A Better Approach: Funders Supporting, Not Mandating
Lamplight is a Lloyds Foundation partner in the Enhance programme. On top of grant funding, Lloyds will pay for development support identified by the charity, and Lamplight is one of the options on the menu, along with some other system providers. If taming their data is identified as a need, organisations can take a look at Lamplight alongside other providers, and judge whether it’s right for them. There’s lots of other types of support available, and by all accounts it’s an excellent approach.
When Funders Get It Wrong
Over the years we’ve seen a different approach by some funders. They mandate the use of a particular system by funded organisations. Over the years a handful of our customers have had to switch from Lamplight because of this. We’ve learned to offer to hold on to their settings etc. because we’ve seen enough that return after 2 or 3 years – the funder changed their mind/priorities/funding, or the new, one system to rule them all, just didn’t work out.
Figure 1 Jennie wasn’t enjoying the new One App To Rule Them All forced on her by her well-meaning funder
One Size Doesn’t Fit All
That’s because we also see how different charities are. We work with hundreds and speak to thousands, and know that Lamplight isn’t right for every single charity. Neither is any other system. Different organisations have different requirements and capacity, and different CRMs will suit them. A great benefit of the non-profit sector is its diversity: its ability to respond to local needs appropriately; its willingness to experiment; the recognition that people are different, situations are different, and responses need to be different. Enforcing standard approaches and systems undermines that.
The Efficiency Myth
Perhaps it’s more efficient, though, and that’s worth the trade-off? Maybe that’s true… in which case, perhaps all funders will start doing it… with different systems. Given the stubborn diversity of application processes and grant management systems, it’s hard to imagine all funders using the same systems. Or even just has data requirements that can’t be met by the over-arching system. So now a single charity ends up with system A for project A, system B for project B, and system C for project C. Everything’s a lot less efficient. The charity is juggling different funding streams, and reporting requirements, and staff need to learn three different systems and remember to use the right one for the right thing.
When Systems Hurt, Not Help
Worse than that, the service they offer gets worse. One of our customers had moved to Lamplight from lots of different spreadsheets. They work with victims of domestic violence. Before, no-one knew the full picture of what was going on, which meant that different workers kept asking the same kinds of questions, each time re-traumatising those victims they were trying to support. Bringing their data into a single system for their organisation led to an immediate and very tangible benefit to their service users.
There’s definitely a problem here that needs solving, however. Third sector data is too difficult to access, aggregate, reflect on, learn from, and act informed by.
So, What’s The Solution?
Two things.
- The ability to share reporting type data easily – a shared format that doesn’t dictate particular tools.
- The ability to share data between systems, in a way that respects and protects individual data rights.
What’s Not Needed?
Funders dictating systems. Push back. It’s a bad idea.
Photo by Jud Mackrill on Unsplash
