PBGS are all as different as the places they serve. But when it comes to governance structures, London’s PBGS fall into two categories:
Hosted – the PBGS is ‘hosted’ by an organisation, often an infrastructure body such as a Centre for Voluntary Service (e.g. Haringey Giving, Hackney Giving) or a grant making trust (e.g. Islington Giving, One Richmond). An Advisory Board or Steering Group is given delegated authority by a host’s Board to oversee administration and planning. Ultimately, responsibility and accountability remain with the host. Money raised and distributed by the scheme is held in a restricted fund.
Benefits:
- The host brings existing knowledge and networks, local profile and reputation.
- Established organisations with track records can apply for start-up funding from grantmakers.
- Shared back office functions allow small teams to work effectively from the start and save money in the long-term, allowing them to focus on creating impact.
- The host may also benefit from trying new ways of working and bringing new knowledge and skills into the organisation.
Potential downsides:
- This approach only works where there are existing infrastructure organisations/Trusts and Foundationss who are willing to take on the role.
- A perceived (or actual) lack of independence from the host or its funders/partners, especially where there is a history of challenging relationships with potential stakeholders.
- The host and PBGS may find themselves competing for funding and support, or the risk of doing so may inhibit the growth and scope of the PBGS.
- Letting go of control can be a challenge for hosts.
Hosted PBGS should regularly review the arrangement to ensure that the benefits continue to outweigh the downsides and potential risks.
Independent –. A growing number of PBGS which were incubated or hosted by local organisations have become independent charities , CIOs or CICs (e.g. Camden Giving, UNITED in Hammersmith & Fulham, Barking & Dagenham Giving).
Benefits:
- Clearly independent identity, free from any negative associations with hosts.
- Avoids potential conflicts in fundraising and decision making with host organisations.
- May allow greater transparency and agility – decision making and accountability is simple and clear.
- A new, independent organisation may be more appealing for partners who want to invest in new approaches (conversely, some partners may prefer to work with host organisations with a track record and local knowledge and networks).
Potential downsides:
-
• Registration can be lengthy and complex.
• Must cover office space and support functions, which may detract from scheme’s priorities.
• Has to quickly establish a track record to attract support adding pressure on small inexperienced team.