I think you are just reiterating what everyone already knows which is just producing the feeling of hopelessness and is not helpful in my mind. I did not read what you wrote and think it was a problem solving piece, I felt it was a bit of a rant without structure. I think there is already collective understanding that things are difficult, especially after a pandemic and with two major wars going on...and my experience of funders during the pandemic was that they adapted processes very quickly to help charities out (especially small ones). I think it would be more helpful if you focused on some solutions, ways small charities can deliver what funders need so that they can unlock this area of funding without it causing them lots of extra work and yes of course, work in partnership to feedback on what is happening on the ground and how this affects charities. If you keep focusing on the problems, all that will happen is people will feel overwhelmed and then feel they are unable to do their job which is not what charities need at the moment. So yes please, some problem solving would be very welcome, throw some light on the problem not doom and gloom.
Very thought-provoking, which is what I always expect from you!
I agree with many of the arguments but also agree with Caroline Lucy Campbell in her question: if not trusts, then just WHERE are small charities supposed to turn?
The small charity I run and fundraise for (and clean venue floors before a performance and replace the toilet rolls, etc, etc) gets only a small amount from individuals in comparisons with trusts. We do a Big Give appeal each year as we can manage that - and have a few others donors. But no individual gives more than 3K a year and, to be frank, I like it that way. We're an arts charity and, having worked for bigger arts organisations, and seen how major donor giving can skew artistic content.... well, it ain't pretty.
So with our charity, I model our individual giving approach on The Guardian (sadly, minus the Scott Trust): small amounts of individual giving which enables us to maintain our independence. It's just that we are small, so we aren't talking the kind of small monthly amounts that The Guardian or say, Oxfam can count on!
The other thing that I think is implied but not quite unpacked in the article is about capacity and skills - in a small organisation, specific skills and capacity are everything. In our team of 2 part-timers, I have lots of trust and statutory experience - so unlike any other similar organisations of our scale (just over £100K pa income), we raise much more money from trusts than you might expect.
Yes, reporting to trusts is time consuming and challenging for a small organisation, but it is the ONLY solution for the very precise kind of org we are and the very precise kind of skills we have. It short, it's so hard to make generalisations as there are always going to be people who punch above their weight.
And punching above your weight (and being able to articulate how and why you punch above your weight) is, I believe, part of what good trust fundraising is about. With that, trusts are a viable solution - in a short-term hand to mouth kind of way.
Ali Lyons has it right about the unsustainable short-termism of grant cycles. But from a Trust's point of view, I also understand that that makes sense for them and aren't we always taught to try and stand in the funder's shoes? I mean, what else can they do?
I look forward to reading part 2 and am hoping there is a viable solution for us all!
I wholly agree - let's not throw baby out with the bath water. There are a lot of Trusts that are phenomenal and do great work in their community - whether locality or cause based.
And this is about articulating and acknowledging the problem. Because there is one. And it is disproportionately impacting smaller charities. And I think too many Trustees don't understand this which is putting undue pressure on small already pressed teams.
The solution has to come from two sides - both the funders, and the charities being funded. We can't wait on them changing.
For charity side I think your skills point is so critical, and it crosses over with a LinkedIn post I did about why we are seeing an explosion of freelancers. For lots of freelancers its a way to work with smaller charities who can't afford to employ permanently.
How do we build capacity and skills in the small charity sector to generate income?
I can't see what the future looks like. But I do know it looks different. And we need to make sure that the conversations about changing funding and fundraising are accessible, and applicable to small charities as much as to the larger ones with big teams of fundraisers, which we benefit from five years down the line.
This is unbelievably bleak, and though I agree things have got very tough out there unless you are going to find a goose that lays golden eggs Trusts and Foundations for some charities are still a very good source of income (I include small charities and unpopular causes in this). Yes it can be time consuming but part of the role of any fundraiser is to work with the people on the ground to simplify the processes and make it as easy as possible for everyone to deliver what is needed to build on going relationships with funders - whether they be major donors, individuals or trusts. What you are saying in your article - more voices and participation by the very people the work is supposed to support is no different to the way funders are going? So I am not sure why its ok for fundraisers to say that this leads to more effective delivery but its not ok for a funder to say this and for it to be part of their funding criteria? Maybe I have misunderstood your argument? Where else could small charities get their funding from? Major donors, community support, events?? all time consuming in different ways and really depends on the type of charity and the type of work they are doing. I'm sorry but I find these types of arguments very unproductive and not very helpful. We all know life is tough out there. We owe it to those that we work for to fight as hard as we can to get them the money that they need. Maybe part 11 will reveal the golden goose - if so, I am glued and will be very happy to take the advice. In the meantime, I will live with the myriad of moral dilemmas that comes with being a fundraiser, knowing that this is a priviledged position to be in and very much a first world problem.
Ha ha I agree it is bleak! But things do feel bleak for so many right now. And I'm a firm believer that if we don't articulate the problem we can't find solutions. I've had feedback that fundraisers appreciate the framing of the problem for non-fundraisers (like Trustees and Leadership Teams) - to help them understand the reality of the current situation, the risks being faced and need for action.
There definitely is no golden egg. And change need to come from both sides, as a partnership. Funders are changing, though not at the pace any of us would like.
And whilst there isn't going to be a golden egg, there has to be change, and it has to be sector wide. And provocations create discussion, sharing perspectives, ideas, solutions.
No one person has the solution, but building collective understanding, voice, and problem solving can only be beneficial.
Thank you so much for taking the time to write such a detailed (and juicy!) response. I (Caroline) can't speak for Ali but definitely have a few thoughts of my own to add.
It is bleak isn't it - this article and the external situation (I might need to take the blame for the maudlin vibe of the writing as I definitely have a tendency towards pessimism / pragmatism). I think the combo of higher costs, less funding and increased need is a very clear and present danger which isn't going away and the more we can be aware of what's happening on a wider scale, the more we can educate and support those in leadership positions (if that's not us) to make informed decisions.
This for me feels productive - looking ahead and making changes to my fundraising practice to account for potential bumps in the road.
Trust fundraising remains a very strong and reliable source of income for many charities. We're definitely not advocating that people stop doing trust fundraising. However we did want to draw attention to how challenging it can be for new, small charities entering the arena. Regardless of the quality of their work, the barriers they face can be significant (and considerably higher than any which a long established, well resourced large charity might encounter).
Spoiler alert - there's no golden goose. Even a charity with a thriving, long standing trusts programme can find itself in trouble if one or two major funders decide to end their support. The precarious nature of it all makes me angry (I think that Ali would agree with this). Do we owe it to those we serve to fight as hard as we can for the money they need? Or do we owe it to those people to highlight the injustices in the very system which is supposed to support and sustain them? How can we provide great services for people in need when the system is so very shaky?
If we're really honest, it's been difficult knowing how to finish the article in a positive and upbeat way. It took us longer than we imagined to pull the words together and we're committed to revisiting it in a few months to see if we can shed fresh, more optimistic light on something which feels pretty damn heavy.
We really do appreciate your thoughts - thanks so much for sharing.
I think you are just reiterating what everyone already knows which is just producing the feeling of hopelessness and is not helpful in my mind. I did not read what you wrote and think it was a problem solving piece, I felt it was a bit of a rant without structure. I think there is already collective understanding that things are difficult, especially after a pandemic and with two major wars going on...and my experience of funders during the pandemic was that they adapted processes very quickly to help charities out (especially small ones). I think it would be more helpful if you focused on some solutions, ways small charities can deliver what funders need so that they can unlock this area of funding without it causing them lots of extra work and yes of course, work in partnership to feedback on what is happening on the ground and how this affects charities. If you keep focusing on the problems, all that will happen is people will feel overwhelmed and then feel they are unable to do their job which is not what charities need at the moment. So yes please, some problem solving would be very welcome, throw some light on the problem not doom and gloom.
Very thought-provoking, which is what I always expect from you!
I agree with many of the arguments but also agree with Caroline Lucy Campbell in her question: if not trusts, then just WHERE are small charities supposed to turn?
The small charity I run and fundraise for (and clean venue floors before a performance and replace the toilet rolls, etc, etc) gets only a small amount from individuals in comparisons with trusts. We do a Big Give appeal each year as we can manage that - and have a few others donors. But no individual gives more than 3K a year and, to be frank, I like it that way. We're an arts charity and, having worked for bigger arts organisations, and seen how major donor giving can skew artistic content.... well, it ain't pretty.
So with our charity, I model our individual giving approach on The Guardian (sadly, minus the Scott Trust): small amounts of individual giving which enables us to maintain our independence. It's just that we are small, so we aren't talking the kind of small monthly amounts that The Guardian or say, Oxfam can count on!
The other thing that I think is implied but not quite unpacked in the article is about capacity and skills - in a small organisation, specific skills and capacity are everything. In our team of 2 part-timers, I have lots of trust and statutory experience - so unlike any other similar organisations of our scale (just over £100K pa income), we raise much more money from trusts than you might expect.
Yes, reporting to trusts is time consuming and challenging for a small organisation, but it is the ONLY solution for the very precise kind of org we are and the very precise kind of skills we have. It short, it's so hard to make generalisations as there are always going to be people who punch above their weight.
And punching above your weight (and being able to articulate how and why you punch above your weight) is, I believe, part of what good trust fundraising is about. With that, trusts are a viable solution - in a short-term hand to mouth kind of way.
Ali Lyons has it right about the unsustainable short-termism of grant cycles. But from a Trust's point of view, I also understand that that makes sense for them and aren't we always taught to try and stand in the funder's shoes? I mean, what else can they do?
I look forward to reading part 2 and am hoping there is a viable solution for us all!
Hi Clare
I wholly agree - let's not throw baby out with the bath water. There are a lot of Trusts that are phenomenal and do great work in their community - whether locality or cause based.
And this is about articulating and acknowledging the problem. Because there is one. And it is disproportionately impacting smaller charities. And I think too many Trustees don't understand this which is putting undue pressure on small already pressed teams.
The solution has to come from two sides - both the funders, and the charities being funded. We can't wait on them changing.
For charity side I think your skills point is so critical, and it crosses over with a LinkedIn post I did about why we are seeing an explosion of freelancers. For lots of freelancers its a way to work with smaller charities who can't afford to employ permanently.
How do we build capacity and skills in the small charity sector to generate income?
I can't see what the future looks like. But I do know it looks different. And we need to make sure that the conversations about changing funding and fundraising are accessible, and applicable to small charities as much as to the larger ones with big teams of fundraisers, which we benefit from five years down the line.
This is unbelievably bleak, and though I agree things have got very tough out there unless you are going to find a goose that lays golden eggs Trusts and Foundations for some charities are still a very good source of income (I include small charities and unpopular causes in this). Yes it can be time consuming but part of the role of any fundraiser is to work with the people on the ground to simplify the processes and make it as easy as possible for everyone to deliver what is needed to build on going relationships with funders - whether they be major donors, individuals or trusts. What you are saying in your article - more voices and participation by the very people the work is supposed to support is no different to the way funders are going? So I am not sure why its ok for fundraisers to say that this leads to more effective delivery but its not ok for a funder to say this and for it to be part of their funding criteria? Maybe I have misunderstood your argument? Where else could small charities get their funding from? Major donors, community support, events?? all time consuming in different ways and really depends on the type of charity and the type of work they are doing. I'm sorry but I find these types of arguments very unproductive and not very helpful. We all know life is tough out there. We owe it to those that we work for to fight as hard as we can to get them the money that they need. Maybe part 11 will reveal the golden goose - if so, I am glued and will be very happy to take the advice. In the meantime, I will live with the myriad of moral dilemmas that comes with being a fundraiser, knowing that this is a priviledged position to be in and very much a first world problem.
Ha ha I agree it is bleak! But things do feel bleak for so many right now. And I'm a firm believer that if we don't articulate the problem we can't find solutions. I've had feedback that fundraisers appreciate the framing of the problem for non-fundraisers (like Trustees and Leadership Teams) - to help them understand the reality of the current situation, the risks being faced and need for action.
There definitely is no golden egg. And change need to come from both sides, as a partnership. Funders are changing, though not at the pace any of us would like.
And whilst there isn't going to be a golden egg, there has to be change, and it has to be sector wide. And provocations create discussion, sharing perspectives, ideas, solutions.
No one person has the solution, but building collective understanding, voice, and problem solving can only be beneficial.
Hi Caroline.
Thank you so much for taking the time to write such a detailed (and juicy!) response. I (Caroline) can't speak for Ali but definitely have a few thoughts of my own to add.
It is bleak isn't it - this article and the external situation (I might need to take the blame for the maudlin vibe of the writing as I definitely have a tendency towards pessimism / pragmatism). I think the combo of higher costs, less funding and increased need is a very clear and present danger which isn't going away and the more we can be aware of what's happening on a wider scale, the more we can educate and support those in leadership positions (if that's not us) to make informed decisions.
This for me feels productive - looking ahead and making changes to my fundraising practice to account for potential bumps in the road.
Trust fundraising remains a very strong and reliable source of income for many charities. We're definitely not advocating that people stop doing trust fundraising. However we did want to draw attention to how challenging it can be for new, small charities entering the arena. Regardless of the quality of their work, the barriers they face can be significant (and considerably higher than any which a long established, well resourced large charity might encounter).
Spoiler alert - there's no golden goose. Even a charity with a thriving, long standing trusts programme can find itself in trouble if one or two major funders decide to end their support. The precarious nature of it all makes me angry (I think that Ali would agree with this). Do we owe it to those we serve to fight as hard as we can for the money they need? Or do we owe it to those people to highlight the injustices in the very system which is supposed to support and sustain them? How can we provide great services for people in need when the system is so very shaky?
If we're really honest, it's been difficult knowing how to finish the article in a positive and upbeat way. It took us longer than we imagined to pull the words together and we're committed to revisiting it in a few months to see if we can shed fresh, more optimistic light on something which feels pretty damn heavy.
We really do appreciate your thoughts - thanks so much for sharing.