What is the future of fundraising?

Great meeting of the consultants group last week. If Michael O'Toole is to be believed the future is "contracting". Yes well we know that CAF reckon individual giving is down £1.7bn and that government cuts have knocked another £2bn out of the budget, but, his view in the light of Government preference is that there are still great opportunities to bid for work. But is it work we want to do?

If the techies are to be believed then the future is in crowds, or to be precise, crowd sourcing. Ryan Bromley couldn't come but Vicky from Chameleon did a great job of explaining the applicability of it to fundraising. Crowdfunding if you prefer, though it was pointed out that social enterprises and small businesses are doing a great job of raising capital through crowdfunding which is interesting because it came up again at a Third Sector Research Centre seminar this week.

Here academics and practitioners were looking more at the supply and demand of/for social investment and crowdfunding does seem to be a viable option. However the more interesting debate ranged around where philanthropy ends?

That is, a gift from an individual or a grant from a trust is clearly philanthropy and nobody expects to get any of their money back. It is, in risk terms, a 100% certainty. No risk, no financial return on investment though givers are increasing asking for a social return on investment. However the moment that some of the money is to be returned, as interest or capital repayment, risk rears its head. What price the feel good factor? Where does a social investment fit in the philanthropist's portfolio? Some tricky questions that, of course, the academics suggested needs more research.

Well it does and I'll be adding some investment questions to my "nature of philanthropy" interviews so watch this space for some interim ideas.

Meanwhile what do you think is the future of fundraising? Same old same old, digital,or increasingly back to basics? Tell me what you think, please!And don't forget the champagne is still on offer (see October's challenge).

Champagne and Social Enterprise still on offer!

I was at the NCVO and ISIRC conferences in Birmingham last month presenting papers on Philanthropy and Social Investment but listening to a number on developing Social Enterprise(SE). There's still a lot of discussion about what SE is and isn't but between a large number of academics no agreed definition save that "you know one when you see it" and also lots on what it isn't.

So I'm offering (again) a bottle of champagne to the best definition in 30 words or less and as someone pointed out this around the 140 character SMS/Tweet limit. We generally agreed that SE is somewhere on the spectrum between a purely "altruistic" charity and a "red in tooth and claw" commercial company but where and what does that mean?

Come on have a go, but be warned I'm hard to please and four professors have failed so far to satisfy me. Incidentally Stephen Barber (now a reader at LSBU!), gave a very whitty run down last time on the "Big Society" and likened it as liable to be ditched by Cameron if things get too hairy in the same way as Blair ditched the Stakeholder Society when it started biting him. Just how much have we heard of late?

I am still convinced that if we mention BS at all it needs to be as the "Bigger Society", since we've had a very successful Big Society, in the guise of the work of charities and community organisations for more than 100 years. Albeit at the moment, with the retreat of government, it's definitely becoming the "Smaller Society"

Charities 'rely on the over 60s' for donations

Very interesting report out from CAF this morning (just in time for the partly conferences) about charities getting more than 50% of their donations from the over 60s. The report compiled by Bristol University has some very interesting findings but the overall presumption is that, as a percentage, younger people are giving less and there is therefore more relience on those getting distinctly older. But is that really what's happening?

Well we always knew that that "silent" generation who fought in and lived through the second world war were generally charitable in their giving but represented (especially after the death toll) a relatively small cohort as generations go. On the other hand the baby boomer generation is a huge cohort (by definition) so as we get older our giving has a far greater impact upon the overall picture. And, like previous generations, as we get older more of us are giving and giving more at that.

However we're doing it differently as Maple's Spectrum of Philanthropy suggests.We don't necessarily trust established charities to do the biz. We may want more say and certainly more meaningful feedback. We may find or even form different social enterprises to do what needs to be done. So the challenge to fundraisers is so much greater.

All the more reason, of course, to understand where your givers are coming from and why they do what they do. Pretty good case for more research just as long as it is focussed on the needs of fundraisers.

Congratulations, you have been awarded a substancial grant!

Always a delight to get a letter, phone call or email confirming that you've been succesful (again!) with one of your carefully crafted, researched and produced, fundraising application to a grantmaker.

However what if you didn't actually apply?

I've just found out that I'm the lucky recipient of a substancial grant from a very large Foundation. Problem is, I didn't apply and like the lottery if you don't apply (or buy a ticket) you don't stand a chance. OR do you? We get unsolicited gifts so why not an unsolicited grant? Stands to reason if you're being successful and creative with your marketing communications doesn't it?

Sadly however the Dove Foundation is the latest incarnation of the classic Phishing email. Respond with all your bank details for the transfer and bingo, you're the one out of pocket. Interesting twist on an old con. Just like a fundraiser really?

Beware Geeks bearing gifts!

How to improve your fundraising performance

Interesting month August. Many of us taking holidays (mine was a real staycation - gardening, house painting and repairs but also some boating, walking, music and reading). It's the reading that can help your performance, if you use the opportunity!

I'm not talking specifically about fundraising texts, marketing tombs or even volumes on self improvement. No, just use that wonderful sense of curiousity that every good fundraiser must exercise. And if you don't then cultivate the skill. it's vitally important.

Whatever your holiday reading can be turned to your advantage and improve your capacity to operate effectively.

Think about what you would discuss with a mentor. Problems at work? Issues with colleagues? Opportunities to explore? Processes to improve? The advantages of having a mentor is that time given over to reflection. More often than not it's not what they might suggest but the space they help you to create in order to reflect on your options, redefine your priorities, sort the important out from the urgent and think more objectively about the effects of change upon colleagues.

You can create that same space without the mentor's intervention. Use the times you are deep in a thriller to stop and ponder - what the detective, heroine, adversary or whoever you are contemplating - might do if faced with similar issues. Again it's not what they might say but what you might be able to jump to given some time in the NOW.

If you don't get it yet try reading Eckhart Tolle (The Power of Now). It's a great read or re-read for the holidays and will give you the opportunity to be in the now for a bit longer. That's the place to be when thinking the unthinkable and contemplating change. Try it.

Always have a plan B

So what are you doing to improve your fundraising effectiveness? Maximising the use of social media? tick. Optimizing the use of volunteers? tick. Going back over all the stuff that didn't work? Ah, no time? Make time. It is in our failures, also runs and non-starters that some of the best alternative plans are fashioned. As Redmond Mullen used to say, "There's nothing new under the sun in fundraising" (though I don't know what he'd make of SMS) but as I always say, " You can always find a new twist"

On the radio this morning defending street canvassers again when FiveLive rang me to oppose what Lord Hodgson is recommending. Well, I do oppose his procrastination over the public benefits test and possibly the payment of trustees, but most of what has been recommended is all good stuff. More of the FRSB and PFRA. More on self-regulation and trusting the charities to get it right. That includes a level playing field for house to house so do away with the exemption certificates for the few but make sure everyone, commercial or charity, has permission to collect merchandise. That of course isn't so newsworthy so the noble lords was, I believe, unopposed cause the Beeb didn't have a plan B.

I failed to persuade enough of you to vote me in as a trustee of the Institute in the main election (tante pis) it was a long shot with 10 people standing for two places. However plan B means I've been elected by my peers (the other chairs of the Institute of Fundraising Special Interest Groups) to represent the groups as a trustee. So job done, well started at least. So let me know what you think the Institute ought to be concentrating on. More member benefits? Better CPD (continuing professional development) or lobbying harder on behalf of fundraising with the likes of Hodgson?

Meanwhile keep working on your plan B.

How to increase fundraising by 60%

The Irish have a plan to increase donations to charities by 60% over the next four years!
Even with a touch of the blarny that's going some. But just maybe there's something there for this present bunch of denialists (see http://www.denialism.com/2007/03/denialists.html)

The Irish are planning:

A National “Giving Campaign”, aimed at the public, high net worth individuals and corporates in Ireland to increase their giving.

Improvements to the fiscal environment and incentivising greater giving.

Development of better fundraising capacity, education and training among not-for-profits.

Creation of a National Social Innovation fund, supported by the Government and the philanthropic sector. (Backed with a massive 1.1m Euros - but it's a start).

I think what I like is the fact that there is a will to do something as opposed to spouting more rhetoric. It contrasts nicely with the HMRC's revelation today that George Osborne's concern about gift aid and tax avoidance was down to all of 320 high rate tax payers. And he still missed the point that whilst they reduced their headline tax rate, they were worse off (financially) having made the charitable gifts than if they hadn't bothered at all.

Bit early to say Baa Humbug but that's how it feels, especially with the rain pelting down and the need to turn the central heating on. Tante pis. I see the Times is selecting its charities for December appeal so it'll soon be Christmas.