|
|
|
Survey on sources of funding for women specific work
By Vérène Nicolas Fellow of the Centre for Human Ecology
On behalf of The Women’s Trust Fund June 2001 Acknowledgements The Women’s Trust Fund would like to acknowledge the help of the trust representatives who have participated in this research by taking the time to answer the questionnaire. A very special thanks for those who accepted to answer further questions on the telephone. Their contribution to the research was invaluable. Contents
Main findings from questionnaires Main findings from telephone interviews Insights from organisations working abroad Annexe 2 – Questions for telephone interviews Annexe 3 - List of Trusts to which the questionnaire was sent Annexe 4 - List of respondents Introduction This research survey is the result of collaboration between the Women’s Trust Fund, a small UK-wide charity and Vérène Nicolas, Fellow of the Centre for Human Ecology in Edinburgh. The Women’s Trust Fund aims to promote the health and well-being of women, through the development of skills in health and education, and to support women campaigning to redress social inequality and other underlying causes of ill health. This survey was carried between April and June 2001. It involved 33 charitable trusts that answered a questionnaire, and a number of individuals involved in charitable giving who were interviewed by telephone or contacted by email. This report starts with background information to the survey and then presents the methodology and main findings from questionnaires, telephone interviews, and information pulled from the Internet about organisations working abroad. The report concludes with recommendations for the seminar that The Women’s Trust Fund – in partnership with the Women’s Fund in Newcastle – is planning to organise in the autumn for funders interested in women’s issues. Background In February 1985 the Women’s Organisations Interest Group at NCVO (National Council for Voluntary Organisations) organised a meeting where it was revealed that the main concern of women’s organisations was “about an increasingly hostile climate in which they were trying to raise money for women” (Bowman and Norton, 1986). Sixteen years later, funding issues have become a major concern for the whole of the voluntary sector in Britain and women’s organisations seem to struggle particularly to access funding and undertake their activities. Although very little research has been undertaken on the evolution of funding available for women’s work, it appears that, since the abolition of Greater London Council and metropolitan counties in the mid-80s followed by the reorganisation of local authorities in Scotland in the mid-90s, public funding available to women’s organisations has decreased considerably. A study of women’s organisations in the UK carried out between 1995 and 1999 by the Centre for Institutional Studies at the University of East London (Riordan, 1999) found that:
This study also looked at the financial resources of women’s organisations drawing upon data on 301 women’s organisations collected from the National Lottery Charities Board and the National for Voluntary Organisations. “These organisations were, overwhelmingly, small. Seventy-two percent had annual incomes under £100,000 (62% of which had incomes under £50,000); 22% between £100,000 and £500,000; 3%, between £500,000 and £1 million; and 3%, over £1 million.” Women’s organisations, despite the important role they play in society, seem to be particularly vulnerable in this deteriorating funding climate. It was already recognised in the mid-80s that women’s organisations needed “to diversify their funding sources” (Grant, 1988) and take the necessary steps to “strengthen [their] financial independence and increase their mutual support of each other” (Bowman and Norton, 1986). Our report is a contribution to the reflection on how funding sources for women can be diversified and improved in Britain. Although charitable trusts give grants that “only amounts to 2-3% of the overall income of the broad voluntary sector” (Riordan, 1999), they play an important role in today’s funding world. They also have the capacity to initiate new funding opportunities through networking, research funding and partnerships. Methodology Consistent with the resources allocated to the research it was decided to focus on charitable trusts in Britain, leaving aside the funding available to women’s organisations by Local Authorities or funding opportunities at European level. A search on the ‘Funderfinder’ software, corroborated by a search in the Guide to the Major Trusts in Britain (volumes 1 (1998/99), 2 (1999/00) and 3 (2000/2001)), identified 80 charitable trusts mentioning women, gender, children, family or young people in their guidelines. A questionnaire was sent to the 80 trusts (see annexe 1). 33 of them sent the completed questionnaire back or a letter and/or their guidelines. Three more answered that the questionnaire was not relevant to their grant making policy and therefore they didn’t fill it in. Seven trusts agreed to have a conversation with us to explore the issues raised in the questionnaire in further depth (see Question 9). They were interviewed by telephone (see annexe 2 for questions). Contacts were also taken with the Community Foundation Network in London, a representative of the Shiehallion group in Scotland, Siobhan Riordan from the Centre for Institutional Studies (University of East London), Marjan Sax from Mama Cash in the Netherlands and Christine Morrison from Profunding in Newcastle. A search on the Internet also provided information on grants given by the National Lottery Charities Board to women’s projects, and allowed an exploration of the Community Foundation model in North America, WINGS (Worldwide Initiatives for Grantmaker Support) in Canada, the Women’s Funding Network, Changemakers and Resourceful Women in the United States.
Main findings from questionnaires
We can presume that the 33 trusts that took the time to fill in and send the questionnaire back – out of 80 that received it in the first place – felt that the questions were relevant to their funding objectives. A lot of the 47 trusts that didn’t send the questionnaire back may have felt that this survey was irrelevant to them. Although this would need further corroboration, it may therefore be possible to conclude that less than 20 significant trusts in the UK actually prioritise women’s specific work.
1. Sexual/Domestic Violence (18 trusts mention it out of 33) 2. Black and Ethnic Minority (15/33) 3. Community/Social Exclusion and Education and Training (13) 4. Parenting (11) 5. Health (10) 6. Employment (9) 7. Women in Prison and Refugees and Asylum Seekers (8) 8. Art & Media (6) The 19 other categories of funding seemed marginal in the respondents’ answers.
In brief, if we include the initial search on Funderfinder and what came out from the questionnaires, the survey shows that very few trusts give priority to women-specific work (as distinct to gender, family, young people and children work which are issues often closely identified with women’s concerns). As a matter of scale, the latest version of Funderfinder includes 4,297 UK-based trusts. We were only able to identify 80 of them that broadly mention women, gender, family, young people and/or children in their guidelines. Women’s issues therefore appear not to be a priority for charitable trusts in the UK. Our survey shows that when women’s organisations get funded, it often happens indirectly, when their project fits with one of the priority areas of the trust and/or as part of the trusts’ equal opportunities policy. Only four of the respondent trusts focus their giving on women’s specific work. Out of the 10 trusts that mention women in their guidelines, that leaves only 6 “mixed” trusts that include women’s work as a priority area. And this doesn’t necessarily mean that they all have a ring-fenced budget for women’s organisations. Main findings from telephone interviews Seven people representing trusts that completed the questionnaire were interviewed over the telephone. These trusts were very diverse in size (ranging from £50,000 total income to more than £3m). Some of them mention women in their guidelines, others don’t. The questions can be found in annexe 2. We found that:
One of the non-family trust representatives suggested that it might be a generational thing. She had observed that “the older generation of trustees wouldn’t necessarily see women as a particularly disadvantaged group. And this is because these particular individuals wouldn’t have faced any disadvantage as women. A younger set of trustees have however recognised that in social, political and economic terms, women still do face a disadvantage.” One of the family trusts interviewed mention women in their guidelines. According to the Trust’s Director, this is because “one of the trustees is a young woman who always has had a strong social conscience and a strong interest in women’s issues, domestic violence etc.”
Most of the interviewees thought that it would be very beneficial to fund individuals. It wouldn’t be necessarily appropriate to fund people in need. However, as one of them suggested, “motivated and intelligent individuals, the “social entrepreneurs” in the women’s movement, would deserve to be supported for the innovative projects they initiate”. One of the interviewees referred to a model developed by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust as part of its Quaker Concerns Fund which recognises that there is a need to “strengthen the hands of individuals who are involved on the ground” (words of the interviewee). One of the major trusts interviewed does fund individuals. They are usually “attached to an organisation that [the trust] know of already… but the trustees recognise that without these particular individuals, the work wouldn’t have happened.”
One trust representative had several elements of answer to the question as to why women’s work is under-funded. First of all she felt that there was a general feeling that “because women seem to have achieved some kind of equality in one particular area i.e. the labour market, it is widely believed that equality as a whole has now been achieved.” She also feels that “women’s generally more holistic way of approaching things is not valued by funders, especially public funders and this is particularly true in the field of service delivery”. She added to that: “Some of the Government’s work on family and children issues should involve women at the core. However, they are not mentioned in any significant way in the policy documents”. This same person also felt that “women’s specific ways of organising – mainly through collective and non-hierarchical structures – didn’t fit criteria for funding, especially from public sources. Women’s organisations have had to restructure as a result of it. Very few collective organisations have survived and most women’s organisations now focus on service delivery rather than more innovative and strategic projects”. The last reason highlighted by this trust representative was that “women’s organisations tend to undersell and/or undervalue their work. For example, when they ask for support for a salary, they never include pension provision. Also, they don’t have enough of a gender analysis. Rather than talking in very general terms, women’s organisations need to convince funders with hard evidence of the difference that women-led initiatives make in communities, especially the most deprived ones.”
On the other hand, according to a family trust’s administrator, “it is not an easy matter for the trust to work [in partnership] because the trustees are very private people” One trust answered that they were trying to work in partnership “where there might be a sharing of common objectives, ethos and approaches.” The same person said: “We have tried to work with public funders but we haven’t always been successful because at a corporate level, they don’t recognise the value of women’s work. The individuals who we work with may have similar views and approaches but they are not in high positions in the organisation and don’t usually have much power of decision-making.” Other interviewees recognised the value of working in partnership. They felt that their trustees would welcome collaborating with other trusts although time constraints would be a big obstacle to developing meaningful working relationships.
Another trust administrator thought that women’s organisations need to be able to convince trusts of the need for separate (i.e. women-only) projects. She thought that a lot of trustees didn’t see the need for a women’s centre for example: “There is a lot of scepticism vis-à-vis this whole concept of separatism. There is a slight feeling that the debate on feminism has passed on since the 80’s.” The same person also felt that her trustees were much more likely to fund projects aiming to achieve something very practical rather than self-assertiveness/empowerment programmes. One major trust’s representative also suggested that more research was needed to improve funding opportunities for women’s work. She said: “There isn’t a body of evidence showing that women’s work really adds value to the wider work against poverty. One strand of the strategy to convince funders to give funding to women-led projects should therefore be about building evidence on how women’s projects and ways of working impact positively on society.”
Another person involved in the survey felt that “because the Lottery gives major grants towards project costs and basic service provision, it frees us up to give more for policy and campaigning work. What our trust can give for project support is a drop in the ocean anyway.” Because of constraints of time, grants allocated to women’s projects by the Lottery were not analysed in any details, although a lot of information seem to be available on their website. As one of the interviewees suggested, “the Lottery is not a charitable trust. It needs to be looked at in its own right.”
In conclusion, it seems that the difficult situation that women’s organisations face in relation to funding is widely acknowledged amongst the trusts that undertook to take part in this survey. However, the reasons behind the difficulties of access to funding are often badly understood. Partnership is recognised to be of value for trusts but still only occurs sporadically. Family trusts appeared to be more conservative - in the sense of being less open to change -, than more recently established models such as the one developed by the Community Foundation Network. For example, a women’s fund is presently being developed in the Scottish Community Foundation and hopes to attract funding from individual donors who are particularly interested in supporting women’s issues. Another interesting initiative is the Women’s Fund that has been set up in the Community Foundation for Tyne & Wear and Northumberland. Its objectives are to:
Although the survey confirms that there are presently very few funding opportunities for women’s work, the questionnaires and interviews revealed an interest amongst funders to look at these issues in more depth and try to address the difficulties that women’s organisations face to access funding.
Insights from organisations working abroad The organisations referred to in this section include The Global Fund for Women (U.S.-based but give funding to women’s organisations all over the world), WOMANKIND Worldwide (UK-based but exclusively support women in the South and in Eastern Europe), Mama Cash (support women in the Netherlands, Africa, Latin America, Caribbean, Middle East and Eastern and Central Europe), the Women’s Funding Network (U.S.), Changemakers (U.S.), Resourceful Women (U.S.) and WINGS (U.S. and Canada). Although time didn’t allow us to research these different organisations in great depth, a few interesting insights may help our reflection on how to improve sources of funding for women in the UK. The first striking insight is that most of these organisations are very affirmative of women’s action to bring about change. They certainly recognise that women are part of the most disadvantaged groups but they also believe that supporting women will have a wider effect on society. For example, Kavita N. Ramdas, President & CEO of the Global Fund for Women says: “Over the last two decades, non-profit, community-based organisations have proved themselves to be the strongest and most effective force for enabling grassroots to participate in the resolution of community problems and the promotion of human rights. Indeed, these citizen groups, of which women are often the backbone, have filled critical gaps in areas such as social services, human rights, and environmental protection. These are issues that neither governments nor the private sector seem willing or able to address. Yet, these innovative and creative groups are often isolated and have traditionally had only limited access to financial resources, as mainstream international donors tend to invest in larger, more formal institutions.” (The Web, www.globalfundforwomen.org/4news/news-sistersays.html) In a similar way, Mama Cash’s literature states: “Mama Cash believes that women’s rights are human rights. Women deserve and need the opportunity to be heard and to make use of their knowledge and experience, for the sake of improving their own lives as well as contributing to the resolution of universal problems such as poverty, violence and the destruction of the environment.” The last example is from the Women’s Funding Network’s leaflet. Their Core Values are described as follows: “Diversity, inclusiveness,
shared leadership, empowerment of women and girls, and a commitment to social
change are core values of Women’s Funding Network and guide all endeavors. We
believe that to create a just and sustainable society, we must: * Fully engage
women and girls in defining societal goals and designing strategies to reach
those goals; * Make use of
women’s and girls’ creative, financial, intellectual and spiritual resources
in change processes; * Promote and
support women and girls of diverse classes, races, sexual orientations, and
other identities/experiences in shaping, leading, and implementing economic and
social change.” None but one of the Trusts that took part in our survey, nor those that were interviewed, mentioned women as a force for social change. This may reflect the fact that, in Britain, women’s potential to bring about change is still largely being ignored by policy makers (see Riordan, 1999). The second insight from these funding organisations is that their income comes from individual and organisational memberships as well as fundraising events. They are not family trusts. They manage to attract the support of a wide range of organisations and individual donors and are in this sense more democratic. They are close to people’s concerns at the grassroots. They are dynamic, open to new, innovative ideas and always able to invent new models of philanthropy. Changemakers, for example, describe themselves as “a national foundation that promotes
community-based philanthropy through fundraising, grant making, donor education
and special programs. We make grants to – and collaborate with –
community-based organizations that add diversity and strength to the
philanthropic sector; and other organizations that help transform philanthropy,
making it more responsive to grassroots groups working for social and economic
justice, environmental sustainability, and equality for all.” (The
Web. www.changemakersfund.org/whoweare.htm) Because they are membership-based, these organisations are also very strong on working in partnership and developing new collaborations. They work with a wide range of donors with whom they create networks. WINGS, for example, does not focus particularly on women but is a “network of over 40 grantmaker support organisations around the world, which have joined together to create opportunities to learn from and support one another, develop modes of communication and collaboration and contribute to the strengthening of philanthropy worldwide” (The Web. www.wingsweb.org/about.htm). A third insight was brought to our attention by an article (Ohlson, 1998) on women and philanthropy published in the Sept/Oct 98 issue of Ms., a feminist magazine published in the U.S. This article refers to a growing number of wealthy women who are starting to play a key role in the distribution of wealth through philanthropy in the States. “Many philanthropy analysts are convinced that this emerging pool of wealthy women will exert a very different authority over their money than previous generations of female givers, whose largesse was often constrained by male antecedents”. It was also recognised that these women needed support and advice and the article refers in particular to the “Council on Foundations [that] has been offering special seminars for women of wealth…in an effort to help these women become more surefooted in their giving.” To strengthen the giving potential of wealthy individuals, organisations like Resourceful Women in San Francisco where set up to provide “a safe and supportive place for socially progressive inheritors to meet one another and learn more about the role of money in their lives, and in the world.” Its objectives are as follows: “Resourceful Women’s vision of changing the world by teaching progressive women with wealth to use their money powerfully and thoughtfully, remains core to all of our activities. We are committed to providing a safe, supportive and confidential environment free of solicitation, for our members to learn more about investing spending and contributing their money” (both references are from the Web, www.rw.org/background.html).
Tracy Gary, founder of Resourceful Women suggests: “[Wealthy] women must learn to manage money, become comfortable with its power, and harness it for social change” (Ohlson, 1998). Another interesting point, which may appear as a detail but actually reflects their close involvement at the grassroots, is that these organisations see their role with women’s organisations as “partner” rather than “grant-giver”. WOMANKIND Worldwide for example, in their Treasurer’s report (Annual review 99/00), describe their grantmaking activities as “International Partnerships”. Lastly, some of these organisations (Changemakers, Women’s Funding Network and WOMANKIND Worldwide) not only give grants to women’s organisations but also have their own activities, organise workshops and educational events to promote community-based philanthropy, publish guidebooks, campaign and take part in policy development. In conclusion, these organisations give us new and dynamic models of philanthropy. They see women as a force for social change and believe that supporting women will have a wider impact on creating sustainable societies for men and women alike. Conclusion
The survey shows that very few British trusts presently give support to women-specific work, despite the important role that women’s organisations play in society. If we want to see funding opportunities for women’s projects improve, more collaboration between trusts (including the traditionally more conservative family ones) is now needed. Such collaboration would assist trustees in understanding priority issues better, and in feeling more confident giving support to areas that might, to them, be new ground. Research on the added value of women’s work is also needed to convince funders to give support. Models of providing support, including relevant decision-making and prioritisation criteria developed in North America and the Netherlands, could also provide ideas and inspiration to set up a dialogue between funders and beneficiary organisations. In particular, giving-circles and training sessions for wealthy individuals, offer new and dynamic ways forward that have been well proven in other countries. It may be possible to adapt them in a British context, whilst recognising cultural differences from North America or other European countries. Networking between funders interested in supporting women’s
work is the next step forward. This is the context that has given rise to the
seminar organised by the Women’s Trust Fund in London on October 8 2001. It
will be an important and innovative event, aiming at starting to dialogue and
identify priorities for action. References Bowman, Marion and Norton, Michael (1986). Raising Money for Women: A Survivor’s Guide, National Council for Voluntary Organisations in collaboration with the Directory for Social Change, Bedford Square Press, London. Grant, Jane W. (1988). Sisters Across The Atlantic: A Guide to Networking in the U.S. National Council for Voluntary Organisations, London. Mama Cash (1998), Annual Report, Amsterdam. Mama Cash (1999), Annual Report, Amsterdam. Ohlson, Kristin (1998). ‘Deep Pocketbooks: Women, Money,
and Power’. Ms. September/October 1998, 58-63. Riordan, Siobhan (1999). Women’s Organisations in the UK Voluntary Sector: A force for social change, Centre for Institutional Studies, University of East London. Website addresses: Changemakers: www.changemakersfund.org Community Foundation Network: www.communityfoundations.org Global Fund for Women: www.globalforwomen.org Mama Cash: www.mamacash.nl Resourceful Women: www.rw.org Summary of Siobhan Riordan’s research: www.womenconnect.org.uk/research.pdf Wings: www.wingsweb.org Women’s Funding Network: www.wfnet.org Annexe 1 - Questionnaire
1.Do your guidelines clearly specify: (please tick)
Women Gender Issues Family Girls and Young women
2.Please indicate your Trust’s total giving in your
most recent financial year: Up to £10,000 Between £10,000 & £100,000 Between £100,000 & £500,000 Above £500,000 3. Approximately what percentage of this funding was
committed to women’s organisations?
0% 1-5% 6-10% 10-20% 20-50% 50-70% 70-100%
We do give funding to women’s organisations but are not able to tell you how much 3.In your most recent financial year, did you fund women’s projects that could broadly be classified in any of the categories below: Art/Media Black and Ethnic Minority Campaigning Business Community/Soc. Exclusion Education & Training Environment Parenting Equal Opportunities Employment Family Gender Health Housing International Law Lesbian Peace Women Returners Politics Sexual/Domestic Violence Welfare Work Individual Women Women in prison Refugees & Asylum Seekers Racism Other (please specify):
4. Can you give one or two examples of projects that are specific to women that you have recently funded? 5. How many women do you have on your board of trustees and
what proportion of the board do they represent? 6. Does funding work that is specific to women’s groups or
interests present any particular difficulties for your Trust? 7. Do you consider that the specific funding of women’s
work can give “added value” in attaining your objectives? 8. Would you be interested in having a further conversation
with us on this issue of funding for women’s projects? If yes, could you
indicate how you would like to be contacted and when is the best time to reach
you? To be sent back or faxed by May 25 to Vérène Nicolas, Centre for Human Ecology, 12 Roseneath
Place, Edinburgh EH9 1JB. Phone: 0131 624 1975. Fax: 0131 228 9630. Annexe 2 – Questions for telephone interviews 1. Your guidelines mention (or don't mention) women, gender issues etc. How do you determine your criteria for funding? How often do they change? [in case women are not mentioned:] is it envisaged to include women in the guidelines? 2. How do you prioritise applications, especially if women are not explicitly mentioned in your guidelines as a priority group? On the other hand, if you have a ring-fenced fund for women's projects, what are your trustees' motivations for doing that? 3. If you don't specifically fund women, what are the main themes/types of projects that your trustees are particularly keen to fund? Could it be that women are indirectly funded through other criteria (i.e. housing, social exclusion, etc.)? 4. What areas of need that your trust is interested in would require more funding opportunities? Are you aware that women's work is an area that is particularly under-funded? Why is it so, do you think? Do you feel that other areas (possibly outwith the remit of your trust) are also under-funded? 5. Do you work in partnership with other trusts or public funders on some specific areas of need? If yes, what is the value of doing so? If no, would it be useful for your trust to work in partnership or communicate with other funders? 6. Do you think there is any value in funding individuals? Does your trust fund individuals? What are the differences between funding individuals and funding organisations? 7. If your trust is particularly interested in women's issues, how do you think funding opportunities could be improved, within your trust but also in the whole British funding world (i.e. seminars, articles to raise awareness, learn from the States, campaigning, improving communication between funders etc.) 8. Do you ask projects for a report on how your grant has been used? Do you fund projects more than once? If yes, what are your criteria to assess whether or not you are willing to fund a project again? 9. In relation to question 8 in the questionnaire, could you tell us a bit more how the specific funding of women's work can give "added value" in attaining your objectives? 10. Would you be interested in taking part in a seminar for funders who support women's work in the autumn? Annexe 3 - List of Trusts to which the questionnaire was sent The
David Laing Foundation Henry
T & Lucy B Cadbury Charitable Trust Access
4 Trust The
Edith M Ellis 1985 Charitable Trust Lyndhurst
Settlement The
Glebe Charitable Trust Kathleen
Hannay Memorial Charity BBC
Children in Need Appeal - Wales The
Barrow Cadburry Trust BBC
Children in Need Appeal - Scotland The
Tudor Trust Carnegie
UK Trust The
Truemark Trust Carnegie
Trust for Universities of Scotland The
Ajahma Charitable Trust The
Laura Ashley Foundation J
Paul Getty Charitable Trust Unemployed
Voluntary Action Fund Save
& Prosper Educational Trust Comic
Relief Calouste
Gulbenkian Foundation Association
of Cty Trusts and Foundations Ericson
Trust Concern
Universal Kleinwort
Benson Charitable Trust SMILES The
Leigh Trust Chinak
Charitable Trust The
Lennox Hannay Charitable Trust Women
at Risk The
Souter Foundation The
Forbes Charitable Trust The
Alchemy Foundation The
Camelot Foundation Stanley
Smith General Charitable Trust The
Garfield Weston Foundation David
Solomon's Charitable Trust The
Rank Foundation The
Nuffield Foundation The
Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust Mosselson
Charitable Trust Joseph
Rowntree Reform Trust Ltd Northern
Ireland Voluntary Trust The
Diana Princess of Wales Memorial Fund Trust
for London The
Al Fayed Charitable Foundation John
Moores Foundation The
Artemis Charitable Trust The
Staples, Tedworth Trust and Glass-House Trusts The
Baring Foundation The
Allen Lane Foundation The
Chase Charity The
Polden-Puckham Charitable Foundation Greater
Bristol Foundation Eleanor
Rathbone Charitable Trust National
Lottery Charities Board - England The
Esmée Fairbairn Charitable Trust National
Lottery Charities Board - Wales John
Watson's Trust National
Lottery Charities Board - Scotland BBC
Children in Need Appeal National
Lottery Charities Board – N. Ireland The
Women Caring Trust The
Pilgrim Trust Lloyds
TSB Foundation for England and Wales WOMANKIND
worldwide Lloyds
TSB Foundation for Northern Ireland Oxfam
UK The
Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland The
Woman's Trust Fund The
Scottish Community Foundation The
Women's Fund The
Craignish Trust The
Women's Solidarity Fund The
Russel Trust WEETU
- Full Circle Fund The
Lintel Trust Maypole
Fund Wales
Council for Voluntary Action Open
Door Women's Trust Annexe 4 - List of respondents WOMANKIND Worldwide The Staples Trust The Lintel Trust The Open Door Women’s Trust Scottish Community Foundation Comic Relief The Barrow Cadbury Trust The Allen Lane Foundation Oxfam (UK poverty programme) Women’s Fund at Wear & Tyne Community Foundation Lloyds TSB Foundation for England and Wales Elizabeth Nuffield Educational Fund The Baring Foundation The Tudor Trust The Chase Charity The John Moores Foundation The Trust for London Women At Risk The Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation Esmee Fairbairn Foundation The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust Two anonymous trusts (including one of the major trusts) The Eleanor Rathbone Charitable Trust BBC Children in Need, Wales The Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland Unemployed Voluntary Action Fund Garfield Weston Foundation Concern Universal The Carnegie UK Trust The John Watson’s Trust The Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust Ltd. The Ericson Trust The Pilgrim Trust |
