Be more magpie

Research on magpie behaviour (link below) has shown they are not attracted to shiny things, as we like to believe, but instead they try to avoid them. It set me thinking about the lure of the shiny new innovative projects that can appeal to funders and philanthropists giving money to charities.

Charities do great work that changes lives and givers big and small want to support them to do this. But behind that great work is lots of far less interesting things that have to happen. Someone needs to do the payroll; insurance needs to be renewed; minibuses taken for their MOTs; risk assessments and plans written; databases need to be maintained.

Charities all say that it is hard to raise money for their core costs yet many grants exclude them. Full cost recovery and compacts try to address this but often charities have to find ways to package their overheads into their project costs to get them covered.  Or they spend precious time away from the frontline to gather unrestricted funding from events and sales.

Similarly, charities bemoan having to find ways to change or dress up their existing work to look like new projects. What they do is working well but lots of funders won’t consider supporting it as they want to back something different and innovative.

As our understanding of magpies has changed, maybe we should learn from this and be more magpie. Rather than just funding the attractive work that gives us those shiny case studies. Perhaps we should find reward in funding what the charity wants and needs. More funders and philanthropists should willingly fund the photocopier service contract, the admin worker or the office cleaner.  Or be proud to fund the continuation of existing work that is needed and getting good outcomes. They might be a little less shiny but they are vital.

http://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/featurednews/title_406690_en.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. www.emmabeeston.co.uk ;  emma@emmabeeston.co.uk ; emmabeeston01 

The what and the why

In a TED talk classic (see link) Simon Sinek tells us that “People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it. ” and for charities there has been a welcome focus on ‘the why’ in making strong cases for support. For example, you don’t donate to the British Heart Foundation because of their research projects but because you share their vision of a world in which people do not die prematurely. 

 

But recently, I have started to question if ‘the why’ has gone too far. When reading though applications and websites, I often read impassioned claims for the difference a charity has made, and will make, and their impact on society. But I can still get to the end of the application form and not have the faintest idea ‘what’ exactly it is that they are going to do with the money. I also recently advised a philanthropist who had named a charity in their will because of what they thought they did, which was a wrongly held assumption based on their ‘why we exist’ and not based at all on what they actually delivered.

 

Of course, the why matters. I would hate to go back to reading through a list of activities and finding myself thinking “so what?” But when deciding who gets the money, the tangibles have to come into play.  If everyone is claiming to make the world a better place then you need details to weigh up their likely practical contributions. I need to make a judgment on whether ‘what’ you actually deliver will bring about the outcomes you state. Is a weekly football club more likely to build confidence in young people than a peer support group or counselling or music therapy? (They will all be valid, but funders have to make a choice).

 

There needs to be a clear logical flow in any funding application e.g. £A pays for B to deliver C which leads to D. Both the what and the why are in there: the what predominantly appeals to the rational head and the why to the emotional heart. Both have their place in a good application.

 

https://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action?language=en

 

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. www.emmabeeston.co.uk ;  emma@emmabeeston.co.uk ; emmabeeston01

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