Philanthropy insights
Explore my articles and perspectives about philanthropy and giving.
The power of small
Philanthropy’s obsession with size can miss small-scale solutions and prevent people from stepping up to tackle complex problems.
Philanthropy seems to have an obsession with size. The attention goes to the billionaires, the largest donations, the major donors. Big bet philanthropy and moonshot philanthropy seek to shift the dial on a social issue – eradicating or addressing something for good. Philanthropists talk about having a lasting impact at scale. This fits with the model that entrepreneurs follow – business success is when your new product or service is adopted world-wide. The size of the current global problems – climate change, social inequality – demand big, bold answers.
One problem with this focus is that it devalues small-scale solutions. Certainly for some things – a Covid-19 vaccine for example – a global roll out is exactly what is needed. But the success of other approaches can be due to the fact that that they are small, rooted in local knowledge and relationships. Despite this, I find it notable that some funding criteria include ‘scaling up’ when this may not always be feasible or even appropriate. In some cases it may even undermine success. The good news is that there is a counter-narrative that is gaining strength. One of the silver linings of Covid-19 was an awareness of the importance of neighbourliness and small acts of kindness. A whole range of community projects from providing food parcels and phone calls to the isolated demonstrated the value of small on-the-ground initiatives that are driven and trusted by local people.
Another problem with the focus on ‘big’ is that it can make it feel that social change is beyond the reach of smaller philanthropists. The problems seem too large for them to be able to make a difference. This can cause paralysis and stop people from starting on a philanthropic journey or attempting to tackle more complex issues.
One way for philanthropists to counter the inadequacy and overwhelm in the face of big, is to combine small efforts in collective action – whether funder collaboratives, giving circles or backing social movements. Another way is to fund what is working because it is small – recognising that small scale does not automatically mean small impact. One example, Blue Ventures, shows the power of a local approach. Its Executive Director, Alasdair Harris’s TED talk is an inspiring tale of how changing the practice of small fishing communities one by one has had a positive impact on the seemingly intractable problem of overfishing.
To effect the change we want to see we must value human-level change rather than always chasing the economies of scale. Funding should sustain what works locally instead of always focusing on growth. Philanthropists can of course have a role in supporting the dissemination of effective small-scale solutions with others who could replicate them or embed them in policy. We should not make people feel excluded or disempowered because they are not engaged in ‘big’ philanthropy. As Desmond Tutu put it "Do your little bit of good where you are; it’s those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world."
Philanthropy Predictions 2021 – incremental change or revolution?
A review of the predictions for 2021 suggests there are two paths ahead for philanthropy: incremental change or revolution.
Given that the Covid-19 pandemic came unexpectedly in 2020, it is a brave soul who made predictions for philanthropy in 2021. In fact Rhodri Davies of CAF starts his podcast with his trends for 2021 with a pitch for ‘alien contact’ as his suitably unlikely equivalent to 2020’s global pandemic. My review of the output from the individuals and organisations that did take on this challenge, suggests that we have two paths ahead: either incremental change or revolution. Both are building on the changes and trends seen in recent years that I have commented on previously (see links below). Whilst the topics are not new, there does seem to be an increase in the appetite for change. For example, where I might usually note a few hundred people attending most webinars on philanthropy, the recent #PhilanthropySoWhite conversation had over 6,000 people registering to join.
Incremental Change
On the incremental side, the trends I want to highlight are:
An increase in giving (and impact investing). This includes more funds moving out of DAFs as championed by the #HalfMyDAF campaign and is predicted to happen despite the impending financial difficulties.
More funds to the environment and climate crisis. This trend has not been set back by Covid-19. Instead the rise in awareness of the intersectionality of climate justice with social and racial justice seems to have kept up the momentum.
Changed funding practices e.g. more unrestricted funds. IVAR and London Funders have launched #FlexibleFunders asking UK funders to sign up to its eight commitments including to make decisions as quickly as possible and to give feedback.
These add up to more philanthropic funds and welcome changes. The environment has historically attracted less funds. Changes in funding practice have long been requested by fund seekers. However, these incremental changes can still be viewed as comfortable. There is a strong argument that the current situation (biosphere, societal and technology stressors combining in a global polycrisis) demands discomfort. It needs philanthropy to think not just about how it gives but how it comes to be in the privileged position to give. Darren Walker of Ford Foundation puts it this way “Moving from generosity to justice requires the philanthropist to get uncomfortable ... It requires philanthropy to interrogate some of the very systems and structures that produce our advantage.”
Revolution
Predictions of more fundamental change include the following:
More trust-based, participatory and collective approaches. These alternatives to top-down strategies seek to shift the power inherent in philanthropy and place those affected closer to the decisions made on allocating funds.
More funds to racial and social justice including social movements and advocacy. Women and girls, black people, indigenous communities and other marginalised groups are under-resourced and there have been many new efforts and funds to address this.
More spending down – as donors and Foundations take time-limited routes to address current, urgent needs. This is also driven by increases in ‘giving while living’ and being an engaged donor now instead of focusing on leaving a legacy.
Tackling structural issues both internally (e.g. increasing diversity and inclusion within funding bodies; examining sources of wealth and making reparations) and externally (e.g. funding root causes and systems-level change). The latter is partly behind the rise in collaboration as combined efforts are needed to change complex issues.
There are differing opinions and levels of confidence as to how much of this predicted change will stick. For example, in her Blueprint for 2021 Lucy Bernholz (Senior Research Scholar and Director of the Digital Civil Society Lab, which is part of Stanford University’s Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society) predicts that “the tide will pull back on foundation giving or pledges focused on racial equity, leaders of colors, and community expertise”. However, the new people and money coming into philanthropy – women and younger people – suggests to me that we are seeing the start of long-term change. As the report from the Dorothy A Johnson clearly states: “Philanthropy will not ‘return to normal’ after 2020. Because of the next gen, it will never be the same.”
My previous predictions:
http://www.emmabeeston.co.uk/insight/2020/7/27/key-trends-in-grant-making
https://www.optimy.com/blog/emma-beeston-upcoming-philanthropy-trends-2019/
Recommended reading/listening:
Dorothy A Johnson Centre: 11 Trends in Philanthropy for 2021
Rhodri Davies – Giving Though Podcast
Lucy Bernholz – Blueprint 2021
https://pacscenter.stanford.edu/publication/philanthropy-and-digital-civil-society-blueprint-2021/
Philanthropy's Silent Minutes
What can philanthropy learn from the Silent Minute movement?
Over the festive break I learned about Bristol resident Wellesley Tudor Pole. He is quite a character and it is well worth reading about his wider interests (see link below). What struck me most is that in 1940 he started the Silent Minute movement. Backed by King George VI and Winston Churchill and the chimes of Big Ben, the Silent Minute was a ‘spiritual weapon’ in which people made a collective prayer or wish for peace daily at 9 p.m. The idea was that this combined and focused act of goodwill could help end the war. The practice and the movement had a resurgence following 9/11 and continues to date.
How does this relate to philanthropy?
There is a quote from Margaret Thatcher which says: “No one would remember the Good Samaritan if he’d only had good intentions; he had money as well.” Whilst it is true that what non-profits need most right now is funding, in philanthropy it is not just what you give but how you give that also matters. Having a clear intention to create social change is important. It is this intention that keeps philanthropists giving. It is manifest in the public pledges like the Giving Pledge or Funder Commitment on Climate Change where funders and philanthropists signal their good intentions for others to see.
There is more to any philanthropic exchange than a financial transaction. Fundraisers and their organisations often mention that a donation is a welcome source of funds and also a boost to morale. A gift is also a vote of confidence and a belief in their work. Donors also get a ‘warm glow’ from the transaction, which helps keep them giving. Giving done well is about trust, mutual respect, partnership – all intangibles that make philanthropy about more than money.
There is space for all those involved in giving to spend a silent minute before making each gift or at the start of a grants panel. It can be used to remember what it is intended any grant or donation will achieve. And it can pass on goodwill to the recipients and those they support. Like the Silent Minute, philanthropy is also a collective expression of goodwill.
The brighter side of 2020
To end the year, here are the top seven reasons why I am cheerful heading into 2021
It doesn’t really need repeating, but 2020 has been quite a year. My heart goes out to everyone who has experienced loss, illness and the overwhelming sadness of not being able to touch and see those they love. And I have huge admiration for all the countless volunteers, community groups, and charity leaders who have been maintaining vital services against the odds.
There are more challenges ahead – uncertainty, the loss of funds, and rising demands to name some. But I wanted my last blog of the year to focus on the positives. One of the most significant, was highlighted in a recent conversation I had with a charity leader. They explained how they don’t accept funding from donors who do not share their values or whose focus is too narrow to embrace the community-wide nature of their work. They are seeking partners who will fund their work over the long-term and join them on a journey of learning and development as equals. That is a refreshing and welcome confidence. It’s a conversation I would never have had when I started out in grant making 20 years ago. After many years of talking about the power shifts needed in philanthropy, this year has seen the needle actually move.
So to end the year, here are the top seven reasons why I am cheerful heading into 2021:
Giving is up – CAF’s latest Giving Report found that between January and June 2020, the public donated a total of £5.4 billion to charity – an increase of £800 million compared to the same period in 2019. My anecdotal experience is that new people have been motivated to give and others have increased their giving.
Grants show their worth – Grants are a relatively quick and easy way of channelling funds to where they are needed. After years in the shadow of ‘more exciting’ areas such as impact investing, crowdfunding, social impact bonds and loans, grants have demonstrated their value as a flexible and low cost funding mechanism.
Unrestricted funding is here to stay – Charitable organisations have been rightly banging the drum for long-term, core funding with as few restrictions as possible for many years. The genie is out of the bottle as funders such as Power to Change, and Julia and Hans Rausing Trust, join the ranks of grant-makers providing unrestricted funds.
Processes are being streamlined – There’s lots of speculation about what will stick from this year’s changed practices (such as faster decisions). Expect to see improvements as funders review their processes. For example, the Robertson Trust will no longer ask grant holders what outcomes they want to achieve nor ask them to measure those outcomes at the end of their grant period.
“We trust them to know the needs of their communities, to spend their grant wisely and to do a good job.” - Hazel Robertson, The Robertson Trust
More collaboration – The funders pledge, the National Emergencies Trust and a shared application portal for London funders are all examples of collaboration that emerged in response to Covid-19. Further recognition of the links between climate change, racial and social justice and the scale of the world’s problems, means more funders are looking to combine forces. For example, ACF has recently launched its Funders’ Collaborative Hub.
Racial justice is being taken seriously – New funds include the Baobab Foundation and the Racial Justice Fund. Other funders are making public statements and ring-fencing money to better support black and ethnic minority communities such as Comic Relief’s funding for BAME- led organisations.
Trust is on the rise – Measured at 62%, global trust in charities across the world is at its highest level since 2012. Add to this the growing interest in trust-based philanthropy approaches and we have the foundations for even more welcome developments in shifting power in philanthropy next year.
I do hope all working in the social good and philanthropy sector have a well-earned rest this Christmas and I wish you all the best for a safe, connected, and prosperous New Year.
Trust statistic source: https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2020-05/2020%20Edelman%20Trust%20Barometer%20Spring%20Update%20Global%20Report.pdf
11 steps funders can take to reduce ineligible applications
Because everyone will benefit if we can increase the rate with which guidelines are read and followed and time wasted on ineligible applications is reduced, here are 11 practical steps that funders can take to increase the chance that fundraisers read and follow their guidelines.
When conducting grant assessments recently it has saddened me to read through significant numbers of applications that have not met the basic criteria and so have no chance of being funded. Not only will the organisation receive the bad news that they won’t get much needed funds, but they have also wasted precious time. This is a huge cost at a point when the sector is under the immense pressures of reduced funding and increased demand. Applicants not reading and following the grant guidelines has been a long-standing gripe for grant makers. It is the top reason applications fail and why funding websites and grant officers try hard to direct applicants to read the full guidance before applying.
It is easy to bemoan the fundraisers for being at fault in not reading and following guidelines. Perhaps we can think of them as lazy, inexperienced, over-confident or ‘taking a punt’. Whilst this may be true for a few individuals, it is a very unfair characterisation of the whole fundraising profession. Making it about fundraiser’s failings stops the funder from taking responsibility for their part in this process. Funders need to shift their mindset from blaming applicants to taking responsibility for their role and decide to take steps to improve.
Time wasted is impact lost
In ACF’s stronger foundations initiative one of the funding practice pillars is that a good funder “seeks to avoid causing harm”. So, the first step is for funders to acknowledge there is a problem with the harm that not following guidelines causes. The classic statistic on the wastefulness of the funding process comes from the Directory of Social Change’s survey which estimated that ineligible applications made to the largest UK trusts in 2010 equated to seven years of wasted effort. Another depressingly striking figure from a 2013 study found that scientists in Australia wasted the equivalent of four centuries of effort in preparing unsuccessful research-grant proposals for consideration by just one funding scheme in 2012. Peak Grantmaking’s report ‘Strategies for narrowing the power gap in philanthropy’ states “Time is money. In the nonprofit sector, time is also capacity. When you reduce the amount of time your grant-seekers and grantees spend applying for and reporting on grants, you build their capacity to do what they exist to do—make an impact.” Funders, who are committed to the sector and impact, therefore have a responsibility to act to minimise this harm.
Why don’t we read or follow guidelines?
In order to do this, it helps if funders understand what can go wrong when people are asked to follow instructions. Logically, we would expect this to be a simple task: read the text and then do what it says. So why do people fail to read the guidelines or, why do they go ahead with an application when they know they do not fit the criteria? Recent research from the University of North Carolina investigated a number of factors that influence our ability to follow instructions:
working memory – the amount of information provided can be greater than our capacity to hold it in our head, especially when stressed.
history effects – if people don’t receive feedback or consequences there is no incentive to change their approach.
self-regulation – if people are aware of their own behaviour and monitor their progress when carrying out a task, they take steps to ensure that they are keeping on track.
format – the ordering of instructions and whether they are written or verbal matters.
11 steps
Because everyone will benefit if we can increase the rate with which guidelines are read and followed and time wasted on ineligible applications is reduced, here are 11 practical steps that funders can take to increase the chance that fundraisers read and follow their guidelines:
1. Review criteria and guidelines
IVAR’s Duty to Care? report recommends that funders go systematically through their processes and question the purpose and value of everything. Looking at the guidelines with fresh eyes and asking why (e.g. why don’t we fund CICs, or minibuses?) is a good way of identifying anything that is not essential. Anything removed will help fundraisers spot and retain the key information, especially when they are under pressure and stressed.
2. Articulate clearly
Joel Orosz, Distinguished Professor of Philanthropic Studies at Johnson Center for Philanthropy, published the grant-seeker’s bill of rights in 2010. Number one is “the right to receive a clear statement of the foundation’s funding interests”. As is expected of fundraisers, the writing should be as concise and jargon-free as possible.
3. Be explicit
Funders can be reluctant to give up their flexibility and so can keep their guidelines ambiguous to allow for discretion. Every effort should be made by funders to resist this temptation as the consequence is speculative applications. Funders need to be as open as possible and convey all the factors taken into account when making funding decisions. For example, if asking for a ‘track record’, the funder should be explicit about how they interpret this e.g. at least one year working with the client group.
4. Pay attention to order
As the research above found, the ordering of the guidelines is important. Funders should put the key criteria first. These can be flagged in the same way that ‘essential’ and ‘desirable’ aspects are for job applicants so that it is clear that fundraisers should not bother applying if they don’t meet the essential list.
5. Use checklists
Checklists help with self-regulation – encouraging us to double check ourselves. They provide reassurance for less experienced fundraisers and serve as a useful reminder to experienced fundraisers who may be tempted to think they already know what is being asked for.
6. Add a verbal element
Listening requires less effort than reading. Providing instructions verbally can act as a quick way for a fundraiser to decide whether or not to invest their time in reading the full guidelines. Offering conversations with all applicants can be resource-heavy but a webinar or short film explaining what the funder is looking for is a good investment.
7. Give feedback
If fundraisers don’t know there is a negative consequence if they don’t read or follow guidelines, then how can they alter their practice? All funders should give feedback to all unsuccessful applicants and spell out when published criteria have been missed.
8. Publish success rates
People are more likely to follow the guidelines when they understand the consequences. Funders can make the consequences of not reading the guidelines clear by publishing application success rates and the number of ineligible applications received.
9. Involve applicants and grantees
Funders should regularly ask for, and act upon, feedback on their guidelines. Care should be taken to acknowledge the time spent by applicants to do this and the power dynamics that can get in the way of an honest exchange.
10. Do what they say
We are less likely to follow guidelines if we don’t think they will be applied. If fundraisers find out an organisation that was outside the published guidelines was awarded a grant, then it is worth their while ‘taking a punt’. Funders need to follow their own criteria and apply them consistently to ensure fairness.
11. Learn and improve
Funders need to review grant decisions against the guidelines to ensure the published information remains an accurate reflection of actual practice. Changes in success rates – especially ineligibility - can be monitored to track progress.
Spending Down: Going all in or Selling off the family silver?
So what strategy to choose – spending down or giving in perpetuity? As with so many philanthropic dilemmas the answer is … it depends.
When asked to name a philanthropist, Chuck Feeney’s name does not often come up. But the American billionaire who made his money from the duty free industry has been in the news for giving away his $8 billion fortune. He set out on this task in 1984 and through his Atlantic Philanthropies Foundation became the champion of ‘giving while living’ and a role model of what are called ‘spend down’ or ‘time-limited’ Foundations, where all funds are given away within a specified time-frame. (The alternative approach is when Foundations operate in perpetuity – with no end point - and the usual model is to create an endowment and then give away the return on the investment.)
There have been a few spend down Foundations in the UK such as the Tubney Trust (closed 2012) and the Peter Moores Foundation (closed 2014). It is an approach that is growing in popularity. Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors and Campden Wealth survey of 201 ultra-high-net-worth private and family philanthropists from 28 countries, found that 64% who use the spend down model adopted their time-limited approaches after 2000.
One of the key drivers in the rise of spend down funds is the desire to respond now to address urgent needs, with the aim that it prevents the situation getting worse in the future. In the current circumstances (with a global pandemic, Black Lives Matter and the climate emergency) there are calls for philanthropy to spend money now. As Ellen Friedman of the Compton Foundation put it in a recent interview: “If you're a foundation whose interests are world peace, climate change, gender justice, how can we choose perpetuity over action now?”
There are other benefits too. As Chuck Feeney himself said “you’ll get a lot more satisfaction than if you wait until you’re dead. Besides, it’s a lot more fun.” You can also have control over your giving strategy without leaving it to future generations or staff to try and interpret the wishes of a founding donor or a restrictive, out of date trust deed. Lastly, having an end date creates and maintains momentum and often leads to a clear focus on what can be achieved in the time available. It certainly guards against one criticism of perpetual Foundations that they are more interested in organisational survival and preserving their assets than on their mission.
The main criticism of time-limited giving is that it does not have sufficient time to bring about the needed system change. Peter Laugharn of the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation states “Part of the reason the global community finds itself in the midst of a pandemic and unable to provide even the basics of public health is because too many solution-seekers—including governments, multi-laterals, NGOs and philanthropists—go for what’s easiest to implement and measure, and then move on.” When it comes to health, and poverty, and climate change, there is a need to take a long view building knowledge, expertise and relationships with those on the front line. It is a strength of giving in perpetuity that philanthropists and Foundations are in it for the long haul and so are able to tackle intractable social problems.
Despite the rise in interest in giving while living, perpetual foundations are the most common model - with twice as many respondents in the Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors and Campden Wealth survey taking the in-perpetuity model (62%) than the time-limited one (32%). Those taking this long-term approach could argue that spending down is selling the family silver. It is inherently optimistic that change is possible within a short period, and that the future will be rosier than the present. Giving in perpetuity means believing the current situation is not as bad as it could get and so there is a need to keep money back to help in the future.
So what strategy to choose – spending down or giving in perpetuity? As with so many philanthropic dilemmas the answer is … it depends. Having a mixed philanthropic ecosystem with people and foundations working in short focussed bursts and over generations may be our best way of getting the most impact from philanthropic funds. The energy, focus and optimism of tackling one issue within 20 or so years can galvanise action, but it may miss having a lasting impact. Taking a long-term view to learn and build relationships could leave an important legacy for future generations, but it could also create inertia and giving could become an end in itself. What matters is making a deliberate and considered choice, and in the case of perpetual Foundations, to regularly review the strategic timescale. There is room for both approaches. It depends on ideas about time, legacy and the nature of problems, and, if we listen to Chuck Feeney, the importance of having fun.
Resources - referenced
The Billionaire Who Wasn’t – by Conor O’ Clery (page 382)
Photo credit
“Everything must go in firesale Britain." by practicalowl is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0
Bath Women’s Fund: reflections on our first year
Giving circles are a growing global movement. Here I reflect on the achievements of Bath Women’s Fund and what we have learned from our first year of operation.
Back in October 2018, the Bath Women’s Fund was launched. This is a giving circle that I co-founded together with Bath-based fundraising expert, Isobel Michael. Isobel had seen a giving circle in action when in Melbourne and I had lectured on them at the University of Kent so we both were inspired to create our own.
The giving circle model emerged in its modern form in America in 1990s. They come in different shapes and sizes but all share these five characteristics:
Individuals pool and collectively give away resources.
Circles provide a means for educating members about philanthropy, non-profits and local issues.
They offer ‘social with purpose’ opportunities for members.
They engage members in the grant process and sometimes in providing non-profits with other support such as advice or mentoring.
They do not support a single non-profit exclusively. Members choose a number of organisations that reflect their interests and priorities.
As a grant maker for many years, I have privileged access to charities and those working for social change. My main wish for our new giving circle was for more women to share in that knowledge and experience.
We started recruiting members in 2019 and are delighted to now have 42 pioneer members who put £25 per month (£20 + gift aid for most; some give more) into our collective fund. At our (inevitably online) Awards Evening in July we gave out our first ever grants: £10,000 to Mentoring Plus for their fabulous girls group and £1,000 each for Julian House and SARSAS (Somerset & Avon Rape and Sexual Abuse Support). And along the way we have brought women together to meet, share food and hear from local charity leaders including from the Nelson Trust, Voices, Bath City Farm, Southside Family Project, Women in Sport, and Bath City Football Club Foundation.
Here are my top reflections from our first full year …
1. We are right to be funding women and girls
All our funds are going into supporting women and girls. The Women’s Philanthropy Institute’s Women & Girls Index found that organisations dedicated to women and girls received just 1.6% of US charitable donations in 2016. Women and girls are adversely affected by the climate crisis and the pandemic and its consequences and so it is important for us to add our collective funds to help address this imbalance.
2. Keeping it all voluntary is challenging (and good)
We decided early on not to have paid staff as we did not want to compete with local charities in raising funds. This means everything we have achieved is with no budget – which can be tricky and slow things down at times. It does mean that all our members’ contributions go direct to local causes and it has opened us up to countless acts of generosity – St Johns Foundation supported our launch and web presence and manage the finances for us; we have been provided with free venues to meet in and our members bring food and drink to share to our potluck events.
3. We are in good company
Since we started, two more giving circles have started: Impact100 in London and the Cornwall Women’s Fund. It feels good to know we are part of a growing and global movement.
4. We are getting some things right
We wanted to bring women together, for them to learn, make a difference and have fun. The feedback from our members has been really encouraging:
“Bath Women’s Fund is that unique combination of raising awareness and making one feel engaged in the local community, whilst being great fun at the same time. Joining Bath Women’s Fund has also provided the social aspect of meeting wonderful Bath women of all ages and experience. It has been an incredibly welcoming group.”
Our members have been involved in voting on the theme of our giving, reviewing applications and mentoring the charity finalists. And the charities seeking funding appreciated this approach:
“The level of engagement we saw from members during the awards ceremony was brilliant. With some funding programmes I receive the impression that the funder is doing all they can to eliminate charities from the running to reduce the number of eligible applications, but with Bath Women’s Fund it very much felt as though you were rooting for us all the way.”
5. We still have things to learn
We still need to improve the diversity of our membership to make sure that we are truly including women from underrepresented backgrounds. We deliberately set our contribution rate lower than most giving circles to make taking part as accessible as we could. We are looking to develop a sponsorship scheme with companies supporting membership at reduced rates for their employees or members ‘paying it forward’ to enable other women to join. And we are reviewing our grant process to see if we can remove any steps to reduce the time spent by those applying for our funds.
I have always known that women coming together is a powerful force for good and this experience has only reinforced that. Our aim for the year ahead is for more women to get involved – we want to get to 100 and then we are on our way to a movement. With needs more pressing than ever – we would love to be giving out even more money next summer (ideally in person and with cake this time).
To join as a member: https://www.stjohnsbath.org.uk/bath-womens-fund/
To offer us support, venues, to talk about sponsoring places: info@bathwomensfund.org.uk
Key trends in grant making
This short (16 minute) film sets out the trends in grant making pre-, in response, and post-covid 19.
This short (16 minute) film sets out the trends in grant making pre-, in response, and post-covid 19:
https://youtu.be/qZpq9-e9v1I
Philanthropy & Imagination
Imaginiation is important in the everyday philanthropy practice of assessors and decision-makers and also when it comes to imagining the future of philanthropy and society as a whole.
Philanthropy is often discussed in terms of head versus heart. On the one side are evidence-based, metric-driven approaches to ensure money has the most impact. And on the other, the warm glow of doing good, giving back and trusting in those you support. The same polarities arise in the day-to-day practice of allocating philanthropy resources. In terms of being an assessor or someone making decisions on grants and donations, are you a neutral gatherer of facts, weighing these against criteria and deciding on the best-matched group to achieve your mission? Or, do you get to know the people involved to see if you believe they have the values and passion needed to achieve their goals?
As with many situations, a good response often combines both. Or, as author and philanthropy advisor, Paul Connolly wrote: “when joyful and passionate conviction converges with judicious and dispassionate analysis, a powerful creative energy emerges.” When assessing applications and making choices on which organisations to fund, you need to make as fair a decision as possible, weighing up the information found in proposals, websites, accounts, short films and conversations and judging this against criteria and priorities. This process involves using both your rational thought and your emotional conviction. And imagination also plays a crucial role.
Imagining the future of an organisation
Imagination is the ability of the mind to build mental scenes that do not exist in front of us. We use our imagination when making many types of decisions – for example, we might rent a flat because it is affordable and conveniently located, but also because we can ‘picture’ ourselves living there. The same is true of choosing a school or a care home or a new job. We tend to think of being imaginative as a creative process – for artists, writers and inventors. But even just reading words on a page creates images in our mind. This is as true of reading proposals and budgets as it is of novels. So, when reading an application or hearing a funding pitch, we use our imagination to think about the organisation’s future potential and to wonder if it has the capacity, experience and drive to deliver what is proposed. We also hold the more detailed steps of a plan of action in our minds and mentally test whether we can see it leading to the desired outcomes.
Imagining the future of those we seek to support
As well as its use in thinking about the future and results, imagination is also linked to empathy. Philanthropic decision-makers are not considering their own future experiences but are having to imagine on behalf of someone else who will benefit. When we do this, we have to remember that our imagination can be limited by our current knowledge and experience of the world. For example, ‘the empathy gap’ is a cognitive bias which means a person who is feeling relaxed and safe will often struggle to imagine the perspective of someone who is feeling threatened. I have been involved in a few grant panels where something is wrongly dismissed because it is not in the decision-makers experience. Comments like “I don’t think this will engage the young people” even when the solution has been co-designed with young people and the person commenting is much older. This is why diversity and lived experience is so important within the staff teams and decision-making structures of Foundations, and donors should always be listening to those with expertise and experience in their areas of interest. It is why processes need to go beyond an application form and draw on information from different sources: social media, films, visits and phone calls wherever possible to flesh out the story and challenge our assumptions.
Imagination for change
Imagination is not just important for the day-to-day practice of philanthropy. It is also an important tool for rethinking and rebuilding a better (different) future and philanthropy’s role in making that happen. As we emerge from the immediate effects of the pandemic, many thinkers and communities are looking to imagine a better world. There are calls for imagining a zero-carbon economy, decolonialised education, an equitable society. McKinsey’s recent report on how Foundations should respond to coronavirus was titled “Reimagining European philanthropy”. And we are starting to see new funding programmes calling for this imagination: the Art Funds latest funding programme offers “respond and reimagine grants” to help museums, galleries and cultural organisations with immediate challenges connected to the Covid-19 crisis, and offer support to adapt and reimagine ways of working for the future; the Lottery’s Emerging Futures Fund will fund projects that “activate and strengthen social imagination in communities so that the voices and ideas of local communities can contribute to the renewal of civil society”. All of us working in philanthropy need to use our heads and hearts and join in this collective act of imagination.
Safety First
As funders seek to respond to coronavirus, safeguarding should continue to be prioritised by both applicants and assessors. If anything, it is more important now than ever.
In response to the coronavirus pandemic, funders have stepped up: proactively contacting their existing grant holders; designing new funding streams and streamlining their processes to get money out of the door quickly. During the crisis, I have been spending some of my time conducting assessments for various emergency funding programmes. It has been a pleasure to be involved in this way and I have read some great applications. Many UK charities have been stepping up to help – embracing digital, creatively re-thinking services and providing immediate practical support like delivering food parcels. Underlying these are values of strategic leadership through to neighbourliness.
However, I have also seen examples of poor applications. In the rush to secure new funds, it is important that those applying – and those of us assessing - do not lose sight of the basics.
Back to basics
When a funder receives huge volumes of applications and needs to make quick decisions they have to focus on the fundamentals:
Does the request further the programme aims? – For example, does it reach the most vulnerable, will it make a difference?
Will the group be around long enough to deliver? – Deciding on the likely financial sustainability of any organisation is always a judgment call, and even more so in the current uncertain context, but still important to take a view on.
Is the organisation (and what they are proposing to do) safe and legal?
It is the safety aspect – namely safeguarding – that has struck me most as a basic that had been overlooked in some applications. As funders seek to respond quickly, assessing safeguarding is not something that can be removed from the process. If anything, it is more important now than ever. Charities asking for funds are often mobilising new volunteers who are taking on tasks that they have not done before, or are working with vulnerable people for the first time. This will bring volunteers and staff into situations where they will see or suspect issues of self-harm, financial abuse, domestic abuse, trafficking, or violence towards children. It is important that they know what to look for and how to respond, and that they are well trained and supported. Sadly, any crisis is also an opportunity for abusive people to gain access to children and vulnerable people. Responding quickly does not mean good practice should stop when delivering services. And funders should continue to prioritise safeguarding when making decisions on how best to allocate their funds. Otherwise the well-meaning, but ill-prepared, and the downright unscrupulous might slip through.
What does this mean for fundraisers?
When assessing applications for emergency funding, I am considering your application through a safeguarding lens. If you are working with a new group of people, I want to see evidence that you understand their needs. If you are taking on new volunteers, I want to know how they have been vetted. If you are working online for the first time, I want to know that you have thought about how to do this safely.
Whilst a safeguarding policy is not the same as practice on the ground, it is often looked at as part of the application process and will be used to make judgments on your work. So if it is not dated, I don’t know how current it is. If it states you will review it every year but it is dated as 2016 and still refers to CRB checks, I will question how good you are at keeping up-to-date with current practice. If it is generic and not tailored to your work, I will wonder how your staff and volunteers will know what to do when they have a concern.
I know charities are stretched and worried and in desperate need of funding. But safe practice is fundamental. Charities on the front line have the opportunity to reach and protect the most vulnerable in our society. So my advice to fundraisers is this: before you submit your application for funding, do please pause and ask yourself “is what we are doing safe and have I conveyed this?” Before you attach your safeguarding policy, check it – is it current and does it include any new activity? Showing you are taking safeguarding seriously will help you secure funding but more crucially, it is what all those you are helping right now who are isolated, anxious and fearful, are entitled to.