UNDERSTANDING GRANT HOLDERS AND THEIR LSF

PROJECTS BULLETIN PART 21

Drawing on analysis of grant holder ODT results and application forms this short bulletin supplements the
original bulletin published in November 2016. Specifically, it provides more detailed sub-group analysis of
different types of grant holders (including by income trajectory, age and project focus) and develops a set
of typologies of grant holders which cut across different variables. These typologies are valuable in their
own right but they will also greatly assist in the final evaluation analysis of monitoring reports and the final
ODT results. This bulletin is a summary of a more detailed internal report.

Differences by income trajectory

In the previous analysis grant holders were categorised as growers (consistent income growth), squeezed
middle (little or no growth) and survivors (sharp decline in income). Interestingly, additional analysis
revealed that income trajectory was not related to whether grant holders were aiming to increase their
income through LSF, however, growers were the most likely to be looking to secure income from new
funders (34.4%), with survivors the least likely (18.2%). Survivors were most likely to be focusing their
project on improving systems (such as HR or finance) and to be focused on impact assessment.

Differences by age
Grant holders were split into five age categories. Most interestingly, analysis showed that those
established post-1980s were over twice as likely to be focused on user-involvement than older
organisations. Moreover, as can be seen in the table below, younger organisations were the most likely to
be focused on impact assessment with the proportion decreasing sharply with age. Younger
organisations (2000s) were the most likely to be using LSF for substantial strategic planning/thinking and
also tended to apply for the largest amount of money from LSF.

Age (%) Impact assessment

Pre-1945 3.7
1945-79 9.5

1980-89 20.6
1990-99 29.0
2000 onwards 37.4

1
This bulletin was prepared by Matthew Hill, Jack Egan and Sarah Jenkins and published in June, 2017

1
Understanding grant holders and their LSF projects bulletin. Part 2 (May 2017)
Differences by impact assessment
As well as age, the focus on impact assessment also differed in relation to a grant holders sustainability
score on the ODT. Almost three-fifths (58.3%) of organisations with high sustainability are focused on
impact assessment versus 33.6% of low sustainability organisations. There were also clear sectoral
differences with youth organisations the most likely (60.7%) and community organisations the least likely
(34.0%).

Differences by partnership working

A quarter (24.6%) of grant holders are building relationships/ partnerships in LSF (excluding funding
partnerships). These tended to be younger organisations (40% of those established in the 2000s). As one
might have expected, the growers had the highest proportion of those scoring 4 (highest) on the ODT
partnerships question (43.5%), followed by the squeezed middle (32.8%) and finally the survivors (12.1%).
Interestingly, those that scored lower on partnership working were almost twice as likely (31.6%) to be
aiming to involve new funders compared to the high scoring organisations (16.4%).

Organisations not aiming to increase funding

Of the 101 grant holders who werent focusing on increasing income within their LSF project, less than half
(44.6%) indicated they would be improving systems as part of the project, with marketing (41.6%) being
the most common system to be improved similar to the rest of the population. Interestingly, they were
more likely than average to be developing finance systems (29.7%). A greater than average number (55.4%
compared to 46.6% overall) indicated strategic thinking would be part of the project. Just over a fifth
(21.8%) indicated financial planning/forecasting would be part of the project. Over a quarter (27.7%) of
these organisations indicated gaining formal accreditation as part of the project, higher than the overall
level of 22.7%. These organisations tended to be younger with just under a third (31.7%) established since
2000, followed by 26.7% in 1990s. This continued to reduce in a linear fashion to 3% for the organisations
established pre-1945. Perhaps surprisingly the average turnover (2014) was similar to the average overall,
suggesting that organisations who were not aiming to increase funding through LSF were not doing so
because they already had more income.

The advisor relationship

As part of this work we undertook additional analysis of the snapshot survey 2 responses regarding the
advisor relationship. Specifically, the analysis links the type of support given by advisors to the grant
holders self-rated level of success of this relationship. Although Active Delivery was the type of support
least likely to be given by advisors (37.2%), those organisations that did receive this type of support were
more likely to report high success levels of the advisor role (41.7%) than those receiving other types of
support. How advisors were recruited also had some bearing on the level of success grant holders scored
their projects. Those who had advisors recommended to them were most likely to report low success of
the advisor role (52.5% versus an average level of 32.3%) and were least likely to report high success
(22.5% versus an average of 33.1%). Those whose advisor was already known to them were the least likely
to report low success (26.7%) by some distance; they were followed by those who actively recruited
(42.3%). There was also a slight positive correlation between already knowing an advisor and success
score. The stage that the advisor became involved in the LSF project had less of an impact on scores. The
proportion of organisations reporting high success showed little variation across stages of involvement
(i.e. at the application stage or after funding had been awarded).

2
 Understanding grant holders and their LSF projects bulletin. Part 2 (May 2017)

Grant holder typologies

The analysis allowed us to develop a set of typologies of grant holders and LSF projects. The proposed
typologies cut across different variables from the application, the initial ODT and the evaluation teams
own coding of organisations. The analysis is interesting in its own right, however, it will also be used to
analyse the 12 monthly reports and final ODT so that we can see if certain types of grant holders have been
more successful than others in LSF, and crucially, offer insights as to why this might be. The right-hand
column of the table below identifies the dimension to which each typology is referring and the left-hand
column details the different categories of grant holders on this dimension. These typologies will be refined
throughout the rest of the evaluation.

Please let us know how they chime with your own experience. Does your organisation clearly fit into them
or are you an outlier? Are they useful in helping you think through where your organisation is and how it
frames sustainability?

Please get in touch via the online learning network or email the evaluation team directly with your
thoughts (nick.ockenden@ivr.org.uk).

Typology Characteristics (% Proportion)

Internal/ External (37.5%)

external focus These organisations had more of an external focus, indicating they actively involved users and were
pursuing partnerships/relationships.

Balanced (40.2%)
These organisations may have referenced some internal and external factors in their applications,
but did not focus strongly in one direction.

Internal (22.2%)
These organisations had more of an inward-looking focus, indicating they were aiming for formal
accreditation regarding quality assurance/quality standards and were looking to improve their
internal systems.

Present/ Present (74.1%)

future focus These organisations were more focused on the here and now. They werent necessarily looking to
develop new funding streams. Sometimes unclear on their customers, stakeholders or funders, they
struggled to find who the right customers or funders were for themselves and recognised that they
faced competition. These organisations acknowledged sometimes they struggled to introduce and
embed change. They also indicated they did not always have a clear vision for change and the
impact they were trying to achieve.

Future (25.9%)
These organisations had a forward-looking focus, indicating they were looking to develop new
funding streams. They knew their market and how many potential customers they would have in the

3
 Understanding grant holders and their LSF projects bulletin. Part 2 (May 2017)
future, taking into account demand and competition. They indicated they were always considering
ways to change and had a vision for their mission and objectives.

Open/ closed Closed (70.1%)

Users/ These organisations werent necessarily involving their users or pursuing partnerships/relationships.
collaborations They acknowledged their board was relatively unbalanced, with an under-representation of
users/the community. Whilst they are possibly involved in local networks, there are gaps in their
links to others and they lack active involvement with partnerships or networks which would enhance
the organisations knowledge, skills or opportunities.

Open (29.9%)
These organisations indicated they actively involved users and were pursuing partnerships/
relationships. They feel their board was balanced with regard to the proportion of board members
representing users/the community. They are actively involved in some important networks and
partnerships and invest significant resources to being/becoming an established and respected
organisation in their field.

Static/ Evolving (49.2%)

evolving These organisations had already made significant changes and were always considering ways to
change, expressing a desire to feel ahead of the market. However, they acknowledged sometimes
previously they may have developed too much or too quickly. They indicated they had a clear,
established vision for their mission and objectives, which was already being delivered against.

Static (50.8%)
These organisations have made few or no changes in the last two years. They believed they knew
what works well and were reluctant to change unless forced. Thus, they sometimes struggled to
introduce and embed change. These organisations also indicated they did not always have a clear
vision for change and the impact they were trying to achieve.

Reactor/ Reactor (43.7%)

prospector These organisations were often not able to respond adequately to change in their organisational
strategy environment and had a focus on the here and now.

Mixed (37.6%)
These organisations may have shown some aspects of reactors and prospectors but did not strongly
display the characteristics of one or the other.

Prospector (18.6%)
These organisations were continuously exploring market opportunities and trying out new responses
to changes in the operating environment. These organisations had a more forward looking focus and
were evolving as an organisation.