When is a charity closure not a failure?

Charity closures – including recent high profile ones such as Kids Company, BAAF, BeatBullying – are generally understood as being ‘a bad thing’. The loss of services, knowledge and expertise from the sector certainly is. But hidden in these sad tales are some closures we should perceive differently.

Every charity is set up with a purpose. It is there to respond to a need, tackle an issue, solve a societal problem. This purpose is set out in the objects of the charity and registered with the Charity Commission.

The impact of commissioning means increasingly there are charities out there that have lost their position. Usually this happens when they lose out in a tender exercise and the winning organisation is now paid to provide the services they used to deliver. This happens in business too – think of a local store when a large supermarket moves in. Those who survive this dramatic market change are those who adapt to deliver a very specialist service.

Charities too small to compete with large competitors can respond in a similar way by focusing on meeting needs that remain unserved. So a domestic abuse charity that used to deliver a refuge can continue to offer specialist community outreach or counselling when a housing association wins the refuge contract. This will not be an easy transition: it needs leadership; flexibility of thinking; finding new income streams; losing staff. What is important is that the core purpose is at the heart of driving change.

Some charities forget this. They focus on keeping going at any cost and seek funding to keep jobs. The focus is on maintaining the existence of the charity and taking on any new services that come their way. It is an understandable response to change but by putting the organisation before the purpose they are more likely to experience mission drift and less likely to attract funding.

A small number of charities respond to this change by being courageous enough to close. A charity I spoke with recently, who had lost out in a tender process, had an uncommon and refreshing answer to my question of what next:

“if the need is not there, we don’t need to exist”

We should be concerned about the number of charity closures and the tender process where small, local, specialist provision is lost. But on some occasions closing a charity is the right, and brave, decision to take.

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

Evaluation: what can we learn from academics?

This week I am delighted to welcome back guest blogger Jane Selman ...
I have been working for the last 18 months with the Director of a children’s charity in the Midlands, with an annual turnover circa £700k.  They do great work and the Director really understands fundraising and I love working with them.

Last year we were looking at evaluation and precisely what the charity needed to evaluate in relation to a specific project we sought funds for.   It led to an interesting internal discussion involving staff, some beneficiaries and trustees.

I came to realise that the collective understanding of evaluation within this charity, was informed solely by the need to please funders; measure quantitative data, the progress towards outcomes and to seek qualitative feedback. All very essential evidence of course, but I felt they were missing a point and the charity could get greater benefit out of evaluation

 I began to look at how university academics practised evaluation and in particular how those concerned with social welfare projects understood and carried it out.

 So more reading and talking followed, which was ultimately very enlightening and useful.  In essence, what we found out about evaluation, was that it could be more robust and more comprehensive than I and the Director had previously asserted in funding bids.

 We spent a few hours thinking and talking about ways of applying aspects of this academic evaluation of social welfare projects, to the work we were seeking funding for.  We then consulted partners, funders, staff and former service users.  Mainly asking each: “what is it you would want to know of our work?” and, “what would you do with that knowledge?”

The resulting two changes we made were:

1. Identifying, prior to the start of the project, what questions we would be asking at the evaluation stage.
2. Identifying who would use the evaluation; what did they want to know; and how would they use the results.

The result was a model that is both practical and realistic. By taking a wider perspective, our new evaluation model appears to have galvanised greater understanding of the complexity of the work and commitment to the charity, amongst delivery partners, funders, trustees and mentors to client group.

I know what I have said is not rocket science.  But we are so busy delivering the work and fundraising, that we loose sight of maybe spending some time on thinking what we can learn from practitioners in other sectors.

Jane Selman: http://www.janeselmanfundraising.co.uk

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

Giving and the art of blackberry picking

At this time of year, when I go out to gather blackberries, I am reminded of my mother giving me her wise advice on picking: 

1. Only pick blackberries above the height that the tallest dog can pee.
2.  No blackberry is worth dying for.

As well as being sage advice for blackberry picking, it can also be applied when it comes to selecting the best charities to give money to.

Let’s take rule number one. There are basic flaws and issues that mean some charities are best avoided. As an example: the ones that don’t have good safeguarding practice, have badly managed finances or poor structures. Just because they are there and available, does not mean they are good. There may be very solid reasons why no one is funding them already.

There are lots of blackberries above the ‘basic hygiene line’ and many charities are above the basic requirements too – they are doing good work and are also well run. The issue is that there are lots to choose from. The art to selecting is knowing where to find best practice; that some are a little better than others; and they vary in size and ambition. Context is also important – you want to fund at the right time. Despite the choice available, it will still take effort to select the best and you may well need help to find the charities that best match your preferences.

And so to rule number two. There are always big, juicy blackberries which are tantalisingly out of reach. Balancing on one leg at the top of a ditch to try and reach them is a risky business. There are rich rewards for those who come prepared with ladders and protective clothing – but it is not a job for the ill-equipped. I think of these being the pioneering charities working in new or difficult fields. You need to know what you’re doing when funding them and be prepared to take the risks. If you over reach yourself then you may be giving money to a charity that folds. But if you have experience and do the right preparation then you should reap significant social impact rewards.

So enjoy your blackberry crumbles, pies and jam this autumn. And keep my mother’s advice in mind when choosing a charity to donate to. I wish you rich pickings.

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

Application forms - do they help or hinder?

When deciding which charity to fund, an application form is a useful tool for gathering all the information you need in one place. It then aids comparison: should you fund this new charity which helps 100 people into accommodation or this other long-established one that helps 50 people back into work?

However, a grant should not be a reward for the best form-filling. An application form can sometimes get in the way of a good decision. Some charities write fantastic, clear and concise applications but when visits are made, the reality can be very different and some charities cannot evidence the claims they made. At the other extreme, some charities do amazing work but the application form is so poorly written you wouldn’t really know it.

As a funder, it’s quality work you want to fund, so how much weight can and should you give to its presentation?

Ideally, the work should always win out – you want to fund those making the most difference to those in greatest need. But if you don’t have the resources to conduct visits or telephone assessments or have local knowledge or referees to draw on, then the paperwork is all you have. Funders will still hopefully be experienced enough to spot an overly positive application which tells us exactly what we want to hear. After all, we do read hundreds of forms and can use our experience and judgment to check the credibility of claims and plans.

For those completing application forms, it is more important than ever to be able to clearly articulate what it is you do. This shows confidence and direction. Not having this skill will reduce your likelihood of getting funding in these increasingly competitive times. And to some degree, a funder is right to make a judgment on how well you come across on paper. If you can’t convey why you need the money, then how successful are you in attracting volunteers, donors and other supporters to your cause? We may conclude that your whole charity is not just overlooking writing skills but more fundamentally may not have a clear sense of purpose.

Whether an application form is helpful or an obstacle, it is still the commonest tool used. So both sides, funder and applicant, need to be skilled and experienced in preparing and writing as well as reading and correctly interpreting these forms.

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

Social funding: are we better together?

Fundraisers have long understood that giving is often a social activity and have tapped into this with all kinds of dances, dinners and team events.  Increasingly funding is becoming more social too with crowdfunding and Giving Circles (see link) as well as small informal groupings. 

As someone who is curious about different ways of funding charities, I recently attended The Funding Network’s Summer Spectacular in London to experience one of their ‘live crowdfunding’ events. 

The Funding Network (see link) has groups in 13 countries and the London event meant they have now collectively given £8 million to good causes since they began in 2002. Their ethos is that philanthropists don’t need to be the super wealthy. A great impact can be made through members pooling donations. On the night, four charities pitched to an audience of several hundred people. The minimum pledge was £100. All the charities exceeded their targets of gaining £6k.

There was a good buzz on the night – much like at a good fundraiser – but not focused on one cause, but on a collective desire to make a difference. It was fun and entertaining. One philanthropist I spoke with said she wanted to enjoy her giving and not sit at home “bored just pushing the donate button”. 

Of course, coming from the grant making world of application forms, assessments and decision panels I did have some questions: Was this going to be a beauty pageant with the rewards going to the most articulate? Would I know if the four charities were any good? How were they selected? Was the return proportionate to the charity’s efforts? Here is what I discovered:

The pitch was important, but all the charities were given a day’s training on presenting and an opportunity to rehearse. This showed on the night, and will be a useful skill for them to take away with them.

There is an assessment process and as well as the pitch. We all had a detailed report on each charity, which certainly held more information than I have seen some grant panels get. 

I still have a question-mark over the selection process. As members nominate the charities, it would suggest that who you know (or who knows you) is important and could be an issue depending on how diverse and how proactive the membership is.

With all the participant charities receiving training and exceeding their targets, it seemed to be a good return on their efforts. There was an option for members to offer other support as well as funding so I am sure many charities will gain from raising their profile and gaining new contacts.

What struck me most is that I am very lucky to meet so many inspiring charity leaders, workers and the people they support through my job. If you’re not in the sector, how would you get to hear about these smaller charitable groups or hear from someone who has, for example, been through the prison system? Everyone I spoke to found these opportunities moving and motivating. Attending a fundraiser for one charity means you know at least a bit about them already. In this case people were exposed to groups that they had not heard of before.

Is there anything traditional funders can take from this social approach? Here are my two takeaways:

1. Appreciate the access we have to the great work that is going on in the charitable sector. Instead of bemoaning that those outside the sector don’t know about it, we should do more to reach out and champion the work we see.
2. At the end of the next grant round or grant panel, we often end by focusing on all the projects we couldn’t fund. Instead, lets take a moment to feel good about the funding awards that were made and how we are part of the collective effort to make a difference.

http://guest.thirdsector.co.uk/2014/11/06/understanding-giving-circles-in-the-uk-and-ireland/

http://www.thefundingnetwork.org.uk/

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; coaching for fundraisers and training for non-fundraisers involved in bids. E: ms.e.beeston@gmail.com; T: emmabeeston01

What to tell a funder when things don't go to plan

After all your hard work, you get the good news that your application has been successful and you have secured the grant you need. Your work does not stop there. There are a number of grant management tasks that will always be needed: checking the terms and conditions; being clear on the reporting requirements and saying thank you.

I would add another task to that list: asking the funder what changes they want to hear about and when. 

It is unlikely that 1, 2 or 3 years on, you will be doing exactly what you said you would. Most funders will expect some variations from your original proposal. So it is good to be clear which changes:

• they don’t need to hear about: such as, your drop-in is held on a Friday but you change it to a Thursday.
• they do need to be told about: for example, where they are funding a staff post and the post holder leaves or goes off sick or goes on maternity leave. The funder will want to ensure that service delivery continues and is of sufficient quality.

Some funders will want to learn about changes through the grant reporting system and others will want to know of variations in advance as they will need to authorise the change of use of the grant. So it is important that you find out which approach your funder takes – especially as not doing so could delay or even risk future grant payments.

But what about when things go wrong?

The times when charity workers find it hardest to tell a funder is when things go wrong. But this is exactly the time to be upfront. Honest communication is what is required. If your new service has not attracted any clients; you have had to reduce the service due to cashflow problems; or a staff member has been caught stealing; then my advice to you is to tell the funder as early as you can.

Why? Well, it is the right thing to do. The funder is accountable for how their funds are spent and may need to take steps to manage or reduce their risks. They are also likely to find out anyway when they read your report, accounts or the story in the newspaper. How you respond to the situation may well affect the future relationship and likelihood of further funding. What sometimes happens is an awkward monitoring call or visit where the grantee gives evasive answers to questions and the funder has to raise the issue directly. This does not instil confidence and it suggests a lack of care about funds given. What would a funder now think about this charity? They are likely to start questioning how they manage resources, monitor performance, and communicate with other stakeholders.

So get in touch right away to explain what has happened. Go through the steps you have taken to address it and ask if the funder needs any further action. It is never easy when things don’t go to plan. Facing and managing the situation with open communication is the best approach for everyone in the long run.

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

Game, Set and ... Match?

‘Match giving’ can be very effective in fundraising campaigns. Last year’s Big Give Christmas Challenge raised over £11m with charity champions matching online donations to charities. You can see why this works. It creates a sense of interest and urgency. It encourages giving from those who want to join in because others are taking part. It can lever in other funding sources - the Community First programme raised £130m with donors generating a 50% uplift on their endowment donations through government match funding (see link). It is also used to good effect in employee schemes where the company matches the volunteering and fundraising efforts of its staff. This rewards the community-minded behaviours the company wants to encourage and brings additional funds to those supported. 

But what about the other matching offers from funders such as Trusts and Foundations? ‘Coordination matching’, for example, where “a charity needs to raise a specific amount for a specific purpose. A large funder (the “matcher”) is happy to contribute part of the amount needed as long as the specific purpose is achieved; therefore, the matcher makes the gift conditional on other gifts” - (see link).

I can see that it would be helpful to spread the risk where a funder does not want to be the sole funder of a project or charity. I can also see that this arrangement is fine where the funder can genuinely not offer any more money and the project cannot go ahead until a larger amount is raised. So it is an all or nothing situation. But otherwise this kind of giving seems to be another expression of the funder holding the power: “we will give you £x but only if you do more work”. What is the message here? Is it:

• I need other funders to commit in order to have my judgment affirmed?
• I think your work is good but not that good?
• I want you to work harder for what I am offering?

This matching arrangement also creates additional work on both sides. The funder has to keep track of the offer and whether it will be paid out. The charity has to allocate resources to raising the rest or lose the pledge - and this may divert attention away from other needs. It can start to feel more stick than carrot – which is surely not what the funder intended?

I am sure there are other arguments for and against offering matched funding. I would welcome comments below to let me know what you think.

http://ukcommunityfoundations.org/programmes/community_first/

http://blog.givewell.org/2011/12/15/why-you-shouldnt-let-donation-matching-affect-your-giving/

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