Evaluation of HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes. Baseline Report. March 2015

Transcription

1 Evaluation of HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes Baseline Report March 2015 Carlisle Suite 7 (Second Floor) Carlyle s Court 1 St Mary s Gate Carlisle CA3 8RY t: m: e: stephen@dcresearch.co.uk Leicester 1 Hewett Close Great Glen Leicester LE8 9DW t: m: e: jon@dcresearch.co.uk

2 CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION...1 Introduction...1 Aims of HLF Catalyst: Capacity Building Programmes...1 Aims of the Evaluation...2 Overview of Approach and Method...3 Structure of Report CONTEXT FOR CATALYST FUNDRAISING AND PRIVATE GIVING...6 Introduction OVERVIEW OF THE UMBRELLA PROGRAMMES Introduction to the Umbrella Programmes Aims and Rationale Delivery Arrangements Approaches to Targeting Beneficiaries Lessons Learned SMALL GRANTS REVIEW OF PROGRESS AND ACHIEVEMENTS SO FAR Introduction Overview of Small Grantees and their pre-catalyst Fundraising Position Impact of Catalyst: Current Fundraising Position of Small Grantees COMPARISON WITH THE WIDER HERITAGE SECTOR PERSPECTIVES FROM A CONTROL GROUP Fundraising Capacity of the Control Group Organisations... 64

3 1. INTRODUCTION This section introduces the report by outlining the aims of the HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes, setting out the aims and key questions for the evaluation, providing an overview of the approach and method that has underpinned the development of this Baseline Report, and explains the structure of the main reporting sections. Introduction 1.1 DC Research Ltd, in partnership with Emmie Kell Consulting, have been commissioned by Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) to carry out an Evaluation of the HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes. The evaluation started in summer 2014 and continues until March This document is the Baseline Report for the Evaluation, produced in February 2015 and reports on the findings of the evaluation to date, based on the first tranche of evaluation work carried out between August 2014 and February Aims of HLF Catalyst: Capacity Building Programmes 1.3 The Catalyst programme is part of a broader partnership initiative between HLF, the Department for Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) and Arts Council England (ACE). It is a national programme designed to encourage more private giving to culture and heritage, and to build the capacity and skills of organisations to diversify their income streams and access more funding from private sources. 1.4 There are three HLF Catalyst strands: Catalyst: Endowments Grants of 500,000 to 5million. Catalyst heritage: building fundraising capacity (Umbrella grants; 100,000 to 500,000). Catalyst heritage: building fundraising capacity (Small grants; 3,000 to 10,000). 1.5 This evaluation focuses on the two Catalyst capacity building programmes in which a total of 4.6 million has been invested: the Umbrella grants and the Small grants. 1.6 Given that the HLF Catalyst: Umbrella grants have received the larger proportion of HLF funding ( 3.46 million compared to 1.13 million for the Small grants) the evaluation is weighted towards assessing the impact of the Umbrella programmes. 1.7 The Catalyst capacity building grants are expected to deliver the following four outcomes: Outcomes for heritage - With our investment, heritage will be: better managed Outcomes for people - With our investment, people will have: developed skills Outcomes for communities - With our investment: your organisation will be more resilient In addition, the Catalyst programme will seek to achieve the following: bring additional private money into the heritage sector. 1

4 Aims of the Evaluation 1.8 HLF has commissioned this evaluation in order to develop a greater understanding of the impact of Catalyst funding, as well as support HLF s discussions with policy makers and stakeholders and also to contribute to the wider body of knowledge relating to private giving to heritage. 1.9 The remit of the evaluation states that the research should focus on the following key questions: (i) Achieving the programme aims: To what extent, if at all, has Catalyst capacity building supported heritage organisations to diversify their income streams and access more funding from private sources? Has the capacity building activity directly led to additional private money in the heritage sector? Is there evidence of new money being generated? To what extent have the outcomes (listed above) been achieved and what factors have determined success in these areas? (ii) Impact on heritage organisations: As a result of taking part in the Catalyst programme, are heritage organisations better managed and more resilient, with increased skills among governing bodies, staff and volunteers? Issues for consideration include: Has overall financial sustainability improved? Have organisations trialled new and innovative methods of fundraising? Is the sector better connected, with an improved understanding of donor (or investor) needs? Is a sustained step-change in fundraising behaviour and attitudes evident? Are staff at all levels fully engaged with private fundraising, including Boards? The extent to which skills have been embedded in organisations. Are knowledge retention plans in place? Have effective and viable fundraising strategies been devised and implemented? (iii) Participants, sector and regional variations: How has Catalyst been used by different parts of the heritage sector and to what degree of success? What has been the impact of Catalyst in different countries and English regions? What range and type of organisations or individuals have been involved in the projects, what skills have they learned and what have been the benefits to individuals or organisations? (iv) Lessons learned: What are the notable patterns/trends/successes and failures or challenges in building capacity to access private funding? What particularly effective or innovative tools or approaches have been adopted? What are the key lessons learned which can be shared across the sector? Are there any lessons for HLF in regards to further support in this area? Which of the two interventions has been most successful at meeting the programmes aims are there differences? 2

5 1.10 This Baseline Report is particularly focused on specific elements of the evaluation, and is intended to set out the current levels of organisational capacity in terms of diversifying income streams and accessing more funding from private sources Given that this Baseline Report is produced at a point part-way through the HLF Catalyst capacity building programmes, it naturally considers progress to date as well as what the baseline position was at the start of the programme This report therefore aims to set out the levels of organisational capacity in terms of diversifying income streams and accessing more funding from private sources for the grantees pre-catalyst, review progress to date (early 2015) as well as set out the Evaluation Framework for the HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes. Overview of Approach and Method 1.13 A number of tasks have been carried out during this stage of the evaluation. The key tasks have included: Stage 1: Inception and Progress Meetings - Stage 1 involved the Inception Meeting for the evaluation, held in August 2014 with representatives of the study team and HLF in attendance. Subsequent to the Inception Meeting regular progress updates have been provided by the study team project manager to HLF via updates and telephone discussions. Regular progress reporting is scheduled to take place throughout the evaluation. Stage 2: Desk Based Research and Analysis - Stage 2 has so far involved a range of desk based research and analysis tasks designed to support the development of evidence in terms of the programme s baseline position, and to ensure appropriate data and evidence are captured from the outset and throughout the evaluation. This has included: (i) a review of documentation, previous research, and strategy and policy surrounding fundraising and philanthropy for the heritage sector; (ii) a review of key project and programme specific documents, data and information including HLF Catalyst: capacity building grant applications, activity plans, progress reports, and end of project reports; (iii) development of an Evaluation Framework for HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes; and (iv) development of specific survey instruments and research tools, which has included: an interview schedule for consulting with Umbrella programme managers and key delivery/strategic partners, a survey for the Small grant projects, and a survey tool for the control group of heritage organisations not directly supported by HLF Catalyst. Stage 3: Consultations with Umbrella Programmes for this Baseline Report Stage 3 has involved carrying out a wide range of one-to-one consultations with representatives from each of the nine Umbrella Programmes. This has included the programme managers, delivery partners, and strategic partners, as well as the evaluation study team observing some of the training events, meetings and workshops that have taken place. Annex 2 provides a list of those individuals that have been consulted on a one-to-one basis, as well as listing the meetings and events that the evaluation team has attended these meetings include observing training events for three of the Umbrella programmes and also attending two of the Catalyst Umbrella Programme Leaders Meetings, and facilitating a workshop about the Evaluation at one of these meetings. In total there have been 39 one-to-one consultations carried out so far, and a total of five events and meetings that the study team have attended. Stage 4: Consultations with Small Grant Organisations Stage 4 has so far involved the development and implementation of an e-survey of those organisations that have received an HLF Catalyst: Small grant. In total 125 3

6 organisations received a Small grant, although a small number have had to return the award, or have had their project delayed. As such 121 organisations were surveyed in January 2015, and a total of 86 replies were received equating to a 71% response rate, which is an excellent response rate for a survey of this type. Stage 5: Consultations with partners, stakeholders, control group organisations for this Baseline Report, Stage 5 has involved the development and implementation of an e-survey of a sample of organisations from the wider heritage sector not directly involved in the HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes but that have been applicants to HLF for other grant programmes effectively a control group. In total, contact details for around 550 organisations were provided to the evaluation study team by HLF to use as the control group, although a number of the s sent out did bounce back as the address was invalid or the named individual had moved on from the organisation. This reduced the number of valid send-outs to 485. In total 113 replies were received which equates to a 23% response rate, which is a good level of response for this type of survey to heritage organisations not directly involved in the programme. Structure of Report 1.14 This document is the Baseline Report for the Evaluation of HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes, produced in March 2015, and the remainder of the report is structured as follows: Section 2 sets out the context for the HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes by providing an overview of the current and recent issues around fundraising and philanthropy for the heritage sector. Section 3 provides an overview of the Umbrella Programmes of the HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes, focusing on: the aims and rationale of the Umbrella Programmes; the delivery arrangements adopted by the programmes; approaches to targeting and engaging beneficiaries; planned scale of delivery and outputs (including progress so far); intended outcomes and capturing and evidencing impact; and lessons learned. Section 4 looks at the Small grants element of the HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes, and assesses what has been achieved so far by the organisations that have received the Small grants. This section focuses on presenting the results from the Small Grant Survey that was carried out in January Section 5 looks at the current issues around fundraising, philanthropy and private giving for the wider heritage sector through the results of the HLF Catalyst: Heritage Sector control group survey carried out in January The results of the control group survey provide a means of assessing the changes and impacts of the HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes by comparing the reported impacts and achievements (especially of the Small grantees) against the same issues for the wider heritage sector. Annex 1 provides an individual summary of each of the nine Umbrella Programmes reporting on each of the themes used in Section 3 to provide an overview of the baseline position and progress to date for each of the nine Umbrella schemes. Annex 2 provides a list of the individuals that have been consulted on a one-to-one basis so far during the evaluation, and also lists the various events, meetings and training workshops that the evaluation study team have observed and/or attended. 4

7 Annex 3 contains a copy of the Small Grant Survey used for this Baseline Report. Annex 4 contains a copy of the HLF Catalyst Heritage Sector Survey (i.e. control group survey) used for this Baseline Report. 5

8 2. CONTEXT FOR CATALYST FUNDRAISING AND PRIVATE GIVING This section provides an overview of the context for the HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes by considering the current issues around fundraising and philanthropy for the heritage sector. Introduction 2.1 This section attempts to describe the current range of funders and fundraising activities in the heritage sector at a time when many organisations are investing in trying to diversify their income and reporting increasing levels of competition in relation to Trusts and Foundations and Lottery distributors. Whilst there is a significant amount of data about the effectiveness of the charitable sector in the UK and fundraising for charities in general, there is much less for the heritage sector specifically. There is very little up to date research on the overall fundraising trends in the UK heritage sector; given that access to research is a key aspect of effective fundraising, this is in itself an issue for heritage organisations. 2.2 Overall, the Charities Aid Foundation (CAF), stated in 2011 that there were 18,030 charities in England and Wales which listed Environment/Conservation/Heritage as their cause and that the total income for this sector was 5.5billion. Figure 2.1: Number of Charities Operating by Type of Cause Source: Note: This data does not include NI or Scotland. However it does provide an indicator of the relative size of the UK s heritage sector. 6

9 Figure 2.2: Total Income by Type of Cause Source: Note: This data does not include NI or Scotland. However it does provide an indicator of the relative size of the UK s heritage sector. 2.3 Previous Arts and Business research provides an alternative source of evidence about the scale of private investment in culture and heritage. Survey data from Arts and Business indicates that in 2011/12 1 private investment accounted for over 660 million nearly 22% of total arts funding in England, with just over 36% of total arts funding coming from earned income (around 1.1 billion), and just over 41% (around 1.35 billion) from National and Local Government. 2.4 Data from the previous year (2010/11) 2 indicated that (with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland included), the contribution of private investment was at 12% ( 686 million), with the balance shifting towards National and Local Government sources (51.5%), and earned income remaining static at around 36%. 2.5 A large proportion of private investment going into the arts, is directed towards the heritage sector (35.8%), which from information given from the Arts and Business Survey data 2010/11, is due to the significant contribution (more than 200m) of individual giving to this sector. The museums sector accounts for around 16% of private investment according to the same statistics; in England only (2011/12) the museums sector accounts for around 13% of private investment

10 2.6 What is clear from all of the data, is the overwhelming bias towards London, not only in terms of individual giving, but also in relation to business investment. As a proportion of individual giving across all arts and culture sectors in England (2011/12), London absorbs around 90% of sector funding; as a proportion of business investment, London absorbs nearly 70% of sector funding. In the former this equates to nearly 336 million; for comparison, the next highest region (the South East) accounts for 2.5% equating to less than 10 million. In the latter it equates to just over 77 million; for comparison, the next highest region (again the South East) accounts for 7.2%, equating to just over 8 million. Fundraising Performance 2.7 There is emerging evidence to support the argument that some heritage organisations are improving their fundraising performance. Fundraising successes at DCMS-funded cultural organisations and Arts Council England NPOs (National Portfolio Organisations) is leading to a shrinking proportion of their revenue coming from grant-in-aid. 2.8 Figures published in the DCMS Statistical Release Charitable Giving Indicators show that for every 1 of grant-in-aid received by DCMS-funded institutions in , 47p was received in charitable giving in the form of financial donations, legacies, sponsorships and memberships. 2.9 According to the same source, the total value of funds from these sources rose dramatically to 455 million in , an increase of 162 million on the amount raised in , when fundraising generated only 28p for every 1 of grant-inaid (compared to the 47p for ) The cultural institutions included in this measure are Arts Council England (ACE) and its National Portfolio Organisations (NPOs), the British Film Institute, British Library, English Heritage and the 15 National Museums and Galleries, including Tate, the National Gallery and the V&A. The combined income of these institutions from charitable sources has increased steadily over time, and the increase in the most recent year means that combined fundraising revenues at all these organisations now ( ) stands at 455 million - more than double the 204 million reported five years ago (for ) Many of the cultural institutions included within the DCMS Statistical Release are directly or indirectly involved in Catalyst programmes. For many this is through the Arts Council England Catalyst programme 4 - which has awarded endowments to 18 arts organisations, is supporting 173 organisations through the Catalyst: capacity building and match funding scheme 5, as well as an benefitting an additional 218 organisations through the 62 awards for the Catalyst Arts: building fundraising capacity programme. For other organisations, this is through the other HLF Catalyst programme the HLF Catalyst: Endowments programme (which is a 36 million match-funding initiative supporting 31 heritage organisations 6 ). 3 icators_ pdf

11 2.12 The DCMS Statistical Release 7 suggests that the dramatic increase in charitable giving last year may be due to a number of cultural institutions running major fundraising campaigns, including the British Museum s new World Conservation and Exhibition Centre and the redevelopment at Tate Modern. This is reflected in the wide variation in fundraising revenues at individual organisations, ranging from Tate, where 3.90 was generated for every 1 of grant-in-aid, to the Royal Armouries, which raised 3p for every 1 of grant-in-aid. ACE s NPOs raised an average of 58p in , up from 51p in and from 33p five years ago 8. Sources of funding for heritage organisations Lottery Distributors 2.13 The Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) remains the biggest funder for heritage in the UK, and applications to HLF have shown an increase recently 9. This increased volume of applications may also result in higher numbers of unsuccessful applications - however, HLF s ability to meet this increased demand will be assisted by the fact that projected income for HLF is expected to increase over the next few years (see Figure 2.3). Figure 2.3: HLF s Projected Share of National Lottery Distribution Fund Income ( million) Source: The sale of the Olympic village will see 69million returned to the lottery distributors the Big Lottery is continuing to lobby for this (and other sums promised by the government in association with the funding of the Olympics) to be returned to the Lottery distributors. The Institute of Fundraising (IoF) recently reported that the 69million was due to be paid back in July 2014 but (as of October 2014) the amount had yet to be paid The position and importance of HLF as the key funder for heritage is wellrecognised, and has been described as probably the only game in town now 10 for heritage fundraising A recent report revealed that almost half of Arts Council England s funding for will go to London based organisations. The report, Hard Facts to Swallow 11 has generated much discussion in the cultural sector about the regional funding allocations awarded by the Arts Council. Although Arts Council England (ACE) says it is unlikely to reform it seems likely that the report s findings will strengthen the case for higher levels of ACE funding in the regions and lower levels in London In terms of heritage specific activities, ACE currently funds several museumspecific programmes including Museum Development in England, the Major Partner 7 icators_ pdf 8 Source: quote from Dame Jenny Abramsky (ex Chair of HLF), The Telegraph, 27 July

12 Museum and Resilience grant programmes as well as supporting a number of National Portfolio Organisations (NPOs) some of which are heritage organisations ACE s commitment to the philanthropy agenda for cultural organisations is further evidenced by the appointment in 2013, of a Director of Philanthropy. Some of the initial activity of this role appears to have been in the supporting a series of new fellowships in arts philanthropy to develop skills in the sector 12, and these fellowships themselves form part of a wider Transforming Arts fundraising commissioned grant. 13 Local Authority funding 2.19 Local authorities remain the biggest revenue funders of heritage organisations in the UK. However their investment is diminishing in the light of austerity measures which have already seen significant cuts being made to heritage organisations funding from local government. In some cases local government has stopped funding some heritage activities altogether, some have set up new Trusts (and continued funding heritage via annual grants to these Trusts see below) and others have continued to reduce the amount they invest in their cultural and heritage services Box 2.1 below is from a recent article in the Museums Journal, which considers alternative models and approaches to funding arts and culture for local government. Box 2.1: A new era of local authority funding A recent report by the New Local Government Network (NLGN) thinktank examining alternative models of supporting arts and culture for local authorities could transform how the museum sector is funded in the light of funding cuts. The NLGN report, On With the Show: Supporting Local Arts and Culture 14, by Claire Mansfield, is based on data provided by 211 respondents from 183 local authorities, with the highest percentage of respondents (19.7%) from the south-east of England. The funding models explored include putting existing organisations out to trust or similar arm slength arrangements, an issue that has dominated the sector in the past 20 years; sharing services and resources between local authorities; and moving from grant giving to commissioning models of financial support, where local authorities commission services based on outcomes. Crucially, local authority funding in England for arts and culture has fallen by 19% over the past three years, according to the National Campaign for the Arts. Some local authorities are considering a more radical model aligning their arts and culture provision with other essential services. Wakefield Council is cited in the report as a good example of a council that is generating strong links between culture and public health. Its Creative Partners grant scheme includes the Make it Happen: Culture Cures strand. The initiative supports arts projects led by Wakefield-based arts organisations aimed at improving the wellbeing of vulnerable communities. This approach could galvanise the sector, as health and wellbeing is one of the top three reasons cited by respondents for funding arts and culture. Source:

13 2.21 The extent of the decline in local authority funding for museums was considered in an article in the Museums Journal (2013) which summarised the position regarding local authority cuts: Box 2.2: Local Authority Funding for Culture and Heritage Government data shows that local authority funding for museums fell by 11%, nearly 23m, in The Local Authority Revenue Expenditure and Financing in England: 2011 to 2012 Final Out-turn, released by the Department for Communities and Local Government, also shows that cultural spend by local authorities in England dropped by 7.8% in Local authority museums are not the only ones feeling the squeeze. The London Transport Museum has warned that unless it can cut staff costs by 15% over the next three years, the equivalent of roughly 15 posts, it will face a deficit of 705,000 by This follows Transport for London s (TfL) decision to withdraw 1.5m per year of funding for the museum by Source: summarised from Further evidence of the issues around local authority support for culture and heritage is exemplified by the fact that (at the time of writing) Derby Council has announced its plans to cut funding to its museum service by 26% in the next financial year (Derby Museums Trust is set for a 314,000 cut in its 1.2million annual grant from the council). Trusts and Foundations 2.23 There are over 1,000 grant making charitable trusts and foundations in the UK. The Heritage Alliance provides a directory of over 300 Trusts and Foundations which support heritage Giving is up nearly 10% but income is down by nearly the same amount indicating that the pattern of investment by Foundations may not be sustainable. Several years of low investment returns mean that many Foundations are having to make tough decisions about how they make grants; some have restricted their criteria and narrowed their area of focus Trusts and Foundations in the UK provide about 14% of overall private giving to charitable activities. Private giving overall makes up about 30% of the income of charities in the UK. Total giving from all private sources (individuals, legacies, companies, foundations and Gift Aid) provides UK good causes with 17.5billion annually and foundations contribute 2.4billion of this. (68.6% comes from individuals and companies, 11.4% from legacies and 3% from Gift Aid) Heritage organisations report success rates in applications to Trusts and Foundations have decreased in the last 12 months whilst anecdotally there are suggestions that an average of 1 in 10 applications are now successful, other sources suggest that the success rates for some have decreased from 1 in 6 to 1 in However this is at odds with the data from the Association of Charitable Foundations whose members report a decrease in the number of applications received and an overall approval rate of 25-50% on applications received. This may indicate that there are specific factors at play within the heritage sector which are not evident in the wider charitable sector

14 Individual donations 2.27 According to the most recent edition of NCVO s Civil Society Almanac survey 18, the proportion of people donating to charitable causes in a typical month in the UK has decreased over the last year, from 58% to 55%, equivalent to 28.4 million adults The 58% level of giving in 2010/11 was the joint highest since 2004/05. Giving in seems to have decreased back to a more typical level; apart from the dip in , the proportion of giving was stable at 56% between and The median donation given in a typical month in was 10 per donor. The median donation of 10 in decreased from 11 in and 12 in ; prior to that the median had remained stable at 10 for the previous five years The mean donation in was 27 per donor, 4 lower than in , and the lowest mean value since The median average is a better indicator of a typical donation than the mean average which is skewed upwards by a small number of larger donations Major donations to London based organisations still far outweigh those to regional heritage groups. The development of benefactors and major donations is a time consuming process and very little data appears to be available as to the success of the heritage sector in securing funds from major donations Research completed by the Art Fund and the National Museum Director Council showed that although 93% of museum visitors give to charities only 40% of them give to museums; most visitors do not realise that museums need their donations and are unsure what such a donation might support The Association of Independent Museums has recently published a report into donations boxes 20 recognised as one of the most popular means of trying to secure individual donations at heritage attractions A white paper by the legacy agency Smee & Ford says the most generous UK region for legacies is the South-East of England; the least generous is west Scotland At the level of household giving, the results of recent analysis show that there are marked regional variations in general household giving to charity. The research showed that differences in giving participation were strongly and positively related to differences in income, both between and within nations and regions. This means that in terms of raising the highest amount possible, there is pressure on fundraisers in Scotland to target the same relatively small target group. This convergence pushes up competition. However, compared with the rest of the UK, participation in giving was relatively high in Scotland, at 29% compared with 25% in Wales and some English regions, but lower than the 32% found for the South West of England. Giving in Scotland remained at a steady level between 2001 and 2008, compared with Wales where there was a slow decline Turning to legacy giving, it is clear that Scotland faces particular challenges in maintaining or increasing potential charity funding from this source. In relation to legacy giving, people in both Scotland and Wales are less likely to make wills, and to leave charitable bequests, than in other areas of the UK. The largest fundraisers

15 contain some of Scotland s major national institutions, including the University of Edinburgh and the University of Aberdeen, National Museums Scotland, the Tattoo and the Royal Botanical Gardens. Although they have a large slice of the Scottish fundraising cake, their support is partly international, not competing with local patterns of support The largest source of fundraised income to the large Scottish fundraising charities, is donations, which provide more than half, at 153 million. Legacies were worth 48 million, and provide a further substantial 16%. Events fundraising has an important place in Scottish fundraising, bringing in an income of almost 26 million to the largest fundraisers There are some striking differences between the patterns of fundraising income amongst the largest 50 in Scotland and in England/Wales 22. Both samples get around half of their income from donations, but largest charities in England/Wales get more than one quarter of their income from legacies, compared with the 16% for Scotland; events fundraising provides twice the proportion of income in Scotland as for England. It may be that events present a more attractive proposition to Scottish donors, than to those south of the Border, constituting a highly reciprocal form of fundraising, as well as providing the opportunity to participate 23. Online giving 2.38 There does not appear to have been any comprehensive research into the success of online giving activities for heritage organisations. A study commissioned by the Cornwall Museums Partnership in 2012 and completed by Development Partners concluded that performance was patchy and that museums and heritage organisations still lag behind the performance of the broader charitable sector in terms of online fundraising. This was due mainly to the ineffective communication of museums charitable status and their charitable cause as a core part of their brand/identity Notwithstanding these issues, and the lack of specific evidence about the success of online giving, museums and heritage organisations are experimenting with a range of online giving options including donate buttons on their websites, options to donate at point of purchase online and tools like In 2013 the National Funding Scheme was set up, which initiated the DONATE programme 24 ; a mobile donation platform specifically aimed at the arts and culture sector. The service provides organisations with a centralised and accessible donation platform which is free from any upfront charges. Crowdfunding 2.41 Crowdfunding is a comparatively new funding source across all businesses, with the most well-known crowdfunding platforms - for example IndieGoGo and Kickstarter - having operated for just over five years at present. Crowdfunding offers a unique opportunity in the context of arts and culture, as the platform is particularly well adapted to offers of a more intangible nature. This is a product of the ability of creators to offer non-financial rewards for financial inputs from the 22 %20Scottish%20Conference.pdf 23 %20Scottish%20Conference.pdf

16 crowd, which makes the platform accessible for the creative and cultural sectors; particularly in film and video games, as well as for the heritage sector The Eden Project recently launched a high profile crowdfunding campaign raising 1.5million in two days 25. Crowdfunding is increasingly being used as a method to raise project specific funds for heritage organisations although the amount raised by Eden (and the return offered to investors) is unusual and the crowdfunding initiative is actually part of a wider strategy to raise the profile of fundraising at Eden Art Happens is a new crowdfunding project involving five organisations working in partnership with the Art Fund to raise between 10,000 and 25,000 each for a series of small, scale, creative projects 26. Furthermore, Leach Pottery successfully used Kickstarter, a crowd funding platform, to raise 4,500 to refurbish an historic kiln on the site in In general, crowdfunding is a relatively new fundraising activity for heritage organisations many of whom are just considering/developing this area of activity for the first time. A recent report commissioned by HLF 27 found that of the alternative non-grant funding sources, the study found a high level of interest amongst respondents in crowdfunding as a new source of fundraising. Corporate sponsorship 2.45 Whilst some heritage organisations, most notably those in London, have had success in attracting a range of corporate sponsors, this trend is not apparent in the wider sector although there are some examples across the country of successful corporate membership schemes as well as corporate sponsorship Furthermore, some corporate sponsorship relationships have been subject to some controversy, for example BP s sponsorship of the Portrait Prize at the National Portrait Gallery and their relationship with Tate 28. Other corporate sponsorships have been developed without being subject to such levels of controversy, although it does highlight the importance of ethical considerations around corporate sponsorship and fundraising more generally for the heritage sector Like Friends schemes (see below) the time and cost involved in developing corporate partnerships is not to be underestimated and for many smaller organisations this area of fundraising has been less fruitful in the past. There are however some notable successes for instance Leach Pottery s partnership with Seasalt 29 where the benefit to the heritage organization is as much about publicity and brand awareness as it is about cash in the bank The way in which companies choose to support charities is changing. New groups like BeyondMe provide a coordinated approach to CSR, offering to match charities seeking support with companies looking to offer their skills, time and resources. BeyondMe is recruiting charities partners to receive See

17 funding and work placements and, at the time of writing, it does not appear that any heritage charities are involved (several arts organisations are involved) 30. Business rates 2.49 A consequence of the current round of public sector cuts is likely to be the removal of discretionary rate relief by Local Authorities (where it had existed) for charities Different arrangements will continue to exist in different Local Authorities in England but the removal of discretionary rate relief for some effectively means the closing down of one source of income/support for heritage charities. This is likely to have a very significant income on smaller organisations and means that their income generation targets will have to rise sharply. Gift Aid 2.51 Recent changes to the law have affected the ways in which charities can apply gift aid. These changes affect heritage charities which apply donations to transactions (and then Gift Aid applies to these donations) The new regulations mean that if online purchasing systems offer the opportunity to give an extra donation the purchaser must consciously opt in to this extra donation; it is not sufficient to give them the opportunity to un-tick a pre-selected donation amount Whilst this is unlikely to affect smaller charities who do not have sophisticated online sales facilities it remains to be seen whether or not this new guidance will reduce the amount of income larger charities are able to earn via Gift Aid and online donations. Friends Schemes 2.54 The November 2014 edition of the Museums Journal features an article about the increasing interest in Friends schemes by museums 31. The article notes the introduction of Friends schemes at the National Gallery which is charging 50 per annum for Friends membership, as well as other successful schemes such as the Royal Academy, where friends membership accounts for one-third of its revenue; Tate raised 9million through its members in ; and membership at the V&A was 2.24million last year with 1.85million invested in the museum There is recognition that friends schemes have other benefits in addition to direct income from joining fees including friends as volunteers, additional donations and legacy giving One notable finding for museums is that blockbuster shows can drive up their membership figures with there being an acknowledgement that there is a direct link between membership numbers and popular exhibitions. In addition to these national examples, the benefits of membership schemes to regional museums is also highlighted

18 Box 2.3: Benefits of Membership and Friends Schemes The National Gallery s recent launch of a membership scheme has highlighted the growing importance of these initiatives for museums in raising profile and revenue. For an annual fee of 50, National Gallery membership benefits include free unlimited entry to all exhibitions (the average cost of a temporary exhibition is 18), an online magazine and invitations to after-hours events. The institution, like all national museums, faced a 15% drop in grant in aid in 2010, and a further 5% government cut in revenue and capital funding last year. Friends membership fees account for a third of the Royal Academy s revenue, while Tate raised 9m through its members in Last year, membership income at the Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A) in London was 2.24m, with 1.85m invested in the museum. A V&A spokeswoman says the financial benefits of a scheme extends beyond the joining fee, as members often support the museum in other ways as volunteers, with additional donations or by leaving a legacy. Museums have discovered that blockbuster shows can drive up their membership figures. There is a direct link between membership numbers and popular exhibitions, adds the V&A spokeswoman. The British Museum has experienced a similar phenomenon. A marked rise in numbers must, in large part, be attributed to the overwhelming success of Life and Death in Pompeii and Herculaneum, says a spokeswoman. Almost 1,000 members signed up in the final week of the exhibition last September. Regional museums also benefit from membership schemes. James Williams, the head of marketing and visitor experience at Canterbury Museums and Galleries, says that the 45 membership, introduced in 2012 with the reopening of the Beaney House of Art and Knowledge attracts new audiences and provides revenue. The Friends of National Museum Wales (Amgueddfa Cymru) donate about 20,000 a year to the museum through their activities. The museum says the scheme offers participation in an association of like-minded people. As cuts in public funding continue, museums are recognising that building a loyal audience via membership schemes is a good way for museums to boost income. Source: summarised from Whilst recognising the potential benefits that friends schemes can provide, as exemplified above, it is important for heritage organisations to give due consideration to the costs and benefits of implementing such schemes - there are examples (identified anecdotally) where the benefits to the Friends outstrip the benefits to the organisation because of the intensive nature of managing these programmes effectively, and in such cases, there can be no financial gain (and possibly a resource loss) for the heritage organisation of adopting such a scheme. National Initiatives 2.58 There are a range of national initiatives in place which seek to develop private giving. For example, Giving Tuesday whilst no figures are yet available, various sources report big increases in charitable giving compared with the same day last year There was a sharp rise in charitable donations on Giving Tuesday, which took place on 2 nd December 2014 (according to the Charities Aid Foundation). 33 CAF said it was not yet able to put a figure on how much was raised for good causes on the day, which it brought to the UK for the first time this year, but that various sources had reported large increases in charitable donations. For example, the software

19 provider Blackbaud reported that UK donations were up by 270% compared with the same day last year; and the online giving platform JustGiving said that total donations rose by 46% compared with the same day in Additionally, the Big Give Christmas Challenge 2014 took place recently, hoping to build on the success of the 2013 Big Give Christmas Challenge where more than 11 million was raised for 387 charities Please see and 17

20 3. OVERVIEW OF THE UMBRELLA PROGRAMMES This section provides an overview of the Umbrella Programmes of the HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes, focusing on a range of specific topics including: the aims of, and rationale underpinning, the Umbrella Programmes; the delivery arrangements adopted by the programmes; approaches to targeting and engaging beneficiaries; planned scale of delivery and outputs (including progress so far); intended outcomes and capturing and evidencing impact; and lessons learned. Introduction to the Umbrella Programmes 3.1 The Catalyst Umbrella grants programme was open to organisations and partnerships working across the heritage sector or parts of the sector, and across the UK or a part of the UK. Grants from 100,000 to 500,000 were available for Umbrella bodies providing support services for heritage organisations. 3.2 HLF s original intention was for Umbrella projects to deliver a range of capacity building services, learning and networking opportunities to enable heritage organisations to increase the funding they receive from private sources, such as individual and corporate donations and trusts and foundations. 3.3 According to HLF 35, the initiative was intended to: Increase the capacity of heritage organisations to access funding from private sources. Bring additional private money into the heritage sector. Improve the financial sustainability of heritage organisations. 3.4 More specifically, Umbrella grants were expected to achieve outcomes for heritage, people and communities set out in Section 1 of this report i.e.: Outcomes for heritage - With our investment, heritage will be: better managed Outcomes for people - With our investment, people will have: developed skills Outcomes for communities - With our investment: your organisation will be more resilient In addition, the Catalyst programme will seek to achieve the following: bring additional private money into the heritage sector. 3.5 HLF s desire was to achieve a good spread of applications covering the UK and heritage sector as a whole, and to help achieve this partnership bids were welcomed, with an expectation that potential partners could include those with expertise in private fundraising and training, or other umbrella bodies which cover a different part of the heritage sector or geographic area. However, HLF did emphasise that as the initiative aims to build capacity amongst heritage organisations, they expected to fund projects led by an umbrella body with a strong focus on the heritage sector and not, for example, by a learning or training provider VOCyStizX3g 18

21 3.6 Following a two-stage application process, a total of 3.46 million 36 across nine grants was awarded to Umbrella organisations, Table 3.1 (overleaf) provides an overview of each of the nine Umbrella programmes. 3.7 As Table 3.1 shows, the Umbrella projects are running for varying lengths of time approximately from between eighteen months to just over three years. 3.8 Each of the nine Umbrella organisations are delivering separate programmes of activity with coverage tailored to different geographical areas and heritage sectors. Individual summaries of each of the nine programmes is set out in Annex 1 to this report. This section synthesises the key issues for the Umbrella Programmes around some of the key aspects of the Umbrella programmes, namely: Aims and Rationale which considers the overall aims of the programmes and the strength of the rationale underpinning the programmes. Delivery Arrangements which considers the delivery arrangements and structures that each of the Umbrella programmes have put in place, including partnership arrangements, funding and finance issues. Approaches to Targeting Beneficiaries which considers the different approaches that have been taken by the Umbrella programmes to targeting and engaging with beneficiaries and the issues around this. Planned Delivery & Outputs and Reflections on Delivery So Far which sets out what the intended scale of delivery and outputs are for the programmes, and also sets out some reflections on delivery and progress so far with each of the Umbrella programmes. Outcomes and Achievements which assesses the intended outcomes and achievements for the programmes, and considers the issues around capturing and evidencing the impact of the programmes individually and collectively. Lessons Learned which reflects on the consultations carried out this far with Umbrella programme leads, partner and delivery organisations and draws out some early lessons than have been learned and examples of good practice. 3.9 The remainder of this section addresses each of these aspects in turn First, some overarching information about the nine programmes is presented including the partnership funding arrangements and the intended total number of people trained through each of the programmes. 36 The 3.46 million includes the development grants awarded to each Umbrella programme which was a total of 146,000. The total funding for delivery is 3.32 million, and taken together these total 3.46 million. 19

22 Table 3.1: Summary Overview of the HLF Catalyst: Umbrella Programmes Applicant Umbrella Delivery Delivery Partners Organisation Programme Timescale Funding Arts and Business Scotland Cornwall County Council Hampshire Cultural Trust Norfolk Museums and Archaeology Service Northern Ireland Environment Link The Heritage Alliance The National Archives The Princes Regeneration Trust (PRT) Wales Council for Voluntary Action Resourcing Scotland's Heritage Cornwall Museum Partnership Inspiring a Culture of Philanthropy SHAREd Enterprise: developing business minded museums Investing in Northern Ireland's Heritage Giving to Heritage Giving Value Building Resources, Investment and Community Knowledge (BRICK) Giving the past a future sustainable heritage in Wales Built Environment Forum Scotland, Archaeology Scotland, Greenspace Scotland and Museums Galleries Scotland Institute of Fundraising, Directory of Social Change, National Arts Fundraising School Working with Norfolk Museums & Archaeology service to deliver the two annual joint conferences Working with Hampshire County Council Arts and Museum Service to deliver the two annual joint conferences Common Purpose; Supporting Communities NI; and The Business Institute, University of Ulster The Institute of Fundraising (IoF) Archives & Records Association, Institute of Fundraising, Scottish Council on Archives, Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, and Welsh Government (CyMAL: Museums Archives and Libraries Wales division) Locality CyMAL and The Funding Centre Source: Summary of HLF documents and data, September 2014 Jan March 2017 Dec March 2016 Jan June 2017 Jan June 2016 Jan Dec 2015 Jan Jun 2016 March Dec 2017 Jan Dec 2016 Jan Dec , , , , , , , , ,600 20

23 3.11 Each of the Umbrella programmes is matching their grant from HLF with other sources of partnership funding Table 3.2 below shows the funding split between HLF funding and partnership funding This shows that the overall proportion of total funding that HLF is providing across all nine Umbrella programmes is 77%. However, the specific proportion for the individual Umbrellas varies from 56% (The Prince s Regeneration Trust) up to 95% (Norfolk Museums & Archaeology Service). Table 3.2: Summary of Funding for the Umbrella Programmes Organisation name HLF Award Partnership funding Hampshire Cultural Trust 292, ,000 Northern Ireland Environment Link 216,500 29,500 The National Archives 476, ,450 Arts & Business Scotland 452,200 91,300 WCVA 464,600 46,441 The Prince's Regeneration Trust 421, ,115 Norfolk Museums & Archaeology Service 229,000 11,000 Cornwall County Council 278, ,989 The Heritage Alliance 487, ,910 Total 3,318,900 2,205,895 Source: Summary of HLF documents and data, September 2014 Total (HLF as % of total) 394,500 (74%) 246,000 (88%) 589,550 (81%) 543,500 (83%) 511,041 (91%) 746,515 (56%) 240,000 (95%) 436,889 (64%) 620,610 (79%) 4,328,605 (77%) 3.13 Overall it is estimated that more than 15,000 learning opportunities (including online resources) will be created across all nine Umbrellas. To give an indication of overall anticipated outputs across each of the nine Umbrellas, Table 3.3 below summarises the planned number of people trained by each Umbrella (according to the original Round 2 application forms). Table 3.3: Summary of Planned Numbers Trained for Umbrella Programmes Organisation name Numbers trained (from application) Hampshire Cultural Trust 2,087 Northern Ireland Environment Link 780 The National Archives 1,000 Arts & Business Scotland 450 WCVA 450 The Prince's Regeneration Trust 6,048 Norfolk Museums & Archaeology Service 429 Cornwall County Council70 The Heritage Alliance4,000 Total 15,314 Source: Summary of HLF documents and data, September

24 3.14 It should of course be noted that the table does not capture or take account of the different scales of delivery across the nine Umbrella programmes, nor the different levels and intensities of training delivered. Also, it does not take account of whether or not the people being trained engage in one single event/activity or are involved in multiple engagements with the Umbrella this issue (especially around cohort and open approaches to targeting beneficiaries and also multiple engagements of beneficiaries are considered later in this section) It should also be noted that there have been variances in the targets for numbers of people trained since these original numbers were set (for example, Northern Ireland Environment Link have stated that they will achieve double the original targets set for the Investing in Northern Ireland s Heritage programme to 1500 individuals and 100 organisations). Aims and Rationale 3.16 This section considers the overall aims of the programmes and the strength of the rationale underpinning the programmes Overall, there are clear aims and a strong rationale for the HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes in general, and for the Umbrella programmes in particular, and the aims of the programmes fit clearly with the current HLF Strategic Outcomes ( ), contributing towards a range of outcomes The rationale for the programme is underpinned by research work carried out by HLF in , and also by the baseline evidence reports, mapping capacity building needs reports, needs surveys and analysis, and other research carried out by the nine Umbrella programmes during their development stage and submitted along with their Round 2 applications Consultations with representatives from the Umbrella programmes confirmed the clear rationale for the programme, and also set out some of the early conceptions that there were about the anticipated demand for the support provided via the programmes. For example, expectations that there would be a huge latent demand for the programme The rationale is further strengthened by the timing of the programme it being described variously as very apt, and also overdue and potentially too late. These perceptions reflect three key issues around the rationale for HLF Catalyst First, the general need for the heritage sector to develop its fundraising capacity in general, and especially around private sources something which is important for the general and ongoing financial sustainability and resilience of the sector, and which has been needed for some time Second, the recent changes in the wider context for the heritage sector, in terms of the public sector funding landscape, is what leads to suggestions that the rationale is even stronger now than it was when the programme was initiated. The reduction in the scale of public sector support for the heritage sector over recent years has increased the need for heritage organisations to develop their fundraising capacity, diversify their income streams and increase income from private sources. With fears that the tightening/reduction of public sector support for the heritage sector will become even greater going forward, aligned to the fact 37 ons.aspx#.vormlm-a33g 22

25 that reductions in public sector funding and support have occurred at different timescales in different geographic areas across the UK (and so some areas are only now facing imminent reductions in public funding), it is likely that the need for the HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes has become even greater over time Third, the concerns around the timing of the programme being too late reflect on the issue that increasing capacity for fundraising, and in particular for income from private sources is something that can take time to both develop and also to achieve success with. As such, there are concerns that this lead in time to increasing fundraising capacity and increasing income from private sources means that success and impact of the programme will not be instantaneous, and therefore will not be able to immediately address (and compensate for) the reductions in public sector support which are already happening Reflections from the consultees from the Umbrella programmes also noted some other issues that both reinforce the underpinning rationale of HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes, and also the need for the programmes First, delivery thus far has highlighted that some heritage organisations engaging in the Umbrella programmes, are starting at a very low base (in terms of fundraising capacity and capability) and as such there is a long distance to travel for some towards success on these issues. Some consultees acknowledged that the low starting point was even lower than they had anticipated Linked to this, the scale of some beneficiary heritage organisations is also a key issue in that, as well as there being challenges around their current fundraising capacity, they are also facing challenges in having sufficient capacity to simply participate in the Umbrella programmes. It is felt by consultees that some small heritage organisations simply do not have sufficient time to engage with the Umbrella programmes Additionally, perceptions and attitudes are also thought to play a role here with some heritage organisations lacking the knowledge, experience or understanding about issues around fundraising generally and raising income from private sources (including concerns about engaging with, and a mistrust of, the corporate sector ). As a result some organisations (or individuals within organisations) are thought to be failing to see what the benefits of engaging with the programme would provide A second issue, on which there are mixed perspectives and opinions, relates to the wider issues around the position of heritage and philanthropy, with suggestions from some that it is hard to make the case for heritage, and that heritage doesn t pull at heartstrings to the same extent as other causes and charities. However, others suggest that this is not just an issue for heritage but affects a wide range of different sectors seeking to increase fundraising, diversify income sources, and increase private giving Finally, linking back to the early issues around the level of need for the HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes, there is an expectation from consultees that the demand, or need, will still be there at the end of the current HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes, and that these current programmes will not be able to address and fulfil all of the need, resulting in an ongoing need for support that will need to be addressed. 23

26 Delivery Arrangements 3.30 This section considers the delivery arrangements and structures that each of the Umbrella programmes have put in place, including partnership arrangements, funding and finance issues Firstly, each Umbrella programme involves a lead partner and a mix of other delivery and strategic partners as such, each of the nine programmes is a partnership (to greater or lesser extent), although the mix of the partners, the scale of the partnership, the roles of individual partners varies across the nine programmes In terms of the development and evolution of these partnerships, it is interesting to note that they were developed and evolved in different ways. Some partnerships were more natural and came about through direct engagement between the lead organisation and other partners. Some partnerships were encouraged where HLF played a role in facilitating and helping to develop/encourage the partnerships some of which required only a small level of encouragement and support to develop, whilst others received stronger encouragement to collaborate. In addition, some partnerships have evolved and changed as the programmes have started delivering with some partners either no longer being involved, or having a different role to that originally envisaged. Some partners are involved in more than one Umbrella programme, but may have notably different roles within different programmes e.g. the Institute of Fundraising is a named partner in Giving to Heritage, but is involved as a contracted deliverer in other programmes to different degrees. The role of partners (e.g. those named in Table 3.1) can also vary across programmes with some being involved directly in aspects of delivery and other being involved in a more strategic or advisory role In addition to the named partners (Table 3.1) the Umbrella programmes also note the contribution made by other partners around particular aspects of delivery. For example, a number of the programmes make use of volunteers or collaborators who are not paid/reimbursed for their contributions but who make notable in kind contributions to delivery for example, by providing heritage specific examples that form part of the training events/workshops etc In terms of the overall planned scale of delivery, as Table 3.3 showed, in total there is expected to be more than 15,000 learning opportunities delivered through the nine Umbrella programmes by the end of the HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes Across the nine Umbrellas a range of different delivery models are being implemented to provide these training opportunities. This includes the following (and some Umbrella programmes are using a combination of these): in house delivery (where the lead organisation is delivering the training themselves e.g. Giving the past a future sustainable heritage in Wales, BRICK 38 ); 38 BRICK is using a combination of in house delivery and partner delivery. 24

27 partner delivery (where one of the named partners is delivering the training (e.g. the Institute of Fundraising in the Giving to Heritage programme); and contracted delivery (where the delivery of training is contracted out to specific trainers/training organisations e.g. Resourcing Scotland s Heritage, Cornwall Museum Partnership, Investing in Northern Ireland's Heritage, SHAREd, Inspiring a Culture of Philanthropy) Other aspects around delivery that have emerged through the consultations with Umbrella programmes relates to particular aspects of funding and finance A key issue here relates to the issues about the financial cost to beneficiaries of attending events, training, workshops, etc. There are ongoing considerations around charging, and this is related to the role and purpose of charging for those Umbrella programmes that do charge (some of the cohort programmes do not charge attendees) Charging for events has (at least) three different roles first, it is a means of raising income/funding for some of the Umbrella programmes (as part of the match funding required to complement HLF funding); second, it is used as a means of encouraging attendees through being set at a very competitive level (i.e. offering very good value for money) compared to other similar training being offered at commercial levels; and third, putting a price on attending the event (rather than offering it for free) seeks to ensure that the potential attendees place a value on (or recognise the value of) the training/event/workshop making them more likely to attend, as well as the fact that they are more inclined to attend as they have paid a fee when they made their booking There is therefore a balance to be struck around the level of charging of beneficiaries to attend, and some of the Umbrellas have developed specific initiatives to ensure that the charge does not discourage people from attending. This includes offering bursaries (which can be travel bursaries, bursaries towards the cost of accredited learning, or bursaries to back-fill posts to free up beneficiaries to engage in learning e.g. work shadowing), as well as taking a flexible approach to the implementation of charging where it will deter attendance Consultees feel that, especially for smaller (very small) organisations, low cost is key to their engagement and it is therefore important to retain this in order to encourage such organisations to engage in the Umbrella programmes Some Umbrellas are revisiting their charging policy (e.g. Resourcing Scotland s Heritage) and are implementing a tiered charging policy based on organisation turnover (with larger organisations (turnover above 250,000) paying a higher rate) In addition to the considerations around charging, other funding related issues that are ongoing considerations for some of the Umbrellas include ensuring that they will achieve the level of match funding required (and the efforts that are required to successfully raise the match funding); the treatment of in kind contributions (and the extent to which such contributions can be counted towards match funding contributions); and (for Cornwall Museums Partnership) dealing with the issues around the treatment of VAT. 25

28 Approaches to Targeting Beneficiaries 3.43 This section considers the different approaches that have been taken by the Umbrella programmes to targeting and engaging with beneficiaries, and the issues around this Each of the Umbrella programmes has a different geographic and heritage focus, and this obviously influences their specific approaches adopted to targeting and engaging with beneficiaries However, the different approaches can be, at a simplistic level, grouped under two general headings the cohort approach and the open approach The cohort approach has been adopted by SHAREd Enterprise; Cornwall Museum Partnership; and Inspiring a Culture of Philanthropy all of which have targeted and engaged (through various approaches) a specific group of individuals/organisations and are providing ongoing support and training to these specific organisations. It is also interesting to note that all three Umbrella programmes that have adopted a cohort approach are both geographically focused and also focused on a specific element of the heritage sector in all three cases, museums. Given the focus on museums for these three cohorts, it has also been noted that alignment with other provision in the region can be beneficial to the Umbrella programme e.g. Museums Development Networks The other Umbrella programmes (i.e. Resourcing Scotland's Heritage; Investing in Northern Ireland's Heritage; Giving to Heritage; Giving Value; BRICK; and Giving the past a future sustainable heritage in Wales) have adopted a more open approach where each training event, workshop, etc. is open to anyone within the specific target geographic/heritage profile of that Umbrella programme However, even within some of the open programmes there are beneficiaries who are engaging in multiple learning and training opportunities and they are therefore developing an implicit cohort of beneficiaries who are engaged on a journey of development and progression. This is an important consideration for this overall evaluation (and the individual Umbrella evaluations) to consider about how the journey and progression over time of such beneficiaries is recognised and captured, and the extent to which a cohort approach leads (or does not lead) to a more embedded and sustainable impact and outcome through the ongoing engagement In general, one of the challenges that is faced more by Umbrellas adopting the open approach than the cohort approach is about the scale of effort required by the Umbrella programmes to ensure sufficiently high levels of attendance at each event, workshop, etc There is a recognition, especially amongst some of those Umbrellas that have an open approach, that the amount of effort required to market and promote, and ensure that there is sufficient take up for each event is higher than was originally anticipated. This (perhaps not surprisingly) seems to be more of an issue for the Umbrella programmes that are delivering on a wider geographic scale (i.e. England wide or UK wide) Within this general issue, different Umbrella programmes are noting that there are particular hot spots and cold spots i.e. specific areas where it is easier to engage beneficiaries (hot spots) and conversely, some areas where it is proving to be particularly challenging to engage beneficiaries (cold spots). These do not just relate to geographic areas, but to a range of characteristics of target beneficiaries: 26

29 Geographic Location. Type of Heritage. Type of Individual Beneficiary (staff, trustee, volunteer). Level of Experience (of fundraising). Scale/Size of Beneficiary Organisation. Course Focus/Content Going forward, the evaluation would benefit from being able to assess these hot spots and cold spots across all Umbrella programmes collectively and this is something that the evaluation study team will explore with HLF and the individual Umbrella programmes over the coming months, with the aim of developing a simple approach to data collection (a data pro forma) that would allow this to be assessed systematically. Such information should be useful to HLF, the individual Umbrella programmes, and the evaluation study team Given the challenges that some Umbrella programmes are facing, it is interesting to note some of the routes that Umbrellas are finding useful in terms of promoting/ marketing to, and engaging with, target beneficiaries. Examples include: the use of e-flyers to existing databases of heritage organisations; promoting events via relevant ing lists (e.g. JISC mail lists); the use of social media; using existing membership networks; ensuring that a portfolio of different approaches and routes are used and that material is distributed in a variety of formats; engage with established organisations/groups that have relationships in the geographic or thematic area, etc. Planned Delivery & Outputs and Reflections on Delivery So Far 3.54 This section sets out some reflections on delivery and progress so far with each of the Umbrella programmes In general, across all models of delivery, progress in terms of delivery on key outputs is good and the broad consensus across all Umbrella programmes 39 is that key outputs will be achieved. In terms of specific reflections on delivery so far, a range of issues were identified during the consultations with the Umbrella programmes First, as discussed in the previous section, for some of the Umbrellas, the scale of effort and resources required to attract beneficiaries to the various workshops and training events is greater than was originally anticipated, and this is proving to be a challenge especially for some of Umbrellas that have an open approach and a wide geographic remit Second, notwithstanding this issue, Umbrellas typically report good levels of demand and interest for one-to-one support sessions and delivery of peer support and peer mentoring activities Third, many of the Umbrellas that plan to deliver them are facing issues with the Action Learning Sets in terms of engendering sufficient interest in these activities, with one of the common reasons offered for this relating to the limited level of capacity of those who could be involved. There is a perception that involvement in Action Learning Sets requires a greater (time) commitment from 39 As the Giving Value programme has recently undertaken a review the results of which have not yet been shared with the evaluation study team the extent to which this programme will achieve all key outputs is still to be confirmed. 27

30 the beneficiary and they are unwilling to, or do not have the capacity to, engage in this type of training Fourth, Umbrella programmes report mixed experiences around planned mentor/mentee activity. Some have experienced high levels of interest in this from beneficiaries whilst others have struggled to recruit. Notably, some of the issues seem to be in terms of recruiting mentors rather than mentees, and it is this that is proving to be a challenge for a small number of Umbrella programmes Finally, many of the Umbrella programmes include the provision of online resources, the use of online forums, the delivery of online training, etc. Thus far, feedback suggests that take up of such provision is relatively low, although it is anticipated that this will develop over time. Given that anecdotal feedback suggests one of the key benefits of the face-to-face training is the opportunity to network and meet with other heritage organisations, this may partially explain the lower than expected take up of online resources (where such opportunities are not available). It is also likely that the time taken to develop (and promote) such resources, and the likely need for users of such resources to have sufficient levels of confidence and fundraising capacity to be able to use such resources have played a part A common issue and consideration cutting across delivery for many of the Umbrella programmes relates to the issues around the level of heritage specificity of delivery i.e. the extent to which the training offered needs to be bespoke to heritage (or even specific subsets of heritage) The Umbrella programmes offer very mixed perspectives on this issue. Some feel that the training offer does need to be heritage specific, and even specific to particular subsets (e.g. museums) we might not get museums involved if the trainers were not from museums. However, the experience of others (still within the museums sector) is that heritage specificity is not an issue, and that most of the trainers have not been from museums backgrounds, but from fundraising backgrounds These alternative views also extend to other Umbrella programmes beyond the museum sector where the same divergent experiences exist some feel that there is an expectation for heritage specificity whilst others feel that a heritage element, and/or heritage examples within training which focuses on the broader (generic, and potentially transferable skills around fundraising) is sufficient It will be interesting for this evaluation, as the delivery progresses into Year 2, to assess the extent to which the issues around heritage specificity become more or less pronounced. Outcomes and Achievements 3.65 This section assesses the intended outcomes and achievements for the programmes, and considers the issues around capturing and evidencing the impact of the programmes individually and collectively As Annex 1 sets out with the individual summaries of each of the nine Umbrella programmes, there are a range of outcomes that each of the programmes intends to achieve over their lifetime. These typically relate directly to the HLF outcomes for the Catalyst: capacity building programmes (heritage, people and communities see Section 1), and common themes include the following: 28

31 for heritage better management; increased resilience; increased capacity; better protected; more adaptable to change in funding; less reliant on public sector funding; long term stability. for people skills development; qualifications; experience; understanding around fundraising; ability to fundraise; confidence; more/better networking; financial benefits; develop the philanthropic culture and atmosphere. for communities manage their heritage; closer links to their heritage; increased quality of life; strengthening citizenship; increasing engagement of communities with heritage; maintaining access for the community; providing volunteering opportunities Building on these types of intended outcomes, there are a number of general issues that emerged via the consultations carried out so far In terms of the timescales to achieve the intended impacts and outcomes, there is consensus around the expectation that it will be into the long term before key impacts will be realised, achieving these outcomes will not be a quick fix A key aspect relates to the importance of ensuring that the learning of individuals through the Umbrella programmes is embedded within and across the organisations engaging in the programmes. In particular, it is recognised that it will be important to ensure that this includes embedding the learning at the board/trustee level in organisations As the examples of intended outcome listed above show, one of the key dimensions is around various aspects of cultural change within heritage organisations this is regarded by consultees as both a key outcome and something that will be a real challenge to achieve Within this, a common issue relates to the importance of changing attitudes to get heritage organisations to consider the private sector as a source of funding and in this regard, consultations identified that it is attitude change and philosophy change that will be key aspects. As such, the importance of getting heritage organisations to open their eyes to new approaches and widening their horizons are important dimensions noted by consultees In terms of the outcomes around people it is very well recognised that increasing confidence is key the confidence of people working in heritage organisations towards fundraising in general, and towards raising income from private sources is important, and this is recognised as a core area to develop across all of the Umbrella programmes and delivery has been designed to develop this in various ways Also related to many of the outcomes around people are the issues about building capacity, developing skills, increasing knowledge, developing better understanding, and improving ability all of which are core aspects to much of the training being delivered. Achieving success around these aspects will be a key measure of success for the HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes and it will therefore be important that such successes and achievements are captured, both individually by each Umbrella programme through their own reporting and evaluation arrangements, and through this overall evaluation as it progresses. Evaluation Framework 3.74 Reflecting on all of these issues has a clear influence on how this evaluation will (in future reports) seek to capture the achievements and success around the intended 29

32 outcomes and impacts from the HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes. A separate note has been produced which sets out the Evaluation Framework for this evaluation giving consideration to all of the issues highlighted above and the information about the individual Umbrella programmes set out in Annex Key issues underpinning the Evaluation Framework include: Ensuring that the outputs from the programmes are captured and reported, but also that a range of intermediate measures are assessed to capture the progress towards the outcomes noted earlier especially around culture change, behaviour, skills development, increased confidence, improved understanding, etc. Ensuring that achievements relating to (extent to which) embedding learning throughout the organisations are able to be captured in the evaluation. Acknowledging that the current HLF reporting requirements (in terms of the progress reports) only capture some aspects of what is being achieved (and are focused on reporting against Approved Purposes ) and that there is an opportunity to consider additional means of capturing progress and impact and providing Umbrellas with the opportunity to show impact and successes. Considering the development of a (more systematic) means through which the assessment of the hot spots and cold spots across all Umbrella programmes can be achieved both individually for each Umbrella but also collectively (i.e. via an approach that allows the results to be collated and aggregated). Giving consideration to the extent to which the journey and progression over time of cohorts and repeat beneficiaries (i.e. those that engage with Umbrella programmes on multiple occasions) is both recognised and captured in the evaluation, and that the progress of individuals can be tracked In summary, it is important for this evaluation, and the Evaluation Framework, to appreciate that the success of the HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes is (of course) about increasing income from private sources to heritage organisations. It needs to be acknowledged that there are other significant impacts that the programme can generate, including the progress and the journey towards increasing income from private sources to heritage organisations, as well as the broader, more general development of fundraising capacity, skills, confidence, culture and understanding of heritage organisations. Lessons Learned 3.77 This final section about the Umbrella programmes reflects on the consultations carried out this far with Umbrella programme leads, partner and delivery organisations and draws out some early lessons than have been learned by the Umbrella programmes so far: Well-recognised clear and strong rationale - the need/demand has become even more pronounced given the changes to the public sector funding landscape. Scale of some beneficiary organisations is affecting their ability to engage (e.g. some small heritage organisations do not have sufficient time/capacity to engage at all). Some beneficiaries are starting at a lower base in terms of current fundraising capacity than was originally anticipated. 30

33 Partnership arrangements around delivery and strategic oversight are working well for most Umbrellas (recognising when to evolve/change the partnership helps) - tensions more likely to exist in those partnerships that were pushed together. Number of the programmes make use of volunteers or collaborators ( in kind contributions to delivery) - helps to develop/support the heritage specificity of delivery. Important to achieve the correct balance around principles underpinning pricing/charging (generates income; encourages attendance; helps show value of training) to reflect target beneficiaries for programme. Takes more time and effort to engage with beneficiaries than originally anticipated, especially for the Umbrella programmes adopting a more open approach, and/or with a wider geographic remit. Alignment with other relevant/related provision can be beneficial to the Umbrella programme delivery (e.g. Museum Development). Successful promotion/marketing/awareness raising routes include: use of e- flyers to existing databases of heritage organisations; promoting events via relevant ing lists (e.g. JISC mail lists); use of social media; using existing membership networks; ensuring a portfolio of different approaches and routes are used and that material is distributed in a variety of formats; engage with established organisations/groups that have relationships in the geographic or thematic area, etc. Mixed experiences around planned mentor/mentee activity may mean there are lessons to be shared amongst Umbrellas especially about engaging mentors. Common challenges around development of Action Learning Sets (engendering sufficient interest, addressing capacity/time commitment issues/concerns). Development (by ICofP) of Programme Advisory Group (comprising philanthropists and business leaders) well recognised as significant early achievement and good practice example. 31

34 4. SMALL GRANTS REVIEW OF PROGRESS AND ACHIEVEMENTS SO FAR This section looks at the Small grants element of the HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes, and assesses what has been achieved so far by the organisations that have received the Small grants. It focuses on presenting the results from the Small grant survey that was carried out in January Introduction 4.1 The HLF Catalyst: Small grants initiative was open to heritage organisations or partnerships of heritage organisations across the UK, and intended to build fundraising capacity and encourage more private giving to heritage. 4.2 Grants of between 3,000 and 10,000 were available, and there were two rounds of applications, both of which took place in According to HLF 40, the initiative was intended to achieve the following: Increase the capacity of heritage organisations to access funding from private sources. Bring additional private money into the heritage sector. Improve the financial sustainability of heritage organisations. 4.4 More specifically, Small grants were expected to achieve outcomes for heritage, people and communities set out in Section 1 of this report i.e.: Outcomes for heritage - With our investment, heritage will be: better managed Outcomes for people - With our investment, people will have: developed skills Outcomes for communities - With our investment: your organisation will be more resilient In addition, the Catalyst programme will seek to achieve the following: bring additional private money into the heritage sector. 4.5 A total of 1.13 million across 125 grants was awarded through the two application rounds. The first round of Small grant awards was made in June 2013 (a total of 44 awards with a total value of 410,400) and the second in October 2013 (a total of 81 awards with a total value of 727,200). Whilst there were some unsuccessful applications, these were relatively small in number (less than 20), and as such, no specific analysis of these has been carried out. 4.6 The vast majority of Small grant projects are due to be completed by the end of April 2015, although as noted in Section 1 some of the projects have been delayed. 4.7 Table 4.1 below shows the total number of grants awarded through the HLF Catalyst: Small grant programme split by region/nation x#.vocpddizx3g 32

35 Table 4.1: HLF Catalyst: Number of Small grants by region/nation Region/Nation Number of Small grants Percent East Midlands 4 3% East of England 10 8% London 17 14% North East 8 6% North West 13 10% Northern Ireland 1 1% Scotland 10 8% South East 18 14% South West 13 10% Wales 12 10% West Midlands 8 6% Yorkshire & the Humber 11 9% Total 125 Source: Data from HLF, September Table 4.1 shows that the South East (18 awards) and London (17 awards) received the largest number and proportions of awards around 14% each of the total. Conversely, Northern Ireland received only one award, and the East Midlands received four awards. Notably, Wales received 12 awards, around 10% of the total. 4.9 Table 4.2 below shows the total value of grants awarded through the HLF Catalyst: Small grant programme split by region/nation. Table 4.2: HLF Catalyst: Value of Small grants by region/nation Region/Nation Value of Small grants Percent East Midlands 39,800 3% East of England 94,100 8% London 154,400 14% North East 67,900 6% North West 110,400 10% Northern Ireland 7,200 1% Scotland 95,300 8% South East 174,000 15% South West 124,900 11% Wales 110,800 10% West Midlands 66,100 6% Yorkshire & the Humber 92,700 8% Total 1,137,600 Source: Data from HLF, September The geographic proportionate breakdown in terms of value is very similar to the same analysis by number of award with the South East (15%) and London (14%) receiving the largest proportions, and Northern Ireland the lowest (1%) followed by the East Midlands (3%) In terms of the ongoing aspects of the evaluation that directly relate to the Small grants, the survey that was carried out in January 2015 will be repeated in early with the timing deliberately set to ensure that all of the Small grant projects 33

36 will have been completed for 12 months or more at this stage, allowing medium to longer term impacts to be captured. In addition, a range of the Small grantee organisations will be visited by the evaluation team on two occasions (mid-2015 and late-2016) to develop a range of case study examples of the impacts and achievements of Small grantees The remainder of this section reports on the findings from the Small grant survey carried out in January 2015, which sought to capture the perspectives, reflections and achievements of the organisations that had received a Small grant at that stage. Given the timing, some of the organisations had already completed their project, whilst others were ongoing. The survey aimed to capture the pre-catalyst position of the organisations (i.e. the baseline position) and also the emerging impact of the HLF Catalyst: Small grants at that stage The survey was designed as an e-survey and was distributed to all relevant organisations that have been in receipt of an HLF Catalyst: Small grant As noted above, a total of 125 Small grants were awarded. However, a small number of organisations have either had to return the award, or have had their project delayed to the extent that they have only recently started, and as such, it was not appropriate to survey them at this time Therefore, 121 organisations were surveyed, and a total of 86 replies were received equating to a 71% response rate, which is an excellent response rate for a survey of this type The remainder of this section presents a summary of the results from the January 2015 Small grant Survey. Overview of Small Grantees and their pre-catalyst Fundraising Position 4.17 In order to assess the size and scale of Small grantee organisations that responded to the survey (which given the response rate can be assumed to be representative of all Small grantee organisations), the survey asked questions about the number of paid staff, the number of volunteers and the total annual income of the organisations The results (shown in Tables 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5) show that a diverse range of organisations received Small grants, with the number of paid staff ranging from none (i.e. zero paid staff) to 1,500; and the annual income ranging from as little as 2,000 to almost 7 million. Similarly, the number of volunteers (another measure of capacity of the organisations) ranged from none (i.e. zero) to more than 1,

37 Table 4.3: Size of Small Grantee Organisations (by Paid Staff) Number of Paid Staff Number of Percent of Organisations Organisations 1 or Fewer 17 20% Between 1 and 5 (incl. 5) 19 23% Between 5 and 10 (incl. 10) 11 13% Between 10 to 20 (incl. 20) 14 17% Between 20 to 50 (incl. 50) 18 21% More than % Total 84 Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Small Grant Survey 2015, n=84 Table 4.4: Size of Small Grantee Organisations (by Income) Total Annual Income from all sources Number of Organisations Percent of Organisations Less than 10, % 10,001-25, % 25,001-50, % 50, , % 100, , % 200, , % 500,001-1 million 9 12% 1 million million 19 25% More than 2.5 million 7 9% TOTAL 76 Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Small Grant Survey 2015, n= 76 Table 4.5: Size of Small Grantee Organisations (by Number of Volunteers) Number of Volunteers Number of Organisations Percent of Organisations 10 or fewer 11 13% 11 to % 21 to % 51 to % 101 to % 251 to % 501 or more 8 10% Total 84 Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Small Grant Survey 2015, n= In terms of scale and capacity of the organisations, these results show that almost three-quarters of Small grantee organisations have 20 or fewer paid staff (73%), and more than half (56%) have 10 or fewer staff (Table 4.3). 35

38 4.20 In terms of income, two-thirds of Small grantees that replied to the survey have an annual income of 1 million or less, with more than half (54%) reporting total annual income of 500,000 or less Therefore, whilst there is a notable range of organisations in terms of scale, most organisations that received Small grants (and replied to the survey) report total income of less than 500,000, and 10 or fewer paid staff Given the wide range of organisation size and scale reported, it is also interesting to consider both the average and the median 41 measures of both paid staff and total income for the respondents Analysis of the mean and median values show that in terms of paid staff the average number of paid staff is just over 33, but the median is just over 7.5. For total income, the average is more than 900,000 but the median is around 420,000. These results confirm the frequency analysis results from Tables 4.3 and 4.5 around the scale and capacity of Small grantee organisations the median results falling into the less than 10 paid staff category, and less than 500,000 total annual income The survey sought to assess the capacity of the Small grantee organisations around the key issues for HLF Catalyst namely the capacity and skills of heritage organisations to diversify their income streams and access more funding from private sources Table 4.6 shows that more than half of respondents (51%) did not have a fundraising plan prior to being awarded a Small grant. Table 4.6: Did your organisation have a fundraising plan/strategy in place BEFORE you were awarded the Catalyst Small grant? Percent Count Yes 48.8% 41 No 51.2% 43 Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Small Grant Survey 2015, n= Following on from this, Table 4.7 shows that for those that did have a fundraising plan or strategy (i.e. the 49% that responded Yes in Table 4.6) the vast majority of these organisations (39 out of 41 95%) stated that raising income from private sources was a part of this strategy. 41 The median is the value in the middle of a series of values (the mid-point of a frequency distribution) when the values are arranged in order of magnitude. Use of the median measure is beneficial and appropriate given the range of organisations responding to the survey - it allows the influence of high value outliers (in terms of either staff or income) to be reduced given that such values would skew the mean values. It can be regarded as providing a more appropriate measure for this data given the high values of some of the outliers (at the upper end) for both income and paid staff. 36

39 Table 4.7: If Yes, was raising income from private sources (i.e. trusts and foundations, private donors, corporate giving/ donations, individual giving/donations, corporate sponsorship, etc.) part of this strategy? Percent Count Yes 49.4% 39 No 2.5% 2 N/A (we did not have a fundraising strategy) 48.1% 38 Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Small Grant Survey 2015, n= Given that more than half of the respondents did not have a fundraising plan/strategy, it is interesting to note that two-thirds said that fundraising and income diversification was critical to their organisation (Table 4.8), with an additional 30% describing it as very important Taking the results for Tables 4.6 and 4.8 together, this suggests that for some organisations fundraising and income diversification was regarded as critical or very important, and yet this did not either result in the development of a specific fundraising plan, or have resulted from the development of a fundraising plan. Table 4.8: In general, how important would you say fundraising and income diversification was for your organisation? Percent Count Critical 65.5% 55 Very important 29.8% 25 Moderately important 2.4% 2 Of minor importance 2.4% 2 Not at all important 0.0% 0 Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Small Grant Survey 2015, n= Table 4.9 shows the results in terms of how important raising income from private sources was to the Small grantee organisations. More than half stated that raising income from private sources was critical with an additional onethird describing it as very important. Table 4.9: In general, how important would you say raising income from private sources was for your organisation? Percent Count Critical 54.8% 46 Very important 33.3% 28 Moderately important 6.0% 5 Of minor importance 4.8% 4 Not at all important 1.2% 1 Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Small Grant Survey 2015, n= Therefore, whilst raising income from private sources did not score quite as highly in terms of importance as fundraising and income diversification in general, it is a 37

40 critical or very important issue for more than 85% of respondents before they received the HLF Catalyst: Small grant In order to assess the role of private sources for the organisations that received a Small Grant prior to receiving their HLF Catalyst support, the survey included questions about the value and proportion of income from private sources in the last financial year before they received the HLF Catalyst Small grant. Table 4.10: Proportion of Total Annual Income that income from private sources accounted for in last year pre-catalyst Income from Private Sources as Percent of Total Income Percent Count Less than 10% 28 38% 11% to 25% 10 14% 26% to 50% 8 11% 51% to 75% 8 11% 76% to 19 26% Total 73 Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Small Grant Survey 2015, n= Table 4.10 shows the results in terms of the percentage of total income that respondents described as being from private sources. Looking at the responses by quartiles, the highest proportion of responses (52%) sit within the first quartile (where income from private sources accounted for between 0% and 25%). Additionally, within this category, the majority of respondents (38%) reported income from private sources as accounting for less than 10% of total income However, in marked contrast the second most common category was the highest quartile (where income from private sources accounted for between 76% and ) with 26% of respondent organisations in this category These results suggest that whilst some Small grantee organisations were starting from a (very) low base in terms of the proportion of income from private sources, more than one-quarter received 76- of their income from private sources, and 37% of respondents reported that more than half of their income was from private sources Disregarding the size of organisation for the moment, the average response to the question What proportion (as a %) of Total Annual Income did income from private sources account for? in the last pre-catalyst year for Small grantees, was 38%. In other words, on average, respondents received 38% of total income from private sources pre-catalyst Interestingly, if this average is calculated for two different sub-groups of respondents depending on whether they replied Yes or No to the question about whether they had a fundraising plan/strategy in place before being awarded a Catalyst Small grant (Table 4.6), this shows a notable pattern. 38

41 Table 4.11: Proportion of Total Annual Income private sources accounted for in last year pre-catalyst (Cross-tabulated with fundraising strategy) Average Percent No 23% Yes 52% Overall Average 38% Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Small Grant Survey 2015, n= Table 4.11 shows that those organisations that did have a fundraising plan/strategy in place have an average income from private sources of 52%, whilst organisations that did not have a fundraising plan/strategy in place reported an average income from private sources of 23% This finding may highlight the importance of developing a fundraising plan/strategy to underpin activity and effort around raising funding from private sources, or perhaps that the development of a fundraising strategy is a good proxy measure for the extent to which an organisation has considered and dedicated capacity to raising income from private sources The final aspect of assessing the pre-catalyst position of the organisations that received Small grants was for each respondent to score/rank their organisation against a range of criteria to identify the baseline position they were in (i.e. prior to receiving the Small grant) Table 4.12 shows the results of these questions, and a number of points are worth highlighting: 39

42 Table 4.12: On a scale of 0 to 5, please rank/score your organisation for each of the following before you received the grant: very mediu very Count none low high low m high Success in fundraising 1% 12% 22% 49% 14% 1% from all sources (1) (10) (18) (41) (12) (1) (83) Success in 4% 12% 47% 31% 6% 0% diversification of fundraising sources (3) (10) (39) (26) (5) (0) (83) Success in raising 2% 15% 33% 40% 10% 0% income levels from (2) (12) (27) (33) (8) (0) (82) private sources Organisational capacity 4% 29% 39% 25% 4% 0% dedicated to fundraising (3) (24) (32) (21) (3) (0) (83) in general Organisational capacity 13% 29% 35% 19% 2% 1% dedicated to fundraising from private sources (11) (24) (29) (16) (2) (1) (83) Staff capability and 6% 16% 27% 30% 21% 0% skills on fundraising in (5) (13) (22) (25) (17) (0) (82) general Staff capability and 10% 20% 37% 22% 11% 0% skills on fundraising from private sources (8) (16) (30) (18) (9) (0) (81) Governing body (e.g. trustees, board) 10% 18% 41% 26% 2% 2% capability and skills on (8) (15) (34) (21) (2) (2) (82) fundraising in general Governing body (e.g. trustees, board) 13% 20% 43% 20% 1% 1% capability and skills on (11) (17) (36) (17) (1) (1) (83) fundraising from private sources Volunteer capability and 23% 24% 41% 9% 2% 0% skills on fundraising in (19) (20) (34) (7) (2) (0) (82) general Volunteer capability and 24% 30% 37% 6% 2% 0% skills on fundraising from private sources (20) (25) (30) (5) (2) (0) (82) Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Small Grant Survey 2015, n= First, the only three aspects where the most common response was above 2 low were for Success in fundraising from all sources ; Success in raising income levels from private sources ; and (to a lesser extent) Staff capability and skills on fundraising in general where 3 medium was the most common response Second, the responses for the lower end categories can be grouped in order to identify the criteria the greatest proportion of respondents ranked lowest (i.e. aggregate the responses for the 0, 1 and 2 scores). This shows that: 91% of respondents ranked Volunteer capability and skills on fundraising from private sources as low, very low or zero. Also 88% ranked Volunteer capability and skills on fundraising in general as low, very low or zero. Taken together this shows the very low ranking of the role of the capability of volunteers in terms of both general fundraising and private sources specifically. 40

43 76% of respondents ranked Governing body (e.g. trustees, board) capability and skills on fundraising from private sources as low, very low or zero. 69% ranked Governing body (e.g. trustees, board) capability and skills on fundraising in general as low, very low or zero. Taken together this shows the low ranking of the role of the capability of trustees/board in terms of both general fundraising and private sources specifically. For staff on the same criteria there are some positive responses, with 49% of respondents ranking Staff capability and skills on fundraising in general as low, very low or zero. In other words, more than half of respondents scored this as medium or high. However, for Staff capability and skills on fundraising from private sources this is ranked as low, very low or zero by two-thirds of respondents, showing a low ranking of the capability of staff in terms of fundraising from private sources. Organisational capacity in general is also identified as an issue, with more than three-quarters of respondents (77%) ranking Organisational capacity dedicated to fundraising from private sources as low, very low or zero; whilst Organisational capacity dedicated to fundraising in general only scores slightly better with 72% ranking that as low, very low or zero. Perspectives on success in fundraising exhibit better rankings generally Success in diversification of fundraising sources is scored low, very low or zero by almost two-thirds of respondents, but Success in raising income levels from private sources is ranked medium or high by 50% of respondents, and Success in fundraising from all sources is ranked medium, high or very high by almost two-thirds of respondents Another interesting means of analysing the results is to consider the average score for each criteria (i.e. work out with the scores provided by each respondent what the mean score is across all respondents) Table 4.13 below provides the average scores, and also shows the ranking for each of the criteria based on these scores. Table 4.13: Average Rank/Score for each Criteria (pre-catalyst) Average Score Rank Success in fundraising from all sources Success in diversification of fundraising sources Success in raising income levels from private sources Organisational capacity dedicated to fundraising in general Organisational capacity dedicated to fundraising from private sources Staff capability and skills on fundraising in general Staff capability and skills on fundraising from private sources Governing body (e.g. trustees, board) capability and skills on fundraising in general 2 6 Governing body (e.g. trustees, board) capability and skills on fundraising from private sources Volunteer capability and skills on fundraising in general Volunteer capability and skills on fundraising from private sources Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Small Grant Survey 2015, n= These average score results reaffirm the findings above with the top three ranked (i.e. those with the highest scores) being: (1) Success in fundraising from all 41

44 sources; (2) Staff capability and skills on fundraising in general; and (3) Success in raising income levels from private sources Conversely, the bottom three ranked (i.e. those with the lowest scores) are: (11) Volunteer capability and skills on fundraising from private sources; (10) Volunteer capability and skills on fundraising in general; and (9) Organisational capacity dedicated to fundraising from private sources These results are revisited when the findings from the same questions, but asked after the completion of the Small Grant project, are assessed. This allows a compare and contrast against each criteria to evaluate the progress that has been made by the Small grantee organisations. This is set out at the end of the following sub-section. Impact of Catalyst: Current Fundraising Position of Small Grantees 4.48 This subsection of the report looks at the impact of HLF Catalyst: Small grants so far (to January 2015) by assessing the current fundraising position of the Small grantees Presented below are the findings from the Small grant survey that relate to the impact reported by those organisations that have completed their HLF Catalyst: Small grant project. This is followed by general progress and achievements of all respondents to the survey (whether or not the project is complete) around the key outcomes for HLF Catalyst In order to distinguish between completed and ongoing Small grant projects, the survey asked whether or not the project was complete. Table 4.14 shows that more than two-thirds (69%) of the projects were reported as being complete at the time of the survey In terms of completion date, almost half of those whose project is complete reported that it had completed in late 2014 (i.e. October, November or December), showing that many of the projects were relatively recently completed, which is likely to influence the scale of impact and achievement reported by the projects at the current time. Table 4.14: Is your HLF Catalyst Small grant project now complete? Percent Count Yes, the project is complete 68.7% 57 No, the project is on-going 31.3% 26 Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Small Grant Survey 2015, n= To consider the uses to which the organisations put their Small grants, Figure 4.1 (a word cloud 42 of the responses) and Table 4.15 provides a summary of the 42 A word cloud such as is Figure 4.1 (also used in similar subsequent figures in Sections 4 and 5) is a visual representation or depiction of a set of words or terms which have been grouped together, in this instance because of their frequency (number of times they appear in survey responses). In this report, word clouds have been used to summarise the key words and phrases emerging from the analysis of the open ended responses to specific questions within the e-surveys. The largest/boldest words can be regarded as the key themes that emerged from the responses to that specific question. 42

45 responses from the Small grantees when they were asked to summarise the main activities carried out due to the HLF Catalyst Small grant. Figure 4.1: Word Cloud: Main activities carried out due to the HLF Catalyst Small grant Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Small Grant Survey 2015, n=85 Table 4.15: Main activities carried out due to the HLF Catalyst Small grant Categorisation of s (ranked by frequency) Activity Count Develop funding Strategy/business plan 28 Employing consultant/fundraiser 19 Training/coaching/mentoring for staff/trustees/volunteers 18 Increasing capacity of organisation 10 Conducting research/review 9 Employing Staff 7 Database/CRM system 7 Web page/social media 6 Marketing/website 4 Fundraising programme/legacy campaign 5 Development of income streams 1 Develop funding opportunities 1 Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Small Grant Survey 2015, n=85 43

46 4.53 As Table 4.15 shows, the most common types of activity supported by the HLF Catalyst: Small grants included: development of fundraising strategy/plans; employing a consultant/fundraiser; providing training, coaching or mentoring for staff (as well as trustees and volunteers), as well as generally using the grant to increase the capacity of the organisation. Impact of HLF Catalyst: Small grants - Completed Projects 4.54 For the completed projects, some of the key questions asked of the organisations about their pre-catalyst fundraising position were repeated - but asked about their current position on these issues given that their project is now complete. These related to the existence of a fundraising strategy, the role of private income in the strategy, importance of fundraising and income diversification, importance of raising money from private sources, and also scoring/ranking their organisation against the same list of criteria from Table 4.13, but after project completion Table 4.16 shows that for completed projects, 97% of respondents have a fundraising plan or strategy a notable increase compared to the overall response pre-catalyst where only 48% had a fundraising strategy. Table 4.16: Does your organisation currently have a fundraising plan/strategy? Percent Count Yes 96.5% 55 No 3.5% 2 Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Small Grant Survey 2015, n= However, given that many of the completed projects could be those that already had a fundraising strategy pre-catalyst (and it is the incomplete projects that account for many of those with no fundraising strategy) the pre and post grant position on a fundraising strategy can be assessed This shows that 25 of the Small grantees that are completed projects did not have a fundraising strategy pre-catalyst, and of these, 23 of them now do i.e. for completed projects, 92% of those organisations that did not have a fundraising plan before receiving a Small grant have now developed a fundraising plan Once again, respondents were asked if raising income from private sources was part of the fundraising plan, and Table 4.17 shows that more than 98% of respondents state that raising income from private sources is part of their fundraising strategy. Table 4.17: Is raising income from private sources (i.e. trusts and foundations, private donors, corporate giving/donations, individual giving/donations, corporate sponsorship, etc.) part of this strategy? Percent Count Yes 98.2% 56 No 1.8% 1 Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Small Grant Survey 2015, n=57 44

47 4.59 Tables 4.18 and 4.19 show the results for completed projects about the importance of fundraising and income diversification generally, and the importance of raising income from private sources In both cases, the responses show an increase in the level of importance compared to the pre-catalyst position Table 4.18 shows that more than three-quarters of respondents (77%) currently describe fundraising and income diversification as critical, this compares to 65% pre-catalyst. Also, no respondent described it as lower than very important again showing a positive shift (an increase in the level of importance) compared to the pre-catalyst position. Table 4.18: In general, how important would you now say fundraising and income diversification currently is to your organisation? Percent Count Critical 77.2% 44 Very important 22.8% 13 Moderately important 0.0% 0 Of minor importance 0.0% 0 Not at all important 0.0% 0 Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Small Grant Survey 2015, n= Table 4.19 shows a similar pattern for the importance of raising income from private sources, with more than two-thirds (68%) now describing that as critical (compared to 55% pre-catalyst), and no respondent described it as lower than moderately important. Table 4.19: In general, how important would you now say raising income from private sources currently is to your organisation? Percent Count Critical 68.4% 39 Very important 28.1% 16 Moderately important 3.5% 2 Of minor importance 0.0% 0 Not at all important 0.0% 0 Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Small Grant Survey 2015, n= Whilst acknowledging that it is an early stage at which to assess the actual levels of income from private sources (one of the key outcomes for HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes), the survey did ask the completed projects to report on both the value of income they think their organisation will receive from private sources by the end of this current financial year, and what proportion of total annual income this will account for Table 4.20 below shows the results in terms of the percentage of total income that respondents expect to receive from private sources by the end of this current financial year. These results can be compared to the results in Table 4.10 which showed the pre-catalyst position. 45

48 Table 4.20: Estimated Proportion of Total Annual Income that income from private sources will account for by the end of the current financial year Income from Private Sources as Percent of Total Income Percent Count Up to 10% 8 18% 11% to 25% 10 23% 26% to 50% 6 14% 51% to 75% 6 14% 76% to 14 32% Total 44 Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Small Grant Survey 2015, n= These results (comparing Tables 4.20 and 4.10) do already show progress in terms of the proportion of total income from private sources. Pre-Catalyst (Table 4.10) showed the highest proportion of responses (52%) within the first quartile (where income from private sources accounted for between 0% and 25%). This has reduced in the post-catalyst results, to 41%, with an increase in the proportion of respondents in each of the other three quartiles, showing that in general the proportion of income from private sources is expected to be higher by the end of this financial year than it was pre-catalyst By directly comparing the pre- and post-catalyst responses for the completed projects (for those who provided a response to both of the questions, a total of 43 respondents) the results show an overall expected value increase of income from private sources of more than 4 million. However, it should be noted that the vast majority of this value is accounted for by six of the 43 organisations, all of which report increases of 350,000 or more Table 4.21 below shows the results in terms of the percentage of total income that respondents expect to receive from private sources by the end of this current financial year compared to what they reported pre-catalyst. In other words, whist Table 4.20 looks at overall trends, Table 4.21 looks at the specific change reported by each respondent and assesses how their pre- and post-catalyst private income compares. Table 4.21: Comparison of the pre and post Catalyst proportion of income from private sources for completed projects Income from Private Sources as Percent of Total Income Percent Count Reduction (as a percent and overall) 6 13% Reduction (as a percent, but an overall increase in value) 3 7% Zero 6 13% Between zero and 10% 15 33% 11% to 25% 8 18% 26% to 50% 4 9% 51% to 75% 2 4% 76% to 1 2% Total 45 Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Small Grant Survey 2015, n=45 46

49 4.68 Table 4.21 shows that as well as those reporting progress, some respondents note that they expect to receive a smaller proportion and/or smaller total value from private sources by the end of the current financial year than they did pre-catalyst. For the vast majority of such respondents, this is explained via the peaks and troughs of project-specific funding, for both capital and revenue projects Overall, however, the results are again showing some early signs of success, with two-thirds (66%) of organisations reporting a positive change in terms of the proportion of income they expect to receive from private sources. Most (51%) of these fall within the 0-25% category and, within this, in the less than 10% increase category. However, given that many of the projects are only recently completed, these results do show early signs of progress in terms of increasing the proportion (and value) of income from private sources for the Small grantees. Table 4.22: On a scale of 0 to 5, please rank/score your organisation for each of the following at the current time (i.e. following COMPLETION of the HLF Catalyst Small grant): 0 none 1 very low 2% (1) 2 low 3 mediu m 47% (26) 4 high 5 very high 2% (1) Count Success in fundraising from all sources 0% (0) 7% (4) 42% (23) (55) Success in 0% 7% 2% 50% 41% 0% diversification of (0) (4) (1) (28) (23) (0) (56) fundraising sources Success in raising 2% 2% 11% 46% 39% 0% income levels from (1) (1) (6) (26) (22) (0) (56) private sources Organisational 0% 4% 13% 54% 29% 2% capacity dedicated to fundraising in general (0) (2) (7) (30) (16) (1) (56) Organisational capacity dedicated to 2% 2% 11% 61% 25% 0% fundraising from (1) (1) (6) (34) (14) (0) (56) private sources Staff capability and 2% 2% 4% 34% 57% 2% skills on fundraising in (1) (1) (2) (19) (32) (1) (56) general Staff capability and 2% 2% 9% 40% 45% 2% skills on fundraising from private sources (1) (1) (5) (22) (25) (1) (55) Governing body (e.g. trustees, board) 4% 18% 16% 41% 20% 2% capability and skills on (2) (10) (9) (23) (11) (1) (56) fundraising in general Governing body (e.g. trustees, board) 4% 16% 18% 41% 20% 2% capability and skills on (2) (9) (10) (23) (11) (1) (56) fundraising from private sources Volunteer capability 18% 9% 20% 45% 9% 0% and skills on fundraising in general (10) (5) (11) (25) (5) (0) (56) Volunteer capability and skills on 18% 11% 16% 45% 11% 0% fundraising from (10) (6) (9) (25) (6) (0) (56) private sources Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Small Grant Survey 2015, n=56 47

50 4.70 Finally, in terms of the early impact of completed projects, Table 4.22 presents the findings from the questions on ranking/scoring the organisation for a range of criteria at the current time (i.e. following completion of the HLF Catalyst Small grant). These results can be directly compared with the results from Table 4.12 to compare the ranks/scores before and after the Small grant projects In general, the results show progress against all criteria. Table 4.12 showed that with three exceptions, the most common rank was 2 - low, whilst Table 4.22 now shows that the most common rank across all criteria is at least 3 medium and for some criteria (i.e. Staff capability and skills on fundraising in general and Staff capability and skills on fundraising from private sources ) it is 4 high. These results, especially around staff, suggest that the area of greatest focus for the Small grant projects has been around the development of staff skills and capability Notably, with the exception of volunteers (which does still show progress, but to a lesser extent than the other criteria) the second most common category for all of those where 3 medium is the most common reply, is now one score/rank above (i.e. 4 high ), whereas pre-catalyst, the second most common category was typically one step below. This suggests a clear progression across all of these criteria already many of which are key aspects of the organisational capacity and individual skills that are needed to increase income from private sources To assess this progression more directly, the average scores for each of the criteria can be calculated for the current position (i.e. at the end of the Small grant project) and compared to the baseline position Table 4.23 shows both of these results the average scores for each of these criteria pre-catalyst (taken from Table 4.13) and the average scores for each of the criteria currently (January 2015). Table 4.23: Average Rank/Score for each Criteria (Comparing pre-catalyst with Current Position) Average Score Average Score Change (pre) (post) Success in fundraising from all sources Success in diversification of fundraising sources Success in raising income levels from private sources Organisational capacity dedicated to fundraising in general Organisational capacity dedicated to fundraising from private sources Staff capability and skills on fundraising in general Staff capability and skills on fundraising from private sources Governing body (e.g. trustees, board) capability and skills on fundraising in general Governing body (e.g. trustees, board) capability and skills on fundraising from private sources Volunteer capability and skills on fundraising in general Volunteer capability and skills on fundraising from private sources Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Small Grant Survey 2015, n=56 48

51 4.75 These results show that there has been positive progress against every criteria, and both the highest average scores and the scores showing greatest improvement can be identified: The criteria with the highest three average scores are: (1) Staff capability and skills on fundraising in general 3.48; (2) Success in fundraising from all sources 3.35; and (3) Staff capability and skills on fundraising from private sources The criteria that show the greatest improvement between baseline and current positions are: (1) Organisational capacity dedicated to fundraising from private sources +1.33; (2) Staff capability and skills on fundraising from private sources +1.26; and (3) Organisational capacity dedicated to fundraising in general Finally, the individual change for each organisation can also be assessed. Whilst the result above report on general trends and progress, it is interesting to look at the pre and post ranking for each individual organisation that responded to show the range of progress reported. Table 4.24: Level of Change between Baseline rank/score and Current rank/score Number of Completed Projects Resp. Success in fundraising from all 4% 49% 33% 13% 2% - - sources (2) (27) (18) (7) (1) (55) Success in diversification of 4% 38% 39% 18% 2% - - fundraising sources (2) (21) (22) (10) (1) (56) Success in raising income levels 2% 4% 44% 33% 16% 2% - from private sources (1) (2) (24) (18) (9) (1) (54) Organisational capacity dedicated 2% 29% 48% 16% 2% 4% - to fundraising in general (1) (16) (27) (9) (1) (2) (56) Organisational capacity dedicated 2% 2% 21% 43% 21% 9% 2% to fundraising from private (1) (1) (12) (24) (12) (5) (1) (55) sources Staff capability and skills on 2% 46% 32% 14% 2% 4% - fundraising in general (1) (26) (18) (8) (1) (2) (56) Staff capability and skills on 2% 35% 35% 19% 6% 4% - fundraising from private sources (1) (19) (19) (10) (3) (2) (54) Governing body (e.g. trustees, 5% 51% 29% 9% 5% board) capability and skills on - - (3) (28) (16) (5) (3) (55) fundraising in general Governing body (e.g. trustees, 5% 39% 36% 14% 5% board) capability and skills on - - (3) (22) (20) (8) (3) (56) fundraising from private sources Volunteer capability and skills on 4% 48% 25% 23% fundraising in general (2) (27) (14) (13) (56) Volunteer capability and skills on 2% 41% 34% 20% 4% - - fundraising from private sources (1) (23) (19) (11) (2) (56) Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Small Grant Survey 2015, n= Table 4.24 shows the number and proportion of respondents by the level of change in rank/score for each criteria. For example, a +2 means that the post-project score for that criteria is ranked two points above the pre-catalyst score The results show that there are four criteria where the most common level of progress is +1 or greater, evidencing clear progress at the organisational 49

52 level: Success in diversification of fundraising sources; Organisational capacity dedicated to fundraising in general; Organisational capacity dedicated to fundraising from private sources; and Staff capability and skills on fundraising from private sources The remainder identify no change as the most common level of progress, however, for all except three criteria the majority of respondents (i.e. more than 50%) report positive progress of at least +1 score The three criteria where the majority report no change or a reduced score, and which would therefore seem to be the areas of least progress/greatest challenge are: Success in fundraising from all sources (53%); Governing body (e.g. trustees, board) capability and skills on fundraising in general (56%); and Volunteer capability and skills on fundraising in general (52%) Overall, these results confirm that there is already clear progress against some key criteria for completed projects, especially around organisational capacity, staff capabilities and diversification of fundraising sources. Progress and Achievements of HLF Catalyst: Small grants All Projects 4.82 This section includes responses from both completed and ongoing projects, and seeks to identify evidence around progress towards the key outcomes for HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes i.e. (as set out at the start of this report section): Outcomes for heritage - With our investment, heritage will be: better managed. Outcomes for people - With our investment, people will have: developed skills. Outcomes for communities - With our investment: your organisation will be more resilient. In addition, the Catalyst programme will seek to achieve the following: bring additional private money into the heritage sector Perspectives on achievement (current or future) around each of these outcomes from the survey respondents is set out below First, organisations were asked if they thought their organisation was better managed following the HLF Catalyst: Small grant, and Table 4.25 shows that more than half (55%) of Small grantees said yes their organisation is now better managed. Table 4.25: Would you say your organisation is now BETTER MANAGED following your HLF Catalyst Small grant? Percent Count Yes 54.9% 45 No 8.5% 7 Not as yet (will be in the future) 30.5% 25 Not as yet (not sure if there will be any change) 6.1% 5 Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Small Grant Survey 2015, n=82 50

53 4.85 Also worth noting, is that the second most common response (31%) was Not as yet (will be in the future) which shows that for almost one-third of respondents the impact and outcome around being better managed has not yet been achieved, but it is expected to happen in the future Those who reported their organisation was better managed were asked to give examples of the improved management following their HLF Catalyst: Small grant. Respondents mentioned that they have more diverse income streams, have increased capacity in terms of both staff and governance, developed better systems and resources, and highlighted being able to address capacity and capability gaps due to the improved management as a result of HLF Catalyst: Small grants Table 4.26 shows the results around skills development for staff, and an overwhelming 83% of Small grantees say that staff in the organisation have developed skills following the HLF Catalyst: Small grant. In addition a further 11% report that this has not happened yet, but they expect it to in the future. Table 4.26: Would you say the STAFF in your organisation have DEVELOPED SKILLS following your HLF Catalyst Small grant? Percent Count Yes 82.5% 66 No 5.0% 4 Not as yet (will in the future) 11.3% 9 Not as yet (not sure if there will be any change) 1.3% 1 Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Small Grant Survey 2015, n= Respondents who feel staff in the organisation have developed skills following their HLF Catalyst Small grant highlighted awareness of fundraising and fundraising opportunities, improved fundraising competencies, the ability to spot opportunities and better confidence. For example: Confidence in making the ask of private donors and in communicating the message that the organisation is increasingly reliant on philanthropy and new sources of income, and what the benefits of such income would be, both to the organisation and the wider community. Greater skills in fundraising management and looking at sources to find potential funders. Also showed us the capacity we could achieve with digital fundraising and increased our knowledge of tax and gift aid regulations. We produce better written and visual materials, for funding applications and for meetings with potential donors. We prepare much more thoroughly for meetings and we get advice and support before and after these meetings from the pro fundraiser. Staff better understand what individual giving means and that they each have a role to play in it Staff have received training and have been provided resources which allow them to make a specific membership ask when completing wildlife talks. Head of Fundraising now has comprehensive understanding of this area and how to implement a major donor fundraising programme, Junior staff benefited from mentoring so better able to assist Head of Fundraising in this area. The team have a greater confidence to discuss options with potential funders and a willingness to seek funding from further afield i.e. funders who previously would not have appeared on the fundraising radar. 51

54 We now have around 12 members of staff trained to act as relationship managers for our corporate partners and supporters and 3 senior members of staff trained to mentor the relationship managers. We are still very much feeling our way but we are starting to learn how to fundraise from private donations with reasonable success. A growing confidence is a significant part of this In a slight contrast to the results around skills development of staff, the results in Table 4.27 show the findings for the same question (skills development) for the governing body (e.g. trustees, board members). In this case, less than half (41%) report that there has been skills development for trustees/board members following the grant. However, more than one-third do expect this to happen in the future, so there is an anticipation of further development around this going forward Taking these two results together clearly shows that activity has focused on, and led to, skills development amongst staff to a far greater degree than it has amongst trustees/board so far. Table 4.27: Would you say the GOVERNING BODY/trustees/board for your organisation have DEVELOPED SKILLS following your HLF Catalyst Small grant? Percent Count Yes 40.7% 33 No 14.8% 12 Not as yet (will in the future) 34.6% 28 Not as yet (not sure if there will be any change) 9.9% 8 Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Small Grant Survey 2015, n= Respondents who say the governing body/trustees/board for your organisation have developed skills HLF Catalyst Small grant highlighted a range of benefits, including increased fundraising skills, knowledge and understanding amongst board members and trustees. For example: Increased awareness of own ability to advocate and open doors to prospective supporters. Greater engagement with the organisation's plans to raise income from the corporate sector, trusts and individuals. All of the Trustees now have an understanding of the mix of fundraising opportunities available and the potential for cross-over between corporate / trusts / individuals. They are also more aware of how to talk to their contacts about the Museum, its activities, its learning work, and its need for charitable income. They are also more aware of how to identify which of their contacts could be useful for fundraising as an ongoing exercise. The Trustees have gained a more inclusive mindset when operational matters are being discussed along with a greater understanding of the business implications of strategic decisions they make. Trustees have learnt the importance of the website and value it but do not manage its content or technology Table 4.28 reports the findings around increasing resilience, and shows that 60% of respondents feel their organisation is now more resilient following the Small grant, with an additional 38% expecting this to happen in the future Taken together, these results suggest that more than 95% of organisations anticipate (or have already achieved) greater resilience following the Small grant. 52

55 Table 4.28: Would you say your organisation is now MORE RESILIENT following your HLF Catalyst Small grant? Percent Count Yes 59.8% 49 No 1.2% 1 Not as yet (will be in the future) 37.8% 31 Not as yet (not sure if there will be any change) 1.2% 1 Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Small Grant Survey 2015, n= Respondents who stated their organisation is more resilient following their HLF Catalyst Small grant noted greater confidence in approaching potential corporate funders, and improved and more diverse income streams. In some cases it has also improved the overall organisation, and helped to address wider challenges (e.g. governance). For example: We have the tools in place to help increase income and can also show our governing body that we are increasingly looking at ways to become self-sufficient and less reliant on their funding. Income streams are more secure, key stakeholders have more confidence in management processes, staff more positive and optimistic. Through diversifying our funding sources, we now receive a greater proportion of funding from our own income generation (e.g. our shop). We have already seen an increase in membership numbers and in particular a new younger family based sign up. Marketing and communication will improve moving forward and this will result in an increase in revenue directly from members but also from general gate. The organisation has gained strength and resilience through having clear and unified statements describing the core values and a strategic vision for the organisation that Trustees, staff and members can all identify with. Financial discipline and income awareness is now a much greater priority within the organisation. Delivering the HLF catalyst grant project has made us more focused on our problems and their solutions, it has built morale and given us a great sense of purpose. It has helped us to prioritise our agenda for the forthcoming years. Staff and volunteers have improved skill levels and a greater understanding of the impact of fund-raising on the organisation and their roles. Core guidelines and research have been undertaken and the Trust is much closer to being 'fit to fundraise'. All trustees and staff now 'own' the fundraising targets rather than it being assumed to be someone else's problem. We had a very supportive group of trustees, the workshops and the process have brought them all up to speed. Staff have benefitted from opportunities to discuss the future of the organisation, what we are fundraising for, how we do things and how important it is to make sure that we let people know about the work we do The final outcome for HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes relates to bringing in additional private money to the heritage sector. Table 4.29 shows the results for this, and there is a clear split in terms of responses 44% of Small grantees think their organisation already brings in additional private money following the grant, whilst 52% feel that this has not happened yet, but that it will happen in the future These results are positive, but do highlight that in terms of bringing in additional private money, most organisations expect this to happen in the future but it has not yet happened. 53

56 Evaluation of HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes, Baseline Report Table 4.29: Would you say your organisation brings in ADDITIONAL PRIVATE MONEY following your HLF Catalyst Small grant? Percent Count 44.4% 36 Yes 2.5% 2 No 51.9% 42 Not as yet (will do in the future) 1.2% 1 Not as yet (not sure if there will be any change) Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Small Grant Survey 2015, n= Respondents who reported that their organisation does bring in additional private money following their HLF Catalyst: Small grant were asked to give details about the value and the main sources of this additional private funding, and Figure 4.2 presents the responses in a word cloud format. Figure 4.2: Examples from Respondents who say they bring in additional private money following their HLF Catalyst Small grant Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Small Grant Survey 2015, n=49 Note: Word fundraising removed 4.98 Respondents who say who say their organisation brings in additional private money following their HLF Catalyst reported a range of successes in cash terms (ranging from thousands to 1m+), as well as successful from charitable trusts and other funding sources. For example: We have now established a formal Friends organisation who support our organisation through subscription. Income for this source is as yet small, but it is a base from which we can build. We also aim to convert more members of our database into active subscribing Friends. Grants have been received from the Garfield Weston Foundation, the Pilgrim Trust, John Paul Getty Jnr Trust, Andrew Lloyd Webber Foundation and the Sir James Knott Trust. Developing a good offer to businesses and having business partners as advocates means that we have increased our overall number of corporate supporters and income levels. Both have approximately doubled and are very likely to increase further. 54

57 Evaluation of HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes, Baseline Report The membership scheme has helped us to arrange member events linked directly to fundraising initiatives (for individual giving) that have had modest returns ( 2k +) but is likely to increase in the future with more substantial donations on the horizon. As staff and trustees grow in confidence - particularly with 'the ask' it will only improve. Sales of goods through charity shop In addition to those that already report success in bringing in additional private money, many of the respondents who say their organisation is not yet more resilient following their HLF Catalyst Small grant, but will be in the future (i.e. the 52% from Table 4.29) noted that it was too early to provide evidence of resilience, but that they expected impacts from Catalyst to contribute to improved sustainability in the future Taken together, these results suggest that there has been good progress and achievements made around some of the outcomes. In particular: Skills development for staff is the outcome where the greatest proportion of organisations already feel there has been an impact (83%). There has been achievements around better management and improved resilience with more than half reporting this has already happened and around an additional one-third of respondents for each expecting this to occur in the future. Achievements around increased private giving are split around 40% feel they already achieve this whilst more than half (52%) feel that this has not happened yet, but will do so in the future. The outcome showing least achievement so far relates to skills development for governing body representatives (e.g. trustees, board members) where just over 40% feel they have achieved this so far, and an additional one-third expect this to progress in the future Finally, Table 4.30 presents the findings on agreement/disagreement with statements about a wide range of capacity building aspects that the HLF Catalyst: Small grant may have supported In order to highlight some of the key findings, the strongly agree and agree responses where more than three-quarters of organisations agree/strongly agree with the statements have been highlighted in green shading. 55

58 Evaluation of HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes, Baseline Report Table 4.30: Please state how much you agree/disagree with each of the following statements: Having received the HLF Catalyst Small grant Our organisation is becoming more financially sustainable. Our organisation is developing a more diverse range of income streams. Our organisation is attracting more private sources of funding. Our organisation is attracting more funding in general. Our organisation is developing a (more effective) fundraising strategy. Our organisation is engaging more with our local community. Our organisation is extending its reach into our local community. Our organisation is developing more capacity to dedicate to fundraising activities. Our organisation is developing new/improved links with funders and donors. Our organisation is developing a better understanding of funders/donors needs and expectations. Our staff are developing new fundraising skills. Our governing body/board/trustees are developing new fundraising skills. Our volunteers are developing new fundraising skills. The attitude of staff towards fundraising and diversifying income is improving. The attitude of staff towards accessing funding from private sources is improving. The attitude of our governing body/board/trustees towards fundraising and diversifying income is improving. The attitude of our governing body/board/trustees towards Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree No change yet (expect in future) No change yet (not sure ) Count 12% (10) 50% (41) 4% (3) 0% (0) 33% (27) 1% (1) (82) 16% (13) 60% (49) 0% (0) 0% (0) 22% (18) 2% (2) (82) 14% (11) 46% (37) 4% (3) 0% (0) 34% (27) 3% (2) (80) 10% (8) 51% (42) 2% (2) 0% (0) 32% (26) 5% (4) (82) 37% (30) 49% (40) 0% (0) 0% (0) 10% (8) 5% (4) (82) 16% (13) 51% (42) 5% (4) 2% (2) 15% (12) 11% (9) (82) 20% (16) 45% (37) 5% (4) 0% (0) 18% (15) 12% (10) (82) 15% (12) 55% (44) 9% (7) 0% (0) 16% (13) 5% (4) (80) 27% (22) 52% (43) 0% (0) 0% (0) 18% (15) 2% (2) (82) 33% (27) 53% (43) 1% (1) 0% (0) 7% (6) 5% (4) (81) 24% (18) 63% (47) 3% (2) 0% (0) 7% (5) 4% (3) (75) 7% (6) 44% (36) 9% (7) 0% (0) 28% (23) 12% (10) (82) 10% (8) 35% (28) 9% (7) 1% (1) 28% (23) 17% (14) (81) 20% (15) 67% (51) 1% (1) 0% (0) 5% (4) 7% (5) (76) 23% (18) 64% (49) 1% (1) 3% (2) 5% (4) 4% (3) (77) 21% (17) 57% (47) 2% (2) 0% (0) 13% (11) 6% (5) (82) 15% (12) 60% (49) 6% (5) 0% (0) 11% (9) 9% (7) (82) 56

59 Evaluation of HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes, Baseline Report Table 4.30: Please state how much you agree/disagree with each of the following statements: Having received the HLF Catalyst Small grant Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree No change yet (expect in future) No change yet (not sure ) Count accessing funding from private sources is improving. The attitude of our volunteers towards 6% 47% 6% 1% 21% 19% fundraising and diversifying (5) (38) (5) (1) (17) (15) (81) income is improving. The attitude of our volunteers towards accessing 6% 42% 7% 1% 21% 22% funding from private sources (5) (34) (6) (1) (17) (18) (81) is improving. Our organisation is able to implement pre-existing plans 20% 53% 6% 0% 18% 4% and strategies around (16) (42) (5) (0) (14) (3) (80) fundraising. Our organisation is able to 31% 58% 1% 0% 9% 1% develop and try new (25) (47) (1) (0) (7) (1) (81) approaches to fundraising. Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Small Grant Survey 2015, n= These results show the top ten statements in terms of levels of agreement and in ranking order (highest levels of agreement first) these are: Our organisation is able to develop and try new approaches to fundraising. (89%) Our staff are developing new fundraising skills. (87%) The attitude of staff towards fundraising and diversifying income is improving. (87%) The attitude of staff towards accessing funding from private sources is improving. (87%) Our organisation is developing a (more effective) fundraising strategy. (86%) Our organisation is developing a better understanding of funders/donors needs and expectations. (86%) Our organisation is developing new/improved links with funders and donors. (79%) The attitude of our governing body/board/trustees towards fundraising and diversifying income is improving. (78%) Our organisation is developing a more diverse range of income streams. (76%) The attitude of our governing body/board/trustees towards accessing funding from private sources is improving. (75%) These results show that organisational capacity, staff skills and attitudes, increasing understanding and engagement with funders/donors, and governing body attitudes are the areas of greatest achievement so far based on the proportion of organisations that agree with these statements Conversely, the lowest ranked responses (where around half or less of all respondents agreed/strongly agreed) were: 57

60 Evaluation of HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes, Baseline Report Our volunteers are developing new fundraising skills. (45%) The attitude of our volunteers towards accessing funding from private sources is improving. (48%) Our governing body/board/trustees are developing new fundraising skills. (51%) The attitude of our volunteers towards fundraising and diversifying income is improving. (53%) These results show that the areas with the lowest levels of agreement are around volunteer skills and attitudes around fundraising and private giving, and governing body skills around fundraising. Reflections from the Small grantees lessons so far and expected impacts Small grantees were asked what the key lessons had been for their organisation so far about raising funding from private sources The importance of relationships and good communication come through strongly in the responses to this question. Many respondents found that having developed, or developing fundraising strategies, underpinned and captured this learning. Some examples of such key lessons include: Communication is key to retaining existing relationships and cultivating new support. Organisational buy-in and understanding of the concept of fundraising strengthens our appeal and relationships with sponsors and donors. Existing supporters are great advocates for reaching new prospects and for providing feedback to inform and enhance our offer. The need to improve our donor stewardship and invest for recruitment of new donors. senior management involvement is vital for success of work with major trusts vital that we have a clear strategy and can evidence outcomes. To cultivate relationships with potential private sources of funding not about quick wins, about working with potential donors to look at shared priorities, objectives and areas of work and how we can achieve those with the support of the donor in order to achieve mutual aims and make the organisation and its services more resilient. Develop a strategic plan matching activities to potential income sources and follow plan through. Where possible develop a relationship with funders (trusts, individuals) and involved them in the development of plans Organisations that received a Small grant were also asked about the key lessons for their organisation so far about fundraising in general The importance of organisation comes through strongly in the responses to this question, with fundraising strategy development again being prominent. Respondents also mentioned ensuring that fundraising was part of the shared culture of their organisations. Some examples of such key lessons include: That it takes a long time to achieve significant funding. Private investors/corporate sponsors are slow to respond even if they do want to support your work. The need to put oneself in the shoes of those reading bids when writing them - make it simple and clear! - The value of having an experienced fundraising consultant to bounce things off. Fundraising is not the job of one or culture among everyone, from Board frontline staff. Developing a clear externally - if it is not clear what we two people in an organisation - it has to be a shared and Chief Executive level to Front of House and other case for investment is crucial, both internally and are asking for support towards and what the reasons 58

61 Evaluation of HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes, Baseline Report and benefits for that are, staff cannot sell that message and potential donors and funders will not be convinced of the need for or benefits of their funding. Having a strong fundraising strategy in place helps to keep fundraising on track and working to goals has been a good model. Increasing skills and understanding of fundraising improves motivation and efficiency - in the past, a lack of skills, experience and knowledge made fundraising a daunting task. To maximize current income streams before trying to access new ones - by being able to tighten up membership payments we are increasing our monthly income without having to do anything new. Important to get existing processes in order before attempting to start new ones. The key lesson must be that everyone in an organisation has a part to play in fundraising. Front line staff are a mine of information and often are the first point of contact re a possible sponsor. They have to be engaged. Trustees/volunteers/friends are an equally important group through their own network of friends. These groups need to be engaged so they understand how they can help Finally, in terms of lessons, Small grantee organisations were asked about any specific innovations they had implemented that they regarded as especially successful. Figure 4.3 summarises the responses in a word cloud. Figure 4.3: Examples of Specific Innovations Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Small Grant Survey 2015, n=61 Note: Word fundraising removed Specific innovations included ensuring that the potential of existing networks was maximised, and maintained, and that the full cost of activities was captured. Some examples of specific innovations include: Revitalising existing corporate and individual membership schemes to re-ignite interest and re-energise staff in promoting our offer. An increasing number of rolling memberships may provide the foundations to convert supporters to higher levels of giving in the future. Building and maintaining networks with other organisations to gain knowledge and experience on successful fundraising has been a specific benefit to the organisation. This has 59

62 Evaluation of HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes, Baseline Report created both confidence that fundraising can be undertaken successfully and created a culture of realism within the organisation as the time and resources required. Introduced a small business card to go with (mostly) all communications that advises who we are/what we do and why and that we rely on donations of any kind however small. The card then advises how donors can give. Perhaps not an innovation, but we are working on the true cost of services we offer in order to implement a policy of full cost recovery. We anticipate that the improvements planned to the administration of membership will bring immediate and lasting reward Looking forward, Small grantees were asked to summarise the impact they expect to see in the future in terms of increased private sources of income for their organisation Common examples of expected impacts in terms of increased private sources of income included anticipation that increases in income from private sources will improve fundraising capacity and capability and make responding organisations more resilient and less reliant on traditional funding sources in the future. Examples included: We were not trying for a 'quick fix' but for a realistic strategy that would start modestly and develop over time, given limited human resources. We expect to see growth in corporate sponsorship and individual giving. We expect an impact on all fronts, although we are starting from a relatively basic level. We will be focusing on developing capacity by creating a more effective structure for fundraising that can take a more proactive approach to following up on donor potential, and on new ways of giving. We wish to target potential private donors and businesses based on shared objectives, priorities, CSR, etc and to cultivate relationships with these. This may not involve seeking financial aid in the first instance, but over time we would build up the relationship to a point where funds may be asked for or offered, based on our clear case for support and shared target outcomes. The legacy of this initiative has been the learning and good practice instilled into the organisation. This has given the organisation insight and improved tools for income generation. We feel that the grant helped us to make huge strides in fundraising capacity and confidence that would have been much more difficult/taken much longer than they would have done without the support. We expect to see a significant increase in income from private sources over the next few years Finally, Small grantees were also asked to summarise the impact they expect to see in the future in terms of the diversification of income streams for their organisation A number of respondents highlighted that they expected future impacts to include more diverse income streams, with corporate sources being mentioned by a number. Others noted that it was too early to be specific on future impacts. Examples include: Income from corporate sources is now a consideration on all projects that are being developed. For example demonstrating the value of the project to local communities including local businesses will be a key element of project development. We are planning activities to promote our fundraising web page and we are also looking at possible projects that could be funded by donations from the page, this will increase our ability to host heritage based events and projects. 60

63 Evaluation of HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes, Baseline Report We would expect to attain some corporate giving in our funding mix and we are now more likely to look towards this area to obtain match funding alongside some traditional government backed funding schemes. The HLF Catalyst small grant enabled us to pilot a new museum event space, work with other cultural partners and attract new audiences to the museum. We are and plan to continue to work in this way, to create a multi-use museum to diversify income streams. Before the new database our income from individual giving was very low. We hope to really build upon this and expand this funding stream in the future, to build our donor base. Having tested new income streams effectively, the organisation may be open in future to try other new approaches. However, we could not have achieved what we have without this grant as a lot of work was involved and still is. With more organised communication and increased marketing we will be able to maximise revenue on the gate as well as raise funds for future capital projects. By increasing our income through fundraising we will also be able to invest in improving the venue for commercial hire and paid special events. The organisation will by 2017 have a greater diversification of income rather than relying simply on its two main sources, membership subscriptions and commercial rents. By building strong long-lasting relationships with corporate donors and sponsors as well trusts and foundations and private and individual donors they organisational will be much better placed to survive and prosper in the future. 61

64 Evaluation of HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes, Baseline Report 5. COMPARISON WITH THE WIDER HERITAGE SECTOR PERSPECTIVES FROM A CONTROL GROUP This section looks at the current issues around fundraising, philanthropy and private giving for the wider heritage sector through the results of the HLF Catalyst: Heritage Sector control group survey carried out in January These results provide a means of assessing the changes and impacts of the HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes by comparing the reported impacts and achievements (especially of the Small grantees) against the same issues for the wider heritage sector. Introduction 5.1 In order to fully understand the impact and added value of HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes, it is important to compare the changes in capacity and skills of Catalyst capacity building grantees and beneficiaries (in terms of fundraising, income diversification and private giving) with an appropriate sample of organisations from the wider heritage sector that are not benefitting from the Catalyst capacity building programmes i.e. a control group. 5.2 Consulting with the control group enables the evaluation to better understand the added value and impact of HLF Catalyst capacity building programmes by comparing the impacts from grantee organisations to others in the heritage sector. 5.3 This section summarises the results from the HLF Catalyst Sector (Control Group) Survey. The survey took place during January 2015, as an e-survey, and was distributed to a sample of organisations from the wider heritage sector not directly involved in the HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes but that have been applicants to HLF for other grant programmes. The aim of this survey was capture the views and perspectives of a control group of heritage organisations. 5.4 In total, contact details for around 550 organisations were provided to the evaluation study team by HLF to use for the control group. A number of the s sent out did bounce back as the address was invalid or the named individual had moved on from the organisation. This reduced the number of valid survey invitation send-outs to 485 organisations. 5.5 In total 113 replies were received which equates to a 23% response rate, which is a good level of response for this type of survey to heritage organisations not directly involved in the programme. 5.6 This section presents the main findings from the control group survey and, where relevant, makes direct comparisons to the results presented in the previous section of this report (Section 4) to assess the responses of the organisations in receipt of HLF Catalyst: Small grants against the responses from the control group which is intended to represent the views of the wider, heritage sector. 5.7 To assess the size and scale of control group organisations that responded to the survey, the survey asked questions about the number of paid staff, the number of volunteers and the total annual income of the organisations. 5.8 The results (Tables 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3) show that a diverse range of organisations are represented within the control group respondents grants, with the number of paid staff ranging from none (i.e. zero paid staff) to 1,600; and the annual income 62

65 Evaluation of HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes, Baseline Report ranging from as little as zero to 80 million. Similarly, the number of volunteers (another measure of capacity of the organisations) ranged from none (i.e. zero) to more than 140,000. Table 5.1: Size of Control Group Organisations (by Paid Staff) Number of Paid Staff Number of Percent of Organisations Organisations 52% 57 1 or Fewer 15% 17 Between 1 and 5 (incl. 5) 8% 9 Between 5 and 10 (incl. 10) 5% 6 Between 10 to 20 (incl. 20) 6% 7 Between 20 to 50 (incl. 50) 13% 14 More than 50 Total 110 Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Control Group Survey 2015, n=110 Table 5.2: Size of Control Group Organisations (by Income) Total Annual Income Number of Percent of from all sources Organisations Organisations 20% Less than 10, % 10,001-25, % 25,001-50, % 50, , % 100, , % 200, , % 500,001-1 million 8 5% 1,000, million 5 14% More than 2.5 million 14 TOTAL 99 Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Control Group Survey 2015, n=99 Table 5.3: Size of Control Group Organisations (by Number of Volunteers) Number of Volunteers Number of Percent of Organisations Organisations 10 or fewer 32 29% 11 to % 21 to % 51 to % 101 to % 251 to % 500 or more 8 7% Total 109 Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Control Group Survey 2015, n=109 63

66 Evaluation of HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes, Baseline Report 5.9 In terms of scale and capacity of the control group organisations, these results show that more than three-quarters have 20 or fewer paid staff (80%), and threequarters (75%) have 10 or fewer staff (Table 5.1) In terms of income, 80% of control group organisations that replied to the survey have an annual income of 1 million or less, with more than half (53%) reporting total annual income of 100,000 or less Therefore, whilst there is a notable range of organisations in terms of scale, most control group organisations that replied to the survey report total income of less than 100,000, and two-thirds have 5 or fewer paid staff (and more than 50% have 1 or fewer) Given the wide range of organisation size and scale reported, it is also interesting to consider both the average and the median43 measures of both paid staff and total income for the respondents Analysis of the mean and median responses show that in terms of paid staff the average number of paid staff is just over 40, but the median is 1. For total income, the average is more than 2 million but the median is 80,000. These results confirm the frequency analysis results from Tables 5.1 and 5.2 around the scale and capacity of control group organisations the median results being 1 member of paid staff, and less than 100,000 total annual income. Fundraising Capacity of the Control Group Organisations 5.14 The remainder of this section sets out the main findings from the control group survey and makes direct comparisons with the results to the same questions from the Small grantee survey (Section 4). This allows an assessment to be made of responses from organisations in receipt of HLF Catalyst: Small grants against responses from the control group (which is intended to represent the views of the wider, heritage sector) Table 5.4 shows that almost three-quarters of the control group respondents (74%) have a fundraising plan/strategy. Comparing this to the responses from the organisations that have completed their Small grant projects (Table 4.16) shows that the proportion of Small grant recipients with a fundraising plan is notably higher than the control group 97% compared to 74%. Table 5.4: Does your organisation currently have a fundraising plan/strategy? Percent Count 73.8% 79 Yes 26.2% 28 No Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Control Group Survey 2015, n=107 The median is the value in the middle of a series of values (the mid-point of a frequency distribution) when the values are arranged in order of magnitude. Use of the median measure is beneficial and appropriate given the range of organisations responding to the survey - it allows the influence of high value outliers (in terms of either staff or income) to be reduced given that such values would skew the mean values. It can be regarded as providing a more appropriate measure for this data given the high values of some of the outliers (at the upper end) for both income and paid staff

67 Evaluation of HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes, Baseline Report 5.16 Table 5.5 shows that for the vast majority (72 out of 79) of control group organisations raising income from private sources is part of the fundraising strategy. This equates to 91%, which is lower than the same percentage for the Small grantees that have completed their projects (98%, see Table 4.17) These results taken together suggest that support from the HLF Catalyst: Small grants has led to a greater proportion of organisations developing a fundraising strategy, and including raising income from private sources as part of this strategy, compared to the control group results. Table 5.5: If Yes, is raising income from private sources (i.e. trusts and foundations, private donors, corporate giving/donations, individual giving/donations, corporate sponsorship, etc.) part of this strategy? Percent Count 86.7% 72 Yes 13.3% 11 No Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Control Group Survey 2015, n= The control group were also asked the questions about the importance of both fundraising and income diversification to their organisation, and also raising income from private sources. Tables 5.6 and 5.7 show the results For the control group organisations, 39% describe fundraising as critical to their organisation (this compares to 77% for organisations that have completed their Small grant project, see Table 4.18), and 80% describe it as critical or very important (compared to for organisations that have completed their Small grant project). Table 5.6: In general, how important would you say fundraising and income diversification currently is to your organisation? Percent Count 39.0% 41 Critical 41.0% 43 Very important 11.4% 12 Moderately important 5.7% 6 Of minor importance 2.9% 3 Not at all important Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Control Group Survey 2015, n= In terms of the importance of raising income from private sources, Table 5.7 shows that 23% of the control group describe this as critical (compared to 68% of organisations that have completed their Small grant project, see Table 4.19), and 61% describe it as describe it as critical or very important (compared to 97% for organisations that have completed their Small grant project). 65

68 Evaluation of HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes, Baseline Report Table 5.7: In general, how important would you say raising income from private sources currently is to your organisation? Percent Count 23.1% 24 Critical 37.5% 39 Very important 22.1% 23 Moderately important 12.5% 13 Of minor importance 4.8% 5 Not at all important Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Control Group Survey 2015, n= These findings suggest that those organisations that have been in receipt of an HLF Catalyst: Small grant now place a greater level of importance on both fundraising and income diversification generally, and also on raising income from private sources compared to the control group As with the Small grant survey, the control group survey asked respondents to report on both the value of income they think their organisation will receive from private sources by the end of this current financial year, and what proportion of total annual income this will account for Table 5.8 shows the results in terms of the percentage of total income that respondents expect to receive from private sources by the end of this current financial year. (These can be compared to the results in Table 4.20 which shows the responses from the organisations that have completed their Small grants). Table 5.8: Estimated Proportion of Total Annual Income that income from private sources will account for by the end of the current financial year Control Group Income from Private Sources as Percent of Total Income Percent Count Up to 10% 36 42% 11% to 25% 18 21% 26% to 50% 11 13% 51% to 75% 6 7% 76% to 14 16% 85 Total Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Control Group Survey 2015, n= Comparing the results between the control group and the completed Small grant projects shows a notable variation in responses. 46% of organisations that have completed their Small grant projects reported that they expect private sources of income to account for between half and all (i.e. between 51% and ) of total income by the end of the current financial year, compared to 23% of the control group organisations Conversely, 63% of control group organisations report that they expect income from private sources to account for 25% or less by the end of the current financial year, compared to 41% of organisations that have completed their Small grant project. 66

69 Evaluation of HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes, Baseline Report 5.26 These results show organisations that have completed their Small grant projects anticipate notably higher proportions of their income to come from private sources by the end of this current financial year compared to the control group organisations Table 5.9 presents the findings from the questions on ranking/scoring the organisation for a range of criteria around fundraising, income diversification and private giving. These results can be compared with the results from Table 4.22 for completed Small grant projects to compare the ranks/scores between the two groups For the control group, the most common response for the majority of criteria is a ranking/score of 3 medium with the three exceptions to this (where the common response is either low or very low) are: Governing body (e.g. trustees, board) capability and skills on fundraising from private sources ; Volunteer capability and skills on fundraising in general ; and Volunteer capability and skills on fundraising from private sources. Table 5.9: On a scale of 0 to 5, please rank/score your organisation for each of the following at the current time: Success in fundraising from all sources Success in diversification of fundraising sources Success in raising income levels from private sources Organisational capacity dedicated to fundraising in general Organisational capacity dedicated to fundraising from private sources Staff capability and skills on fundraising in general Staff capability and skills on fundraising from private sources Governing body (e.g. trustees, board) capability and skills on fundraising in general Governing body (e.g. trustees, board) capability and skills on fundraising from private sources Volunteer capability and skills on fundraising in general Volunteer capability and skills on fundraising from private sources 0 none 1 very low 2 low 3 mediu m 4 high 5 very high Count 2% (2) 5% (5) 9% (9) 15% (15) 5% (5) 22% (22) 45% (44) 42% (41) 28% (27) 14% (14) 10% (10) 1% (1) (97) (98) 7% (7) 19% (18) 20% (19) 34% (33) 13% (13) 7% (7) (97) 6% (6) 13% (13) 27% (26) 37% (36) 13% (13) 3% (3) (97) 10% (10) 13% (12) 32% (31) 34% (33) 9% (9) 1% (1) (96) 8% (8) 5% (5) 14% (14) 36% (35) 32% (31) 5% (5) (98) 13% (12) 9% (9) 20% (19) 36% (35) 20% (19) 2% (2) (96) 4% (4) 15% (15) 24% (24) 35% (34) 19% (19) 2% (2) (98) 7% (7) 20% (19) 31% (30) 30% (29) 12% (12) 0% (0) (97) 10% (10) 20% (20) 30% (29) 26% (25) 13% (13) 1% (1) (98) 12% (12) 29% (28) 27% (26) 20% (20) 11% (11) 1% (1) (98) Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Control Group Survey 2015, n=98 67

70 Evaluation of HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes, Baseline Report 5.29 Whilst comparisons of the percentages (Tables 5.9 and 4.22) that ranked each criteria as medium suggests that the organisations that have completed their Small grant projects have ranked their organisations higher than the control group in general, a straightforward way to directly compare the results is to use the average ranks/scores for each criteria and compare the two groups (Small grantees and control group) Table 5.10 shows these results. Table 5.10: Average Rank/Score for each Criteria (Comparing Small grant and Control Group Respondents) Current Position Average Average Score Score +/(Small (control grant) group) Success in fundraising from all sources Success in diversification of fundraising sources Success in raising income levels from private sources Organisational capacity dedicated to fundraising in general Organisational capacity dedicated to fundraising from private sources Staff capability and skills on fundraising in general Staff capability and skills on fundraising from private sources Governing body (e.g. trustees, board) capability and skills on fundraising in general Governing body (e.g. trustees, board) capability and skills on fundraising from private sources Volunteer capability and skills on fundraising in general Volunteer capability and skills on fundraising from private sources Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Small Grant Survey 2015, n=56; and DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Control Group Survey 2015, n= Table 5.10 shows that for every criteria, the average score for organisations that have completed their Small grant is higher than the equivalent average score for the control group The criteria where there is the largest difference are: 5.32 Staff capability and skills on fundraising from private sources (+0.83) Organisational capacity dedicated to fundraising from private sources (+0.82) Success in diversification of fundraising sources (+0.77) Success in raising income levels from private sources (+0.71) Organisational capacity dedicated to fundraising in general (+0.66) Conversely, the criteria where there is the smallest difference are: Volunteer capability and skills on fundraising in general (+0.04) Governing body (e.g. trustees, board) capability and skills on fundraising in general (+0.05) 68

71 Evaluation of HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes, Baseline Report 5.33 These results show that the greatest variances in scores/ranks between organisations that have completed their Small grant projects and the control group are on: organisational capacity, staff capability and skills, and success in diversification of fundraising and in raising income from private sources providing evidence that organisations supported by HLF Catalyst: Small grants rank themselves higher than the control group on the criteria that clear links to the main Catalyst outcomes, including private sources In order to understand the context for the control group around fundraising, income diversification and private giving, the survey asked if the control group organisations had carried out any fundraising activities in the last year, and Table 5.11 shows that more than two-thirds of respondents (69%) had done so. Table 5.11: Has your organisation undertaken any specific activities around fundraising, income diversification and/or private giving in the last year? Percent Count 69.1% 67 Yes 30.9% 30 No 0.0% 0 Don't know Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Control Group Survey 2015, n= Figure 5.1 below summarises the common responses to the follow on question which asked organisations to summarise the key activities they had undertaken around fundraising. Figure 5.1: Word Cloud of s to summarise the key fundraising activities your organisation carried out Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Control Group Survey 2015, Note: Word fundraising removed, top 50 words shown 5.36 The importance of the following come through strongly in the responses to the questions: 69

72 Evaluation of HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes, Baseline Report 5.37 Frequently making applications for funding and grants; particularly new sources which organisations may have not applied to in the past. Planning and hosting a range of fundraising events, both from a community angle (e.g. coffee mornings, cake sales), and from a corporate angle (e.g. face-to-face meetings, fundraising dinners). Emphasis also placed upon securing sponsorship deals with private groups and organisations. Some examples of such key activities include: On-going fundraising programme covering all areas. Appointed new Development Officer to increase capacity of fundraising team. Training wider staff. Piloting new social enterprise to generate unrestricted income. Investing in more donation boxes to boost on-site giving. We have increased the number of staff working on fundraising bids; in addition to recruiting a fundraising practitioner onto our board. We are also focusing on our ability to earn more income from trading. Fundraising dinners, fundraising auction, launch of corporate patrons scheme, applications to trusts and foundations. We have applied for a grant from the Art Fund and are currently negotiating with a local historical society for grant aid to fit out a new Local Studies area in our new museum. We have jointly applied for Arts Council Resilience Funding with two other local museum partners. Sourcing and applying to funds; seeking project partnership with independent funding source; linking with another charity to maximise efforts; applying to be part of a larger umbrella organisation to share expertise and resources The survey also asked control group organisations if they received any external funding or support around fundraising, and more than 40% (Table 5.12) has received support. Table 5.12: Did your organisation receive any external funding and/or any support or training around fundraising in the last year? Percent 43.3% Yes 54.6% No 2.1% Don't know Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building evaluation, Control Group Survey 2015, n= Count programmes Control group respondents were asked to describe both the types of funding and support received, and who provided the support - Figure 5.2 shows the responses in word cloud format. 70

73 Evaluation of HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes, Baseline Report Figure 5.2 : Word Cloud of s to describe types of funding and support received, and who provided the funding/support Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Control Group Survey 2015, Note: top 50 words shown 5.40 The importance of the following comes through strongly in the responses to the questions: Funding and support through grants and funds from HLF, as well as other heritage/culture organisations such as Arts Council England, as well as from a wide variety of local/regional/national authorities and organisations, and local charities. Attendance at professional training events provided by a wide range of organisations, including HLF and the Institute of Fundraising Table 5.13 presents the findings on agreement/disagreement with statements about a wide range of capacity building aspects for the control group organisations which can be directly compared to the equivalent responses from the HLF Catalyst: Small grant organisations (Table 4.30) In order to compare the two sets of results Table 5.13 highlights in green shading (in the same way that Table 4.30 did) the statements where more than threequarters of organisations agree/strongly agree Interestingly, for the control group respondents, the only two statements where more than three-quarters of respondents agree/strongly agree relate to community involvement and engagement: Our organisation is engaging more with our local community. (82%) Our organisation is extending its reach into our local community. (81%) Although there was no explicit survey question about control group organisations engaging with the Umbrella programmes, within this group of respondents, some did note that their involvement in professional training events included attending events that were part of the programme delivery by the HLF Catalyst Umbrella organisations

74 Evaluation of HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes, Baseline Report Table 5.13: Please state how much you agree/disagree with each of the following statements: Over the last year or so... Our organisation is becoming more financially sustainable. Our organisation is developing a more diverse range of income streams. Our organisation is attracting more private sources of funding. Our organisation is attracting more funding in general. Our organisation is developing a (more effective) fundraising strategy. Our organisation is engaging more with our local community. Our organisation is extending its reach into our local community. Our organisation is developing more capacity to dedicate to fundraising activities. Our organisation is developing new/improved links with funders and donors. Our organisation is developing a better understanding of funders/donors needs and expectations. Our staff are developing new fundraising skills. Our governing body/board/trustees are developing new fundraising skills. Our volunteers are developing new fundraising skills. The attitude of staff towards fundraising and diversifying income is improving. The attitude of staff towards accessing funding from private sources is improving. The attitude of our governing body/board/trustees towards fundraising and Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree No change yet (expect in future) No change yet (not sure ) Count 9% (8) 37% (34) 22% (20) 2% (2) 23% (21) 8% (7) (92) 10% (9) 47% (43) 14% (13) 3% (3) 20% (18) 7% (6) (92) 5% (5) 30% (28) 27% (25) 6% (6) 18% (17) 13% (12) (93) 8% (7) 39% (36) 29% (27) 2% (2) 14% (13) 9% (8) (93) 8% (7) 45% (42) 18% (17) 0% (0) 20% (19) 9% (8) (93) 21% (19) 61% (56) 2% (2) 1% (1) 7% (6) 9% (8) (92) 18% (17) 63% (59) 3% (3) 1% (1) 7% (7) 7% (7) (94) 3% (3) 41% (39) 29% (27) 1% (1) 17% (16) 9% (8) (94) 7% (7) 51% (48) 13% (12) 5% (5) 15% (14) 9% (8) (94) 8% (7) 52% (48) 12% (11) 2% (2) 22% (20) 5% (5) (93) 3% (3) 54% (49) 17% (15) 1% (1) 19% (17) 6% (5) (90) 3% (3) 33% (31) 26% (24) 5% (5) 19% (18) 13% (12) (93) 1% (1) 32% (30) 25% (23) 4% (4) 20% (19) 17% (16) (93) 6% (5) 48% (43) 8% (7) 1% (1) 22% (19) 14% (12) (87) 3% (3) 43% (39) 12% (11) 3% (3) 23% (21) 15% (14) (91) 7% (7) 48% (46) 9% (9) 0% (0) 22% (21) 13% (12) (95) 72

75 Evaluation of HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes, Baseline Report Table 5.13: Please state how much you agree/disagree with each of the following statements: Over the last year or so... diversifying income is improving. The attitude of our governing body/board/trustees towards accessing funding from private sources is improving. The attitude of our volunteers towards fundraising and diversifying income is improving. The attitude of our volunteers towards accessing funding from private sources is improving. Our organisation is able to implement pre-existing plans and strategies around fundraising. Our organisation is able to develop and try new approaches to fundraising. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree No change yet (expect in future) No change yet (not sure ) Count 9% (8) 46% (43) 10% (9) 4% (4) 20% (19) 11% (10) (93) 0% (0) 41% (38) 15% (14) 2% (2) 23% (21) 18% (17) (92) 1% (1) 33% (31) 16% (15) 2% (2) 30% (28) 17% (16) (93) 8% (7) 59% (53) 10% (9) 0% (0) 16% (14) 8% (7) (90) 11% (10) 55% (52) 15% (12) 0% (0) 14% (13) 7% (7) (94) Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Control Group Survey 2015, n= For the other aspects, the proportion of each group that agreed or strongly agreed with each statement can be used to compare the two sets of results Table 5.14 shows the proportion of each group in this way, and highlights a number of key points: There are four statements where the proportion of Small grant organisations agreeing/strongly agreeing is 30% or more higher than the control group: The attitude of staff towards accessing funding from private sources is improving. (+41%) The attitude of staff towards fundraising and diversifying income is improving. (+33%) Our organisation is developing a (more effective) fundraising strategy. (+33%) Our staff are developing new fundraising skills. (+30%) There are only two statements where the proportion of control group organisations agreeing/strongly agreeing is higher than the Small grant organisations: Our organisation is engaging more with our local community. Our organisation is extending its reach into our local community. 73

76 Evaluation of HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes, Baseline Report Table 5.14: Please state how much you agree/disagree with each of the following statements: Over the last year or so... Our organisation is becoming more financially sustainable. Our organisation is developing a more diverse range of income streams. Our organisation is attracting more private sources of funding. Our organisation is attracting more funding in general. Our organisation is developing a (more effective) fundraising strategy. Our organisation is engaging more with our local community. Our organisation is extending its reach into our local community. Our organisation is developing more capacity to dedicate to fundraising activities. Our organisation is developing new/improved links with funders and donors. Our organisation is developing a better understanding of funders/donors needs and expectations. Our staff are developing new fundraising skills. Our governing body/board/trustees are developing new fundraising skills. Our volunteers are developing new fundraising skills. The attitude of staff towards fundraising and diversifying income is improving. The attitude of staff towards accessing funding from private sources is improving. The attitude of our governing body/board/trustees towards fundraising and diversifying income is improving. The attitude of our governing body/board/trustees towards accessing funding from private sources is improving. The attitude of our volunteers towards fundraising and diversifying income is improving. The attitude of our volunteers towards accessing funding from private sources is improving. Our organisation is able to implement pre-existing plans and strategies around fundraising. Our organisation is able to develop and try new approaches to fundraising. Control Group Small Grant 46% 62% 16% 57% 35% 47% 76% 60% 61% 19% 25% 14% 53% 82% 81% 86% 67% 65% 33% -15% -16% 44% 70% 26% 58% 79% 21% 60% 57% 86% 87% 26% 30% 36% 33% 51% 45% 15% 12% 54% 87% 33% 46% 87% 41% 55% 78% 23% 55% 75% 20% 41% 53% 12% 34% 48% 14% 67% 73% 6% 66% 89% 23% +/- Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Control Group Survey 2015, n=95; DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Small Grant Survey 2015, n= These findings indicate that the HLF Catalyst: Small grants have supported organisations to make progress against a range of aspects that link directly to the core aims and outcomes of the HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes to the extent that Small grant recipient organisations are now reporting more positive responses across a wide range of factors, criteria and characteristics compared to the control group organisations, as well as compared to the position of their own organisation pre-catalyst. 74

77 Evaluation of HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes, Baseline Report Reflections from the Control Group Organisations Lessons 5.47 The control group organisations were asked to identify the key lessons for their organisation around two different aspects raising funding from private sources and also about fundraising in general. Each of these aspects are set out below individually and it is noticeable that there is considerable overlap around some key response themes between the two aspects (raising funding from private sources and fundraising in general) This commonality of response is, in itself, an interesting finding it suggests that some of the same lessons emerge whether organisations are reflecting on private sources in particular, or about fundraising more generally. This might be an indication that developing capacity and skills for heritage organisations around raising funding from private sources (i.e. the aim of Catalyst: capacity building) also helps with developing capacity and skills around fundraising in general In terms of the key lessons for their organisation about raising funding from private sources, Figure 5.3 summarises the responses. Figure 5.3: Word Cloud of s to key lessons for your organisation about raising funding from private sources Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Control Group Survey 2015, Note: top 50 words shown 5.50 The importance of the following come through strongly in the responses to the questions: Putting time and effort required into building stable and beneficial relationships with private funders, where appropriate, on a personal level. The importance of developing good relationships with funders was often highlighted as a lesson learned. In relationship building, approaching funders whose interests are likely to match up with those specific to your organisation, as well as adopting the right approach. Improving on-going funding initiatives, in order to reduce the reliance on project-based funding. 75

78 Evaluation of HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes, Baseline Report 5.51 Emphasis on community engagement; and developing connections are again highlighted as important in this regard. personal Some examples of such key lessons include: Fundraising needs a lot of time and commitment both from staff and volunteers. Our sources of funding are diverse but we are working on more business sponsorship in view of cuts in local authority grants. Our organisation is 10 years old and well-established in the local community. As such, it attracts good local support, in kind and financial. Need for sustained investment- it takes a long time to build a fundraising programme and generate results, in particular around unrestricted income. It takes an enormous amount of time - and people invariably underestimate this. A relationship has to be established with each donor or funder, and this will certainly take months and may take years to achieve Organisations without a professional dedicated to this are at a disadvantage. Tailoring applications to the need and objectives of donors. Linking with organisations prior to making an application to confirm your project meets their objectives The control group were also asked to identify the key lessons for their organisation about fundraising in general and Figure 5.4 summarises the responses. Figure 5.4: Word Cloud of s to key lessons for your organisation about fundraising in general Source: DC Research, HLF Catalyst: capacity building programmes evaluation, Control Group Survey 2015, Note: top 50 words shown Note: Words funding and fundraising removed 5.53 The importance of the following come through strongly in the responses to the questions: Time and effort required in applying for and securing fundraising, as well as applying to/communicating with a variety of different funding sources. Ensuring that applications are well constructed with particular funders remit in mind. Creativity and ingenuity in the development of fundraising strategies. Spreading the workload around a range of staff and volunteers, rather than relying on one or two individuals. Training for all of these individuals is essential. 76