‘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.
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
No comments:
Post a Comment