At this year’s Annual Forum there was an opportunity for all delegates to put questions to a panel made up of James Ferguson, Trustee, Andrew Muirhead, Chief Executive and Mary Craig, Deputy Chief Executive. The question and answer session was chaired by Norman Drummond, Chair of the Board of Trustees. We thought it would be useful and of interest for everybody to see the questions that were asked and the responses given. This session followed a review of the year by Mary Craig and an update of Andrew Muirhead’s fellowship sabbatical year.
Q1) I would be interested to know what Andrew sees as Scotland’s equivalent venture philanthropy in terms of maximising profit and the potential for future venture philanthropy?
A1) Inspiration for venture philanthropy is about seeing a social impact. I think the term ‘profit’ is unhelpful; I think what inspires philanthropists is the journey they make with the project and getting a sense of return in terms of people’s lives and the difference their investment is making. It’s about an investor seeing a social return not monetary one. (Andrew Muirhead)
Q2) Thinking forward and looking ahead, where does the Foundation see itself in five years time and how would the voluntary sector be viewed?
A2) The Foundation is principally focused on being re-active and we should continue to deliver this as effectively as we currently do, but we would also like to be able to be more active in our grant-making. (James Ferguson)
Q3) What do we mean by building funding collaborations?
A3) It’s about creating opportunities which are based on informed decisions that will create propositions for the voluntary sector. There is excitement amongst a number of funders about coming together to offer more active grant-making based on informed decisions.
I would like to add a health warning which is that we would envisage that this active approach would only be a small percentage of our grant budget but it would still provide an opportunity to move social thinking forward. From discussions with a range of people there is real encouragement for this type of active approach. (Andrew Muirhead)
Q4) Having listened to the discussion on collaboration and our recent experiences with local government cutting funding which effects front line services, is the Foundation prepared to go on funding unpopular programmes?
A4) The Foundation has a track record of supporting unpopular projects and there are a number of examples where we have brought people together to provide funding in difficult areas. The ethos of the Foundation is to fund unpopular and under funded projects and it is important for us not to shy away from these topics. The Foundation has a place as an independent voice. (Mary Craig)
Q5) The Foundation has a limited funding pot, so how do they make their decisions and how do they choose their priorities?
A5) There is a very clear process for making decisions:
• An application is assigned to one of our Assessors.
• The Assessor will visit the organisation to discuss the application in more detail.
• The Assessor will then write a report and propose a recommendation.
• This is then presented by the Assessor at a peer review meeting know as a challenge meeting. Their colleagues will challenge them on how they made the recommendation.
• From this discussion a further recommendation will be agreed upon. This is done with all the applications we receive, and would normally result in the recommendations for funding taking us over budget.
• The Assessors all meet again at what can be a very difficult meeting to look at making cuts to bring us back within budget. This is done by firstly removing applications that are not priority areas for the Foundation. If we are still over budget then we look at reducing awards if they will still be meaningful; if not it may mean that it will come out completely. It can be very close between positive recommendations and applications we don’t fund.
• Following this process recommendations are then passed to the Board who make the decision about who receives the awards.
(Mary Craig)
Comment from Chair: At a Trustees’ Meeting, the Trustees take comfort in the fact that a reject can be made into a recommendation and vice versa at any of the aforementioned stages.
Q6) The Foundation has remarked on having a good relationship with the Scottish Executive. How can this be translated to local authorities?
A6) That’s a difficult one to answer! Life is about relationships, people dealing with people, and if you gain empathy with one person sometimes that is the key. The Scottish Executive is very committed to the voluntary sector and we as a Foundation have received a very high calibre of secondees from them to work on our drugs and alcohol programme, and I think that shows the Scottish Executive’s commitment. Andrew has had some recent exposure to governments in other countries and has gained a new respect for the Scottish government in their pragmatism towards the voluntary sector. (Mary Craig)
Q7) As the Foundation and other funders become more active in their grant-making, is there a risk that the voluntary sector becomes subject to everybody else’s priorities?
A7) There is a potential danger, but there are good models of engaged philanthropy. It should be about building a stronger voluntary sector and not being too restrictive. The Foundation almost needs to be one step removed but provide support and capacity building to strengthen organisations. We need to encourage deeper discussions in this area so there is real clarity on this, and provide clear communication. (Andrew Muirhead)
Q8) How does the Foundation view social enterprise?
A8) I have just returned from a social enterprise conference in the USA and they have great social enterprise hybrid models involving businesses and community organisations. This is an area the Foundation is not knowledgeable in. Over the years, though, the capacity building support has grown and there is potential in thinking how this support can assist in this area. I hope that we get smarter on this. (Andrew Muirhead)
Q9) The Partnership Drugs Initiative takes a large percentage of funding – how does the Foundation determine its overall strategy? Does the Scottish Executive factor in this?
A9) The role of developing strategy is from Foundation’s applicants and the voluntary sector. I see the Foundation as being in two-parts:
1. It is primarily a grant-maker.
2. It also has a role to consult with the voluntary sector on the strategy and where Foundation’s criteria should focus.
The Partnership Drugs Initiative was developed through consultation. The Foundation will always reflect on issues that are led by the voluntary sector.
(Andrew Muirhead)
Q10) Do other Funders meet to discuss strategies and ideas?
A10) Good question. There are two groups that meet up. The first is the Scottish Grant Making Trusts Group which discusses best practice between Funders. The second is the Funders Forum which gives the opportunity to get a better understanding of other Funders. (Mary Craig)
Q11) Are there any plans to increase the financial support to the overseas programme?
A11) At the beginning we were unsure about grant-making at a distance and what impact a small fund could make. We have been proved wrong. The fund makes a big difference and we have positive experiences from recent overseas visits on how effective the funding has been, and the benefits gained from the linkage between Scottish charities and the overseas NGOs they work with. There is a lot to be learnt from the overseas work.
Unfortunately the Foundation is limited by a mandate and would be unable to increase the fund. The Foundation had previously had a relationship with the Scottish Executive about overseas funding, but their focus changed to Malawi. This was disappointing as the Foundation would like to see more money available for other overseas areas. (Andrew Muirhead)