A recent survey found that we have become ever
more impatient over the past 5 years. We wait an average 10 seconds for a web page
to load, 5 minutes for a drink at a bar, 10 minutes in a post office queue and
13 minutes sitting in traffic before we lose our patience. And if, like me, you read those and think
they are reasonable, chances are this shift to immediacy is with us to stay.
So
how does this affect grant makers who take their time to sift, assess and
decide on applications?
Well first of all, it affects those we support. Charities
and fundraisers have already adapted to this change with ‘click to donate’, ‘text
to give’ and crowdfunding. According to Blackbaud’s 2014 Charitable Giving
Report, online
giving grew 8.9% in 2014 compared to 2013. The rise was sharpest in smaller
organisations and the report concludes “these agile
organisations are embracing new approaches and modern technologies to fuel
their growth”. When assessing financial sustainability and funding strategies
we can expect to see an increased role for social media as well as loan
funding (which is very much about having
the funds now and paying it back later). The shift from legacies to ‘giving
while living’ will also change the future income streams for some charities.
Some
funders already have experience of creating a sense of urgency to gain their
funds. BBC Children in Need and Comic Relief both create a ‘one day only’ sense
of excitement for their appeals and then spend their funds throughout the year
through their grant programmes. The UK Community Foundations raised
£45.8m last year through their time-limited scheme,
Community First, where donations were matched by central government funding. But
for Trusts and Foundations who don’t need to raise funds (like those with large
endowments), is there a need to respond to this desire for immediacy?
There is
room for improvement in customer service. Funders could acknowledge
applications promptly and could look at ways to improve the time taken to get a
decision through delegating authority to staff or rolling programmes. The Big
Lottery Fund is currently trialling instant decision-making out in the field
for its Awards for All programme. With the sector under such huge financial
pressure, I am sure any decrease in time spent waiting for funding decisions
would be welcomed.
Where I think it is hard to respond to immediacy is in giving
feedback on results. Crowdfunding provides instant gratification for your
donation but also pretty quick feedback on whether or not the target amount was
achieved. This works where your donation is tied to outputs (your £25 will pay
for...) and capital appeals with tangible results. But it does not work where a
funder is supporting long-term change for complex social problems such as
poverty. Here, what charities need is long-term funding over as many years as
possible. Esmee Fairbairn’s new grant strategy includes this goal: “We
look for catalysts to change systems and challenge existing orthodoxies. This
may mean allocating significant sums of money for the long-term”.
Independent
grant makers can challenge immediacy through a long-term outlook which comes
from a history of giving and the security of endowments. But we should not let
this make us complacent. I don’t think it is OK for applicants to put up with
lengthy decision processes when we could change things to respond more quickly.
After all, if we’re only prepared to wait 5 minutes for service at a bar, how
long should anyone have to wait for a funding decision?
No comments:
Post a Comment