Please don't please me

Like it or not there is an imbalance of power in the relationship between the funder and fund seeker. The funder has the money and makes the decisions about who gets it. Whilst we can argue that without organisations to give the money to, the funder cannot fulfil their mission (so they need you as much as you need them), it rarely feels like that to those who are applying.

But this imbalance of power can get in the way of funders being able to help. For example, if you have received a grant from a funder who offers ‘funding plus’, there can be additional support on top of the grant. This can be the chance to network with peers; additional training; employee engagement for corporate funders or paid-for expertise such as an accountant or consultant. If the grant recipient does not feel able to openly reveal areas of organisational weakness, they can miss out on this valuable opportunity.  And if they do say they want help with e.g. business planning but feel unable to mention that there are issues in the leadership team, then any help provided is unlikely to succeed.

On the other hand, the funder may have noticed an area which needs strengthening. We get to see lots of examples of good practice and may by comparison observe areas for improvement in e.g. user involvement or governance. Our motivation is to help strengthen the organisations we fund. We want to improve outcomes for service users or increase the chances of the organisation continuing and securing other funding. At an individual level, I feel it is my duty to share anything I have noticed. However, funders are not experts in delivery and won’t have the complete picture. So my observations may well be wrong or other inter-related issues may rightly have a higher priority. If I tell the grantee my thoughts and they do not feel able to disagree then they may go ahead with my suggestion in order to ‘please the funder'.  This results in wasted effort as the support could be misplaced and the organisation is unlikely to give it their full attention and commitment.

Not surprisingly, the urge to please a funder is strong. But it shouldn’t get in the way of working in partnership. As the one with the power, it is up to the funder to try and create the conditions for a grantee to be open, to feel able to disagree, to challenge suggestions and decline offers of support. When I ask for feedback on our funding process, it is a strangely reaffirming experience if I get negative feedback from a charity we fund. It means they feel able to ‘speak truth to power’ and we are all the better for it.

https://twitter.com/emmabeeston01

Who wants to be a secret millionaire?

There is a long-held cultural belief that anonymous giving is good:

“When you give to the needy,

do not announce it with trumpets”

Matthew 6:2

An anonymous donation means someone wants to give money to a cause and doesn’t want or need any recognition for their generosity. Sounds very altruistic, however, there are a mixture of reasons for either staying anonymous or making your donation public and they don’t fall neatly into good or bad.


Giving anonymously keeps the attention on the cause and not the donor. It means the individual avoids getting swamped with further requests for money and may help reduce the risk to their personal safety. But it does mean that they escape public scrutiny of their giving. This may be a significant factor in their decision, especially if they are funding something controversial or something that falls outside of their associated public profile.


For those who ‘trumpet’ their giving, going public may bring recognition and status. Donors declaring their charitable gifts are taking a risk when they make this public expression of their personal values – literally putting their money where their mouth is. Their open support can lend credibility to a cause and inspire others to give. This is certainly the case with the ‘giving pledge’ for the super-rich but also works for other philanthropists. I recently met with one who said they give openly because they want to be a role model and encourage others like them to give.


But what about the charities getting these gifts? Getting a no-strings attached cheque in the post has a certain appeal, but actually it can put charities in a difficult position. First of all, they miss out on building a relationship with the donor and benefiting from the other help they could bring: credibility, leverage, expertise. And truly anonymous gifts, trigger an ethical discussion. In the Institute of Fundraising’s ‘Donation Acceptance & Refusal’ guidance it states that gifts over £25k must be reported to the Charity Commission because of the issues of money laundering and other criminal activity. A quick Google search brings up several examples of organisations having policies refusing anonymous gifts as “the risks of accepting a gift with no idea of its provenance are too great” (see link below).


So whilst there may be a strong cultural pressure to be humble and shun the spotlight, there are a number of good reasons for donors to be open that may actually benefit your cause more.


http://alumni.reading.ac.uk/page.aspx?pid=912

https://twitter.com/emmabeeston01

Plans: get them out of your head and on to a page

Doing the paperwork rarely gets a positive reaction. More often it is seen as a necessary evil and is described in terms of an external driver such as “we have to do this for our funders”. There is a real sense that charity staff producing documents are swapping front line work for tick-boxing exercises.

But I am a big fan of writing things down, and here’s why.

One situation where I think it is really important to write things down is planning. When I visit a charity and the CEO says “we have not written down our plan but we all know what it is”, my immediate thought is “Really?” When there is a jointly created and clearly written plan, a group of Trustees are still likely to interpret and describe it in different ways, giving more emphasis to their priorities. Even if it was true now, what about new staff – do they get told the full plan when they join? How are they helped to remember it and implement it in their everyday work?

A written plan aids strategic thinking. The very act of agreeing on the exact wording to write down helps to get clear agreement. Otherwise everyone holds a slight variation in their heads and the differences go unidentified and unchallenged.

It also saves lots of time. You really would not want to tell everyone your 1, 3, 5 and 10 year vision every time it is asked for. Much better is to have it in a simple document that can be referred to at Trustee meetings, given to funders, and used for staff induction. Not a piece of paper that sits in a drawer but one that is regularly used, reviewed and updated.

The plan belongs to the charity and not the individual. When it is held in the CEO’s head then it can easily be lost or changed. What happens when they leave or go off sick? Or change their mind? The CEO or Chair may well be the driver of the strategy but it is much more likely to be achieved if the whole organisation is part of the process and working to a shared aim. It is hard for others to own the plan when it is in someone else’s head.

Research has also shown (see link below) that we are more likely to achieve things we have written down. You can imagine why this works – you have committed to a public statement and so can both hold yourself to account and be held accountable. Trustees can measure the performance of staff and the charity against the stated ambitions. And you will also know when you have achieved something you set out to do and can celebrate your success.

So when it comes to paperwork, don’t think policies, procedures and plans are a distraction from your ‘proper’ work that you only produce for funders. Think of them as important aspects of your work that ensure everyone is literally on the same page and that stop you having to repeat yourself over and over again. If you roll your eyes when asked to produce your plan, it is probably time to write it down and value it for the helpful record and tool that it is.

Dr. Gail Matthews found that you are 42% more likely to achieve your goals just by writing them down. http://www.goalband.co.uk/uploads/1/0/6/5/10653372/gail_matthews_research_summary.pdf

https://twitter.com/emmabeeston01

Don't save your pitch for the elevator

The 3-minute pitch is a fundraising classic. Everyone involved in a charity, whether a fundraiser or not, should have their compelling ‘case for support’ ready to go at a moment’s notice. You never know who you will meet at a conference, on the train, or even in a lift, who may be in a position to donate to your charity if you just get the pitch right.

However, time and time again, at funding fairs, workshops and events and even when visiting a charity to conduct an assessment, this is a common exchange:

Q: Tell me about your charity?

A: We were founded in 2006 and became a charity in 2007...

I appreciate that I am a funding officer and not a major donor so you don’t need to persuade me to hand over my own money. But I am a person who, alongside all the questions about finances and governance, really wants to know why you do what you do and the difference it makes. Once you have told me that, then you can go on and tell me about your background and how long you have been established. Or even better, just tell me that when I ask. The same rule applies as for all effective communication: be lead by the audience. Don’t tell me what you want to say, tell me what I need to hear.

And more importantly I have also facilitated meetings and network events where charities get to meet with MPs or other such high profile people and the same thing commonly happens. The charity representative starts with the history of the charity. If this is you and your staff, you need to break this habit and start talking about the purpose of your work. And even though they are unlikely to donate, that is exactly what an MP wants to hear too. In fact that really should be the first thing you tell pretty much everyone you meet.

So next time you meet a funder, MP, neighbour, friend at a party and they ask what you do, please be ready:

Q: Tell me about your charity?

A:  We work towards the eradication of slavery wherever it is found. We provide survivors with safety, hope and choice (from Unseen UK).

Or

A: Over the last year we helped 45 women stop street sex-working (from One25).

And don’t stop there. This message needs to be upfront on your website, in your annual report, at your AGM. Wherever there is an opportunity for external communication, then shout about the need for your work and your successes. It really is the first thing we want to hear.

https://twitter.com/emmabeeston01

Why do dogs and donkeys get all the money?

I want to start by saying that I have nothing against dogs, or donkeys or indeed any animal. Neither do I think anyone should feel bad about giving to an animal charity, if that is what they want to do with their money. But given the number of issues affecting people: homelessness, poverty, illness, I do wonder why dogs and donkeys receive quite so many donations.

Any list of the top wealthiest charities includes RSPCA, RSPB, PDSA, Guide Dogs for the Blind, Dogs Trust, Cats Protection and the Donkey Sanctuary. According to Cathy Pharoah of the Centre for Charitable Giving and Philanthropy, animal charities come second for women leaving legacies in both USA and the UK. (Worship comes first).

So why do we donate so much money to these causes? Here are my suggestions:

1. They are cute – compelling pictures have a huge currency in gaining our attention in the competitive world of fundraising.
2. They and their needs are not as complex as us humans – it feels tangible to treat a donkey well and nurse it back to health. Tackling someone’s offending behaviour that is in part due to their difficult start in life is far more difficult and more complex.
3. It is very clear that animals get no government support – so there is no confusion over whether someone else should already be paying.
4. They are blameless – when it comes to charity the notion of the ‘deserving and undeserving’ of help still runs deep. If a dog is ill-treated it is not the fault of the dog. If I need help to recover from a drug addiction well, some may feel my predicament was self-inflicted.
5. People can be frustrating to live with and difficult to love. Many people will have closer bonds to their pets than their families – unconditional affection goes a long way.

What could be done to shift more funds towards people rather than pets? One suggestion at an event this week was to stop tax relief on donations to animal charities. However, as you can imagine, the idea of the government interfering with where people give their money did not go down well.

So if we can’t stop people supporting animal charities (and why should we) how might we persuade them to support other causes? One direct approach has come from Harrison’s Fund, which uses the slogan “I wish my son was a dog” to raise funds for research into Duchenne muscular dystrophy (link below). It also ran a dual campaign with a photo of Harrison and a dog – guess which one got twice as many clicks?

Over time, legacies and donations may shift to other causes like poverty and justice. But in the meantime fundraisers may want to think of ways to harness the power of cute and furry. Just this month I visited a domestic abuse refuge that has guinea pigs for cuddling and a charity working with young people that had two therapy dogs. Though not there to attract funding, you can see the PR possibilities.

Harrison’s Fund:http://harrisonsfund.com/news-article.php/I-Wish-my-Son-was-a-Dog-8/

https://twitter.com/emmabeeston01

Words to avoid in funding bids #3: Hard to Reach

‘Hard-to-reach’ is a good example of a problematic phrase that comes up in application forms. On the face of it, it is commonly used in the voluntary sector and we all sort of know what it means. But it falls down on closer scrutiny. As such, you should avoid using it (and other such ambiguous phrases) in funding applications.

As with other problematic phrases, the first issue with ‘hard-to-reach’ is that it begs the question, why? Are people hard to reach because:

• they live in a rurally isolated area
• they have no access to a computer and online services
• English is not their first language
• they distrust authority?

Without adding detail, the generic ‘hard-to-reach’ means very little. And any funder could make the wrong assumption when considering your application. This matters because the model and costs will be very different depending which group of people you are talking about.

The second issue is more political. ‘Hard-to-reach’ can come across as a negative statement. It puts the problem with the individual – it is their fault for being difficult to engage with. And I have certainly heard the frustration expressed that there is a great service waiting for them if only they would engage with it. At an event last year, Paul Macey of Nurture Works put it well when he said “I am not hard to reach – they know how to find me to get my Council Tax”. The same can be said of loan sharks or bailiffs, who seem to have a very effective model for reaching those they need to.

What I think people mean when they use ‘hard-to-reach’ is ‘people we need to take extra steps and operate in a different way to engage with’. When sitting around in the usual places waiting for people to walk through the door is not going to cut it, steps need to be taken to: research the need; listen to people; work through others; build trust etc. So if you are taking a positive approach to ensure your services are designed with and for those in the greatest need, please tell us about that in your application form. Tell us about the barriers people have in accessing services and tell us what you do in response whether providing a text service for young people, community interpreters, or a mobile outreach van. That way we will get a deeper understanding of the work you do and the costs involved.  Please don’t just say ‘hard-to-reach’ and assume that we will understand what you mean by that.

https://twitter.com/emmabeeston01

Why funders keep on about your outcomes

It used to be alright to tell a funder that you provided an activity or service; it was good; people turned up for it and liked it; you delivered it again and they came back. However, over the last 20 years there has been a shift and this sort of reporting is no longer sufficient, certainly not for the larger funders. The expectation now is that charities and other non-profits also demonstrate the difference their activity makes – the outcomes.

The key benefits for charities of adopting an outcomes approach are listed on the Charity Evaluation Service website as:

• helps to concentrate on achieving your aims
• helps to deliver services more effectively
• makes services more client focused and needs led
• an improved sense of purpose and shared clarity
• a structure and focus to client/worker interaction
• encourages staff and clients
• success in fundraising

Funders will want to fund just such charities with a clear purpose, a focus on clients and using outcomes data to make decisions about service delivery. But it should not just be the case that funders ask charities to take an outcomes approach. They also need to do so themselves.

Funders have been affected by the same trends. It used to be that we reported on the number of grants awarded and the value of the grants given. Now funders too are expected to measure the difference they make through the work they fund – their impact.

And the benefits for funders are really not so different. An outcomes approach also helps funders to focus on their aims and encourages staff to work together and celebrate successes. It also helps with effectiveness e.g. when informing resource allocation. Funders may also need to influence external agencies and supporters to keep giving the money or to press for policy changes and outcomes evidence supports this activity.

So, when you can report that, for example, 34% of the young offenders supported by your training programme went on to get a job, that’s a clear benefit for those young people. Knowing that outcome is also good for your organisation, for example, it means you can see if a change to the programme improves the success rate. And this outcome data is good for the funder too – for example, when comparing the effectiveness of different models and so only funding those likely to make the most difference. This shift from 'people turned up and liked it' to an outcomes approach means we can all be more focused and effective.

 

https://twitter.com/emmabeeston01