How to choose a charity to support

There are thousands of charities out there who you could give your money to. A question I get asked is, when you want to make a personal donation, how on earth do you choose?

At one extreme, very wealthy donors can call upon the services of a team of specialists to help them with the tax implications, manage donor-advised funds or create their strategic giving programme. At the other end of the scale your friend asks for sponsorship and you hand over £5 or £10 because it’s them. Who they are fundraising for is probably secondary to supporting a friend.

But there is a big range in the middle where making a decision is more considered but you don’t have the back-up of professional advice. Perhaps you don’t want gifts for a big birthday and want to name a charity instead. Or you want to include a gift in your will. Or you are deciding which charity to run the marathon in aid of. It is easy to pick the usual big brand charities but there are lots of great, smaller charities out there where your donation could make a bigger difference. To find them try one of the tools out there like CharityChoice, GuideStar, Charity Navigator, Localgiving.

But how do you know if they are any good? It’s my job to work out which charities should be funded and this involves desk-based research, assessment interviews, scrutinising accounts and panel discussions. I don’t recommend you do all that before parting with £50, but here are five quick things you can do to reassure yourself that your money will be well used:

1. Check out the charity’s website – this should at least let you know they are active and is likely to include case studies about the difference they make. It may also show if they are members of any professional bodies or hold any quality marks.
2. See who else has funded them – if they’ve had money from say Comic Relief or the Big Lottery Fund recently then you can rest assured that a professional assessor has had a good look at them.
3. Consider keeping it local – there are 51 Community Foundations in the UK who pool donations to fund local projects. Again, all checked by them as part of the grant giving process.
4. Look your chosen charity up on the Charity Commission website. You may not want to read all their accounts but there is an overview page that will tell you how big they are and if they have reported as they should and on time.
5. Ask around – friends, family and colleagues may well know of a charity that really supported them or someone they know when they needed help.

There are some brilliant charities out there who don’t have money for high profile marketing so it pays to dig a little to give you the confidence to give to charities which aren’t necessarily the household names.

https://twitter.com/emmabeeston01

Signs, Symptoms and Trust

One issue funders have is how much to take on trust and when to ask for supporting evidence.  For example, on an assessment visit, a funder can ask the charity what policies it has in place and be satisfied with the answer. Or they can ask to see one or two policies as a spot check. Or they could ask for every policy and read them all. (The same is true of paper processes. A funder could ask you to send through some or all of your policies with your application form). A balance has to be struck which is partly about being pragmatic – they are unlikely to have time to read your complete policy handbook. And partly about the appetite for risk – the funder needs to ensure that they have done enough to meet due diligence requirements.

My starting point is one of trust but I will check and dig deeper when things aren’t quite right. There was a doctor on the radio this week talking about their approach, which struck me as similar. Doctors talk about symptoms and signs. Symptoms are what the patient tells them. Signs are what the doctor finds or observes. They have no reason to question the symptoms account unless they don’t match the signs. So in the case of your policies, the funder is happy with your response until you struggle to find the files and handover a copy of your safeguarding policy dated 2010.

What does this mean for funding applicants? Providing some supporting evidence will go a long way to reassure a funder. So instead of saying something general like “we have robust systems”, back this with “we have PQASSO level 1” or “our last policy review was completed by the Board in August 2014 – copies of all policies are on our website”. This is much more likely to engender trust and will assist the funder with any spot checking they do need to do.

https://twitter.com/emmabeeston01

Innovative? - not really. Words to avoid in funding bids #2.

“They say they are innovative – but they’re not” is probably not what you want to hear said about your funding application. ‘Innovative’ is one of those positive words used without too much scrutiny. But do this at your peril. Scrutiny is exactly what a funder will give it and more often than not you’ll be found lacking.

Innovative means introducing new ideas; being original and creative in thinking; featuring new methods. As a funder we are attracted to the new and different (often too much – see my blog ‘Be more magpie’ http://emmabeeston.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/a-message-to-givers-be-more-magpie.html for my thoughts on that). Innovative is a common term in funding programmes and criteria. Many funders want to see their funds do something pioneering and game changing. There is credibility and status attached to doing something genuinely original.

Applicants often reflect back the term ‘innovative’ to show how they meet the criteria. But saying “we are innovative” does not make it true. You need to back it up with evidence. In what way are you different? What is new about your approach or model? And how do you know you are innovative – what research have you done?

Avoid the term altogether if you can’t back it up. It is better to qualify your statement e.g. “we are the first in the UK to...” or “we have taken this approach from drama and applied it to our work with ...” and tell us the results. Much better still to show you are really effective than make a false claim of innovation. The latter will undermine your bid not strengthen it.

As funders we really do get to see and read about a lot of different ways of doing things. We can spot a true innovation when we see it. And we will be more than happy to recognise it as such when we see it.

 

Note: Words to avoid #1 is UNIQUE – see ‘You are not unique – sorry’ http://emmabeeston.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/you-are-not-unique-sorry.html

 

https://twitter.com/emmabeeston01

In praise of grants

The newer arrivals on the funding scene (such as loans, social impact bonds and crowdfunding) are 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 10,000 charitable trusts and foundations in the UK distribute £2billion in grants annually. This equates to about 10% of all income into voluntary organisations annually. Add to this grants from the government and local authorities and grants still have a significant role to play in funding non-profits. They warrant our attention.

So perhaps it is time to remember the good things about grants as a source of funding.  From a funder’s point of view, they have the advantage of relatively low transaction costs – much cheaper than contracting a service. So here are my top five benefits from the recipient’s perspective:

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 cashflow 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 can help ensure that projects are well thought through. The external scrutiny can help hold you to account for the activities you deliver.


https://twitter.com/emmabeeston01

Can anyone be a philanthropist?

Recently I have heard lots of arguments that seem to extend the opportunity to be a philanthropist to all of us. One line is that philanthropy is not just about giving money but is also giving your time and skills. There are lots of great pro bono schemes out there like The Cranfield Trust and Pro Bono Economics which are based on volunteering. (Suddenly, it seems that the term philanthropy gets applied when volunteers are skilled professionals and not ordinary people.)

The other common argument is that whenever we give any sum of money to a good cause then we are not donors or givers but philanthropists. I applaud the democratisation of giving which means through donations or crowdfunding pledges, funds from lots of individuals get pooled to have a greater impact. But I don’t think it is philanthropy when it is a group act. Even less so is tax paying, which is also claimed as philanthropic. Tax paying is a legal requirement, a duty, an act of distribution but as an individual I have no control over how my money is spent beyond a vote.

So what for me sets philanthropy apart is control – the ability of an individual to choose what to support - and having enough money to have an impact. So I, like most people, think of philanthropists as wealthy individuals whose money changes things – think Bill Gates and malaria or Thomas Barnardo’s children’s homes.

Perhaps calling us all philanthropists is to be welcomed as a way of claiming for the ordinary person something that usually conveys status and influence on the rich. But I don’t think philanthropists are the same as us. When I use my individual choice to give a small donation to a cause no one worries that I am wielding undemocratic power. There really is something different when your donations are big, influential and high profile. But this does raise the question – just how much money does it take to be a philanthropist? And is it true that anyone can be one?

https://twitter.com/emmabeeston01

Soft outcomes are anything but

When I talk about ‘outcomes’  I mean the difference you make for the people you support. ‘Hard’ outcomes can be clearly defined and quantified. ‘Soft’ outcomes are hard to measure directly; they are qualitative and often intangible.


Most funders and investors want some sort of clear measure to know what difference their money could or has made. It is generally easier to provide evidence of the hard outcomes: tangible differences such as the numbers of people securing a job, the amount of benefit income gained, numbers housed, qualifications earned.


In order to achieve a hard outcome, a lot of other things have to happen – for example, changes in self belief, confidence, understanding, attitude or motivation. These are commonly described as ‘soft’ but that term is a disservice as it makes them sound fluffy and easy. Instead it takes a lot of expertise and time to build trust with someone on the margin and support them to make and sustain these changes. Think of the work involved in changing the attitude of a young offender.


The value of soft outcomes needs to be recognised as being just as important as hard outcomes. Especially as sometimes they are the only changes there will be. For example, the self worth gained from volunteering when there is no realistic prospect of getting a job. One way to add weight to soft outcomes is to use one of the many tools out there e.g. Rickter Scale, or the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale. These help to translate self-assessed or observed change into numbers, allowing you to measure and evidence changes such as improved self esteem.


And perhaps we should all stop calling them ‘soft’ outcomes when they definitely are not. You really would not call it soft when a charity’s support means a woman affected by domestic abuse feels safer, would you?


https://twitter.com/emmabeeston01

Unsuccessful funding bids – how fund seekers differ from job applicants

Imagine that you are applying for a job you really want. You make a strong application and perform well at interview but you don’t get the job. The employer explains that they had another candidate who had more skills and experience than you had. Now of course, you are disappointed or frustrated. But, unless you have reason to doubt their professionalism, you probably thank them for considering you, for letting you know the outcome and ask for feedback to see if there are ways you could strengthen any future applications. It would not be wise at this point to tell them that their Job Description was wrong and they clearly did not understand the experience and skills you would bring to the role.

So let’s extend the analogy to applying for funding. Funders have criteria and will take a view on how well applications fit with these and how strong the organisation and project is compared to others. In the funding organisations I have worked in there is never sufficient money to fund every application and so I spend a lot of my time having to say no. Some unsuccessful applicants deal with this bad news well. Yes they are disappointed, but they ask for feedback in order to learn where they could improve and whether it would be worth applying again. But a surprising number challenge the decision: suggesting that our criteria are wrong and we clearly misunderstood their work. I do appreciate that this is born out of frustration and sometimes desperation but it is also difficult to respond to. I am sure we sometimes make mistakes just as sometimes the wrong applicant gets hired. Questions are fine but hostility is not the answer.

Why do feelings run so high? I think the difference is the passion and commitment that people in the non profit sector have for their cause. This drive is fantastic but it can sometimes be a hindrance if it leads to a defensive response.  It can stop you listening or being open to learning. There are lots of reasons why we say no a lot – high demand from some areas, poor fit with criteria - and sometimes we say no because other applications were stronger than yours. In that case, don’t shoot the messenger; ask for feedback on ways to improve.


Follow @emmabeeston01