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.

Fundraising is already a delicate balancing act between the financial needs of the organisation, the wishes of the donor and any ethical considerations. Now factor in a fundraiser who feels desperate to secure that donation, otherwise they won’t get paid. Sometimes we all have to walk away from potential donations, for example if the donor seems vulnerable and unsure about giving, or if the organisation may be compromised in some way by accepting. Paying a fundraiser on a commission basis makes it less likely they’ll make that difficult decision to say no when you need them to.

Fundraising is a collective effort. When we work with an organisation, we may be responsible for crafting the ask and coordinating the process, but we can’t do it without you: your project information, your impact data and your contacts. If the fundraiser is the only one who loses out if things go wrong, you’re not creating the right conditions for success. When you pay a fundraiser a salary or a day rate, you’re making an investment in fundraising too, so the whole organisation has a vested interest in playing their part.

As per Simon Scriver’s blog, a surprisingly small percentage of a fundraiser’s role involves asking for money. They spend most of their time researching prospects, building relationships, saying thank you, gathering project and impact data, and developing processes: this is essential for successful fundraising, even if it doesn’t always lead to a donation. If a fundraiser only receives commission, they’re not being paid for the vast majority of their hard work. So will they still feel motivated to do those all-important support tasks? If they're pressured into a quick-fire ‘spray and pray’ approach, this has a negative impact on your organisation.

Fundraising is a long game. You might wait 6-12 months to hear back from a trust. A corporate donation or major gift is often years in the making. Several fundraisers may feed into the process (one makes the introduction, one writes the copy, someone else attends the final meeting). So how do you decide who receives what commission, and when? How do you avoid multiple fundraisers ‘competing’ for the same commission? How do you reward a fundraiser who moved on ages ago? And how can a fundraiser plan their income with so much uncertainty?

We work with a broad range of organisations, from start-up social enterprises with a £50,000 turnover to charities running multi-million pound capital appeals. The work involved with a £10,000 application and a £1million ask may actually be similar, yet payment on a commission basis values them completely differently. If a fundraiser is working on both simultaneously, with competing tight deadlines, you can imagine which one will get most of their attention, even if this is sub-conscious.

​So here's the clincher: payment by commission, which at first glance may seem so appealing to you as a smaller organisation, can in reality penalise you and de-value your donations.

​If you’re looking for fundraising support, get in touch with us now and we’ll explain exactly how our day rates and fixed fees work – but don’t expect us to use the word ‘commission’ at any point!

It's often said that good fundraising and dating etiquette have a lot in common. We're frequently using dating analogies during our fundraising training and work with charities, so we've taken the plunge (prompted by a chat with our consultant Gemma Pettman) and included all our favourite lessons in one place...

We've all had one of those terrible experiences with someone who can’t stop talking about themselves. You keep asking them questions but they never ask you anything in return, and you can’t get a word in.
 
Doesn’t feel great, does it?
 
Charities can be guilty of the same thing. Of course it’s important to tell your supporters and donors what you’ve been up to, but also take the time to find out about their interests and reasons for supporting you. It’ll make them feel valued and will help you to improve and personalise your content in future. Like with dating, finding common ground helps to create chemistry.
 
I remember hearing someone once say that it’s a common mistake to “we all over your supporters” (I’d love to give credit for this delightful phrase, but I can’t remember where I heard it). When you’re next writing a newsletter or annual review, instead of just talking about what “we” have achieved, try engaging your supporters better by talking about what “you” have helped to accomplish.

One for the major donor fundraisers out there. You probably know it takes time to get to know a donor prospect and cultivate a relationship with them, but fundraisers often feel under pressure to make the ask and secure that donation immediately.

If you’re not sure why this is a bad idea, try going on a first date with someone and asking them to marry you or hop into bed with you after one hour.

When you have a first meeting with a prospective donor, you’re probably both expecting it to lead somewhere eventually. But while you might both have done your research, you need time to explore their interest in supporting your charity, understand which of your projects or activities most appeal to them, and build a picture of how much they might be willing to give.

This may take several meetings, and cultivating a major donor to the point of making that first donation can easily take 12-18 months. The long-term payback will be worth it, but rush things and you’ll get nowhere.

​Trusts and foundations often say that they won’t fund work which they consider to be a statutory responsibility, even at a time when statutory funding is being withdrawn for critical services. This is understandably very frustrating for charities, and it can be hard to work out what a funder means by this.

Often, funders simply don’t want to feel that they’re just picking up the slack for government spending cuts, or that you’re only interested in them because another source of income has disappeared. Telling a funder that you need their support because statutory funding has been cut is a bit like going on a date and talking about your ex the whole time – hardly a good way of making the new person in your life feel special.

Instead of just re-hashing a previous statutory-funded service, show that you’re over the past by talking about your work as an exciting and valuable project in its own right, clearly explaining why it's a response to your beneficiaries' real needs and how you'll deliver social impact.

Accidentally calling someone by your ex’s or another person’s name is just about the worst thing you can do. In both dating and fundraising, it can easily happen if you’re not careful.

We all use previous funding application content as a shortcut for writing new bids. But please, check it VERY carefully to make sure that it doesn’t contain the name of a previous funder or contact, or your application could be destined for the bin.

While we’re on the subject of names, always personalise your letters. That funding appeal or thank you letter which begins with ‘Dear Supporter’? If you’re wondering what impression that makes, try going on a first date and calling them ‘Date’ for the whole night…

​Most relationships begin with a honeymoon period where everything is new and exciting, and you can do no wrong. Sooner or later, you start noticing the little things about the other person that annoy you, you forget your manners, and you have to find new ways to keep things interesting or it might all fizzle out.

In the same way, most donors won’t just keeping giving to you unless you keep paying them attention, educating them about your work and giving them new ways and reasons to support you.

A good donor relationship is built on engaging newsletters, memorable thank yous, invitations to events and maybe even the occasional call to say “I love you”. This takes time but it’s well worth the effort, as well as being the right thing to do. It’s easy to just focus on acquiring new donors, but it can be far more valuable to keep the spark alive with current ones.

​Sometimes a donor or funder simply isn’t the right match for your organisation – and, just like in a relationship, it can be nobody’s fault.

A trust may have financial restrictions (e.g. on the percentage of overheads you can claim) that could put your organisation at risk if you accept a grant. A major donor may want a level of recognition or control in return for their donation that you’re not able to provide. Accepting a corporate donation may compromise your charity for ethical reasons, even if it wouldn’t be a problem for another organisation.

Successful fundraising involves being confident enough to sometimes say no for your own good, without pointing any fingers. After all, there’s plenty more fish in the sea.

We often get asked by charities and social enterprises for advice on how they can raise more unrestricted funding from trusts and foundations.

Many organisations are very successful at securing grant income, yet still find themselves in a tight financial position because the majority of funding tends to be restricted to a specific purpose. While project funding is vital, it rarely gives you the flexibility you need to thrive as a resilient and innovative organisation.

We've compiled some of our best tips on how to achieve the holy grail of unrestricted grant income - from some obvious funders to approach, to how to think outside the box when it comes to improving your financial position through trusts and foundations fundraising.

While it’s understandably tempting for funders to want to fund tangible and exciting projects, this doesn’t give organisations the freedom to pay key staff or cover central costs. Not unlike yoga, strengthening your core is vital and will make you much better at everything else you’re trying to achieve too. 

​There’s a growing recognition in the sector that smaller organisations in particular need access to more flexible funding if they are to survive and thrive, particularly at a time when so much local authority funding has dried up. Lloyds Bank Foundation CEO Paul Streets has been particularly vocal about the damage caused by 'projectitis'.  

Here are a few funders that give core funding to a broad range of charitable causes:

• Lloyds Bank Foundation (no surprise given the above)
• Tudor Trust
• Esmée Fairbairn Foundation 
• Masonic Charitable Foundation
• Paul Hamlyn Foundation

If you’re looking for core funding, here are a few tips:

• Check out the above funders and see if your organisation is eligible to apply.
• Use a funding directory like Funds Online or Funding Central to search for other core funders. We suspect that other funders will pop up over the coming months. These directories have a subscription fee for most organisations but it’s often a worthwhile investment, as they have an option to search specifically for core funding.
• Develop a strong case for support for why you really need core funding. For example: why don’t you have much unrestricted funding already? Why would it be so valuable to you – would it enable you to recruit a key member of staff, respond to a new opportunity or restructure in an important way? What makes your organisation such an expert at what it does, therefore such a strong candidate for core funding?

It's easy to focus on core funding, but what are your specific development needs which mean that project funding isn't suitable? For example, you might be looking to scope out an innovative new idea, invest in a building or specific piece of equipment, or improve your digital capabilities.

For each of these areas, there are specialist funders who can help. For example:

• National Lottery’s Digital Fund and Social Tech Trust provide digital funding
• The Fidelity UK Foundation fund "organisational development and planning initiatives"​
• Garfield Weston Foundation and Clothworkers Foundation provide capital funding

Clearly these types of funding will be a little more restrictive than no-strings core funding. However, being specific about your needs will enable you to make a more convincing case for support and open up a broader range of potential funders, thereby increasing your chances of securing that much-needed investment.

Many funders don’t explicitly provide core funding, but will consider providing unrestricted grants to organisations they know, value and trust. But getting in position to access these opportunities takes time, effort and patience.

You’ll probably need to secure at least one, possibly several project-specific grants from a funder first, then focus on building a relationship with them. It helps to go above and beyond expectations by thanking funders quickly and in a memorable way, then reporting well on the grant you received – either by demonstrating that the project went well, or by reflecting honestly on any challenges or complications experienced.

We recently blogged about the importance of building relationships with individual donors and how many organisations get this wrong. The same principles apply to trusts fundraising. A funder that’s engaged in your work is worth 10-20 funders on a cold prospects list, yet so many organisations prioritise the wrong thing.

Once a funder knows you well, they could support you by inviting you to apply for an invitation-only funding round, proactively supporting you with an urgent fundraising campaign, recommending you to other funders, or even just sending you an unsolicited extra cheque. This happens surprisingly frequently but almost never by accident - you need a strategic focus on building great relationships.

This tip isn’t so much about securing unrestricted funding, but reducing how much you need in the first place. Trusts and foundations fundraising isn’t just about writing applications – with a better approach to project planning and budgeting, you can ensure you have a smaller funding gap to fill.

Create a budget calculator for staff, with fixed rows for venue hire, volunteer expenses, travel etc. This helps people to cost up projects accurately in the first place and avoid budget overspends which then need to be covered by unrestricted funds.

Calculate staffing costs for projects carefully, checking with every funder what you’re allowed to include. Don’t just include the main project staff – if other staff (e.g. your Director) are committing time for line management or evaluation, include a percentage of their time if possible. This ensures your project funding fully covers the true cost of your projects, meaning your unrestricted funds can go on something else.

Include a contribution towards overhead costs in each project budget – this could be a blanket 10% or a more specific calculation, depending on the funder's requirements. Collecting lots of small core contributions in this way is often easier than leaving yourself with a big funding gap to cover with core funding requests.

Trusts and foundations fundraising is not a numbers game, and we don’t recommend the ‘spray and pray’ approach of sending generic funding applications quickly to lots of funders.

That said, if you’ve conducted prospect research to develop a funding pipeline, you might find you build up a collection of potential funders who have very broad funding interests and no specific application form or guidelines, making it difficult to identify a specific project to approach them about.

You could therefore consider putting together a core funding template, broadly explaining your work and impact in 2-4 pages and giving a couple of examples of how a small grant would benefit you. You could then send this to batches of say 10-20 funders at a time. Expect a low success rate (even 5% might be optimistic) but treat this as a shot to nothing with funders whom you wouldn’t otherwise approach.

This is likely to work best for smaller, community-rooted organisations whose work is easy to explain and has emotional impact, and who don’t have high reserves. It’s only worth trying in some circumstances, and the usual recommendations for trusts fundraising still apply – you should try to contact the funder first to check if they can give you any advice on applying, and you should tailor each application to their funding interests and average support level as much as you can.

Buzzwords come and go in fundraising. They get picked up as flavour of the month by fundraisers, charities and funders alike, and fade away just as quickly. Although the words frequently change, the concepts behind them are often more fundamental and enduring.
 
For me, one of the most important buzzwords in trusts fundraising at the moment is co-production. This is also commonly referred to as co-creation or co-design, and linked to ‘ABCD’ (or asset-based community development). Isn’t jargon exciting?

What is co-production and why is it so important?

Co-production has a broader definition in project management circles, however in a charity context it usually refers to the practice of involving your service users, clients or beneficiaries (more fun lingo to choose from) in the development of your services.

Funders value knowing that your projects aren’t planned in a top-down fashion based on what you think people want or need, but are genuinely based on their ideas, aspirations and unmet needs. This isn’t about token consultation exercises, but actively involving the people you support in your project design. For example here’s a guide to co-production in social care, along with some key principles.

This isn’t a new idea, and it’s not really a fundraising concept at all – it’s fundamental to service delivery.

However I’m seeing increasing examples of funders specifically talking about or asking for evidence of co-production. I review draft funding applications on a daily basis, and it's one of the most common areas where I feel that organisations can make improvements. In a competitive funding climate, failing to show evidence of this can give funders an easy excuse to discard your application.

So how can you build co-production into your project planning and tweak your funding applications to better emphasise what you’re doing?

​Don’t underestimate what you do naturally
​
For many organisations that we work with, co-production can feel like a strange thing to focus on. It’s not something they consciously try to do, because it’s second nature already.

If you run a local community centre, for example, your frontline staff will be interacting with your service users on a daily basis, and constantly evolving activities to reflect their ideas and unmet needs.

And this is fine – in fact, it’s often ideal. Co-production doesn’t always mean contrived exercises. But don’t expect a funder to assume you’re doing it, or give you credit for it, unless you tell them.

Spend some time reflecting on how this happens organically in your organisation, then include at least a paragraph about this in your funding applications. For example you could explain how staff and service users typically interact, the questions that your frontline staff like to ask, and your internal processes for factoring people's feedback and ideas into service design.

Demonstrate how you gather structured feedback

Depending on the nature of your work, co-production may not happen quite as organically. And even if it does, it can be useful to gather more structured, formal feedback periodically.

Surveys are excellent for quickly gathering broad feedback. Online surveys usually enable you to reach more people more quickly and analyse data automatically, but only if your service users have online access. You can use focus groups to test specific ideas or explore topics in more detail and gather more in-depth feedback.

Demonstrate your approach to gathering feedback in your funding applications. Cite both your quantitative results (e.g. survey data) and qualitative results (e.g. individual quotes). If a funder asks a specific question about co-production, use the space to explain your approach and rationale in more detail.

If you have the budget, appointing an independent consultant or agency to design the feedback process and/or analyse the results can bring added credibility. We recently designed an independent consultation process for a charity and later helped them to write funding applications, and the independent feedback data has been invaluable in demonstrating the need for their work and the extent to which service users are involved.

Explain how you use feedback and work with people to improve your services

Of course, listening is only one part of the process. And it counts for little if you don’t act on what you’re being told.

Successful projects often have steering groups or committees who meet regularly to review impact data and service user feedback, then take action where needed. Steering groups should include (ideally multiple) representatives who have lived experience of the issue you’re tackling. Organisations that really succeed in embedding co-production in their work - and maximising their impact - often have representatives with lived experience on their Board of Trustees.

Providing evidence of all this should impress funders, however it can still sound a bit theoretical. So go one step further and include some concrete examples of how you’ve co-created services. For example, were your service users instrumental in designing any of your current services, or have you improved or evolved a project in specific response to feedback?

This is especially important if you’re trying to do something unusual or surprising that a funder may not naturally value. Funders often have specific ideas about how work should be delivered, yet also say that co-production is important to them, which can feel contradictory!

And what about if you’re writing a final report for a project which needs further support, where you already know that the funder won't provide simple continuation funding? Would they be more receptive if you demonstrated your learning and proposed a slightly different, co-created project as a follow-up?

Finally, not everything that you tell a funder needs to come from the horse’s mouth. Testimonials and endorsements – from either service users involved in your work, or delivery partners who are impressed with your approach – are great for increasing your credibility in a funder’s eyes.

​One of the first rules of trusts fundraising is that relationships are crucial – but forming them can feel harder than ever.
 
This is the inevitable result of an ultra-competitive climate. With so many funders inundated by interest, they’re taking steps to minimise the number of applications they receive, and the time they spend communicating with applicants.
 
As a result, many fundraisers scratching their heads by the lack of feedback, the requests for no unsolicited applications, and cryptic guidance notes. Sometimes it feels like funders and fundraisers are barely speaking the same language – but with more understanding on both sides, there’d be less wasted time all round.
 
We recently launched a new one-day trusts fundraising course – and, in response to the widespread confusion and frustration out there, we included a ‘What funders say, what they mean and what to do about it’ segment.
 
Having gathered feedback from loads of charities and social enterprises, and compared it to our own experience, we’ve developed a list of five frustrating things that funders say, and what you can do about it:

1. We don’t fund core / running / salary costs
 
The funder’s point of view: personally I think that charities need to invest in being strong, well-run organisations more than ever, despite the media obsession with things like management and admin costs. Sadly, funders are often more drawn to shiny, tangible projects. There are legitimate reasons for this: funders have their own charitable objectives and wish to demonstrate impact for what they give, and projects often feel cleaner, simpler to understand and more likely to produce short-term results.

However, it’s easy to misunderstand what funders mean when they say they don’t fund core or salary costs. Often, they mean they won’t fund these costs as stand-alone items, or don’t want to pay to simply keep people in jobs. It doesn’t necessarily mean they won’t fund core or salary costs as a part of a project, if packaged well. 

How to respond:

• Develop thorough project budgets which include a proportionate contribution towards key staff costs.
• Include a contribution towards overhead costs where possible – if in doubt, check with funders what they allow.
• Identify specialist funders who do fund running and/or salary costs
• Adopt a full cost recovery model where you understand the true cost of your projects and develop funding applications to match – this will prevent you having to ‘dip in’ to core funding to sustain projects. 

2. We only fund new ideas and activities
 
The funder’s point of view: a bit like magpies, funders are often attracted to shiny things – that means new, exciting and innovative projects. This can be infuriating, particularly if you’re seeking funding for a project that you know works and is needed more than ever. It’s often driven by concerns about sustainability – funders don’t want to feel relied upon to keep supporting the same work year on year, or may feel that it’s better value for money to make a smaller contribution to test a pilot project that can then be scaled up.
 
How to respond:

• Take every opportunity to speak to funders before applying – ideally a written application shouldn’t be the first they hear about your project.
• Don’t take your projects for granted – they may not feel new to you, but can you still explain why they’re innovative in your field?
• Show the learning process – have you evolved your approach over time, based on lessons learned and feedback from beneficiaries? Does new research or the political climate make your work more necessary?
• Show how your project can be a catalyst for policy change, or broader work by bigger organisations.

3. We don’t fund work which is a statutory responsibility
 
The funder’s point of view: this is something I find very frustrating, particularly at a time when an increasing number of activities are seemingly being abandoned by statutory services. However, many funders simply don’t want to feel that they’re just picking up the slack for government spending cuts, or don’t recognise how what you’re doing is different – particularly in areas like residential care, housing and employment support.
 
Applying for direct replacement funding is a bit like going on a date and talking about your ex-partner the whole time – if you make a funder feel like you’re only interested in them to replace something you used to have, don’t expect them to feel special and excited about partnering up with you.
 
How to respond:

• Take the time to research and explain why your work is vital in relation to the social context and what your beneficiaries need, rather than just pitching it as the same project that used to be statutory-funded.
• Show how your work is different, better or more innovative than related statutory services.
• Demonstrate social return on investment – does your work actually save e.g. the NHS money?
• Know when to walk away from a funder that simply isn't the right fit – this avoids wasted time all round.

 
4. We don’t accept unsolicited applications
 
The funder’s point of view: in the current climate, many funders are inundated by applications, lots of which are poor quality or don’t meet their priorities. As a result, they choose projects based on personal recommendations or their own research. This helps them to make better use of their limited resources.
 
How to respond:

• Don’t just apply anyway – funders won’t change their mind and won't appreciate you ignoring their guidelines.
• Send a short letter introducing your work, enclosing an annual report or inviting them to visit you – make it clear that you’re starting a conversation, not asking for funding.
• Develop a relationship – do you know anyone who can introduce you? Can you subscribe to their newsletter or connect on social media?
• Ask their advice – have they funded similar projects that you can learn from, or do they know any other funders who might be able to help?

 
5. We don’t enter into discussions about funding in advance or provide feedback
 
The funder’s point of view: again, this is often driven by a lack of resources. Funders prefer to dedicate time to the organisations they’re funding. Also, feedback can be contentious – perhaps they used to provide it, but often got a negative reaction. Finally, they may simply have nothing meaningful to tell you, if they couldn't find any fault with your project but had to make a tough decision between several organisations they liked.
 
How to respond:

• Critique applications yourself in advance – read any guidelines carefully, see how you compare to other similar projects they have funded, and ask someone less familiar with your work to review your work.
• Look to build a relationship with funders in advance, so they’re more likely to help you.
• Phone rather than email – you may get ‘off the record’ feedback, rather than a generic email response.
• Meticulously record any feedback – you won’t get much, but you can gradually build a picture over time.
• Accept that competition is tough and move on – your time may be better spent on the next application.

To learn more about how to build relationships with funders, write compelling applications and develop a successful trusts fundraising programme, click here to check out our training courses.