Can anyone be a philanthropist?

Recently I have heard lots of arguments that seem to extend the opportunity to be a philanthropist to all of us. One line is that philanthropy is not just about giving money but is also giving your time and skills. There are lots of great pro bono schemes out there like The Cranfield Trust and Pro Bono Economics which are based on volunteering. (Suddenly, it seems that the term philanthropy gets applied when volunteers are skilled professionals and not ordinary people.)

The other common argument is that whenever we give any sum of money to a good cause then we are not donors or givers but philanthropists. I applaud the democratisation of giving which means through donations or crowdfunding pledges, funds from lots of individuals get pooled to have a greater impact. But I don’t think it is philanthropy when it is a group act. Even less so is tax paying, which is also claimed as philanthropic. Tax paying is a legal requirement, a duty, an act of distribution but as an individual I have no control over how my money is spent beyond a vote.

So what for me sets philanthropy apart is control – the ability of an individual to choose what to support - and having enough money to have an impact. So I, like most people, think of philanthropists as wealthy individuals whose money changes things – think Bill Gates and malaria or Thomas Barnardo’s children’s homes.

Perhaps calling us all philanthropists is to be welcomed as a way of claiming for the ordinary person something that usually conveys status and influence on the rich. But I don’t think philanthropists are the same as us. When I use my individual choice to give a small donation to a cause no one worries that I am wielding undemocratic power. There really is something different when your donations are big, influential and high profile. But this does raise the question – just how much money does it take to be a philanthropist? And is it true that anyone can be one?

https://twitter.com/emmabeeston01

Soft outcomes are anything but

When I talk about ‘outcomes’  I mean the difference you make for the people you support. ‘Hard’ outcomes can be clearly defined and quantified. ‘Soft’ outcomes are hard to measure directly; they are qualitative and often intangible.


Most funders and investors want some sort of clear measure to know what difference their money could or has made. It is generally easier to provide evidence of the hard outcomes: tangible differences such as the numbers of people securing a job, the amount of benefit income gained, numbers housed, qualifications earned.


In order to achieve a hard outcome, a lot of other things have to happen – for example, changes in self belief, confidence, understanding, attitude or motivation. These are commonly described as ‘soft’ but that term is a disservice as it makes them sound fluffy and easy. Instead it takes a lot of expertise and time to build trust with someone on the margin and support them to make and sustain these changes. Think of the work involved in changing the attitude of a young offender.


The value of soft outcomes needs to be recognised as being just as important as hard outcomes. Especially as sometimes they are the only changes there will be. For example, the self worth gained from volunteering when there is no realistic prospect of getting a job. One way to add weight to soft outcomes is to use one of the many tools out there e.g. Rickter Scale, or the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale. These help to translate self-assessed or observed change into numbers, allowing you to measure and evidence changes such as improved self esteem.


And perhaps we should all stop calling them ‘soft’ outcomes when they definitely are not. You really would not call it soft when a charity’s support means a woman affected by domestic abuse feels safer, would you?


https://twitter.com/emmabeeston01

Unsuccessful funding bids – how fund seekers differ from job applicants

Imagine that you are applying for a job you really want. You make a strong application and perform well at interview but you don’t get the job. The employer explains that they had another candidate who had more skills and experience than you had. Now of course, you are disappointed or frustrated. But, unless you have reason to doubt their professionalism, you probably thank them for considering you, for letting you know the outcome and ask for feedback to see if there are ways you could strengthen any future applications. It would not be wise at this point to tell them that their Job Description was wrong and they clearly did not understand the experience and skills you would bring to the role.

So let’s extend the analogy to applying for funding. Funders have criteria and will take a view on how well applications fit with these and how strong the organisation and project is compared to others. In the funding organisations I have worked in there is never sufficient money to fund every application and so I spend a lot of my time having to say no. Some unsuccessful applicants deal with this bad news well. Yes they are disappointed, but they ask for feedback in order to learn where they could improve and whether it would be worth applying again. But a surprising number challenge the decision: suggesting that our criteria are wrong and we clearly misunderstood their work. I do appreciate that this is born out of frustration and sometimes desperation but it is also difficult to respond to. I am sure we sometimes make mistakes just as sometimes the wrong applicant gets hired. Questions are fine but hostility is not the answer.

Why do feelings run so high? I think the difference is the passion and commitment that people in the non profit sector have for their cause. This drive is fantastic but it can sometimes be a hindrance if it leads to a defensive response.  It can stop you listening or being open to learning. There are lots of reasons why we say no a lot – high demand from some areas, poor fit with criteria - and sometimes we say no because other applications were stronger than yours. In that case, don’t shoot the messenger; ask for feedback on ways to improve.


Follow @emmabeeston01