Although many people think it is simple, giving is no easy task. Philanthropists and funders have to decide how best to allocate resources in a sea of options and pressing demands. The training I deliver to practitioners explores the many dilemmas that arise such as: how do you judge effectiveness and potential impact? how do you compare organisations of different sizes, development stages, reach and depth?
It is no wonder that some funders seek an easy way through to decisions. Here are a couple of recent examples where responsibility has been delegated to the public or to chance timing:
The first example takes the form of a popularity contest. Ecclesiastical Insurance’s 12 Days of Giving asked people to nominate charities to enter a prize draw. 120 UK charities receive £1,000 each. Reading the terms and conditions it seems that the same charity can be nominated many times over.
The second example makes use of a first-come first-served approach. The Fore awards much needed unrestricted funding. To apply for funding, organisations have to register. The number of registrations is capped and so closes when that number is reached. Predictions for the recent funding round were that registration would close within two hours.
Both organisations are transparent about their processes and I am sure take up of both will be very high. However, it is important to understand what will determine success. In the case of Ecclesiastical Insurance, the charities will improve their chances if they have high numbers of supporters who they can mobilise through social media to nominate them. In the case of The Fore, the organisations will have to have spotted the opportunity and have the capacity to come away from their normal delivery to hover over the website ready to register.
As people who read my blogs will know, I am not a fan of these ways of allocating precious resources. When deciding who to fund, neither popularity nor spare capacity should be top choices amongst other important criteria such as the needs of those being served and the organisation’s ability to deliver quality services. Like the other common example where grants are decided by public vote (see my previous blog), we need to question who gains most with these approaches. Is the raised PR profile or time saved by the funder more important when designing the process than the applicant and the steps they need to take to access funding?
Philanthropists and funders are increasingly recognising the power imbalances inherent in philanthropy. I believe one indication that power is really shifting would be a decline in these ‘easy’ approaches where funders can avoid tougher decision processes. Instead I hope to see a rise in approaches that take account of fund seekers and where more careful and thoughtful judgments are made.