Over claiming and the problem of attribution

When assessing applications one of the negative terms used of an applicant is that they are ‘over claiming’. Common examples are:

1. the numbers appear inflated. For example, where a charity with the capacity to support 30 people well states that they will support 50 people because they think it will come across better to the potential funder. Or where the success rates given are over-optimistic such as “100% will complete the course” or “95% will secure full-time jobs, stop taking drugs and be in secure accommodation”.
2. the outcomes delivered by other people are included. For example, the charity helps with housing issues and refers people with complex mental health issues to another organisation. But in the application they ‘claim’ the improved mental health outcomes as well as those related to housing.

I don’t believe this is done with the deliberate intent to mislead. In fact when it comes to the second example, research shows that we all have a propensity to over-claim credit in joint tasks. If you take a group where a number of people are responsible for completing a task and ask each individual to estimate their contribution the combined total will exceed 100% (see link). 

These common examples of over claiming are something for fundraisers to be aware of and seek to avoid. Otherwise it can come across as poor planning. Or if you did get the funding, you are set up to fail as it will be a struggle to achieve all that you said you would. 

Much harder is the tricky problem of attribution – where it is very difficult to say exactly what difference your intervention makes because of all the other factors involved. For example, how much difference can be attributed to your counselling service in helping a family to cope with bereavement? How much is due to their friends, family, faith, upbringing etc etc. True attribution is very complex and is not a new issue: 

“We are too much accustomed to attribute to a single cause that which is the product of several, and the majority of our controversies come from that.” – Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor, 161 – 180

Attribution is also a problem that affects funders. It is difficult to attribute the true impact funding has because it relies on the accuracy of the data gathered from those funded (who, as we saw above, already struggle with attribution) and because of all the variables involved. Just what difference do I make if I award £20k towards half the salary of a full-time post that is part of a team of eight, who together deliver ...? Did my £20k stop the charity from closure (probably an over claim) or did it help care leavers go to college? – along with the input from 10 other grant makers, a corporate sponsor, volunteers, staff, Trustees, the individual themselves, the foster family, the social worker etc. etc.

I don’t think we should stop trying to wrestle with the problem of attribution. But in the meantime, I think a common sense and proportionate approach is best. For applicants this means the best you can do is present a realistic case for what you can reasonably estimate or measure.

www. livemint.com/Politics/u6hPPIK9WbgARNK4DueEOO/Management--Why-people-overclaim-credit-in-joint-tasks.html

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. E: ms.e.beeston@gmail.com; T: emmabeeston01