost effectiveness so by default it can not
compete.”
“FANN should not undertake service provision as this could be seen as a

market domination over other advisers / fundraisers. Membership body
should serve membership interests, member benefits, professionalisation and
quality”
Qu. 29 Income generation/contracts

important)
Rating Response
Income generation may
detract from service 7 14 29 50 47 53 3.38 200
provision
Income only ever short
11 10 36 44 55 44 3.27 200
term
Services may compete
with existing providers 6 8 30 37 49 70 3.63 200
within the 3rd sector
skipped question 77
Most significant issue - Services may compete with existing providers within the 3rd
sector
Comments:
The need to be accessible to those organisations in greatest need:
“Those that are in greatest need of accessing the services do not have the
resources to pay so are therefore excluded”
“Always difficult to develop chargeable services to 'poor' third sector

groups.”
And the need to focus on the task in hand
“Will lead to focus on doing something other than what was set out to do!”
40
“Income generation detracts from service provision in every other VCO that
Funding Advisors support - why should FANN be any different? Indeed, as
this is the environment we work in, examples from 1st hand experience
sharpen the campaigning for change.”
However there is support for a market-led approach
“In a market led system, you have to learn to be good at what you do to
survive. A strong and effective network will win the support of its
membership an arrogant or bureaucratic one may be short-lived.”
“Credibility with recipients of funding advice on the ground.”
Qu. 30Subscriptions / fees
Rating Response
Impact is only ever as
good as members are 15 9 19 51 65 39 3.31 198
prepared to pay for
Ties members and
network more closely 9 12 20 53 53 50 3.42 197
together
skipped question 76
Most significant issue - Ties members and network more closely together
Comments:
“Don't rely on membership for funding - it will never get off the ground”
“Don't agree with subscription/fees. As [we] do not want a FANN would not
be prepared to pay a membership fee.”
“Impact is only ever as good as the commitment of the members. I can

think of expensive services which are not very effective, so price doesn't
always give an accurate reflection.”
“Could have 'sliding scale' - as NAVCA does.”
41
Qui. 31 Subscriptions / fees

important)
Rating Response
Some funding
advisers/networks may
7 6 11 31 55 88 3.94 198
not be able to afford to
pay
If individuals paid
membership fees, that
may not be compatible 9 12 30 36 52 62 3.45 201
with a regional
representation system
skipped question 76
Most significant issue - Some funding advisers/networks may not be able to afford to
pay
Comments:
The ability of members to pay is important
“Affordability should be a priority in establishing the levels of funding

needed to run the FANN. This might mean that percentages suggested
above will need to be altered.”
“Sliding scale would help cover this (for individuals - as well as groups -
could be income based).”
“Fees would have to be set at a level members could afford, yet still be
worth collecting.”
“Who’s paying us to pay FANN ??”
Qu. 32 Grants

Rating Response
Known income 6 2 13 46 61 69 3.83 197
Known period 6 2 12 44 61 71 3.86 196
skipped question 79
Most significant issue - Known period
42
Comments:
“Best bet - anyway, this is the leading body at advising orgs how to get
grants - lead by example!!!!!”
“Sustainable funding is key a situation where a person has to spend a large

part of their time chasing small pots of money is not cost or emotionally
effective in the long run.”
“Members very concerned that a FANN would seek grant funding as this
would be in direct competition with [regional] FAWN.”
“Demonstrates advisers can practice what they preach...”
“Don't totally agree with the premise of the question - grants aren't “known
income” until you get them.”
Qu. 33 Grants

important)
Rating Respons
answer options 0 1 2 3 4 5 Average e Count
May compete with
regional based funding 4 8 19 36 63 67 3.76 197
advice
Lifespan of grants always
6 8 12 28 67 77 3.89 198
limited
skipped question 78
Most significant issue - Lifespan of grants always limited
Comments:
Dis/advantages of competing with existing providers
“I don't think the sector can afford to lose any more grant opportunities to big
costly organizations.”
“Competes unfairly with non grant-aided providers, particularly those who

chose non grant-aid for market reasons, direct relationship with
subscribers, and the creation of a sustainable economy for funding
advice.”
“Always possibilities of conflicts of interest. If services are 'unique' and

national presence gives important advantages, this should be less
important.”
43
“Competition is good - and being forced to move with the times and get the
next grant is good - keeps it lean.”
Sustainability and competition/cooperation
“Sustainability will also be an issue, as it will with potential members. Grants

should (if at all) be prime pump funds only, if can’t sustain beyond that time
then not feasible. Needs to be able to create own income, and ensure not to
the detriment of other structures!”
“So work in partnership with existing provision to create a whole which is

greater than the sum of the parts!”
“The support being offered is chargeable. It reduces its value if it is

supported by a grant.”
“Seeking funding can detract from the business of operating the network and
can create additional costs in itself”
3.2.4 Qu. 34 purchase of services
Qu. 34 What level of services would a member organisation purchase

(eg. materials, training, events)?
Would you be likely to include an item in your budget for ongoing

professional development (training) and for meeting quality standards
(which you MIGHT purchase from a FANN if appropriate)? If so, how
much would be a reasonable figure? (Please tick one option only)
Response Response
Under £100 40.8% 78
£100- 500 52.9% 101
Over £500 6.3% 12
Comment 38
skipped question 86
A slight majority of respondents ((52.9%) would be prepared to pay in the middle

range for services. The comments do point both to the need to keep services at
affordable prices:
“We are a charity and therefore would have to see clear benefits and cannot
afford general fees charged for conferences etc which are aimed at
charitable sector normally”
“Existing organisations charge enormous amounts that preclude smaller

organisations having a voice. Effectively we have a closed shop, particularly
if one does work for very small organisations and therefore have a smaller
income”
44
“I have a small training budget so I would have to prioritise any spend”
“Small organisations often seek bursaries. dependent upon where events are
the TRUE Cost for the smaller organisation is a lot, with backfill, they have to
find income to pay someone to do work while away, or overstretch
themselves trying to catch up when return, and of course their service users
have to wait. Also have to find travel and other expenses money on top of
event fee etc. developing on-line, flexible information, materials etc would suit
sector best (at grass roots, and local levels)”
“Infrastructure bodies such as ours are expected to pay subscriptions to a

number of affiliating bodies. We could spend a huge chunk of our income on
these then have little left to actually undertake the work we are paid to do.”
“The locally based organisations I work with could probably afford between
£50 and £400 depending on their size. There are currently many fundraising
events my organisations cannot afford to send me on because the rates are
just too high.”
Whilst others would like to see the added value from the provision:
“Can't answer as would depend on the quality, applicability, and scope of

what was offered and how it helped us to generate revenue”
“We would pay for this as we see appropriate - the resources would have to
be those which we cannot get elsewhere and add real value to our work”
“I think this depends on what the training is about, would I pay someone to
give me training on how to write a grant application NO, if I was supported
to secure a £500k contract then Yes and £500 is only one per cent and if
paid as donation pre-tax we all win”
“Need to quantify what the organisation would get before can say what is
acceptable”
Other respondents would prefer to use the services of their regional agency:
“None - would prefer to support my local FAWN which already does this.”
“Would be more likely to purchase from my regional FAWN.”
“Not as long as my local FAWN meets my needs so well.”
There were contradictory responses to paying for some services, for example quality
standards:
“Would not pay for quality standards.”
“If a quality mark is available I would pay over £500. I already commit over
£500 pa to training and OPD”
“I would say an organisation's budget should include £100-500 per adviser

for training and meeting quality standards - but then the services would
have to be comprehensive, as many ISOs would not have large additional
training budgets.”
45
Charges could vary:
“Charges could be on a sliding scale depending on size/income. Discounts

for small organizations”
“Voluntary sector has limited funds could be more for professional orgs”
Would funders pay these costs?
“….. so far we have had to operate on a shoestring budget but probably

£100 - 200 would be acceptable if somebody was prepared to fund us...”
“Are funders prepared to pay the cost of FANN membership as legitimate

expense?”
And some respondents do not have the funds for these activities:
“No budget for this in my organization.”
“Budget? Don't have a budget!”
“Both [local networks] have limited budgets and therefore restricted

purchasing power from a FANN.”
3.2.5 Qu. 35 sources of revenue funding
Qu. 35 What level of funding is likely from other sources, eg. local authorities, the Big
Lottery Fund, Capacitybuilders and central government?
Given that this is a proposed national service, although supporting local delivery,
where should any grant aid come from? (Please place the options in the order 1 – 4)
Response Response Response

answer options Average Total Count
Local authorities 3.66 689 188
Big Lottery 5.17 966 187
ChangeUp/Capacity Builders 162.46 30868 190
Central Government 110.48 20881 189
skipped question 87
Clearly the majority response to this question was that Capacity Builders is seen as
being the most likely funder of this service.
46
3.2.6 Qu. 36 definition of a FANN
Qu. 36 Is this a suitable definition of a funding advice network?
answer options Yes No Response Count
“A funding advice network is defined by structured

communication between funding advisers from different 168 32 200
organisations.”
If not, how would you change it? 36

Answered question 200
Skipped question 77
Respondents have provided a wealth of additional comments on this topic, qualifying

the 84% in favour of this definition.
Define the purpose behind communication:
“Emphasis should be on the support provided - no good communicating

about things if you don't DO anything about it.”
“I would be more interested in what it does rather than how it is defined.”
“I would define what the communication was about... e.g. mutual support and
the sharing and disseminating of good practice... etc....”
“A funding advice network, which will provide advice and networking

opportunities at a national level ie. more clearly explaining what it will do,
rather than what it is”
“Doesn’t describe aim of such communication - why exist.”
Whilst others went to be more specific about the nature of the services to be
provided:
“A FFAN supports funding advisors in delivering an excellent service

through advocacy, training, mentoring and networking at a national level.”
“No reference to service to the customer or quality expected.... surely what

its there to support and ensure”
“A funding advice network promotes best practice and information sharing

between people who give advice to others on funding issues.”
“Communication and peer support between individuals from different

organisations who provide funding advice to VCS organisations.”
“Would illustrate what structured communication means e.g. is it a newsletter.

a meeting, discussion, etc”
47
“ADD something about 'shared values'?”
“A centre of expertise and information sharing”
“A funding advice network is by definition a series of structured

communications, developments and information sharing between funding
advisers from different organisations”
Others commented on who should be involved:
“Needs to involve funders and finance organisations. Needs to be implicit is

fair, geographic reach ‘accessibility, representative’ non-competitive but co-
operative/partner organisation.”
“A funding advice network enables communication between funding

advisors from different organisations”
“Would like to see something about external communication added - not just
about advisors sharing amongst themselves”
“Misses out the need for mentioning a wide variety of organisations and
sectors.”
“What sorts of organisations? Need to state whether it is just voluntary

organizations.”
And there were several new drafts for the definition:
“FANN - a learning community which aims to develop, support and

exchange good practice in funding advice; encourage good funding
practice by donors; and ensure that funding practice is equitable.”
“add ‘to support Funding Advisors in empowering the VCS to achieve their
goals through effective and sustainable funding’ ”
“A funding advice network supports people and organisations by

networking, sharing learning opportunities and resources, ensuring quality
of advisers, providing advisers a voice at the highest levels and
engendering trust in us by the people and organisations we advise.”
“A funding advice network is defined as the exchange of funding related

information between interested parties across the 9 regions of England”
“Funding advice network is professional support for the development of

advisers and organisations for the aim of sustainability.”
“A funding advice network exists to support and enable good quality

funding advise by those whom work in this field.”
“A FAN is defined by structured communication between Funding Advisers

from a range of organisations who provide funding advice to external bodies
that is free at the point of delivery.”
“A funding advice network is defined by structured communication and

action between funding advisers from different organisations.”
48
“A funding advice network is defined by structured communication between
individual funding advisors and those from relevant organizations.”
And a couple of general comments
“Where members understand what they are paying for and the network
delivers it.”
“Once you have received all the contributions please try to keep it succinct
as it is above.”
3.2.7 Qu. 37 guiding principles
Qu. 37 How important are these principles in guiding this work?
Please score (low priority 0, high priority 5)

Rating Response
Existing FANs will be
involved in the process of
3 4 9 31 64 92 4.09 203
establishing a FANN at
the earliest possible stage
Members should have a
clear voice in the affairs
1 0 5 34 60 103 4.27 203
of a FANN for it to be
successful.
The model to be
developed should have
1 1 4 16 64 117 4.42 203
maximum potential for
sustainability
The model should be
inclusive of all advisers
5 3 8 28 65 93 4.09 202
providing support to the
third sector
1 3 7 18 40 134 4.43 203

skipped question 73
Most significant issue - The model should work with the support of existing services,
not compete with them.
Issues with rating average over 4.00 – All five issues in this section had a high rating
average.
49

Feasibility Study For A Proposed Funding Advisors National Network

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Feasibility Study For A Proposed Funding Advisors National Network

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Feasibility Study For A Proposed Funding Advisors National Network

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Feasibility Study for a proposed

Funding Advisors National Network

Delivery agent details

Prepared by the National Funding Advice Partnership

1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................. 4

Respondents to the study wish to see a sustainable, inclusive national organisation,

Amongst the functions of a FANN which stood out were: Sharing/networking/mutual

Section 1. is summed up by the identification of a range of factors, which it is thought

• The question of time and priorities

A representative structure is preferred by the vast majority of respondents, though

Detailed examination of the three “models” and types of membership on offer

• Long term sustainability issues

Whilst other matters backing this up included:

• The need for development of new services

The means of governance of a FANN was examined, and respondents were in

2.3.1 A Funding Advice National Network should be established.

3.1 Section 1 details

3.1.1. Qu. 1 – 4 details of those responding

Qu. 2 Would you like to be kept informed about

answer options Yes No Response Count

Finance Hub activities and resources 237 18 255

Whether individuals or networks, the vast majority of respondents wish to be kept

Yourself (funding advice is part of my role) 79.% 215

In addition to individual responses, a large number of respondents have identified

Qu. 4 What KIND of organisation do you represent? (Please tick one

3.1.2 Qu. 5 preferred model for a FANN

Qu. 5 Our preferred model for a funding advice national network

1. Work with what is already there

“….. if one is developed, it would be preferred to pay the current FAWN

“Support to funding advisers is best delivered at a regional or sub regional

“I would like to see a collaborative approach, which works with existing

“A collaboration of existing funding advice organisations.”

2. Delivery more important than structures

“I don't mind what the structure is as much as ensuring that it delivers

“Surely, what is does is far more important than how it is constituted or

“Although I would like to see an independent organisation, I cannot see

“I think there is expertise within existing organisations to provide funding

5. One size does not fit all

3.1.3 Qu. 6 - 7 nature of membership

Qu. 6 What kind of membership? (Please tick one only)

Nearly half of respondents preferred a “mixed” membership, with individuals,

“Flexible approach which maximises the benefit by ensuring those who

“Anybody who gives funding advice to voluntary and community

“So much of funding requires partnership that it would be wrong not to

“Volunteers providing funding advice.”

“Could also consider individuals/community activists working on an unpaid

“Advisers from statutory and business agencies could perhaps be associate

“There should be charges for membership that relate to the type of

“Private Consultants or private companies should pay for the services,

3.1.4 Qu. 8 - 9 areas of work involved in a FANN

Qu. 8 Possible areas of work for a FANN are identified below:

Three main areas for service delivery are:

• Sharing / networking / mutual support for funding advisers

• Provision of specialist training and standards and funding intelligence

• Advocacy and development of funding advice work

Most significant issue - Sharing/networking/mutual support

Comments ranged from a desire to ensure that provision was countrywide:

To identifying, and dealing with gaps in provision:

“Identification of market gaps and circulation of market research should be