The great grant revival?

The way we use words reflects changes in ethos and practice. Recently it has seemed that grants were under attack as the word ‘grant’ diminished in use. Grant maker Comic Relief now describes itself as a ‘creative agency for social change’; grant officers are now ‘Relationship Managers’ at the Arts Council; and grant recipients are often called partners.

Grants themselves seem to have lost favour. In 2016, the Directory of Social Change launched its Grants for Good campaign in response to a fall in UK government grants (down by more than £3.8bn over the previous decade). Participants in a recent training session I ran were easily able to come up with a long list of negatives associated with grants including fluffy, inflexible and lacking rigour. And talk of loans, contracts, commissioning and social impact investments is much more prevalent.

Some of this change could be a good thing. If the use of ‘investing’ and ‘partners’ signals a change in the unequal power relationships between those with funds and those seeking them then these new words are welcome. But the loss of actual grants would have a huge impact on the voluntary and charitable sector – in 2015/16 UK grant makers provided £6.5 billion in grants and the voluntary sector received £3.3bn in grants from government and a similar amount from voluntary organisations.

So, I am heartened that the latest Civil Society strategy might herald a new revival in the value of grants. The strategy states: “The government also wishes to broaden the range of funding options for community initiatives. This includes a revival of grant-making: grants can combine flexibility with the accountability and performance rigour of a contract, as well as bringing additional benefits, such as charitable investment.”

As someone who has worked with grants for many years, I have seen grants used to fund everything from a winter coat to landmark buildings as well as countless pilots, projects, campaigns, and research. I hope it is time for grants to gain more recognition for the good value and flexible tool that they are.

https://data.ncvo.org.uk/a/almanac18/grant-making-2015-16/

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-society-strategy-building-a-future-that-works-for-everyone

What is your trust appetite?

Grant giving is not just a transfer of funds or a process, but an expression of trust. This week I had the gratifying task of notifying successful applicants that they had been awarded a grant. One response that came back included the phrase: “thank you for trusting in us”. Awarding a grant is trusting that the organisation supported will do what they said they would with the money and will do their best to achieve what they are setting out to do.

Donors are not naïve when it comes to allocating precious resources. They too want to achieve their social purpose and may well be accountable to regulators, or their family or the community (depending on their structure). They take steps to make sure the organisations they invest in are operating safely and are likely to be effective. They consider the risks: is the organisation stable? what if the project fails? And they put in place monitoring and reporting to see if all is going to plan.

Whilst it is right to pay attention to the risks and to measure impact, I find that very little attention is paid to the other side of the coin: trust. There are risk registers and impact frameworks and benchmarking exercises but the appetite for trust is rarely discussed or made explicit.

Trust matters at a practice level. In a recent training session I delivered, we looked at which documents foundations requested as part of the due diligence checks. This exercise is a balance of the risks and your level of trust. When is it OK to ask if the organisation has a particular policy? When do you want to see a copy? When do you take steps to determine how the policy is applied in practice? In designing this step in the grant making process, how far do you go in interrogating the information provided and how much can you take what the applicant says on trust?

Trust also matters at the strategic level. In their recent blog for GrantCraft, the Durfee Foundation gives an example of their ‘what if?’ approach where they placed trust “in community leaders to find their own solutions” rather than prescribing particular outcomes. Philanthropist Ise Bosch puts it really well in her article for Alliance magazine: “it seems to me we have gone overboard in overemphasising impact measurement. We’ve neglected the force of trust. We now have some quantitative data from ten years of working on the basis of trust as opposed to control. We’ve seen how it adds value to the money we’re giving … Of course I want impact, but that impact grows by being less controlling.”

Trust already underpins the relationship between the funder and funded and so will shape every aspect of your approach. It is time to make it explicit. So next time you are reviewing your giving strategy, why not make it clear where you stand on trust and ensure your practice matches your values.

Podcasts for Philanthropists

I love listening to podcasts – they are an intimate medium, you can listen when you want to, they are often advert-free and they offer a length and depth of experience that can fully absorb you on an otherwise boring commute. So, I am not surprised that podcasts are on the rise. A 2017 Radio Joint Audience Research (RAJAR) survey found that 24% of people in the UK had listened to a podcast in the past month and on average podcast listeners spent 3.6 hours a week listening to podcasts. 51% of respondents said they listened to podcasts because they found them interesting, while 26% tuned in to “learn something new.” BBC Radio 4 and TED Talks were the most common sources for podcasts.

So which podcasts might be good for a philanthropist or philanthropy professional to listen to? These are my current favourites:

Giving Thought Podcast

This is definitely one for philanthropy geeks like me. Presented by Rhodri Davies of CAF’s Think Tank this podcast has been running since 2017 with a real focus on the big issues and current debates in philanthropy. Recent episodes have covered philanthropy and religion, cryptophilanthropy and transparency.

Good Charity Bad Charity

New in 2018, this podcast is aimed at the charity sector. The presenters are Keith Davis, Camilla McGibbon and David Prest. I like the fact that the episodes are a manageable 30 minutes and they have secured some good interviewees like Sue Tibballs of the Sheila McKechnie Foundation and the new Charity Commission CEO, Helen Stephenson.

The World Service: The Documentary

This podcast takes us global and has an amazing range of subjects from assisted reproduction to the zika virus via conflict comedy. Recent episodes have covered philanthropy in Africa. They are usually around 30 minutes and you definitely feel more informed after each one, and they can certainly break you out of your echo chamber.

Ways to Change the World

From Krishnan Guru Murthy of Channel 4 news this podcast has good, long interviews with politicians, artists and academics. Richard Curtis recently did an episode on the future of charity and I really enjoyed the interview with Jameela Jamil.

There are many others to mention:

Charity Chat – to give you an idea of issues exercising charities in the UK such as volunteering, storytelling, safeguarding.

Tiny Spark – an American investigative podcast which was recently acquired by the Nonprofit Quarterly. These are often quite challenging such as the current episode “How nonprofits made the LGBT movement straight”

The Life You Can Save – one for effective altruists. Recent episodes include “Is Giving Cash better?”

Alliance audio – Alliance magazine has a podcast. There have only been six episodes so far but might be one to watch. The current podcast is “Fake news: what should philanthropy be doing about it?”

Social Good Podcast – this one is presented by Rhys Morgan and has interviews with mainly UK-based folk doing social good.

And last but not least, the Stanford Social Innovation Review Podcast has a ‘philanthropy and funding’ strand with some good podcasts covering philanthropy and democracy, justice and lots on impact.

Do you know of others? Please add them in the comment list or share which of these you like best.

https://www.emarketer.com/Article/Number-of-Podcast-Listeners-UK-Keeps-Inching-Up/1016292

https://radiotoday.co.uk/2018/03/podcast-research-shows-new-listener-numbers/

Read the funding guidelines: why you don't and why you should

Ask any funder their top reason for turning down an application and they will say “because the applicant did not read the guidance”. This has sadly been the case for the many years I have been involved in grant making, despite all the training sessions and guides out there for fundraisers. Which begs the question: why don’t people read the guidance? Or if they do read it, why do they go ahead and apply anyway even though they don’t fit with the criteria.

These are the seven reasons I have come up with. They fall into three categories: one is excusable once; three are operational and the final three relate to a mindset.

1.       Not found

People don’t always know to look for any guidance. If someone is new to bid writing, then this is fair enough. Hopefully this will be pointed out to them early on and then there is no excuse for making this mistake twice.

2.       Unclear

People can struggle with reading and so it is up to funders to help with this – after all they are trying to fund work that achieves social change not testing literacy. The guidance is not always clear or consistent and can be jargon-rich. Some funders help by being available to talk to potential applicants or using films and webinars to explain their criteria and funding process.

3.       Too tedious

Reading lists of we do fund … and we don’t fund … do not make for riveting reading. WikiHow has a whole list of ways to tackle boring books. And whilst I find their line “think of getting through a boring book as training for life” an incredibly depressing thought, the suggestions they have to take breaks, read away from interruptions, when most awake etc are all useful.

4.       Too time consuming

Of course, everyone is busy and finding time to read is hard. But this is a classic case of spend time now to save it later. You will save yourself an awful lot of wasted effort if you find out that you are not eligible and there is no point applying.

5.       Disregarded

Treating applications as the end goal can be perpetuated by actual targets set for fundraisers for applications made. Or it can come from the sense that the Trustees and others will judge you if you have not populated a pipeline with many bids. The focus should always be on being effective – so your applications have a good chance of success – and not just volume.

6.       Overlooked

The complacency effect happens where you think you know the guidance already or that you were funded before so must still fit. This can be a mistake where criteria and priorities have changed.

7.       Ignored

Fundraisers are usually wonderfully optimistic and resilient souls and so hope sometimes wins over judgment. There is a danger of putting in a speculative application just in case it might be considered. And in other cases, passion clouds reality. Because the bid writer is so excited about their work and the difference it makes, they assume that funders will be equally blown away and will make an exception. If you think this applies to you, try a phone call – but only after you’ve read the guidance.

Whatever the reason, the advice remains the same. Before spending time on writing a bid, you must read the guidance. And if you don’t fit with the criteria, don’t just go ahead and apply anyway. Put your precious time into another application, where you have a much better chance of being funded.

Funders: are you being proportionate?

As Mandy Johnson from Small Charities Coalition put well in her recent blog, a small charity leader is responsible for everything from strategy to sandwiches. This resonates with me, now that I’m to leading a small grant making trust. On my limited hours I need to switch from signing off a fence repair to writing the annual report and need to be absolutely sure that where I place my time and effort is proportionate to the value of that work.

Being proportionate is also a guiding principle for all the approaches, policies and systems that small charities need to put in place. We have the same list as any larger charity but our response to risk, data protection, financial reporting, performance management, planning etc. also needs to be proportionate to our size and capacity.

Being proportionate should also be a guiding principle for funders. The application, assessment and reporting processes should all be mindful of the effort spent by the applicant and grant holder. The Directory of Social Change calculated that ineligible applications made to the largest trusts in 2010 equated to seven years of wasted effort. And according to CEP’s 2013 survey, the average non-profit had spent more than 15 hours on reporting requirements for a single grant. A funder should be interested in investing in the work and social change being delivered and not the time spent filling in forms. But the lack of external challenge and accountability means it is easy for funders to place taxing and time-consuming requirements on those seeking their funds.

It is up to funders to hold themselves to account and ensure they don’t demand more time and effort spent on their processes than is absolutely necessary. So, when designing or reviewing processes, it is important to keep the size of organisations and the size of your grants in mind. And if you are still not sure if your requests are in line with the funding on offer, you can ask. Most applicant organisations and grant recipients will be able to tell you how long things took and whether or not the funds were worth the effort.

Photo credit: Boe and Irony, Bristol Upfest 2017

Is philanthropy safe from impact investment?

Different funding models rise and fall in popularity and right now it is impact investment that is riding the crest of the wave. A quick look at #impinv will connect you with any number of events, articles and organisations. Here in the UK, Aberdeen Standard Investments and Barclays are the latest to launch new impact investment funds.

Social investment is also known as program-related investing, mission-related investing, socially responsible investing and now most often as social impact or just impact investing. Impact investments are designed to achieve a measurable social or environmental return and a financial return. Since its emergence in the 1980s, impact investing has grown. The latest statistics for the UK market show social investment was worth at least £1,950 million at the end of 2016, a 30% increase from the end of 2015. The Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN) estimates the global market at $114 billion. 

But just how welcome is the rise in impact investing? It all depends where you are standing. If it is diverting funds from non-impactful, anti-social, unethical investing then it is definitely a good thing. But if it is moving funds away from equivalent donations then it is less appealing. Whilst there are social good projects that lend themselves to an investment model such as housing projects or charities supporting people into jobs, there are countless small ventures with no likelihood of being able to generate a financial return. Philanthropy and grant funding will continue to be the life blood of these projects e.g. foodbanks and campaigns to tackle injustice. These not-for-profits often have no assets and operate a lean financial model with no ability to repay loans.

I recently interviewed Sally Briton of Investing for Good for the University of Kent. She explained the difference between philanthropy and impact investing clearly: philanthropy is what you do with your spare money and impact investing is how you make your existing money work harder. Just as you make purchasing decisions to buy local, go with a green electricity provider, or work for a values-driven company, so you look for an ethical dimension for your investments.

With younger wealthy people attracted to impact investing instead of philanthropy, is there a danger that funds will be diverted from gifts and grants? A number of trusts and foundations e.g. Esmee Fairbairn Foundation have already added social investment to their funding methods. In his book, ‘How philanthropy is changing in Europe’, Christopher Carnie quotes Wolfgang Hafenmayer of the European Venture Philanthropy Association: “If the bulk of investments were to shift toward impact investing then the logical conclusion would be that the field of philanthropy could become much smaller. In theory there should then be no need for philanthropy."

I would like to see a blended model becoming the norm: trusts and foundations investing their endowments in socially impactful ways that align with their mission and spending their income on grants; And impact investors including donations within their portfolios. I don’t want to see impact investing’s growth to be at philanthropy’s detriment and there is no reason why it should be. They complement each other well and I was pleased to read in the recent Investing for Global Impact 2018 report that so far the increase in impact investing has not been at the expense of philanthropy.

Despite the hype, impact investments really are still just a drop in the ocean when compared to non-impact investment, for example, $73 trillion is invested in all the stock markets combined and there are $544 trillion in derivatives.  So, before we talk about the reduction in philanthropy, let’s first focus on transforming mainstream investing into impact investments.

https://www.bigsocietycapital.com/home/about-us/size-social-investment-market

https://www.euromoney.com/article/b18j98ngjq4f0h/impact-investment-small-is-beautiful?copyrightInfo=true
 

https://www.gistltd.com/investing-for-global-impact-survey

Where does charity begin: Home or Away?

Every year the Bristol-based Quartet Community Foundation hosts its annual philanthropy debate. This year the question posed was: Does Charity Begin at Home? which was interpreted as giving in the UK vs overseas. There are good arguments on both sides: on the one hand, the need in developing countries is greater and the value of our money there can save lives; and on the other, there is a need to learn and be generous at home before you can extend that generosity to others. Of course, there is a lot to be said for doing both and in fact the original quote (attributed to a 17th century, English clergyman Thomas Fuller) is ‘Charity begins at home, but should not end there’.

What I noticed when listening to the arguments was that both sides drew upon fundamental drivers of philanthropy: connection and knowledge. Those arguing for giving in Africa or India did not argue the effective altruistic position of ‘most lives saved’ but instead talked about their travels or family connections to another country. They shared their experiences of witnessing poverty and being moved to help.  Their philanthropy started from a sense of connection with those who are less fortunate. Those arguing for local giving talked about their connection with the city of Bristol and how everyone should share its wealth.

This sense of connection is also linked to knowledge. It is difficult to give effectively to something you don’t know about. So, the speakers talked of giving to communities they had relationships with, even if they were geographically far away. There is a criticism of philanthropy that, because philanthropists give to what they know, heir giving does not always go to where the need is. For example, some areas such as higher education and the arts are served well by donors who have benefited from and appreciate these sectors. Whereas other ‘unpopular’ areas such as supporting offenders can struggle to secure funds. This debate highlights the need for donors to travel and experience the world outside of their comfortable sphere.

And finally, what struck me was that complexity can be lost over distance. Tackling homelessness in Bristol was understood to be difficult: there are different players, and the causes and solutions are inter-woven with a whole range of factors from poverty to government policies. Whereas giving overseas was described as a simple transaction to address basic needs. Things can look simple from a distance - that all people lack is money. Is this true? Or does giving at a distance mean we are not so well informed about those complexities on the ground?

Whether giving at home or in other countries, we always need a connection that motivates us to be philanthropic. And to ensure we are making the most of our money, we need to make sure we are knowledgeable about the issues or have chosen partners with proven experience.

Cheques: old-school, but still effective

‘Just writing a cheque’ has become a disparaging remark in philanthropy. Terms like ‘beyond chequebook philanthropy’ are used to describe more strategic and involved forms of giving. The assumption is that writing a cheque is a thought-free act. But giving money as a one-off donation does not necessarily mean that the donor has not thought long and hard about their gift. In fact, they may have come to the very thoughtful decision that: they don’t want to set up a separate trust or fund; that they do not have the time to be actively engaged, and instead, are following a careful plan of significant donations.

The other factor in this situation is that a cheque can be exactly what is needed. A recent survey demonstrated that unrestricted funds are exactly what charities want. It means they can direct the money to wherever it is needed most – often core salaries – and it frees them from detailed reporting and having to negotiate with a funder every time things change. Cheque recipients will still want to thank the donor and inform them of the difference they have made with the money, but it is more an exchange than a contract.

Recently, I have met with a couple of charities who have received significant anonymous sums by cheque. And they certainly did not describe it as ‘just a cheque’. The money was needed and much appreciated and the cheque provided other benefits. It gave a boost to the staff – that someone had valued their work so much that they had written a cheque. And it also, like any donation, saved the time needed to fundraise and took some immediate pressure off the fundraising team.

Philanthropy comes in many forms. The humble cheque may not get as much press as donating bitcoins or impact investing but it is still a welcome member of the fold. The physical cheque itself is disappearing as a payment method, but we still use over 500 million cheques a year in the UK.  Imagine if they all went to charity …

http://www.bmmagazine.co.uk/in-business/united-kingdoms-continuing-love-affair-cheques/

How to assess culture

The purpose of grant assessments is to determine the quality and eligibility of a proposal. It is these judgments that help a funder decide how best to allocate their resources. Reviewing the application form and supporting documents such as annual accounts, business plans and policies, gives an assessor one picture of the organisation. Phone calls or visits can then explore what is being put into practice, because, for example, it is one thing to have a safeguarding policy, and quite another to explain how it is applied on the ground. On top of this, some of the other cultural factors like ethos and values are harder to assess. But if, as they say, “culture eats strategy for breakfast” then it is worth assessing culture as an important factor of a successful organisation. So how do we assess this?

There are some helpful approaches on hand:

1.  The Governance Institute, icsa, produced a report in May 2017: Cultural Markets: assessing, measuring and improving culture in the charitable sector. It identifies a number of behaviours and characteristics indicating a poor culture including:

·         Staff turnover

·         Whistleblowing incidents

·         Board attendance

·         A dominant leader

And suggests questions to ask such as:

·         How frequently is organisational culture discussed as part of the formal board agenda?

·         Is there an agreed code of conduct in place that helps to build the desired culture of the organisation?

·         How are incidents of inappropriate behaviours recorded, monitored and dealt with?

It is a useful resource for both assessors and organisations.

2.  There are commercial products available such as the Cultural Values Assessment Tool from Barrett Values Centre. This provides a diagnostic tool to determine an organisation’s culture. Interestingly, it includes a measure of cultural entropy, which is the amount of energy in a group that is consumed in unproductive work. This should be of interest to any Board looking to maximise precious resources. The tool involves a staff survey, so it is not something a funder can do, but it would be worth asking the charity if they have used this or similar tools.

3.  There is also the idea of taking a ‘Culture Walk’. This is a way to look at your organisation afresh and notice cultural signs. Although I do not use this specific name for it, this is something that assessors frequently do on site visits. It is not dissimilar to the sort of thing we all do when choosing a school or a flat and want to get a feel for a place. In a charity visit, it includes noticing:

·         How much space is given to whom?

·         What is posted on bulletin boards and walls?

·         How are common areas used?

And I would add: how are you welcomed into the building? Is the signage clear? How is any signing-in procedure handled?

There is always a debate about how much grant assessing is, or should be, an art or a science. Judgments are always being made about an organisation’s culture. Making these a more explicit part of the assessment process should help ensure that any judgments are open and fair.

Emma will be delivering training in grant assessment for ACF on 21st March, 25th September and 13th December 2018. More details here. 

Reflections on relationship funding

After six years in the role, I am about to finish being a Grant Manager with Lloyds Bank Foundation. On reflection, the most significant shift over this period has been from being a more traditional ‘assess and monitor’ funder to a ‘relationship’ funder. This means I have more time to meet, visit and listen to the charities we fund and also get to see their work in action and meet with those they support.

There are several benefits of taking a relationship approach:

• I have a better and deeper understanding of the work we fund, and the context grant holders are working within. This means I can be more helpful in connecting them with peers and other sources of help. It also informs my decision-making.
• The quality of reporting has improved as grant holders realise that I read and act on the information in their reports.
• I am notified earlier of any issues affecting delivery e.g. staff changes and can then work with the charity through these, rather than finding out long after the event and spending time dealing with issues of non-compliance. 

But as more funders are moving to this relationship model, I do have some questions.

Firstly, there is the name. I don’t like ‘relationship’ in this context. I don’t think I would apply for a job as a ‘Relationship Manager’. I am not sure what it means? When would I not have a ‘relationship’ with those I work with?

Then there is the power dynamic. Having a closer relationship with those you fund might have benefits for me, but what about the grant holder? Every time I phone up or visit, it takes up their precious time. And the funder has to allocate resources to spend this time. I like to think I add value, but would the grant holder benefit more from the additional funding that is now being spent on relationship management?

And there is the thorny challenge of how you judge performance. If it is my job to manage relationships, how do you know whether I am being effective? The amount of contact is not a reliable measure, as I could spend a lot of time nurturing a poor relationship and need to spend hardly any time where the relationship is already strong. The quality and value of the relationship is the important consideration, but how reliably can that be measured?  Especially if it relies on the grant holder giving honest feedback to their funder? I have found lots of articles and tools about businesses assessing their relationships with customers and some about non-profits rating their relationships with funders and donors, but nothing the other way around.

As a Grant Manager, the opportunity to build relationships with those seeking and receiving funding has been rewarding. As I now move on, I look forward to building more and stronger relationships.