Is it time for complexity-friendly funding?

When I started out in grant making 15 years ago measuring impact could be quite different from today. When asking how a charity knew what difference a particular project or intervention made, it was not unusual to get the answer “from the smiles on people’s faces”. So, the move toward measurement, evidence and a focus on outcomes was welcome. It provided a helpful approach for funders when deciding how best to allocate resources. And more importantly, a useful tool for charities to really understand what was working and where to focus their limited resources. It also provided additional internal benefits for charities, such as motivating staff and helping those who received support to see the progress being made.

But there are limits to the outcomes approach, and these are now being discussed more frequently. Some people continue to see measuring outcomes as a tick-box exercise – targets that meet the needs of external audiences - rather than an opportunity to learn. Effort can be wasted measuring things that don’t need to be measured – surely we can all agree that play is good for children’s development and people’s wellbeing improves when they connect with others? And by tying everything into a neat logic flow, from problem to intervention to result, are we not missing the fact that people’s lives are far more complex than this? That it is hard to attribute positive change to single interventions that inevitably take place in the context of so many other factors.

This brings me to my favourite read so far this year: the report “A Whole New World: Funding & Commissioning in Complexity” from Collaborate (link below). It “challenges the idea that an intervention (project, organisation or programme) can be held accountable for the impacts it makes in the world.” Instead “outcomes are created by people’s interaction with whole systems”. It puts forward the case for a complexity-friendly version of funding which puts people back into the heart of funding approaches. It calls for an approach that recognises that people working in the sector don’t need to be incentivised using targets; that measurement is just one mechanism for learning; and that it is healthy systems that support social good.

The report sets out lessons for funders. But what does it mean for charities and other social purpose organisations? It is not saying to stop measuring your impact, but to recognise other important factors such as: trusting relationships, the expertise of staff and the interconnectedness of processes, interventions and organisations. And when dealing with funders, strive to be honest; challenge narrow targets and a metrics-only focus; be confident in your expertise; speak up and out about your added value – your ethos, your people; be humble about what you claim is down to you and embrace the complexity of those you serve and the context you operate within.

https://collaboratecic.com/a-whole-new-world-funding-and-commissioning-in-complexity-12b6bdc2abd8

Emma Beeston advises philanthropists and grant makers on how best to direct their money to the causes they care about. Support includes strategy and programme design, scoping studies, assessments and monitoring visits. www.emmabeeston.co.uk; emma@emmabeeston.co.uk; @emmabeeston01; www.linkedin.com/in/emmabeeston/

A plea for plain English

At a recent event a new fundraiser asked what one tip I would give her when writing bids. My answer was: to use plain English – to articulate clearly what was wanted, why, what difference it would make without using any jargon. Her response was something I hear a lot: “but I have been told that successful bids must reflect back the language that a funder uses”.

This seems to be a common message given to fundraisers and I would love to know what it is based on. This is why I don’t think it is helpful or true:

1. A human reads your bid

Until we are at the point that an algorithm does the job, it is a person that will read your application. I don’t find funders or assessors are impressed if you just repeat their language back to them. It is no different from a job application. If you say in the job description, “we are looking for resilience”, you don’t get excited when an applicant puts “I am resilient”. What you want to know is what that means for them and how they can demonstrate it.

2. The language a funder uses may not be as deliberate and considered as you think.

As with any organisation there is a lot of scope for communication to go adrift and be interpreted in different ways. So criteria like embedded or sustainable will not necessarily mean the same thing on the website as in actual practice.

3. You don’t know who will read your bid.

Even if the wording of the criteria is an accurate reflection of the funders intentions, you do not know who the final decision-maker is. They may not be the staff that wrote the copy or chose the priorities. Think of your Trustees – some are there for their cause-specific knowledge but others are there because of their skills in law or HR or finances. They won’t all know, interpret or use the same language as the ‘official’ line.

Rather than try to parrot a funder’s language, take control of your message. The best way to do this is to use clear, plain language which gives less room for misinterpretation and assumptions. For example, you may be asked to explain how you ‘deliver an effective pathway of support’. But that does not stop you from telling the funder exactly how you will link people to the right support without them needing to repeat themselves or be bounced between different agencies.

I don’t believe mirroring language is effective and I urge all fundraisers to use plain English. But does mirroring work for you?

Emma Beeston advises philanthropists and grant makers on how best to direct their money to the causes they care about. Support includes strategy and programme design, scoping studies, assessments and monitoring visits. www.emmabeeston.co.uk; emma@emmabeeston.co.uk; @emmabeeston01; www.linkedin.com/in/emmabeeston/

The persistence of application forms

Application forms are a long-standing part of life. We apply to do a course, to join a club, to take out a loan, to get a job. They are also the commonest tool used to seek funding.

There are alternative methods:

Letters – equivalent to a CV and cover letter, some funders ask applicants to make their case for support in a letter. They may make suggestions as to length and content, but it is left up to the applicant what to include and how to structure the letter.

Pitches – these are used in live crowdfunding events like the Soup movement and The Funding Network but there are also some funding events trialing this approach. It brings storytelling and emotional engagement to the fore as you appeal directly to an audience and appeal to them for funds.

Films – like a pitch, but captured in a short film and not in person. Appeal films are more often used in social media campaigns but are sometimes requested by funders as part of the application process. It is a way to clearly demonstrate what you do, visually and in just a few minutes.

Platforms – there are several models where charities put forward their details and wishes for interested funders and donors to select. This can be just as a nominated charity for the local co-op branch or one of several hundred on Localgiving, the Big Give or the Good Exchange.

So with all these alternatives why does the application form persist?

It is easier to process – it is in date at the point of a decision (unlike platforms); it consistently gathers everything that is needed for a decision (unlike letters); everyone provides the same information which can be imported and analysed in databases; it includes a signature so can be a declaration of truth and accuracy as well as permission to store data and take up references.

It supports fairness – gathering the same information in a uniform format makes it clear what information is wanted and makes it easier to make comparisons and judgements based on evidence. Inviting applications means you are open to groups you don’t yet know about. It is not just about who can tell a good story or present well. And although they do take time to do well, they probably take less time than making a film or being present for a pitch, so are more accessible for those on limited resources.

There are still things that funders can do to improve the application process. For example, only asking for information that will definitely be used; not asking for documents that are already on the charity commission website; being very clear what information is being sought and why. And an eye also needs to be kept on whether the alternative approaches become better for user-led or smaller groups, or ease the burden on fundraisers and applicants. But in the meantime, it looks as if application forms, for good reason, are here to stay.

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

The head and heart of philanthropy

I sing in a community choir and one of the songs in our repertoire is ‘Bread and Roses’.

“Hearts starve as well as bodies

Give us bread, but give us roses”

This comes from a protest poem by James Oppenheim and has been set to music many times including by John Denver. Although singing is an escape from work, this particular song always gets me thinking about philanthropy.

Philanthropy is often framed as oppositional: either ruled by the heart or by the head. At one extreme, donors are characterised as easily moved by emotive stories and thoughtlessly giving money to whatever causes they care about. At the other end philanthropists are described as dispassionate and objective, keen on impact and effectiveness and looking to scale up social change using business approaches and technology.

But of course, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. What’s the point of effectiveness without understanding and compassion? And money given just with the heart can be a missed opportunity to fund something else with greater impact. Paul Connelly puts this across really well in his article ‘The Best of the Humanistic and Technocratic: Why Philanthropy Requires a Balance’ – the answer is to recognise the strength in both approaches.

As a Philanthropy Advisor, my role is often about stepping in to correct any imbalance. This could mean adding the head: such as researching alternatives or conducting thorough assessments. Or it could involve ensuring the human element is part of any potential solution, for example, challenging the desire for easy measurables when people’s lives are complex and chaotic.

A recent trip to the Foundling Museum in London reminded me that the head and heart have often gone together in philanthropy. Established in 1739 by philanthropist Thomas Coram, the Foundling Hospital was both the UK’s first children’s charity and first public art gallery. Coram was motivated by the plight of abandoned children but it took 17 years of campaigning and negotiating to get his hospital built. And from the start he was supported by artists – including Hogarth and Handel – who donated works and gave concerts to raise funds. Music and art was part of the children’s education and paintings lined the walls. Coram saw they needed bread – and roses too.

Emma Beeston advises philanthropists and grant makers on how best to direct their money to the causes they care about. Support includes strategy and programme design, scoping studies, assessments and monitoring visits. www.emmabeeston.co.uk; emma@emmabeeston.co.uk; @emmabeeston01; www.linkedin.com/in/emmabeeston/

Necessity is the mother of invention

Amidst all the financial uncertainty and cuts, it is easy to think that more funding is the only answer to solving society’s problems. The one silver lining in this time of austerity is that it has encouraged creativity – getting people to think differently.

Here are some examples that show how a change in mindset – and not money – can bring about positive social change.

Some changes are quite simple:

Plymouth has introduced dementia friendly car parking spaces. The designated spaces are close to the ticket machines and exits. It did not cost a lot to mark these out. What it took was listening to carers of people with dementia and deciding to do something to help.

And there are a number of examples of nudge effects like these where small changes can be used to increase desired behaviours. Images of watching eyes have been shown to encourage payments into an honesty box and donations into a charity bucket. And interestingly a sign saying “think of yourself” lead to more people switching off their engine at a level crossing.

Whereas other examples can bring about significant changes in how things are done:

The Mayday Trust have shifted power to the homeless people they support and focussed on their strengths. By giving clients their own personal budgets, the charity no longer has to spend time persuading people to participate in training. Instead clients purchase the training they want to do. And by making having a mentor voluntary, they have actually increased engagement from 50% to 80%.

Rather than older people getting stuck in hospital or having to move away, local people in the Scottish Highlands are providing social care through Highland Home Carers. The help includes neighbourly tasks like chopping firewood, clearing snow and walking the dog and not just personal care.

Wessex Water’s Collaborative Public Health Project tries to address the significant amounts spent on removing medication from water at their treatment plants. Wessex Water is funding a social prescribing project in the Twerton area of Bath to test if environmental and social activities can reduce the use of medication, such as anti-depressants, and so reduce the need to remove these from the water supply.

Homeshare is a great concept tackling both the issue of lack of affordable housing and the needs of older people. The homesharer gets somewhere to live at a reasonable rate in exchange for providing 10 hours of support (e.g. cooking, shopping, companionship) each week to support the householder.

I am sure there are plenty of other examples where a change in approach has led to improvements at no extra cost. Please share your favourite examples.

Emma Beeston advises philanthropists and grant makers on how best to direct their money to the causes they care about. Support includes strategy and programme design, scoping studies, assessments and monitoring visits. www.emmabeeston.co.uk; emma@emmabeeston.co.uk; @emmabeeston01; www.linkedin.com/in/emmabeeston/

Standing out with confidence

Last week, I was pleased to speak about leadership at the Somerset VCSE Forum. The day was about innovation and collaboration for charity leaders. I wanted to address the loss of confidence that I see and feel in the sector. I understand why this is. The negative press about charities and charity CEOs; and the rising demand for support amidst the fall in funding, all mean it is tough to lead a charity right now. It’s easy to feel fearful rather than confident.

Firstly, we have to remember that funders don’t really do anything. Funders will have a mission, such as to end poverty or improve the lives of care leavers or promote justice, but they need charities to deliver that for them. So, what any funder is looking for is an organisation that is good at what they do and is going to survive long enough to deliver, not just this year, but in the future.

There are a number of frameworks that set out what good looks like. For example, NPC’s guide “what makes a good charity” covers these 4 areas: purpose, impact practice, people and finance and operations (see link below).  Or quality frameworks like PQASSO are used as the measure of what good is. But all funders will have different ways of trying to assess ‘what is good’ when making decisions about allocating funding.

But because of increased competition for funding, there can easily be two groups seeking funding and looking equally good – both fit the criteria, serve a local need, have all their policies in place, have a business plan, a committed group of Trustees, and can report on their outcomes. So what happens now? Who stands out?

One difference is confidence.

Remember that charities are the experts. Yes, funders have an overview of what is going on – but they don’t have lived experience of delivery. A charity will know the local area, can listen to what people are saying, know what works and what doesn’t. Funders need to be told about your area of expertise.

So it is better for a confident charity to tell a funder: “we work with 50 clients because we have found that (given the complexity of their needs and the intensity of our work) that is the maximum caseload staff can manage. If we support more than that, then quality suffers and the outcomes are not as good.” Rather than the charity that lacks confidence, trying to please a funder by expanding numbers. Seeking direction from a funder is a common issue where so much rides on securing funding. I often meet charities that ask “would it look better if we helped more people?” when what I need to be told is why they do what they do and why this makes them ‘good’. 

http://www.thinknpc.org/publications/good-charity/

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

Place-based funding: is everything in its place?

At a recent meeting, it was striking how the majority of the funders that attended introduced themselves as a ‘place-based’ funder. It seems that this term, that has been kicking around for several years, is now taking centre stage.

What does it mean?

For a really good summary, I suggest you take a look at IVAR’s briefing paper. They define place-based funding as:

“targeted investment in defined geographic areas. This is usually a package of support – for example: multiple grants; particularly large investments; grants and additional funding plus activity (capacity building, networking, influencing activity) – within a defined place.”

I also like this description from US blogger Janis Foster Richardson: “A place-based funder has an intimate tie to a particular place that you can find on a map, and is focusing their work in that place with the people who live there …They may work on one problem or issue at a time, but do so with respect for local history and culture, a commitment to identifying and mobilising local assets, and an interest in building local capacity to weather the next storm.” which tries to get to the difference between a geographic limit and an approach that is deeply focused on place.

Being ‘place-based’ sounds like a good and necessary thing: a way to get funding into areas where there are no organisations ready and able to seek grants; to provide a narrow focus so that in depth work can be done in a defined area; to listen to, involve and build relationships with local people. It’s emphasis on collaboration certainly acknowledges the messiness of real life and how social change comes through different people and forces interacting rather than one organisation competing with another for funding.

Whilst I like the ethos behind it, I am still wrestling with a few questions:

How is seeking to assist people in a place, any different from supporting a community? Is ‘place-based’ just another way of describing good old community development, which seems to have fallen out of favour?

Does it only apply to urban areas where boundaries are easily defined and people more readily gathered together? And if it does include rural areas, how big does a place become: the whole of Wiltshire or Scotland?

If everyone becomes a ‘place-based funder’, then what happens to communities of interest? And who will help the various ‘places’ to connect up to bring about systemic and social change when it is needed at a regional or national level?

What happens to these ‘places’ when the next trend comes along? I don’t wish to be cynical but I am old enough to have seen a few swings of the pendulum from local to central, universal to targeted and back again. How long will place-based funders stay in one place? When will things be sufficiently better to move to the next place? And will there be a lasting legacy when they do move on?

http://www.janisfoster.com/2009/08/wanting-more-from-place-based.html

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