Take two minutes to identify which of the following statements are listed as good practice in Coventry's Compact code of practice on funding, and which are examples of unacceptable practice. To view the code, click here:

http://www.vacoventry.org.uk/compact

1. Giving less than three months' notice that funding (that can be renewed or extended) is not going to be renewed or extended (or is going to be substantially reduced).

2. Ensure that the amount of work required to submit the application (and monitor it afterwards) is commensurate for both the applicant and the funder.

3. Ensure that all requested documentation is enclosed when submitting a funding application

4. A unilateral funding cut being made without discussion with the other funders and the provider.

5. Withholding funding payments unreasonably due to relatively trivial matters (e.g. one minor receipt missing from a large claim)

6. Recognise the contribution that the application could make to Coventry's wider strategic objectives as well as the service itself, e.g. investing in a project on drug and alcohol abuse may support the city's mental health objectives, and vice-versa.

7. Make payment within 14 days of an invoice or funding claim having been correctly submitted.

8. Imposing lengthy monitoring after a contract is agreed which radically impacts on a provider's ability to provide a service (particularly for small commissions)

9. Pay a quarter in advance to help cash flow for voluntary and community groups and to cover set-up costs.

10. Pulling funding/ending contracts merely because the provider is successful in obtaining other funds during a commissioned period

11. Where possible, harmonise monitoring data across statutory agencies to ensure providers do not have to provide the same information in different ways where there is more than one funder.

12. Organisations not co-operating with reasonable monitoring requirements.

Click here to see how you did