Friday 24 July 2015

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.




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

Thursday 16 July 2015

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

Thursday 9 July 2015

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.


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

Friday 3 July 2015

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