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

 

 

Why funders should provide feedback

I am disappointed when I read in a grant maker’s guidance that they do not provide feedback to unsuccessful applicants. I don’t think it is good enough for these three reasons:

1. I think it is impolite not to.

Seeking funding is hard work. The environment is particularly competitive at the moment and success rates are falling. Fundraisers have to bear the weight of the charity’s future and their colleagues’ livelihoods on their shoulders. In the light of this, I think it is impolite not to acknowledge their efforts and let them know why their request was declined.

And yes, I know smaller funders and those with no paid staff say this is difficult given the administration costs. But I have seen it done well and cheaply using a polite email template with details of the most common reasons applications were unsuccessful (lack of financial sustainability, poor project planning, outside criteria etc.) with the relevant ones highlighted.

2. It wastes everyone’s time if you don’t.

If the funder doesn’t let an applicant know why they were unsuccessful then they may well keep applying. Funders will therefore continue to get applications with little chance of success that they will have to process and make decisions on. If the fundraiser is not told to stop or to do something differently, the funder will just have to keep responding. This wastes time for both the fundraiser and the funder.  In the long run giving feedback improves the quality of applications.

3. You owe it to the service users.

If a funder is turning an application down because the charity falls short on an area of good practice or quality compared to others then there is a duty on the funder to be open about this. Otherwise the charity won’t know to improve and their service users won’t benefit from this knowledge. And surely our whole point as a funder is to support quality work that makes a difference?

Giving feedback is not always easy. When you do it in person or on the phone you can get a very defensive reaction or upset someone. Sometimes it feels that you don’t have anything useful to say particularly if it was declined due to “insufficient funds”. But it is still a worthwhile activity. Even just saying there was not enough funding available means the fundraiser knows it wasn’t anything they did that let the charity down. And at least they know that it would be worth applying again.

It is not good enough to say “we don’t give feedback”. There are ways to manage the process to keep the time taken and costs down. And the fundraisers and service users deserve our openness and respect.

https://twitter.com/emmabeeston01

Why funding decisions are like The Voice

For those of you who have never watched the BBC Saturday night show, The Voice, it is a talent show where celebrity coaches get to pick singers for their team to then battle it out to be the top singer. The twist is that the coaches don’t get to see the singers and so judge their performance by ‘The Voice’ only. If they want the singer, only then do they get to swing their chair around and see them.

So what has this got to do with grant making? Well, the selection process on The Voice reminds me of decision making panels. For starters, all the applicants are good. The Voice is not one of those shows where people are encouraged, only to be humiliated on TV. Funders also approach applicants with respect and those with no chance of success are made aware of this at as early a point in the process as possible.

Then there is the case where one of the coaches picks the good singer. Or the panel is happy that the application is a good fit with the criteria and should be funded. So far so straightforward.

But then there is the situation where the power shifts. In the case of The Voice it is when all the coaches turn around. The singer is that good that they really stand out. In grant making this is the rare occasion when the charity you want to fund is not just good enough to be funded, but is one that you really want to fund and often wish you had more money available to give them.

What makes the difference is both obvious and hard to describe. The Voice coaches talk about connecting, of feeling the emotion, that there was something that made them push the button. I like to think that funders are more objective than this but there are still stand-out charities that you just want to support. It will be different for different funders and it is that magic something that all bid writers are trying to convey. Yes, there is the strong fit with programme aims. Yes, they are strong on all aspects from finances, governance, budgets, project planning, evidence and outcomes. And then there is the elusive something – perhaps some added drive or ambition that comes across; or that they are having success in a particularly challenging area; or just that quality shines through in everything they do.

Funders may not have spinning chairs but there will be something that grabs us. And it is a good reminder that the power is not really with the funder but what we are able to achieve through others.

https://twitter.com/emmabeeston01

Tax relief for charity workers

I have always had an issue with the story of the prodigal son. Whilst he got the big welcome and feast, the son who stayed home and did the right thing got little credit. I understood why the father celebrated the return of his son but, for balance, I also wanted there to be a party for the son who stayed.

I have a similar problem with the attitude toward people moving from the private sector into the charitable sphere. We applaud when an industry chief decides to bring their skills to the charitable sector as a Chair or Chief Executive. We also praise those who accumulate wealth in their business years and then decide to become philanthropic and give it away. Obviously, these acts are to be welcomed – I am not quite that curmudgeonly! – and they are certainly much better than not doing anything charitable.

But it does make me wonder why those who have chosen a path of working in the charitable sector from the outset do not get such praise? The wages in charities are generally lower – partly to keep overheads down but also because it is seen as a nice place to work with its own intrinsic rewards of making a difference. (As an aside, I never quite get how working to divert challenging young people from gangs is ‘nice’). Most charity workers are not motivated by their earnings. When you make the leap from for- to non- profit, it is seen. But when you are just working in it, you are below the radar and get no fanfare. And instead of winning praise, if workers move across into the commercial sector, they are accused of selling out.

So I learned with interest the other day that in Australia you get tax relief if you work for a charity.

“If you are classified as a charity, your staff can salary-package up to $30,000 worth of benefits before triggering the Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT).

Charities survive on a shoestring budget which can prevent them from matching the salaries offered by commercial employees. But the FBT breaks allow them to attract good quality staff by offering packages. Effectively, the staff get more for their salary dollar.”

From http://www.ourcommunity.com.au/financial/financial_article.jsp?articleId=2906

So as well as tax relief for charity donations by companies and philanthropists, how about adopting the same for charity workers in the UK? It could kick in after say 3 years and then increase over time as a reward for those who stay. Charity workers opt out of the for profit sector to support others so surely they should be appreciated and applauded?

https://twitter.com/emmabeeston01