Criticising philanthropists

At its heart, philanthropy is a good thing. A private individual gives their time, expertise and most often, money to support others.

But philanthropy does not happen in isolation. It takes place in a context of politics and power and so it quickly becomes contested and complicated. Would more good be achieved if people paid more taxes instead? Should decisions about what causes get funding be determined by a wealthy elite? This opens up philanthropy to criticism and there are, rightly, calls for it to be more democratic, more strategic and transparent.

But criticism is often levelled at individual philanthropists and the choices they make and this raises a number of issues:

First of all, philanthropy is a public expression of your values. It is an exposing place to be. When philanthropists are then criticised, is it any wonder some chose to stay anonymous or only support safe causes and organisations? This goes against the desire for greater transparency. It also discourages independent philanthropists from their vital role of taking the risks that government funders cannot.

Secondly, it discourages philanthropy altogether. Promoting philanthropy and encouraging more people to give takes public support and peer role models. Philanthropy’s not the answer to all social ills, but in the UK alone there are estimates that persuading more wealthy people to give could easily grow giving by £1.3bn to £5.2bn. (see below). I am fascinated by what we consider acceptable. If you decide to go into banking, no one berates you for not being a doctor or a teacher. So why are we so quick to criticise philanthropic acts?

And lastly, choosing which causes to invest in and which organisations to back is not easy to do. And because philanthropy is personal, people will have different priorities: health, social justice, art, animal welfare. I have certainly heard it argued passionately that there is no point trying to address poverty as climate change is the key issue. And vice versa that environmental change can only occur if injustice is tackled first. Advice, research, consultation with those affected are all incredibly helpful. But there is no right answer. Criticising someone’s choices suggests that there is one right thing to do and worse, supports the idea of the philanthropist as powerful saviour. Philanthropy is better and stronger when everyone is engaged in it and all their gifts are combined – not everyone will support the arts so it is OK if some people do. There is plenty of room to give to small and large, local and global, crisis support and campaigns for long-term systemic change.

So yes, we can educate philanthropists about need. We can help them to make as much difference as they can with their money. Buts let’s do so in a way that creates an encouraging and constructive space that attracts others to join.

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

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

Am I safe from robots?

Over the summer I have been troubled by robots. Will I be replaced by artificial intelligence (AI)?

Surely not? Surely my years of experience and practice are invaluable and difficult to replicate? As a human philanthropy practitioner, I am able to identify trends and assess all the many factors involved in deciding how good a proposal or prospect is and what degree of social change it will achieve. I can’t imagine a machine being able to understand the importance of culture, ethos and passion. I like to think my reading of accounts and plans and conversations with workers, service users, Trustees and Chief Executives lead me to robust, deep and nuanced judgments.

But then I read another account of the power of algorithms and the power of AI and it reminds me that machines fed with big data will be much quicker than me in spotting trends and correctly attributing benefits. In the financial services industry, algorithms are already making their presence felt. For example, HSBC has an online investment service using alogrithms and robo-advisors are expected to be responsible for assets worth $285 billion in 2017 (see links below).

And perhaps robots will not just be quicker at analysing data but will also be better than me. The things I rate as important such as questioning and listening skills, building rapport, and sector knowledge may lead to me making wrong assumptions and biased decisions. However objective I like to think I am, a robot is less easily swayed by a good story, charisma or being wrongly attached to a familiar intervention.

So perhaps it is only a matter of time before I too am replaced by a robot. And that may well be where my hope lies – time. How long is it going to take for someone to invest in the technology needed? Someone will have to create the algorithms and gain access to the relevant data. Someone will also have to make decisions about what impact measures to use. It is one thing to invest in robots where there is a profit to be made but who is going to invest in philanthropic robo-advisors?

The charitable sector has been slow to adopt digital. Perhaps this delay will mean that it becomes the last bastion of the value of human relationships when all around are working with robots. I might find a home there for my skills in connecting humans trying to achieve social good. But I am no luddite, and I feel uncomfortable with this conclusion. Philanthropy should grasp the opportunity that robots will bring to better understand who and what to invest in to achieve the maximum good. My hope is that I will continue to bring the human judgment and compassion, whilst my robot assistant does all the number crunching and data checks.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/news/hsbc-latest-bank-launch-robo-advice-service/

http://www.nevarezwealthmanagement.com/blog/robots-versus-humans-financial-advisers-digital-age

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

Charity workers: We need you … to go on holiday

I know we are into the holiday season because emails have reduced. I hope you are about to get a break to recharge your batteries. This is not just a good thing for your own wellbeing but it is also a good thing for the charitable sector as a whole.

Burnout for those leading charities in a difficult operating environment and those frontline workers responding to people in crisis, is a real issue. Burnout comes when constant stress renders you feeling helpless, disillusioned and completely exhausted. The way to tackle it is all too familiar: eat well, sleep, relax, exercise, connect with others and take breaks. Burnout is something that Trustees should pay proper attention to now more than ever, because staff teams are dealing with rising demand and diminishing resources. Trustees have a duty of care to their staff and need to check that they are taking their leave, have supervision and mentoring in place, manageable workloads and are trained in ‘self-care’ techniques.  

Burnout is awful when it hits caring individuals. There is also a cost for the charity. Staff with valuable experience are lost and have to be replaced with new people.

But worse than that for the sector is ‘becoming jaded’ because those affected in this way tend to stay in their jobs. Jaded is “feeling or showing a lack of interest and excitement caused by having done or experienced too much of something.” When it happens to leaders it can bring everyone down and create a negative culture. The organisation becomes inward looking, risk averse and misses new opportunities. You see it in people whose response to any suggestion is “we’ve tried that before”.

Clore Social Leadership Programme’s report ‘Is the charity sector fit for purpose?’ found “If leaders’ passion and courage dissipate then all that remains is the energy to chase the funding to keep an organisation afloat. Being jaded cannot be dismissed as merely ‘the cost of doing business’ in the sector. People do not become leaders in the charity world to become jaded, they become leaders to see social justice become reality.”

The same is true with funders. In his brilliant essay ‘The spirit of philanthropy and the soul of those who manage it’, Paul Ylvisaker sets out 11 commandments for grant makers. Number 8 is stay excited and hopeful. As he explains “When you find your battery of hope, excitement, and even idealistic naiveté so drained that you don’t let an applicant finish a presentation without pointing out why it can’t be done, it’s time you departed for another profession.”

So please don’t feel guilty about taking time off. Everyone working in the charity sector needs a break to avoid getting tired, burned out or jaded. Recharge and come back excited and hopeful. Because without passion and optimism it is going to be hard to get through the uncertain times ahead.

Happy holidays!

https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/report--is-the-charity-sector-fit-for-purpose-.html

Ylvisaker, P. (2008) ‘The Spirit of Philanthropy and the Soul of those who manage it’ in Kass, A. (Ed) Giving Well, Doing Good, Indiana University Press

Is it time for complexity-friendly funding?

When I started out in grant making 15 years ago measuring impact could be quite different from today. When asking how a charity knew what difference a particular project or intervention made, it was not unusual to get the answer “from the smiles on people’s faces”. So, the move toward measurement, evidence and a focus on outcomes was welcome. It provided a helpful approach for funders when deciding how best to allocate resources. And more importantly, a useful tool for charities to really understand what was working and where to focus their limited resources. It also provided additional internal benefits for charities, such as motivating staff and helping those who received support to see the progress being made.

But there are limits to the outcomes approach, and these are now being discussed more frequently. Some people continue to see measuring outcomes as a tick-box exercise – targets that meet the needs of external audiences - rather than an opportunity to learn. Effort can be wasted measuring things that don’t need to be measured – surely we can all agree that play is good for children’s development and people’s wellbeing improves when they connect with others? And by tying everything into a neat logic flow, from problem to intervention to result, are we not missing the fact that people’s lives are far more complex than this? That it is hard to attribute positive change to single interventions that inevitably take place in the context of so many other factors.

This brings me to my favourite read so far this year: the report “A Whole New World: Funding & Commissioning in Complexity” from Collaborate (link below). It “challenges the idea that an intervention (project, organisation or programme) can be held accountable for the impacts it makes in the world.” Instead “outcomes are created by people’s interaction with whole systems”. It puts forward the case for a complexity-friendly version of funding which puts people back into the heart of funding approaches. It calls for an approach that recognises that people working in the sector don’t need to be incentivised using targets; that measurement is just one mechanism for learning; and that it is healthy systems that support social good.

The report sets out lessons for funders. But what does it mean for charities and other social purpose organisations? It is not saying to stop measuring your impact, but to recognise other important factors such as: trusting relationships, the expertise of staff and the interconnectedness of processes, interventions and organisations. And when dealing with funders, strive to be honest; challenge narrow targets and a metrics-only focus; be confident in your expertise; speak up and out about your added value – your ethos, your people; be humble about what you claim is down to you and embrace the complexity of those you serve and the context you operate within.

https://collaboratecic.com/a-whole-new-world-funding-and-commissioning-in-complexity-12b6bdc2abd8

Emma Beeston advises philanthropists and grant makers on how best to direct their money to the causes they care about. Support includes strategy and programme design, scoping studies, assessments and monitoring visits. www.emmabeeston.co.uk; emma@emmabeeston.co.uk; @emmabeeston01; www.linkedin.com/in/emmabeeston/

A plea for plain English

At a recent event a new fundraiser asked what one tip I would give her when writing bids. My answer was: to use plain English – to articulate clearly what was wanted, why, what difference it would make without using any jargon. Her response was something I hear a lot: “but I have been told that successful bids must reflect back the language that a funder uses”.

This seems to be a common message given to fundraisers and I would love to know what it is based on. This is why I don’t think it is helpful or true:

1. A human reads your bid

Until we are at the point that an algorithm does the job, it is a person that will read your application. I don’t find funders or assessors are impressed if you just repeat their language back to them. It is no different from a job application. If you say in the job description, “we are looking for resilience”, you don’t get excited when an applicant puts “I am resilient”. What you want to know is what that means for them and how they can demonstrate it.

2. The language a funder uses may not be as deliberate and considered as you think.

As with any organisation there is a lot of scope for communication to go adrift and be interpreted in different ways. So criteria like embedded or sustainable will not necessarily mean the same thing on the website as in actual practice.

3. You don’t know who will read your bid.

Even if the wording of the criteria is an accurate reflection of the funders intentions, you do not know who the final decision-maker is. They may not be the staff that wrote the copy or chose the priorities. Think of your Trustees – some are there for their cause-specific knowledge but others are there because of their skills in law or HR or finances. They won’t all know, interpret or use the same language as the ‘official’ line.

Rather than try to parrot a funder’s language, take control of your message. The best way to do this is to use clear, plain language which gives less room for misinterpretation and assumptions. For example, you may be asked to explain how you ‘deliver an effective pathway of support’. But that does not stop you from telling the funder exactly how you will link people to the right support without them needing to repeat themselves or be bounced between different agencies.

I don’t believe mirroring language is effective and I urge all fundraisers to use plain English. But does mirroring work for you?

Emma Beeston advises philanthropists and grant makers on how best to direct their money to the causes they care about. Support includes strategy and programme design, scoping studies, assessments and monitoring visits. www.emmabeeston.co.uk; emma@emmabeeston.co.uk; @emmabeeston01; www.linkedin.com/in/emmabeeston/

The persistence of application forms

Application forms are a long-standing part of life. We apply to do a course, to join a club, to take out a loan, to get a job. They are also the commonest tool used to seek funding.

There are alternative methods:

Letters – equivalent to a CV and cover letter, some funders ask applicants to make their case for support in a letter. They may make suggestions as to length and content, but it is left up to the applicant what to include and how to structure the letter.

Pitches – these are used in live crowdfunding events like the Soup movement and The Funding Network but there are also some funding events trialing this approach. It brings storytelling and emotional engagement to the fore as you appeal directly to an audience and appeal to them for funds.

Films – like a pitch, but captured in a short film and not in person. Appeal films are more often used in social media campaigns but are sometimes requested by funders as part of the application process. It is a way to clearly demonstrate what you do, visually and in just a few minutes.

Platforms – there are several models where charities put forward their details and wishes for interested funders and donors to select. This can be just as a nominated charity for the local co-op branch or one of several hundred on Localgiving, the Big Give or the Good Exchange.

So with all these alternatives why does the application form persist?

It is easier to process – it is in date at the point of a decision (unlike platforms); it consistently gathers everything that is needed for a decision (unlike letters); everyone provides the same information which can be imported and analysed in databases; it includes a signature so can be a declaration of truth and accuracy as well as permission to store data and take up references.

It supports fairness – gathering the same information in a uniform format makes it clear what information is wanted and makes it easier to make comparisons and judgements based on evidence. Inviting applications means you are open to groups you don’t yet know about. It is not just about who can tell a good story or present well. And although they do take time to do well, they probably take less time than making a film or being present for a pitch, so are more accessible for those on limited resources.

There are still things that funders can do to improve the application process. For example, only asking for information that will definitely be used; not asking for documents that are already on the charity commission website; being very clear what information is being sought and why. And an eye also needs to be kept on whether the alternative approaches become better for user-led or smaller groups, or ease the burden on fundraisers and applicants. But in the meantime, it looks as if application forms, for good reason, are here to stay.

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 head and heart of philanthropy

I sing in a community choir and one of the songs in our repertoire is ‘Bread and Roses’.

“Hearts starve as well as bodies

Give us bread, but give us roses”

This comes from a protest poem by James Oppenheim and has been set to music many times including by John Denver. Although singing is an escape from work, this particular song always gets me thinking about philanthropy.

Philanthropy is often framed as oppositional: either ruled by the heart or by the head. At one extreme, donors are characterised as easily moved by emotive stories and thoughtlessly giving money to whatever causes they care about. At the other end philanthropists are described as dispassionate and objective, keen on impact and effectiveness and looking to scale up social change using business approaches and technology.

But of course, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. What’s the point of effectiveness without understanding and compassion? And money given just with the heart can be a missed opportunity to fund something else with greater impact. Paul Connelly puts this across really well in his article ‘The Best of the Humanistic and Technocratic: Why Philanthropy Requires a Balance’ – the answer is to recognise the strength in both approaches.

As a Philanthropy Advisor, my role is often about stepping in to correct any imbalance. This could mean adding the head: such as researching alternatives or conducting thorough assessments. Or it could involve ensuring the human element is part of any potential solution, for example, challenging the desire for easy measurables when people’s lives are complex and chaotic.

A recent trip to the Foundling Museum in London reminded me that the head and heart have often gone together in philanthropy. Established in 1739 by philanthropist Thomas Coram, the Foundling Hospital was both the UK’s first children’s charity and first public art gallery. Coram was motivated by the plight of abandoned children but it took 17 years of campaigning and negotiating to get his hospital built. And from the start he was supported by artists – including Hogarth and Handel – who donated works and gave concerts to raise funds. Music and art was part of the children’s education and paintings lined the walls. Coram saw they needed bread – and roses too.

Emma Beeston advises philanthropists and grant makers on how best to direct their money to the causes they care about. Support includes strategy and programme design, scoping studies, assessments and monitoring visits. www.emmabeeston.co.uk; emma@emmabeeston.co.uk; @emmabeeston01; www.linkedin.com/in/emmabeeston/

Necessity is the mother of invention

Amidst all the financial uncertainty and cuts, it is easy to think that more funding is the only answer to solving society’s problems. The one silver lining in this time of austerity is that it has encouraged creativity – getting people to think differently.

Here are some examples that show how a change in mindset – and not money – can bring about positive social change.

Some changes are quite simple:

Plymouth has introduced dementia friendly car parking spaces. The designated spaces are close to the ticket machines and exits. It did not cost a lot to mark these out. What it took was listening to carers of people with dementia and deciding to do something to help.

And there are a number of examples of nudge effects like these where small changes can be used to increase desired behaviours. Images of watching eyes have been shown to encourage payments into an honesty box and donations into a charity bucket. And interestingly a sign saying “think of yourself” lead to more people switching off their engine at a level crossing.

Whereas other examples can bring about significant changes in how things are done:

The Mayday Trust have shifted power to the homeless people they support and focussed on their strengths. By giving clients their own personal budgets, the charity no longer has to spend time persuading people to participate in training. Instead clients purchase the training they want to do. And by making having a mentor voluntary, they have actually increased engagement from 50% to 80%.

Rather than older people getting stuck in hospital or having to move away, local people in the Scottish Highlands are providing social care through Highland Home Carers. The help includes neighbourly tasks like chopping firewood, clearing snow and walking the dog and not just personal care.

Wessex Water’s Collaborative Public Health Project tries to address the significant amounts spent on removing medication from water at their treatment plants. Wessex Water is funding a social prescribing project in the Twerton area of Bath to test if environmental and social activities can reduce the use of medication, such as anti-depressants, and so reduce the need to remove these from the water supply.

Homeshare is a great concept tackling both the issue of lack of affordable housing and the needs of older people. The homesharer gets somewhere to live at a reasonable rate in exchange for providing 10 hours of support (e.g. cooking, shopping, companionship) each week to support the householder.

I am sure there are plenty of other examples where a change in approach has led to improvements at no extra cost. Please share your favourite examples.

Emma Beeston advises philanthropists and grant makers on how best to direct their money to the causes they care about. Support includes strategy and programme design, scoping studies, assessments and monitoring visits. www.emmabeeston.co.uk; emma@emmabeeston.co.uk; @emmabeeston01; www.linkedin.com/in/emmabeeston/

Standing out with confidence

Last week, I was pleased to speak about leadership at the Somerset VCSE Forum. The day was about innovation and collaboration for charity leaders. I wanted to address the loss of confidence that I see and feel in the sector. I understand why this is. The negative press about charities and charity CEOs; and the rising demand for support amidst the fall in funding, all mean it is tough to lead a charity right now. It’s easy to feel fearful rather than confident.

Firstly, we have to remember that funders don’t really do anything. Funders will have a mission, such as to end poverty or improve the lives of care leavers or promote justice, but they need charities to deliver that for them. So, what any funder is looking for is an organisation that is good at what they do and is going to survive long enough to deliver, not just this year, but in the future.

There are a number of frameworks that set out what good looks like. For example, NPC’s guide “what makes a good charity” covers these 4 areas: purpose, impact practice, people and finance and operations (see link below).  Or quality frameworks like PQASSO are used as the measure of what good is. But all funders will have different ways of trying to assess ‘what is good’ when making decisions about allocating funding.

But because of increased competition for funding, there can easily be two groups seeking funding and looking equally good – both fit the criteria, serve a local need, have all their policies in place, have a business plan, a committed group of Trustees, and can report on their outcomes. So what happens now? Who stands out?

One difference is confidence.

Remember that charities are the experts. Yes, funders have an overview of what is going on – but they don’t have lived experience of delivery. A charity will know the local area, can listen to what people are saying, know what works and what doesn’t. Funders need to be told about your area of expertise.

So it is better for a confident charity to tell a funder: “we work with 50 clients because we have found that (given the complexity of their needs and the intensity of our work) that is the maximum caseload staff can manage. If we support more than that, then quality suffers and the outcomes are not as good.” Rather than the charity that lacks confidence, trying to please a funder by expanding numbers. Seeking direction from a funder is a common issue where so much rides on securing funding. I often meet charities that ask “would it look better if we helped more people?” when what I need to be told is why they do what they do and why this makes them ‘good’. 

http://www.thinknpc.org/publications/good-charity/

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

Place-based funding: is everything in its place?

At a recent meeting, it was striking how the majority of the funders that attended introduced themselves as a ‘place-based’ funder. It seems that this term, that has been kicking around for several years, is now taking centre stage.

What does it mean?

For a really good summary, I suggest you take a look at IVAR’s briefing paper. They define place-based funding as:

“targeted investment in defined geographic areas. This is usually a package of support – for example: multiple grants; particularly large investments; grants and additional funding plus activity (capacity building, networking, influencing activity) – within a defined place.”

I also like this description from US blogger Janis Foster Richardson: “A place-based funder has an intimate tie to a particular place that you can find on a map, and is focusing their work in that place with the people who live there …They may work on one problem or issue at a time, but do so with respect for local history and culture, a commitment to identifying and mobilising local assets, and an interest in building local capacity to weather the next storm.” which tries to get to the difference between a geographic limit and an approach that is deeply focused on place.

Being ‘place-based’ sounds like a good and necessary thing: a way to get funding into areas where there are no organisations ready and able to seek grants; to provide a narrow focus so that in depth work can be done in a defined area; to listen to, involve and build relationships with local people. It’s emphasis on collaboration certainly acknowledges the messiness of real life and how social change comes through different people and forces interacting rather than one organisation competing with another for funding.

Whilst I like the ethos behind it, I am still wrestling with a few questions:

How is seeking to assist people in a place, any different from supporting a community? Is ‘place-based’ just another way of describing good old community development, which seems to have fallen out of favour?

Does it only apply to urban areas where boundaries are easily defined and people more readily gathered together? And if it does include rural areas, how big does a place become: the whole of Wiltshire or Scotland?

If everyone becomes a ‘place-based funder’, then what happens to communities of interest? And who will help the various ‘places’ to connect up to bring about systemic and social change when it is needed at a regional or national level?

What happens to these ‘places’ when the next trend comes along? I don’t wish to be cynical but I am old enough to have seen a few swings of the pendulum from local to central, universal to targeted and back again. How long will place-based funders stay in one place? When will things be sufficiently better to move to the next place? And will there be a lasting legacy when they do move on?

http://www.janisfoster.com/2009/08/wanting-more-from-place-based.html

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

Searching for Serendipity

It is wonderful that technology allows us to be so easily connected to all the new research and ideas out there, but frustrating that it is so hard to find time to actually digest all this information. Lately I have been working out how best to build reading time in to my week. Assuming this is true for others, I thought I would share my efforts so far …

Acceptance - I found twitter overwhelming at first because I wanted to read everything and got frustrated that this was never going to be possible. Now I have got the hang of it and accept that having a sense of what the key issues are and getting to read one or two short articles is enough.

Necessity - I am currently working on a series of lectures for the Advising Donors module of the University of Kent’s Masters in Philanthropy. As well as the pleasure of teaching the students, this has given me a great incentive to read all those books and reports I have gathered because I want to read them but somehow struggled to find the time to do so. There is nothing like a deadline and a driving need for creating space in your schedule.

Help – Step up the wonderful Kathryn Redway. I took one of her rapid reading courses which has given me some very effective tools and strategies for quickly tackling longer reports and strategy documents. I now have a slot in my diary to read them and permission to be ruthless. The upshot is things don’t sit in my ‘to read’ folder on my desktop but actually get read.

I have made good progress but, as is often the case, solving one problem has created space for a new one. The reading I am doing is focussed on my areas of interest: I follow like-minded people and subscribe to mainly UK-based bulletins about philanthropy, charity, funding. There has been lots in the media lately about echo chambers such as this piece in the Guardian where users of twitter interact most with those who share their views. Tom Stafford, a cognitive scientist at Sheffield University explains that “homophily, where we hang out with people like us, is an ancient human trait, resulting from our basic psychology.” Whilst this is great for a sense of connectedness, it can lead to narrow thinking.

So my next challenge is how to widen my reading to create the space for opposing views and serendipity – the random connections, insights and advances that come from outside my sphere of interest and beyond people like me. How do I do that without getting even more overwhelmed with all that there is to read in the world? And can serendipity come through effort? I have found some encouragement from research conducted by a Dr Erdelez who found that serendipity is something that people do so it is a skill that can be learned. Those who see things through a narrow focus and tend to stick to their to-do lists experience less serendipity. Whereas others, the ‘super-encounterers’, report that happy surprises popped up wherever they looked.

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

Can the annual return reduce duplication?

When at Comic Relief this week I overheard one fundraiser say “if only there was one place that fundraisers could post their request for all funders to access”. I have heard this sentiment expressed many times over my years in grant making. I think we can all agree on the problem: that in order to get funding, charities have to complete lots of separate application forms that all ask for roughly the same information and then send them to lots of different funders. It is a process full of duplicated effort – on both sides.

The tricky bit is working out the right solution. There have been attempts at a common application form and examples of funders pooling funds so applicants are applying just once. In fact, this is what the Community Foundations seek to address with their model. But as funders have different decision timetables and criteria, it can be hard to get these approaches to work. Technology has offered promising solutions such as Localgiving and the Big Give, which both provide a platform for charities to promote their work and enable donors to search for those they want to support. And more recently The Good Exchange, created by the Greenham Common Trust, “makes it simple to connect those looking to make a difference in their local community with those who are able to provide the financial support”. And here’s the rub: these are all good answers to the problem, but in practice what they mean is that instead of writing lots of application forms, charities now have to write and manage lots of online profiles. So should you have an entry on the co-operative website, and on a crowdfunding platform, and on Charity Choice, and on JustGiving and on Remember a Charity and, and, and … ?

As soon as we have more than one solution, we are back to the original problem. Except we do have one place where all charities have to post their information and which all funders use to check that charities are registered and to access accounts: the Charity Commission. Wouldn’t it be great if the annual return required all charities to also give answers to the most common application questions: a summary of the organisation, a summary of activities, the numbers of staff and volunteers, how they listen to the voices of the people they serve, the outcomes of their work, a typical case study, their plans for the year ahead. That way they would just need to tell a potential funder what had changed since their last submission and the specifics of whatever they want funding for. And imagine if all this data was searchable? Then funders would be able to proactively seek out e.g. all those charities working with travellers in the South West, or take a look at the difference they are making, and decide which ones to approach. And what if charities could also upload content such as short films or appeals for particular projects? Perhaps this is a pipe dream – and I am sure you, like me, can think of all kinds of barriers to it working – but we do have an opportunity right now. The Charity Commission are consulting on the annual return:

“We are seeking your views on changes to the content and structure of the annual return for charities and how we target questions so that they only require the information which is needed for regulatory purposes.”

If you feel there is an opportunity here, now is your chance to tell the Charity Commission (even though they really want responses to their specific questions but hey, if you don’t ask…). You have until noon on 9^th March 2017.

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

Be careful what you ask for

In my previous blog, I shared some tips for fundraisers writing grant applications. Quite rightly, there were a few comments on how funders could also improve: - such as using plain English in their guidance. So in the interest of balance, this blog has a suggestion that all funders should follow:

only ever ask for information that you will read and use

This applies to all stages of the application process. It is also true for reporting, which is my focus here.

Why is this important to state?

First of all, gathering information that is not read, is a waste of the grant recipient’s precious time. But it also holds costs for those requesting the reports. Funders still have to handle and store the information received, even if they don’t read it. And requiring the grant recipient to provide more information than is needed, could be counterproductive: diverting their resources from delivering the work that you are funding. In her book, It Ain’t What You Give It’s The Way That You Give It, Caroline Fiennes has a calculation you can use to see if the costs of applying for and reporting on your grant outweigh its value. She recommends reducing the post-grant costs to organisations by accepting reports already being produced for other donors or liaising with them to accept one report between you.

Secondly, not reading the reports that are prepared is a missed opportunity for learning. Treating the reporting stage as an administrative compliance tick box, misses the chance to reflect on what went well and what didn’t, and how this might inform future decisions. You can learn about the context the grantee is working in and get their feedback on your process and priorities. Most businesses would be incredibly jealous of getting this sort of feedback from ‘customers’ in a document which is compulsory for them to complete.

And lastly, the quality of the whole reporting process is greatly enhanced when you read and use the information. I know of one funder who noticed that grantees were copying and pasting their answers from one year to the next. When challenged they said that they did not think anybody read the reports. When funders demonstrate that they read the reports – by acknowledging and commenting on them, and even better, use them e.g. to agree to changes in the project being funded or in their policy influencing work or case studies – then those completing them spend more time providing useful information.

By respecting the grantees and their time, funders end up gaining more. So let’s all look to move from reporting as a tickbox exercise to making use of its full potential as a more open and honest transfer of valuable information.

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

My top 3 tips for writing grant applications

When I ask charities what their top challenge is, funding comes up pretty much every time. With more cuts to statutory funding and increased competition for grants, I can’t see that 2017 is going to be any easier. For those of you gearing up for another tough year of fundraising – especially those where fundraising is one of your tasks on a very long list - here are my top 3 tips for writing successful grant application:

1.      Read the guidance

I know that this is an obvious thing to say but you would be surprised how many people don’t. Not every funder produces guidance and some are not particularly clear or helpful. But where they do offer guidance make sure you read it all through carefully. I have just been reading the guidance for the Arts Council’s ‘Grants for the Arts’ programme. The word version of their guidance for requests under £15,000 runs to 89 pages and then there are additional information sheets (e.g. if you are applying for help with asset purchases). It is a lot of information but it is clearly written and answered all my questions. It takes time to read all the guidance but that time is much better spent than the time wasted on carefully crafting an application that never stood a chance of getting funded.

2.      Use plain English

There is something about filling in an application form that tempts people into using jargon. Funders really aren’t testing your linguistic talents. They just want to know what you do, what difference you make and what you plan to do with their money. Being able to write in a way that is concise and clear is a real skill. It is a delight to read when you come across it. The facts are always more interesting than the flim-flam. So please, no more “we empower disadvantaged people to engage with social opportunities to maximise their wellbeing” in 2017. If your grandmother, son, or friend down the pub does not understand your sentences then start again.

3.      Back everything you say with evidence

This doesn’t mean referencing lots of research and demographic data – although this can have its place. What I mean is avoid making vague statements like ‘we are successful’ when with a little bit of thought you can back these up in a way that makes every sentence counts. Here are just a few examples showing how you can strengthen common ‘throwaway’ phrases:

we are a long running charity … to … we have been working in prisons for 20 years

our project is successful … to … 75% of clients reduced their substance misuse

more people will benefit … to … we plan to reach a further 100 people in 2017

there is a need for our service … to … demand has risen by 15%

I wish you all the best of luck and look forward to reading many more good applications for great work in 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