Hi Lark—until this year this hasn’t been an issue. In the past unrestricted funds have been committed to projects ahead of time either as a fixed share of the total, or in proportion to restricted funding (which actually provides a sort of ‘matching’ of restricted donations).
This year unrestricted funds are going into a ‘Trustees’ Discretionary Fund’. This fund:
Can be used to ‘bail out’ projects in emergencies, though ideally it won’t be;
To kickstart new experiments with e.g. a six month runway;
To make grants to external and internal projects we think are awesome.
So it is possible that giving to GWWC will make it less likely that GWWC will draw money out of this TDF. However, I think it’s fairly unlikely that GWWC will be so starved for cash that we will take that option; it’s more likely that we would have 1 or 2 fewer staff than pull money out of the TDF. I also think that making sure CEA has money for new projects and grants is quite valuable. However if you thought i) GWWC was the only useful thing we were doing and ii) you thought GWWC’s fundraising was likely to go very badly, then the issue you describe would be a consideration against giving.
Thanks for your response. I have two follow up questions if that’s ok.
Suppose GWWC successfully completes it’s fundraiser, but then identifies some very attractive new projects, that the CEA Trustees agree are exceptionally high value. Would the Trustees be willing/able to use the discretionary fund to help support them?
At the moment part of GWWC’s budget goes towards shared CEA central expenses, like rent and HR. Is this likely to increase in future? (i.e. is CEA central likely to hire anyone else, or GWWC’s share increase ? )
Yes—that would fall under ‘grants to things we think are awesome’.
The budget in the document includes our portion of hiring a new staff for central, because CEA has been expanding and we expect to need that capacity next year. The office is unlikely to get much more expensive—we’re hoping to sign another contract for 3 years soon. GWWC’s share of central is likely if anything to fall, because it’s becoming a smaller proportion of CEA given other new projects (early in 2014 we were paying 50% of central, but now GPP and EAO each pay a share).
We’re very happy to answer questions!
Hi Lark—until this year this hasn’t been an issue. In the past unrestricted funds have been committed to projects ahead of time either as a fixed share of the total, or in proportion to restricted funding (which actually provides a sort of ‘matching’ of restricted donations).
This year unrestricted funds are going into a ‘Trustees’ Discretionary Fund’. This fund:
Can be used to ‘bail out’ projects in emergencies, though ideally it won’t be;
To kickstart new experiments with e.g. a six month runway;
To make grants to external and internal projects we think are awesome.
So it is possible that giving to GWWC will make it less likely that GWWC will draw money out of this TDF. However, I think it’s fairly unlikely that GWWC will be so starved for cash that we will take that option; it’s more likely that we would have 1 or 2 fewer staff than pull money out of the TDF. I also think that making sure CEA has money for new projects and grants is quite valuable. However if you thought i) GWWC was the only useful thing we were doing and ii) you thought GWWC’s fundraising was likely to go very badly, then the issue you describe would be a consideration against giving.
Thanks for your response. I have two follow up questions if that’s ok.
Suppose GWWC successfully completes it’s fundraiser, but then identifies some very attractive new projects, that the CEA Trustees agree are exceptionally high value. Would the Trustees be willing/able to use the discretionary fund to help support them?
At the moment part of GWWC’s budget goes towards shared CEA central expenses, like rent and HR. Is this likely to increase in future? (i.e. is CEA central likely to hire anyone else, or GWWC’s share increase ? )
Yes—that would fall under ‘grants to things we think are awesome’.
The budget in the document includes our portion of hiring a new staff for central, because CEA has been expanding and we expect to need that capacity next year. The office is unlikely to get much more expensive—we’re hoping to sign another contract for 3 years soon. GWWC’s share of central is likely if anything to fall, because it’s becoming a smaller proportion of CEA given other new projects (early in 2014 we were paying 50% of central, but now GPP and EAO each pay a share). We’re very happy to answer questions!