Why grants are good

The launch of the Grants for Good Campaign brings a welcome focus on grants as a valuable funding mechanism. The newer arrivals on the funding scene (such as loans, social impact bonds and crowdfunding) have been getting a lot of attention. Novelty is always appealing and makes the more familiar ‘grant’ come across as a bit old fashioned and dull.

The Association of Charitable Foundations estimates that £6.1 billion of annual grants were transacted through grant-making foundations in 2013/14. Even with the reduction in government grants (down by more than £3.8bn over the last decade), they still have a significant role to play in funding charities and warrant our attention.

Debrah Allcock Tylor (see link below) has written about the benefits of grants for funders: they are straightforward (unlike contracts conforming to EU regulations); quick; flexible and good value (relatively low transaction costs). But why are grants a good thing for the recipients? Here are my top five benefits:

1. You don’t have to pay them back – there will be a social return expected but you won’t need to worry about making a financial return as well. 
2. They are valuable when needing to cover activity costs like research and development where it is difficult to generate enough income to cover costs.
3. You get the money upfront – it is trusted that you will do what you said you would with the money so there are no cash flow problems unlike Payment by Results models. 
4. They give credibility and can act as leverage to more money – if you have a grant approved from e.g. Henry Smith or Heritage Lottery Fund then it gives confidence to others who are considering supporting you. 
5. They represent a partnership – the funder's involvement can bring added value such as access to a network of similar organisations or help with influencing policy.

And finally, fundraisers may disagree, but I find that the discipline of applying for a grant helps ensure that projects are well thought through. The external scrutiny can help hold you to account for the activities you deliver.

If you agree that grants are good, then the Grants for Good Campaign would like to hear from you: https://www.dsc.org.uk/grants-for-good-2/get-involved/

http://www.theguardian.com/voluntary-sector-network/2016/feb/11/grants-local-charities-campaign-appeal-government-cuts

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

Mark my words

If like me, you read lots of funding applications, reports and strategy documents you will start to notice trends in the words used. Over the past year or so I have noticed that:

confidence has become resilience

user involvement is now co-design or co-production

outcomes has shifted to impact

There will be reasons for these changes. For example, when it comes to the shift from confidence to resilience, perhaps in times of austerity it is more important to bounce back from difficulties than just believe in ourselves? I shall leave it to the linguists and social scientists to analyse what these trends in language mean in terms of changes in society.

What I do know is that when charities start using these terms in bids, it is important to know exactly why you are using them and what they mean to you. Don’t say ‘we are working to increase people’s resilience’ just because it is the latest buzzword. It could undermine your case if you can’t say what you mean when asked, and if this is not something that you measure when monitoring. If you mean ‘confidence’ or ‘self-esteem’ or ‘coping skills’ then continue to say this even if you think using the popular ‘resilience’ looks better.

It is also important to know what funders mean when they use different words – and indeed that funders also can define their terms. ‘Outcomes’ and ‘impact’ seem to be being used interchangeably at the moment but they are different. For example, the Big Lottery Fund states: “we define impact as any effects arising from an intervention. This includes immediate short-term outcomes as well as broader and longer-term effects.” Whereas the Charity Evaluation Service defines impact as “impact is the broader or longer-term effects of a project or organisation's outputs, outcomes and activities.” So when asked to demonstrate your ‘impact’, do remember to ask what is meant before you answer.

Every word counts in a funding bid. Make sure you choose yours carefully.

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