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