BREACHES AND RESOLUTIONS
If you believe that your organisation has been dealt with in a way that breaches the Compact’s principles then please ask your Locality Manager for advice.
The Locality Managers’ contact details are:
North Warwickshire : Davina Key; davina@wcava.org.uk
Nuneaton and Bedworth: Alison Hedges, alison@wcava.org.uk
Rugby : Clare Montague, clare@wcava.org.uk
Warwick District: Pauline Urwin, purwin@wcava.org.uk
Voluntary Action Stratford on Avon contact details: Julia Phillips, julia.phillips@vasa.org.uk
If the alleged breach has been caused by the County Council, NHS Warwickshire or another County-wide public agency, please contact Paul Tolley for advice.
Paul’s contact details are: paul@wcava.org.uk
Case studies
Below are a couple examples of how the national Compact has been used to help organisations nationally with their Compact breach.
Orthodox Jewish Group
The Problem: SAIL is an Orthodox Jewish group that provides summer programmes for inner city boys from socially deprived areas. The group applied to a funder but their bid was rejected. The reason for rejection was that they claimed the project promoted religion. Interlink, an umbrella body for Orthodox Jewish groups, heard about SAIL’s case and also believed that a disproportionate number of funding bids by Orthodox Jewish organisations were being rejected because grants officers did not appear to understand the need for targeted funding for this community.
The Compact issue: BME code 6.8 – recognise the potential of faith organisations to contribute to social inclusion, which is distinct from the promotion of religion.
The Action: We wrote to the funder explaining how they had misunderstood the bid and breached the BME Compact Code in doing so. We then met with the funder and Interlink to discuss the case.
The Outcome: The funder admitted that they had misunderstood SAIL’s bid, apologised and agreed to reassess the application. Valuable funding of just under £60,000 was eventually awarded to the group. The funder also stated that it has improved the training provided to grants officers about funding for faith organisations.
BME sexual health organisation and local PCT
The Problem: This award-winning BME organisation working on HIV and sexual health issues had received funding from the same London PCT for 10 years in a row. The organisation was waiting for clarity on the next year’s funding arrangement and chased for confirmation from the PCT. Despite these efforts they were not told until June that their funding had been terminated in April that same year. They requested reasons why this had occurred and clarity on what notice was being given but received no response.
The Compact issue: Funding Compact code 7.6 - give enough notice at the end of grants and BME code 6.7 - undertake joint review when funding is withdrawn
The Action: We wrote to the PCT raising the concerns about poor communication and the Compact breaches and requesting that the PCT agree to fund the appropriate 3-month notice period.
The Outcome: The PCT replied, agreeing to fund the full, Compact-compliant notice period from April to August. The PCT also gave further details on the assessment process used when funding was terminated and entered into dialogue with the organisation about how they could work together in future.
The Locality Managers’ contact details are:
North Warwickshire : Davina Key; davina@wcava.org.uk
Nuneaton and Bedworth: Alison Hedges, alison@wcava.org.uk
Rugby : Clare Montague, clare@wcava.org.uk
Warwick District: Pauline Urwin, purwin@wcava.org.uk
Voluntary Action Stratford on Avon contact details: Julia Phillips, julia.phillips@vasa.org.uk
If the alleged breach has been caused by the County Council, NHS Warwickshire or another County-wide public agency, please contact Paul Tolley for advice.
Paul’s contact details are: paul@wcava.org.uk
Case studies
Below are a couple examples of how the national Compact has been used to help organisations nationally with their Compact breach.
Orthodox Jewish Group
The Problem: SAIL is an Orthodox Jewish group that provides summer programmes for inner city boys from socially deprived areas. The group applied to a funder but their bid was rejected. The reason for rejection was that they claimed the project promoted religion. Interlink, an umbrella body for Orthodox Jewish groups, heard about SAIL’s case and also believed that a disproportionate number of funding bids by Orthodox Jewish organisations were being rejected because grants officers did not appear to understand the need for targeted funding for this community.
The Compact issue: BME code 6.8 – recognise the potential of faith organisations to contribute to social inclusion, which is distinct from the promotion of religion.
The Action: We wrote to the funder explaining how they had misunderstood the bid and breached the BME Compact Code in doing so. We then met with the funder and Interlink to discuss the case.
The Outcome: The funder admitted that they had misunderstood SAIL’s bid, apologised and agreed to reassess the application. Valuable funding of just under £60,000 was eventually awarded to the group. The funder also stated that it has improved the training provided to grants officers about funding for faith organisations.
BME sexual health organisation and local PCT
The Problem: This award-winning BME organisation working on HIV and sexual health issues had received funding from the same London PCT for 10 years in a row. The organisation was waiting for clarity on the next year’s funding arrangement and chased for confirmation from the PCT. Despite these efforts they were not told until June that their funding had been terminated in April that same year. They requested reasons why this had occurred and clarity on what notice was being given but received no response.
The Compact issue: Funding Compact code 7.6 - give enough notice at the end of grants and BME code 6.7 - undertake joint review when funding is withdrawn
The Action: We wrote to the PCT raising the concerns about poor communication and the Compact breaches and requesting that the PCT agree to fund the appropriate 3-month notice period.
The Outcome: The PCT replied, agreeing to fund the full, Compact-compliant notice period from April to August. The PCT also gave further details on the assessment process used when funding was terminated and entered into dialogue with the organisation about how they could work together in future.