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

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

You are not alone

Often in funding applications and assessment interviews you will be asked questions about the other organisations you work with and especially those doing similar work to you. This is not a test to see if you know who else is out there. Nor is it a way a funder gets their research done – even though gathering local knowledge is always useful. It is a way of assessing how connected you are to others around you – Do you have good referral pathways in place? Are you sure you are not duplicating another’s services?

Sadly with the dual pressures of increased demand and diminishing resources, some charities have become inward looking. There is less ‘slack’ to attend events, training and meetings as everyone is head down and delivering. However, this is exactly the time when fresh thinking is needed and having the time to look outwards and meet with others is more crucial than ever.

A lack of external view causes several problems:

1. You miss opportunities for collaborations and partnerships;
2. You miss out on funding opportunities that can arise from more people hearing what you do;
3. You miss seeing alternative ways of doing what you do from visiting other charities or getting wider stimulation. As Daniel Neel of the Fundraising Resource Group puts it in his recent blog (see link) “Sometimes the best ideas come from outside of the non-profit world altogether”.
4. You risk duplicating effort such as conducting research that you didn’t realise had already been done.

Not referencing other organisations can also come across badly in funding applications. What would you think of a charity that says they are unique when you know they are not; makes no reference to other trial projects that have been carried out and evaluated already; does not work with a nearby charity despite sharing clients?

Despite all the internal demands, charity workers do need to keep facing outwards and connecting with others. This can be positive and reenergising at a time when work is hard. And at the very least you will feel better sharing your woes with other charity workers who understand.

http://www.thefundraisingresource.com/wp/fundraising-2/fundraising-and-deck-chairs-what-are-you-doing-with-yours/

Emma Beeston Consultancy advises funders and philanthropists on giving strategies and processes; selecting causes and charities; and impact monitoring. Services for charities include external perception reviews; bid reviews; training for fundraisers and non-fundraisers involved in bids. 

https://twitter.com/emmabeeston01

Trustees – Your CEO needs you!

The fresh round of attacks on charity CEO’s level of pay saddens me (link below). It is another example of people not getting modern charities. It seems it is OK to be paid to turn a profit for shareholders but not if you set out to tackle society’s ills. I get to meet lots of charity CEOs in my work and they are doing a tough job that should be appreciated. Tougher now than ever as the demand for help and support is on the rise (rises in debt, housing shortages, increased mental illness ...) and there are reduced resources to respond due to funding cuts. 

The pressure is on to continue the charity’s work, support staff, fundraise and plan ahead in these circumstances. Charity CEOs are often lonely. They need to reassure their staff teams who are stretched and worried about their jobs. And they need to present their Trustee Board with solutions and options. Where do they get to rant, moan, talk through new ideas and share their worries?

When I meet with charity CEOs, I ask them about the support they get. Some will speak highly of their Chair or other Trustees. But some tell me that managing their Trustees is another difficult task on their long list.

So what can Trustees do?

1. First recognise that the burden and responsibility for staff jobs and the charity’s continued existence rests heavily on the CEO’s shoulders. Even though Trustees are technically responsible, they have collective responsibility and can leave at any time. It is not their paid job. 
2. Support the CEO. Create a culture where the CEO can make mistakes, bounce ideas around and admit to having concerns or fears.
3. Ensure the CEO has regular supervision, external supervision, a coach or mentor. That they have sufficient capacity to get out of the charity to meet with peers, learn and take proper holidays. There are excellent peer support groups out there like Ella Forums (link below) and people like myself offer support.
4. Share the load – not interfering with the day to day running, but asking what help is needed and being proactive with assistance such as telling staff bad news or contingency planning difficult ‘what if’ scenarios.

I am sure there are other ways Trustees are and can step up. If you are a Trustee, let me know what you do. And if you are a charity CEO, tell me what you need.

http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/finance/news/content/19800/sun_launches_fresh_attack_against_charity_sector_over_chief_executive_pay

http://www.ella-forums.org/

https://twitter.com/emmabeeston01

Judging charities by their covers

As a child in the 70s I used to visit the Westgate Library in Oxford. I have vivid memories of the time I made the transition from the children’s library (think bright coloured cushions and picture books) to the main adult library. There were no pictures any more nor different sizes and thicknesses and certainly no age categories. Instead, endless shelves of book spines arranged alphabetically by author. How on earth was I supposed to choose which book to take out?

I can’t remember exactly how I responded the first time. I do remember the time I adopted a strategy of selecting titles on the basis that they had bright aqua lettering as a way to narrow down my options. Needless to say I read a lot of dreadful books. I needed to come up with a better system of choosing.

The same problem of overwhelming choice can face donors. There are 160,045 charities in the UK (see link below). How on earth do you select the ones to support?

I was particularly struck by the similarity when looking at Aviva’s community award pages. Just for Bristol there were profiles of over 3,000 local charities all asking for votes to get the £1,000 award available. To choose, you either need to know one already or have an awful lot of time on your hands.

To stop being overwhelmed you need some criteria – more logical than my aqua approach. You can select by size, cause, location. Still some will be ‘better’ than others e.g. well run, making a big difference, tackling a difficult social issue, working in collaboration, influencing change.  It is hard to just pull these out a random so you also need external expertise.  Just as with books, charities also win prizes (e.g. GSK Impact awards) and other funders can act like a recommendation. Even better is having advice from someone who knows the sector who effectively acts as your own personal book reviewer: helping you navigate the choices by matching your preferences to the most effective charities out there. In CAF’s recent report (see link below) wealthy individual donors valued receiving professional advice. And, good news for charities, those who took advice tended to give much more.

http://data.ncvo.org.uk/a/almanac15/big-picture/#Registered_charities_andgeneral_charities

https://www.cafonline.org/about-us/publications/2015-publications/the-art-of-adaptation.aspx

 

Emma Beeston Consultancy advises philanthropists on giving strategies; selecting causes and charities; and impact monitoring.

https://twitter.com/emmabeeston01

 

Tell me something I don't know

Before you launch into your funding bid, stop and ask yourself what it is this funder needs to know to convince them to support you.

Why will this help? Well, fitting everything you want to say into strict word count limits is always a challenge. It can save you valuable space if you focus on the facts and evidence your chosen funder needs. And as someone who reads hundreds of bids, I can wholeheartedly agree that less is almost always more. A clear, concise bid which tells me exactly what I need to know and how that fits with my funding priorities is just what I want.

One consideration is whether you are applying to a specialist or a generalist funder.

If you are applying to a specialist funder then you can assume a greater level of knowledge in that area. For example, if the funder has already stated that their priority is homeless people, you don’t need to tell them the latest government statistics on homelessness and the poor outcomes for homeless people. You can assume that they get it already – that’s why they are looking to fund this area of work. Instead, tell them why your homelessness project is the one they should fund out of all the others they are considering.

Be specific, tell them about the need in your area; who else is delivering services and how you work with them; why you use your particular model; what is different about your approach; the experience and expertise you have; what results you get...

If they are a more general funder, perhaps a family charitable trust, then you may need to use your words to explain your cause and why it is important. In this situation, don’t make assumptions. Take time to explain the key background facts and figures surrounding your issue and how people are affected before you go into the specifics about you.

If you give general information to specialists, you risk wasting their time and missing the opportunity to give them the depth of detail they want. If you go into specifics with people who have more general knowledge, they may not understand what you do. In both situations:  get it right and you have a better chance of being successful.  

https://twitter.com/emmabeeston01