Grant-makers are under pressure. The number of applications are going up while the funds aren’t, and the needs of (smaller) charities and non-profits are ever greater. So how can grant-makers increase their impact without more money to spend. Here are six of my ideas.
1. Grants for individuals.
Many of the big changes in society are bought about by individuals as much as organisations. We all know the examples of Doreen Lawrence and her campaign on racism and the Metropolitan police, or Marcus Rashford and his campaign on hunger and young people. Martin Lewis is doing great stuff on the cost of living crisis and energy bills. A less well-known example is Kwajo Tweneboa as featured on Nick Robinson’s political thinking podcast (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001jk9q ). Indeed, Kwajo specifically references the fact they get no funding – why on earth not?
Grant-makers put 99% of their resources into organisations. Indeed, if Kwajo was a charity they’d probably be funded. So why don’t grant-makers give to individuals who might change the world, as well to organisations who might change the world? Some do. The MacArthur fellowships, sometimes called the genius awards, are a great example of funding individuals from the US. (https://www.macfound.org/programs/fellows/ ).
2. Better branding and strategic positioning.
Most grant-makers have terrible brands and strategic positioning. They don’t have a clear position in terms of what they specialise in. Even if you look at their websites, it’s not very clear. For example, Henry Smith is an incredible grant-giver to reduce poverty, doing amazing work. But you’d be hard pressed to know that simply from the way they talk about themselves, nor even by looking at their website. They are not alone. One of the few grant-makers that is clear is Children in Need: it does what it says on the can. But most of the others are much less clear either by name, or by their branding.
This matters because the clearer a brand is, the less likely it is that people will apply when they are ineligible. The clearer a strategic positioning is, the more it will help a grant-maker have a critical mass of expertise in the issues and causes they fund, to make some really good grant decisions.
3. Learning from grantees.
Almost every grant-maker asks for gazillions of reports from grantees. But I have yet to see a grant-maker that took all that information and really learns about ‘what works’ and ‘what didn’t’ for the grants they fund, and the organisations they seek to help. And then feed all that info back to grantees and potential grantees. I fully admit, I haven’t looked at every grant-maker so I may have missed some great work. Indeed, if ever there was a role for artificial intelligence (AI) in grant-making, it’s not in making the grant decisions, it’s in identifying the features that help make an organisation or a project behind a grant successful.
Even without AI, learning from grantees isn’t rocket science. It’s about asking people what worked, and what went well, it’s about compiling it in reports, or podcasts, or videos, or webinars to help organisations learn from their peers. Good advice is almost always worth a lot more than a typical grant (even if most grantees probably wouldn’t see it that way!).
4. Asking what business are grant-makers in?
Anybody who has done an MBA will know the story of the American railroads thinking they were in the railroad business at the turn of the 20th century, and failed to see how the petrol engine would debilitate railways. Had they seen themselves as being in the transport business, they would have more likely identified the change in their world.
Most grant-makers think they are in the business of ‘handing over money to grantees’ to help them deliver their work. Imagine if grant-makers saw themselves as being in the business of ‘helping their grantees thrive.’ The latter grant-maker still gives grants, but also strengthens their grantees’ governance, runs back-office functions, learn about what works and what doesn’t, networks and creates partnership between grantees, and so much more. This is sometimes called ‘funder plus,’ but even that name makes it clear that the money is the real benefit. If grant-makers became ‘impact-makers’ or ‘successful organisation makers,’ they would still give grants but embed that in a wider matrix of other support to create more successful charities & non-profits. Indeed imagine a ‘grant-maker’ who never gave any grants, but whose currency was ideas, advice, and insight.
5. Reflecting the people they serve.
There is a big debate about EDI in grant-makers and quite rightly. But it’s a deeper issue than that. How do grant-makers not just be diverse and inclusive but also make the decisions that the beneficiaries of their grantees would want them to make. There is no point in being the most diverse organisation on the planet if the grants which are given, are not wanted by the people they are designed to help.
So how do grantees & grant-makers reflect and include beneficiaries in their decisions. Some of this is about participatory grant-making – asking those who will benefit what they want. In some cases, get them to make the decisions. It’s also about ensuring that the staff and the trustees of a grant-maker listen to their grantees and have an understanding of their grantees’ world. The process needs to leave their preconceptions at the door, and realise their role is to serve and empower grantees, rather than decide what is best for them.
6. Speak out on behalf of grantees and potential grantees.
Most small charities could tell you a dozen ways in which the world they are trying to improve is stacked against them, or the people they exist to help. This could be about funding streams, government grants, welfare benefits, social housing, or a host of other things. Most small organisations are reluctant to speak up about those problems both because it takes time and energy from other things, and also because they worry it will impact on their income streams.
It is one of the reasons that individuals can be such effect campaigners – they don’t have to worry about the impact on the charity. Few grant-makers do the campaigning on behalf of their grantees. Lloyds Bank Foundation is one of the notable exceptions. Strategically, campaigning on behalf of grantees makes huge sense. The grant-makers have their own sources of funds so don’t need to worry about the impact on government contracts, and they have a size and critical mass that means campaigning won’t impact on the rest of the organisation.
Please do let me know if you think I am talking rubbish, or what your ideas are for increasing the impact of grant-makers. Email me onjoe@heyheyjoe.info
Comments