Last time it was Innovation; now I found myself at
another Institute of Fundraising conference talking about another “I”
word- this time the word was 'Impact.'
I was lucky enough to receive a bursary to attend this event (open to
organisations whose raised voluntary income is below £1million) and
it definitely made it accessible.
I am becoming increasingly more selective in deciding
which conferences and training events are a good investment, but the
invigorating feeling of discussing issues with other fundraisers is one that
has huge value, as well as it being a topic which is increasingly relevant to
all of us in the sector – Impact.
When I started in fundraising, 11 years ago now, I worked
for a wonderful organisation, Oakhaven Hospice,
and impact was not a concept I ever heard discussed.
Certainly, the medical and
care teams were rigorous in assessing their standards of care, but in
fundraising the focus seemed much more on emphasising the need for funding – the increasing demand, the reasons why
the type of palliative care hospices provide was important and made a
difference, our work in the community, and how we continued to support families
after the loss of a loved one through bereavement counselling.
Perhaps this was because the concept of caring for people
who have life limiting illnesses needs less explanation than other causes,
therefore people are less likely to demand to know what long term effect the
work will have.
Or perhaps it was because the type of fundraising that at the
time we carried out; one of the most interesting point for me from the
conference was made several times, by different speakers –
individual donors are much less interested in “investing in impact”
and having this impact reported to them than other types of funders,
particularly grant making trusts.
This was illustrated memorably by one of the
speakers, Tris Lumley of NPC, who explained that the assumption that individual
donors cared about impact and wanted to donate money where impact was greatest,
resulted in what was initially an unsuccessful business model for NPC.
When I
was at Oakhaven, the vast majority of our fundraising focused on individuals,
whereas now the charity has won several substantial grants, and no doubt the
concept of impact reporting is very different.
Aside from the pleasing feeling of being a UN delegate or
international ambassador type (the event was held at the International Coffee
Organisation, in a room where we all had our own individual microphones, and
the back wall was festooned with flags), one of the most valuable parts of the
event for me was being able to openly acknowledge the pressures that we face as
fundraisers to do what we need to in order to get the funding, whilst
recognising that this causes tensions around how honest to be with a funder –
particularly if things are not going well.
It didn't come up on the day,
perhaps because the mix of organisations in the room meant that it had less
relevance for some than others, but I wonder what impact payment by results
could have on the optimistic spirit of openess that ran through the session.
Richard Piper, CEO of Roald Dahl's Marvellous Children's
Charity represented funders, and admitted that there was room for improvement
from their side of the fence, not least actually doing something with the reams
of impact data received through faithfully completed project reports. His talk
made me, and I am sure many other people in the room, wish he could be cloned
and installed at hundreds of other grant making trusts.
Of particular relevance to this blog, especially with
International Women's Day just behind us - Katie Rabone asked the
question early on in the event; why, when about 70% of the room was female, was
every single speaker male?
This was no criticism of the men who were there –
who then all felt the need to apologise for being, well, male - but is a
continuing, and to be honest, really quite inexcusable trend.
There are many
dynamic, accomplished, and high achieving women in fundraising, are they not
seen at these events because they are
not invited, or because as you move up to the most senior roles, those most
likely to be speaking, the gender balance shifts? This needs to be addressed,
but please do not mistake this for a pitch; I am an appallingly bad public
speaker.
Finally, for anyone who ready my
previous blog about an IOF event, I am please to report that there were
biscuits on offer at every refreshment break, the 2014 sugar ban has obviously
gone the way of all other resolutions.
Jemma Saunders
Agree whole heartedly that our speakers should reflect the diversity of the fundraising profession, which the original line up did. Unfortunately, we had a few speakers drop out who happened to be women. If you have any suggestions of female speakers that you would like to put forward please get in touch.
ReplyDelete