Bumpf

Applications: 7. Rejects: 5. Things to do before I go on holiday: 400. Sheets of paper under my control: 4,000,000,000,000

Naturally, dear fundraiser, you want everybody to know more about your work, and to develop an enthusiasm about it. And I am enthusiastic - whatever it is that you do. I wouldn't - couldn't - do this job unless I was.

But sadly, there are only so many hours in the day. Some charities send me stuff, and I always read it. Others send me things, and I just don't have the time. It goes in one of the drawers in the picture. Nineteen drawers, all fairly full with only 4-5 years worth of literature from organisations that we've given grants to. If you go "in the drawer", it's not necessarily a bad thing. I may know a lot about your organisation and be very confident in your work - only fishing out your magazine when you apply again, or send a report which will need to go to the Trustees.

Strangely, I find myself agreeing with the "don't send me glossy literature!" mob. I opposed them vehemently when I was in Marketing - naturally - but there's a measure of truth in what grumpier donors say, when they mumble into their cornflakes about not needing all this bumpf.

At the same time, it does mean that you don't get forgotten! And it is almost always good stuff. I'm not saying don't send it. But please think of the filing cabinets when you do. And the trees...

Set a communications objective, a strategy for every donor, every trust, every "account". If you get an inkling that your stuff might not be welcome, best to err on the side of caution. If I, running a medium-sized grantmaking operation full-time, find it all a bit overwhelming and have to devote some much time and space to filing it, imagine how a small family trust running out of someone's study would feel...

A modest proposal

This, from New Philanthropy Capital, is most interesting. As I have blogged previously, Trusts and Foundations have taken as big a hit as anybody from the credit crunch (though having suggested last November that grants may not fall quite as harshly as endowment values, at least for larger foundations, I might now recant that opinion.)

NPC float the idea that Trusts could borrow now in order to meet the increased needs of struggling charities, servicing the debt later when investment returns improve and demand decreases. (It's essentially a micro-version of the Government's response to the recession.) I hope that the good people of NPC won't mind my linking to their post, and reproducing my own thoughts here:

"The logic is clear. Borrow carefully now, to meet the increased demands of charities in these difficult times; pay back the loan with investment income/growth when times are better AND demands decrease. Sounds like a win-win.

It also sounds, perhaps unsurprisingly, like the "International Finance Facility" which Gordon Brown was trumpeting a few years back - sell bonds to increase overseas aid now, pay it back in future with aid budgets when the demands on those budgets consequently decrease. It's the epitome of a 'Keynesian' solution.

But it's a gamble. Just as the outcome of the present macro-economic policy is genuinely unclear at the moment, so one cannot be absolutely sure that demands on Trusts and Foundations will decrease sufficiently in future to enable debts to be serviced without eating away at much-needed grants funds.

It's also a slightly paradoxical proposal when I think that everybody would wish to see the voluntary sector grow - growth which would be stymied if Trusts had to use grant budgets to service debts.

It's therefore not a bad "emergency" policy, if, indeed, we're facing an emergency. A look at the balance sheets of the Trusts that I oversee suggests that it may well be - some, which are hundreds of years old, have lost 33% of their value in less than a year. Yet, even so, can I envisage the Trustees whom I serve taking such a step? Probably not - and I have been very successful over the past year at encouraging them to be radical!"

UPDATE: might another solution be to find some way of unlocking the funds of the many (often geographically restricted) foundations which struggle to find beneficiaries? In my experience, there are many that struggle to spend money - including some of those that I look after.

Often, these are smaller organisations, but I wonder if the Charity Commission couldn't accelerate their present encouragement of mergers and put forward a programme which would allow small grantmakers who struggle to spend their income a way of both liberalising their objects, and pooling their resources?

I wonder if this would have sufficient impact? Would smaller foundations be amenable to a "sledgehammer" policy which might diminish their identity, if the outcomes for beneficiaries were clear and substantial?

Fallen down a hole?

Applications: 1,000,000,000,000. Rejects: a goodly percentage, one supposes.

Cups of Coffee: NIL – off caffeine for Lent! Ha! Twinges in the chest which may or may not be heartburn: Half-hourly.

“So, where have you been, Mr/Ms Grantmakerdiaries?” I hear you yell. Suffering from a dreadful dose of Delhi-belly? Injured in a freak accident involving a rabbit and an unstable stack of grant applications?

Kind of a combination of the two. Kind of.

Like everybody, I was stricken by two serious fluey colds in as many months. Notwithstanding the prolonged periods I spent in bed, I was also trying to get a handle on our arcane and labyrinthine accounts before the loverly auditors come in. Now, that threw up a whole lot of fun. Lurking in the forest of files I inherited from my predecessor were a bunch of multi-year commitments that neither I (being relatively new) nor anybody else (worryingly) knew anything about. If you know anything about SORP, you'll know that this guarantees weeks of fun for our Finance team.

Of course, in most cases we'll be getting in touch and saying "dreadfully sorry, muddle our end - bet you could use £10,000 couldn't you?"

But then I wondered why precisely none of the beneficiary charities chased us up? (Accepting, of course, that two wrongs certainly don't make a right.) How the heck? When I was a fundraiser I expect that I was a right old pain in the bum when it came time to "reapply" - often, of course, a formality for accounting reasons rather than a genuine attempt to scrutinise, as I've recently learned and you, dear fundraiser, might be encouraged to hear. Were they just too polite? Don't be - follow the money!

As I seek to drag our grantmaking operation into the 20th [sic] Century, I have instigated, wait for it, a DATABASE. So, we won't be forgetting to pay up in the future. But if your donor does, dear reader, for goodness sake let them know about it! Don't stand on ceremony. Chances are that they are kindly souls who may be embarrassed but will certainly not resent it and will most likely pay up. Screw your courage to the sticking-place!

Happy Easter.

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!