Here’s a secret that not every fundraiser will admit: we all go through periods where things aren’t going to plan and we’re not quite sure how to change it. Periods when it feels like the money is drying up, you’re hearing no more often than yes, and you’re struggling to inject that fresh sparkle into your work.

With Covid-19 piling yet more pressure and competition on trusts and foundations, there’s arguably never been a tougher time to fundraise. For many organisations, emergency funding will tide them over until the end of the financial year, but the pressure to find that next big grant win is never far away.

If you're going through a lean patch and feel like you've tried everything, here's out checklist of things to try:

Funders generally only care about what you do and how you do it if you first convince them why your work is so vital. This is one of the best ways to make sure your application truly stands out.

If you haven’t taken the time recently to refresh your evidence base, this is a great way to strengthen your case for support. For example:

• Has another organisation or your local authority published up-to-date research that independently verifies the need for your services?
• Have any recent events exacerbated the challenges faced by the people you support, and could you explain this more clearly?
• Could any recent news stories or high-profile events act as a ‘hook’ for funders?

If your core narrative is already strong, then turning your attention to the supporting elements is a great way to enhance your applications:

• Can you collect a new case study or testimonial to perfectly illustrate the power of your work?
• Can you source some fresh images or create an engaging video?
• Is there a more visually appealing way to present key information – for example, converting statistics into an infographic?

Too many people think of trusts and foundations as faceless institutions only looking for cold hard facts and statistics. But great applications appeal to hearts as well as minds. Even the larger, professionally-run funders like human detail, personal stories and visual content - so this is often an area to make quick improvements.

​Trusts and foundations often feel they lack the time and resources to provide feedback (particularly at the moment) or worry it might be contentious and generate unwanted debate. But if you're persistent and diligent about seeking and responding to feedback, it's a great way of turning around a run of rejections.

In the current climate, many funders will be more risk-averse - with more applicants, and potentially less money to give away, they'll be keen to avoid projects that don't deliver results.

This could pose a problem if you’re trying to deliver an experimental or long-term project, or reliant on grants from several funders to go ahead. With Covid-19, many organisations can demonstrate an urgent need for support and show how grants will have an instant impact. In a crisis-driven landscape, the last thing funders want is the possibility that your grant might lie dormant for a few months before it can be spent.

So now is a good time to step back and consider whether there’s a different way of delivering your project:

• Could you design a smaller pilot to start ASAP, then scale it up once more funding is secured?
  
• Could your capital project (which are particularly tricky at the moment) be split into several shorter, independent phases?
  
• Could you trim any non-essential budget lines to reduce your shortfall and seem like a lower-risk proposition?

​There are common reasons why funders might be concerned about your organisation – if your reserves seem too high or too low (sometimes you can’t win!), if your work sounds unusually expensive to deliver, or perhaps if it sounds like a service that they expect another organisation (or the local authority) to be delivering instead.

If you’re experiencing a run of funding rejections, spend some time anticipating what your ‘red flags’ might be, and proactively address them in your applications. If you can’t get feedback from funders to help with this, try going through your applications with a mentor, friend or fundraiser from another charity to get some independent advice and a new perspective.

​Trusts and foundations frequently change their priorities and new programmes spring up all the time, particularly as funders scramble to respond to changing needs arising from Covid-19. While you'll inevitably stumble across some opportunities by chance or word-of-mouth, doing some proactive research will help you to unearth better prospects, and is a great way out of a rut.

It helps to think creatively about the impact of your projects, particularly if they're a bit niche. For example, with a few tweaks to your case for support, your community gardening project might appeal to funders that are focused on improving mental health or reducing social isolation for older people, but weren't previously on your radar.

We recommend using a funding database like Funds Online or Funding Central, or the excellent free database by Charity Excellence Framework. You should also check whether you can sign up for regular funding alerts with your local authority or Community Voluntary Service (CVS).

​When a couple of key funding decisions go against you, it’s easy to hit the panic button and start churning out as many applications as possible. While this might temporarily ease the pressure, it rarely produces better results. Actually, you probably need to spend more rather than less time getting applications spot on, in the ways that we’ve described above.
 
If you’re on an unlucky run, take a step back and make sure you’re focusing on quality rather than quantity - even if that involves pushing back on pressure and targets from anxious colleagues. Use previous successes to remind yourself that you are good at your job, and that by following some of the steps above, you’ll turn around results in no time.

​Good luck!

There's arguably never been a tougher time to fundraise, so we all need all the help we can get. We've assembled this list of handy tools that weren't designed for fundraising, and aren't widely used by fundraisers (as far as we know), but will definitely enable you to save time and/or raise more money. The vast majority of these tools are either free, or have a free basic package...

Visualping is a tool that detects changes in webpages and automatically sends you an email notification. You know those times when you’re waiting for a funder to re-open applications or finally unveil their new strategy? Stop checking their website repeatedly and start using Visualping to alert you as soon as it's updated.
 
Cost? Free to monitor up to two pages simultaneously. Paid packages start from $4 per month.

Hemingway reviews your writing to make it bolder and clearer, and identify readability issues. Just copy/paste written text into the box and it flags common issues such as sentences that are hard to read, and words that have a simpler alternative.

​This isn’t a perfect tool because of course it doesn't know the context in which you’re writing or who the recipient is. However it’s still a great starting point for reviewing the first draft of a funding application, fundraising appeal or report.

Cost? Their website tool is free.

When you've spent hours labouring over your written work, spotting mistakes is harder than it sounds. Using a read aloud tool such as Natural Reader to listen to what you've written will give you a better chance of spotting errors that the eye skips over.

Cost? Natural Reader is completely free. There’s also an in-built read aloud tool in newer versions of Microsoft Word.

Yesware tracks emails that you send and notifies you when they are opened or when certain links are clicked. It’s primarily for sales professionals but can be helpful if you’re sending funding pitches or introductory emails to funders. No need to sit there wondering if your email actually made it! I haven’t used this one for a while, but they state that it’s fully GDPR compliant.
​
Cost? Prices start from $14 per month, so may only be worthwhile if you’re sending a lot of cold approaches that you need to monitor.

Crystal is easily one of the most effective and terrifying tools that I’ve come across. It analyses publicly available information about people (including their published written work) to provide insights about their personality type. Based on this, it gives you tailored recommendations about how to communicate with them, such as how to phrase things in emails.

This is helpful if you’re contacting someone that you don’t know very well and really need to catch their attention. I first used Crystal a few years ago and did the obvious thing of searching my own personality type. I thought the observations were way too harsh, but my partner thought they were bang on, so there you go!

Cost? Free package provides a limited number of recommendations each month. Pro package is $29 per month.

Many people will already know Hootsuite as a very handy social media scheduling tool, but it’s also great for “social listening”. You can set up search terms which allow you to track conversations related to your cause or a topical issue. ​You can then join in those conversations or just use them to tailor your communications to what people care about - great for digital fundraising.
​
Cost? Using Hootsuite for scheduling is free, but social listening is a paid feature.

Canva is also well-known, but it’s too useful and versatile not to include here. As a design package, it’s so easy to use that even a complete amateur (and I’m definitely one!) can create decent designs. I’ve used it to make social media graphics, website banners, presentation templates and infographics – which are amazing for visually demonstrating statistics and concepts that would take a lot of words in an appeal or funding application.
​
Cost? Their free package comes with over 8,000 design templates in 100 categories. Canva Pro starts from £8.99 per month, but their Canva for Nonprofits programme gives free access to registered charities and CICs.

Finally, a tool that might be more useful than ever as people settle into another period of home working. StayFocusd is a Chrome browser plug-in designed to boost your productivity.

​If you’re struggling to focus on that all-important report or funding application, you can block all other websites to prevent your mind wandering. StayFocusd is customisable, so you can select which websites to block and for how long. They have a ‘nuclear option’ which, once activated, can’t be reversed until the time runs out!
​
Cost? Free, which is probably for the best.

​Back in June, in response to the toppling of the statue of Edward Colston in Bristol and the Black Lives Matter movement, I shared some reflections on the issues facing philanthropy.
 
My argument in a nutshell was this: philanthropy is inextricably tied with extreme wealth, and most of that wealth is derived from activities that increase inequality. Philanthropy gives a particular audience – wealthy, privileged, mostly white, usually male – disproportionate influence over the sector’s work and policies, and an opportunity to implement a vision of social change that is likely very different from your own. This process is inadvertently endorsed every day by fundraisers and charities – so while Edward Colston is an extreme and high-profile case, there are other examples everywhere.
 
I’m delighted that this blog sparked plenty of debate and discussion, but I’m conscious it offered little by way of solutions. The truth is, it’s very difficult for most fundraisers to take action, especially if their organisation isn’t geared up to question philanthropy.
 
Several people rightly asked for some thoughts on what organisations can actually do differently, rather than just why it’s important. This is where things get trickier, and more controversial, but here are my views…

​Let’s deal with the elephant in the room. It’s all very well not wanting to accept certain donations - but in the current climate, for many, it’s not unreasonable to think that turning away a big gift could lead to service closures or staff redundancies.
 
I can’t pretend there’s a quick or easy answer to this. But we’ve previously shared various thoughts about diversifying your income, which will inevitably reduce your reliance on a single funder, donor or income stream, and make it easier to stick to your principles.
 
This 2018 blog explores how to build a business case to persuade your organisation to invest in developing a more diverse fundraising portfolio. And in this podcast, I interview Fran Ferris-Ockwell, former CEO of a Sheffield housing charity, on how she guided them through a process to reduce their reliance on contract income, with huge improvements to their independence and organisational culture.
 
Most organisations won’t be able to reduce their dependence on funders and major donors overnight, but these steps are a key starting point – particularly if you're brave enough to set an explicit long-term strategic objective to become less dependent on grants and major gifts over several years.

​We previously shared six guiding principles about creating an ethical policy. While it might be tempting to find a policy template online and quickly adapt it, the most important part of this exercise is having an honest and meaningful conversation with your management team and trustees. You should develop guidelines that feel appropriate for your organisation, mission and service users. Don’t expect this to be an easy exercise, or for everyone to immediately agree, as you’re dealing with a complex issue.

Be aware that enforcing your policy to the letter might lead to both accepting or rejecting donations in controversial circumstances later. This could conceivably lead to negative press coverage, complaints from supporters, disagreements with staff and trustees, or having to close a service. You need to fully anticipate and ‘test’ the potential consequences of your policy, so you can confidently justify decisions later.

​After publishing our original blog in June, I was contacted by several fundraisers sharing experiences where they felt uncomfortable about the ethical implications of a donation or a donor’s behaviour, but felt unable to act. For example:

​Your ‘front line’ fundraisers are likely to be younger, less experienced and less influential than your donor prospects, management and trustees. They may well be working under pressure, knowing that failing to hit financial targets could well harm the organisation’s financial health, staff livelihoods and service users. So even if a fundraiser feels uncomfortable about something, voicing this might feel daunting and detrimental to their career.
 
Solving this actually goes beyond having an ethical fundraising policy, particularly one that sits in a drawer gathering dust. Your senior management and trustees need to lead by example by openly talking about the ethical issues with philanthropy, and creating opportunities for fundraisers to raise concerns and ask questions without fearing a backlash.
 
Something else to consider: is your approach to setting fundraising targets and KPIs creating an environment where fundraisers feel pressured to stay silent and bring in donations at all costs? Unrealistic targets - particularly those based purely on the cost of your projects rather than sector benchmark data, are another potential barrier to thoughtful and ethical fundraising.

This feels controversial - when I suggested this on Twitter, I was met with some incredulous responses.
 
#donorlove is a popular term to describe a donor-centric approach to fundraising that focuses on making donors feel loved, valued and appreciated, to encourage and retain their support. This isn’t totally without merit - many organisations don’t do this, and miss out on donations as a result. I’ve previously shared my own experiences as a donor and why charities should get better at saying thank you.
 
But too often, #donorlove crosses into advocating putting the donor’s wishes and the importance of building a relationship with them above other concerns. I’ve seen high-profile consultants advise charities to structure annual reports entirely around recognising the contributions and achievements of the donor, even if their service users fade into the background as a result.

I think you can make a case for ​#donorlove being incompatible with the need to re-examine philanthropy in response to recent events - and an inadvertent endorsement of hypocritical philanthropy, the problematic influence of wealthy donors and the white saviour complex. When fundraisers are faced with the pressure of a financial crisis, silence from their senior leadership, and influential fundraisers’ unswerving commitment to #donorlove, is it really any surprise that they feel unable to do things differently?
 
I doubt that #donorlove is going anywhere fast - too many high-profile fundraisers and consultants have structured their livelihoods around the concept - but perhaps we need to start taking the first steps.

​Philanthropy is commonly considered an unselfish, freely-taken individual act that increases equality and is open to everyone. Cast in this light, what right do we have to challenge where that money comes from, or how it is used?
 
Unfortunately, this view of philanthropy is false.
 
In his book “Just Giving: Why Philanthropy Is Failing Democracy and How It Can Do Better”, Rob Reich examines the philanthropic landscape in the US and reaches two uncomfortable conclusions. Firstly, less than a third of charitable giving actually benefits low-income people. Secondly, the US tax system is massively skewed towards rewarding and incentivising the wealthiest donors: if you earn under $153,100 per year then a $100 donation costs you $100, whereas it can cost a higher earner as little as $60.
 
Admittedly the UK landscape is somewhat different, not least because we have a Gift Aid scheme rather than just tax breaks for the donor. But essentially, the same problem exists globally: the tax system greatly subsidises charitable giving and enables richer people to donate money at less personal cost. This actually takes money out of the public purse and redirects it towards causes favoured by the rich and powerful, which rarely benefit low-income people. Philanthropy therefore can actually harm rather than help equality.

Reframing philanthropy in this way completely changes our right and obligation to challenge it. For example, how much influence and recognition should a wealthy donor enjoy for their supposedly ‘selfless’ gift? Should we permit a family trust to be opaque about where its money comes from, and how it decides which causes to support? Why can’t we create and enforce a new code of ethics and transparency, and remove the huge tax breaks for funders and donors who won’t play ball?
 
In barely 100 years, we’ve gone from elite-level philanthropy being met with suspicion and fierce criticism - Rob Reich documents the angry response to John Rockefeller’s early attempts to establish his charitable foundation in the US in the early 1900s - to today’s almost unquestioning endorsement of philanthropy and #donorlove.
 
In keeping with the positive response to the toppling of Edward Colston’s statue and the Black Lives Matter movement, I think we urgently need to start nudging back in the other direction.

In our Fundraising During Covid-19 online briefing last week, five different fundraising specialists talked about their recent experiences and what organisations should be looking out for in the next 6-12 months. Here are six lessons from the briefing for fundraisers far and wide...

Firstly, a huge thanks to our panel of four external speakers:

• Community Fundraising & Events: Louisa McLellan (Community Fundraising Manager, British Red Cross)
• Individual Giving: Harpreet Kondel (Consultant, Fundraising Specialist Ltd with recent senior individual giving roles at Mencap, Age UK & Animals Asia)
• Corporate & Major Donors: Lottie Donovan (Freelance consultant & formerly Watershed Bristol)
• Legacy Fundraising: Claire Routley (Consultant, Legacy Fundraising Ltd.)
• ...and I also did a presentation on Trusts & Foundations​!

The headline news from all our speakers was that, for the most part, people are still donating and fundraising.

Research in May showed that one-third of UK donors were actually donating more than pre-Covid-19. Louisa highlighted the phenomenal success of mass participation virtual events like the 2.6 Challenge. Claire said that while many charities felt uncomfortable talking about legacies in the early months of the pandemic and stopped doing so, the Law Society actually reported a dramatic growth in will writing - potentially an opportunity missed for the sector. Some charities have been working sensitively with executors to speed up legacy payments to help with cash flow problems.

I shared this example of a small family trust that are still giving, and doing what they can to show flexibility and understanding:

They may be facing their own challenges, but funders and donors are also responding to events around them - stories in the news, or experiences of illness or tragedy closer to home - which are often prompts for wanting to support good causes.

​While people are still giving, many are feeling the strain of the pandemic – financially, emotionally and in terms of time/capacity. With a recession around the corner and dividend income down, some philanthropists may hesitate about donating, and some companies are slashing Corporate Social Responsibility budgets. Trusts and foundations will be dealing with the same logistical challenges as you – staff furloughed, unwell or struggling with childcare, meetings postponed, and technology hiccups.

​In such uncertain times, it’s easy to talk yourself out of asking for money at all. This is a mistake. If you don’t ask, you’re denying your funders and supporters an opportunity too, and somebody else will them instead. It’s fine to ask, but be conscious of the challenges people might be experiencing currently, don’t put them under pressure, and listen and respond to feedback.

Contact companies and trusts to check on their current situation before applying, to avoid wasting your time and theirs. Listen carefully to your prospective major donors - as Lottie explained, hearing ‘no’ might not be an absolute rejection, but could just mean no to that amount, no for the next six months, or no to that particular project.

Building relationships is one of our seven universal fundraising rules that will never let you down. But developing relationships amid social distancing, and when your time is stretched, is difficult. While it's been a pleasant surprise just how much can be achieved online in recent months, there's no easy substitute for face-to-face interaction when it comes to getting to know supporters or getting introduced to new contacts.

Nevertheless, we mustn’t abandon our attempts to build meaningful relationships. Harpreet told attendees that now is the time to be creative, test new channels, and invest time in ideas and conversations on social media. It could also be a good time to re-examine your lawful basis for getting in touch with your supporters – Harpreet observed that many charities haven’t communicated with some supporters since 2018 because they didn’t give opt-in consent when GDPR came in, but some of these supporters may never have understood why they stopped being contacted. You could explore using ‘legitimate interests’ to get back in touch now.

If cancelled events have freed up budget and staff time, consider investing this in phoning supporters and being more active and visible on social media. Don’t hold off communicating with supporters because you don’t have a specific ask ready. Phone them anyway, even just to ask how they’re doing or to update them on your work. Investing time in relationships now will lead to stronger support and donations tomorrow.

Drawing on her experience in the arts sector, Lottie observed how many organisations have recently asked for money to ‘keep their doors open’ or avoid laying off staff. Sadly, while this is paramount to you, it's unlikely to be compelling to your donors, unless they’re extremely invested in your organisation.

Donors care about the people you support and the positive impact of your work, not keeping you afloat. So you need to be telling inspiring stories and presenting a clear case for support that explains who you help, why they need support, what you do to meet the need, the impact of your work, and why you’re best placed to achieve change.

Virtually all our speakers highlighted the importance of a good case for support - for funding applications, individual giving campaigns, major donor asks and legacy fundraising. It’s more important than ever during a crisis, with so many organisations competing for donations and emergency funding. One possible negative impact of the recent Government bailouts for the charity sector and the arts is that the general public might mistakenly perceive that charities are now well-funded. The reality is that these bailouts are tiny in the face of rising need, but it’s up to you to make this case to your supporters.

We asked our speakers to explain what hasn’t changed in fundraising since Covid-19, as well as what has - and it was abundantly clear that good practice doesn’t go out the window when a crisis strikes.

Time and again, our speakers emphasised the importance of doing things the right way, even when there's a sense of urgency. Louisa talked about the need to plan events well in advance and budget very carefully, especially when social distancing might mean your events have to be smaller-scale and less profitable. Claire highlighted the need to maintain common good practice in legacy fundraising: not leading with a scary focus on death, taking a ‘drip drip’ marketing approach, and always respecting donors’ wishes and wellbeing.

It’s easier to keep an emphasis on quality and good practice when you don’t overcommit. For example, you’re likely to make a better impression - and raise more money - if you take the time to write three emergency funding applications well, rather than rushing out eight poor-quality bids.

​Harpreet put it best when she said that right now, fundraisers have to be comfortable not knowing all the answers, as we’re all feeling our way in the dark. This is an unprecedented crisis – nobody really knows what is round the corner, or which fundraising tactics will yield the best response. So I believe we need to do three things:

Be curious - test out new messages and ways of communicating with supporters, before committing significant time and budget to them. Measure and reflect on the results. Monitor what other organisations are doing well, and badly. Ask other fundraisers for advice, and sign up for events where people share observations and best practice.

Be flexible - lockdown restrictions and public mood are liable to change quickly, so be ready to respond. Your Senior Management Team will need to be more agile and get used to signing off ideas more quickly, or your organisation could be left behind.

Be kind - it’s ok to not know what’s round the corner, to make mistakes, and to sometimes just feel overwhelmed and despondent. Equally, Louisa mentioned the importance of celebrating your successes when they come – this keeps you feeling positive, makes the inevitable rejections easier to deal with, and boosts colleagues’ moods too.

Time will tell, but I really hope the last couple of weeks will be a landmark moment in history, with the Black Lives Matter movement gathering widespread support, and people doing some genuine, long-overdue soul-searching about racial inequality. Bristol, where I live, has felt like the epicentre of grassroots change, with the dramatic toppling of the statue of Edward Colston.

Bristol is a city haunted by the slave trade, and this statue has been a focal point of the long debate about the legacy of Edward Colston. It's important to remember that the statue is very much the tip of the iceberg – at last count, Bristol ‘boasts’ eight streets, two pubs, two schools, a fruity bun and the city’s largest music venue named after Colston.

Disentangling the messy web spun by such a prolific philanthropist has proved complicated, particularly as change has long been opposed by influential philanthropists in Bristol. People only took matters into their own hands after many tried - unsuccessfully - to find a democratic solution for years.

This is something to be celebrated - and many have been, including the CEO of the Wolfson Foundation:

I want to agree with this sentiment, but actually I think we're at the very beginning of the argument, not the end. While few people would actively argue that philanthropy excuses the unethical practices that first generated that money, this view is inadvertently endorsed every day - and fundraisers and charities are very much complicit in this. There are examples everywhere, once you start to look.

The day after the statue came down, I felt this strange need to go down to the site myself, and just...think. I started writing this blog down there.

Looming above the smashed plinth and handful of people still milling about was Colston Tower - a building that can’t be torn down by people who are fed up of waiting for official action. If Bristol wants to fully rid itself of the Colston legacy, this is going to take a conscious decision from those in power whose track record - no matter they say - still suggests they believe that philanthropic good deeds outweigh harmful past actions.

Of course, this isn't just a Bristol problem. London's Tate Galleries take their name from Henry Tate, whose company Tate & Lyle was inextricably tied with the sugar industry and the slave trade.

A great many museums have received large donations from the Sackler Trust, and some bear the Sackler name. You might well know that the Sackler Trust was closely linked to Purdue Pharma, who are accused of fuelling the US opioid crisis and spent years aggressively pursuing legal action so they could continue selling their highly addictive drugs.

But we're on safer ground with most corporate foundations, right? I know countless grassroots community projects that have benefitted from grants connected to the banking sector - think Santander Foundation, the RBS Skills and Opportunities Fund, and Barclays' new 100x100 UK COVID-19 Community Relief Programme. Yet a 2018 report by Ethical Consumer magazine said this:

The trouble is that while most people have clear views about Edward Colston, underneath this there's a huge grey area. And the more you dig, the greyer it gets.

Many social welfare charities are funded by wealthy family trusts whose trustees have, for decades, both implemented and supported policies that drive a coach and horses through social mobility. Their businesses often pay as little tax as possible and profit greatly from things like zero hours contracts - which keep vast numbers of people, including so many charity service users, locked in poverty.

2020 brought a new entrant to the UK trusts and foundations scene: the Hargreaves Foundation – founded by Peter Hargreaves, major donor to the Leave.EU Brexit campaign, friend of Jacob Rees-Mogg, and a man who outlined his employment policies and interest in charities in an interview with The Sunday Times:

​And I recently discovered this remarkable exclusion from a small family trust in Oxfordshire: “We will not support charities that in our view are ambivalent about, or actively campaign for the abolition of, field sports.” Imagine being so vehemently pro-field sports that you simply wouldn’t consider funding a charity that has even mixed feelings about fox-hunting?!

Does any of this really matter? Where should we draw the line?

Should we only reject money from those who have been publicly condemned for doing Very Bad Things? Or are harmful but widespread business practices up for scrutiny too? When should we take people's publicly held opinions into account - when they actively harm our beneficiaries, when they go against our charity's message, or when we just find them personally repugnant?

I'm not saying everyone will take issue will all of the above examples - or that you should. But it's an important conversation to have. And I think that recent events in Bristol should mark the beginning of the argument about hypocritical philanthropy, not the end.

It's an inescapable fact that philanthropy is closely tied with extreme wealth, and most of that wealth is derived from activities that increase inequality. Philanthropy often buys people 'a seat at the table', and this gives a particular audience – wealthy, privileged, mostly white, usually male – disproportionate influence to implement their own vision of equality, social mobility and climate change. A vision that is, almost certainly, very different from your own.

If we want to address this, we’re going to have to start digging a lot deeper than Edward Colston.

You don’t need me to tell you that the world has turned completely upside down. In recent months, you’ve likely faced new challenges, had to come up with new ways of working, and completely reinvented services or repurposed people’s roles. 

As we've been sharing fundraising advice with our clients, I've noticed that while much of this work involves interpreting and responding to new situations, it’s amazing how much hasn’t changed. So many of our top tips for good fundraising in ‘normal’ times hold true for crisis fundraising too.

Amid the current uncertainty, it's comforting to fall back on some universal fundraising rules. No matter what life throws at us next, we're pretty confident that these rules will never let you down...

​Whether you’re deciding which emergency funding opportunities to pursue, or making a top-level decision about to do as part of your fundraising strategy, prioritisation is vital. While it’s natural to worry leaving stones unturned, or feel under pressure not to say no, taking on too much is usually the bigger issue. When you spread yourself too thin, you don’t leave yourself enough time to do things properly, and you’ll raise less money as a result.

Every decision you make to sacrifice or postpone something less important frees up more of your time to pursue something you’re really good at, or well placed to succeed with. Fundraising is a skilled profession and requires diligence and quality. That doesn’t mean only ever concentrating on one thing - diversifying income sources over time is important - but don’t bite off more than you can chew.

When deciding what to prioritise, always give yourself the best possible chance of success – which funders do we fit best with, or know our work already? What activities have historically raised us the most money? What types of donor do we have the best relationship with, or are most likely to appreciate what we do?

This sounds obvious, but I’m amazed how many organisations make their lives more difficult by attempting things they don’t have the skills to do well, moving into a completely new market, or banking on quickly building good relationships with donors or funders from scratch. By all means try new things, but don't bank on instant success, and consider whether there are easier opportunities to explore first. And don’t assume that something that worked for another organisation will automatically work for you.

Shameless plug: we help organisations to understand their strengths and weaknesses, prioritise the best fundraising opportunities and over-committing their resources to things that won't work.

I'm reluctant to use the phrase ‘relationship fundraising’, because it's been around (and over-used) for decades. But let’s look at why relationships with funders and donors are so valuable. They give you a ‘way in’ to pick somebody’s brains about an idea or application, and get insight and advice that isn’t available to all. They create friends who naturally want your organisation to do well, and are in your corner when things go wrong. They enable you to reach many more people by leveraging your friends' networks too.

Just like in our social lives, good relationships open us up to new opportunities and help us out in moments of need. In the current crisis, so many organisations have leant on their existing funders and donors for extra financial support, more flexibility in how to use donations, and introductions and recommendations to others. Those key relationships are delivering a financial return like never before.
 
This rule is being disrupted by rise of online fundraising platforms like Facebook Giving Tools, which make it virtually impossible to gather donor data and consent. In rare cases, you may decide that the immediate fundraising return is worth sacrificing the potential for new donor relationships. But more often than not, building relationships is key to raising money and weathering an unexpected crisis.

This rule holds true across every type of fundraising. A well-written report to your current funder is more likely to lead to a new grant than a cold application to a new funder. Thanking individual donors often leads to repeat gifts, while asking people for a donation for the first time has a low response rate. Well-timed follow-ups with events participants or crowdfunding supporters build your future regular donor base.

This blog explores the power of saying thank you, and our recent podcast episode explores the psychology behind why it makes donors feel good. Too many organisations still don’t get this right, but why? A common mistake is seeing thanking donors as a tedious admin task to tick off quickly when you have a dull moment, rather than an essential fundraising task to do promptly and do well. Re-framing your approach to thanking donors will help you to raise more - after all, it’s key to building relationships.

Organisations that develop a strong fundraising culture, where everyone takes responsibility for success, raise more.
 
This doesn’t mean that everyone has the time or expertise to directly ask for money. But everyone can play a role by introducing their contacts, sharing content on social media, providing quality project information for fundraising updates, volunteering at events, and being a sounding board for ideas. All these things will improve your return on investment, broaden your supporter base, and make your fundraisers feel supported and happy.
 
No fundraiser excels with all the responsibility on their shoulders. Many organisations have achieved remarkable wins in the past two months because the crisis has focused minds and made people pull together. Now we need to make sure we keep this up in 'normal' times too.

Given everything we’ve said about planning activities carefully, taking the time to say thank you and building relationships, it’s not surprising that success is rarely immediate. Expecting instant results not only leads to disappointment, but can cause you to abandon promising activities because you judge them too quickly.

Corporate and major donor fundraising, and particularly legacy fundraising for obvious reasons, take a long time to bear fruit. It can take well over a year to secure big donations from companies or wealthy individuals, and several years to yield a consistent return. These activities can gradually become a crucial part of a long-term profitable portfolio, but they won’t save you tomorrow. Expecting instant results will just put people under pressure, reduce the quality of your fundraising, and harm long-term success.

​With money tighter than ever, fundraisers are often under pressure to move straight on to the next event, appeal or application, without considering what they learned and where improvements can be made.

As with saying thank you, this analysis is often seen as an added extra rather than essential part of the fundraising process. But gathering feedback from supporters, analysing data from your CRM and pausing to reflect are crucial to improving your approach over time. If you skip this, you’ll raise less, not more.

The current crisis is no different. Right now we're all hastily adapting approaches and raising emergency funds, but there will come a time for all-important reflection. Which of these new approaches might work in normal times too? Which emergency donors can we build a profitable long-term relationship with? What have we learned that will help us prepare better for the next crisis? The organisations that make time for this reflection will do better in the long-term too.

Tell us any universal fundraising rules that we've missed off this list in the comments below  👇👇

Like many, I’ve been watching on with despair at the impact of coronavirus on the charity sector. One of the things we’re doing to help in our own small way is to run a series of free live Q&As to give small charities advice on how to deal with the crisis.

During the first Q&A, amid the technical questions about emergency grant funding, urgent fundraising appeals and strategic planning, one question jumped out: “Are there opportunities in the general gloom?”

I really don’t want to trivialise what is an incredibly tough time for many. The current crisis is likely to have a huge long-term financial impact. Many charities are facing closure or being tested like never before. At a time when there was already nowhere near enough funding to go around, this is one more straw added to the camel’s back. And as Emily Maitlis brilliantly said, coronavirus will disproportionately impact the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society. It’s no exaggeration to say that I worry about these things every day.

But that’s not to say that there aren’t any positives in the gloom. New attitudes and ways of working are being born out of necessity, but some of them could be here to stay. At a time when we all need a boost, it’s helpful to highlight a few…

Barring a couple of horror stories, most funders have responded overwhelmingly positively and are rallying around the sector. They’re giving grantees an unprecedented level of flexibility in terms of how, where and when they spend the money. In general, funders are giving away more money more quickly, with easier processes and fewer restrictions and reporting requirements, than ever seen.

It’s important to remember that many funders are also registered charities and have their own charitable objectives to adhere to. This often explains why they have restrictions and reporting requirements in place. However, sometimes it also comes down to control and trust. Funders are currently ceding this control to charities and trusting them to use their judgement on where money is needed most - and if charities prove that this trust is well placed, it’s possible that many funders will continue offering increased flexibility in future.

If you're unsure how best to tackle funders in these unusual times, we've tried to explain through the unlikely medium of an onion:

​Public and media attention are focused on things like the NHS, food banks and grassroots community organisations like never before. The Prime Minister is praising the NHS for saving his life, and looking like he might even still remember it in six months. Conservative MPs are publicly questioning their assumptions about so-called ‘low-skilled workers’. You really do have to pinch yourself to be sure this is actually happening – although it’s a shame and disgrace that it took this level of crisis to prompt it.

Of course, the challenge will be to maintain this level of public support whenever things go back to(wards) normal. Still, maybe I’m being naïve, but it does feel like there’ll be an opportunity to change long-term perceptions for the better, and keep up public pressure on decision-makers, if we can harness the amazing stories of community solidarity, and the levels of recognition and gratitude, that currently exist.

Again, we mustn't trivialise things. Many people are under more financial pressure than ever, and face the thankless task of juggling work commitments and care responsibilities. But equally, plenty of others actually have more time and money to give. There are people furloughed from work, desperate to do something to help, saving on their daily commute, and not spending money in pubs and restaurants. This is an opportunity.

Pressuring people to donate in the current climate is unconscionable. And you should consider the ethics of running an ‘emergency fundraising appeal’ now for the sake of hitting targets, if there isn’t actually an urgent need. But if you’re being hit hard, explain what problems this crisis is causing for you, and give your supporters the opportunity to help fix them. Not everybody will be able to donate, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t ask. If any of the charities that I regularly support went out of business now, and hadn’t asked for my help, I’d feel very frustrated.

This is an opportunity for volunteering as well as fundraising. More than ever, don't be afraid to ask people to give their time. Trust me, there are plenty of people out there – including children, teachers, graphic designers – who will jump at the opportunity to channel their creativity positively. Check out our associate consultant Gemma’s amazing blog on why micro-volunteering is more important than ever.

​How often do we hear phrases like “that’s not how we do things”, “there’s no point in trying that” or “it’ll never work because…”?

Coronavirus and social distancing are removing many of the obstacles that might traditionally block innovation. People are inventing like never before, and entire businesses and workforces are being re-purposed. Formula One teams are making ventilators. Louis Vuitton are making hand sanitiser. Virus-killing snoods...hands-free door handles...anyway, let’s get back on topic. 

I’ve been blown away by the response from so many charities. Many seemingly and understandably took a week or two to quietly panic and face up to the new reality, then came roaring back with new, incredibly well thought-out ways of delivering services, interacting with supporters and engaging staff. Digital delivery and remote working have taken off like never before. New and unexpected partnerships are being forged within and across sectors.

At Lime Green HQ, we’ve provided online training for several years but there are other things we’ve always insisted on doing face-to-face – to be honest, I now realise that many of the barriers were in our heads.

For many organisations, the results of their efforts have been surprisingly positive. Not everything will work first time, or even at all – but there’s a tremendous opportunity now to test things and learn, at a time when people are being more patient and accommodating than ever.

Increased flexibility and reduced travel are also bringing unexpected benefits – for the environment, for people’s wallets and, for example, for people with a disability. That’s not to say that many people won’t be counting down to the day we can all meet, learn and do things face-to-face again. But we should examine many of the things born out of social distancing, and ask whether some of them should be here to stay.

Any big positives that we've missed? Tell us on Twitter or in the comments below...

Ask people about a trust fundraiser's most important skills and I bet these would be common answers:

• Knowing which funders to approach and what they're looking for
• Their existing relationships with funders and the ability to build them
• Writing clearly, concisely and convincingly
• Organisational skills to keep track of tasks and deadlines

These are all vital, but I've got an underrated one to add to the list: the ability to ask the right questions.

The trouble with the art of ‘writing convincingly’ is that it can be misunderstood as ‘papering over the cracks to make sure we've got a good chance of succeeding’.

As a trusts fundraiser, have you ever been guilty of the following:

• Rejigging a budget to disguise a lack of detail or figures that don’t really make sense?
• Writing some creative waffle to make up for missing evidence or impact data?
• Knowing deep down there’s a weakness in your project but hoping the funder won’t notice?
• Burying that gut feeling because challenging your colleagues feels awkward?

Many organisations approach us for fundraising support to help make their jobs easier. And in many ways, we try to be easy to work with: we plan ahead to allow time for deadlines, we condense funding guidelines into a few key bullet points, we'll sift through dense background reading to find a few key points for an application.

But you know what - sometimes we’re a bit of a pain to work with, and I wouldn’t have it any other way.

It’s easy to keep people happy, pretend you’ve got everything you need for a strong application and submit it as quickly as possible. Initially, everyone will feel great. Then when the funder comes back and says no, suddenly everybody is a lot less happy.

That's why it's important to avoid papering over the cracks and be prepared to ask the difficult questions:

• Have we provided enough consultation data, key statistics or third party research to convincingly articulate why our project is needed?
• Have we been specific enough about our planned activities - what, where, when, who, how often?
• Have we explained exactly what we’re looking to achieve, and how we'll measure the results?
• Have we demonstrated why we’re the best organisation to do this work, and how we're different from any similar services that exist?
• Have we been crystal clear about exactly how much money we need, and what we'll spend it on?
• Have we gone looking for the perfect case study or quote to capture the essence of what we do?

This isn't about voicing your personal concerns. It's about trying to really get under the skin of the funder and anticipating what they'll think when reading your application. What will they be looking out for as proof that you know your stuff? What aspects might they be concerned about, given their own funding priorities? Will they understand all the language you've used if they don’t have specialist knowledge of the subject?

Sometimes this means having a certain amount of distance from the cause is a good thing. Our clients often tell us that they chose to work with us because we're knowledgeable and passionate about their work. I agree this can be a good thing, particularly when approaching specialist funders, but it's also risky to know far more about a subject than the person who’s going to be reading your work, or so convinced about a project that you lose the ability to critique it objectively.

All that said, when you’re working with people who are super busy and a funding deadline is looming, I appreciate that digging your heels in and asking difficult questions won’t always make you popular.

But ask yourself this - would you rather have a difficult conversation during the drafting process when there's still time to address something, even if people think you're being too cautious? Or deal with the disappointment later when an application is rejected and you're powerless to fix it?

I’d always rather trust my judgement and stick to my guns on a point that could be crucial to the funder, than regret having backed down later.

People do usually appreciate this in the long run. We've had plenty of tricky conversations with clients when working on a major application, but they frequently tell us later that it was worth going through the pain to make it stronger. 

​With rising levels of social need and ever-increasing competition for grants, the National Lottery Community Fund remains one of the few bright spots of hope in the UK funding landscape for many charities.

While the £600million+ they give away each year through various programmes is a lifeline for many organisations, some are put off applying because of the time required to understand the different programmes and funding criteria, concern about the level of competition, or not being sure that they’re eligible.

We’ve helped charities to secure over £1million of Lottery funding in recent years, and have developed a good understanding of what Lottery are looking for, and how to emphasise key strengths and address weaknesses in your application. And since many community-based organisations need stable multi-year funding more than ever before, we wanted to share a few tips:

​A common misconception is that when Lottery say they provide funding to ‘communities’, they only mean physical, geographical communities. This isn’t the case, because Lottery can and do fund organisations supporting communities of interest, which they define as ‘people with similar interests or life experiences’.

We recently worked with The PKD Charity to secure Reaching Communities funding for their programme of face-to-face, online and telephone support for patients and families affected by polycystic kidney disease. The people they support live all around the UK, and some rarely if ever physically meet up with others.

However, feedback from beneficiaries and charity staff emphasised that people forge important relationships through the charity’s social media support groups, telephone befriending or periodic meet-ups – and that these relationships help them to overcome challenges and live more fulfilled lives. That’s the true definition of a community – and it was a community that relied to stable funding to flourish.

If your organisation works with people united by certain interests or challenges, rather than a geographical location, then you may well be eligible for Lottery funding if you can make a similar case for support.

This is arguably the most important criteria for many Lottery funding programmes. You need to show that your services are genuinely based on people’s ideas, aspirations and unmet needs, not just dreamed up in a boardroom somewhere.

This can be difficult to demonstrate, particularly if it feels like second nature. For example, if you run a local community centre, your frontline staff will interact with service users on a daily basis, and naturally develop activities in response to their ideas and needs. As we’ve written before, you still need explain and provide examples of how this happens, as well as detailing more formal consultation methods, such as surveys and focus groups.

Working with The PKD Charity, we had an unfair advantage – they’d actually commissioned us previously to run a stakeholder consultation exercise, which involved surveying hundreds of patients on their needs and opinions about the charity’s support, and interviewing prominent medical professionals. This type of exercise takes time and money, but is hugely beneficial for Lottery applications – and indeed for other funders. So don't hold back from including your consultation data in your application.

A strong funding application doesn’t just rely on written words. Images and video bring your work to life, inspire empathy, and allow people to tell their story in their own words. This again helps to demonstrate community support and involvement in your project. Audio clips are an underused tool for people who have a story to tell but don’t feel comfortable talking in front of a camera. And diagrams and infographics can often explain something succinctly that'd otherwise need a few hundred words.

Lottery encourage and appreciate the use of imagery, audio and video. For some funding programmes, you can actually by video rather than in writing. And you can really bring a detailed second-stage funding proposal to life by including things like infographics, embedded audio clips and video links.

Like many funders, Lottery are anxious to avoid duplication – in other words, funding multiple organisations to deliver overlapping services.

This doesn’t mean that your work needs to be 100% unique – and claiming that it is may show that you haven’t researched your project well enough. However, you should explain why other services aren’t accessible to the people you support, or appropriate for their needs.

For example, when we secured funding for a youth employability charity, we provided evidence that young people were put off accessing other local services because they didn’t have an opportunity to build a trusting relationship with the service providers, and because of the complexities of local gang rivalry and ‘territory’. In another successful application, we showed how people with a learning disability weren't benefitting from mainstream health and wellbeing activities, because they needed extra time and support to address their complex needs.

This is a way to both demonstrate an in-depth understanding of your sector, and provide further evidence that your services are based around people’s needs and views.

Receiving feedback and even criticism about your work can feel uncomfortable, but embracing this scrutiny will improve your chances of securing funding. Take every opportunity to clarify feedback that you don’t understand, and pro-actively check that you’ve explained any complexities in your project clearly.

For example, for a recent application that we supported, the Funding Officer expressed concern about the financial sustainability of the project. This was something we felt had already been addressed adequately – but by drawing their attention to what we’d written already and asking what they felt was unclear or missing, we were able to drill down into exactly what the assessment panel was looking for, and how best to provide it.

We’re confident that following these tips will increase your chances of securing Lottery funding, and indeed other grants too. Feel free to suggest any further tips in the comments below. Good luck with your application, and take a look at how we could potentially help you with funding applications.

​We work with many charities and social enterprises who are trying to get new fundraising income streams up and running and/or are tight on unrestricted funds. Perhaps it’s not a surprise that we sometimes get asked if we’d consider working on a commission or performance-related pay basis.

I can see why, at first glance, this might appeal to organisations that have limited cash available to resource fundraising, or feel nervous about committing to expenditure without a guaranteed return. Investing in fundraising often feels like a Catch-22 situation, particularly when you’re prompted to do it because other funding sources have dried up.

However, there are many reasons why payment by commission is actually harmful to you. The simplest answer is that the Institute of Fundraising discourages both fundraisers and charities from taking this approach, however this in itself doesn’t explain the challenges and issues that can arise as a result.

Here’s why we don’t undertake any fundraising work on a commission basis, and why you should think twice about doing so:

In fundraising you inevitably hear ‘no’ more often than ‘yes’, so a fundraiser working on a results basis would have to set a fairly high commission percentage to make it work. Imagine how a funder or donor would feel knowing that the first x% of their donation is going straight into somebody else’s pocket – particularly if they’re donating a large amount, and particularly at a time when there’s so much focus on how donations are used and what percentage is spent on overheads etc. Payment by commission can lead to you excessively rewarding a fundraiser, and is very likely to cost you donations.