This resource is for:<\/p>\n
It explains:<\/p>\n
It does not talk about using digital tools for fundraising. That\u2019s a different subject.<\/p>\n
The term \u2018digital funding\u2019 no longer means what it once did. For 10 years it generally meant funding for websites or digital service innovations. Dedicated grant programmes emerged to support projects that achieved these things. <\/p>\n
The last flush of these programmes emerged during the pandemic. They helped charities embrace digital tools and ways of working. Since then charities’ digital costs have increased<\/a> because charities are now:<\/p>\n These quite different activities can all fall within charities\u2019 digital funding needs. As a result the term \u2018digital funding\u2019 has become vague and ambiguous. It gets conflated. We need more precision.<\/p>\n Verbs are usually clearer than nouns. Nouns are convenient but often more ambiguous. You\u2019ll have experienced the clarity of verbs if you\u2019ve used the GOV.UK website. Its design team leads the way in showing the value of using verbs over nouns to communicate well<\/a>.<\/p>\n Verbs for \u2018digital funding\u2019 could be \u2018grant funding for digital costs\u2019. This specifies we mean financial support for technology related expenses.<\/p>\n Since the pandemic many funders have reviewed their strategies. Now there are fewer programmes dedicated to funding digital costs<\/a>. Instead funders want to see digital costs included in regular funding applications. <\/p>\n But charities\u2019 expertise in how to communicate these costs<\/a> has not increased. Especially for core costs, for which there are less funding programmes.<\/p>\n \u201cDigital costs are easier to define in projects and services, so we see people being less confident about how to position core digital costs.\u201d<\/em> – Cat Ainsworth, Founder, Dot Project <\/p><\/blockquote>\n We can define \u2018grant funding for digital costs\u2019 even more clearly. Thinking in these categories can help you communicate your needs when applying. It can also help all of us in how we talk to each other about the challenges of getting digital costs funded <\/p>\n Core digital costs are those that run organisation wide, cutting across teams and services. They don\u2019t have many boundaries. <\/p>\n Examples of software and platforms that do this include:<\/p>\n Core digital costs also include the things that support your organisation\u2019s digital culture and capacity. For example:<\/p>\n Core digital costs could also include salaries. Digital roles that operate across an organisation could include a digital lead or a communications officer. <\/p>\n Hybrid services regularly use both digital tools and people to interact with beneficiaries. <\/p>\n The level of reliance on digital tools varies and could include:<\/p>\n All these examples could still use core organisational tools like CRMs and communication tools like Zoom or WhatsApp. But the cost of these now belongs in core costs.<\/p>\n I\u2019d suggest:<\/p>\n Some services rely only on digital delivery methods. 99% of their touchpoints with beneficiaries may be digital. <\/p>\n Examples of these include services run by Carefree, Access Social Care and Chayn. Their services are \u2018digital-first\u2019 and have high potential to scale.<\/p>\n However these organisations still need people to manage projects and research user needs. Access Social Care has a team of legal experts. Carefree has community managers. Chayn has service leads.<\/p>\n Organisations like these still have core digital infrastructure costs. They are usually good at integrating and communicating these. But their delivery models are the most challenging for funders to understand.<\/p>\n The Charity Digital Skills report created a pledge for funders. Read how they are asking funders to help charities with digital costs<\/a>. <\/p>\n Want to understand your core digital costs and integrate them into your budget better? This series of 3 articles will help you:<\/p>\n You might also want to read Should you show digital costs separately in grant funding applications?<\/a><\/p>\n \u200d<\/p>\n Thanks to <\/sup>Cat Ainsworth and Alex Mecklenburg of <\/em>Dot Project<\/em><\/a> for their contribution to this article.<\/em><\/p>\n\n
Why \u2018funding for digital costs\u2019 is a better term<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Grantmakers have changed their approach to funding digital costs<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Communicating your costs: 3 types of \u2018grant funding for digital\u2019<\/strong><\/h2>\n
1. Funding for core digital costs<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n
\n
2. Funding for hybrid service or project costs<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n
What doesn\u2019t count as hybrid service delivery?<\/strong><\/h4>\n
\n
3. Funding for digital-first service costs<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Further information<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n