Searching for Serendipity

It is wonderful that technology allows us to be so easily connected to all the new research and ideas out there, but frustrating that it is so hard to find time to actually digest all this information. Lately I have been working out how best to build reading time in to my week. Assuming this is true for others, I thought I would share my efforts so far …

Acceptance - I found twitter overwhelming at first because I wanted to read everything and got frustrated that this was never going to be possible. Now I have got the hang of it and accept that having a sense of what the key issues are and getting to read one or two short articles is enough.

Necessity - I am currently working on a series of lectures for the Advising Donors module of the University of Kent’s Masters in Philanthropy. As well as the pleasure of teaching the students, this has given me a great incentive to read all those books and reports I have gathered because I want to read them but somehow struggled to find the time to do so. There is nothing like a deadline and a driving need for creating space in your schedule.

Help – Step up the wonderful Kathryn Redway. I took one of her rapid reading courses which has given me some very effective tools and strategies for quickly tackling longer reports and strategy documents. I now have a slot in my diary to read them and permission to be ruthless. The upshot is things don’t sit in my ‘to read’ folder on my desktop but actually get read.

I have made good progress but, as is often the case, solving one problem has created space for a new one. The reading I am doing is focussed on my areas of interest: I follow like-minded people and subscribe to mainly UK-based bulletins about philanthropy, charity, funding. There has been lots in the media lately about echo chambers such as this piece in the Guardian where users of twitter interact most with those who share their views. Tom Stafford, a cognitive scientist at Sheffield University explains that “homophily, where we hang out with people like us, is an ancient human trait, resulting from our basic psychology.” Whilst this is great for a sense of connectedness, it can lead to narrow thinking.

So my next challenge is how to widen my reading to create the space for opposing views and serendipity – the random connections, insights and advances that come from outside my sphere of interest and beyond people like me. How do I do that without getting even more overwhelmed with all that there is to read in the world? And can serendipity come through effort? I have found some encouragement from research conducted by a Dr Erdelez who found that serendipity is something that people do so it is a skill that can be learned. Those who see things through a narrow focus and tend to stick to their to-do lists experience less serendipity. Whereas others, the ‘super-encounterers’, report that happy surprises popped up wherever they looked.

Emma Beeston Consultancy advises funders and philanthropists on giving strategies and processes; researching and scoping options; selecting causes and charities; assessments and impact monitoring. www.emmabeeston.co.uk ; emma@emmabeeston.co.uk; @emmabeeston01

Can the annual return reduce duplication?

When at Comic Relief this week I overheard one fundraiser say “if only there was one place that fundraisers could post their request for all funders to access”. I have heard this sentiment expressed many times over my years in grant making. I think we can all agree on the problem: that in order to get funding, charities have to complete lots of separate application forms that all ask for roughly the same information and then send them to lots of different funders. It is a process full of duplicated effort – on both sides.

The tricky bit is working out the right solution. There have been attempts at a common application form and examples of funders pooling funds so applicants are applying just once. In fact, this is what the Community Foundations seek to address with their model. But as funders have different decision timetables and criteria, it can be hard to get these approaches to work. Technology has offered promising solutions such as Localgiving and the Big Give, which both provide a platform for charities to promote their work and enable donors to search for those they want to support. And more recently The Good Exchange, created by the Greenham Common Trust, “makes it simple to connect those looking to make a difference in their local community with those who are able to provide the financial support”. And here’s the rub: these are all good answers to the problem, but in practice what they mean is that instead of writing lots of application forms, charities now have to write and manage lots of online profiles. So should you have an entry on the co-operative website, and on a crowdfunding platform, and on Charity Choice, and on JustGiving and on Remember a Charity and, and, and … ?

As soon as we have more than one solution, we are back to the original problem. Except we do have one place where all charities have to post their information and which all funders use to check that charities are registered and to access accounts: the Charity Commission. Wouldn’t it be great if the annual return required all charities to also give answers to the most common application questions: a summary of the organisation, a summary of activities, the numbers of staff and volunteers, how they listen to the voices of the people they serve, the outcomes of their work, a typical case study, their plans for the year ahead. That way they would just need to tell a potential funder what had changed since their last submission and the specifics of whatever they want funding for. And imagine if all this data was searchable? Then funders would be able to proactively seek out e.g. all those charities working with travellers in the South West, or take a look at the difference they are making, and decide which ones to approach. And what if charities could also upload content such as short films or appeals for particular projects? Perhaps this is a pipe dream – and I am sure you, like me, can think of all kinds of barriers to it working – but we do have an opportunity right now. The Charity Commission are consulting on the annual return:

“We are seeking your views on changes to the content and structure of the annual return for charities and how we target questions so that they only require the information which is needed for regulatory purposes.”

If you feel there is an opportunity here, now is your chance to tell the Charity Commission (even though they really want responses to their specific questions but hey, if you don’t ask…). You have until noon on 9^th March 2017.

Emma Beeston Consultancy advises funders and philanthropists on giving strategies and processes; researching and scoping options; selecting causes and charities; assessments and impact monitoring. www.emmabeeston.co.uk ; emma@emmabeeston.co.uk; emmabeeston01

Be careful what you ask for

In my previous blog, I shared some tips for fundraisers writing grant applications. Quite rightly, there were a few comments on how funders could also improve: - such as using plain English in their guidance. So in the interest of balance, this blog has a suggestion that all funders should follow:

only ever ask for information that you will read and use

This applies to all stages of the application process. It is also true for reporting, which is my focus here.

Why is this important to state?

First of all, gathering information that is not read, is a waste of the grant recipient’s precious time. But it also holds costs for those requesting the reports. Funders still have to handle and store the information received, even if they don’t read it. And requiring the grant recipient to provide more information than is needed, could be counterproductive: diverting their resources from delivering the work that you are funding. In her book, It Ain’t What You Give It’s The Way That You Give It, Caroline Fiennes has a calculation you can use to see if the costs of applying for and reporting on your grant outweigh its value. She recommends reducing the post-grant costs to organisations by accepting reports already being produced for other donors or liaising with them to accept one report between you.

Secondly, not reading the reports that are prepared is a missed opportunity for learning. Treating the reporting stage as an administrative compliance tick box, misses the chance to reflect on what went well and what didn’t, and how this might inform future decisions. You can learn about the context the grantee is working in and get their feedback on your process and priorities. Most businesses would be incredibly jealous of getting this sort of feedback from ‘customers’ in a document which is compulsory for them to complete.

And lastly, the quality of the whole reporting process is greatly enhanced when you read and use the information. I know of one funder who noticed that grantees were copying and pasting their answers from one year to the next. When challenged they said that they did not think anybody read the reports. When funders demonstrate that they read the reports – by acknowledging and commenting on them, and even better, use them e.g. to agree to changes in the project being funded or in their policy influencing work or case studies – then those completing them spend more time providing useful information.

By respecting the grantees and their time, funders end up gaining more. So let’s all look to move from reporting as a tickbox exercise to making use of its full potential as a more open and honest transfer of valuable information.

Emma Beeston Consultancy advises funders and philanthropists on giving strategies and processes; researching and scoping options; selecting causes and charities; assessments and impact monitoring. www.emmabeeston.co.uk ; emma@emmabeeston.co.uk; @emmabeeston01

My top 3 tips for writing grant applications

When I ask charities what their top challenge is, funding comes up pretty much every time. With more cuts to statutory funding and increased competition for grants, I can’t see that 2017 is going to be any easier. For those of you gearing up for another tough year of fundraising – especially those where fundraising is one of your tasks on a very long list - here are my top 3 tips for writing successful grant application:

1.      Read the guidance

I know that this is an obvious thing to say but you would be surprised how many people don’t. Not every funder produces guidance and some are not particularly clear or helpful. But where they do offer guidance make sure you read it all through carefully. I have just been reading the guidance for the Arts Council’s ‘Grants for the Arts’ programme. The word version of their guidance for requests under £15,000 runs to 89 pages and then there are additional information sheets (e.g. if you are applying for help with asset purchases). It is a lot of information but it is clearly written and answered all my questions. It takes time to read all the guidance but that time is much better spent than the time wasted on carefully crafting an application that never stood a chance of getting funded.

2.      Use plain English

There is something about filling in an application form that tempts people into using jargon. Funders really aren’t testing your linguistic talents. They just want to know what you do, what difference you make and what you plan to do with their money. Being able to write in a way that is concise and clear is a real skill. It is a delight to read when you come across it. The facts are always more interesting than the flim-flam. So please, no more “we empower disadvantaged people to engage with social opportunities to maximise their wellbeing” in 2017. If your grandmother, son, or friend down the pub does not understand your sentences then start again.

3.      Back everything you say with evidence

This doesn’t mean referencing lots of research and demographic data – although this can have its place. What I mean is avoid making vague statements like ‘we are successful’ when with a little bit of thought you can back these up in a way that makes every sentence counts. Here are just a few examples showing how you can strengthen common ‘throwaway’ phrases:

we are a long running charity … to … we have been working in prisons for 20 years

our project is successful … to … 75% of clients reduced their substance misuse

more people will benefit … to … we plan to reach a further 100 people in 2017

there is a need for our service … to … demand has risen by 15%

I wish you all the best of luck and look forward to reading many more good applications for great work in the year ahead. 

Emma Beeston Consultancy advises funders and philanthropists on giving strategies and processes; researching and scoping options; selecting causes and charities; assessments and impact monitoring. www.emmabeeston.co.uk ; emma@emmabeeston.co.uk; @emmabeeston01

What's in a name?

The speech towards the end of the film ‘I Daniel Blake’ included the statement:

“I am not a client, a customer, nor a service user”

It is a powerful reminder of the importance of words when used as labels. Anyone who has felt processed when trying to access their rights or a service can relate to how Daniel Blake feels. But exactly what to call ‘the people that a charity is set up to support’ is a problem. You need to call them something in your communications, but however factual or descriptive the chosen term may appear, the word can easily become a loaded, political and contested label.

The different words used for the people supported include clients, service users, members, companions, customers, mentees. There are lots of debates about which is the ‘right’ term to use. For example, some say that ‘service user’ is a useful, neutral term whilst others state that it is too impersonal and does not imply any relationship. When shortened to ‘user’ it has negative associations with substance misuse or someone manipulating others to get what they want.

Which words get used also changes over time. In grant making, there are a range of terms for the one with the money: funder, grant maker, philanthropist, investor. Although potentially neutral terms, the first two convey a more traditional approach. The latter two seem to be on the increase and suggest a more current and engaged approach. Calling yourself a philanthropist, social investor or impact investor seems to be more exciting and carry more status. Traditional funders now talk about investing in those supported e.g. the Arts Council “we invest in art and culture for a lasting return”. This could be a passing fashion or a genuine shift to deeper and more equal partnerships between funder and funded.

There don’t seem to be many different terms used for those getting the funding. They are mainly referred to as grant holders, grant recipients or grantees. It will be interesting to see if new terms come which describe those funded more as ‘partners’. And what I think we really need is a new term for those who benefit from the grant, the ‘beneficiaries’. Again, this is a descriptive term but I have yet to meet anyone who describes themselves in this way and it brings to mind a real Victorian sense of the deserving poor deriving good from a distant ‘benefactor’. It is very much someone on the receiving end and not an active agent contributing their assets. So we are back to what to call them: clients, service users, citizens, stakeholders etc?

Given we do need to use something to describe people, I think it is important that charities check the term they use with those they support. My practice is to ask each charity I visit what they call their service users/members/clients and trust that they have checked that this really is the stated preference of those described. It still leaves me with the unsatisfactory term ‘beneficiary’ so if you have any suggestions for a better word, then please do get in touch.

Emma Beeston Consultancy advises funders and philanthropists on giving strategies and processes; researching and scoping options; selecting causes and charities; assessments and impact monitoring. www.emmabeeston.co.uk ; emma@emmabeeston.co.uk; @emmabeeston01

What pumpkins tell us about impact measurement

The upside of not being able to sleep some nights, is that I get to listen to random features on the wonderful BBC World Service. Around Halloween there was an interesting programme all about pumpkins. And mainly about the huge amounts of waste involved when there is such high demand for pumpkins over a very short period. Did you know the majority of pumpkins bought at Halloween are carved up and then go to waste? Around 5 million pumpkins end up in landfill each year in the UK.

Pumpkin carving used to be the by-product of the edible pumpkin season but now the market has flipped on its head with decoration driving demand. The result is that pumpkins grown to be carved no longer taste nice. As one chef puts it: “Decorative pumpkins are grown with colour, structural strength, a flat bottom, and a sturdy stem as their main attributes. The flesh tends to be bland, watery, and fibrous. No one cares because they're going to be carved, not eaten.”

So what on earth has all this to do with impact measurement?

Measuring your outcomes and impact started off as an internal tool. It is a useful way for charities to decide where to allocate resources; where services can be improved; how your model benchmarks against others. It can also motivate staff and volunteers as they can see the difference they make. The by-product is that it is a good way to demonstrate to funders and other supporters the impact of your work. Funders often ask about how a charity measures its outcomes and how it uses this data to determine if this is an organisation that is still meeting a need, learning and adapting.

But just as with pumpkin carving, the situation is in danger of being flipped on its head with the wish to demonstrate the outcomes and impact externally now driving the process. Some charities are monitoring their outcomes not because they want to learn from this but because they know it is what they are supposed to do to get certain funding. I know I have been asked “what do you want us to measure?” And some commissioners are directing which frameworks or outcomes a charity must use.

If the external driver for impact measurement dominates, then we could end up with considerable waste as charities spend time gathering data that they don’t use, or implement systems in a token way. As funders, we need to convey the message that, whilst being able to understand the difference a charity makes is important to us, it is even more important that the charity adopts impact measurement systems that are appropriate for their clients and the nature of their work; proportionate to their size and resources; and that helps inform and improve their service delivery. We want our tasty soup first and then the lantern.

http://www.redindustries.co.uk/2016/10/scary-waste-facts-released

Emma Beeston Consultancy advises funders and philanthropists on giving strategies and processes; researching and scoping options; selecting causes and charities; assessments and impact monitoring. www.emmabeeston.co.uk ; emma@emmabeeston.co.uk; @emmabeeston01

Reasons to be cheerful

Depending how you get your news, it can easily feel that we are living in gloomy and uncertain times. So, as the evenings get darker, it is important to keep looking for the positives that are all around us. Not to delude ourselves (as my teenage son puts it when I endeavour to be cheerful, “life is not all rainbows and butterflies”) but to give us hope that positive change is possible.

These are the reasons to be cheerful that I have gathered over the past few weeks and that give me cause for optimism:

I attended a training session for small charities supporting refugees across the SW, which was co-hosted by Unbound and Lloyds Bank Foundation. I was very impressed by the fact that, despite the considerable difficulties they face to deliver vital front line services, all the charity leaders were also working to achieve systemic change. And one of the advocacy trainers reminded us all that the campaign to abolish the slave trade was started by just 12 people coming together.

The Funding Network held a live crowdfunding event in Bristol. The pitches were excellent – getting your case for support across in six minutes is no mean feat – and over £25k was raised for the five good causes. These were all small organisations where this level of funding, and the recognition, will make a big difference. But what struck me was the positive energy in the room created by people coming together and wanting to help.

I got to visit Exeter CoLab as they hosted the latest meeting of the Funding SW funders forum. This is such a good example of bringing services together to tackle social issues. I liked the focus on relationships, with those in difficulty telling their story just once and then being introduced to the individuals who can help them, rather than being constantly referred from one organisation after the next.

I have started using 360Giving. After so many years of talking about data sharing and transparency, it is fantastic to have this open resource where you can see who has given grants to who. Do take a look (www.threesixtygiving.org) and if you are a grant-maker, add your data.

The millennials are coming and they are going to change things. I have been reading lots of research showing how millennials want to combine working with doing good. And this includes their activity in philanthropy and investment e.g. a World Economic Forum study surveyed 5,000 millennials in 18 different countries and found that their overall top priority for any business should be “to improve society.” This is one article with some examples of what the next generation are up to: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2016/10/26/millennials-changing-world_n_4440539.html?utm_hp_ref=social-change

And these are just some examples. I have also visited and read about lots of other excellent charities who are working really hard to bring about positive social change. Thanks to all of them for giving me hope for our collective future.

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_II_FromMarginsMainstream_Report_2013.pdf

Emma Beeston Consultancy advises funders and philanthropists on giving strategies and processes; researching and scoping options; selecting causes and charities; assessments and impact monitoring. www.emmabeeston.co.uk ; emma@emmabeeston.co.uk; @emmabeeston01