One of the consequences of cuts in statutory funding has been increased competition for grants from trusts and foundations.  This means that funders can chose to only fund the best: the charities that can already demonstrate a successful track record, prove their impact, are financially sound with robust management in place. Funding the highest quality is a good thing but it can also mean adopting a safe strategy. How do funders still take risks when they are spoiled for choice?

At Quartet Community Foundation’s recent annual philanthropy debate, the question posed was: This house believes it is more difficult to give money away intelligently than to earn it in the first place. As someone who earns my living advising donors which charities to invest in, I had a foot in both camps. It is hard to make a living as a philanthropy advisor in the UK. But the very reason I do get paid to do my job is it is not easy to give to charity, if you want to do it well.

I am often involved in introducing business people to their local charities or the charity sector as a whole. I am always amazed by the persistent myths that people hold about charities: that they are amateur, inefficient, homespun or well-meaning and worthy. A term that is often used – especially when the arts are involved - is ‘fluffy’. Calling charities ‘fluffy’ does them a gross disservice. 

The launch of the Grants for Good Campaign brings a welcome focus on grants as a valuable funding mechanism.

For those making donations, giving to a local charity makes a lot of sense. You are likely to understand the issues and see the results of their work. You can visit the charity and so can better trust that your donation makes a difference. Your donation is also more likely to have a bigger impact as local charities tend to be smaller - £500 is a huge windfall for a charity running on £50k per year.

Every Christmas a group of my friends pick a charity to support instead of giving each other presents. And because it is my job to assess charities, they ask me which one I would recommend. Many people do this, but most won’t have a philanthropy advisor to help.

Running a charity is hard. I take my hat off to all those non-profit founders who bring their vision, energy and drive to create social change. However, when assessing charities and deciding which ones to fund, the term ‘founder’s syndrome’ often comes up.

In a previous blog, I wrote about the ‘what’ and the ‘why’. But when attending New Philanthropy Capital’s NPC Ignites conference last week (link below), I was really struck by the discussions that related to the importance of ‘how’.

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.

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: Only pick blackberries above the height that the tallest dog can pee; 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.

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.

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.