Mapping the Gaps

Research into third sector income generation support

Table of contents

Table of figures ..................................................................................................................................... 1

1. Foreword ....................................................................................................................................... 2
2. Executive summary...................................................................................................................... 3
3. Introduction to the research........................................................................................................ 8
4. Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 9
5. Profile of respondents ............................................................................................................... 11
6. Mapping income generation in the third sector ...................................................................... 15
7. Mapping income generation support in the third sector........................................................ 26
8. The gaps in income generation support provision................................................................. 31

Table of figures
Figure 1: Overview of research methodology ......................................................................................... 9
Figure 2: Number of survey responses................................................................................................... 9
Figure 3: Frontline organisations: Level of involvement in income generation..................................... 11
Figure 4: Support providers: Level of involvement with income generation support ............................ 12
Figure 5: Role of respondents within their organisation........................................................................ 12
Figure 6: Types of organisations........................................................................................................... 13
Figure 7: Area in which respondents’ organisations operate................................................................ 13
Figure 8: ‘Hard to reach’ groups targeted by respondents’ organisations ............................................ 13
Figure 9: Size of respondents’ organisations........................................................................................ 14
Figure 10: Frontline organisations’ extent of involvement in different income generation activities..... 15
Figure 11: Extent to which obstacles are encountered when undertaking income generation activities
.............................................................................................................................................................. 16
Figure 12: Sources that frontline organisations use for income generation support information ......... 18
Figure 13: Extent to which frontline organisations have sought income generation support ............... 19
Figure 14: The importance of income generation support for different areas of activity ...................... 20
Figure 15: Frontline organisations’ perceptions of income generation support provision by activity.... 20
Figure 16: Extent to which frontline organisations use forms of income generation support ............... 22
Figure 17: How income generation support meets the needs of frontline organisations...................... 23
Figure 18: Frontline organisations’ perceptions of change in support provision over the last 12 months
.............................................................................................................................................................. 24
Figure 19: Areas of income generation support offered by support providers...................................... 26
Figure 20: Support providers’ perceptions of demand from frontline organisations ............................. 27
Figure 21: Types of income generation support offered by support providers ..................................... 28
Figure 22: Support providers’ perceptions of change in support provision over the last 12 months .... 29
Figure 23: Frontline organisations’ descriptions of income generation support ................................... 31
Figure 24: Support providers’ descriptions of income generation support ........................................... 31
Figure 25: Income generation support planned for introduction over the next 18 months ................... 35
Figure 26: Income generation support currently accessed by support providers ................................. 36
Figure 27: Further support wanted by support providers...................................................................... 37

1
1. Foreword
ACEVO has long supported the view that third sector organisations need to diversify their income. So
this report looking at Income Generation across the sector is a natural addition to our work in this
area. This report is published as we enter the final year of the Capacitybuilders funded income
generation workstream which ACEVO has lead on .

Since the programme started in 2008 we along with our partners have helped support providers in
developing the skills they need to diversity their own income stream and to then pass this knowledge
onto their frontline members. We have also worked hard to raise awareness across the third sector
about the importance of income generation in securing financial sustainability.

The current climate and the forthcoming public spending cuts mean that the important work support
providers do is needed more than ever. They are out, daily helping the 160,000 or so frontline
organisations that work at grassroots levels across the country.

This report makes it clear that there is. demand for support providers and there is an opportunity for
them to reassert their key role in the sector.

Strikingly, throughout this report I was again reminded of the truly innovative nature of our sector in
meeting society’s needs through their work. Whether through social enterprise, procurement of public
services, personalisation or traditional trading, to name but a few, there exist enough tried and tested
ways of generating income that can fit any organisation regardless of size or type. Times are difficult,
but there are still opportunities for those that grab them.

The report highlights where we are getting the provision of income generation support right, but also
where we need to improve. It shows where expectations meet demand, and where they do not. This
report is an excellent starting place to reassess where you sit, and acts as a starting point to delve
into this vast topic and provide, and demand, better income generation support.

If you are a support provider reading this report, I hope it inspires you seek the opportunities for you
and those organisations you support.

Stephen Bubb

2
2. Executive summary

2.1 Background to the research

ACEVO and Capacitybuilders are currently collaborating to improve income generation support
available to frontline organisations in the third sector. This is a vital issue for the sector if it is to remain
both vibrant and sustainable in the future.

In order to understand the needs of frontline organisations and the current provision of income
generation support, ACEVO commissioned FreshMinds to undertake research into this area. This
report contains findings from an online survey of 102 support providers and frontline organisations, as
well as in-depth interviews with ten of the survey respondents.

A key challenge with the research was that the terminology surrounding income generation and
income generation support is not currently used consistently within the sector, and some respondents
noted their confusion around this. We have aimed to define terms in the interviews, but it may have
led to some conflation of terms in the survey.

2.2 Key findings

The key findings from this research are as follows:

2.2.1 Frontline organisations mainly use ‘traditional’ forms of income generation

 Currently, frontline organisations are using more “traditional forms of income generation”. The
most regularly used forms of income generation support are grants and contracts /
public procurement, with 93% of respondents saying they use grants to a ‘great extent’ or to
‘some extent’. There appears to be trepidation to move towards more commercial activities
such as loans, asset management and investment. The least used form of income generation
is loans, with 96% of respondents saying they use loans either ‘not at all’ or ‘only a little’.
There is only moderate use of social enterprise, trading and partnerships, with between
35-60% of respondents using these forms of income generation support at least ‘to some
extent’. This may indicate some appetite for more commercial income generation activities. 

2.2.2 There is a clear need and demand for support with income generation
 The majority (65%) of frontline organisations encounter obstacles when undertaking
income generating activities. These typically relate to: income availability (particularly in the
recession), a lack of clarity around income generation, the ‘culture of the third sector’,
unsatisfactory commissioning and procurement processes and uncertainty about the future.
As such, there is clearly a requirement for income generation support.
 
 Frontline organisations seek information on income generation through a range of
sources, with no single source being dominant. The four main sources that they use are
online resources (87%), training / workshops (80%), government resources (76%) and
networking / sharing of best practice (76%). Support providers also seek support
themselves from a similar range of sources.

 Frontline organisations seek support across a range of income generating activities,

especially grants, contracts / public procurement, and partnerships. Over 50% of
respondents sought support in these areas to ‘some extent’ or to ‘a great extent’.
Approximately half of respondents did not seek support in trading and personalisation, and
there was little demand for support in the areas of loans, investments, and asset
management. This is particularly pronounced in the case of loans as 83% of respondents did
not seek support in this activity. This demonstrates that these are not key areas of income
generation activity for frontline organisations.
 

3
  Income generation support is offered through a variety of methods. The most popular
forms of support (with more than 50% of respondents using them) are: sharing good practice;
collaboration / networking; online advice / information; grant finding services; in person advice
/ information and training workshops.

 Frontline organisations appear to think a breadth of support provision is important, even

in areas where the uptake of provision is low. For example, approximately 50% of
respondents from frontline organisations believed support in trading and personalisation is
‘very important’ or ‘extremely important’ yet less than 30% of respondents seek support ‘to
some’ or ‘to a great extent’ in these areas.

2.2.3 Both frontline organisations and support providers perceive the quality of
income generation support provision to be variable
 ‘Patchy’, ‘limited’ and ‘inaccessible’ are words used regularly to describe provision, as
shown in the word clouds below. However, support providers used more positive descriptors
than frontline organisations.

Frontline organisations’ perceptions of income generation support

Support providers’ perceptions of income generation support

 Many frontline organisations think that the quality of support provision is good in certain
income generation activities, particularly grants and contracts / public procurement.
Notably 57% of respondents described the provision of grants as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’.
However support is described as poor in areas such as loans, investments,
personalisation, and asset management / acquisition. Over 33% of respondents find
these areas to be ‘poor’, ‘very poor’ or ‘non-existent’. These are also the areas that frontline
organisations know the least about.

 Grant finding services, collaboration / networking opportunities, and online advice /

information services all received positive feedback, with approximately 70% of frontline
organisations saying they met their needs ‘to some extent’ or ‘to a great extent’. By contrast,
legal support and mentoring are not meeting the needs of frontline organisations as
over 58% found these forms of support to meet their needs ‘a little’ or ‘not at all’.

4
2.2.4 Frontline organisations do not see the quality as having changed in the last 12
months, though support providers think it has improved
 48% of frontline organisations do not think that the quality of support service has
changed over the last 12 months. However, half of support providers (50%) think it has
improved. Support providers mentioned increases in the types of services that they offered,
more staff capacity, increases in staff knowledge, better consistency and increased funding
as reasons for the improvement.

2.2.5 There are some clear areas for improvement in order to address the variable
quality and weaknesses in current provision
 A number of gaps and weaknesses in provision were identified by both frontline
organisations and support providers. These included a lack of commercial approach,
particularly little support for social enterprise, challenges with contracts / procurement,
restricted funding availability, and capacity. They also referred to weaknesses in specific
support services such as mentoring and training.
 
 Based on these weaknesses, respondents identified some clear areas for improvement. They
wanted the culture of the sector to become more commercial and supportive of income
generation methods. They wanted more clarity and simplicity around income generation
support, and more tailored information and support. They also wanted better quality
support, more funding and more staff dedicated to income generation support. Lastly, they
wanted more collaboration within and between third sector organisations.
 
 Most support providers plan to introduce a range of support services in the next 18
months, though these mainly reflect the current types of support already offered. The
most frequently mentioned service that support providers plan to introduce are training /
workshops (41%), collaboration / networking opportunities (34%), business planning (34%),
sharing best practice (33%) and online tools (31%).

 Support providers have a clear set of needs themselves which need to be met in order to
improve the quality of income generation support provision. The top three areas of support
that they mentioned were financial support (57%), links or contact with commissioners
(48%), and communications / marketing support (41%).

5
2.3 Income generation activities: usage and quality of current provision
Based on the research findings, income generation activities can be broadly clustered into three
groups.

2.4 Recommendations for ACEVO

In order to improve the quality of provision, ACEVO is recommended to:
 Consolidate the terminology surrounding income generation and income generation support
to ensure consistent understanding and better awareness.
 Raise the profile of support providers and the support they can offer frontline organisations to
help them generate an income through alternative funding streams.
 Influence the culture of the third sector as a whole to embrace more commercial forms of
income generation.
 Continue to support the support providers, focusing on what they perceive to be current areas
of weakness and addressing the support needs they identified (such as facilitating links with
commissioners).
 Based on the three groups of income generation activities shown in section 1.3:
o Improve support provision across Group 1 to ensure consistent, excellent support.
o Focus on raising awareness across Group 2, and building on the pockets of good
practice to improve support provision in these areas of income generation.
o Investigate Group 3, to understand why there is low demand and supply, and whether
this is due to confusion or lack of awareness in these areas.
 ACEVO could consider conducting further research in the future to build on these findings:
o Tracking provision and needs of frontline organisations and support providers on an
annual basis against benchmarks generated from this report.
o Drilling deeper into provision to understand what types of support (e.g. training) are
currently offered for the various areas of income generation (e.g. grants).

6
2.5 Recommendations for support providers
Based on this research, support providers are recommended to:
 Draw on the experience of support providers offering high quality income generation support,
to improve consistency and quality of delivery through sharing of best practice.
 Collaborate to standardise language and concepts in the sector, making it easier for both
support providers and frontline organisations to communicate. 
 Move beyond the status quo of income generation support by developing new and innovative
methods of offering support.
 Better align provision with the needs of frontline organisations:
o Focus on making support provision across Group 1 income generation activities
uniformly excellent. This may mean further investigating where frontline organisations
find support to be only satisfactory, and learning from pockets of excellent practice.
Some suggestions from this research include offering more sector specific
information on contracts and better support in writing grant applications.
o Investing and focusing on support across Group 2 income generation activities,
where some interest exists but uptake has not yet been ubiquitous. This may involve
educating frontline organisations on the support options available to them in these
areas, and emphasising the benefits of a developing diverse and more commercial
income streams. Some frontline organisations particularly highlighted the need for
better overall sector awareness of social enterprise and easier access to funding for
it.
o Work with ACEVO and other support providers to help to understand why there is low
demand across Group 3 income generation activities, and investigate the feasibility of
supply. This may involve increased work to educate frontline organisations on the
options available to them and working with them to understand and address the
barriers to uptake.

7
3. Introduction to the research

3.1 Background to the research

ACEVO and Capacitybuilders are collaborating on a workstream of activity to improve the support
available to frontline organisations in the third sector, specifically to improve access and support for
the full range of income generation opportunities. This is a vital issue for the sector if it is to remain
both vibrant and sustainable in the future.

In February 2010, ACEVO commissioned FreshMinds, an independent research consultancy with a

dedicated third sector practice, to conduct research to understand the needs of both users and
providers of income generation support. The research set out to establish a picture of current income
generation support provision and to highlight any gaps or unmet needs. This information will enable
ACEVO to raise awareness across the sector about the range of relevant income generation
opportunities. It will also help it to develop benchmarking tools and define what a core package of
income generation for frontline organisations should look like. Furthermore, it will generate insight into
the best communication approaches and help to standardise income generation support information
and language.

3.2 Aims and objectives

The overall objectives of the research were to:

 Collect robust data on current income generation support provision

 Highlight any gaps in provision or unmet needs
 Inform the standardisation of income generation support information
 Generate insight into the best communication approaches and barriers to uptake
 Enable awareness about the range of relevant income generation opportunities

3.3 Challenges encountered during the research

Terminology within the sector, specifically in relation to income generation support, is recognised as
being a key challenge. Capacitybuilders have started work to try to standardise some of the language
but for many ‘income generation’ is simply referred to as ‘fundraising’ and during the course of our
research the lack of familiarity with the terminology used was highlighted by many respondents.
FreshMinds therefore cautions the reader to interpret findings with this in mind.

Despite challenges encountered as a result of terminology, this report offers indicative findings about
the state of income generation support in the third sector and provides a baseline for future research
by ACEVO.

Note that throughout the research, the following terms were used:

‘Income generation’ – this refers to a third sector organisation’s activities to generate income
such as through assets, bidding for competitive contract tenders, investments, or enterprise.

‘Income generation support’ – this refers to the range of support services offered to third
sector organisations by support providers to help them to generate income.

‘Frontline organisations’ - Frontline organisations work directly with individuals, groups and
communities to achieve social objectives.

‘Support providers’ - Support providers or umbrella bodies provide services to frontline

organisations. Examples include local Rural Community Councils or Councils for Voluntary
Service (CVS). These support providers are part of the “infrastructure” of the third sector,
helping frontline organisations function effectively. They are sometimes called “infrastructure
organisations” or “umbrella organisations”.

8
4. Methodology

Figure 1 illustrates the different phases of this research.

Figure 1: Overview of research methodology

Stage one Stage two Stage three

Exploring the Fieldwork to gather the evidence Understanding the implications
context
Online 10x
Survey survey with Telephone
5x Initial Coding and Reporting
design and frontline interviews to
exploratory analysis of of key
sample organisations add
interviews survey data findings
generation and support qualitative
providers information
Source: FreshMinds

This approach gathered both qualitative and quantitative information. The research was targeted at
people involved in income generation in frontline organisations (such as development workers) and
also at people from support providers who are involved in providing income generation support.

Initial exploratory interviews were conducted to help shape the research tools and identify areas for
testing during the research. An online survey including a combination of closed and open-ended
questions was then drawn up collaboratively between FreshMinds and ACEVO.

Questionnaire topics included:

 Profiling respondents and their organisations
 Income generation support needs
 Income generation support provision
 Obstacles and challenges facing income generation
 Future trends

The survey was scripted and hosted in-house by FreshMinds using Confirmit software, which enabled
accurate data capture, live reporting and routing of responses. The survey was piloted with the first 15
respondents, with their feedback being incorporated into the final version. An invitation to complete
the survey was then sent to ACEVO contacts and advertised through partner networks. Respondents
were incentivised to participate through the offer of entry into a prize draw for Amazon vouchers worth
£100, to share with their organisation.

Screening questions were included to ensure that only those who worked for third sector
organisations (either frontline organisations or support providers) and those who have involvement in
income generation or income generation support were able to respond. No quotas were set though
the focus for recruitment was on support providers.

102 respondents completed or part-completed the survey, as the chart below shows. To maximise
responses some answers for earlier questions were included even if the respondent didn’t finish the
survey. This means the bases for each question can vary, though this is clearly indicated.

Figure 2: Number of survey responses 

Part- Part-
Number of Completed Completed
completed completed Total
respondents (number) (percentage)
(number) (percentage)

9
 Frontline
25 25% 3 3% 28
organisation
Support provider 53 52% 3 3% 56
Both frontline
organisation and 13 13% 5 5% 18
support provider
Total 91 - 11 - 102
Source: FreshMinds

Of those respondents whose organisations were both frontline organisations and support providers,
seven responded from the perspective of ‘income generation’ and have therefore been combined
throughout this report with other responses from frontline organisations. 11 respondents completed
the survey from both the perspective of ‘income generation’ and ‘income generation support’, hence
their responses have been combined with other responses from frontline organisations or support
providers as appropriate throughout the report.  

Any duplicated responses were removed and the results of the survey were analysed through a
Microsoft Excel-based FreshMinds proprietary tool. Open-ended data was analysed through thematic
retrospective coding techniques and key quotations were drawn out where relevant from the
qualitative responses to illustrate the findings.

FreshMinds used an innovative analytical technique – the word cloud analysis – to represent some of
the qualitative responses. This type of analysis allows an accessible visual representation of the
responses whereby the size of words varies depending on the recurrence of these words in the
analysed text. The more often a word crops up in the sample text the larger it appears in the word
cloud. Wordle.net was used to create these images.

Charts in this report show the base numbers, which represent the total number of respondents who
answered the question. Charts also indicate if they were multi-code questions, in which case
respondents could select more than one option – this explains why total percentages can exceed
100% on some questions. No results in this report have been tested for statistical significance.

During the survey, respondents were also given the choice of opting-in to a 10 minute follow up
telephone interview. Seven respondents from support providers completed the interview, and an
additional three respondents from frontline organisations. The interviews were semi-structured around
a topic guide, which explored their responses in more depth.

10
5. Profile of respondents

5.1 Respondent demographic

Survey respondents came from across all regions of England, with the highest proportions from
London and Yorkshire and Humber. Of the respondents who provided demographic data,
approximately two thirds were female and there was a good cross-section by age, with 34% of
respondents aged between 40-49 years old, and 40% of respondents aged 50 or above. No
respondents were under 25 years old. In terms of ethnicity, the vast majority of respondents (90%)
were White British.

5.2 Respondents’ roles and responsibilities

All respondents from frontline organisations were screened to ensure they were involved in income
generation. The majority of respondents were either involved to a ‘great extent’ in or ‘responsible’ for
income generation, as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Frontline organisations: Level of involvement in income generation

60%

50%
Percentage of respondent

40%

30%

20%

10%
3 11 14
0%
I am involved to some  I am involved to a  I am responsible for 
extent in income  great extent in income  income generation
generation generation
Level of involvement

Base: 46 (Frontline organisations)

11
As shown in Figure 4, although respondents from support providers were all screened so that they
were involved in income generation support, only 27% were involved to a ‘great extent’ and 18% were
responsible for it.

Figure 4: Support providers: Level of involvement with income generation support

60%

50%
Percentage of respondents

40%

30%

20%

10%
31 15 10
0%
I am involved to some  I am involved to a  I am responsible for 
extent in income  great extent in income  income generation 
generation support generation support support
Level of involvement

Base: 56 (Support providers)

As shown in Figure 5, the majority of respondents were either senior managers (41, 40%) or the
leader of their organisation (32, 31%).

Figure 5: Role of respondents within their organisation

50%

40%
Percentage of respondents

30%

20%

10%

32 41 22 7
0%
I am a the leader  I am a Senior  I am a  Other
of the  Manager Development 
organisation  worker
Level of respondent

Base: 102 (Frontline organisations and support providers)

12
5.3 Respondents’ organisations
Respondents came from a variety of different types of organisations, as depicted in Figure 6. The
largest proportion came from generic voluntary / community sector organisations.

Figure 6: Types of organisations

Generic voluntary / 
community sector
22
Generic social enterprise

Specialist
46

11 Anchor

2 Frontline

19
2 Other

Base: 102 (Frontline organisations and support providers)

As shown in Figure 7, a wide range of sectors were represented by the survey. The largest proportion
was from ‘umbrella / support / infrastructure’ organisations.

Figure 7: Area in which respondents’ organisations operate

Number of  Percentage of 
Area of operation respondents respondents
Umbrella/support/infrastructure 61 60%
Volunteering 39 38%
Education/training 35 34%
Children and youth 29 28%
Advice / counselling 24 24%
Health 20 20%
Social Enterprise 19 19%
Elderly 17 17%
Disability 15 15%
Mental health 14 14%
Grant making 13 13%
Employment 12 12%
Family welfare 12 12%
Ethic organisations 10 10%
Learning difficulties 10 10%
Trading 10 10%
Other 77 75%
Base 102

Multi-code question (Frontline organisations and support providers)

Respondents’ organisations target a range of different ‘hard to reach’ groups, as depicted in Figure 8.
‘Young’, ‘Older’ and ‘Black and minority ethnic groups’ (BME) were particularly targeted, with over
50% of respondents working with these groups.

Figure 8: ‘Hard to reach’ groups targeted by respondents’ organisations

13
Hard to reach' Number of Percentage of
group respondents respondents
BME 23 50%
Disability 22 48%
LGBT 6 13%
Older 24 52%
Young 26 57%
Women 17 37%
Refugee 13 28%
Faith 7 15%
Migrant 11 24%
Travellers 12 26%
Pan equality 7 15%
Base 46

Multi-code question (Frontline organisations and support providers)

As shown in Figure 9, respondents come from a range of different sized organisations. The majority
come from organisations with between 10-49 full-time (or equivalent) employees. 30 respondents
came from organisations with nine or less full-time employees, and only three had more than 250.

Figure 9: Size of respondents’ organisations

Number of full- Both frontline

time equivalent Frontline organisation and
employees organisation Support provider support provider Base
<4 4 9 0 13
5-9 4 11 2 17
10-49 11 32 13 56
50-249 7 3 3 13
250-1000 2 1 0 3
>1000 0 0 0 0
Base 28 56 18 102

Base: 102 (Frontline organisations and support providers)

14
6. Mapping income generation in the third sector

This section looks at how frontline organisations in the third sector generate income, and the
obstacles they face. It considers how they use and perceive current income generation support
provision. Finally, it looks at how frontline organisations perceive any changes in service over the last
12 months.

6.1 What income generation activities do frontline organisations use?

As shown in Figure 10, the main income generation activities used by frontline organisations are
grants, contracts and public procurement. Grants are most frequently used, with 43 respondents
(93%) using grants to a ‘great extent’ or to ‘some extent’. 34 respondents use contracts / public
procurement (73%) as a form of income generation to a ‘great extent’ or to ‘some extent’.
Partnerships, trading and donations are also key income generation activities used by frontline
organisations, although to a lesser extent. Respondents were polarised in terms of their use of social
enterprise.

Areas of income generation that are not readily used by frontline organisations are loans, asset
management / acquisition, personalisation and investments. 44 (96%) said they use loans as a
method of generating income either ‘not at all’ or ‘only a little’.

Figure 10: Frontline organisations’ extent of involvement in different income generation activities

Don’t Know Only a little Not at all To some extent To a great extent

Grants  46

Contracts / public procurement 46

Partnerships 46
Income generation activity

Donations  46

Trading  46

Personalisation 46

Social enterprise 46

Asset management  / acquisition 46

Investments 46

Loans 46

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percentage of respondents

Base: 46 (Frontline organisations)

Case study 1

15
This case study is an example of one frontline organisation’s approach to income generation and how
they plan on generating income in the future:

6.2 What obstacles do frontline organisations face in generating income?

Bill Giles, Head of Fundraising and Marketing, Child Accident Prevention Trust
“[Our income] comes from two main areas: the first is physically selling publications and training,
really using our expertise over a number of years and making the most of that. The second comes
from our fundraising which is concentrated around corporate, trust and statutory fundraising.” In
order to support the organisation’s activities they use databases, but they market and sell products
and make the applications themselves.

“From the statutory point of view we work with government departments that have an interest in the
work that we do. In terms of charitable trusts and foundations, we do research into those that have
an interest in child safety, but it can be wider because child safety impinges on poverty and social
deprivation. [In the future] we will concentrate more effort in certain areas. We are looking at
training and how we market the publications and seeing if we can access more potential markets
for these products and also looking carefully at potentially making more use of grants from trusts
and foundations.” Mr Giles believes that with larger charities their ability to generate income is very
good but that it is a larger issue with smaller and medium charities.

As shown in Figure 11, the majority of respondents (65%) said that they confront obstacles when
generating income, with 30 respondents saying they had encountered obstacles ‘to some extent’ or ‘a
great extent’ when undertaking income generating activities.

Figure 11: Extent to which obstacles are encountered when undertaking income generation activities

16
 60%

50%
Percentage of respondents

40%

30%

20%

10%

11 26 4 5
0%
Not all all To some extent To a great extent Don't know

Extent to which obstacles are encountered when undertaking  income generation 
activities

Base: 46 (Frontline organisations)

When respondents were asked to elaborate on the obstacles they had faced, the biggest obstacle
mentioned by frontline organisations was, perhaps unsurprisingly, the income itself. Over one third of
these respondents mentioned budget, problems accessing funding, users not being able to pay for
services and the overall recession. Competition for grants from other types of non-third sector
organisations, difficulty completing applications, navigating bureaucracies and time were all seen as
challenges. Other themes that were mentioned were a lack of clarity surrounding income generation
activities, the ‘culture of the third sector’, ‘unsatisfactory procurement and commissioning processes’
and ‘an uncertainty about the future by local authorities’.

The four respondents who felt that they had encountered obstacles ‘to a great extent’ mentioned
challenges pertaining to costs, beneficiaries not paying for services, and a reduction in applications.

However, 11 respondents (24%) said that they had not encountered obstacles in generating income.

There are many sources of information and support available to frontline organisations to help them
with income generation. Figure 12 shows the main sources of information used by frontline
organisations.

17
Figure 12: Sources that frontline organisations use for income generation support information

Online resources

Training / workshops

Government resources 
Information source

Networking / sharing of best practice

Internal expertise

Umbrella or membership organisations

Own trustees

Support providers / infrastructure organisations

Other 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percentage of respondents

Base: 46 Multi-code (Frontline providers)

As the chart shows, there is no single dominant source of information, and frontline organisations
utilise a range of online resources, training and internal expertise to help them in generating income.
Frontline providers seem to turn to online resources the most for information about income generation
with 40 (87%) respondents mentioning this as a source. They also make use of resources available
through the government, umbrella or membership organisations and support providers. However it is
interesting that out of all the sources of information on income generation, frontline organisations tend
to go to support providers / infrastructure organisations the least, with only 25 (54%) mentioning this
as an information source on income generation. This could be due to a conflation in terminology as
sources of information are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Case study 2

This case study touches upon the experience of an infrastructure organisation in defining what income
generation means for them and how generating income takes time.

Mike Wild, Director, Manchester Alliance for Community Care

“[Income generation] is becoming more important and we are getting our heads around what it
means for us as an infrastructure organisation. Most people tend to think of income generation as
selling a discrete product to a customer: as a business model we are probably more like a
consultancy agency, but one working from a strong value base. This means that what we currently
see as "funding" could equally be seen as consultancy fees in the future. That might be a way to
enable us to develop different kinds of relationships with different "funders". Income generation is
as much as a state of mind as anything else. [For us] it is means establishing a relationship with a
customer. Cultivating that relationship can take a long time, which is typical of the relationship
between the voluntary sector and public sector - and they are inevitably our biggest customer.”

18
6.3 How do frontline organisations use and perceive income generation
support provision?
As shown in Figure 13, the majority of respondents from frontline organisations (over 50%) seek
income generation support in grants, contracts / public procurement and partnerships ‘to some extent’
or to ‘a great extent’. The main areas where frontline organisations do not seek income generation
support are loans, asset management / acquisition, investments and personalisation. Over 60% of
respondents said that they do not seek support in these areas. This is particularly pronounced in the
case of loans with 38 respondents (83%) saying that do not seek support in this activity. As might be
expected, this suggests that in general, the activities which organisations use to generate income are
those which they seek support in.

Figure 13: Extent to which frontline organisations have sought income generation support

Don’t Know Not at all Only a little To some extent To a great extent

Contracts / public procurement 46

Grants  46

Partnerships 46
Income generation activity

Donations  46

Personalisation 46

Trading  46

Asset management  / acquisition 46

Social enterprise 46

Investments 46

Loans 46

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percentage of respondents

Base: 46 (Frontline organisations)

As shown in Figure 14, frontline organisations tend to think that it is important to have income
generation support across more activities than they currently use to generate income.

Over 60% of respondents believed that contracts / public procurement, grants and partnerships are
either ‘very important’ or ‘extremely important’. This is in line with the usage of these areas of income
generation. No respondents thought that grants were ‘not important at all’.

In the cases of social enterprise, trading and personalisation approximately 50% of respondents
believed these areas are ‘very important’ or ‘extremely important’. Interestingly however,
approximately 50% of respondents do not seek support in trading and personalisation as a method of
generating income.

Asset management / acquisition was polarised to the extent that 15% of respondents thinking that it is
‘extremely important’ to have support in this area, whilst 20% of respondents thought that it was not
important at all.

Over 50% of respondents believed that investments and loans as areas of income generation support
were ‘not important at all’ or ‘slightly important’.

19
Figure 14: The importance of income generation support for different areas of activity

Not important  at all  Slightly important  Moderately important  Very important Extremely important 

Contracts / public procurement 46

Grants  46

Partnerships 46
Income generation activity

Asset management  / acquisition 46

Social enterprise 46

Trading  46

Personalisation 46

Donations  46

Investments 46

Loans 46

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percentage of respondents

Base: 46 (Frontline organisations)

As shown in Figure 15, overall provision appears to be variable across the income generation support
sector. This indicates that the support provided does not consistently meet the needs of frontline
organisations. Opinions of frontline organisations are clearly polarised with some identifying provision
as excellent whilst others perceive it as very poor. With the exception of grants and contracts /
procurements, the number of respondents who perceive support provision to be ‘satisfactory’ to ‘very
poor’ outnumber those who perceive support as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’. In many cases, the proportions
of negative ratings are approximate to (and sometimes more than, such as in the area of donations)
the proportions of positive ratings.

Loans, investments, personalisation, trading and asset management / acquisition were seen as the
poorest in terms of quality overall. In terms of trading, approximately one third of respondents said it
was ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’ which suggest this is a key area for improvement. These areas of support
also had the highest proportion of respondents answering ‘don’t know’, which indicates low overall
knowledge in these areas of income generation support. Furthermore, a small percentage of
respondents (less than 10%) perceived income generation support in these areas to be non-existent.

However, there are clearly pockets of excellent provision, particularly in terms of grants. 26
respondents (57%) described provision of grants as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’, making this the area of
support rated most favourably in terms of quality. As described previously, grants are also consistently
seen as important by frontline organisations from a demand perspective.
Figure 15: Frontline organisations’ perceptions of income generation support provision by activity

20
 Don’t know  Non existent  Very Poor Poor Satisfactory  Good Excellent 

Grants  46

Contracts / public procurement 46

Donations  46
Income generation activity 

Partnerships 46

Social enterprise 46

Asset management  / acquisition 46

Trading  46

Personalisation 46

Investments 46

Loans 46

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percentage of respondents

Base: 46 (Frontline organisations)

Case study 3

This case study examines the importance of grants and fundraising in generating income.

A support provider’s perspective

“Smaller groups seem to have got into the habit of instantly looking for grants. There are not many
groups that try and do their own fundraising first. Traditionally people would have done raffles and
street collection. There has been a shift where the first thing they do is look for a grant. We talk
through different options with clients. Personally I actively encourage them when it is £500 or less
to fundraise as it puts them in a better place down the road if they can show that they do their own.”

“Most of the groups that come to us want our advice and assistance [on funding]. It does seem to
be the same groups that come back even though we have tried to reach groups out there that don’t
know we exist. It is not very often that I get a group that I have not worked with before. There is
more need than those that we see.”

“Initially people find us for the funding and then realise there are other bits and pieces we can help
with down the line. We have done training sessions on applying for funding, people have attended
and then the same people have come for support on funding. I don’t know how you would build
individuals’ confidence enough for them not to come back.”

21
6.4 How do frontline organisations perceive different forms of support?
As shown in

Figure 16, frontline organisations use a variety of forms of income generation support in order to meet
their needs. The majority of frontline organisations (more than 50%) use sharing good practice,
collaboration and networking opportunities, grant finding services, online advice / information, in
person advice / information and training workshops ‘to some extent’ or to ‘a great extent’ as forms of
income generation support. As stated above, grants are used frequently as a form of income
generation support so it is unsurprising that the majority of respondents said that they use grant
finding services to help them generate income. However, only 21 respondents (45%) used support in
completing specific grant applications.

Research, business planning, conference exhibitions and online tools were used by 40-50% of
respondents ‘to some extent’ or ‘to a great extent’.

Less popular forms of support were lobbying, mentoring and legal support. Over 80% of respondents
said they use these forms of support either ‘only a little’ or ‘not at all’. Referrals were also less popular,
with 33 respondents (72%) saying they use this form of income generation support ‘only a little’ or ‘not
at all.’

Figure 16: Extent to which frontline organisations use forms of income generation support

Don’t know Not at all Only a little To some extent To a great extent

Sharing good practice 46
Collaboration / networking opportunities 46
Grant finding services 46
Online advice / information
Forms of income generation support

46
Business planning 46
In person advice / information 46
Training / workshops 46
Support with completing specific grant applications 46
Research  46
Referrals 46
Lobbying 46
Conference / exhibition displays 46
Online tools 46
Mentoring 46
Legal support 46

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percentage of respondents 

Base: 46 (Frontline organisations)

There was considerable variation in terms of frontline organisations’ experiences with these various
forms of income generation support. Figure 17 shows the extent to which frontline organisations who
used these forms of support think that the support provision meets their needs.

Opinion was clearly divided, with some respondents from frontline organisations perceive that support
provision meets their needs ‘to a great extent’ whilst others view it as not meeting their needs at all.
Overall, nearly all forms of support meet the needs of over 50% of respondents from frontline
organisations ‘to some extent’ or ‘to a great extent’.

22
The areas which receive the most positive feedback were grant finding services, collaboration /
networking opportunities, and online advice / information services. These forms of support all meet
the needs of approximately 70% of frontline organisations ‘to some extent’ or ‘to a great extent’.
Despite relatively few respondents using lobbying support services, 11 (65%) respondents did find
that it meets their needs ‘to some extent’.

By contrast, over 40% of respondents feel that provision only meets their needs ‘a little’ or ‘not at all’
in various areas. This included business planning, research and in person advice / information,
conference / exhibition displays.

Legal support and mentoring, whilst being used less regularly by frontline organisations, appear to be
the least successful in meeting the needs of frontline organisations. Over 58% of respondents find
that these forms of income generation support only meet their needs ‘a little’ or ‘not at all’.

Figure 17: How income generation support meets the needs of frontline organisations

Don’t know Not at all Only a little To some extent To a great extent

Grant finding services 37
Collaboration / networking opportunities 41
Sharing good practice 40
Training / workshops
Forms of income generation support

45
Support with completing specific grant applications 34
Business planning 34
Online advice / information 37
In person advice / information 38
Conference / exhibition displays 35
Referrals 25
Mentoring 24
Legal support 30
Research  29
Online tools 33
Lobbying 17

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percentage of respondents

Base: Variable – see chart (Frontline organisations)

23
6.5 How do frontline organisations perceive support over the last 12 months?
As shown in Figure 18, frontline organisations perceive the quality of income generation support
provision to have remained consistent over the last 12 months.

Figure 18: Frontline organisations’ perceptions of change in support provision over the last 12 months

15%
24%
The service has become 
worse 
The service has stayed 
about the same 
The service has improved 
13%
Don't know

48%

Base 46 (Frontline organisations)

22 respondents (48%) said that they believed that the service level of income generation support has
stayed about the same over the last 12 months. Only seven respondents (15%) thought that the
service has become worse and by contrast 6 (13%) thought that the service has improved.

Those that believed that the service had become worse provided a variety of reasons for this. This
included the recession and how this has affected funding overall, particularly from individuals and
corporate bodies and especially for capacity building. As such there is perceived to be less funding
available and therefore more “hoops to jump through.” As one respondent noted, councils are paying
the same for less. Another respondent noted that there seem to be more services offered but they are
not streamlined.

For those that believed the service had improved, reasons related to improvements in the level of
support provided. One respondent said, “We have had a lot of support from our local authority grants
and partnerships officer.” One respondent felt it was due to “more focus on smaller charities by
infrastructure organisations due to 'infiltration' of public sector organisations into the charitable domain
through procurement and commissioning opportunities.” Another said that, “There's certainly more of
it, but not sure if it's better quality, rather than just more quantity.” Others believed that loan availability
and funding had increased to address increasing needs in certain areas.

Case study 4

24
This case study illustrates the changing climate of income generation for frontline organisations.

A frontline organisation’s perspective

“On the fundraising side we have noticed it has been particularly difficult with corporates. Corporate
support has plummeted dreadfully. For example, the corporates don’t want to be seen to be
spending money on a table for the ball or putting a team in for a golf day. We think it is a perception
and image thing for them, they don’t want to be seen splashing money around. Surprisingly
community fundraising has held up well…We are always looking for new ways to generate income
mainly on the community fundraising side. In general “we feel like there is more competition and
less money available.”

25
7. Mapping income generation support in the third sector

This section explores provision of income generation support in the third sector. It looks at the areas
of provision, the perceptions of demand for support, the ways in which support is provided and finally,
changes in provision over the last 12 months.

7.1 What income generation support do support providers offer?

In general, the income generation support provided by support providers reflects the income support
provision sought by frontline organisations. As shown in Figure 19, support providers overwhelmingly
offer support in the area of grants, with over 60% of providers offering it to ‘a great extent’. As over
40% of frontline organisations see this area of income generation support as ‘extremely important’, it
is no surprise that there is a strong offering among support providers.

Interestingly, a higher proportion of support providers offer personalisation and social enterprise than
frontline organisations appear to use.

In activities that may typically be viewed as ‘more commercial’, support providers offer less support.
Over 50% of support providers do not offer any support with asset management / acquisition or loans.
Moreover, approximately 80% do not offer any support in investments. With only little support offered
with investments, it is worth noting that approximately 10% of frontline organisations view this as an
extremely important area of support and nearly 40% of frontline organisations claim to have sought
support in this area ‘to some extent’ or to ‘a great extent’.

Figure 19: Areas of income generation support offered by support providers

Don’t know Not at all Only a little To some extent To a great extent

Grants  65

Contracts / public procurement 66

Partnerships 66
Area of support provision 

Social enterprise 66

Personalisation 66

Donations  66

Trading  66

Asset management  / acquisition 66

Loans 66

Investments 66

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percentage of respondents

Base: Variable – see chart (Support providers)

7.2 How do support providers perceive the demand for income generation
support?

26
Support providers perceive there to be ‘some demand’ or ‘high demand’ in several areas of income
generation, predominately grants, contracts / public procurement, social enterprise and partnerships.
In general, this reflects what respondents from frontline organisations said they seek in terms of
income generation support, with the exception of social enterprise. Approximately 70% of support
providers perceived at least ‘some demand’ for social enterprise. This is interesting as only 30% of
frontline organisations claim to use support in this area.

In addition, although support providers perceive the demand for income generation support in the
areas of personalisation, loans and asset management / acquisition to be low, this proportion is
higher than frontline organisations actually seek support in.

It is also worth noting that over 10% of support providers ‘don’t know’ the levels of demand from
frontline organisations in the areas of investments, loans, donations and personalisation.

Figure 20: Support providers’ perceptions of demand from frontline organisations

Don’t Know No demand Low demand Some demand High demand 

Grants  66

Contracts / public procurement 66

Partnerships 66
Area of support provision 

Personalisation 66

Donations  66

Social enterprise 66

Trading  66

Asset management  / acquisition 66

Loans 66

Investments 66

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percentage of respondents

Base: 66 (Support providers)

27
7.3 How do support providers deliver support in income generation?
As shown in Figure 21, the majority of support providers (over 50%) offer support with completing
specific grant applications, in person advice / information, grant finding services, collaboration /
networking opportunities, training / workshops and sharing best practice. This is broadly similar to
what frontline organisations say they use.

However, in general, a higher proportion of support providers than frontline organisations offer support
with these activities ‘to a great extent’. This is especially the case with support in completing specific
grant applications, training / workshops and in person advice / information. 50-60% of support
providers offer these forms of support to ‘a great extent’ yet less than 20% of frontline organisations
claim to use it to ‘a great extent’.

Both online advice / information and lobbying have a polarising spread, with similar proportions of
support providers offering support in these areas to ‘a great extent’ and ‘not at all’.

Interestingly, a lower proportion of support providers offer legal support in comparison to the
proportion of frontline organisations which have used legal support. Approximately 70% of frontline
organisations said they had sought legal support at least ‘a little’, whereas 50% of support providers
do not offer any legal support at all. This is perhaps an area that support providers could explore
further in the future.

Figure 21: Types of income generation support offered by support providers

Don’t know Not at all Only a little To some extent To a great extent

Support with completing specific grant applications 64
In person advice / information 64
Grant finding services 64
Collaboration / networking opportunities 64
Form  of income generation support

Training / workshops 64
Sharing good practice 64
Online advice / information 64
Lobbying 64
Business planning 64
Referrals 64
Online tools 64
Mentoring 64
Research  64
Conference / exhibition displays 64
Legal support 64

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percentage of respondents

Base: 64 (Support providers)

28
7.4 How do support providers perceive support over the last 12 months?
Reflecting back over the last 12 months, support providers had different perceptions of service
provision in comparison to frontline organisations. Whilst 48% of frontline organisations believe that
income generation support has stayed the same over the last 12 months, only 29% of support
providers felt this, as shown in

Figure 22.

Figure 22: Support providers’ perceptions of change in support provision over the last 12 months

3%
18%

It has become worse
It has stayed about the same 
It has improved 
50%
don't know 
29%

Base: 62 (Support providers)

50% of support providers (31 respondents) thought that support provision had improved in the last
12 months in contrast to the 15% of frontline organisations (6 respondents) who believed it had
improved. Many support providers attributed the improvement to an increase in the type of services
that they offered. For example, this included focusing support on different areas of income generation
such as social enterprise, trading and other advice services. Respondents also thought an increase in
the number of staff allocated to these programmes was a reason for support provision improvement.
Other important factors for service improvement were: increased staff knowledge and focus, better
and more consistent services and increased funding for income generation support.

However, 18% of support providers (11 respondents) said that income generation support provision
had become worse. This is similar to 15% of frontline organisation (7 respondents) who similarly
thought the service had worsened. For a few support providers, this was due to decreases in internal
capacity and a reduction in funding and resource availability. More specifically, respondents
mentioned a decrease in statutory funding and dwindling support from private sector organisations. As
one respondent notes, “easier options [for funding] are less available…harder options must now be
faced.” This could mean taking a more commercial approach - one respondent mentioned that “many
'grant officers' are not recognising that need for a more business approach to advice.”

On top of tightening resources across the sector, a few respondents also experienced an increasing
demand on services, making income generation support delivery more difficult.

Case study 5

29
The following case study discusses the challenge of having a dialogue between the voluntary sector,
private sector and public sector in terms of income generation support provision.

A support provider’s perspective

“Income generation is crucial to the sector’s sustainability. Organisations are going to have to find
other ways to survive. It is about encouraging people to look at their trading activities. What skills
and products they have and which markets they could go into. It is about becoming more
entrepreneurial.”

“There is a lot of material out there and expertise but a lot has been private sector orientated. It is
hard to find organisations that talk the same language as the voluntary sector. Business Link is a
very good example. They are trying hard to look like they are encouraging the voluntary sector but
in so many ways they just do not understand how the voluntary sector works. It is about trying to
bring those two worlds together, the private entrepreneurial side and the voluntary sector.”

“I am part of a regional group that is looking at income generation as a whole within this region. We
are trying to raise the awareness of income generation generally within the county as it is very low
at the moment. I am going to see an organisation to look at commissioning from the public sector
and generating income. Commissioning within the public sector is still in early days and there has
not been much activity in this county. There have been some contracts that have gone well, but
they are few and far between. We are working to have a dialogue. Public sector organisations do
not speak the same language as the voluntary sector. We are trying to figure out a way to
communicate effectively so everyone knows what the other person is talking about.”

30
8. The gaps in income generation support provision
Respondents were asked to describe the current provision of income generation support. As the word
cloud in Figure 23 depicts, respondents from frontline organisations used words that were generally
negative in sentiment to describe provision. Words frequently used were ‘inaccessible’, ‘insufficient’
and ‘inadequate’. Some also saw it as ‘confusing’, ‘patchy’ and ‘expensive’. Despite the majority using
negative words, a few described it as ‘accessible’ or ‘adequate’ which perhaps indicates a ‘variable’
quality of provision.

Figure 23: Frontline organisations’ descriptions of income generation support

Base: 44 (Frontline organisations) Source: FreshMinds,

Wordle.net

Support providers also describe income generation support as ‘limited’, ‘patchy’, ‘difficult’,
‘inconsistent’ and ‘confusing’, as shown in Figure 24. However, in contrast to frontline organisations,
support providers generally see support provision in a more optimistic light, with some describing it as
‘extensive’, ‘comprehensive’, ‘good’, ‘improved’ and ‘quality’.

Figure 24: Support providers’ descriptions of income generation support

Base: 62 (Support providers) Source: FreshMinds,

Wordle.net

As demonstrated by these word clouds, there is clearly room for income generation support provision
to improve so that it is clearer, more comprehensive, more streamlined and accessible.

8.1 Areas of provision that are perceived as lacking and weak

31
As both frontline organisations and support providers view the sector as being patchy, inconsistent
and inadequate, it is not surprising that they also identified many areas of support provision that are
lacking and weak. In fact, some organisations do not think that they receive any support with income
generation. As one respondent noted, “'I'm really not clear what is meant by income generation
support provision and whether we have accessed any! It may be that we are less well provided for in
Wales, perhaps? I certainly feel that any success we have had in income generation is entirely due to
our own efforts and not because of any particular support we have had. Maybe this field of endeavour
should be more widely publicised.” This statement could relate to a wider issue across the sector of
standardising the language around income generation support.

Interestingly, at a sector level, the more commercial and innovative aspects of generating income
were identified by some respondents as lacking or weak. As one respondent described, “The sector is
often lacking in ambition to generate new income streams in a dynamic and imaginative way. When
attempts are made the results often lack a sharp enough business driven focus and offer poor yields.
New and imaginative solutions are required.” Also, a few providers observed sector reluctance to
support innovative forms of income generation. One respondent said, “Locally (since that's our
environment) there is a resistance to the idea of the voluntary and community sector taking an income
generating approach beyond traditional forms of fundraising and contracts”. Broadly speaking, these
respondents did not believe there was a great deal of support for undertaking innovative approaches
to diversifying income streams.

In line with this finding, some respondents referred to specific challenges with social enterprise. One
respondent said, “In many ways our main obstacle isn't support provision, it is the attitude of other
organisations to social enterprise. The main statutory authorities are limited in both their thinking and
their vision in relation to the benefits of supporting local entrepreneurs.” Another respondent felt that
there was a tension between charitable activity and social enterprise. They said, “Compared to the
last few years there seems to be a noticeable decrease in specific investment into the provision of
support to income generation by social enterprise activity leaving generic support providers (CVS's /
CAS's mainly) to pick up the demand for this type of specialist support, often without the specialist
knowledge to do so effectively or indeed willingly, as there remains a conflict between charitable
activity and social enterprise activity.” Another respondent noted that they experienced a low level of
funding or start up funds in their area for social enterprise support, and said, “There is little available
for social enterprises [in our area] and whilst we can refer (and do so), [organisations] are limited in
what support they can offer outside of their area.” Respondents found that start up money and loans
were difficult to come by.

Some respondents also saw challenges with the contracts / procurement side of income generation.
Respondents wanted better support with tendering and more information on contracts from
commissioners. One respondent in particular wanted, “Direct linkages to commissioners and contract
managers [in order to] improve the opportunities to enter into contacts and tenders.” Another
respondent felt that support with contracts and procurement needed to be more sector-specific. “I'd
like to see more sector-specific support on securing commissioning contracts for arts organisations.
Events that I've attended have tended to lean towards the social care sector but there are increasing
opportunities for arts organisations to approach local authorities and others for longer-term
commissioning contracts yet I don't feel that I've been able to access support specifically tailored to
the approach (es) arts organisations could / should take.”

In contrast to this, one respondent felt that there is “a lot of stuff around on tendering, contracting and
procurement, possibly at the expense of support on grant applications and trading activities.” Another
respondent agreed stating that, “Support in writing applications [is weak]. This is time consuming for
third sector and often onerous with limited chance of success”.

Some support providers felt they struggled to provide income generation support, due to difficulties
with funding and capacity. One respondent noted the difficulty in providing advice due to a lack of
funding themselves. “We are not funded specifically to provide funding advice, which is a large part of
our work, and we find, even with experienced fundraisers, they need support with writing good funding
bids.” As well, a few organisations struggled internally to develop the capacity to provide income
generation support properly.

32
Other areas of income generation support that were described as weak were mentoring and training.
A few respondents perceived there to be a lack of mentoring in the sector and training was viewed as
too generic.

8.2 How would respondents improve income generation support?

Given the breadth of areas that were perceived as weak by both frontline organisations and support
providers, it is unsurprising that they have identified a range of different ways to improve income
generation support provision.

A few respondents referred to the need for the culture of the third sector to become more commercial.
As one respondent noted, “[The] sector locally needs to become more enterprising and there are
signs that this is happening but it is a slow process. It is a mindset about spotting opportunities to
generate income.” Similarly another emphasised the need to move to more commercial models. “We
have to start charging for the services we are providing. For this we have to prepare the organisations
receiving support from us to have a budget to pay for the services we are providing. Also we have
work in partnership with the statutory sector and deliver some of their services and charge them.”
Another respondent pointed in the direction not only of income, but of the bigger financial picture,
“Broader understanding of income AND expenditure in the current financial climate- it's not a one
sided profit and loss account and many third sector organisations we come across are only looking to
replace lost grant income. It is also unrealistic to build sustainable financial strategies on gifts,
endowments and investments. Trading and charging, new income and diversification of income
sources are needed. Honest examination and focus on core business is also essential to reduce the
expenditure base. Concentrate on the ‘must do's’ not the ‘nice to do's’.

Case study 6

This case study discusses the need for a change in the income generation culture of the third sector.

Broadly speaking, organisations wanted income generation support to be simplified. One respondent

A support provider’s perspective

“It is about getting charities to think about what they do and what could potentially generate income
for [them] on a permanent basis. To some extent it is a mindset. The sector tends to be inward
facing and to an extent it is about getting corporates to understand who we are and what we do and
making them aware that we are here.”

“There is an opportunity to create a hub for charities to talk about what they do and what to drive
traffic to. There would be a profile site that said ‘this is how you could work with us’ without doing
the donation, community investment angle. There is not a lot that exists now where everyone talks
about what they do and how they do it and I think that there is an opportunity there.”

“Charities [need to] demonstrate that they can work effectively with the corporate world as there is a
longer term sustainable business model there. There is a thought that ‘you’re a charity so you can’t
be as good as the private sector.’ We need to have more confidence. What we do stands up
against a commercial company and so there is no reason this can’t work.”

wanted support providers to “make it easier to understand, less time-consuming, clearer to access.”
Another respondent elaborated on this point and recommended that the sector needs to “'keep
everything simple. I often read materials which are far too complex. When organisations are working
out their costs etc, they need to be kept simple. After all, budgeting is very simple and in order for
groups to feel competent to do this themselves, they need to be shown materials which reflect this.”

Overall, respondents want better quality, more funding and more staff for income generation support
programmes and services. In terms of quality, one support provider noted, they want to “ensure high

33
quality advice in all areas; improve provision of tools and guides; maximise uptake of support offer.” In
reference to funding, organisations wanted more. One respondent wanted, “More funding available so
that it can be done properly - not as an 'add-on' to someone’s job!” They also recommended
investment and support in specific services. One respondent noted that they want to “increase the
level of investment to fundraising support as a specific service [and] increase investment into social
enterprise development support.” Finally, with regard to staff, organisations want “more staff time to
provide hands on support”. In addition, a few respondents wanted to further develop staff training and
expertise within their organisations in order to provide better income generation support.

The support also needs to be tailored to specific organisations and organisation types. One
respondent suggested that the service should “closely link any support available to the mission of the
organisations and not simply promote government agenda.” Another respondent felt it should be
better tailored to the type of organisation and noted, “[Income generation support] needs to be at a
much higher level. Support is often targeted at small organisations with limited aspirations but there is
very little for medium sized organisation with big aspirations.” Another respondent brought up the
importance of focussing support at the local level, saying “'Make it more focused to the real local
picture. The third sector economy needs to be understood to at least the same degree as the private
sector; yet it is never given such consideration. We still have to explain to commissioners that
publicising their plans enables the market to prepare itself. This is why there is such poor uptake of
loans and futurebuilders approaches locally.”

In order to better deliver support, respondents also seek more collaboration within and between third
sector organisations. One respondent pointed to the need for support organisations to work closer
together. “Get the organisations providing support to work closer together so there is less duplication
and more joined up thinking.” Another wanted “A more joined up approach towards tendering and
contract opportunities across the statutory agencies.” Other responses regarding sector collaboration
focused on partnerships and involving different types of groups in income generation support such as
community based organisations.

34
8.3 What income generation support do support providers plan to introduce
over the next 18 months?
As Figure 25 shows, support providers are planning on introducing a range of different support
services to assist with income generation over the next 18 months. The most frequently mentioned
service that support providers plan to introduce is training / workshops, referred to by 26 respondents
(41%). Other key services to be introduced are collaboration / networking opportunities (22, 34%),
business planning (22, 34%), sharing best practice (21, 33%) and online tools (20, 31%).

In general, with the exception of business planning, these new services match what is currently being
used by frontline organisations. Those forms of support where the majority of frontline organisations
have needs which are being met ‘not at all’ or ‘only a little’ are in person advice / information, referrals,
mentoring and legal support. Interestingly less than 20% of support providers are planning to offer
more support in these areas with the exception of in person advice / information.

Figure 25: Income generation support planned for introduction over the next 18 months

Training / workshops
Collaboration / networking opportunities
Business planning
Sharing good practice
Online tools
Online advice / information
Form of income generation 

Grant finding services
In person advice / information
Support with completing specific grant applications
Referrals
Conference / exhibition displays
Research 
Mentoring
Lobbying
Legal support
None
Don’t know
Other

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Percentage of respondents

Base: 64 Multi-code (Support providers)

35
8.4 What sources of support do support providers currently access?
Support providers currently turn to a variety of different organisations and resources in order to help
them in providing income generation support. These are shown in

Figure 26.

37 support providers (61%) rely on internal expertise, government resources, and networking /
sharing best practice as the top three sources of income generation support. Similar to frontline
organisations, they also use online resources, umbrella or membership organisations, training /
workshops and their own trustees to support them in providing income generation support.

Figure 26: Income generation support currently accessed by support providers

Internal expertise

Government resources 
Source of income generation support 

Networking / sharing of best practice

Online resources

Umbrella or membership organisation

Training / workshops

Own trustees

Other

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Percentage of respondents

Base: 61 Multi-code (Support providers)

36
8.5 What further support do support providers want?
Support providers were asked what further support would help them in providing income generation
support. As Figure 27 depicts, support providers have clear support needs themselves.

Figure 27: Further support wanted by support providers

Financial support

Links or contact with commissioners

Communications / marketing  support

Tools

Information / advice
Forms of support

Publications

Networking opportunities

Specific management training

Operational support (e.g. IT, HR)

General training

Other (please specify)

Don’t know

None

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Percentage of respondents

Base: 61 Multi-code (Support providers)

The main assistance that support providers seek is financial support, with 57% of respondents (35
respondents) choosing this. 29 respondents (48%) wanted more links or contact with commissioners
and 25 respondents (41%) requested more support with communications or marketing. Over a third
wanted more tools, information and advice and publications. Networking opportunities, training and
operational support were also identified by approximately a quarter of respondents.

Umbrella or membership organisations such as ACEVO should continue to work to address these
various needs of support providers, to ensure that they are able to provide high quality income
generation support provision and in so doing, ensure the sustainability of frontline organisations.

37