news & articles

Susie Hills reflects as Halpin Fundraising – a specialist consultancy (with a difference) – launches worldwide.

What if we reimagined fundraising using the guiding principle of kindness?

The Oxford English Dictionary tells us that kindness is ‘the quality of being friendly, generous and considerate’.

To help us further:

• ‘friendly’ is defined as ‘kind and pleasant’,
• ‘generous’ is defined as ‘showing a readiness to give more than is necessary’, and
• ‘considerate’ is defined as ‘careful not to inconvenience or harm others’.

Sounds like a pretty good guide to how we should behave as fundraisers. Let’s see how they could look as a set of ‘rules’ for fundraising. Maybe something like this:

“We will be friendly, generous and considerate as we fundraise. This means we will:

1. Be kind and pleasant -
   • be respectful and positive in our communications,
   • look after each other as we work,
   • be respectful of our donors and our recipients.
2. Be ready to give more than is necessary:
   • work hard for our chosen cause,
   • use resources efficiently,
   • consider going above and beyond to care for our donors and our recipients.
3. Be careful not to inconvenience others:
   • respect the right of people to say no (whilst being hopeful they will say yes)
   • take care of the information donors give us”

   • Once we have our established our ‘kindness rules’, we could then measure all our fundraising techniques against them – perhaps even giving them a score out of 10 on our ‘kindness-o-meter’. This might help us rethink some of our fundraising practices.

Let’s give it a try with street fundraising.

Now I haven’t yet met a street fundraiser who didn’t seem kind and pleasant as they beamed at me and tried to engage with me. They often seem charming and likeable. They seem ready to give more than is necessary to get me to talk to them, but it’s more than I want as I rush down the street with other things on my mind.

That’s when we get to Rule 3 – not inconveniencing others. Here is where they fail and why, ultimately, this form of fundraising is not sustainable. The reality is that I am going somewhere to do something, and I don’t want, or have time, to stop and consider giving to a charity at that moment in time.

In fact, maybe it isn’t kind to try to stop me, to make me feel rude or guilty for not engaging. I feel inconvenienced and annoyed, even though I haven’t really been inconvenienced at all. The reality is that when I am on the street going about my business, I am not ready to give my thought, time or money. It feels uncomfortable to be asked in that situation, no matter how kind or pleasant the asker is. If I do stop and talk and end up giving, the likelihood is that I won’t continue my donations because I don’t feel I have freely chosen to support the cause.

You can see how we can test our fundraising activities against this list. Similarly, on a micro-level we can test our individual actions against this list, and use it to develop new practice. How powerful it is to ask, “Will the donor feel looked after when they receive this?” or “Does this show we are kind and ready to give/do more?”

It may also help us to foster teamwork. Fundraising is hard work and turnover amongst fundraisers is high. It’s hard to recruit, and keep, good fundraisers. What if we recruited people for kindness (amongst their other qualities, skills and experience), and fostered a team where kindness drove our behaviours? See my previous blog on this topic. I am pretty sure that the fundraising results of a team which operates from the basis of kindness will be higher. If we are kind to each other, we can be kind to our donors.

And kindness doesn’t mean never asking for a gift. Indeed, once of the kindest things you can do is to ask somebody to help change lives. Many of the philanthropists I have worked with are grateful to have been asked, grateful for the joy that their giving has brought to their lives, and grateful for the satisfaction that comes from putting their money to good purpose.

Kindness does mean that you ensure the donor understands the purpose of the conversation, that you respect their interests and time, that they have a choice and that nothing is hidden.

Kindness means we can trust one another, and that trust will allow us to try new things and challenge the norms. Our profession needs to regain trust and we have to start with one another.

Susie Hills

“You have not lived until you have done something for someone who can never repay you.”

(John Bunyan)

When I was jobhunting upon leaving college (in a different millennium), a couple of good friends suggested working for a fundraising consulting firm. I had never heard of such a business, let alone held any aspirations to enter the field. I was told you could travel a bit, meet interesting people and develop skills that may be helpful down the road. So I applied, and was offered the job.

Thirty-six years later I have not regretted that decision for one moment. When I started out, friends and family responded with blank stares when I told them of my business. Today, I get only slightly fewer blank looks and questions such as, “You actually do that for a living?”

As anyone who has been in the business a while understands, you do not do this work to get rich. Yet, I cannot think of more satisfying and fulfilling work.

I have sat on both sides of the table during my career. I began as a consultant and learned the trade, so to speak, and found that the basic principles of fundraising learned during my consulting days are universal:

• A compelling reason or vision for people to give;
• Leadership that is committed to making the vision a reality;
• A donor base that understands the mission and is prepared to support it.
• People give to people;
• People respond most generously to specific requests.

Everyone involved with nonprofits believes their organisation is unique and important, and can raise as much money as they need. As a consultant it was often my job to bring the client back to earth because one or more of the essential elements was lacking or missing. At times, these were difficult but necessary conversations. As consultants, we bring the power of objectivity and perspective, based on our experience that, if accepted and embraced, it can be transformational.

There is another aspect to consulting work that I have always found fascinating. We often work with powerful and influential people; people who make many complex and difficult decisions in their professional lives on a daily basis. Yet, when it comes to asking for money, or understanding what it takes to ask for money, many of these people become flummoxed.

As a staff member, I brought the same experiences to the table with, at times, different results. I found that professional advice offered as a consultant means relatively little. You find yourself caught in the culture of the organisation – “This is the way we do things here” – and find it difficult to effect change. And when it comes it’s incremental. And, of course, when you are inevitably asked to bring consultants in, you realise you are never a prophet in your own land. Which drew me back to the consulting world.

I can say without hesitation that the work I have been involved in over the years has improved the lives of more people than I could have ever imagined. Better educational opportunities, better healthcare, stronger and more viable faith-based institutions, more increased opportunities for the arts to reach more people, more opportunities for social change.

How has the business changed? In many, many good and sustainable ways. Women are a predominant force in the profession. There are many more nonprofits that are doing essential and important work, and donors are more knowledgeable and sophisticated as to how their gifts can transform organisations in ways great and small. Moreover, it is a profession that plays a vital role in creating, sustaining and reclaiming institutions that are essential to the greater good. And, as I speak with young people considering careers, I have found nonprofit work has become an important option.

I am delighted to join the roster of stellar professionals at The Halpin Partnership, to bring my skills and experiences to organisations on both sides of the Atlantic.

“I have tried to raise money by asking for it and by not asking for it. I always got more by asking for it.”

(Millard Fuller, founder Habitat for Humanity)

Jim Buggy, Halpin Fundraising Fellow

There have been some significant shifts in the global discourse about higher education internationalisation recently. The Western perspective that has tended to dominate, with its assumptions that internationalisation is ‘a good thing’, is being challenged. Is it positive for everyone? And have we been guilty of taking a narrow (and lopsided) view of what it’s all about?

I attended UUKi’s International Higher Education Forum (IHEF) in Nottingham on 14 March. It was clear from the opening plenary (which involved speakers from universities in Japan, Switzerland, Canada and the USA, as well as a representative for Pacific Rim institutions) that internationalisation means different things in different contexts. However, there was broad recognition of the wider societal role of international education: the need to face outwards and to operate across institutional and national boundaries to tackle shared global challenges; the need to embrace more egalitarian and inclusive approaches to internationalisation; and the need to measure its success in new ways such as public service commitment or advancement of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.

Chris Tremewan, Secretary-General of the Association of Pacific Rim Universities, called for a redefinition of internationalisation in HE, moving from competitive self-interest to global common good.

This echoes recent calls for a re-examination of what universities are for: from, among many others, Shaun Horan (who emphasises their role performing ‘a service to humanity’) and Mike Boxall (who outlines a vision of them being ‘leaders and orchestrators in a variety of multi-partner “learning ecosystems”’, helping to address challenges at local, national and global level).

Partnerships, networks and social responsibility – a UK perspective

International partnerships and networks have long been a feature of the global higher education landscape. In the UK context, I have seen them growing in importance within institutional strategies. And, since the Brexit vote, attention has been cranked up still further.

I would readily bet that the international travel schedules of Vice-Chancellors and their executive teams have become more frenetic, as they seek to reach out and secure relationships in continental Europe while also demonstrating commitment to new partners further afield. They/we are seeking, perhaps, to mitigate any impression that the UK is a less open society than it once was; to demonstrate the values so eloquently voiced via the #WeAreInternational campaign.

The notion of universities as ‘global team players’ has been proposed by Nicola Brewer of University College London (UCL), who cites Adam Habib, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Witwatersrand. Habib’s view is that universities should act ‘in a way that supports the global academy of commons rather than simply advancing the individual aspirations of institutions’.

The term ‘global engagement’ is increasingly replacing the term ‘internationalisation’; and global engagement through strategic partnerships is a strong focus for many UK HEIs (including UCL).

At an IHEF session entitled ‘Networks, hedges and bridges’, Philip Gilmartin of University of East Anglia described a new network of ‘like-minded’ European institutions called Aurora. Its key priorities include embracing diversity and inclusion, contributing societal impact through relevant research and promoting environmental sustainability. It has already launched a project to make internationalisation more inclusive, with a particular focus on facilitating an international experience for students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

While there was much (welcome) emphasis at the conference on encouraging outbound student mobility from traditional ‘destination’ countries such as the UK (including a session on the UUKi Go International: Stand Out campaign), one topic which did not get enough airtime was internationalisation of the curriculum as a means of bringing a much-needed global perspective to the ‘static majority’ of students who are not internationally mobile.

And then there are those who are involuntarily mobile. Another IHEF session launched UUKi’s guide for universities on ‘Higher Education and displaced people’. This is a call to action for universities to develop strategies for making higher education accessible to both young people and academics whose learning and careers have been stopped in their tracks as a result of forced migration.

There were many other examples of a more outward-facing form of HE internationalisation (or global engagement) which – at heart – is really just about universities fulfilling their societal role on a global stage.

What about a national strategy?

There was a certain amount of envy among participants at IHEF towards those (many) countries which have national (government-championed) strategies for international education. Canada in particular was seen as a prime example of successful joined up thinking at national level (though it was noted that even the Canadians struggle with outbound student mobility).

The fragmented approach in the UK was critiqued in the closing plenary by Janet Beer (President, UUK), Geoff Mulgan (Chief Executive, NESTA) and others. This perception of fragmentation (particularly across different government departments) is not new (see my 2015 blog looking back on the previous decade).

However, the calls were loud and compelling for a new, joined up international strategy for UK HE, with a broader focus than previous, largely economically driven strategies. Ciaran Devane (British Council) observed that our language skills are diminishing so any international strategy must incorporate foreign language learning. Others made the point that it must include local students (see my earlier observation about curriculum internationalisation).

The imminence of Brexit was seen to increase the urgency of developing such a strategy.

Which brings us on to Simon Marginson’s presentation of current research by the Centre for Global Higher Education on UK universities’ approaches to Brexit-related uncertainty. Early findings from the project suggest a distinct lack of planning for different scenarios. Because the UK HE system is used to comparative stability, institutions seem almost paralysed in the face of uncertainty: still in ‘shock phase’. They are used to others setting the rules and appear to be waiting for government to tell them what to do.

Marginson highlighted a lack of urgency within institutions: a sense that the impact will only really be felt in 4 to 5 years’ time (so it’s a problem for the next Vice-Chancellor). He urged leaders to consider possible scenarios and develop plans (and plan Bs) to deal with them, rather than waiting for a steer from above.

He ended with this very apt quotation from Voltaire: ‘Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position. But certainty is an absurd one.’

Joining up within our own institutions

As we’ve seen, it’s easy to point fingers at a lack of joined up thinking at government level, but how joined up are we within our own institutions?

An interesting session titled ‘Structured for Success’ looked at the different ways in which three UK HEIs structure their international activities.

Of particular interest was the University of Reading’s approach, shared by Enzo Raimo. He highlighted the things that often don’t make it into HEI international strategies: staff recruitment, student diversity, capacity development, English language support, foreign languages, knowledge transfer and business engagement.

Reading has taken the unusual step of embedding its global engagement strategy within an academic unit – with a view to achieving full integration of internationalisation into everything the university does. It has an ambitious goal to make its own global engagement strategy redundant by 2021.

This resonates with my research into UK HEI approaches to ‘integrated internationalism’ in the mid-2000s, when it was suggested by one interviewee that the ultimate measure of success for an International Office was for it no longer to be needed.

So, at institutional level, it seems there are moves to develop more inclusive internationalisation strategies (the new strategy at Cardiff Met includes a humanitarian strand), but also to embed international ways of thinking more firmly across all organisational functions.

What does all this mean for UK universities?

The institutional implications of a more inclusive, more joined up, more outward-facing and more collaborative approach to internationalisation (on global, national and organisational levels) are considerable.

As a starting point, I would urge UK HEIs to:

• Be open to learning from other institutions operating in different global contexts, recognising that there is strength in diversity.
• Lobby government for the right kind of international strategy for UK HE, embracing a more inclusive set of ambitions.
• Club together with other HEIs (at home and abroad) where there are common interests and where a united approach will be more powerful.
• Be clear about how internationalisation can support your own institution’s priorities and identify the best path to embed it across all relevant functions.

Above all, I would echo Simon Marginson’s rallying cry for UK HEIs to take responsibility for their own destiny.

Dr Vicky Lewis - Halpin Consulting Fellow

Halpin Partnership joint-CEO and Higher Education fellow Shaun Horan explores the role (and value) of universities…

Many years ago, an inspirational university leader told me that universities exist for three reasons:

Firstly, the preservation of eternal truths. This may sound very high flown, and indeed it is, but the point is quite simple. We need our great universities to teach the next generations the facts as we know them, and how to analyse, interpret and question them.

Secondly, the creation of new knowledge. A function less spoken about is the role of universities in life-changing research. Indeed, many former students will say that this is an aspect of the university that they had little knowledge or awareness of. In fact, the cures to many of the diseases that plague us today will be discovered on a campus somewhere, or at the very least will have been contributed to by research in a university lab. And it’s not just science. Pushing the limits on creative expression, producing great artists and thinkers – all the job of the academy.

Lastly, and even more high flown, their purpose is to perform a service to humanity. And it’s this last point that is crucial.

It seems that it might have once been accepted that a university education was a public good – having an amount of highly educated people was a good thing for any society and its economy. We need to extend human knowledge and enrich the human experience and very practically, we need teachers, doctors, lawyers, economists, scientists, engineers and so on. These were the drivers that motivated of the founders of our universities – those who fought to create universities across the country.

More recently the political narrative appears to have moved from the public good to the private good. University education is seen purely to benefit the individual – the common view appears to be that ‘you gain in income by experiencing Higher Education, therefore you pay for it’ – the student is now a ‘customer’ buying opportunity rather than a learner and a scholar contributing to the greater good.

The ‘student as customer’ sits perfectly within the view that higher education should be a marketplace, where competition is the order of the day. Customers should choose the institution which will best serve their interests and is most deserving of their fee.

Once we accept students as customers and HE as a marketplace then it is natural for us to consider a University as “a business”.

So does this matter? Is the press right to worry that university leaders are “fat cats”, exploiting students and staff? Or are those who see the running of universities as businesses in a marketplace, and driving improvements for students and greater efficiency, right?

I suspect the truth, as ever, is somewhere in between. There is nothing more important than education – it is the base from which everything else flows at its most fundamental level. Without it there are no professions, no medical advances, no informed debates on what is right and wrong. Universities are a part of an education system that should be viewed as a whole. People will tend to underline the parts that worked best for them – those who went to grammar schools may want to see more of them. Those who got a scholarship to a private school might be determined to send their own children into the same system, or to support more scholarships. A great comprehensive education might lead someone else to question whether the previous two types of education should exist at all.

No one answer has been found as to what is the “right” form of education. There is no one key to this – there are many doors with countless locks that work for some and not others. What we can say is that the university is a vital part of the system and can be an engine of social mobility. How they are viewed and run is therefore very important.

So should universities stand outside of the commercial world, and be run by people who are willing to do the job for significantly less money than seems to be the case at present? If we accept that some version of the three reasons for Universities to exist is correct, it’s clearly crucial that we get the answers right.

Universities should clearly be efficient and effective, and yes trustees from the business world bring some excellent experience to university councils, and can and should provide challenge. But for effective governance we need a mix of voices – those from non-profits as well as the commercial world. Universities are not “normal” organisations in the business sense. Academics do not generally work for them to simply draw a salary, but because of a profound interest and commitment to a particular area. Indeed, many will not consider that they work “for” the university at all. Leadership in these circumstances is highly challenging – a leader needs consent, if not always enthusiasm, to lead, but leading a team of people whose job is to challenge everything is not simple.

We need to bring some balance back to this debate. We should remember why universities exist, and crucial role they play in creating good societies. The public, as well as the private good. Open and reasoned debate should always be welcomed, and so should an examination when things go wrong. The market is a useful way of deciding some things, but not all. The life of an average business, before it morphs into something different, might be around 5-20 years. Most of our universities have been around in some form for a hundred years, sometimes a thousand. They need to be equipped to move with the times, but also to stand apart from those times, and do and preserve some of the things they have always done.

I hope in the continuing debates about HE, particularly in the light of the recently announced HE review, that we remember the long term, and the public good. Let’s put time and effort into good governance, and into strong and informed debate, so that we can leave our universities to continue performing a service to humanity. Those who know the price of everything, whatever their convictions, should not be the sole voice.

Shaun Horan