RESPONSE FROM NSF (SCOTLAND) TO THE REVIEW OF FUNDING FOR THE VOLUNTARY SECTOR - DIRECT FUNDING FROM THE SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE 1 Relevance of this review to NSF (Scotland) NSF (Scotland) receives a core grant directly from the Scottish Executive under Section 10(1) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, and a grant towards the costs of our national Information Service under Section 16B of the National Health (Scotland) Act 1978. The Fellowship is currently in its 3rd year of 3 year funding from both sources, and this year will be preparing a new Forward Plan for 2002 - 2005 to be submitted in the autumn as part of our application for continued funding directly from the Scottish Executive. In addition, NSF (Scotland) receives 'indirect funding' from local authorities and some health authorities, for direct service provision in specific localities. Most of this funding is under the Mental Illness Specific Grant. Some of the infrastructure costs related to the National Office costs of supporting these services are received from these local funders. 2 Comments from NSF (Scotland) regarding current funding arrangements. NSF (Scotland)'s interests and priorities fall equally into social care priorities (community care groups, involvement of service users and carers) and health priorities; mental health, and particularly schizophrenia, fall into the Executive's 3 clinical priorities for Scotland. Other areas of activity, close to the hearts of our 'community of interest', relate to issues of social exclusion, non discrimination and human rights. For NSF (Scotland) there is a real difficulty in dividing our 'mission' into 'health' and 'social care' funding for core costs. This has been evident particularly over the past 3 years. During that time we have been closely involved with the activities of the Clinical Standards Board, and our Chief Executive was a member of the Millan Committee (both 'health' led within the Scottish Executive). On the other hand, we have made a significant contribution to 'social care' through our own service delivery and also through our active support for service user and carer involvement. We were founder members of the 'Allies in Change' initiative, which again crosses over these boundaries. At present however, our current funding from 'health' relates solely to our national Information Service. From the point of view of the Fellowship, and for the reasons stated above, it would be useful if this unhelpful distinction between health and social care funding could be removed. Core funding received directly from the Scottish Executive has enabled NSF (Scotland) to survive as an organisation. Given the lack of popular appeal of mental illness and schizophrenia, and the consequent impact on fundraising activities, we are very appreciative of this support for our work. 3 Responses to specific paragraphs of the consultation document. Para. 10 - principles for future funding. We agree with these principles. Para 11 - processes. We agree with the proposals outlined. In particular, we agree with the first point re: a single application form. At present, Section 10(1) forms and Section 16B forms are different, and require to be submitted at different times. This does not assist coherent planning, particularly when we are developing one cohesive Forward Plan. Para 12 Point 1 - we think that the Executive should be guided in this decision by the principles involved, not the quantity of money being disbursed. Point 2 - we do not support the devolving of administration of smaller grants to intermediary bodies. We think their support role would be compromised by this. Point 3 - see our response above. Para 15 - wider strategic review (b) Indirect funding NSF (Scotland) has faced major financial difficulties over the past year, and has had to take drastic action to enable some movement towards resolving these. Primarily, the problem has lain in the 'percentage management fee' arrangement whereby local authorities allocate a certain percentage of the total grant given towards the 'management' costs of projects that they fund.< For organisations such as our own, who provide day services, the percentages (which vary among the different local authorities) historically have not met the true costs of the infrastructure required to support these services. Over the past year we have met with all of our statutory funders and explained the situation to them. We know what our infrastructure costs are and have worked out an equitable means of allocating these among our funders. If necessary, we will reduce services to ensure that those which we continue to provide can have the best possible (in the circumstances) infrastructure support from our National Office.< This is a complex issue. Rather than describing it in more detail here, we invite the Scottish Executive to contact us for more information should this be considered helpful - we have extensive documentation which we can make available. (c) We do not support the proposals outlined here (d) We have no specific comments here; NSF (Scotland) has been independent since 1984 but retains close informal links with NSF south of the border. We are not aware of issues relating to the Scottish Executive in this respect, although we are beginning to explore with them the wider issues of fundraising from UK wide, but English based, Trusts and commercial organisations. We are also members of an organisation called EUFAMI which is a Europe wide federation of membership/family organisations affected by serious mental illness, and as such are similar to ourselves. As far as we are aware, there are no likely circumstances where EUFAMI would develop a relationship with the Scottish Executive, and certainly not without our own active involvement. (e) We know what is meant by the term 'exit strategy', but find it problematic, particularly as a mental health organisation which does not attract wide fundraising support. In addition, we have welcomed the continuity afforded by the Scottish Executive's (and formerly the Scottish Office's) core support for our work. It has enabled us to develop many activities which are funded from different sources (e.g the Community Fund) without expending even more time and energy in sustaining funding for our core activities - an activity which would deflect us even more from our own priorities, many of which are shared by the Scottish Executive. Please do not hesitate to contact me if there are any points on which you require clarification, or which you would like to discuss further. Mary Weir Chief Executive NSF (Scotland)