14
UK trust fundraising - learning to say thank you Adrian Sargeant* and Kris Pole ‘Henley Management College, Greenlands, Henley on Tharnes, Oxon RG9 3AU, UK Tel: +44 1491 571454; Fax: +44 1491 571635 Received (in revised form): 26th January, 1998 Adrian Sargeant is a member of the Market- ing Faculty Group at Henley Management College. Previously he was Course Director of the MBA Marketing Management at the University of Exeter and Lecturer in Not-For- Profit Marketing. He has worked in a consult- ancy capacity for a number of chanties and is a prolific author; having produced over 40 journal articles and conference papers in the past three years. Kris Pole is a senior lecturer in Marketing at Canterbury Christ Church College (a college in the University sector). Her interests in the nonprofit sector developed after two years marketing at a college in the south-west. Since then she has pursued her academic career at Manchester Metropolitan University and more recently at Canterbury Christ Church College where she is continuing to develop courses and research in the nonprofit secto!: ABSTRACT Zn the United Kingdotit, Charities Aid Foun- dation (CAF) data suggest that grant-making trrrsts are currently responsible for supplyirg over 13 per cent of an ‘average’ charity’s income (approximately four times the amount coni- niitted by coporate donors). Remarkably how- ever, very little is known about the behavioirr of such organisations arid the contact strategies that are used by charities to solicit their support. This paper reviews the jndings of a postal survey of 350grant-nraking trusts arid identijies the criteria most contn~only used to pe$ofomi an itiitial siji of proposals and to develop a final short list to appraise for support or rejection. T h e jindings clearly show that charity applicatiotrs to trusts have increased dramatically over the past three years. Regrettably however, trusts perceive that there has been an accompanying decline in the standards of application being made. Tnrsts report that they are now frequently subjected to ill-considered ‘blanket’ rnailings front charities that oftn take no account of the specifit aims and objectives of the trrrst. In general, the research also identijied that applicants appeared to have undertaken very little research prior to submission of their application and ifsrrcces@, would be unlikely to thank the trustees, nor to indicate what had been achieved as a result of their generosity. INTRODUCTION There are many thousand charitable trusts in the United Kingdom. Such organisa- tions can either be ‘doers’, ‘givers’ or both. Many trusts exist to support directly particular activities of interest and may devote all, or part, of their income to this purpose. Other organisations, however, prefer simply to use their income to provide support to other chanties, in- dividuals (and in some cases, non- charitable organisations) who they feel are undertaking work that would fkther the stated objectives of the trust. These grant-making organisations are essential sources of hnding for many charitable organisations. Indeed, their role is becom- ing ever more important as the UK charity

UK trust fundraising - Learning to say thank you

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: UK trust fundraising - Learning to say thank you

UK trust fundraising - learning to say thank you

Adrian Sargeant* and Kris Pole ‘Henley Management College, Greenlands, Henley on Tharnes, Oxon RG9 3AU, UK Tel: +44 1491 571454; Fax: +44 1491 571635

Received (in revised form): 26th January, 1998

Adrian Sargeant is a member of the Market- ing Faculty Group at Henley Management College. Previously he was Course Director of the MBA Marketing Management at the University of Exeter and Lecturer in Not-For- Profit Marketing. He has worked in a consult- ancy capacity for a number of chanties and is a prolific author; having produced over 40 journal articles and conference papers in the past three years.

Kris Pole is a senior lecturer in Marketing at Canterbury Christ Church College (a college in the University sector). Her interests in the nonprofit sector developed after two years marketing at a college in the south-west. Since then she has pursued her academic career at Manchester Metropolitan University and more recently at Canterbury Christ Church College where she is continuing to develop courses and research in the nonprofit secto!:

ABSTRACT Zn the United Kingdotit, Charities A i d Foun- dation ( C A F ) data suggest that grant-making trrrsts are currently responsible for supplyirg over 13 per cent of an ‘average’ charity’s income (approximately four times the amount coni- niitted by coporate donors). Remarkably how- ever, very little is known about the behavioirr o f such organisations arid the contact strategies that are used by charities to solicit their support. This paper reviews the jndings of a postal survey of 350grant-nraking trusts arid identijies the criteria most contn~only used to pe$ofomi an itiitial siji o f proposals and to develop a final

short list to appraise fo r support or rejection. The jindings clearly show that charity applicatiotrs to trusts have increased dramatically over the past three years. Regrettably however, trusts perceive that there has been an accompanying decline in the standards of application being made. Tnrsts report that they are now frequently subjected to ill-considered ‘blanket’ rnailings front charities that o f tn take no account of the specifit aims and objectives of the trrrst. In general, the research also identijied that applicants appeared to have undertaken very little research prior to submission of their application and ifsrrcces@, would be unlikely to thank the trustees, nor to indicate what had been achieved as a result of their generosity.

INTRODUCTION There are many thousand charitable trusts in the United Kingdom. Such organisa- tions can either be ‘doers’, ‘givers’ or both. Many trusts exist to support directly particular activities of interest and may devote all, or part, of their income to this purpose. Other organisations, however, prefer simply to use their income to provide support to other chanties, in- dividuals (and in some cases, non- charitable organisations) who they feel are undertaking work that would fkther the stated objectives of the trust. These grant-making organisations are essential sources of hnding for many charitable organisations. Indeed, their role is becom- ing ever more important as the UK charity

Page 2: UK trust fundraising - Learning to say thank you

environment is becoming increasingly competitive and hostile.

There are currently estimated to be almost 9,000 such charitable grant makers in the United Kingdom, together sup- plying the sector with over A1.8bn in income.’ These figures have become par- ticularly significant of late, since the CAFS Top 500 grant-making trusts were able to increase their level of giving by 5.4 per cent in real terms &om 1994-5 to 1995-6. The recent introduction of the National Charities Lottery Board has also swelled the total amount of grant income attracted to the sector, with this latter body con- tributing well over E478m in 1995-6.

These figures do, however, give little cause for celebration since the number of charities wishing to take advantage of this funding is also increasing. The Charity Commission (1 997)* recorded 18 1,824 registered charities in England and Wales in 1996, with a further 22,500 in Scotland3 and 5,000 in Northern Ireland.4 A simple comparison with the figures for previous years reveals that in the case of England and Wales a fbrther 3,000 charities (net) can be expected to join the charity register each year. Ever larger numbers of charities are thus competing to secure fbnding, ftom what remains a relatively static pool of grant-making organisations.

As a result of this, a tougher economic climate and the fict that the recently introduced National Lottery has had the additional effect of redistributing income across the sector5 it is not surprising that Leat (1996)‘ identified in her survey of 248 grant-making trusts, that over 71 per cent were reporting a recent increase in demand. This is a fmlng further supported by the results of the primary research conducted for this study.

Importantly, Charities A d Foundation data suggest that grant-making trusts are currently responsible for supplying over 13 per cent of an ‘average’ charity’s income

(approximately four times the amount committed by corporate donors). Despite the importance of this hnding group, however, very little is known about the criteria currently utilised to evaluate fundmg applications. It would, therefore, seem an appropriate time to research the trust decision-making process, thereby enabling charities to increase the effective- ness of their applications and hence their likelihood of securing hnding.

This exploratory study will, therefore, identifjr some of the evaluative criteria used by trustees responsible for decid- ing how to distribute their organisation’s grants. Following a brief review of the relevant literature, the results of a primary study will be introduced and a series of recommendations offered in respect of how the overall quality of trust fundraising could be enhanced.

LITERATURE REVIEW There is currently no empirical research available in the United Kmgdom, which focuses on the nature of trust giving behaviour. In the USA, while some litera- ture is available it is comparatively difficult to apply the findings to the very specific context of the United Kingdom. Cermak, File and Prince (1994),’ for example, conducted a survey of US trust decision makers, in an attempt to identi@ their motivations for giving. Through the use of factor analysis and subsequent cluster analysis, the authors identified that donors could be classified as belonging to one of four benefit segments, namely:

- Affiliators. Donors who benefit through social affiliation and the opportunity to exercise humanitarian impulses.

- Pragmatists. Donors who are primarily motivated by the tax advantages that might accrue &om a donation.

- Dynasts. Donors who give because

Page 3: UK trust fundraising - Learning to say thank you

there is a family tradition of giving. -Repayers. Donors who seem to give

because of a need to reciprocate - perhaps because someone close to them has benefited from the cause.

Table 1: A rational model of the decision-making process

The decision-making process

While the results are instructive, it is difficult to generalise the results to the United Kingdom since UK trusts differ substantially from their American counter- parts. I t should also be noted that the researchers did not concern themselves with the process by which a gwing deci- sion was taken, but with the motivation for the existence of the trust.

Most of the literature on the decision- making process assumes some personal involvement with the decision (as with managerial decision making) and its resultant outcomes. Therefore the ques- tion is, how applicable is this body of literature to the trustees who govern grant-making trusts. This wider research on decision malung is quite extensive, with academics appreciating the in- terdisciplinary nature of the process, incorporating mathematics, psychology, economics, organisational theory, sociol- ogy and philosophy, to provide a com- prehensive view of the decision-making environment (see for example Lee 1971 ,8

or Hirokawa and Johnston 1989).9 Har- rison (1993)"' provided a good overview of the four main interdisciplinary models,

Setting managerial objectives Searching for alternatives Comparing and evaluating alternatives The act of choice Implementing the decision Following up and controlling the decision

highlighting the rational, organisational, political and process models of decision making. While a review of all these models is not appropriate for this paper, the rational and political models offer some insight into the likely decision-making process of trustees and are, therefore, considered in deed below.

Many versions of the synoptic, rational model of decision making exist (eg Witte 1972," Schrenck 1969'*), but the models developed by various authors usually share some common ground in that each of the stages presented in Table 1, would nor- mally be present, in one form or another. By using this rational decision-making process, assumptions can be made as to the possible steps charity trustees might take when evaluating funding applications sub- mitted to their organisation (see Table 2). This suggests that trustees focus their

Table 2: A hypothetical model of a rational trustee decision-making process

7he decision-making process

Setting managerial objectives Searching for alternatives Comparing and evaluating alternatives

The act of choice Implementing the decision Inform charity Following up and controlling the decision

Rational trustee decision-making process

Does the application meet the trust's objectives? Identification of short list Analysis of possible outcomes in relation to the trust and its objectives Yes/no decision

Possible request for feedback/evaluation

Page 4: UK trust fundraising - Learning to say thank you

decision on how well the application meets the trust’s own objectives. Thus, if the rational model of decision making is the most appropriate, charity fundraisers would be advised to research clearly the nature of the fit between the nature of their respective projects and the aims and objectives of the grant-making trusts. The model clearly suggests that those applica- tions that most clearly mirror the require- ments of the trust, will ultimately be those that attract the interest and financial sup- port of the trustees.

Criticism of the rational model In the context of organisational deci- sion making, however, this rational model has been criticised’ for being too ‘linear’ and that ‘while the rational decision- making model is not “wrong” .... it is clearly inadequate in both a descriptive and prescriptive sense’.13 In the case of trust giving, for example, many grant-making organisations may have only the most general of ‘objects’. In such cases, the specific objectives of an annual allocation of hnds may well be developed at the same time as the short list of those or- ganisations actually considered worthy of support. The model can also be criticised on the grounds that it does not give adequate consideration to social, political and cognitive influences. Many charities have developed informal links with the trustees of grant-making organisations and are, as a consequence, in a position to hold an informal dialogue in advance of a formal application being made. While one would hope that the decision-malung process would be relatively objective, it would be intellectually puerile to suggest that the existence of such personal relationships would not exert some influence (however minor), on the ultimate outcome of the decision-making process. Indeed, in his review of the status of trustees in the charity sector as a whole, Vincent (1988)14

was critical of the decisions made by trustees of grant-malung trusts. ‘Is this (the decision) a matter of the personal whims of the trustee, or is there some objectivity in their decision malung? At the present time it is very much a question of who you know.’ However, no empirical research has been undertaken to date to support or reject this statement.

Political decision-making models The decision-malung literature does, how- ever, allow for these additional influences on the decision-making process, in what are collectively referred to as the ‘political’ models of decision making. Interestingly, Harrison (1993, p32),” argues that ‘the political model of decision making is characteristic of most organisations in the public sector’. The political model’s foun- dation is grounded in the behavioural sciences and employs a compromise or bargaining decision-making strategy that aims to find acceptable outcomes to both internal and external influences. The na- ture of the decision that will ultimately be taken can thus be seen as a function of rational ‘objective’ criteria and the rather more subjective impressions of how valu- able the work of a given charity might be. These in turn can be viewed as being influenced by the nature and quality of any relationship that may exist between the applicant and potential fimder.

Programmed and non-programmed decisions Interestingly, the types of decision to be taken have been shown to in- fluence the likely process a group or individual may adopt. Simon (1960)” distinguished between programmed and non-programmed decisions. Programmed decisions are characterised as repetitive and routine, so a set procedure can be developed for reaching solutions relatively quickly. This would easily apply to the

Page 5: UK trust fundraising - Learning to say thank you

compilation of a short list of chanties, as there may be a specific set of criteria to meet before the application is even considered. Indeed, in the larger trusts this task is likely to be undertaken by administrative staff who have strict guidelines to follow. Non-programmed decisions, on the other hand, are charac- terised by being novel and unstructured, so that there are no set procedures for a decision maker to follow. In these circumstances the judgement and intuition of the decision maker($ is relied on. In the context of a grant-making trust, this could perhaps apply to the final stage of the selection process, where more debate and discussion about the respective applications is likely to be forthcoming.

Naturally, most problems are never quite as clearly defined along such polar dimensions, but fit somewhere into the ‘grey’ area in between. Although many charitable trusts appear, on the face of it, to be dealing with only programmed decisions where applications are rigorously evaluated against a standard set of criteria, a degree of individual judgement is undoubtedly also relied upon. Indeed, this is supported by the results of this research where 79 per cent of trustees indicated that knowledge or understanding of the work of a charity could influence a borderline decision. This degree of subjectivity suggests that all forms of charity com- munication, both formal and informal, may have the capacity to influence the outcome of the decision-malung process.

The not-for-profit context One drawback, however, of attempting to apply either the rational or political models of decision making to the very specific case of grant-making trusts, is that the nature of the decision-making environment is quite different &om the context in which these models were originally developed. The majority of the literature is based on the

assumption that the decision makers are working in a for-profit context, where their decisions will have a direct impact on their own organisation. Indeed, the per- ceived quality of decision malung in this context may well have fmancial repercus- sions for the initiating managers them- selves. This is clearly not the case in the majority of grant-making trusts where trustees are often appointed on a voluntary basis, and have nothing to gain (at least in a monetary sense) from the quality of a particular decision. In addtion, trustees will doubtless bring their own ‘agenda’ to a grant-making trust and be perhaps some- what less susceptible to the influence of the culture or politics of the organisation for which they work. The ultimate decision is thus more likely to be the result of a trade off between the opinions and attitudes of the various players and to reflect a com- promise between the priorities identified by each of the trustees, albeit within the umbrella of the stated objectives of the trust. This complex relationslup between the matching of the philanthropic views of the trustees and the objectives of the trust, r e a f f i s the need to explore the be- havioural aspects of trust-giving behaviour in considerably more depth.

THE STUDY

Profile of respondents It is the purpose of the wider study of which tlus paper forms part to explore a number of these issues. As a first step, however, it was decided to undertake a postal survey of a representative sample of UK grant-makmg trusts. This, it was felt, would be an appropriate way in which to gain an overview of the relevant variables, which could subsequently be explored, perhaps employing a case-based methodol- ogy, in somewhat greater depth.

A systematic random sample was there-

Page 6: UK trust fundraising - Learning to say thank you

Table 3: Comparison of income profile between respondents and the sector as a whole

% ofgrant-making trusts in cutegory % of respondents in category

~

Not known 1,000-5,000 5,001-10,000 10,001-25.000 25,001-100,000 100,001-500,000 500,001-1,000,000 1,000,001-5,000,000 5,000,001-10,000,000 Over 10,000,000

Total

5.82 9.31

10.77 20.62 29.04 16.42 2.92 3.50 0.70 0.86

100.00

5.8 7.7 7.7

19.2 34.6 17.3 3.8 1.9 1.9

Nil

100.0

fore generated of 350 grant-making trusts using the CAF Directory of Grant- Making Trusts (1996) as the sampling frame. In total 63 replies were received, of which 9 were incomplete or unusable. The results are, therefore, based on a usable response rate of 15 per cent. Although the response rate attained may be regarded as acceptable given the nature of the sampling fiame and increasing demands on trust time, legitimate questions could be raised over whether the resulting sample is representative of the sector as a whole. Table 3 indicates that the results may indeed be taken as representative, since the income profile of the sample compares very favourably with that for the sector as a whole. Indeed no significant differences (at the 5 per cent level of significance) were recorded in any category. As a final step, the questionnaire data were hrther supplemented with a small number of interviews (five) with trustees of grant- making trusts. The purpose of these interviews was to explore in greater depth many of the issues raised by respondents to

the questionnaire. The findings of both the postal survey and the personal interviews have been integrated in the analysis which follows. Considering first the question of actual gwing behaviours, the trusts in the sample were found to be issuing a median grant of A500 to successful applicants to their organisation. This figure does, how- ever, conceal the incidence of somewhat larger grants and when only the largest annual donations are considered, the median value of these was found to be L5,OOO.

Data in respect of the number of trustees involved in a given trust and the numbers of trustees that would typically be involved in a grant-making decision are given in Table 4. In 62 per cent of cases, all of the trustees in a given trust are involved in the decision-making process. This seems to indicate that charity hndraisers need to get their message across to all those who may be involved with a given or- ganisation. Data will be presented later which will suggest how this might be accomplished.

Page 7: UK trust fundraising - Learning to say thank you

Table 4: Data in respect of the number and involvement of trustees

Data Mean Std Dey Median Mode ~

~~

Number of trustees in 5.5 4.2 4 3

Number of trustees 4.2 2.4 4 3 trust

involved in grant decision

Potential improvements to contact strategies To facilitate a more professional approach to fundraising in this sector, respondents were also asked to identi@ what they saw as being the ‘key mistakes made by ap- plicants to their organisation’. While the original question was open, it soon be- came possible to categorise the responses received (see Table 5). It seems clear that a great many applicants to grant-making trusts do not read the requirements that must be met by an applicant in order for a given application to proceed. Respon- dents indicated that they were regularly asked to h n d projects that were clearly

beyond the scope of the trust. Data horn the personal interviews suggested that this may be explained in part by the ‘shotgun’ approach now being adopted by many trust hndraisers anxious to meet their targets.

‘We get an a h 1 lot of rubbish - people just don’t read what we send them. It’s so flustrating - they don’t care how much of your time they waste.’

‘My perception is that the situation is getting worse - I get a lot of “circulars” that are clearly being sent to hundreds of different trusts. Many of these simply

Table 5: Key mistakes made by applicants to grant-making trusts

% .f respondenfi Catqory label identijying

Applicant did not read requirements Applicant sent large amounts of unnecessary information - waffle Application very poorly presented - untidy Applicant did not state how the funds would be used Applicant did not read the instructions for making an application Applicant did not send a copy of their accounts Applicant did not make it clear that they were a charity The application was impersonal - mass produced No SAE was enclosed Applicant was ‘overfriendly’ either in postal or telephone communications Applicant sent insufficient information for a decision to be made Applicant did not state the amount of funding that was sought

55.3 23.4 19.1 14.9 14.9 14.9 12.8 12.8 10.6 8.5 8.5 6.4

Application was too ‘plush’ 6.4 Other 8.6

Page 8: UK trust fundraising - Learning to say thank you

don’t meet our requirements, but even where they do - if they can’t be bothered to write to me personally, why should I take the slightest interest in hnding them.’

This view is further supported by the fact that 12.8 per cent of respondents identified that they were now receiving applica- tions that were clearly mass produced and wholly inappropriate given the aims and objectives of the trust. It is difficult to see why this should be the case since pre- sumably fundraisers wish to build up a database of potential trusts, which they can then target with specific appeals at an appropriate time.

It also seems clear that many chanties do not give adequate consideration to the quantity and quality of the information that they supply in support of their bid. It seems that many applications either suf- fer fi-om unnecessary ‘padding’ or fail to enclose vital documents such as a set of their annual accounts. Incredibly, 14.9 per cent of respondents indicated that they received applications which did not state specifically how the funds would be used. Indeed, a minority of applications appear not even to state the overall amount that is being sought!

Other factors such as the hilure to enclose an sae or the ‘untidy’ presentation of an application, all contribute to the conclusion that much fundraising activity in this area is poorly planned and poorly targeted. Many applications seem to ex- hibit the symptoms of having been rushed, or produced in great quantity. Once again, data &om the personal interviews made it clear that such &,tors will have a bearing on the eventual success or hilure of a given bid. High-quality applications, spec- ificdy tailored to the stated objectives of the m s t will ‘stand out from the crowd’ and predispose the trustees to support them.

‘What they (fkndraisers) fail to recog- nise, is that we have a responsibility to ensure that the monies of the trust are used wisely. It’s dfficult to build up much faith in an organisation that can’t even spell your name right.’

‘The presentation is very important. An intelligent, neatly presented applica- tion says a lot about the quality of the applying organisation. Sometimes people forget that it’s only the applica- tion we will ever get to see. It doesn’t matter how wondehl the work they are doing might be - if they can’t communicate its quality in the applica- tion, it’s doomed to failure.’

It is, however, worth offering a final word ofcaution since the postal survey did suggest a need to keep the applications, although of high quality, quite simple in nature. A number of respondents observed that an application that was too ‘plush’ would be unlikely to receive support since the trustees may doubt whether the funding is ab- solutely essential if significant amounts ap- pear to be being spent on high-quality printing, colour graphics etc. Indeed, some trusts expressed a marked dislike of what they described as ‘slick’ hndraisers trying to, as one respondent put it, ‘get overfiiendly’ in their communications.

‘I’ve even had letters from people I don’t know, who obviously feel they’re on first name terms with me.’

‘Some presentations are particularly slick. In our case these go straight in the bin. If a chanty can afford hl l colour printing and graphics, they’re unlikely to need the comparatively small sums of money that we can offer them.’

In the light of the foregoing, there- fore, there seems to be some justification

Page 9: UK trust fundraising - Learning to say thank you

for keeping applications simple, succinct, politely phrased (but formal) and most importantly, ensuring that they follow the instructions tiom the trust to the letter.

To assist charities in fulfilling t h s latter objective, respondents were also asked to identifi. whether fundraisers should under- take a more detailed research prior to submitting an application. The results are given in Table 6. Given the earlier obser- vation that many applications are poorly targeted it is perhaps not surprising that trusts identifjr that additional research into the nature of causes supported should be carried out by fundraisers. However, a significant advantage may accrue to a fundraiser if he or she is able to trace the past record of giving of a particular trust. This will clearly guide the charity in the targeting of appropriate bids to those organisations most likely to be willing to support them. It should also be noted, however, that such research may also be useful in guiding fundraisers in respect of the emphasis that should be placed on the various components of the project for which funding is sought. If trustees are found to respond to particular types of project, or can identifjr with particular groups of beneficiaries, it must surely be these components that receive the greatest emphasis in marketing communications literature. Regrettably however, it appears that in order to undertake a more detailed research, fundraisers will be forced largely

Table 6: Additional research required by fundraisers

Additional researrh % of respondents

Nature of causes supported 58.9 Past record of giving 30.6 Interests of trusters 14.6 Suhrnission dates 14.3

to rely on secondary sources of idorma- tion. Only 24 per cent of respondents indicated that they would welcome tek- phone calls fiom applicants. Most felt that they were too busy to offer this service and indeed many would actively &s- courage it.

‘If we encouraged applicants to call, I’d never get any work done. We are already deluged by mail with requests for support. The possibility of receiving an equally endless stream of telephone requests for information doesn’t bear thinking about.’

‘I can see why fundraisers would like US to provide this service, but we r e d y don’t have the time. Of course you want to be helpfbl and perhaps larger trusts can put the time to it, but we’re too small.’

Evaluating the applications In respect of how trusts process the ap- plications they receive, the survey revealed that in the majority of cases the complete and original application will be forwarded for consideration to the trustees. It is worth noting, however, the significant role played in the process by the trust administrator, who in many cases d include their own recommendation for consideration by the trustees, on occasion even accompanying this with their own summary of the proposal. Full details are given in Table 7. Interestingly, an analysis of the potential correlations between the type of information provided to trustees and the size of the trust in terms of the number of trustees, revealed that the larger trusts are significantly more likely to in- clude a summary document provided by a trust administrator (X2 = 13.90, 7 d.f, Significant at the 0.05 level) with their recommendation in respect of whether the project should be funded or not.

Page 10: UK trust fundraising - Learning to say thank you

Table 7: Information provided to trustees

% respondents Information sent to trustees indicating

The completed application form 55.3

Record of past giving to that 27.7

A summary document written by 23.4

Recommendation from trust 23.4

A summary document provided 17.0

in its entirety

cause/organisation

the applicant

administrator

by the trust administrator

Table 8: Criteria used to evaluate a given application

Factor Median ranking

Strategic fit with trust’s mission 1 Figures requested realistic 2 Amount requested within 3

Past experience of applicant 4

society 5

acceptable parameters

Amount of benefit to accrue to

Evidence of support &om other

Evidence of applicants or own

6

4 trusts

efforts to raise hnds

(x2 = 25.54, 7 d.f, Significant at the 0.01 level).

Respondents were hrther asked to identifj‘ the criteria that would normally be used in the evaluation of projects for support and indeed to rank these in order of importance. The results are presented in Table 8. W M e it may be expected that the fit o f a given application with the mission of the trust may be deemed to be of pa-ount importance, it seems that

charities must give an equal consideration to ensuring that appropriate and realistic sums are requested. Given the earlier observation that a number of applicants to grant-making trusts either do not request a specific sum, or fail to indlcate how the sum requested would be used, there is clearly much scope for improvement within the sector. Interestingly, evidence that the organisation has made efforts to conduct its own (individual) flndraising also seems to predspose a trust towards support. Clearly chanties should make it clear what activities they are undertaking in this regard, in the main body of their application, as it may assist in having the application seen ‘in a more favourable light’ by trustees.

‘Many trusts will h n d projects in their entirety. Our philosophy is that we like to see evidence of prior funding. Our trustees look for a project where they can make a real difference between success and failure.’

‘We like to see evidence that a charity has tried to exploit other avenues of fimding, irrespective of whether or not such requests have been successfll. It just demonstrates that their fundraising department is relatively dynamic and not relying on our flnding in those cases where other sources may well be more appropriate.’

In cases where a particular decision may be considered borderline, respondents were asked to indicate those &tors which might persuade the trustees to back the proposal. The results are shown in Table 9. There is some emphasis placed here on what might be termed personal factors. Trustees will be more likely to support a borderline ap- plication where they have some form of relationship with the charity, perhaps through a past involvement or personal

Page 11: UK trust fundraising - Learning to say thank you

Providing trustees with feedback 9: Factors likely to influence a The survey revealed that formal feedback

borderline decision

Factors hke[y to injwnce a borderline application indicating

about the progress and ultimate success of a project is requested by only 34.6 per cent of trusts. When specifically requested, the feedback will take the forms shown in

% .f respondents

Trustee knowledge of the work of the charity

Charity supported by trust in the past

Some form of personal relationship with a trustee

Presentation/appearance of the application

Support already gained from other t rusts

78.8 Table 10. Of those trusts who do not specifically request feedback, only 10 per cent of successful applicants will provide 53.8 them with any form of feedback. Given 48.1 the evidence &om Table 9 that past contact

34.6 with a particular charity may (in some cases) predispose trustees to giving again to a future project, it seems that f n a n ~ 21.2

chanties are missing a substantid oppor- tunity to build relationships with potenad

contact. As will be shown later, there may be a number of opportunities for chanties to enhance the quality of their relationship with potential funden, many of which at present appear to be under utilised.

‘Shortlisting is easy. We only consider those chanties that are consistent with our objects. It’s taking the funding decisions themselves that’s hard. By that point you just can’t rely on objective criteria any longer. It comes down to gut-feel and inevitably this is influenced by any past contacts you might have had either with the nature of the cause or the organisation concerned.’

It is also worth noting the importance of the presentation and appearance of an application. This lends further weight to the argument that scruffy or mass- produced applications will be unlikely to succeed. Despite the obvious increases in cost associated with the adoption of a more professional approach, there is clear evidence that the preparation of uniquely tailored applications will, in the long term, pay dividends.

Table 10: m e s of feedback required

Fom of feedback required

Progress reports 55.6 Eventual success 50.0 Financial information about 50.0

Naturelprofde of eventual 36.7

% dm4sr.s requiring

how the grant was used

benefactors

funders. While it can be appreciated that a hndraiser may have no direct contact with a given project once funding has been established, there can be no excuse for not providing feedback to those that have provided what is ofien quite a substantid amount of money.

‘Occasionally we get feedback &om those organisations we support. It tends to be the same organisations that do this though - many just don’t bother.’

‘If you were to ask me formally I would say that feedback didn’t matter - but let’s face it we’re all only human. I like to think what we do here is valuable

Page 12: UK trust fundraising - Learning to say thank you

Table 11: Additional feedback wel- comed

% of respondents Additional feedback welcomed indicating

Financial information about 51.1 how the grant was used

Invitations to visit the project 26.9 Requirements for likely future 26.7

Number of eventual 24.4

Nature/profile of the eventual 22.2

Problems encountered with the 20.0

funding

beneficiaries

benehctors

project

and if you’re told what your hndmg has achieved, you can’t help but feel good.’

Respondents indicated that were feedback to be supplied from successfbl applicants, the information given in Table 11 would be welcomed. Clearly, financial informa- tion about the use to which the grant was ultimately put, would be of con- siderable value. What is more interest- ing is the extent to which trusts would actively welcome details of how they might potentially be able to help in the hture. The &ct that 27 per cent of respondents indicated they would wel- come both this information and an oppor- tunity to visit the project, suggests once q & n that fundraisers are missing a sig- nificant marketing opportunity.

Respondents were asked specifically whether they would welcome an invita- tion to visit a project they have hnded. The results are given in Table 12. Although it appears that very few trustees

want to visit a particular project, of those who responded that they would appreciate being asked, 56 per cent

Table 12: Trust attitudes to invitations to visit funded projects

% .f respondents Response to invitations indicating

Yes and would be likely to 11.5

Would appreciate being asked 48.1

N o 32.7

attend

but would not attend

indicated that they might send an administrator in their place. This is significant since, as has already been noted, such indlviduals often have the capacity to influence the decision a trust

will take, particularly if that application is likely to be a borderline decision. Chanties could hence gain a substantial opportunity to build relationships with potential hture finders, by maintaining a regular contact with key personnel.

CONCLUSIONS It seems clear that UK chanties are cur- rently missing many opportunities to im- prove their contact strategies in respect of grant-making trusts. This research has shown that approaches could be improved substantially by the adoption of a more targeted approach. Specifically, chanties would be well advised to build a database of trusts that are of direct relevance to the nature of their cause. Only those organisa- tions that would be likely to consider support should be included in this process. Such a fdtering mechanism would remove wastage and allow hndraisers to spend a greater percentage of their time in developing links with those organisations that have an inherently higher propensity to donate to their cause. Moreover, when a short list of potential trusts has been

Page 13: UK trust fundraising - Learning to say thank you

developed it should be profiled in terms of the average size of grant. Those organisa- tions giving larger sums, once identified, can be researched in particular detail. Information can be gathered in respect of the interests of trustees and past gwing behaviour, which can then be used to develop an appropriately tailored contact strategy.

The development of such a database would also enhance the quality of feed- back, which could be provided to trusts where a particular application for funding has been successful. Trusts can be easily updated in respect of how their monies have been used, which, as this survey has shown, will serve to build relation- ships with key decision makers over time. Trustees are, after all, ‘only human’ and a detailed ‘thank you’ outlining the benefit that has been derived fiom the grant will surely enhance a charity’s chances of at- tracting funding in the future.

What is still not clear, however, is the process by which trust decision makers arrive at their final funding decision. The foregoing analysis suggests that perhaps a hybrid model of decision making might be most applicable to the context of grant- making organisations. There is now con- siderable evidence that the initial stage of the decision-making process, namely short listing, could legitimately be regarded as a rational process. Large numbers of applica- tions are quickly assessed against a range of standardised criteria. Once through this preliminary stage of assessment, however, it seems likely that the ultimate decision in respect of funding will be subject to a variety of other, rather more subjective influences. The nature of any personal contacts that might exist between the applying charity and the trust, the per- ceived quality of the application and an overall understanding of the nature and quality of the work of the applicant, all appear to be of relevance.

FURTHER RESEARCH This paper has shown that trust decision making appears to be a complex and often ‘political’ process. The voluntary nature Of the role of charitable trustees makes it difficult to apply any traditional models of decision making to their work, since th- were, broadly speaking, developed for use in the for-profit sector. Only the work of Harrison (1993)” appears to offer insight into the political mechanisms that impact on trust giving behaviour. It also seems that a combination of rational and i r ra t iod factors can influence the final decision a trust might make. What is needed, there- fore, is a study that attempts to combine these elements into a coherent model of trust giving behaviour. Such a study would be invaluable, not only in enhancing knowledge of the sector, but also in seeking to improve the overall standard of trust hndraising, which, as has been seen, still leaves much to be desired.

REFERENCES (1) CAF (1997) ‘Dimensions of the

Voluntary Sector’, Chanties Aid Foundation, West Malling.

(2) Charity Commission for England and Wales (1997) ‘Report of the Charity Commission for England and Wales’, HMSO, London.

Organisations (1996) ‘The Scottish Voluntary Sector Almanac’, The Scottish Voluntary Sector Research Unit, Scotland.

(4) ‘United Kingdom Voluntary Sector Statistical Almanac’ (1996) Hems, L. and Passey, A. (eds), NCVO, London.

(5) CAF (1996) ‘Dimensions of the Voluntary Sector’, Charities Aid Foundation, West Malling.

(6) Leat, D. (1996) ‘Grantmaking TNS~S’ in CAF ‘Dimensions of the Voluntary Sector’, Charities Aid Foundation, West Malling.

(3) Scottish Council for Voluntary

Page 14: UK trust fundraising - Learning to say thank you

(7) Cennak, D. S. €!, File, K. M. and Prince, R. A. (1994) ‘A benefit segmentation of the major donor market’, Journal of Business Research, 29(2), pp. 121-30.

(8) Lee, W. (1971) ‘Decision Theory and Human Behaviour’, John Wiley and Sons, New York.

(9) Hirokiwa, R. Y. and Johnston, D. D. (1989) ‘Toward a general theory of group decision making: Development of an integrated model’, Journal of Small Group Behauiour, 20(4), Nov. pp. 500-23.

(10) Harrison, E. E (1993) ‘Interdisciplinary models of decision making’, Management Decision Making, 31(8), pp. 27-33.

(11) Witte, E. (1972) ‘Field research on complex decision making processes’, International Studies on Management and Organisation, Summer, pp. 156-82.

(12) Schrenck, L. €? (1969) ‘Aiding the decision maker - A decision process model’, Ergonomics, 12 July, pp. 543-57.

(13) Heracleous, L. (1994) ’Rational decision making’, Management Development Review, 7(4), p. 1.

adrmnistration: Is it time for an Institute of Charity Trustees?’, N e w Law Journal, 29 April, pp. 2-4.

(15) Simon, H. A. (1960) ‘The New Science of Management Decision Making’, Harper and Row, New York.

(14) Vincent, R. (1988) ‘Charity