What's in a name?

The speech towards the end of the film ‘I Daniel Blake’ included the statement:

“I am not a client, a customer, nor a service user”

It is a powerful reminder of the importance of words when used as labels. Anyone who has felt processed when trying to access their rights or a service can relate to how Daniel Blake feels. But exactly what to call ‘the people that a charity is set up to support’ is a problem. You need to call them something in your communications, but however factual or descriptive the chosen term may appear, the word can easily become a loaded, political and contested label.

The different words used for the people supported include clients, service users, members, companions, customers, mentees. There are lots of debates about which is the ‘right’ term to use. For example, some say that ‘service user’ is a useful, neutral term whilst others state that it is too impersonal and does not imply any relationship. When shortened to ‘user’ it has negative associations with substance misuse or someone manipulating others to get what they want.

Which words get used also changes over time. In grant making, there are a range of terms for the one with the money: funder, grant maker, philanthropist, investor. Although potentially neutral terms, the first two convey a more traditional approach. The latter two seem to be on the increase and suggest a more current and engaged approach. Calling yourself a philanthropist, social investor or impact investor seems to be more exciting and carry more status. Traditional funders now talk about investing in those supported e.g. the Arts Council “we invest in art and culture for a lasting return”. This could be a passing fashion or a genuine shift to deeper and more equal partnerships between funder and funded.

There don’t seem to be many different terms used for those getting the funding. They are mainly referred to as grant holders, grant recipients or grantees. It will be interesting to see if new terms come which describe those funded more as ‘partners’. And what I think we really need is a new term for those who benefit from the grant, the ‘beneficiaries’. Again, this is a descriptive term but I have yet to meet anyone who describes themselves in this way and it brings to mind a real Victorian sense of the deserving poor deriving good from a distant ‘benefactor’. It is very much someone on the receiving end and not an active agent contributing their assets. So we are back to what to call them: clients, service users, citizens, stakeholders etc?

Given we do need to use something to describe people, I think it is important that charities check the term they use with those they support. My practice is to ask each charity I visit what they call their service users/members/clients and trust that they have checked that this really is the stated preference of those described. It still leaves me with the unsatisfactory term ‘beneficiary’ so if you have any suggestions for a better word, then please do get in touch.

Emma Beeston Consultancy advises funders and philanthropists on giving strategies and processes; researching and scoping options; selecting causes and charities; assessments and impact monitoring. www.emmabeeston.co.uk ; emma@emmabeeston.co.uk; @emmabeeston01

What pumpkins tell us about impact measurement

The upside of not being able to sleep some nights, is that I get to listen to random features on the wonderful BBC World Service. Around Halloween there was an interesting programme all about pumpkins. And mainly about the huge amounts of waste involved when there is such high demand for pumpkins over a very short period. Did you know the majority of pumpkins bought at Halloween are carved up and then go to waste? Around 5 million pumpkins end up in landfill each year in the UK.

Pumpkin carving used to be the by-product of the edible pumpkin season but now the market has flipped on its head with decoration driving demand. The result is that pumpkins grown to be carved no longer taste nice. As one chef puts it: “Decorative pumpkins are grown with colour, structural strength, a flat bottom, and a sturdy stem as their main attributes. The flesh tends to be bland, watery, and fibrous. No one cares because they're going to be carved, not eaten.”

So what on earth has all this to do with impact measurement?

Measuring your outcomes and impact started off as an internal tool. It is a useful way for charities to decide where to allocate resources; where services can be improved; how your model benchmarks against others. It can also motivate staff and volunteers as they can see the difference they make. The by-product is that it is a good way to demonstrate to funders and other supporters the impact of your work. Funders often ask about how a charity measures its outcomes and how it uses this data to determine if this is an organisation that is still meeting a need, learning and adapting.

But just as with pumpkin carving, the situation is in danger of being flipped on its head with the wish to demonstrate the outcomes and impact externally now driving the process. Some charities are monitoring their outcomes not because they want to learn from this but because they know it is what they are supposed to do to get certain funding. I know I have been asked “what do you want us to measure?” And some commissioners are directing which frameworks or outcomes a charity must use.

If the external driver for impact measurement dominates, then we could end up with considerable waste as charities spend time gathering data that they don’t use, or implement systems in a token way. As funders, we need to convey the message that, whilst being able to understand the difference a charity makes is important to us, it is even more important that the charity adopts impact measurement systems that are appropriate for their clients and the nature of their work; proportionate to their size and resources; and that helps inform and improve their service delivery. We want our tasty soup first and then the lantern.

http://www.redindustries.co.uk/2016/10/scary-waste-facts-released

Emma Beeston Consultancy advises funders and philanthropists on giving strategies and processes; researching and scoping options; selecting causes and charities; assessments and impact monitoring. www.emmabeeston.co.uk ; emma@emmabeeston.co.uk; @emmabeeston01

Reasons to be cheerful

Depending how you get your news, it can easily feel that we are living in gloomy and uncertain times. So, as the evenings get darker, it is important to keep looking for the positives that are all around us. Not to delude ourselves (as my teenage son puts it when I endeavour to be cheerful, “life is not all rainbows and butterflies”) but to give us hope that positive change is possible.

These are the reasons to be cheerful that I have gathered over the past few weeks and that give me cause for optimism:

I attended a training session for small charities supporting refugees across the SW, which was co-hosted by Unbound and Lloyds Bank Foundation. I was very impressed by the fact that, despite the considerable difficulties they face to deliver vital front line services, all the charity leaders were also working to achieve systemic change. And one of the advocacy trainers reminded us all that the campaign to abolish the slave trade was started by just 12 people coming together.

The Funding Network held a live crowdfunding event in Bristol. The pitches were excellent – getting your case for support across in six minutes is no mean feat – and over £25k was raised for the five good causes. These were all small organisations where this level of funding, and the recognition, will make a big difference. But what struck me was the positive energy in the room created by people coming together and wanting to help.

I got to visit Exeter CoLab as they hosted the latest meeting of the Funding SW funders forum. This is such a good example of bringing services together to tackle social issues. I liked the focus on relationships, with those in difficulty telling their story just once and then being introduced to the individuals who can help them, rather than being constantly referred from one organisation after the next.

I have started using 360Giving. After so many years of talking about data sharing and transparency, it is fantastic to have this open resource where you can see who has given grants to who. Do take a look (www.threesixtygiving.org) and if you are a grant-maker, add your data.

The millennials are coming and they are going to change things. I have been reading lots of research showing how millennials want to combine working with doing good. And this includes their activity in philanthropy and investment e.g. a World Economic Forum study surveyed 5,000 millennials in 18 different countries and found that their overall top priority for any business should be “to improve society.” This is one article with some examples of what the next generation are up to: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2016/10/26/millennials-changing-world_n_4440539.html?utm_hp_ref=social-change

And these are just some examples. I have also visited and read about lots of other excellent charities who are working really hard to bring about positive social change. Thanks to all of them for giving me hope for our collective future.

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_II_FromMarginsMainstream_Report_2013.pdf

Emma Beeston Consultancy advises funders and philanthropists on giving strategies and processes; researching and scoping options; selecting causes and charities; assessments and impact monitoring. www.emmabeeston.co.uk ; emma@emmabeeston.co.uk; @emmabeeston01

Reflections on being a Trustee

After 6 years, I recently stood down from being a Trustee of a great charity, Penny Brohn UK. The Trustee role and charity governance is under a huge amount of scrutiny at the moment and hardly a day goes by without some challenge (e.g. about whether Trustees should stay volunteers) or some direction (e.g. questions Trustees should ask about fundraising). I did not stop being a Trustee for any negative reason or because of the pressures of the role. It seemed like the right time to stop after many years and due to other time commitments. Would I be a Trustee again? Yes. Would I recommend being a Trustee? Absolutely.

Any ending is a time for reflection, so here is what I gained from being a Trustee:

Emotional connection – I have talked before that as a funder you are slightly detached and miss out on the shared energy of working for a common cause. Having a more engaged role with just one charity meant I could really connect with the cause, our clients and supporters.

Perspective – just as travelling reminds you that ‘the way we do things’ is not the only way things have to be done, so being a Trustee allowed me to experience and be part of an organisation that is managed differently. I could take that learning to other charities I met and vice versa.

Reality check – in my day job I read and assess lots of plans and funding strategies. Reviewing these and forming an opinion is one thing, being responsible for the income flow quite another. I felt the risk, the worry about cashflow, the disappointment when a bid is turned down. This helped me to remember the importance, as a funder, of things like prompt payments, constructive feedback, the need for diverse income streams and the difficulty of planning in uncertainty.

New experiences – as a Trustee I have been involved in decisions and experiences I would not normally get to do. I have walked on hot coals, asked major donors for support, met Prince Charles, had to decide about cutting down lovely old trees, learn about pension auto-enrolment and the details of loan agreements.

Being valued – the charitable sector has a long history of supporting volunteers. The prime motivation of volunteers is to give something back or make a difference. As a volunteer Trustee I was no different – it is a good feeling when you give your time and expertise to something that matters and are recognised for doing so.

Being a Trustee is an important role. You are responsible for making progress towards a vital aim and caretaker of staff, volunteers, buildings and hopes. It is great to do this as part of a team and it really is incredibly rewarding. I recommend it to you all.

Emma Beeston Consultancy advises funders and philanthropists on giving strategies and processes; researching and scoping options; selecting causes and charities; assessments and impact monitoring. www.emmabeeston.co.uk ; emma@emmabeeston.co.uk; @emmabeeston01

Let's be more "charity-like"

I noticed at a recent meeting that the term “being business-like” was used as a shorthand for a well-managed charity. Now I do agree that charities and other non-profits can learn from the best of business practice and the increased attention on getting the financial and business model right to try and secure sustainability for vital services is a good thing.

There is a welcome increase in businesses giving time for employees to share their expertise with charities and providing pro bono help – for example, Business in The Community has over 400 professional firms in its ProHelp network; LawWorks helps smaller groups find free legal advice and The Whitehouse Consultancy run an annual pro-bono scheme providing support from their political consultants to a charity without the means to get involved in the political debate (see links below).

However, not all businesses are well run and not all practices are appropriate to the charitable sector. How well would a business manage when all its ‘customers’ are experiencing severe trauma? How well would they cope with a doubling of demand, but with no additional resources and providing a service that is free?

It got me thinking about the reverse situation. What would “being charity-like” mean for businesses?

Here was the list I came up with for what for-profits can learn from not-for-profits:

1.       How to motivate people – when you can’t do so through large salaries and bonuses

2.       How to be lean – this may be one of the latest buzzwords for companies but charities have been delivering quality services on limited resources for years

3.       How to stay positive – these are tough times and I am always struck by the optimistic outlook most charity leaders hold despite the odds

4.       Embedding values at the heart of delivery – charities often live and breathe their values in ways corporates can only wonder at

So while we are quick to look to business to fill some gaps in charitable practice, we should also remember that we have approaches and expertise to exchange.

http://www.bitc.org.uk/programmes/prohelp

https://www.lawworks.org.uk/legal-advice-not-profits

http://www.whitehouseconsulting.co.uk/about-us/corporate-social-responsibility/

Emma Beeston Consultancy advises funders and philanthropists on giving strategies and processes; researching and scoping options; selecting causes and charities; assessments and impact monitoring. www.emmabeeston.co.uk ; emma@emmabeeston.co.uk; emmabeeston01

Do you give enough?

There are plenty of opportunities to give to good causes and there is also great scope in the UK for philanthropists to give more. NPC’s recent report into ways to increase and improve philanthropy (see link) reminded me that donors are not always motivated to give by the impact they can make but often are encouraged to give by their peers. “Whether giving a large one-time charitable donation or deciding on one’s annual giving level, most people want to give in line with the perceived average amount.”

If you search giving on Google, then the questions that come up such as ‘How much to give as pocket money?’ ‘How much to spend on a wedding present?’ confirm that there are strong social norms at play that mean we want to know what other people give. No charity is going to be offended (or know) if you give too much or too little yet many donors still want to make sure they are in line with the average.

So how much do other people give?

Well, if you are rich enough to take the Giving Pledge then you are asked to commit ‘the majority of your wealth’. For the rest of us, the expectation is that we give somewhere between 1% and 10%.

In Christianity the faithful are supposed to give a tithe, which means a tenth of their earnings. In Islam, the required charitable contribution is called Zakat and is 2.5% of your wealth each year. In the Jewish faith, tzedakah, means giving away 10% of your income.

The Life You Can Save has a calculator to help you work out 1% of your annual income (see link) and this is the minimum amount we should all give suggested by effective altruist, Peter Singer. There are other organisations promoting giving 1% including Philanthropy Ireland’s ‘The One Percent Difference’ campaign. Their idea is that anyone can afford 1% and the aim is to double the giving levels in Ireland. “The idea is simple, it doesn’t matter who you are or what you do, we all give the same – 1%.”

So to increase philanthropy some role models giving more than 10% could be really helpful – especially when unlocking the wealth of high-net-worth individuals whose giving in 2015 equated to just 0.1% of their wealth (see link). But in the meantime, check your annual giving and see if you can increase it. Because rather than fitting in with the average, we should all seek to stand out in our giving.

http://www.thinknpc.org/publications/giving-more-and-better/

https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/Take-the-Pledge

http://www.onepercentdifference.ie/

http://www.philanthropy-impact.org/sites/default/files/pdf/pi_magazine_12_final_web.pdf

Emma Beeston Consultancy advises funders and philanthropists on giving strategies and processes; selecting causes and charities; assessments and impact monitoring. Tell what social change you want to see and I will help you find organisations already working to achieve this, who will make great use of your financial support. www.emmabeeston.co.uk ; emma@emmabeeston.co.uk; emmabeeston01

Charles Dickens was a philanthropy advisor

My summer reading included Rhodri Davies’ fascinating new book ‘Public Good by Private Means: How Philanthropy Shapes Britain’. In it I was delighted to learn that Charles Dickens was a philanthropy advisor. In the late 19^th century he advised Angela Burdett-Coutts on her giving and helped screen and select applications. As a philanthropy advisor myself, it was pleasing to find myself amongst such illustrious company.

So how has philanthropy advice developed since Dickens’s day? When setting up my consultancy business, the advice I was given fell into two main camps:

1.  People don’t value philanthropy advice and won’t pay for it;
2. This is an under-developed market in the UK and likely to grow.

Obviously I am banking on 2. being correct. So it was interesting to read Cath Tilotson’s latest research into the philanthropy advice market in the UK for Philanthropy Impact (see link). The research found that only 1 in 5 professional advisory firms (accountants, tax advisers, wealth managers etc.) offered philanthropy advice and then it was patchy.  And Joanna Walker states in her white paper for Boncerto (see link): “the philanthropy advice sector has largely remained static over the last few years - when by now it should have fulfilled its enormous potential”.

There are a number of philanthropic advice specialists in the UK such as CAF, New Philanthropy Capital, Boncerto and I am aware of some sole traders and other small outfits like me. But this is nothing compared to the size of the industry in America where philanthropists can access 1,300 Chartered Advisors in Philanthropy alone. There is clearly much still to do to make the case for and grow philanthropy advice in the UK.

There is a real opportunity here – with gains not just for advisors but also for those they support since those wealthy individuals who do seek advice tend to give more.  

So whether a Dickens or not – do contact me if you are a Philanthropy Advisor. It would be great to discuss how we raise our profile together. And if you are one of the 4 out of 5 private client advisors who don’t yet offer philanthropy advice, please get in touch.

Learning to give: lessons for advisers and would-be philanthropists in Philanthropy Impact Magazine Issue 12: Special Edition June 2016

http://www.philanthropy-impact.org/sites/default/files/pdf/pi_magazine_12_final_web.pdf

Growing philanthropy advice - Joanna Walker for Boncerto July 2016

http://www.boncerto.com/assets/files/Philanthropy-Advice.pdf

Emma Beeston Consultancy advises funders and philanthropists on giving strategies and processes; researching and scoping options; selecting causes and charities; assessments and impact monitoring. www.emmabeeston.co.uk ; emma@emmabeeston.co.uk; emmabeeston01

How to raise funds for unpopular causes

I have recently taken part in the panel selecting organisations for The Funding Network’s next ‘live crowdfunding’ event in Bristol. As well as all the usual things looked for like financial sustainability and social impact, we also needed to choose a spread of organisations that had appeal. After all, this is a fun evening and groups need to engage the audience to elicit donations.

It got me thinking about being popular – why would some groups have more appeal than others? And the question I often get asked “how do I raise money for unpopular causes?”.

The statistics in CAF’s UK Giving report show that most money goes to medical research, children, hospitals and animals (see link). So what do you when your cause is not on the list?

Here are two ways that shifting your mindset might help:

1.  Not currently popular

What counts as popular and unpopular changes. You can see this clearly with funding for refugees and asylum seekers. This work used to fall into the unpopular cause category funded by a small number of institutional funders. Now there is a public swell of support and many individual philanthropists are looking at where they can best help. The UK government has even set up a system for matching offers of support to need (see link).

It is impossible for a single fundraiser to turn the tide of popularity or influence the world events behind these trends. But instead of focussing on your cause being unpopular, perhaps it helps to think of it as ‘not currently popular’? As well as being more motivating, it could lead you to seek out potential funders who like to be at the cutting edge of new trends.

2. Popular with the right donor

Is your cause really unpopular or is there a poor match between cause and donor? You are going to be hard pressed to raise money for organisations working to rehabilitate domestic abuse perpetrators through public collections and sponsored events. But similarly, there will be plenty of institutional funders and philanthropists who are not interested in funding holiday play schemes, day centres or community transport. They want to fund more edgy work with gangs or those struggling with mental health issues. Instead of focussing on your cause being unpopular with the general public, put all your efforts into finding the people who get what you do and making the best case you can to appeal to them.

The Funding Network Bristol event is on 20^th October – details: http://www.thefundingnetwork.org.uk/events/tfn-bristol/1158

CAF UK Giving 2014 report: https://www.cafonline.org/docs/default-source/about-us-publications/caf-ukgiving2014.pdf?sfvrsn=4

Online service to help refugees in the UK: https://www.gov.uk/help-refugees

Emma Beeston Consultancy advises funders and philanthropists on giving strategies and processes; researching and scoping options; selecting causes and charities; assessments and impact monitoring. www.emmabeeston.co.uk ; emma@emmabeeston.co.uk; emmabeeston01

Lights, Camera, Action: films for funding

As the saying goes “a picture is worth a thousand words” so you would think that images are invaluable to a fundraiser struggling with a restricted word count when applying for funding. But how are pictures within funding bids received? Do they help?

An image could help in the following ways:

-        To engage the reader

-        To help your bid stand out

-        To reassure the funder that you exist and do things

-        To tell the funder something that text can’t

But in my experience they don’t really add anything. When reading applications, my focus is on the words and how the questions are answered. Many charities don’t have the skill needed to capture a story with a single image. And I don’t think many decision-makers would be swayed by a good image anyway.

However, the inclusion of photos can be helpful in capital bids. If you want funding to refurbish a dilapidated building, then a picture can show clearly why you need a new toilet block in ways that a lengthy paragraph can’t. And they do help on your website, which may well be looked at as part of the assessment process. Here images can convey tone, personality and activity.

If you have some budget for photography, a good investment is in short films that demonstrate the difference you make. You can include a link in your bid and they are a great way of having the voice of beneficiaries heard within the application process. I watch lots of these and they are a really useful tool for understanding what exactly an organisation does and who it supports. It is not so much the imagery but the storytelling that matters. With the rise in smart phones and free editing software, videos have never been cheaper or more accessible to make. Research shows that short films work e.g. your crowdfunding campaign is more likely to be successful if it includes a video.

As with any application, it is important to make sure it is good work you are funding and not just good presentation but good communication plays an important role. Both Lankelly Chase Foundation and Paul Hamlyn Foundation have experimented with incorporating video into their application processes. Nominet Trust and the Baring Foundation have included a video pitch in their new Digital Arts & Creative Ageing programme.  I believe this is a trend that is likely to grow. 

Emma Beeston Consultancy advises funders and philanthropists on giving strategies and processes; researching and scoping options; selecting causes and charities; assessments and impact monitoring. www.emmabeeston.co.uk ; emma@emmabeeston.co.uk; emmabeeston01

How are trusts and foundations like snowflakes?

In the latest BBC documentary series with Brian Cox, Forces of Nature, he explained that snowflakes look similar because they are formed by the same forces but every one is also different as each is formed by travelling a unique path.

Grant makers are the same. There are around 10,000 Trusts and Foundations in the UK alone. Each has different aims, priorities and criteria. They are all similar in that they are trying to make a difference through allocating their resources as best they can. But each is different because of all the choices made along the way.

This weekend I was a guest lecturer on the Cass Business School Charities Masters course as part of the Grantmaking, Philanthropy and Social Investment module (see link). I guided students through just some of the choices needed to create a grant making programme, from the strategic considerations such as: ‘Do you want to help people or change the world?’ to the practical aspects such as: ‘Which assessment methods will you use?’

Each step in the process of creating a coherent grant making programme involves making a decision and the order the decisions are made in matters. For example, if you decide to respond to the needs defined by applicants then it is much more likely that this will dictate an open grant process. For the students, each decision they made created much debate as there are no right answers. The result was that, within the session, the students created grant making programmes that all started from the same point but, two hours later, were all, like the snowflakes, completely different.

http://www.cass.city.ac.uk/research-and-faculty/centres/cce/msc-programmes

Emma Beeston Consultancy advises funders and philanthropists on giving strategies and processes; researching and scoping options; selecting causes and charities; assessments and impact monitoring. www.emmabeeston.co.uk ; emma@emmabeeston.co.uk; emmabeeston01

The temptation of cherry-picking

The definition of cherry-picking is “to select the best or most desirable people or things in a group”.

It can sound like a good thing, but with charities it is referred to most often as a negative consequence of contracts. If you are only rewarded for your positive results, then there is a real incentive to work with clients who are the ‘easiest’. So in employment projects you work with those who are most likely to get a job rather than those who are furthest from the labour market with the most complex needs. Charities avoid this temptation by adhering to their values and ethos but in doing so may well lose out in a competitive bid process, and will need to raise other funds to continue to support those in the greatest need.

Does the same temptation to cherry-pick apply to funders?

One of the consequences of cuts in statutory funding has been increased competition for grants from trusts and foundations.  This means that funders can chose to only fund the best: the charities that can already demonstrate a successful track record, prove their impact, are financially sound with robust management in place. Funding the highest quality is a good thing but it can also mean adopting a safe strategy.

How do funders still take risks when they are spoiled for choice?

One way is to have a separate strand of funding where there is a greater tolerance of risk. Another growing trend is to fund the organisational development of charities who are doing good work but need to improve their functioning or sustainability in order to survive and thrive. There are lots of examples of this e.g. the Foyle Foundation has a funding strand for supporting young and emerging artists and another which helps arts organisations to reduce their overheads or generate new income. One local example is the Harpur Trust which focuses its grants on:

1. Keeping good services going
2. Bringing new ideas and services to Bedford
3. Helping to create better functioning organisations

One of the strengths of independent funders is that they can back things that are risky or take a long time to prove. So they need to resist the temptation of picking only the best cherries and take active steps against playing it too safe. 

Emma Beeston Consultancy advises funders and philanthropists on giving strategies and processes; researching and scoping options; selecting causes and charities; assessments and impact monitoring. www.emmabeeston.co.uk ; emma@emmabeeston.co.uk; emmabeeston01

How to make a long story short

Stories influence how people feel, think and behave. As Ken Burnett says in his latest book, ‘Storytelling can change the world’: “one of the best tools we have to help change this flawed world is a story, told well”. As any fundraiser knows, storytelling is a great way to connect with donors. But how do you get the power of a story into a formal funding bid?

In funding application forms the focus is on answering the questions posed about the need for your project, how you measure your outcomes, the aims of your organisation etc. The person reading your bid will be looking for the fit with criteria and weighing up the evidence you provide against other applicants. But they are still human and it is important to remember that funding decisions are just as much an art as a science. So stories will still help your bid to stand out and be remembered, and bring to life the issues affecting those you help.

But application forms often have tight word counts, which place a constraint on storytelling. The people at the other end of your bid, whether an assessor, grants officer or grant panel member, will be reading a lot of bids at any one time and so may well skip over long case studies due to time pressures. So if you can’t use long case studies, how do you fit in a story?

My advice is to use ‘for example’ – a lot. It is your best friend when it comes to adding mini-stories to your bid. Here are some examples …

This role will provide advice and support to homeless migrants and refugees.

to

This role will provide advice and support to homeless migrants and refugees e.g. we help people who are sleeping on the street to get ID, a deposit and rent, and find somewhere to live. 

We ensure specialist skills don’t die out. 

to

We ensure specialist skills don’t die out e.g. there is only one person in England remaining who conserves portrait miniatures and he is about to retire.  We need funding for a trainee to carry on his work.

We provide basic computer skills training.

to

We provide basic computer skills training e.g. on setting up and using email so that parents can receive the information sent out by schools. 

Mini-stories will help you to illustrate the nature and depth of your intervention and can convey credibility by grounding your words in reality. With these extra words you can create pictures in the mind of the reader which means they will have a fuller sense of what it is that you do and how their funding will help.

 The End

Emma Beeston Consultancy advises funders and philanthropists on giving strategies and processes; researching and scoping options; selecting causes and charities; assessments and impact monitoring. www.emmabeeston.co.uk ; emma@emmabeeston.co.uk; emmabeeston01

The path not taken

The other day I was sat in a queue on the M4 caused by an accident which sent my brain into a stream of ‘what ifs’. What if that was me? What if I had left 5 minutes earlier? Every day is filled with these moments – not as dramatic (or lucky) as missing a collision – but all the things not done, that did not happen, that we did not chose. When we think about the paths not taken they can become too numerous to comprehend.

And these same thoughts come with us to work.

·         For fundraisers it can be the income streams not backed: What if trading had been the right path to take?

·         For project managers it can be the opportunity costs: What activity are they missing or what are they not achieving because they are busy delivering this project or plan?

·         For charities it can be trying to demonstrate to a commissioner what would happen in someone’s future if they had not intervened: What choices would our clients have made if we hadn’t been able to help?

·         For funders it can be wrestling with the consequences of all those applications not funded: What if we had used different criteria for our decisions?

Sometimes there are so many unknowns flowing from acting or not acting that it is difficult to know what to do for the best. This is a common dilemma for the philanthropists I work with. They are rightly concerned with wanting to do the best with their gift and not wanting to see it wasted. But being faced with so many possible recipients for their donation can lead to paralysis.

Psychologist Barry Shwartz explains this beautifully in his TED talk (see link) ‘The paradox of choice’. The more choices we have the less likely we are to act. We become paralysed and put off making decisions. We also feel less satisfied by our decisions, even if they are great, because we can easily imagine the choices we could have made and how they could have been better.

Sometimes I feel like I am bursting a philanthropist’s bubble because they come to me wanting to help everyone and I work with them to narrow that down. But I know that it is only through reducing their choices that they will be free to act.

Despite all the options, you need to make a decision and do something. That way you can enjoy the rewards from good decisions and learn from your mistakes. And as a Philanthropy Advisor, my job is to help you navigate your way to the right path.

http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice#t-651214

Is it easier to give or to get?

At Quartet Community Foundation’s recent annual philanthropy debate, the question posed was:

This house believes it is more difficult to give money away intelligently

than to earn it in the first place.

As someone who earns my living advising donors which charities to invest in, I had a foot in both camps. It is hard to make a living as a philanthropy advisor in the UK. But the very reason I do get paid to do my job is it is not easy to give to charity, if you want to do it well.

Speaking for the motion were philanthropist Helen Wilde and Bevis Watts from Triodos Bank. They made a good case for the difficulties that come with giving intelligently:

• How do you find effective charities that are not the big high profile ones?  
• How do you choose which ones to support? 
• How do you sift through the poor proposals to find the quality ones?
• It takes time and effort to spend wisely. 
• It takes experience and good judgment to identify those charities that need money but are not about to fold.
• You need to find out which are meaningful, credible, ethical, will have impact and are working with others to maximise resources and avoid duplication. 
• Backing a charity involves taking a risk and that is a hard thing to do with your money.

And surely this is harder than making money by sitting in your house whilst it values accrues?

But it was the case against that won the vote by 73% to 27%. Stephen Fear and Andrew Garrad’s basic argument was that making money is hard work. Yes there is an element of luck and it helps if you are born into social advantage or inherit. But it is down to putting in the long hours and surviving that leads to business and financial success. Whilst giving to charity? Well, they argued that that is easy – it is just common sense and uses the same skills anyone would use to decide what project to run with.

So I ended up in the minority. I agreed with the winning speakers that it is easy to give to charity. But only if you go along with their premise that any charity is worth giving to. I still take the view that giving intelligently is harder to do as charities are not all equal. If you want to maximise the benefit from your gift then you have to put in the work to discriminate between the many options.

It was a lively debate and a good evening. And I left suspecting that those not at the table - the charities out there delivering - probably have it hardest of all.

Emma Beeston Consultancy advises funders and philanthropists on giving strategies and processes; researching and scoping options; selecting causes and charities; assessments and impact monitoring.

www.emmabeeston.co.uk ; emma@emmabeeston.co.uk; emmabeeston01

You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear

I am frequently asked “what makes a good funding bid?” I do deliver workshops on how to write successful applications and there are lots of training courses, guides and blogs out there that all seek to answer that same question.

But what often gets overlooked, is that in order to write a good bid, it is crucial to actually be good in the first place. It is much easier to focus on producing good copy when your charity already has a clear mission in place and is delivering a needed and quality service. It is the same as a job application: it is easier to craft something when you can demonstrate how you meet everything in the person specification than it is to put a positive spin on your gaps.

But it is very difficult to be good at everything all of the time. A charity may spend time on reviewing and strengthening its governance. But that means it has less time to spend on other work such as reading about all the latest new developments in their sector. So what do you do in a funding bid when not everything is 100% how you want it to be?

Funders will assess and rate different aspects of your work and will have different tolerances. For example, if your work is reaching out to a very marginalised community and getting good results, they are less likely to worry that you have work to do on your business plan. So the first thing is to try and work out the likely response of a potential funder. If they highlight that user involvement is important and you have this down as something you need to improve, then it is not the right time to write that bid.

If you seem a good fit with the criteria but things fall short of what you (and the funder) would like them to be, then it is time to be upfront and work hard on your presentation. There is a world of difference between “we don’t have a business plan” and “because of the funding issues we faced last year our business plan became out of date. Now we have funding in place for the next two years, it is a priority for our Trustees to create a new business plan to take the charity forward. We have started discussions and have an away day planned for May.”

This response brings the charity to life, is honest and confident. In a world where marketing spin is easily spotted, this approach is far more credible.

Emma Beeston Consultancy advises funders and philanthropists on giving strategies and processes; researching and scoping options; selecting causes and charities; assessments and impact monitoring.

www.emmabeeston.co.uk ; emma@emmabeeston.co.uk; emmabeeston01

Reflections on Year One

I am celebrating making it through my first year of working as a consultant philanthropy advisor and felt it made a good point in time to share my reflections on the experience so far. The key things I have learned about working independently are: 

1. I have been pleasantly surprised at how collaborative the world of consultancy is. I thought it would be and feel much more competitive. People have been generous with their time, help and advice and there is a great exchange of opportunities and information amongst fellow consultants.
2. After years as an employee it is liberating – and at times daunting - to voice my own opinions in conversations and blogs. Not that I’ve worked anywhere where I didn’t have a voice, but I have always been a representative of a wider consensus or company policy. It probably won’t shock anyone who knows me, but I wasn’t expecting just how much I enjoy sharing and writing what I think.
3. What I have been told about the ‘feast and famine’ of being a consultant is true. As an employee and a manager I have dealt with busy periods and quieter periods, but the peaks and troughs are less steep. In effect, consultants have no ongoing core funds. They are paid for projects, and those projects can come along like buses. However, the upside of downtime is the ability to network, read and plan ahead.
4. How you get feedback is very different. Employees get regular feedback on performance from managers. With clients it is much more about whether they hire you or not and whether they work with you again. But as there are other factors involved in the process of being hired, such as budget changes, it is not always easy to tell what clients think. Having said that, it is a good feeling when you get paid for what you have produced. It’s a very straightforward message of your value that it is hard for an employer to do.
5. Because I don’t have a wider team around me who know the issues and personalities I am dealing with, I don’t have people to air those with or bounce ideas around. Talking out loud is often how I solve problems. Having a supportive partner at home and some fabulous mentors to share some of those issues with becomes invaluable. My dog gets to hear the rest. But lovely though he is, his views on philanthropy are very limited.

So a big thank you to everyone who has helped and encouraged (and paid!) me along the way. I am looking forward to the year ahead.

Emma Beeston Consultancy advises funders and philanthropists on giving strategies and processes; researching and scoping options; selecting causes and charities; assessments and impact monitoring.

www.emmabeeston.co.uk ; emma@emmabeeston.co.uk; emmabeeston01

You get what you pay for

As consumers, we all want to know what we get for our money, and funders are no different. The heart of a funding decision is often the competitive comparisons of ‘what will the money pay for and what difference will that make, to who and how?’ So that the value or return can be measured and considered in a tangible way.

Philanthropists too are attracted to tangibles whether a capital appeal towards a building or to restore an important painting or just to know what benefit individuals will get from a donation. One example, from Spear London, shows how this, now common, fundraising technique is used to communicate how amounts of money are matched to what it will pay for:

HOW YOUR MONEY CAN BE SPENT

• £20 pays for a thermal sleeping bag
• £50 pays for an outreach shift to ensure that we don’t miss a rough sleeper
• £100 pays for food for all our hostel residents
• £250 pays for a new home starter kit for someone moving to permanent accommodation

The reality is that charities need all their costs covered and not just those listed. All charities find it easier to raise money for projects than they do their core costs. Therefore the admin time, insurances, planning days, staff recruitment and management time gets built into an attractive project with tangible outcomes. However, adding too many core costs may make it look like the project is expensive. Adding too little of the core costs runs the risk that the project is under-resourced and so cannot be maintained.

If philanthropists just fund projects, the risk is that they are weakening the very organisation they want to support. To avoid joining in with this dance, philanthropists can give unrestricted donations for a charity to use on whatever costs they wish. But the desire for a tangible result runs deep, so if you still want to know exactly how your money will be spent, I have a suggestion for you.

In these straightened times, charities are having to cut their cloth. One item increasingly being trimmed is staff and volunteer training and development. With people being the biggest asset of any charity this is a short-term fix. So if you want to specify how your donation is used, how about asking for it to be used to cover the costs of training and development?

There are a number of foundations already doing this:

• Clore Duffield Foundation – individual training budgets for leaders with a social purpose
• Wolfson Foundation – covers palliative care course fees for doctors and nurses
•  Paul Hamyln Foundation – has a new Teacher Development Fund coming in September 2016
• Foundation for PSA – covers the costs of conferences and courses for those delivering acute mental health services to adolescents

Given the size of the charity sector and the number of staff and volunteers involved, there is scope to do more in this area. Your donation will be greatly appreciated by your recipient charity now and represents an investment in their future. And you will still know exactly how your money is spent and the impact that it will have.

Emma Beeston Consultancy advises funders and philanthropists on giving strategies and processes; researching and scoping options; selecting causes and charities; assessments and impact monitoring.

www.emmabeeston.co.uk ; emma@emmabeeston.co.uk; emmabeeston01