Trustees, funding and governance

Applications: 0. (Post in London now slower than in Ethiopia - not a joke as I have experience of both). Coffee: not enough yet. Hours of sleep: 4. Ugh.

I have just come from a fascinating breakfast seminar at Clothworkers' Hall in the City, hosted by the European Association for Philanthropy and Giving and New Philanthropy Capital, whose work I like. (One of these links is a joke, by the way. See if you can guess which one.) It was all around Trusteeship, and was an opportunity to explore issues related to NPC's recent report on the topic.

From the perspective of a fundraiser in the an operational charity, I would guess that the most interesting discussion was around the question of the "donor-trustee". A cousin from across the pond noted that in the US, it is almost always expected that a trustee will either make a significant personal contribution to the charity, or be able to leverage, say $100,000 a year. That's the price for serving on the Board. Fail, or be unwilling, and you're out on your ear. As you will no doubt be aware, the UK model tends to avoid that sort of dynamic altogether, emphasising skills and volunteerism.

What do you think? Funding is of course the life-blood of a charity, and trustees are obliged to work in the beneficiaries' best interest. It may be assumed that they will press the flesh, especially if times are hard, but should it be expected? There are of course differing views. On the "assets" side, it narrows the gap between Trustees and staff, gets the former involves, and helps in securing the income base. On the "liabilities" side, could you end up with uncommitted or inappropriate trustees that you can't get rid of, because they're so financially valuable to the charity? Could there even be a spectre of a 'weighty' trustee inappropriately influencing the direction of the charity?

It's a tough-ee, as they say across t' water.

Whatever the ramifications of that particular conundrum, a lot of tessellating issues were raised about models of governance, recruitment of a Board and how to form a "team" rather than just a collection of skilled (and sometimes egotistical?) individuals, and how involved (or not) trustees should be in a charity's work.

Keeping on track

Applications: 15. Grants approved by the Trustees: 13. Happy fundraisers: at least 13.

The last thing I would want to do is to suggest that grantmakers are anything but professional and consistent. But we all know firstly that grantmaking as a business practice hase evolved markedly in recent years, as has the voluntary sector as a whole. Secondly, charities are not like businesses that have a 'bottom line', and their objectives can be varied and unavoidably nebulous.

This makes it all the more important that there are guidelines, policies, and some sort of business or strategic plan - even if, for many Trusts, these are something of an innovation. My Trustees now get a range of "KPIs" covering the location, sector, beneficiairies of grants so as they can observe how closely they are cohering with (or diverging from) their own recently agreed policies and guidelines.

And yet, at a meeting today, we has a debate - A DEBATE - on those guidelines! I do not and cannot criticise. It derives from my earlier point, that charity is nebulous, wooly. One meeting may decree "we do not do x" but it will not stop a later meeting staying "why do we not do x?" Besides whatever objects by which Trusts are bound, these things are a matter of preference (even emotion); where for a business there are other drivers. However much one is driven by measurement and a desire to acheive impact, there will always be a human element. Let's call it "Trustee freedom". Not only would I not criticise this, I would positively encourage it - provide it does not run unfettered.

That may not help you, dear fundraiser. But it's where your job beings...

Trustees' meeting

The Trustees meet this morning.

This always makes me a bit nervous. They always seem to ask questions that I haven't considered. But I suppose that's their job, and a "good thing."

Back later - if I make it out alive...

A year's worth of grantmaking stats

Applications: 4. Rejects: 4. Cups of Coffee: None. Have become a migraineur and suspect the dreaded bean has something to do with it (see below). Applications being considered by the Trustees this week: 15.

Note: even more interesting stats follow!

Hello, funding fiends. It rather seems as though I fell into that "hole" again, non? (See previous entry.) In point of fact I did; it was a hole filled with a propensity to develop truly debilitating migraines at times of stress, as well as my final postgraduate exams - a vicious circle if ever there was one.

But I have emerged, with a new found resolve to blog my experiences in the hope that they might be of interest - and help - to grant-seeker and grant-maker alike! Hurrah!

Having now complete a year in the job, it's an appropriate moment at which to hop back on the hobby-horse which led me here in the first place - the phenomenal waste of time and resources involved both in the preparation and the consideration of inappropriate applications, and how it can best be addressed for everybody's benefit.

The stark fact of the matter is this. Since I started collecting data (something never done by these Trusts before) some 89% of applications have not even gone before the Trustees. Acting on my presumed but legally-dubious delegated authority, I have considered that fully 380 applications were too divergent from our guidelines to be worth bothering the Trustees with.

The Trustees have rejected 24% (11) of the applications put before them, (representing 3% of the total number of applications) whilst 76% of applications which reached the Committee resulted in grants (representing 8% of the total received.)

So:

380 rejected outright
11 declined by the Trustees
34 grants

Grants have ranged between £500 and £50,000, have averaged £7,228.51 and have been tenable for between one and three years. We have also been seeking to be more "proactive"* - and 29% of grants, and 42% of the total funds granted have been given to organisations who we have sought out ourselves, through a growing network of impartial yet locally knowledgable contacts across our beneficial area and sectors.

(Fear not, for the Trustees are committed to retaining a substantial reactive capacity, and will continue to consider unsolicited applications.)

Dear fundraiser, you may weep - just as I have wept before. Dear grantmaker, you may well weep also - if you can muster enough oxygen from underneath the swell of proposals, letters and reports which festoon your office.

This is why I'm passionate about bridging the 'gap' between funder and funded. But herein lies a problem. I thought that the best route to this (besides starting this blog, naturellement) would be to ensure that all of the main fundraising websites and directories had accurate information about our guidelines, preferences and application processes.

Having contacted many and seen a noticeable (yet minimal) impact on the number of inappropriate enquiries, I have been waiting eagerly for the next edition of the Directory of Social Change's Directory of Grant-Making Trusts to be put together. Surely, this is the main source of information, and surely there must be some red-herrings in our current entries? Alas, no! Our current entries are disturbingly accurate.

All of this leads me to say once again: funders, be transparent about your preferences, and publicise them as widely as possible! And fundraisers: do your research! Make phone calls, go on the web. Our guidelines are now published on our website, and funders - if yours aren't, may I implore you that your immediate priority is to make sure they are?

Until next time, peace and success.

*You may like to know that in these matters we have been guided, in our strategic infancy, by the outstanding work of New Philanthropy Capital and NCVO.

They represent the two sides of the voluntary sector coin - funders and implementors respectively, and we have made an indelicate attempt to incorporate and to balance their highly-developed views and suggestions on how funding "works" best. Check 'em out.

Keep them rolling in

Applications: 4. Rejects: 0. Minutes spent in bewildered joy at receiving four eminently suitable applications: at least 15.

Marvellous! Four really rather promising applications in today, that we might actually be able to give some money to. Stand by your phones, I could well be requesting an ikkle visit sometime soon.

One thing that I hear a lot from my Trustees is how they wish that charities would be more amenable to forming partnerships; avoiding duplication whilst recognising their 'distinctives'; not being so territorial, not being so competitive.

Well heck, I don't think now is a time for charities to become less competitive for funds! Or is it? I spent much of my time as a fundraiser asserting the 'sovereignty' of my organisation, trying to persuade donors that we were the best, the most expert. And even in my current role, I find myself nodding and saying 'yes sir', not entirely convinced of the logic.

Yet it seems to be the vogue at the moment - and if it really is possible, brilliant!