Friday, 18 December 2015

How to avoid unwanted gifts

The exchanging of gifts at Christmas brings with it the awkwardness of what to do with an unwanted gift. Do you pretend to like it? Do you return it or perhaps give it away? We all get gift giving wrong sometimes – it is hard to choose the right present and wanting to achieve the element of surprise means you cannot ask the recipient what they most want.

There are no such excuses when it comes to giving a gift to a charity.

If you read the research, charities are clear that what they want is an unrestricted donation so that they can chose how best to spend it and will most likely spend it on their core costs. It can sometimes be difficult for them to say this to you directly as they are trying to second guess what you would be happy with – think of a teenager coming up with gift ideas for Grandma when what they really want is cash. If it is important for you to know exactly how your donation will be spent, ask and the charity should be able to tell you what item, staff role or project is a current priority for them. Many of them will already have come up with some packages to help you e.g. £15 or £200 or £2,000 or £10,000 will pay for …

When donors direct how a donation can be used, without consulting the charity, it can cause difficulty. For example, in one recent example, people with good intentions donated clothes and shoes to a small charity supporting refugees. The stretched charity staff and volunteers were diverted from their usual work to spend time getting rid of unwanted items when actually what the charity really needed was money to pay volunteer expenses and the utility bills and extra staff hours to keep their centre open longer to cope with the rise in demand of refugees seeking help. In other examples I have seen generous gifts left in a will cause nothing but frustration as they were so tightly tied to a project that was already fully funded or a piece of work that was not the most needed.

So to avoid the difficulties associated with unwanted gifts this year, do the best you can to ensure your donation brings smiles all round. Check out the charity and their impact. When you are confident they are good, give a donation with no strings attached. I am sure they will be delighted to tell you how they spent it.

Emma Beeston Consultancy advises funders and philanthropists on giving strategies and processes; selecting causes and charities; assessments and impact monitoring. Services for charities include external perception reviews; bid reviews; training for fundraisers and non-fundraisers involved in bids. E: emma@emmabeeston.co.uk; T: emmabeeston01

Friday, 4 December 2015

Tips for giving

Christmas is a time for giving …

Every Christmas a group of my friends pick a charity to support instead of giving each other presents. And because it is my job to assess charities, they ask me which one I would recommend. Many people do this, but most won’t have a philanthropy advisor to help.

It is easy to pick the usual big brand charities but there are lots of great, smaller charities out there where your donation could make a bigger difference. To find them try one of the tools available such as CharityChoice, Charity Navigator, CAF, or Localgiving to help you select a charity working for a cause you are passionate about.

But then how do you know if they are any good? It is my job to advise on which charities should be funded based on desk-based research, assessment interviews, scrutinising accounts and panel discussions. I don’t recommend you do all that before parting with £100, but here are five quick things you can do to reassure yourself that your money will be well used:

Check out the charity’s website – this should at least let you know they are active and is likely to include case studies about the difference they make. It may also show if they are members of any professional bodies or hold any quality marks.
See who else has funded them – if they’ve had money from say Comic Relief or the Big Lottery Fund recently then you can rest assured that a professional assessor has had a good look at them.
Consider keeping it local – there are 48 Community Foundations in the UK that pool donations to fund local projects. Again, all checked by them as part of the grant giving process.
Look your chosen charity up on the Charity Commission website. You may not want to read all their accounts but there is an overview page that will tell you how big they are and if they have reported as they should and on time.
Ask around – friends, family and colleagues may well know of a charity that really supported them when they, or someone they know, needed help.

There are some brilliant charities around that don’t have money for high profile marketing so it pays to dig a little to give you the confidence to give to charities which aren’t necessarily the household names.

… giving more …

Look out for ways to increase your giving, for example the Big Give Christmas Challenge will see donations made from 5th to 14th December matched. Some employers run matching schemes so it is worth asking if they will double your donation. And don’t forget gift aid increases your donation by 25%.

… giving together …

Pooling money with friends means your chosen charity gets a larger donation. You can also take part in giving circles or live crowdfunding events like those run by The Funding Network or the Soup method. (The latter is an idea from Detroit that is taking off in the UK where people come together over soup to hear pitches and vote on who gets the money taken on the door).

… and receiving.

Research shows we are happier when we give to others. So giving well to a charity of your choosing should bring you a bit of festive cheer too.

Friday, 20 November 2015

How to spot founder's syndrome

Running a charity is hard. I take my hat off to all those non-profit founders who bring their vision, energy and drive to create social change. However, when assessing charities and deciding which ones to fund, the term ‘founder’s syndrome’ often comes up.

There are lots of inspiring charity leaders and there is nothing wrong with a charity having a compelling and persuasive founder involved – often they are absolutely vital for attracting support. The problem occurs where the founder has too much power. But how do you spot it?

This is what sets off my ‘founder’s syndrome’ alarm when assessing charities:

On paper:

There is a high turnover of Trustees or conversely, the same Trustee group staying for years and years. The first pattern suggests challenges to the status quo fail and the second can indicate that no challenging is taking place.
There is no formal plan – because there is no point having one, it is in the founder’s head and subject to change as they decide. In fact there is generally a lack of formal structures e.g. performance management, Board skills audits.
The charity is not part of any external quality assurance schemes or formal partnerships.

On a visit:

They don’t listen – they tend to avoid direct questions and tell me what they think is important.
They meet you on their own – they don’t bring in a Trustee, finance director, frontline worker or a service user to speak with me.
They lack awareness – founder’s syndrome is much talked about so if you are a founder meeting with a funder it should not be a surprise that they will ask about succession planning, governance, or exit strategies and you should be happy to discuss these.

I am not saying any one of these or all of them means there is definitely a case of ‘founder’s syndrome’ but it does set me off on a line of questioning about decision-making, conflicts of interest, performance management etc. And neither is this confined to founders – there are other non-founding leaders with the same issues of control.

At a recent charity, I met with the founder who, before I even asked, had told me his exit strategy (after 10 years), the work he and the Trustees were doing on succession planning and stated his wish “I want the charity to flourish without me”. Now, that’s the way to do it.

Friday, 6 November 2015

Do not register to vote

Today I got another request from a charity to vote for them to help them to win some funding. I am sure, like me, you get lots of these requests. It only takes a few minutes to register and vote and it is an easy way to demonstrate support. However, I am becoming increasingly reluctant to participate and I have two reasons why I am uncomfortable with this voting model as a source of funding for charities:

1. Popular ≠ Good

It takes resources to select the charity that meets the greatest need or has the most impact. A cheaper option is to hand over the decision to a public vote. I am a supporter of people (grant recipients, service users) being involved in funding panels. But that is not what this is. There is no judgment against criteria, just a simple measure of the most votes. Voting in this instance is a measure of how many supporters a charity can mobilise. On the list of the awards you will therefore see lots of sports clubs and Scout groups as these are well placed to appeal to friends and family members for votes. Charities that work with prisoners, trafficked women or other unpopular causes don’t stand a chance.

2. Proportionality

Proportionality usually comes up when designing grant programmes. For example, is the amount of internal resource needed to assess and administer applications appropriate? Is the amount of work that the applicant has to put in to their application worth it for the size of the grant? But proportionality also applies to the PR gained with any grant. With the voting model, the corporate behind it benefits from the positive profile with the charities, their supporters and the wider public. Such programmes can generate great PR and be cost effective for the company involved but often with just a few hundred pounds going to each ‘winner’. The substantial effort lies with the applicant – to create and upload a profile and encourage their supporters to vote.

You could argue that there is no harm done. The company gets good PR and some popular groups get some unrestricted funding. But I believe there is harm done in the opportunities lost. Charities miss an opportunity to raise awareness of their cause and reach a new audience of potential supporters. In a recent voting appeal, there were over 3,000 profiles for Bristol charities alone – no one is going to read those to make an informed choice. Rather than small cash ‘winners’, these funding pots could be properly managed and allocated with greater effect. Companies could properly engage and create genuine partnerships with charities, not just create an online voting system and leave the public to it.

I for one would like to see an end to these voting appeals – what about you?

Saturday, 24 October 2015

The importance of 'how'

In a previous blog, I wrote about the ‘what’ and the ‘why’ (link below). But when attending New Philanthropy Capital’s NPC Ignites conference last week (link below), I was really struck by the discussions that related to the importance of ‘how’. Here are the points I noted:

· 70% of strategic plans don’t get implemented.

· Budgets support the status quo. The budget setting process is too long, too detailed and bottom-up. The whole organisation can become paralysed whilst it ‘does the budget’. Instead, start from the strategy and think what resources are needed to deliver it.

· Productivity matters – you are not just looking for impact but also at what cost this is achieved. (This resonated with me as a funder because I have to consider the cost of different interventions as well as their expected outcomes. But productivity would also be an important factor for charities deciding how best to allocate resources – some interventions may just cost too much.

· Effective implementation needs both a sense of excitement and dogged perseverance. You need to embed the mission into the culture of the organisation and ensure people hold it in their hearts as well as doing the ‘boring’ bits of implementation like planning and reviewing progress.

· Research has shown the importance of implementation: you can sometimes achieve more by implementing something well, that failed elsewhere, than by implementing a proven intervention badly.

Implementation is a poor relation when compared to the excited talk there was around digital and measuring impact . But if you don’t actually deliver what you set out to then you can’t bring about change. I was pleased to see its importance highlighted. ‘How’ definitely deserves its place alongside what and why.

http://emmabeeston.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/the-what-and-why.html

http://www.thinknpc.org/events/npc-ignites/

Friday, 9 October 2015

Be more magpie

Research on magpie behaviour (link below) has shown they are not attracted to shiny things, as we like to believe, but instead they try to avoid them. It set me thinking about the lure of the shiny new innovative projects that can appeal to funders and philanthropists giving money to charities.

Charities do great work that changes lives and givers big and small want to support them to do this. But behind that great work is lots of far less interesting things that have to happen. Someone needs to do the payroll; insurance needs to be renewed; minibuses taken for their MOTs; risk assessments and plans written; databases need to be maintained.

Charities all say that it is hard to raise money for their core costs yet many grants exclude them. Full cost recovery and compacts try to address this but often charities have to find ways to package their overheads into their project costs to get them covered. Or they spend precious time away from the frontline to gather unrestricted funding from events and sales.

Similarly, charities bemoan having to find ways to change or dress up their existing work to look like new projects. What they do is working well but lots of funders won’t consider supporting it as they want to back something different and innovative.

As our understanding of magpies has changed, maybe we should learn from this and be more magpie. Rather than just funding the attractive work that gives us those shiny case studies. Perhaps we should find reward in funding what the charity wants and needs. More funders and philanthropists should willingly fund the photocopier service contract, the admin worker or the office cleaner. Or be proud to fund the continuation of existing work that is needed and getting good outcomes. They might be a little less shiny but they are vital.

http://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/featurednews/title_406690_en.html

Friday, 2 October 2015

The what and the why

In a TED talk classic (see link) Simon Sinek tells us that “People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it. ” and for charities there has been a welcome focus on ‘the why’ in making strong cases for support. For example, you don’t donate to the British Heart Foundation because of their research projects but because you share their vision of a world in which people do not die prematurely.

But recently, I have started to question if ‘the why’ has gone too far. When reading though applications and websites, I often read impassioned claims for the difference a charity has made, and will make, and their impact on society. But I can still get to the end of the application form and not have the faintest idea ‘what’ exactly it is that they are going to do with the money. I also recently advised a philanthropist who had named a charity in their will because of what they thought they did, which was a wrongly held assumption based on their ‘why we exist’ and not based at all on what they actually delivered.

Of course, the why matters. I would hate to go back to reading through a list of activities and finding myself thinking “so what?” But when deciding who gets the money, the tangibles have to come into play. If everyone is claiming to make the world a better place then you need details to weigh up their likely practical contributions. I need to make a judgment on whether ‘what’ you actually deliver will bring about the outcomes you state. Is a weekly football club more likely to build confidence in young people than a peer support group or counselling or music therapy? (They will all be valid, but funders have to make a choice).

There needs to be a clear logical flow in any funding application e.g. £A pays for B to deliver C which leads to D. Both the what and the why are in there: the what predominantly appeals to the rational head and the why to the emotional heart. Both have their place in a good application.

https://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action?language=en

Friday, 25 September 2015

When is a charity closure not a failure?

Charity closures – including recent high profile ones such as Kids Company, BAAF, BeatBullying – are generally understood as being ‘a bad thing’. The loss of services, knowledge and expertise from the sector certainly is. But hidden in these sad tales are some closures we should perceive differently.

Every charity is set up with a purpose. It is there to respond to a need, tackle an issue, solve a societal problem. This purpose is set out in the objects of the charity and registered with the Charity Commission.

The impact of commissioning means increasingly there are charities out there that have lost their position. Usually this happens when they lose out in a tender exercise and the winning organisation is now paid to provide the services they used to deliver. This happens in business too – think of a local store when a large supermarket moves in. Those who survive this dramatic market change are those who adapt to deliver a very specialist service.

Charities too small to compete with large competitors can respond in a similar way by focusing on meeting needs that remain unserved. So a domestic abuse charity that used to deliver a refuge can continue to offer specialist community outreach or counselling when a housing association wins the refuge contract. This will not be an easy transition: it needs leadership; flexibility of thinking; finding new income streams; losing staff. What is important is that the core purpose is at the heart of driving change.

Some charities forget this. They focus on keeping going at any cost and seek funding to keep jobs. The focus is on maintaining the existence of the charity and taking on any new services that come their way. It is an understandable response to change but by putting the organisation before the purpose they are more likely to experience mission drift and less likely to attract funding.

A small number of charities respond to this change by being courageous enough to close. A charity I spoke with recently, who had lost out in a tender process, had an uncommon and refreshing answer to my question of what next:

“if the need is not there, we don’t need to exist”

We should be concerned about the number of charity closures and the tender process where small, local, specialist provision is lost. But on some occasions closing a charity is the right, and brave, decision to take.

Thursday, 17 September 2015

Evaluation: what can we learn from academics?

This week I am delighted to welcome back guest blogger Jane Selman ...
I have been working for the last 18 months with the Director of a children’s charity in the Midlands, with an annual turnover circa £700k. They do great work and the Director really understands fundraising and I love working with them.

Last year we were looking at evaluation and precisely what the charity needed to evaluate in relation to a specific project we sought funds for. It led to an interesting internal discussion involving staff, some beneficiaries and trustees.

I came to realise that the collective understanding of evaluation within this charity, was informed solely by the need to please funders; measure quantitative data, the progress towards outcomes and to seek qualitative feedback. All very essential evidence of course, but I felt they were missing a point and the charity could get greater benefit out of evaluation

I began to look at how university academics practised evaluation and in particular how those concerned with social welfare projects understood and carried it out.

So more reading and talking followed, which was ultimately very enlightening and useful. In essence, what we found out about evaluation, was that it could be more robust and more comprehensive than I and the Director had previously asserted in funding bids.

We spent a few hours thinking and talking about ways of applying aspects of this academic evaluation of social welfare projects, to the work we were seeking funding for. We then consulted partners, funders, staff and former service users. Mainly asking each: “what is it you would want to know of our work?” and, “what would you do with that knowledge?”

The resulting two changes we made were:

Identifying, prior to the start of the project, what questions we would be asking at the evaluation stage.
Identifying who would use the evaluation; what did they want to know; and how would they use the results.

The result was a model that is both practical and realistic. By taking a wider perspective, our new evaluation model appears to have galvanised greater understanding of the complexity of the work and commitment to the charity, amongst delivery partners, funders, trustees and mentors to client group.

I know what I have said is not rocket science. But we are so busy delivering the work and fundraising, that we loose sight of maybe spending some time on thinking what we can learn from practitioners in other sectors.

Jane Selman: http://www.janeselmanfundraising.co.uk

Emma Beeston Consultancy advises funders and philanthropists on giving strategies and processes; selecting causes and charities; assessments and impact monitoring. Services for charities include external perception reviews; bid reviews; training for fundraisers and non-fundraisers involved in bids. E:ms.e.beeston@gmail.com; T: emmabeeston01

Friday, 11 September 2015

Giving and the art of blackberry picking

At this time of year, when I go out to gather blackberries, I am reminded of my mother giving me her wise advice on picking:

Only pick blackberries above the height that the tallest dog can pee.
No blackberry is worth dying for.

As well as being sage advice for blackberry picking, it can also be applied when it comes to selecting the best charities to give money to.

Let’s take rule number one. There are basic flaws and issues that mean some charities are best avoided. As an example: the ones that don’t have good safeguarding practice, have badly managed finances or poor structures. Just because they are there and available, does not mean they are good. There may be very solid reasons why no one is funding them already.

There are lots of blackberries above the ‘basic hygiene line’ and many charities are above the basic requirements too – they are doing good work and are also well run. The issue is that there are lots to choose from. The art to selecting is knowing where to find best practice; that some are a little better than others; and they vary in size and ambition. Context is also important – you want to fund at the right time. Despite the choice available, it will still take effort to select the best and you may well need help to find the charities that best match your preferences.

And so to rule number two. There are always big, juicy blackberries which are tantalisingly out of reach. Balancing on one leg at the top of a ditch to try and reach them is a risky business. There are rich rewards for those who come prepared with ladders and protective clothing – but it is not a job for the ill-equipped. I think of these being the pioneering charities working in new or difficult fields. You need to know what you’re doing when funding them and be prepared to take the risks. If you over reach yourself then you may be giving money to a charity that folds. But if you have experience and do the right preparation then you should reap significant social impact rewards.

So enjoy your blackberry crumbles, pies and jam this autumn. And keep my mother’s advice in mind when choosing a charity to donate to. I wish you rich pickings.

Thursday, 3 September 2015

Application forms - do they help or hinder?

When deciding which charity to fund, an application form is a useful tool for gathering all the information you need in one place. It then aids comparison: should you fund this new charity which helps 100 people into accommodation or this other long-established one that helps 50 people back into work?

However, a grant should not be a reward for the best form-filling. An application form can sometimes get in the way of a good decision. Some charities write fantastic, clear and concise applications but when visits are made, the reality can be very different and some charities cannot evidence the claims they made. At the other extreme, some charities do amazing work but the application form is so poorly written you wouldn’t really know it.

As a funder, it’s quality work you want to fund, so how much weight can and should you give to its presentation?

Ideally, the work should always win out – you want to fund those making the most difference to those in greatest need. But if you don’t have the resources to conduct visits or telephone assessments or have local knowledge or referees to draw on, then the paperwork is all you have. Funders will still hopefully be experienced enough to spot an overly positive application which tells us exactly what we want to hear. After all, we do read hundreds of forms and can use our experience and judgment to check the credibility of claims and plans.

For those completing application forms, it is more important than ever to be able to clearly articulate what it is you do. This shows confidence and direction. Not having this skill will reduce your likelihood of getting funding in these increasingly competitive times. And to some degree, a funder is right to make a judgment on how well you come across on paper. If you can’t convey why you need the money, then how successful are you in attracting volunteers, donors and other supporters to your cause? We may conclude that your whole charity is not just overlooking writing skills but more fundamentally may not have a clear sense of purpose.

Whether an application form is helpful or an obstacle, it is still the commonest tool used. So both sides, funder and applicant, need to be skilled and experienced in preparing and writing as well as reading and correctly interpreting these forms.

Friday, 24 July 2015

Social funding: are we better together?

Fundraisers have long understood that giving is often a social activity and have tapped into this with all kinds of dances, dinners and team events. Increasingly funding is becoming more social too with crowdfunding and Giving Circles (see link) as well as small informal groupings.

As someone who is curious about different ways of funding charities, I recently attended The Funding Network’s Summer Spectacular in London to experience one of their ‘live crowdfunding’ events.

The Funding Network (see link) has groups in 13 countries and the London event meant they have now collectively given £8 million to good causes since they began in 2002. Their ethos is that philanthropists don’t need to be the super wealthy. A great impact can be made through members pooling donations. On the night, four charities pitched to an audience of several hundred people. The minimum pledge was £100. All the charities exceeded their targets of gaining £6k.

There was a good buzz on the night – much like at a good fundraiser – but not focused on one cause, but on a collective desire to make a difference. It was fun and entertaining. One philanthropist I spoke with said she wanted to enjoy her giving and not sit at home “bored just pushing the donate button”.

Of course, coming from the grant making world of application forms, assessments and decision panels I did have some questions: Was this going to be a beauty pageant with the rewards going to the most articulate? Would I know if the four charities were any good? How were they selected? Was the return proportionate to the charity’s efforts? Here is what I discovered:

The pitch was important, but all the charities were given a day’s training on presenting and an opportunity to rehearse. This showed on the night, and will be a useful skill for them to take away with them.

There is an assessment process and as well as the pitch. We all had a detailed report on each charity, which certainly held more information than I have seen some grant panels get.

I still have a question-mark over the selection process. As members nominate the charities, it would suggest that who you know (or who knows you) is important and could be an issue depending on how diverse and how proactive the membership is.

With all the participant charities receiving training and exceeding their targets, it seemed to be a good return on their efforts. There was an option for members to offer other support as well as funding so I am sure many charities will gain from raising their profile and gaining new contacts.

What struck me most is that I am very lucky to meet so many inspiring charity leaders, workers and the people they support through my job. If you’re not in the sector, how would you get to hear about these smaller charitable groups or hear from someone who has, for example, been through the prison system? Everyone I spoke to found these opportunities moving and motivating. Attending a fundraiser for one charity means you know at least a bit about them already. In this case people were exposed to groups that they had not heard of before.

Is there anything traditional funders can take from this social approach? Here are my two takeaways:

Appreciate the access we have to the great work that is going on in the charitable sector. Instead of bemoaning that those outside the sector don’t know about it, we should do more to reach out and champion the work we see.
At the end of the next grant round or grant panel, we often end by focusing on all the projects we couldn’t fund. Instead, lets take a moment to feel good about the funding awards that were made and how we are part of the collective effort to make a difference.

http://guest.thirdsector.co.uk/2014/11/06/understanding-giving-circles-in-the-uk-and-ireland/

http://www.thefundingnetwork.org.uk/

Emma Beeston Consultancy advises funders and philanthropists on giving strategies and processes; selecting causes and charities; assessments and impact monitoring. Services for charities include external perception reviews; bid reviews; coaching for fundraisers and training for non-fundraisers involved in bids. E: ms.e.beeston@gmail.com; T: emmabeeston01

Thursday, 16 July 2015

What to tell a funder when things don't go to plan

After all your hard work, you get the good news that your application has been successful and you have secured the grant you need. Your work does not stop there. There are a number of grant management tasks that will always be needed: checking the terms and conditions; being clear on the reporting requirements and saying thank you.

I would add another task to that list: asking the funder what changes they want to hear about and when.

It is unlikely that 1, 2 or 3 years on, you will be doing exactly what you said you would. Most funders will expect some variations from your original proposal. So it is good to be clear which changes:

they don’t need to hear about: such as, your drop-in is held on a Friday but you change it to a Thursday.
they do need to be told about: for example, where they are funding a staff post and the post holder leaves or goes off sick or goes on maternity leave. The funder will want to ensure that service delivery continues and is of sufficient quality.

Some funders will want to learn about changes through the grant reporting system and others will want to know of variations in advance as they will need to authorise the change of use of the grant. So it is important that you find out which approach your funder takes – especially as not doing so could delay or even risk future grant payments.

But what about when things go wrong?

The times when charity workers find it hardest to tell a funder is when things go wrong. But this is exactly the time to be upfront. Honest communication is what is required. If your new service has not attracted any clients; you have had to reduce the service due to cashflow problems; or a staff member has been caught stealing; then my advice to you is to tell the funder as early as you can.

Why? Well, it is the right thing to do. The funder is accountable for how their funds are spent and may need to take steps to manage or reduce their risks. They are also likely to find out anyway when they read your report, accounts or the story in the newspaper. How you respond to the situation may well affect the future relationship and likelihood of further funding. What sometimes happens is an awkward monitoring call or visit where the grantee gives evasive answers to questions and the funder has to raise the issue directly. This does not instil confidence and it suggests a lack of care about funds given. What would a funder now think about this charity? They are likely to start questioning how they manage resources, monitor performance, and communicate with other stakeholders.

So get in touch right away to explain what has happened. Go through the steps you have taken to address it and ask if the funder needs any further action. It is never easy when things don’t go to plan. Facing and managing the situation with open communication is the best approach for everyone in the long run.

Thursday, 9 July 2015

Game, Set and ... Match?

‘Match giving’ can be very effective in fundraising campaigns. Last year’s Big Give Christmas Challenge raised over £11m with charity champions matching online donations to charities. You can see why this works. It creates a sense of interest and urgency. It encourages giving from those who want to join in because others are taking part. It can lever in other funding sources - the Community First programme raised £130m with donors generating a 50% uplift on their endowment donations through government match funding (see link). It is also used to good effect in employee schemes where the company matches the volunteering and fundraising efforts of its staff. This rewards the community-minded behaviours the company wants to encourage and brings additional funds to those supported.

But what about the other matching offers from funders such as Trusts and Foundations? ‘Coordination matching’, for example, where “a charity needs to raise a specific amount for a specific purpose. A large funder (the “matcher”) is happy to contribute part of the amount needed as long as the specific purpose is achieved; therefore, the matcher makes the gift conditional on other gifts” - (see link).

I can see that it would be helpful to spread the risk where a funder does not want to be the sole funder of a project or charity. I can also see that this arrangement is fine where the funder can genuinely not offer any more money and the project cannot go ahead until a larger amount is raised. So it is an all or nothing situation. But otherwise this kind of giving seems to be another expression of the funder holding the power: “we will give you £x but only if you do more work”. What is the message here? Is it:

I need other funders to commit in order to have my judgment affirmed?
I think your work is good but not that good?
I want you to work harder for what I am offering?

This matching arrangement also creates additional work on both sides. The funder has to keep track of the offer and whether it will be paid out. The charity has to allocate resources to raising the rest or lose the pledge - and this may divert attention away from other needs. It can start to feel more stick than carrot – which is surely not what the funder intended?

I am sure there are other arguments for and against offering matched funding. I would welcome comments below to let me know what you think.

http://ukcommunityfoundations.org/programmes/community_first/

http://blog.givewell.org/2011/12/15/why-you-shouldnt-let-donation-matching-affect-your-giving/

Friday, 3 July 2015

Over claiming and the problem of attribution

When assessing applications one of the negative terms used of an applicant is that they are ‘over claiming’. Common examples are:

the numbers appear inflated. For example, where a charity with the capacity to support 30 people well states that they will support 50 people because they think it will come across better to the potential funder. Or where the success rates given are over-optimistic such as “100% will complete the course” or “95% will secure full-time jobs, stop taking drugs and be in secure accommodation”.
the outcomes delivered by other people are included. For example, the charity helps with housing issues and refers people with complex mental health issues to another organisation. But in the application they ‘claim’ the improved mental health outcomes as well as those related to housing.

I don’t believe this is done with the deliberate intent to mislead. In fact when it comes to the second example, research shows that we all have a propensity to over-claim credit in joint tasks. If you take a group where a number of people are responsible for completing a task and ask each individual to estimate their contribution the combined total will exceed 100% (see link).

These common examples of over claiming are something for fundraisers to be aware of and seek to avoid. Otherwise it can come across as poor planning. Or if you did get the funding, you are set up to fail as it will be a struggle to achieve all that you said you would.

Much harder is the tricky problem of attribution – where it is very difficult to say exactly what difference your intervention makes because of all the other factors involved. For example, how much difference can be attributed to your counselling service in helping a family to cope with bereavement? How much is due to their friends, family, faith, upbringing etc etc. True attribution is very complex and is not a new issue:

“We are too much accustomed to attribute to a single cause that which is the product of several, and the majority of our controversies come from that.” – Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor, 161 – 180

Attribution is also a problem that affects funders. It is difficult to attribute the true impact funding has because it relies on the accuracy of the data gathered from those funded (who, as we saw above, already struggle with attribution) and because of all the variables involved. Just what difference do I make if I award £20k towards half the salary of a full-time post that is part of a team of eight, who together deliver ...? Did my £20k stop the charity from closure (probably an over claim) or did it help care leavers go to college? – along with the input from 10 other grant makers, a corporate sponsor, volunteers, staff, Trustees, the individual themselves, the foster family, the social worker etc. etc.

I don’t think we should stop trying to wrestle with the problem of attribution. But in the meantime, I think a common sense and proportionate approach is best. For applicants this means the best you can do is present a realistic case for what you can reasonably estimate or measure.

www. livemint.com/Politics/u6hPPIK9WbgARNK4DueEOO/Management--Why-people-overclaim-credit-in-joint-tasks.html

Thursday, 25 June 2015

You are not alone

Often in funding applications and assessment interviews you will be asked questions about the other organisations you work with and especially those doing similar work to you. This is not a test to see if you know who else is out there. Nor is it a way a funder gets their research done – even though gathering local knowledge is always useful. It is a way of assessing how connected you are to others around you – Do you have good referral pathways in place? Are you sure you are not duplicating another’s services?

Sadly with the dual pressures of increased demand and diminishing resources, some charities have become inward looking. There is less ‘slack’ to attend events, training and meetings as everyone is head down and delivering. However, this is exactly the time when fresh thinking is needed and having the time to look outwards and meet with others is more crucial than ever.

A lack of external view causes several problems:

You miss opportunities for collaborations and partnerships;
You miss out on funding opportunities that can arise from more people hearing what you do;
You miss seeing alternative ways of doing what you do from visiting other charities or getting wider stimulation. As Daniel Neel of the Fundraising Resource Group puts it in his recent blog (see link) “Sometimes the best ideas come from outside of the non-profit world altogether”.
You risk duplicating effort such as conducting research that you didn’t realise had already been done.

Not referencing other organisations can also come across badly in funding applications. What would you think of a charity that says they are unique when you know they are not; makes no reference to other trial projects that have been carried out and evaluated already; does not work with a nearby charity despite sharing clients?

Despite all the internal demands, charity workers do need to keep facing outwards and connecting with others. This can be positive and reenergising at a time when work is hard. And at the very least you will feel better sharing your woes with other charity workers who understand.

http://www.thefundraisingresource.com/wp/fundraising-2/fundraising-and-deck-chairs-what-are-you-doing-with-yours/

Emma Beeston Consultancy advises funders and philanthropists on giving strategies and processes; selecting causes and charities; and impact monitoring. Services for charities include external perception reviews; bid reviews; training for fundraisers and non-fundraisers involved in bids.

https://twitter.com/emmabeeston01

Friday, 19 June 2015

Trustees – Your CEO needs you!

The fresh round of attacks on charity CEO’s level of pay saddens me (link below). It is another example of people not getting modern charities. It seems it is OK to be paid to turn a profit for shareholders but not if you set out to tackle society’s ills. I get to meet lots of charity CEOs in my work and they are doing a tough job that should be appreciated. Tougher now than ever as the demand for help and support is on the rise (rises in debt, housing shortages, increased mental illness ...) and there are reduced resources to respond due to funding cuts.

The pressure is on to continue the charity’s work, support staff, fundraise and plan ahead in these circumstances. Charity CEOs are often lonely. They need to reassure their staff teams who are stretched and worried about their jobs. And they need to present their Trustee Board with solutions and options. Where do they get to rant, moan, talk through new ideas and share their worries?

When I meet with charity CEOs, I ask them about the support they get. Some will speak highly of their Chair or other Trustees. But some tell me that managing their Trustees is another difficult task on their long list.

So what can Trustees do?

First recognise that the burden and responsibility for staff jobs and the charity’s continued existence rests heavily on the CEO’s shoulders. Even though Trustees are technically responsible, they have collective responsibility and can leave at any time. It is not their paid job.
Support the CEO. Create a culture where the CEO can make mistakes, bounce ideas around and admit to having concerns or fears.
Ensure the CEO has regular supervision, external supervision, a coach or mentor. That they have sufficient capacity to get out of the charity to meet with peers, learn and take proper holidays. There are excellent peer support groups out there like Ella Forums (link below) and people like myself offer support.
Share the load – not interfering with the day to day running, but asking what help is needed and being proactive with assistance such as telling staff bad news or contingency planning difficult ‘what if’ scenarios.

I am sure there are other ways Trustees are and can step up. If you are a Trustee, let me know what you do. And if you are a charity CEO, tell me what you need.

http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/finance/news/content/19800/sun_launches_fresh_attack_against_charity_sector_over_chief_executive_pay

http://www.ella-forums.org/

https://twitter.com/emmabeeston01

Friday, 12 June 2015

Judging charities by their covers

As a child in the 70s I used to visit the Westgate Library in Oxford. I have vivid memories of the time I made the transition from the children’s library (think bright coloured cushions and picture books) to the main adult library. There were no pictures any more nor different sizes and thicknesses and certainly no age categories. Instead, endless shelves of book spines arranged alphabetically by author. How on earth was I supposed to choose which book to take out?

I can’t remember exactly how I responded the first time. I do remember the time I adopted a strategy of selecting titles on the basis that they had bright aqua lettering as a way to narrow down my options. Needless to say I read a lot of dreadful books. I needed to come up with a better system of choosing.

The same problem of overwhelming choice can face donors. There are 160,045 charities in the UK (see link below). How on earth do you select the ones to support?

I was particularly struck by the similarity when looking at Aviva’s community award pages. Just for Bristol there were profiles of over 3,000 local charities all asking for votes to get the £1,000 award available. To choose, you either need to know one already or have an awful lot of time on your hands.

To stop being overwhelmed you need some criteria – more logical than my aqua approach. You can select by size, cause, location. Still some will be ‘better’ than others e.g. well run, making a big difference, tackling a difficult social issue, working in collaboration, influencing change. It is hard to just pull these out a random so you also need external expertise. Just as with books, charities also win prizes (e.g. GSK Impact awards) and other funders can act like a recommendation. Even better is having advice from someone who knows the sector who effectively acts as your own personal book reviewer: helping you navigate the choices by matching your preferences to the most effective charities out there. In CAF’s recent report (see link below) wealthy individual donors valued receiving professional advice. And, good news for charities, those who took advice tended to give much more.

http://data.ncvo.org.uk/a/almanac15/big-picture/#Registered_charities_andgeneral_charities

https://www.cafonline.org/about-us/publications/2015-publications/the-art-of-adaptation.aspx

Emma Beeston Consultancy advises philanthropists on giving strategies; selecting causes and charities; and impact monitoring.

https://twitter.com/emmabeeston01

Friday, 5 June 2015

Tell me something I don't know

Before you launch into your funding bid, stop and ask yourself what it is this funder needs to know to convince them to support you.

Why will this help? Well, fitting everything you want to say into strict word count limits is always a challenge. It can save you valuable space if you focus on the facts and evidence your chosen funder needs. And as someone who reads hundreds of bids, I can wholeheartedly agree that less is almost always more. A clear, concise bid which tells me exactly what I need to know and how that fits with my funding priorities is just what I want.

One consideration is whether you are applying to a specialist or a generalist funder.

If you are applying to a specialist funder then you can assume a greater level of knowledge in that area. For example, if the funder has already stated that their priority is homeless people, you don’t need to tell them the latest government statistics on homelessness and the poor outcomes for homeless people. You can assume that they get it already – that’s why they are looking to fund this area of work. Instead, tell them why your homelessness project is the one they should fund out of all the others they are considering.

Be specific, tell them about the need in your area; who else is delivering services and how you work with them; why you use your particular model; what is different about your approach; the experience and expertise you have; what results you get...

If they are a more general funder, perhaps a family charitable trust, then you may need to use your words to explain your cause and why it is important. In this situation, don’t make assumptions. Take time to explain the key background facts and figures surrounding your issue and how people are affected before you go into the specifics about you.

If you give general information to specialists, you risk wasting their time and missing the opportunity to give them the depth of detail they want. If you go into specifics with people who have more general knowledge, they may not understand what you do. In both situations: get it right and you have a better chance of being successful.

https://twitter.com/emmabeeston01

Friday, 29 May 2015

Words to avoid in funding bids #4 – wellbeing

Wellbeing is the state of being comfortable, healthy or happy. It is a positive word that conveys a lot and so is very useful. I don’t have anything against the word itself. In fact I am a Trustee of a charity that is all about improving people’s wellbeing.

The problem is that wellbeing is so pertinent a word that it is used a lot. I don’t think I have read a single application form in the past five years that does not mention wellbeing. And I certainly don’t meet any charities that are not working to improve people’s wellbeing – whether as an overall mission or in all the daily small things. So using wellbeing in funding bids stops being useful and starts being meaningless.

I don’t think wellbeing is an easy word to avoid using altogether, but if you use it you must qualify it. One good way to do this is with short examples that bring your work to life. Do your service users go to their doctor less often? Do they sleep better? Do they feel more positive about themselves? Are they feeling more hopeful for their future? Are they buying healthy food? Or you could explain changes using one of the wellbeing tools available such as the Warwick-Edinburgh wellbeing scale. For example, “following our intervention, 60% of our clients increased their score when rating themselves on the statements such as ‘I’ve been feeling relaxed’ or ‘I’ve been feeling interested in other people’ – none of the time (10), rarely (2), some of the time (3), often (4), all of the time (5)”.

What you are looking to do is make sure the funder does not make wrong assumptions about the wellbeing your work brings about, or that you get lost amongst all the other charities saying the same thing. Because the funder is trying to work out which has the most impact – should they improve this group’s wellbeing for £25k or this other group’s for £50k? Is the difference to do with value for money or is one a greater depth and intensity than the other?

So when you find yourself writing ‘wellbeing’ in your next bid, make sure you stand out by adding detail to explain how you improve wellbeing and how significant and long-lasting this is.

https://twitter.com/emmabeeston01