Educational programmes require funding, but how much is required?
Before consideration can be given to ways of financing the programme, a budget has to be prepared. And preparing a budget for an educational programme requires some understanding of the programme that is to be implemented.
Educators have to be involved in the budget process and need to know the different ways in which budgets can be formulated.
Zero-Based Budgeting
The most accurate, and also the most time consuming, budgeting is done on a zero-based system alongside the development of the educational programme.
Zero-based budgeting means that the actual cost of each item in the programme is worked out. For example, if the programme calls for twelve sheets of paper to be distributed, then the cost of those twelve sheets of paper is calculated and added to the cumulative total.
Such a process requires very close attention to detail and a very clearly described programme.
Block Budgets
A block budget starts with a specified grant or income figure. Such a figure can be split up according to gross categories: staff costs, administration, publications, and voter education events.
From these blocks start a set of calculations determining how to spend the available money most efficiently? When there are designated blocks, it may not be possible to move money from one block to another and this can be a real frustration as those doing budgets realise they could save money on salaries and spend more on events or vice versa.
Impress Systems
The weakest and most disempowering system is that where the money is held at the centre and various projects can draw down cash on request and occasionally in advance of expenditure. In such a system, the centre may have an idea what the budget is, but this is seldom shared with the periphery that must ask for each bit of money without knowing whether it will be available. With the criteria for availability so vague, those asking do not know whether there genuinely is no money left or whether the centre just does not approve of the particular project.
Cost of Living Budgeting
Next to impress systems come the historic systems in which the budget from one year is merely recalculated to allow for any inflation or changes in cost of living (COL). Such budgets become more and more inaccurate and less and less reflective of the actual programme that has to be presented. When there was and is continuity, such budgets may be possible.
But planning a programme to meet the context and a specific set of educational objectives is likely to require the innovation of zero-based budgeting at some time, even if it takes longer.
Financing
After completing a budget, educators should consider ways in which the programme is to be financed. Two ways predominate social interventions outside of those financed by the state:
- grants and donations and
- cost recovery and self-financing
Grants and Donations
Education in support of elections and democracy is a national and international priority, although it does go through phases when it is more or less popular. As such, it is most likely to be funded by grants or donations. In order to obtain grants, whether from government, international aid agencies, philanthropic or solidarity foundations, or charitable institutions, certain documentation has to be prepared based on the programme planning that the education team has undertaken.
The depth and coherence of the planning, and its social significance, duly documented and noted, is the primary source of success in obtaining grant funding. General donor funding, which might be based on a far wider range of individual perceptions of what is worth giving money to, is likely to be influenced by additional factors. These include the style with which appeals are made, the endorsements that the programme has received, and existing relationships between the donor and the implementing organisation.
Grants are given on the basis of homework done and matching priorities between the grant maker and the proposal.
Different grant makers have different priorities and standards for the presentation of proposals. In most cases, they offer these publicly.
Proposal Writing
A proposal needs to include documentation specifying the context for the programme and the reasons it is necessary. This will be followed by a description of the strategy to be followed and the intended outcomes expressed in a set of objectives. A detailed or summarised work plan is also required, including arrangements for evaluation and monitoring. A budget for the proposed programme must be given.
The proposal must also provide information about the organisation that is proposing the work and the individuals within that organisation who will be taking responsibility for the programme.
Within this simple framework certain grant makers require additional information, and may direct precisely what this must be. Such directions inevitably increase the difficulty of preparing proposals for education organisation in civil society: but there may be concomitant increases in the amount of money made available.
Educators preparing the proposal should consider the following sections of this topic area.
Logical Frameworks
An increasing number of grant makers request logical framework plans or logframes from those who submit proposals. Unfortunately, they do not all use exactly the same format and terminology.
The logic of a logframe is straightforward. It is an attempt to ensure that those submitting the proposal have dealt with the matters outlined above and also with how the programme will be evaluated. The logframe also lays out the basics of a business or work plan and enables a programme planner to ask ‘if’ and ‘then’ questions.
The first condition of a logical framework is to settle on the goals and outputs that are expected and the logical relationship between these, the activities the programme will undertake, and the actual societal impact. Logframes are likely to require a listing of planning assumptions, assessment of the risks to be considered, and the indicators that will be external reference markers of the success of the programme.
It is possible to develop a logframe that is displayed in simple form of a table, in which the various stages of the plan follow one another. It is also possible to use the logframe outline to create a narrative document.
When the logframe has been established, it is theoretically possible to budget each item (and thus prepare a zero-based budget). Such a budget can be linked directly to outputs rather than to the general organisational processes that must be undertaken to achieve these outputs.
Perhaps the most useful contributions of the logframe movement have been to systematise the planning process and to force the asking and answering of certain questions, such as: "Is this worth doing?" and "Will it really make a difference where we think it should?"
Sources of Funds
There are many sources of funds and civil society organisations involved in voter and civic education should develop partnerships with as many as possible. One valuable resource on grant-making institutions throughout the world is the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) website which can be accessed at http://www.ned.org. http://www.ned.org.
Election management bodies might be constrained in their ability to develop the same level of partnership by legal restrictions. But the source of the money is more limited.
First, there is the discretionary income of individuals and private organisations that these individuals and organisations have control over and make available according to their own priorities.
Second, there are trust funds that have been set up to manage money earned over time. These funds have a predominantly professional approach to the disbursement of their funds based on the wishes of the originator of the funds. This implies both flexibility and limitations.
Third, some countries make available percentages of their state revenues for international aid and partnerships. Such money is controlled in the final instance by the voters of that particular country, although it might be in the hands of state officials or development professionals. It is therefore subject to the vagaries of the electorate, but more importantly, it is money that has been earned by ordinary people even if they are fortunate to live in a more affluent part of the world.
Funding Agreements
When a proposal has been submitted and accepted, it is likely to be followed by a legal agreement that imposes on the organisation accepting the grant and certain conditions in relation to reporting, auditing, accountability, and restrictions in the use of the money linked to the original or amended proposal.
Cost Recovery and Self Financing
Even with government funding and international grants, voter education projects can require additional funding. There is even the possibility that, if additional funding can be acquired for certain projects, this can extend the reach of other aspects of a national programme.
Certain types of projects lend themselves to cost recovery or self-financing, and there are certain institutional arrangements that provide better ways of doing this type of work. This section defines cost recovery, suggests that some voter education programmes can pay for themselves, and explains how to set up a system to achieve this.
What is Cost Recovery?
Most non-statutory organisations organisations involved in voter education are registered trusts, charities, or non-profit organisations. organisations. They do the work they do for the public interest. In terms of their national or international legal status, they are not profit-making companies.
However, they can recover their costs of doing business from a client or from a third party. These costs will certainly include, if carefully budgeted and billed, the costs of project development, organisational overheads, and future project sustainability.
What about Commercial Activities?
As voter education becomes a more specialised activity, and with the advent of voter education programmes being tendered out (competitively bid), there are companies that see the possibility of obtaining work on a commercial basis. This is true of suppliers to voter education organisations themselves, whether printers, commercial artists, advertising agencies, or distributors. Election management bodies may be able to obtain the services of government agencies at a cost, or to use their size to obtain special commercial rates, but nevertheless the majority of services are not offered pro bono.
Managing these services, whether as subcontracts or as primary suppliers, requires special attention and raises a number of separate issues. See Managing Contracts, and Commercial Advertising.
Making Voter Education Pay for Itself
There are a range of options open to programme planners.
Provide Education to Those Who Can Pay for It.
Certain organisation have an interest in ensuring effective voter education for their members and are able to pay for this service. Companies, in particular, may consider civic education to be essential for their workforce. If they see the benefits of this in terms of higher levels of commitment to the company, less disruption due to political uncertainty, and improved human relations and decision-making skills, they are likely to include such training within their company budget.
In addition, they may be willing to cover the costs of materials and allow extra copies to be used beyond their company members.
Find Third-Party Paying Clients.
Many companies have social investment and marketing budgets that they may be willing to make available on a third-party paying client basis. Voter educators identify the target audience that has some links to the company. Perhaps it is the school children of company employees, or the security establishment in the vicinity of the company premises, or just the group that the company supports in other circumstances (persons with disability, a theatre group).
An educational programme is designed for this group and members are charged for the programme either on an individual or group basis. The third-party paying client picks up the bill.
Solicit In-Kind Contributions.
While some companies or institutions may not be in a position to cover the costs of a voter education programme, they may be able to provide an in-kind contribution that reduces the over-all cost of the programme. This might include the provision of office space, equipment, supplies, vehicles, or perhaps even staff personnel.
Obtain Sponsorships or Local Advertising.
Voter education materials go to large numbers of people. Companies may also want to associate themselves with the positive messages that are communicated. It is possible to structure arrangements in printed and broadcast material that enable companies to use their advertising budgets to cover costs.
As usual in these arrangements, advertisers are paying for exposure and do not have control over the message. But they might have certain contractual expectations that have to be met: the number of people to whom the message goes, the quality of the production, and the nonpartisan and professional attitude of the message. Advertisers want professional service and do not want to become associated with slipshod workmanship.
This applies whether the advertising that is being sold is for a simple local newsletter in which the local butcher and corner shop will receive exposure, or whether it is a national broadcast on television during prime time.
Encourage Voter Education Messages on Commercial Products.
Companies distribute their own products. They pay for their production. It is possible to encourage them to do special election runs of their packaging. Many dairies and breakfast cereal packages are designed to support competitions, short run campaigns, and so on, and these have been used to advertise missing children and various health campaigns. Providing companies with a set of logos and standard messages that can be printed on packaging is a simple way to cover distribution and production costs.
In addition to products, many companies run their own in-house newspapers and newsletters. Standard articles will find acceptance in these media at no cost other than the basic preparation and focussing of the article.
Set Up the Necessary Systems.
To run these and other cost recovery programmes, voter educators will need to set up a range of systems that are often beyond the normal order of business for either nongovernmental organisations or election management bodies.
They will need to have a licensing operation to prepare and monitor the use of standard messages and logos, a billing department that can track and invoice all commercial and contract activity, and an advertising agency that can handle the booking and placement of adverting.
The point of such activity is two-fold. It needs to generate income that can then enable other non-income-producing programmes to be extended. It needs to assess opportunities for low-cost or no-cost distribution of voter education messages through interaction with the marketplace.
It is essential to understand the purpose of this activity. Otherwise, it could gain its own momentum and begin to dominate decisions about where to place resources. It should also be kept entirely separate from decisions about the handing out of commercial contracts to do voter education or to supply services, or else it could lead to rather messy conflict of interest and commission or fraud controversies. A company could easily decide to sponsor a publication in order to ensure that a printing job is given to them, and similar controversies are limited only by the imagination of the commercial sector.
