giving our all: reflections of a spend out charity

Giving our all:reflections of a spend out charity

“The great use of life is to spend it for something that outlasts it.”

William James (1842 –1910)

Miles and Briony Blackwell, founders of The Tubney Charitable Trust

The Prince of Wales © Chris Jackson

The Tubney Charitable Trust6

Section 1The Tubney Charitable Trust: grant-making 1997 – 2012

Contents

Summary of grant-making 12

The birth and early years (1997 – 2001) 14

Our first steps (2001 – 2003) 15

An early trauma 17

Adolescence (2003 – 2004) 18

Strategic review 18

Defining direction 19

Coming of age (2004 – 2008) 22

Championing our causes 22

Farmed animals 22

Biodiversity 24

Being proactive 28

Marine conservation 32

New tactics 33

Our final years (2008 – 2012) 36

Spending out 36

Preparing for the end 37

Our legacy 38

Allowing space to ‘think big’ 38

The legacy mindset 39

Working on trust 40

Giving our all: reflections of a spend out charity 7

Section 2What we learned

The big picture 48

Recognising connections 48

Bringing people together 49

Building networks 50

Beyond national boundaries 54

Working with applicants and grantees 56

Dialogue and feedback 56

Evidence-based work 61

Taking risks 64

Managing risk 66

Bringing in experts 67

Supporting business and financial planning 70

Size matters 75

Sharing lessons learned 76

The Trustee Board 77

Keeping the same Trustees 77

Becoming experts in our core areas 80

Relationship between Trustees and staff 81

Watch your language 82

Spend out 83

Why do it? 83

Encouraging philanthropy 84

Ten reasons to considerspending out 86

The practicalities 88

Management 88

Investments, finances andscheduling 89

Communication – inside and out 91

Transfer of assets 93

Summary 95

Acknowledgements 98

Tubney-funded publications 100

History of the Trust 102


Hay Meadow © Yorkshire Dales Millennium Trust


WelcomeDuring its 15-year existence, the composition of the small group ofTrustees and staff running The Tubney Charitable Trust changed verylittle. But Tubney’s vision, aims and working methods went throughseveral radical transformations. We hope that what we have learnedon our journey may be of interest to others involved in charitablegiving, especially grant-makers, precisely because we have travelledso far so quickly, if not always in a straight line. Indeed, it is perhapsour mistakes and detours that will be most instructive.

Trustees and staff: (Back row from left to right) Claire Tyrrell, Nick Forster, Sarah Ridley, James Webb, Anil Patil, Angie Seal (Front row from left to right) Jonathan Burchfield, Jim Kennedy, René Olivieri, Terry Collins

The TubneyCharitable Trust:

grant-making 1997 – 2012

“The most difficult and importantquestion all Trustees must askthemselves is ‘why do we exist?’ A corollary is ‘why do we need to existforever?’ Can we do more good byconcentrating our resources, withina fixed timeframe and very specificareas of interest? Can we do evenmore good by using our resources tomake other organisations pursuingsimilar or identical goals moreeffective and robust? Knowing youare not going to be around foreverforces grant-makers not to micro-manage their grant recipients, butrather to try to understand how thoseorganisations work and think.”

René Olivieri, Chair of Tubney Trustee Board


Defined, project-based grant-making(2004 – 2008)

Following our strategic review, we chose to target ourfunding on two reactive programmes supportinghigh-quality projects with defined milestones andoutcomes that would deliver a long-term impact on:

• The protection and enhancement of the naturalenvironment of the UK through the achievementof UK Biodiversity Action Plan targets;

• The improvement of the welfare of farmedanimals (all animals bred and reared for theproduction of food or other products), in the UKand internationally.

In addition, as part of the Trust’s Special Initiativefunding and following the cessation of support forpalliative care and education, we made a final grantto each of these sectors, both for £1 million.

During this period, we made

99 awards

totalling £21,310,723

with an average grant size of just over £215,000

The Tubney Charitable Trust: summary of grant-makingInitial grant-making (1997 – 2001)

From its creation in 1997 until the untimely deaths ofits founders in 2001, the Trust made small-scalegrants to causes of personal interest to the founders.


77 awards

totalling £90,000


Generalist, reactive grant-making(2001 – 2004)

From 2001 until we implemented a strategic plan in2004, the Trust could be described as a generalist,reactive grant-maker.


224 awards

totalling £12,856,936



Legacy grant-making (2008 – 2012)

In the final phase of the Trust’s grant-making life, theTrustees made the decision to cease project-basedgrant-making and to develop significant ‘legacy’partnerships with key non-governmentalorganisations in the environment and farmed animalwelfare sectors. The Trust focused on capacitybuilding, providing a limited number of large ‘legacygrants’ designed to transform the capability of keyoperational charities to enable them to deliver theircharitable objectives – which they share with the Trust – well beyond the life of the Trust. We alsoestablished an additional objective to encourageeffective philanthropy and awarded a number ofsmall grants for initiatives to achieve this aim.

During this period, we distributed

the majority insignificant legacypartnership grants whichwe hope will build thecapacity of charitiesseeking to deliver significantimprovement for biodiversity and the welfare of farmed animals

8 grants ranging from £1.3 million to £3.43 million

Grant-making 1997 – 2012

Area of support No of awards £

Initial grant-making (1997 – 2001)

General 77 90,000

Total 77 90,000

Generalist, reactive grant-making (2001 – 2004)

Education 78 3,734,595

Palliative Care 73 2,653,122

Natural Environment 27 2,171,752

Animal Welfare 11 764,358

Other 35 3,533,109

Total 224 12,856,936

Defined, project-based grant-making (2004 – 2008)

Conservation of the Natural Environment 72 13,563,962

Farmed Animal Welfare 11 4,458,137

Special Initiative 16 3,288,624

Total 99 21,310,723

Legacy grant-making (2008 – 2012)

Conservation of the Natural Environment 27 13,070,322

Farmed Animal Welfare 22 15,397,875

Philanthropy 4 148,119

Total 53 28,616,316

The Trust will close by 31 March 2012having made grants totalling nearly £65 million in a 15-year period.

The birth andearly years(1997 – 2001)We will say little about ourprovenance. This is not because wedo not cherish the memory of Milesand Briony Blackwell, our founders,who died tragically in quicksuccession in 2001. Nor is it that weare unappreciative of theirincredible generosity. Rather, one oftheir few stipulations was that wekeep personal references to them toa minimum. Such was their desirefor anonymity that our benefactorsgave the charity they had foundedthe name of the village in whichthey had lived for many years, inorder to deflect attention away from themselves.

The Tubney Charitable Trust wasestablished in 1997 upon MilesBlackwell’s retirement from thefamily publishing business inOxford with an initial fund of some£500,000. His wife Briony was one

of the original Trustees along withJonathan Burchfield and the charitydistributed only the income of its(expendable) endowment eachyear, up to £30,000 annually. TheTrustees worked in anenthusiastically amateur way, withan initial sifting process for grantapplications involving the ‘wetthumb’ test – checking if thesignature on an applicant’s letterwas original by seeing if the inkwould run. If not, the applicationwent no further, and many perishedin this way! As a result the totalmoney awarded was fairly small inrelation to effort expended bydisappointed and perhaps baffledgrant applicants. However, thoseyears helped to give an insight intothe charitable instincts and thinkingof our donors.

At their deaths, our donors left thebulk of their estates, including theirfamily homes, to the Trust they hadrecently established. This amountedto a portfolio of £50 million. (Overthe life of the Trust the charity’sinvestments allowed us to awardgrants of nearly £65 million.) Thedonors had identified three otherpotential Trustees to join the Board,each of whom was a personaladvisor or professional colleague.At this point, the Trust employed nostaff and the projects fundedreflected the wide-ranging interestsof the donors, including music andhistory, historic building restorationand the history of naval warfare.



Our benefactors would have beenthe first to admit that their giving didnot reflect a clear-cut agenda.Moreover, they provided in theirWills precious little guidance as tohow they wanted their fortunespent. This was due in part to theiruntimely deaths. But it is also atestament to their humility. Theywere committed delegators and,having hand-picked their Trustees,they had faith in them to ‘do theright things’.

This was a heady experience for theTrustees and we perceived it asperhaps less daunting than weshould have done. We had a broadlicence to interpret the wishes of thedonors; indeed, we felt they wouldhave wanted us to imbue it with ourpersonal values. We were a self-confident lot and had often ledothers through the ‘vision-strategy-objectives’ process in ourprofessional lives. We thought wecould agree our destinationamongst the four of us and steerour own course towards it.

We sat down to devise a grant-making strategy with a keen senseof responsibility and a virtuallyclean sheet of paper. We say‘virtually’ because Miles and Brionypassed on to us a distaste of largecharities and an aversion tobureaucracy and wastefulspending. And they were adamantabout one thing, aside from theirdesire to remain effectivelyanonymous. Consistent with theirview that a charity should not be a

bid for personal immortality, theystipulated that the Trust should havea finite life. We took ‘finite’ to mean‘years’ rather than ‘decades’. Thisstipulation had a profound effect onthe way the charity was conceivedfrom the outset.

Our first steps (2001 – 2003)Following the death of our donorstowards the end of 2001, theTrustees set themselves a privatedeadline of 10 years for concludingour grant-making. We weren’t givena categorical timeframe by thedonors and it remained throughoutan arbitrary reference point. Whynot five years, or 15, or 25? As oneof the Trustees said at the time: “Ten years just felt right”.

Quickly, perhaps too quickly as itturned out, the Trustees settled onfour core funding areas: education,palliative care, the environment and

animal welfare. We felt proud thatwe had arrived at a consensus sospeedily. We were also confidentthat our donors would haveapproved of our choices.

With backgrounds in law,accountancy and publishing, wethought we had been admirablyclear and concise in our guidanceto potential applicants.

But with the benefit of hindsight werealised we were being hopelesslynaïve: our criteria for eligibility werefar too broad and general. Thefloodgates opened and weresponded, saying yes as often aswe could but still turning awayscores of worthy proposals. Weknew something wasn’t right whenwe couldn’t always explain, even toourselves, why we had acceptedone proposal but turned downanother similar in nature. We askedourselves ‘why not?’ instead of‘why?’ and felt increasingly guiltyabout the amount of work that hadgone into preparing thoseunsuccessful bids.

We put in place minimum andmaximum grant limits but theseseemed like fairly arbitrary filters.We eschewed large charities on noother grounds than their size.

We thought of ourselves as ‘pumpprimers’, even where it was notalways obvious which pumps wewere priming to do precisely what.We discouraged applicants fromasking for a contribution to corecosts; we wanted every penny to gotoward achieving specific,additional, measurable gains.

Yet instead of feeling elated at theend of a trustee board meeting,happy about the ‘good’ we haddone, the Trustees were notcontent. “I feel like we are justputting a finger in the dyke,”bemoaned one Trustee. “We aremaking a contribution but are wemaking a real difference?”

Gradually, it began to dawn on usthat although we had lots ofbusiness and life experience, weknew precious little about grant-making practices. We had been tooeager to start making grants andoverconfident in our ability to learnon the job. We failed to recognisethat our guidelines to applicantswere too general and that we werewasting valuable time – theirs andours – on applications we wereultimately unlikely to accept. A lot ofour attention was focused on twothings. First, we waited to seecommitment, usually in the form ofadditional financial support, eitherfrom internal resources or additional


sponsors. Second, we requiredquantifiable, measurable outcomesand a credible project andmanagement plan designed todeliver tangible outcomes.

Though vaguely aware thatsomething wasn’t quite right, wewere unwilling at first to accept thatpart of the solution to our frustrationmight entail restricting the scope ofour grant-making or hiring in expertstaff to advise us. Our reluctancewas in part about the extra cost, butit perhaps also reflected a worrythat an expert might have their ownagenda that could influence ourjudgement. Again, we weremistaken. The sense of crisis washeightened by our gnawing anxietythat our time, money and patiencemight run out before we had ‘madea difference’.


An early trauma

The new Trustee Board had scarcely met, let alone published anystatement of our aims and scope, before we had our first lesson inmedia management. Perhaps noting that the Blackwells maintaineda small flock of Manx Loaghtan sheep, an overly imaginativereporter from a major Sunday newspaper informed the world thatMiles and Briony had left their entire fortune to the Rare BreedsSurvival Trust. This was most certainly not the case and the Trusteesquickly refuted the claim. An apology was published by thenewspaper, but, unfortunately, the story had poured cold water onthat admirable charity’s embryonic fundraising drive.

However, our founders did have a special interest in rare breedsheep and later we made a major grant to the Rare Breeds SurvivalTrust to fund the creation of a comprehensive genetic bank of rarebreed sheep as a means of preserving biodiversity. But werecognise our award was also motivated by compassion for thecharity which, through no fault of its own (or ours!), had been thevictim of poor journalism.


Adolescence (2003 – 2004)

Strategic review Having identified some of our ownlimitations, we outsourced ouradministration and management,tapping into the resources andexpertise of a specialist legal firm.This helped us in the short-term,buying us time to plan for the futureof the charity while our founders’estates were being administered(by another law firm) and ourendowment was being gathered in.But over time we worried that wewere not building up in-housesubject expertise or robustrelationships with other charities. As our unease with our strategygrew, so did our dissatisfaction withthis initial structure. Eventually, wedecided to recruit an ExecutiveDirector from the charity sector andonce we had made the appointmentwe gave her the task of determining

our future staffing requirements andorganisational structure.

Our new Executive Directorexhorted us to think about ourstrategy and policies before weturned to questions of internalstructure and staffing. She had tohandle this enterprise with greatdelicacy. Obviously, she had a lotmore experience in grant-makingthan the Trustees, but she had justreturned from another country andhad only begun to establish arelationship with her Board. Andshe held firmly to the idea of trusteeautonomy: at the end of the day itwas up to the Board to make thekey decisions. Even though shemight have diagnosed some of theTrust’s problems herself, she couldsee that, for both her and theTrustees, an impartial outsidermight be able to challenge theBoard more effectively, withoutdamaging important buddingrelationships. She brought in anexperienced external facilitator whowas not afraid to ask us awkwardquestions or to challenge our fixed positions.

Through a series of intensivemeetings over a number of months,the facilitator helped us to look atourselves and what we hadachieved thus far in a critical light.We felt proud of the individualgrants we had made, but looked attogether they did not tell a coherentstory; the whole was frankly lessthan the sum of the parts. Hepointed out inconsistencies and


sloppiness in our thinking and in ourprocedures. We felt a bit brutalisedat times but we could see thebenefit of having someone fromoutside who would not be ‘nice’ tous. We knew we had too much‘baggage’, i.e. too many disparatecauses and values we wanted to support.

Defining directionThe facilitator put up a number ofalternative strategies for the Trust.We rejected most of these butdoing so forced us to define ourown ideas and goals much moreclearly. It is said that strategy isprincipally about deciding what ‘not’to do, and we found the process ofletting go of projects and areas ofneed we cared deeply about oftenpainful and discouraging. Each ofthe Trustees had to sacrifice someof their ‘sacred cows’. It was hardfor all of us to let go of palliativecare: most of us had seen first-handthe wonderful and highly skilledwork of carers. Education, the othervictim of our pruning exercise, hadbeen highly valued by the donors;indeed, it had formed the basis forthe family enterprise that hadgenerated much of their wealth. Butsomething had to give; we nowknew that. We did need outsidehelp to confront these choices butthe Board came through theprocess with a renewed sense of purpose.

Our vision was clear. We wanted tosupport sustainable, high-quality

projects that delivered a long-termimpact on:

• Conservation of the naturalenvironment of the UK;

• Improvement of the welfare offarmed animals in the UK andinternationally.

We then recruited three additionalmembers of staff – an EnvironmentProgramme Director, anAdministration and FinanceManager, and a Grants Manager –to enable us to deliver our newstrategy. As we had done with therecruitment of our ExecutiveDirector, we told all candidatesexplicitly that, given our limitedlifespan, we didn’t know how longthese jobs would last, but this didnot impede us in recruitingexcellent staff.

When we decided to close theeducation and palliative careprogrammes we spent considerabletime deciding on how to make afinal, significant gift in each of thesesectors that would have a lastingimpact. We were able to make a £1 million grant to Help theHospices to support carers of theterminally ill, and £1 million toComic Relief to support educationalprojects in Africa.

Following the closure of our palliative careprogramme and with New Philanthropy Capitalhelping us to identify that support for carers was afunding gap in the palliative care field, the Trustmade a final gift to the sector through a major newinitiative with Help the Hospices. This matched £1for £1 the money raised for the charity by runners inthe Flora London Marathon 2005, up to a maximumof £1 million. The programme aimed to supportpeople who provide unpaid care for a terminally illrelative or friend, through funding local supportservices, developing information resources andundertaking strategic policy work.

For example, a number of resources weredisseminated nationally, including the Caring forCarers Pack, which provides information on moneyand legal matters, nursing, caring at home, anddeath and dying. Carers UK and the BereavementAdvisory Service help to update the pack on anannual basis.

In addition, the programme funded 15 innovativeprojects making a tangible difference to people whoprovide care for terminally ill family members orfriends. These were evaluated by LancasterUniversity to extract lessons learned and identifybest practices. The findings were disseminated viaacademic journals, poster presentations and abriefing paper for hospices in June 2009.

www.helpthehospices.org.uk/carers


Grant: £1 million

Help the HospicesTowards the Care for the Carers of the Terminally Ill Project

Date: October 2004

“This was a remarkable and innovative move

by The Tubney Charitable Trust. By

doubling the money we raised through the

Flora London Marathon, we had a real and

lasting impact on the estimated 570,000

people who are caring for a loved one with

a terminal illness. Building on our work,

Help the Hospices was able to develop a

UK-wide programme of activity that

supported this group of carers, who have

great emotional, financial and practical

needs that are poorly met.”

David Praill, Chief Executive, Help the Hospices

Help the Hospices (HtH), Caring for Carers © HtH

In closing our education programme, we decided tomake a significant grant to support education inAfrica since our founder had a personal interest inthe continent having spent many years doingbusiness there. However, we realised that neitherthe Trustees nor the staff were knowledgeable inthis field. After extensive research and discussionabout how we might most effectively support thiscause, we decided to work with grant-makers whoare experts in this field and to make a £1 milliongrant to Comic Relief.

Tubney’s award was complemented by £3 millionraised through Comic Relief’s Red Nose DayAppeals and was used in an innovative, strategicprogramme designed to share information andexpertise on transforming education for girls in

Tanzania and Nigeria. The programme continuestoday and seeks to address the underlyinginequality that prevents girls from attending school.It has invested in teachers so they in turn canencourage girls, who frequently drop out of school,to complete their basic education.

As an innovative programme, involving five charitieson two continents and in three countries, it has notbeen without problems. However, from ourperspective, the grant has been a great success asit has allowed the Trust to support an area of greatinterest to the Trustees but in which the Trust lackedexperience. Comic Relief has been an invaluableintermediary for us.

www.comicrelief.com


Grant: £1 million

Comic ReliefA strategic grant for education in Africa

Date: November 2005

Comic Relief, Education in Africa © Comic Relief


Coming of age (2004 – 2008)

Championing ourcausesWhy had we chosen to focus onfarmed animal welfare andbiodiversity? Yes, these were issuesof particular concern to our founders,Miles and Briony. But perhaps chiefamong our reasons was a sense thatthese were ‘big’ problems, largelyoverlooked. Few other grant-makershad taken them to heart, and we hadinherent advantages. We were arelative newcomer with no brandname to worry about and nofundraising aspirations so we weren’tcompeting with anyone else formoney or recognition. Our size,funding security and flexibility gaveus the opportunity to ‘boldly go’where other established funders witha particular public persona orpatronage could not. We could askthe awkward, open-ended questions.

We cut our cloth to suit ourresources, picking issues that hadbeen relatively neglected by otherfunders and where our funding couldmake a significant difference. As ithappened, the relatively smallnumber of active NGOs working inour chosen sectors meant we couldfairly quickly add value not justthrough our chequebook, butincreasingly through our knowledgeand networks as well.

Farmed animalsWe see factory farming as one ofthe great, largely hidden, evils ofour modern world. In recent timesmost of humankind has come toaccept that, regardless of race, sex,or nationality, all human beingshave rights. At the same time,scientific research has helped us tounderstand just how like us otheranimals are, not least in theircapacity for suffering.

The combination of rising globalpopulation and rising income levelsmeans the world’s demand foranimal products, particularly meat,will soar in the next few decades.On current trends the number ofanimals killed annually for humanconsumption is expected topotentially double to 120 billionwithin the next 30 to 40 years, andunless these trends are reversed aneven larger proportion of these willbe mutilated and force-fed incrowded indoor sheds. Apart fromthe consequences for the animalsthemselves, this phenomenon hasdisturbing and far-reachingimplications for everything fromhuman health and climate changeto the depletion of scarce resourcessuch as energy, water and land.Only a handful of small charitiesand almost no funding bodies havetaken the welfare of farmed animalsto heart.

Scientific studies show that, on any one day, 22% of the UK dairy herd is lame. This serious welfareissue is unknown to most milk drinkers who areunaware of the suffering of the animals and thatlameness can lead to significant reduction in milkyields and to the need to cull animals. Indeed, theeconomic consequences of lameness have beenlargely unrecognised by farmers themselves.

Our grant supported the University of Bristol’s projectaiming to deliver a significant reduction in lamenessin dairy cattle in the UK herd by ensuring that farmersand milk producers apply scientific knowledge incurrent commercial systems to prevent and controllameness in dairy cattle. A theme running throughoutour farmed animal welfare programme has beensupporting projects for which the basic research hadbeen undertaken and practical solutions had beenidentified, but where implementation or farmerengagement was lacking. Of the 210 dairy farmsinvolved in the large, commercial-scale study directlysupported by the Tubney grant, 185 farms arecontinuing to implement the simple yet effectivehusbandry changes on-farm to reduce lameness.

What is more, as a result of its participation in theproject, DairyCo – a levy-funded, not-for-profitorganisation working on behalf of Britain’s dairyfarmers – is rolling out a National Healthy FeetProgramme to 11,743 dairy farms in England andWales. This education programme draws extensivelyon the methodology and findings of the Tubney-funded Healthy Feet Project and has included thecirculation of 2,700 DVDs to assist farmers in Englandand Wales in identifying lameness in their herds.

In addition, the project helped to leverage furtherfunding to support roll-out across the nation. For example, farmers in the South West haveidentified lameness as their top priority. As a result,the University of Bristol collaborated closely withDuchy College to secure £5.2 million from the SouthWest Regional Development Agency (SWRDA) forthe dairy cattle and sheep sectors, a major strand ofwhich is lameness training modelled on the HealthyFeet Project.

www.vetschool.bris.ac.uk/animalwelfare


Grant: £650,000

University of BristolThe Healthy Feet Project – reducing lameness in dairy cattle

Date: April 2006

University of Bristol (UoB), Healthy Feet Project, mobility scoring in dairy cattle © UoB

BiodiversityEvery day we read about theextinction of species and thedestruction of unique habitats. The loss of species, locally as wellas globally, can have significant anddifficult-to-predict effects up anddown the food chain. The inexorablegrowth in the human population, andthe consequent demands to bringremaining natural habitats into use toproduce food and fuel for humanconsumption, can only increase thepressures on our remainingbiodiversity. Yet, even with theclimate change catastrophelooming, only 3% of charitablegrants go to environmentalconcerns1 and, of this, only partgoes to biodiversity conservation.

Most news reports highlight the lossof individual bird and mammalspecies, usually creatures withbeautiful fur or plumage as thesehave the greatest resonance withthe general public. Unconstrainedby donor wishes or the need to

raise funds through public appeals,we have been able to focus ourefforts on the less immediatelyattractive, but ecologically oftenmore important, animal groups andenvironments. We were proud tosupport projects directed atuncharismatic bugs, amphibians,and weeds, and as a result to havehelped to protect some of the UK’sleast-regarded species and toconserve and expand some of ourmost important habitats.

In the UK, a national BiodiversityAction Plan (UKBAP), firstpublished in 1984, set out actionsrequired for the restoration ofbiodiversity, with action plans forthe most threatened species andhabitats. The Trust, having decidedto limit itself to biodiversity in theUK, took the targets for practicalaction within the UKBAP as the keymeasurable outputs for projects wewould support. No plan of this typecould ever be perfect, but the sign-up of all the key delivery agencies,statutory and non-governmental,gave the targets a great deal ofcredibility. Within these targets, weeschewed those concerned with asingle species and insteadgenerally favoured those that couldhave a significant and enduringimpact on whole habitats.


1 Where the Green Grants Wentwww.greenfunders.org/wp-content/uploads/Green-Grants-4-FinalSP.pdf

Having funded many landpurchases in our early days, webegan to see this as only oneweapon in our armoury. Withclimate change unavoidable, wewanted to support the creation oflarger and more effective reservesand, equally if not more importantly,corridors for moving between them.Work to buffer these sites from thethreats of neighbouring land-use,the creation of stepping stones andcorridors for species dispersal andthe ‘softening’ of the mostdamaging land-use practices are allamong the elements of this‘landscape’ approach.

We supported three main types ofproject through the openprogramme, within theseconstraints:

• Land acquisition, where thisextended, linked or bufferedexisting high-quality UKBAPpriority habitats;

• Landowner liaison projectsseeking to restore, create andlink priority habitats; and

• Species projects, where thesewere of significant scale and,usually, where they benefitedmore than one species.


In 2006, Tubney supported the purchase of justunder 150 hectares of forestry plantation identifiedwithin the RSPB’s priorities for acquisition andrestoration in the Flow Country in northern Scotland.This area of peat bog is the largest in the world andrepresents the UK’s largest remaining wilderness.Sadly, in the 1970s, forestry tree planting in the Flowswas encouraged and the resulting coniferplantations are drying out areas of bog and havingdamaging impacts on bird populations on theremaining open areas. The RSPB indicated toTubney that buying and clearing planted sites andremoving drainage measures was its highest priorityfor our potential support. The remoteness of theFlows from centres of population meant that manyfunders were not able or willing to fund this work.

At the closure of the open programme forConservation of the Natural Environment, theTrustees decided to award a further grant for thepurchase of over 1,000 hectares in two blocks andto provide additional support as a restricted grantto enable the RSPB to plan with confidence forfurther purchases in this unique landscape. The

RSPB is negotiating the acquisition of a further1,500 hectares using this grant, alongsidedonations from its members, with plans in place tofurther extend its landholdings in the Flows. To datethe RSPB owns 16,888 hectares and manages20,030 hectares of this rare habitat.

www.rspb.org.uk/reserves/guide/f/forsinard/index.aspx

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)Towards the purchase and restoration of land in the Flow Country

Date: 2006 – 2009

Grantstotalling

£1,075,000


Restoration of Forsinard © RSPB


RSPB Forsinard Flows reserve © Andy Hay (www.rspb-images.com)

Being proactiveFollowing our strategic review in2003 we began to think proactivelyrather than reactively. We were nolonger content to just wait to seewhat grant proposals came inunsolicited. With a clearer sense ofwhere we were going, it alsobecame obvious what kind ofsubject expertise we lacked andhow professional staff could fill thisgap. Our three additional staffmembers were in post by 2004 andamong their key functions they tookon responsibility for educatingTrustees in our programme areasand explaining our new goals andrequirements to potential grantrecipients. The staff developed anew set of grant-makingprocedures and policies to matchour new strategy, including moreprecise and transparent guidelines.For the Trustees, this new iterationof our strategy gave us a clearerand more consistent set of criteriafor judging applications. Ourenvironmental programme director

helped us to refine our focus todelivering practical benefits for UKbiodiversity so that guidelines forgrant applicants made it clear wewould want to know how theirprojects would help the UK achieveBiodiversity Action Plan targets.

On the animal welfare side wespent some time grappling with thequestion of the geographic scale atwhich we sought to operate. Giventhe fact that so much of the food weconsume in the UK is imported, werefined our guidelines to supportthe improvement of the welfare offarmed animals, both in the UK andinternationally.

We had already invested in our owninfrastructure by acquiring a robustGrants Management softwareprogramme, but in anticipation forlaunching our revised guidelines weacquired an additional programmethat allowed grantees to submittheir applications to us online andenabled us to manage allcommunications electronically. The software programme was aninvaluable tool, but even moreimportant to our successful use ofits potential was the strategicthinking brought to the coordinationtask by our Grants Manager. Herability to see both the big picture ofour grant-making objectives and thedetail required to review, pay andmonitor our grants was essential toour effective and personalrelationship with each grantee.


In 2007, we again expanded theprofessional staff, employing aprogramme officer to concentrateon Farmed Animal Welfare, and ateam administrator to help maximiseour efficiency.

With a narrower brief, Trustees andstaff could now dig deeper andacquire a more profoundunderstanding of the issues andopportunities. We set about makingourselves more ‘expert’. At trusteemeetings we now had staff toprovide us with briefings on currentissues in our sectors and on manyoccasions we had external expertspresent, not to comment on specificproposals, but to educate staff andTrustees generally.

With time and training we began to‘join up the dots’, not just spottingsimilarities and connectionsbetween projects but often bringingdifferent projects and organisationstogether. We began to feel that wewere a relatively important part ofthe network within our sectors,facilitating the cross-fertilisation ofideas, spreading best practice andraising standards. As ourknowledge and commitment grew,so it seemed that grant recipientsbegan to turn to us for advice asoften as for funding. We felt that wehad become partners in the bestsense of the word.

Whereas before the main strands ofour giving seemed to have little todo with one another, we soon saw

profound common themes andinterdependencies between our twochosen programmes – farmedanimal welfare and biodiversity.What’s more, we began to see howthese areas were directly related tobroader social issues and trendssuch as energy and water use,climate change, and human healthand nutrition. The production offood is the common thread runningthrough both our concerns andthese broader social andenvironmental issues.

Recently, the publication of the FoodIssues Census, which Tubneyhelped fund, has estimated that lessthan 1% of all charitable giving in theUK is spent on food-related issues2.


2 The 2011 Food Issues Census provides an overview of the work of civil society groups in theUK, based on a survey of over 300 organisations. www.foodissuescensus.org

Buglife’s long-term project in south Essex is seekingto create a landscape that will meet the needs of arange of threatened invertebrate species. A seriesof stepping stone sites with appropriate habitathave been created that will allow the dispersal andincrease in populations of rare bees, wasps,beetles, flies, butterflies and moths.

The management work carried out is often small-scale but vital, for example, creating disturbedground for burrowing bees and wasps, ensuringthat specific food plants are available, and clearingscrub. The ‘landscape’ concept is determined bythe species target, not human perceptions of scaleor landscape quality. How far can these speciestravel and what type and size of habitat will meettheir needs when they arrive?

The project has carried out detailed surveys, whichhave revealed that brownfield sites in the area areeven more important than first thought for threatenedinvertebrates. These surveys have informed thedesign of the ‘stepping stones’. Work to create localawareness and understanding of the richbiodiversity of sites, which often appear unattractiveand uninteresting and are too often overlooked inthe planning system, has also been delivered. Thework of this project should enhance the identificationand protection of other important sites.

Buglife’s interest in the conservation of allinvertebrate species, most of which fall firmly intothe uncharismatic category, was of great interest tothe Trust. The organisation’s development of theStepping Stones proposal and the subsequentdelivery of the work programme was impressive. As a result, in June 2011 during the Trust’s legacygrant-making phase, Tubney awarded a grant of£1.3 million to build the organisational capacity ofBuglife to deliver more, better and more sustainably.

www.buglife.org.uk

Grant up to £187,864

Buglife – The Invertebrate Conservation Trust Towards the Stepping Stones for Wildlife project: developing a network of invertebrate reserves in Essex

Date: September 2008



Brown–banded carder bee Bombus Humilis © Sam Ashfield, Buglife 2009


Marine conservation

“The seas are vast and incredibly rich, but they are being emptied of life at

an alarming rate. We knew that we had to do something to stop this

pillage before it was too late.”

Jim Kennedy, Tubney Trustee

The Trust recognised the importanceof marine conservation at a veryearly stage. However, our interest insupporting tangible outcomesresulted in an inevitable biastowards biodiversity work on land.Initially, our guidelines based onUKBAP targets were not applicableto the marine environment; it was notpossible to do the equivalent ofbuying large tracts of heathland orplanting miles of hedgerows. Thestark reality that more of the UK liesbelow, rather than above, the waterline, that what goes on there islargely invisible to the public, andthat the rate of degradation was, ifanything, worse than on land,alarmed us and gave us a realsense of urgency. We had to take adifferent approach if we were tosupport vital work to conserve thebiodiversity of the UK’s seas.

Convinced of the need for immediateaction, we engaged with expertsworking in the field, both our NGOpartners and consultants. Themessage we received was crystalclear: a UK Marine Bill andcomplementary devolved legislationcould provide a vehicle through

which to conserve the marineenvironment for the long term.Suddenly, marine issues becamecentral to our strategic agenda.

Supporting work on legislation tookus away from our ‘comfort zone’ oftangible outcomes: campaigns areinherently difficult to predict andevaluate and come with significantrisk. We certainly felt the risks wereworth taking, due to the potentialgains to be made. We supportedwork through the four Linkorganisations – environmental NGOsoperating collaboratively within eachand across all of the four countrieswithin the UK – impressed by theirtrack records of successfulcampaign work.

Despite our decision to focus onbiodiversity within the UK, we werealso well aware that the issue offisheries was not one that could betackled at a UK level. The CommonFisheries Policy (CFP) of the EUdetermines much of what goes on inUK waters and adjacent sea areas.We took the bold step, for us, ofsupporting work at a European levelto influence the reform process forthe CFP.


New tacticsNew strategies require new tactics.As our thinking about subject areasdeveloped, so did our views on howto make our grants work mosteffectively. In our early days, wemade lots of small grants to manydifferent organisations. We hadaccepted our donors’ argumentthat our grants would not makemuch difference to charities withlarge budgets and reserves. Butonce we became more focused inour giving and the size of ouraverage grant increased, werealised that we could not simplydiscriminate against the largest andwealthiest players. Indeed, inprojects where economies of scale,

depth of expertise, or brand namesplayed a role, the largerorganisations were often able to actmore cost-effectively. This did notstop us bringing big and littleorganisations together to work onthe same project, something we didon many occasions.

Indeed, Tubney has encouragedcollaborative working whereverpossible and recognised thatpartnerships frequently requiresignificant funding to succeed,whether between NGOs, withstakeholders or otherphilanthropists. Often Tubney hasplayed a ‘hands-on’ role in makingsuch partnerships happen andsupporting them in their early years.

In 2006 we encouraged individual NGOs working toinfluence the developing UK marine legislation tocollaborate closely in order to engage withgovernment and industry with the aim of ensuringeffective protection for the biodiversity of the UK’smarine environment.

We commissioned a report reviewing current andimpending threats to the marine environment in UKwaters. This and subsequent reports informed oursupport in this area and have been circulated widelyto NGOs and other funders. Viewed as a crucialscoping exercise, the report is cited as providing keyinsights into the sector.

Through the establishment of a Fighting Fund andthe provision of grants to cover the core costs of thecampaigns in each country, the four Link umbrellagroups – environmental NGOs operatingcollaboratively within each and across all of the fourcountries within the UK – were able to run aconcerted campaign to positively influence theMarine and Coastal Access Act and complementarylegislation in the three devolved countries.

Tubney worked closely with the Esmée FairbairnFoundation in providing funding for this work. Jointfunding supported the Link groups to work on theMarine Bill and provided a central fund to backspecific activities designed to ensure the Billdelivered the greatest biodiversity benefit. A nationalsteering group with representatives from the keyNGOs identified the key activities to be supported.

The Marine and Coastal Access Bill coveringEngland and Wales received Royal Assent on 12 November 2009. For the first time there are

provisions in place which should lead to betterprotection for the UK’s marine wildlife, including acomprehensive marine planning and licensingsystem, improved fisheries management, and newtools to protect marine habitats and wildlife.Complementary legislation has been passed by theScottish Government, and the Welsh Assembly hasalso begun to implement the Marine and CoastalAccess Act. Progress in Northern Ireland has beendisappointingly slow but the Assembly is movingtowards complementary legislation.

Subsequently, the Trustees decided to providesignificant capacity building support to the Linkorganisations and a further Fighting Fund to supportadvocacy and campaigning work to ensure theeffective implementation of the legislation, focusedon the development of a coherent network of MarineProtected Areas throughout UK waters. This networkis the most important tool within the provisions of thenew legislation: the restoration of marine biodiversityin UK waters depends on getting this right.

www.scotlink.org

www.nienvironmentlink.org

www.waleslink.org

www.wcl.org.uk


Marine collaborationSupporting campaigning to ensure effective marine legislation and its implementation

Date: 2006 – 2011

Grants totalling

£1.8 million

Marine NGOs’ Marine Bill celebration event © Marine NGOs


Guilliaumesse © Sue Daly, MCS


Our final years (2008 – 2012)

“There is too often an over-simplistic focus on the need to act ‘in the best interests of the

charity’, an expression that encourages too much focus on the structure and group of

people that is ‘the charity’. Instead, the focus should be on acting in the best interests of

your charitable objectives, something that is much wider, and may indeed lead to Trustees

deciding that those interests require that a charity should be wound up.”

Jonathan Burchfield, Tubney Trustee and charity lawyer

Spending outWe can fast-forward now throughyears of productive grant-making toreach the final phase. Decidingwhen and how to move into our‘close-down’ mode was almost astraumatic as our adolescentstrategic review had been. But insome ways it was morestraightforward, since spend outwas not initially a strategic choicebut an organisational imperative,almost the only one imposed on usby our donors.

In the end this constraint wasliberating. Knowing we had a finiteexistence made everyone evenmore committed and focused. Itmade achieving our objectives evenmore urgent. We believe we havebeen more effective byconcentrating our energies andresources over a shorter periodthan if we had acted over a longerone. If an organisation can do asmuch good in 10 years as in 20,then there is a double benefit tomoving faster. First, and perhapsobviously, the benefits of action arereaped sooner. Second, all otherthings being equal, the Trust willincrease its social investment by theamount it has saved in its ownoverheads. Not surprisingly, wehave become advocates of ‘spendout’. But it was not just a question ofdoing things more quickly, in fact, itmeant doing different things. So inthe end our strategic approach hadto change once again.


It is perhaps incumbent on eachcharity to justify its continuingexistence on an ongoing basis. At the very least, we recommendthat all trustee boards take the ‘whatif’ or ‘why not’ test – what would thecharity do differently if it werecompelled to spend out? Even if the Board decides against suchaction, the exercise could illuminateand strengthen existing grant-making policies.

Preparing for the endFor a number of years we hadconsidered the demise of Tubneyonly in a general way. We werescrupulous in telling staff that theirtenure with us would be finite andwe were constantly warning ourpartners that we wouldn’t be aroundforever, but this didn’t have aprofound impact on our day-to-daybusiness. Ironically, it was the staff,who had the most to lose from theTrust’s closure, who encouragedTrustees to think explicitly andurgently about the day of reckoning.

In the seven years since the deathsof the founders, we had awardedgrants accounting for about half ofour resources. As part of our naturalevolution, grants were becomingfewer, bigger and more long-term.In preparation for one of ourstrategic Away Days, the ExecutiveDirector asked the Board to reflecton what had been achieved to dateand whether we would be satisfied

that we had made the mostsignificant impact possible with ourresources if we used the remainingfunds merely to duplicate what wehad supported up to that point. Sheencouraged us to consider whetherwe could achieve the greatest long-term impact by focusing onprojects, or whether there was analternative way of achieving ourlong-term objectives: by ensuringthat the key organisations workingin our fields had the capacity todeliver the objectives we shared.

This led to much discussion andsoul-searching and, in the end, wecame to the unanimous conclusionthat we should stop thinking about‘us’ and our goals, and startthinking more about ‘them’, ourpartners. What would theorganisations that shared our goalsand would outlive us need to realisetheir potential and our sharedobjectives? This was a crucial ‘aha’moment for us and from this pointon we sought to maximise theresources we could put behindwhat we termed our ‘legacy’.


Our legacy We had been on a steady trajectorysince the inception of the Trust,moving inexorably towards fewer,higher-value proposals with fewerrejected applications. In the finalphase we closed the dooraltogether to unsolicitedapplications; henceforth allproposals were invited. Our legacygrants would be almost entirelyabout increasing the fighting powerof the organisations we selected.

More often than not ‘buildingcapacity’ means acquiring new staffwith new skills. Most of our grantmoney would have to go towardspaying the salaries of these newpeople for a number of years. Inmany instances, new capacity infundraising would be required tocover the costs for additionalmembers of staff in the long term.People are expensive, and we werein no doubt that these grants wouldbe on a different scale from ourprevious giving; in most cases theywere the largest grants the Trusthad considered and by far thehighest the recipients had everreceived. The planning processrequired both partners – the grant-maker and the grant recipient – tothink more boldly and expansivelythan ever before.

Allowing space to‘think big’It is fairly straightforward to pay for‘things’, especially quantifiablethings: leaflets mailed, treesplanted, animals rescued, landpurchased. But persuadinggovernments, corporations andmembers of the public to changethe way they think and act requirespeople with ideas, skills andrelationships. It was this potentialthat we were buying into, not aspecific scheme or objective.

Several of our legacy grantees toldus that the awards we made tothem, and the process involved inconceiving the plans for thesegrants, were life-changing. Theyrelished the opportunity to look outat the horizon, unconstrained byinternal limitations of time andmoney, to ‘think big’ about theirvision and examine the obstaclesthat might be preventing them fromrealising that vision.

Not surprisingly, for charities sooften operating in fire-fighting modeor working within a project fundingmodel, the barriers they identifiedwere usually due to a lack ofplanning or resources. We hopedthat funding from Tubney wouldprovide the opportunity fororganisations to think about re-inventing themselves and thatthis would be invigorating and,eventually, liberating. And so it proved.


The legacy mindsetBy 2008, our closure, which hadsometimes seemed vague andremote, had become thecentrepiece of all trustee meetings.We had a number of large-scaleprojects in development and weneeded to honour these, but wewanted to marshal as many of ourresources, both financial andintellectual, as quickly as possiblefor the final legacy push. Weannounced that from then on wewould only accept invited proposals.These would be about developingorganisational capacities to deliverour shared charitable objectives,rather than achieving specificimmediate social or environmentalbenefits. Even so, we had an overlapperiod of nine months where wewere also considering projectsalready in the pipeline, ones we hadencouraged in principle, but thatwere still in development.

The close-down phase required a‘mind shift’ from Trustees and staffalike. Our focus switched fromindividual projects to individual

organisations and, in some cases,even to networks of organisations.Our vocabulary changed, as ‘returnon investment’ was replaced with‘capacity building’. Our timeframeshifted as well. Indeed, during thelife of the Trust we becameprogressively more comfortablewith setting goals that were moredistant and less precise, but alsomore ambitious.

Discussions on legacy grantproposals had entirely differentparameters. To complicate mattersfurther, some were inevitably withthe same organisations that hadspecific project proposals in theworks already. Everyone involved –our staff and Trustees, as well asthe potential recipients’ staff andTrustees – had to apply onemindset and set of criteria to project

“The support of The Tubney Charitable Trust has been a real game-changer for us;

transforming our primarily UK-based work into a truly European outreach. We are

now improving the welfare of many millions more farmed animals in Europe and

have seen major plans turned from ambition to reality. I cannot overstate the

importance of the Trust’s support to our organisation and the farmed animal

welfare movement generally.”

Philip Lymbery, Chief Executive, Compassion in World Farming


applications, and another to legacyproposals. Only by being absolutelyexplicit and reiterating constantlywhich criteria applied to whichproposals did we avoid confusion.

Previously, our grant agreementsstipulated that any significantchange in deliverables or timescalerequired approval by Tubney. Manyof our grants were paid ininstalments; to receive the nextinstalment the recipient had toprovide us with concrete evidencethat milestones had been achieved.For legacy grants we recognisedthat rigid outcomes would becounter-productive and that ourimpending closure made paymentin instalments inappropriate.

By extension, though we still had avision for the future, there was littlepoint in setting long-term goals forTubney in isolation. Our vision nowhad to live on in the organisationswith whom we had partnered. It wastheir strategy and vision thatmattered now, and we were careful

to reduce neither their room formanoeuvre, nor their ability to adjusttheir plans and resource allocation tomeet future needs. We spent timeseeking to understand and influencetheir priorities and strategicdirection, and now favoured grantswith few, if any, restrictions, paid outin full immediately.

Working on trustUp to this point our instincts hadbeen frankly ‘controlling’. In thisbrave new world we had to takemuch more on trust. To acquire thattrust and to be comfortable with‘letting go’, we had to get moreintimately inside the ‘mind’ of eachorganisation, to understand how itworked and what it really ‘thought’.Given how demanding we hadbeen in our previous life, toencourage these organisations tounderstand and accept that we nowwanted a different kind ofrelationship was not easy. And wehad to trust their vision and valuesrather than seek to impose our ownon them. They were the experts, thelong-term players; our new role wasto help them aim higher, to raisetheir game.

Our questions became morequalitative and less quantitative,more ‘open’ and less ‘closed’. Whatdid they think was important? Whatresources did they need to achievetheir objectives? To them thisturnabout came as a shock,especially if we were still seeingthrough specific projects under our


old methodology. We had our ‘duediligence’ list – a set of topics wewanted to discuss – but we weren’tlooking for definitive answers.Indeed, we discouraged quick, patresponses. Instead, what wasimportant to us was that they hadthe commitment to address these questions.

To encourage organisations to openup, to expose their weaknesses andanxieties, we needed to take awaythe fear that they would saysomething we didn’t like and ‘blow’the chance of receiving a largeunrestricted grant. So we told themupfront, but without making anyformal commitments, that we werealready convinced of theimportance of their objectives,which we shared, and that we didnot doubt they could deliver againstthose objectives. In other words,they didn’t have anything specific toprove to us. We recast ourselves asa sounding board rather than an‘awards committee’; as a criticalfriend providing free businessconsultancy. Without realising it, wewere beginning to adopt some ofthe attributes of the venturephilanthropy model.

If at first the charities were confusedby our change of tack, once theyhad understood what it was we wereoffering, they were delighted to begiven time, space and access toexpertise to enable to them todevelop their own vision andassociated strategy; one that was notdictated by the funder. And because

we had long-standing personalrelationships at both the executiveand the trustee levels, we generallymanaged to get to the point of anopen exchange fairly quickly.

The results of our legacy grants willnot come to fruition for a number ofyears as the capacity building workwill take some time to reap benefitsfor each organisation. However,each major proposal grew out of thelong-term relationships we hadestablished with grantees duringour project-funding phase and wassubsequently refined over a periodof around two years. The resultsachieved so far give us great hopefor the future.


Compassion in World Farming (CIWF)Capacity building

Date: 2007 – 2010

Compassion in World Farming (CIWF) is Britain’sleading farmed animal charity, and with an annualturnover of less than £5 million it has been punchingfar above its weight for many years.

In 2007 we provided a £68,000 grant for an initial 12-month feasibility study into the research, planningand development of an enhanced Food Policy Unitwithin CIWF. Its aim was to drive farmed animalwelfare into the heart of the food industry in theEuropean Union (EU). Spending time and resourceson a feasibility study was a new experience for CIWF,but one from which they told us they benefitedtremendously. Greatly impressed by CIWF’s realisticplans, we provided subsequent funding of £2.34 million to develop the capacity of the FoodPolicy Unit, later renamed the Food Business Group.As part of this grant, CIWF has been able todramatically expand its Good Farm Animal WelfareAwards which are a vital tool for engaging withretailers and promoting high animal welfare.

Working alongside CIWF over several years we hadbeen impressed by the organisation’s ambition,drive, and leadership. As we learned more about itsvision for effecting change, we found compellingCIWF’s argument that an important route forchanging animal husbandry practices in the UK isthrough engagement with both companies andgovernments in Europe. CIWF was keen to explorethe possibility of greater involvement in Europe andhaving learned a great deal from undertaking the

Tubney-funded feasibility study for the Food PolicyUnit, CIWF decided to spend its own resources todevelop a detailed business plan for the expansionof this UK-based organisation into Europe. TheTrustees found the completed plan to be thorough,thoughtful and realistic and, as a result, Tubneyprovided a capacity building grant of £2.5 million toenable CIWF to hire dedicated staff in Germany,France and Italy.

In the end Tubney made grants totalling almost £5 million to CIWF for capacity building. These havebeen instrumental in achieving significant outcomesand impact for farmed animal welfare, including:

• 40 million laying hens a year are benefitingthanks to the standards of CIWF’s Good EggAward which celebrates food companies andpublic sector bodies that source cage-free eggs;

• 174 million broiler chickens are living in morehumane conditions as a result of the policies ofthe UK Good Chicken Award winners;

• Over 230 companies have taken part in CIWF’sAward schemes, with leading names includingUnilever, Prêt A Manger, Sainsbury’s and IKEAtransforming their policies as a result;

• One in five UK local authorities has committed tosource only cage-free eggs – that’s over 80councils to date.

www.ciwf.org

Grants totalling almost

£5 million


Cows in field © Compassion in World Farming


Plantlife arable plant event in Kent © Plantlife


Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts (RSWT)Building Momentum for a Living Landscape project

Date: 2009 and 2010

The future of the UK’s biodiversity depends not onlyon the network of designated and protected sites andnature reserves, but also on the wider countryside inwhich these ‘jewels’ sit. The Royal Society of WildlifeTrusts’ vision to create a Living Landscape offers anexciting model of how landscapes can be improvedfor wildlife through positive engagement withlandowners and managers.

Throughout the open programme grant-makingphase, Tubney had supported several projectsdelivered by individual Wildlife Trusts. The process ofdeveloping these bids, and our close engagementwith applicants and recipients, gave Tubney a clearunderstanding of the strengths of this approach,which meshed closely with our desire to see work inthe wider countryside complementing the network ofprotected sites. Over time the Wildlife Trusts madesignificant progress in unifying and strengtheningtheir focus on the Living Landscape approach andwe began a dialogue at the national level about howthe approach could be strengthened.

The limited life and resources of Tubney meant thatwe could not continue to be the major charitablesupporter of the landscape projects on the ground.To be successful, further funding sources would needto be found and the success of projects needed to beunderpinned by policies and funding for landownersthat were conducive to the concepts espoused bythe Living Landscape approach. We therefore begandiscussions with RSWT about how our support mighthelp it to raise the profile of Living Landscape workand, most crucially, to ensure that policy frameworkswere influenced to increase the opportunities fordelivery across the UK. We felt that the achievementof these two broad goals would be a fantastic legacy.

Our initial grant of £100,692 in 2009 supportedplanning and development work, scoping what hadto be done to achieve this vision through, forexample, influencing relevant policies, raising publicawareness, sharing best practice and securingsustainable resources. In particular, it sought toinfluence the Natural Environment White Paper whichwas published in June 2011.

This planning work led to the submission of aproposal to Tubney for a major programme of work todeliver a Living Landscape. This would involveincreasing resources at RSWT to directly delivercampaign objectives, together with support forindividual Wildlife Trusts to increase skills and ensurethat politicians were engaged and influenced in their constituencies.

The development of our relationship with RSWT wasbased on the successful delivery of the tangibleoutcomes we demanded during our openprogramme phase. But our work with the WildlifeTrusts also demonstrates the importance to Tubney ofbacking a broader concept, an approach weenthusiastically endorsed through a £2.8 millionlegacy grant providing capacity building and core support.

Although it is early days, this grant has alreadyallowed improved communications with MPs at theconstituency level, the appointment of programmestaff, development of a monitoring scheme tounderpin the Living Landscape approach withbiodiversity data, and a development programme forkey trustees and staff across the Trusts.

www.wildlifetrusts.org

Grants totalling £2.9 million


What we learned


“Time and money spent planning – atthe level of both the individual projectand of the organisation as a whole –almost always reaps huge rewards.”

Terry Collins, Tubney Trustee

The bigpicture

Recognisingconnections Over time, as we gained moreexperience, we had become morefocused in our grant-making. Wefocused on the two areas –conservation of the naturalenvironment and improvement ofthe welfare of farmed animals. Indoing so, we came to recognisethat these problems did not exist inisolation. We began to seeimportant connections to otherproblems and other organisations.

In seeking to simplify our internalgrant-making we couldn’t justignore complexity and messiness inthe real world. We needed to take alonger view, to take risks, and totake the time to see things incontext. This meant demonstratingthe relationship between ourconcerns and the dominant ones ofour times. It meant engaging withother charities and not-for-profitorganisations and encouragingthem to cooperate with each other.It meant accepting that restrictingour actions to the UK on its ownwas ignoring the inexorable trendtowards globalism in politics andmarkets. And it meant facing up tothe obvious: the natural world is apoor respecter of nationalboundaries and the food industry isincreasingly international.

But beyond all of this it forced usonto the stage of public opinion andpolitics, even if we were onlyoperating behind the scenesourselves. We had to accept thatsustainable progress requires shiftsin individual behaviour andlegislation. As these are the mostdifficult kinds of changes to effect,we had to accept the possibility offailure, that at least some of ourmoney might be ‘wasted’.

We also had to recognise thepowerful forces that drive the marketeconomy. Particularly in farmedanimal welfare, we could see thatany solution had to harness thoseforces, taking careful account ofcorporate and consumer behaviour.


Lessons learned

■ No problem – and therefore no solution – sits in isolationfrom its political, economic and social context.

■ Accept the possibility of failure if the prize is big enough.

Bringing peopletogetherWe and our partners preferredcarrots to sticks; positive tonegative action; reward topunishment. Given our interest in‘landscape-scale’ conservation –the inter-connectedness of naturereserves and corridors for wildlife tomove in-between them – it wasabsolutely essential that we hadconstructive engagement with theprivate sector; generally the farmeror landowner. Making them feelgood about being part, indeed,having the central role inconservation became key to ournatural environment fundinginitiatives.

Some not-for-profit organisations areuncomfortable working directly withthe private sector. We welcomed itand found that, even where privatesector representatives felt a projector a particular target was not in theirown interest, they often gave adviceon how such a project or goal couldbe modified to improve its chancesof success.

We were also proud of our so-calledconvening power and believe wemade the greatest impact when,because of our own independenceand standing, we could help to bringNGOs, philanthropists, government,retailers and producers together forcommon purposes.

In the farmed animal welfare fieldwe worked hard to makestakeholders in the private sectorour allies and not our enemies. Wewanted to ensure, for instance, thatforums working to set standards forwelfare measurement and foodlabelling involved as many keyplayers as possible. Of course,there was a risk of stalemate or ofdescending to the lowest commondenominator. But sitting downtogether and reviewing theevidence often identified areas ofbroad agreement or specificpositive changes that could bemade to welfare with little additionalcost or effort.

Sometimes we were surprised bythe receptivity of supposedlyentrenched interests. Indeed, insome cases we found businessmore willing to engage with newideas and ways of doing things thangovernment. It was made clear tous, often by public officials, thatgetting government regulation tochange would be far easier if majorbusiness interests were alreadyonside. We often found, forinstance, food producer and


retailing organisations eager tocollaborate on developing newanimal welfare standards orconsumer labelling for animal-based products, even in theabsence of consumer orgovernment pressure.

Our success in bringing animalwelfare organisations, business andgovernment together to talk aboutshared interests gave us theconfidence to get behind theongoing campaign to use marketmechanisms to drive better welfarethrough education, information andlabelling on food productsthroughout Europe.


Lessons learned

■ Independent foundations are uniquely placed to bringstakeholders together, even where the interests of thesestakeholders may appear to be in conflict.

Building networksWhile the community of farmedanimal welfare organisations isconsiderably smaller than thatwhich is concerned with theenvironment, at the time that Tubneyventured into this arena there waslittle explicit agreement aboutpriorities, welfare standards andoutcomes. This sometimes resultedin open competition betweenorganisations and inevitably gavethe public rather mixed messages.We ran the risk of individualorganisations being encouraged todistance themselves from or evendisparage others in the sector in thecompetition for funds and publicattention. It took us some time tounderstand this dynamic.

Our grant-making in the farmedanimal welfare sector slowed downwhile we built up a strong base ofknowledge and relationships. Webrought the various actors together,including food companies, into whatcame to be known as the FarmedAnimal Welfare Forum. We paid forit to meet a few times a year,engaged an experienced,independent chairman and satback to see what happened.

And what happened wasextraordinary. The players quicklyrealised they had a lot in common.Once they had overcome semanticdifferences, they found they agreedon almost all the major issues. Theyunderstood there was a lot to begained from coordinating efforts

and sharing information. Beforelong, the Forum decided it neededto put its worldview down on paper,to articulate a common set of long-term goals and a strategy forimproving farmed animal welfare.

This was a unique andtransformative moment. The resultwas a powerful, coherent andexplicit statement from the Forumabout what could be done, how itcould be done, in what order itneeded to be done, what it wouldcost, and who could do what. Thisinformed not just grant applicationsto Tubney, but fundraising andstrategic planning for the individualorganisations. For Tubney, it wasjust what we needed: a clearcontext for setting priorities andrelating one project to another. As aresult, suddenly we beganreceiving sophisticated andcomprehensive proposals withmultiple partners collaborating toachieve a shared objective.


Lessons learned

■ Bringing people together because they share a commoninterest or have complementary skills can release enormousenergies and help you align your strategy with others whohave similar goals and values.

■ Try to avoid positioning potential grant recipients ascompetitors for your funds; instead use your position toreward ongoing information-sharing and collaboration.


Chickens in field © Compassion in World Farming

Farmed Animal Welfare (FAW) Forum10-year strategic plan

Date: 2007 – 2009

As a specialist grant-maker, with expert staffengaged in partnership working with grantees andother stakeholders, we frequently commissionedresearch or facilitated discussion with and amongstakeholders aimed at identifying challenges andopportunities for positive change.

Tubney facilitated the creation of the FarmedAnimal Welfare (FAW) Forum, a group of influentialfarmed animal welfare organisations, scientistsconcerned with improving farmed animal welfare,

and representatives of the food industry and foodcertification bodies. The Forum subsequentlydeveloped a working document for a co-ordinatedand costed 10-year strategic plan to effect large-scale, long-term and sustainable improvements inthe welfare of farmed animals. The report was usedto inform our grant-making in this area and is citedas a seminal document in the field.

www.fawf.org.uk

“Tubney used a combination of its funding and persuasive power to bring together a unique

cross-sector coalition of organisations concerned with farmed animal welfare. The Trust’s

deep commitment to partnership working has helped to establish much better relationships

between farmed animal welfare organisations. They in turn are achieving more by sharing a

sector-wide strategy, working together on joint projects and understanding each other better.”

Mike Hudson, Chair of the Farmed Animal Welfare Forum and Director of Compass Partnership

Grants totalling nearly

£600,000


Members of the Farmed Animal Welfare Forum


Beyond nationalboundariesAs a small trust, our expertise andresources were inevitably limited.So in the beginning we played safe.For practical reasons we restrictedour giving to UK charities, ones wecould meet with personally andwhere we understood the workingculture. This had less to do withnationalism than with an awarenessof our own limitations as anorganisation. However, while wecontinued to work principallythrough UK-registered charities, wecame to two important conclusions.

Firstly, national boundaries havelittle to do with the things we wereconcerned about. Improving animalwelfare standards in the UK inisolation might lead to increasednumbers of imported animalproducts raised in poor welfare

conditions. Protecting UK territorialwaters from over-fishing is essential,but fish do not stay within nationalboundaries and in any case,important though they are, UKwaters form only a tiny part of theworld’s oceans.

Second, Britain is part of Europeand Europe is part of the rest of theworld. These connections are notjust physical. They are legal,political and economic as well. We realised that we didn’t need tohave the expertise and connectionsourselves to reach out beyond ourshores. We had these by proxyalready, through the organisationswe worked with and supported.

With our consciousness raised webegan actively to encourage ourpartners to ‘think’ and ‘act’, if notglobally, then at least outside theUK box. We accepted that thismight require them to expandoverseas, which can be difficult.Even the leap from ‘British’ to‘European’ was daunting, with morethan 20 countries then making upthe European Union. Choosing theright states in which to establish apresence, ones that would bepivotal in forming public opinion orin legislative votes, was crucial.

Lessons learned

■ Global issues need an international response and may require support for grantees to build their presence overseas.


Spiny starfish, snakelocks, thongweed © Paul Naylor, MCS


Working withapplicantsand grantees

Dialogue andfeedbackThe relationship between grant-maker and applicant cansometimes be unhelpfully distant.The grant-maker sets out its criteriaas clearly as possible and theapplicant crafts a proposal that itfeels will meet the publishedguidance. Even in two-stageprocesses, the invitation to submit amore detailed proposal may offerneither feedback on the initialoutline, nor guidance on how thesecond should be presented tohave the greatest chance for

success. Without dialogue andfeedback, the process can turn intoa ‘dating game’, with significanttime being wasted on both sides.

As soon as the Trust had appointedstaff, we strove to ensure that thiswas not the case with Tubney.Applicants were welcome tocontact staff before submitting aninitial application to discuss theirideas and how these might beturned into an application.Sometimes, the guidance wasnegative, where it was clear thatthere was no chance of success –this saved considerable time forapplicants and for Tubney. Moreoften, it provided an opportunity tooffer advice about the presentationof proposals and to ensure thatapplicants were fully aware of theTrust’s preferences.

Trustees were presented withrecommendations from the staff asto which organisations submittinginitial applications might be invitedto prepare a detailed proposal.Immediately decisions had beenmade, unsuccessful applicantswere provided with feedback on thereasons why and, if appropriate,encouraged to re-submit if the bidcould be changed significantlyenough to make it likely to succeed.

In the case of successful initialapplications for which matchfunding was an issue, staff werealso able to suggest potentialsources. We encouraged applicantsto use Full Cost Recovery withintheir budgeting to ensure that core


costs arising from projects were fullycovered, and to include appropriatein-kind contributions.

Tubney was keen to get out andmeet projects and see, on theground, what they were about.Almost all applicants beingconsidered at the second stagewere visited by staff and a Trustee.This provided an opportunity for usto ask questions, meet partners andmake suggestions for additional

information. While we asked toughquestions of applicants, ourengagement was never in thenature of a test. Rather, we werewilling applicants to succeed, notlooking for grounds to fail. Indeed,we found our close and challenginginteraction with applicants to beinvaluable, giving us realconfidence that projects were farmore than just plans on paper.

Lessons learned

■ ‘Overheads’ cannot be stretched infinitely and it is a falseeconomy to think as a grant-maker you will get more foryour money if you disallow them.

■ There is no substitute for face-to-face meetings to sharevision and strategy.

“We never saw the grant review process as a way of ‘failing’ applicants.

Although it may have seemed that we put people through lots of hoops, these

were designed to improve applicants’ proposals. And because we went through

everything in such detail at the outset, we seldom looked back.”

Terry Collins, Tubney Trustee


Pew Environment Group Towards the EU Marine Programme


WWFTowards Common Fisheries Policy Reform work 2010 – 2012


The activity with the greatest impact on thebiodiversity of the UK’s seas is commercial fishing.Within EU waters most fish stocks have been fisheddown. 88% of stocks are being fished beyond‘maximum sustainable yield’ – the point at whichfish populations could increase and generate moreeconomic output if fishing pressure were reducedfor only a few years. 30% of these stocks areoutside safe biological limits, which means theyhave fallen to levels where scientists fear they willbe unable to replenish themselves.

Yet, because European fisheries are managedthrough the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP)determined by the European Union, the ability of theUK Government to address this situation isextremely limited.

Despite successive reforms of the CFP, carried outwith good intentions, even the EU has introducedthe current reform process with an explicitstatement that, “…the policy failures far outweighthe successes. Europe’s fisheries sector remainsfragile. Most fish stocks in EU waters are over-fished. Catches have fallen to such an extent thatEurope now relies on imports for two-thirds of itsfish. We have too many fishing vessels chasing too

few fish. This overcapacity is driving the overallprofitability of the sector down, and exposing manyfishermen and coastal communities to seriousproblems whenever the economic environmentbecomes harsh.”

The current reform process, which is due to becomplete in 2012, offers the opportunity to addressthe situation and this opportunity must be taken, forthe future of both the marine biodiversity and thefishing industry. The process of CFP reform hasalways been complex, with blocs of member statesvetoing positive reform. New decision-makingsystems mean that this complexity has increased.Member States still have a say, so influence mustbe brought to bear on individual governments.However, the European Parliament and its membersnow have co-decision-making power and thereforeinfluence is also needed at the European level andon Members of the European Parliament in theirconstituencies.

Tubney made grants to two organisationscampaigning to ensure that the current reformachieves the best results for biodiversity – WWFand Pew. We saw that their approaches werecomplementary and that they would collaborate

Grant: £244,000

Grant: £520,000


closely on the organisation of events, research andactivity to deliver the campaign goals.

WWF has a network of national organisations acrossthe EU and has delivered direct lobbying,advocacy, events and media relations – advocatingfor a move towards a long-term vision andmanagement of fisheries. WWF has joined forceswith key industry players to promote a shared visionfor the reform, creating the WWF/Industry Alliancefor the EU Common Fisheries Policy bringingtogether WWF, the EU Fish Processors’ and Traders’Association (the European retail and tradeassociation), Eurocommerce, and the European

Community of Consumer Cooperatives (Euro Coop).This unprecedented Alliance is calling for the CFPreform to deliver effective management that willallow European consumers to make a sustainablechoice when buying fish, and give fishermen achance to earn a sustainable living.

Pew is seeking to bring together independentNGOs across the EU in support of reform and hasset up a campaign coalition – Oceans 2012 – whichnow has 123 member organisations across Europe,representing the key NGOs concerned with this issue.

Lobster pot © Corey-Arnold, Pew

Fishing boat © Corey-Arnold, Pew

Pond Conservation Towards the creation of networks of high-quality ponds

Date: June 2008

Our grant was awarded to support strategic work tocreate 5,000 new ponds across England and Walescontributing towards the new UK Pond HabitatAction Plan and acting as a springboard to theorganisation’s Million Ponds project. As well asseeking to create ponds for their general importancefor a range of species, the project is also workingwith major landowners and specialist NGOs tocreate and manage ponds specifically designed tosupport targeted UKBAP priority species.

Pond Conservation is a relatively tiny NGO, dwarfedby some of the well-established organisations. Itssmall size might appear out of proportion to eventhe initial target of 5,000 ponds. However, theintention was never that Pond Conservation woulddeliver the target directly. Its work is based onsound scientific argument and influencing thosewith the land and practical resources to createponds. Its job is to ensure that the ponds are in theright places and have the right designs toencourage biodiversity.

It also uses the scientific arguments to influencesenior policy-makers, ensuring that the previouslyunder-appreciated importance of ponds forbiodiversity is recognised and reflected in policiesaffecting land management. Key partners indelivering pond creation include, for example,Defence Estates, which has immense landholdingsand access to plenty of machinery for digging ponds.

Tubney was so impressed by the delivery of theproject over the first three years that we invitedPond Conservation to submit a proposal for coresupport and capacity building. A subsequentadditional grant of £394,000 was made for thesepurposes in March 2011.

www.pondconservation.org.uk

Grant: £649,634


Hothfield Common © Jeremy Biggs, Pond Conservation


Evidence-basedworkDuring our open programme phase,we gave a lot of attention to properdata collection, analysis and thepublishing of lessons learned. Weadopted a scientific, analyticalapproach to solving big social andenvironmental problems.

This approach meant threeimportant things for our grant-making. First, projects are iterativeand need to be adapted andimproved as they go along. Grantrecipients need freedom to do this.Second, peer review and expertopinions are usually needed todesign at least the datacollection/interpretation side of aproject, and these often need to bebrought in from outside. Third, apart of the benefit is the knowledgegained to support future work,possibly by other organisations.Dissemination is a projectrequirement and cost. It is also abenefit, if intangible, and is part ofthe return on investment. Tubneywas active in putting applicants intouch with related projects toimprove their project design.

In our legacy phase, the Trustees,having worked hard to build on therelationships formed during ouropen grant-making phase and toreally get under the skin of legacypartners, recognised that we werenow supporting an organisation’svision rather than work to achievespecific outcomes. It was clear attimes that this was a unique

experience for our legacy partners,but once the initial surprise wasover, we feel that it was hugelypositive for them and for Tubney.

While during our legacy phase wewere less directly interested inmeasurable outcomes ourselves, wetook steps to encourage our legacypartners and hoped they had cometo realise the usefulness of ouranalytical approach and had takenon appropriate aspects themselves,for example, by establishing internalsystems for business planning, datacollection, reflection on what hadand hadn’t been achieved, anddisseminating results.

None of this engagement from theTrust would have been possiblewithout very clear and focusedcriteria. If we had been overwhelmedby applications because our criteriawere woolly or too wide, we wouldsimply not have been able to spendtime with grant-seekers developingbetter applications.

Lessons learned

■ Rigour in reporting and evaluation strengthens individualprojects and organisations and enables the lessons learnedto be shared with grant-makers and grantees.

■ Partners should use feedback reporting as a tool for self-assessment rather than just to satisfy a contractualrequirement.

■ An experienced grant-maker can play an active role inhelping applicants to refine and improve their project design and evaluation.


The Wildlife TrustsDate: 2006 – 2008

Tubney was approached by the six mainlandWildlife Trusts in the South West, who were at theforefront of the development of what became theWildlife Trusts’ Living Landscape vision. Each ofthese Trusts had identified their own prioritylandscape-scale area for rebuilding biodiversity.The areas varied enormously but the approachshared strong common themes: providing supportto landowners in a targeted way through theemployment of advisory staff; building uponopportunities provided through existing agri-environment schemes and adding value to thisfunding; and focusing on priority habitats, but alsonot forgetting the importance of othercomplementary habitat types in the landscape.

Tubney was keen on this approach but wanted tojudge each Wildlife Trust scheme on its merit.Therefore we agreed that the approaches would bestaggered and we worked with each successiveTrust from the South West to ensure that the biddingwas an iterative process. Staff from the ‘next in line‘organisation attended our site meetings so that theycould learn from that experience. From ourperspective, the application process becamesmoother with each successive scheme and, moreimportantly, the proposals themselves becamestronger and of increasing quality.

www.wildlifetrusts.org

Grants totalling

over £2 million


Culm Grassland © Devon Wildlife Trust


Taking risksPerhaps because there is neverenough money to do all they want todo, and perhaps because they areonly custodians of a charity’sresources, or perhaps simplybecause people are by nature risk-averse, the decisions taken by mostcharity trustees are inherentlyconservative. Tubney was noexception at the outset, but overtime we came to the view thatindependent trusts and foundationsare among the few organisationsthat are able to take great risks,since we are not constrained bydemands to make profits forshareholders or win elections. We were willing to support riskyendeavours and to put money intopilot projects that had a lowerprobability of full success as theydepended on changes in establis-hed business or farming practices.

In some cases, our aim was toinfluence consumer attitudes orpublic policy which would demanda change in business models and

practices. In one instance wesupported scientific research intothe chicken genome in the hope thatnew breeds could be created (or oldones recovered) that would havefewer inherent health and sufferingproblems. We knew this was ahighly ambitious and risky project.

In the conservation sector, we alsolearned that working throughlandowners was potentially morerisky than directly acquiring landand supporting its management.But, given that most British land isin the hands of farmers, the formerhas much wider long-term impact.

In the end, rather than avoid risk,we actively sought it out. To someextent we redefined our mission asto embrace if not ‘the impossible’then the ‘very difficult’. If we, anindependent highly-focused grant-maker, weren’t prepared to takecalculated risks, then who would?

Lessons learned

■ Trusts and foundations are uniquely able to take risks, i.e. to do what others dare not or cannot do.

Farm Animal Welfare Trust (FAWT)Novel commercial broiler genetic selectiontechniques integrating welfare andproduction traits

Date: April 2007


Our grant was awarded to an ambitious, large-scaleproject with the goal of developing and testing agenetic selection process that combined efficientchicken meat production with higher bird welfare,and which would ultimately influence breeding. Thecurrent birds bred for intensive indoor systems arealso used in higher welfare system production butare often unsuited to the outdoor living conditionsand longer growing periods used in these systems.This causes significant welfare issues for the birds.The main aim of this ongoing project is to developand test commercially a genetic selection processleading to a new breed of broiler chicken that meetsthe requirement of the organic and free rangemarkets. It could also enable a higher welfaresystem of barn production (i.e. indoors systems inwhich birds have greater freedom of movement).

The project has brought together experts ingenetics, animal welfare and chicken production,and has broad support from bodies as diverse asNGOs, commercial breeders/producers and foodretailers. It is being carried out through aconsortium led by FAI Farms Ltd (FAI), withimplementation monitored by the FAWT.

Tubney’s funding has allowed the FAI team to bebuilt up around the project and to then operate atmultiple levels throughout the industry. Progress isbeing made against the project’s key outcomes, but,unfortunately, the project is still a long way from fullyachieving the goals outlined in the original proposal.

During the period when the application was beingconsidered and the grant approved, we recognisedthe tremendous need for improved broiler geneticswhilst being made aware of the project’s complexityand the risks involved, which were very high. Aswell as FAWT/FAI’s proposal containing theambitious target of achieving breed developmentand commercial roll-out within five years, the project was on a scale not previously undertaken by either organisation. It could therefore be arguedthat we were all naïve in considering such anambitious proposal.

It is worth remembering that fundamentally, this is aresearch project and genetic research takes a verylong time before any significant improvements areseen. Also, the speed with which technical andcommercial milestones will be reached can bedifficult to anticipate.

www.farmanimalwelfaretrust.org.uk

www.faifarms.co.uk

Grant: £1.5 million

Chickens in field © Chris Sherwin

Managing risk The world and the problems wewanted to address turned out to berather more complicated than we’doriginally thought. And the more welearned, the more we encounteredgaps in our knowledge andexpertise. The better we got tounderstand the issues and the morewe got to know the senior staff ofour potential grantees, the more werealised we had to put our trust intheir judgement and abilities.

By this point Tubney Trustees andstaff had been working closely withour counterparts in otherorganisations for as long as six orseven years. Whereas this forcedus to think more broadly and flexiblyabout our own role, it did not leadus to abandon our methods andrigour. On the contrary, we felt itwas even more important for ourgrantees to have good plans, goodmanagement and good evaluationsin order to deal with this inter-dependability and complexity.Good ‘business’ disciplines we feltwere more important than ever.Similarly, we encouraged them toseek and often offered to pay forexternal professional advice.


Lessons learned

■ Trust the judgement of your grantees, but do notcompromise proper plans, management and evaluation.

Bringing in expertsAlthough at the very beginning wehad baulked at spending money onadministrative support, in line withour founders’ advice not to set upan expensive bureaucracy, we fairlysoon realised that to makecharitable investments wisely,efficiently and effectively weneeded the assistance ofprofessional staff. Similarly, afterinitial reluctance, we became morecomfortable buying in externaladvice for ourselves or for theorganisations working on thecauses we sought to support. Suchadvice was very helpful to the Trust,even in areas where we had stronginternal expertise such as financeand the law.

Advisors can fill skills gaps but theycan also provide an independentperspective to Trustees. We soughtprofessional expertise, eitherspecifically to help us understandand get comfortable with aparticular project, or to guide us inour giving to a new area. Wecommissioned peer reviews, as wellas reports on the potential forphilanthropic giving long-term in ourcore areas, and advice on what weshould be doing to strengthen thecharitable organisations addressingmarine conservation.

We encouraged grantees to identifytheir skills gaps and not to beembarrassed to tell us about theirweaknesses. Thus armed, we wereable to steer them toward experts or

trainers who could address thesegaps and strengthen theorganisation’s capacity into thefuture. We frequently found thatgrantees lacked skills in socio-economic data collection andanalysis. In nature conservation andanimal welfare these are oftenneeded to demonstrate economicviability when rolling out aspeculative project on a largerscale, or to refute the analyses putforward by vested commercialinterests such as food producers.

As the scale of projects we fundedgrew over time, both in cost andcomplexity, often involving severaldifferent charities and universities,we also encouraged theappointment of independentgoverning bodies or steeringgroups. Typically, these includedsubject experts and academics,providing ongoing peer review.



Without sacrificing theirindependence, these bodies oftenplayed an invaluable role in seeinghidden potential in a project and inhelping to build on its findings andsuccess in the wider community.

But while turning to outside expertsfor advice, we were careful never todefer to them. We used specialist

advice to improve our owndecision-making and encouragedour partners to do likewise. In fact,in our legacy phase we increasedour direct contact with the trusteesof our legacy partners, meeting withthem on numerous occasions bothformally and informally.

Lessons learned

■ Buy in expertise when necessary, even when you have thatexpertise on your Board – a second or more specialistopinion can be invaluable.

■ Show grantees you have confidence in them so they can behonest and open about their weaknesses or skills gaps.

■ The respective boards and managers of grant-maker andgrant recipient should take the time to get to know eachother well.

■ Independent governing bodies for large complex projects,particularly where they involve multiple organisations, bringan invaluable extra perspective, and can identifyopportunities and connections those very close to a projectmay miss.

■ Make people feel good about what they can do rather thanbad about what they can’t.

New Economics FoundationMarine Socio-economics

Date: June 2011


When Tubney decided that it wanted to providesignificant grant support to work to conserve marinebiodiversity, we recognised that our knowledge in thisarea was limited and that it would therefore be helpfulto commission a review of the issues and the NGOsector working to tackle these. We were delightedthat the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation also shared ourinterest in such a review and was prepared to co-fundits production. We invited tenders to deliver thisreview and appointed IMM Ltd to carry it out. Theresult was Responding to the threats to UK marinebiodiversity, which included recommendations to thereport funders as to how they as grant-makers mighttarget funding to tackle these threats effectively. Thisreport was used to guide and refine our grant-makingin the marine environment.

One of the findings was that the key threat in theshort-term was fisheries. It was clearly vital andurgent that the negative impacts of fisheries shouldbe reduced. It was equally apparent that anychanges to fisheries would have social andeconomic impacts. What was required was changein fisheries that was sustainable and equitable but itappeared to IMM that many environmental NGOs,whose strengths were understandably in thescience of biodiversity conservation, lacked anunderstanding of these human impacts.

Tubney commissioned IMM to produce a furtherreport, The socio-economic impacts of fisheriesmanagement and policy designed to achievebiodiversity conservation, which looked in more

detail at the available, relevant data on marinesocio-economics and its use by NGOs, and maderecommendations as to how we might provide grantsupport to bridge the gaps identified.

Tubney shared the results of both reports with themajor NGOs working in this sector and, focusing onthe second, worked with the NGOs to develop aproposal to support the development of theircollective understanding and use of socio-economic data in support of achieving sustainablerecovery of marine biodiversity in UK waters. In2011 a grant of £400,000 was made to neweconomics foundation to support a consortium ofNGOs working in the marine sector.

www.neweconomics.org/projects/fisheries

Grant: £400,000

Short-snouted seahorse © Paul Naylor, MCS


Supporting businessand financialplanningFrom our own early experience weknew that time spent on planning isnever wasted. It is easy to see whysome charities, fired with a sense ofurgency and a strong task-orientation, focus on fire-fightingrather than long-term strategydevelopment and businessplanning; Tubney in its early dayswas just such a charity. In ourexperience, few organisations allowthemselves the ‘luxury’ of time andmoney, which would almostinevitably need to come fromunrestricted funds, to establish arealistic strategy to achieve theirlong-term objectives.

We found we could raise the skillslevel of organisations permanentlyby offering to pay the entire cost ofpreparing a business plan for alarge project – generally with thehelp of an external consultant – and in some cases making this aprecondition for funding. Some

organisations started down thispath as a one-off exercise in orderto satisfy Tubney’s grantrequirements on a specific project,but ended up seeing the need formore professional planning andforecasting across theirorganisation on an ongoing basis.

Similarly, many organisationsperceived their principal challengeas convincing us that they had thepassion, expertise and energy tomake something happen. We rarely,if ever, found them lacking in theseattributes. More often, our chiefworry was about their managementresources and/or abilities and,given the large sums that we werepassing to these organisations, wewere also concerned about theirinvestment and finance strategy.

Tubney staff were financially fairlyliterate to begin with but theybecame much more so as aconsequence of external trainingand working alongside our mostfinancially astute and tenaciousTrustee! As time went on we beganto provide applicants with financialtemplates. It was not uncommon forplans to go through severaliterations, with Tubney providingdetailed feedback. Over time mostapplicants learned to live with and,we hope, even appreciate thissustained engagement on our part.

Financial management of assetswas a different story altogether. Wewanted to avoid overreaching ourauthority; we didn’t want to tell othercharities how to run their business.


But some were coming intoconsiderable funds for the first time:we were giving them large sumsupfront to spend over five or even 10 years. We tried not to prescribespecific investment managementstructures or policies, but, where wefound such structures lacking, wesuggested where they might getadvice on how to put the appropriateframework and policies in place.

Lessons learned

■ Don’t hesitate to spend money on planning; good businessplanning and financial skills are thin on the ground, andcharity managers can be over-stretched.

■ You may unleash huge potential in an organisation byfunding all or part of its business plan (even if you can’tprovide funds for implementation).

Like the marine issues it seeks to address, MarineConservation Society (MCS) has had a relatively lowprofile with the general public, certainly comparedto its counterparts focusing on land-based andairborne wildlife. Marine issues tend to be ‘out ofsight, out of mind’ and MCS’ profile andmembership had not reflected its importance as achampion of the marine environment.

Nevertheless, Tubney was very impressed by MCSand recognised in it an organisation that punchedabove its weight with the potential to achieve farmore. Like most NGOs, it had grown through steadydevelopment and opportunistic, project fundraising.Its focus was relatively short-term and theorganisation had had little opportunity or cause toundertake ‘blue sky thinking’.

Tubney began discussions with MCS aboutpotential core funding and offered it the opportunityto think strategically and creatively about where itwould like and need to be in order to achieve morefor the marine environment. Its Trustees and staffrecognised the need to raise its profile, attract moremembers and significantly and sustainably increaseits unrestricted income.

We provided a grant of £209,400 to MCS in June2010 to undertake planning work leading to aproposal to Tubney for core and capacity buildingsupport to help it deliver its vision for a bigger andbetter MCS. The grant was used to develop a newStrategic and Business Plan, bringing in consultants

to support this work and to carry out market researchto underpin the growth in awareness, membershipand income. MCS involved its entire team in theprocess – Trustees, volunteers and staff. The qualityof work carried out using the planning grant wasextraordinary, and fully vindicated our earlyconfidence in MCS. The planning process led to theproposal requested but its benefits to MCS seemedto us to reach far beyond the production of aproposal. Having the resources to think and plan,with the time and external expertise necessary, haspalpably given the organisation greater confidence,energy and ambition.

MCS was awarded a core and capacity buildinggrant of £2.8 million in June 2011.

www.mcsuk.org

Marine Conservation Society (MCS)Capacity building

Date: 2010 and 2011


Grantstotalling

£3 million

Throughout our open programme grant-makingphase, Tubney supported a number of farmedanimal welfare initiatives led by the RSPCA. Theseincluded an ambitious project working with keyplayers across the food chain to deliver a significantwelfare improvement for commercially-farmed ducksby ensuring the provision of water facilities that willallow proper expression of a duck’s naturalbehaviours. Through this investment we were able toobserve at first hand the RSPCA’s ‘problem/solution’farmed animal welfare investment model, whichintegrates knowledge, industry support andconsumer pressure, all of which are necessary toachieve real change in the food industry.

Working closely with the RSPCA’s Farm AnimalsDepartment (FAD), we were greatly impressed bythe high esteem in which the FAD is held and theinfluence it has with national and internationalfarmers, governments, corporations and standard-setting bodies. However, we quickly realised thatthe FAD was unable to respond to the manydemands on its expertise and skills. The RSPCAitself was, of course, very aware of this issue and,over a couple of years, we were able to explore

together how we might best be able to supportwork to improve the welfare of farmed animals bystrengthening the capacity and resilience of theFAD within the RSPCA.

To assist the RSPCA in thinking through its options,we provided an initial planning grant of £60,000towards:

• The commissioning of a management consultantto provide recommendations on the restructuringof the RSPCA’s FAD and its relationship to otherRSPCA departments to enable the FAD toachieve more efficient and effective working andto maximise its potential to deliver future plans;

• A scoping exercise to develop fully the businesscase for the RSPCA consultancy service as partof the RSPCA’s development of its corporateengagement strategy.

The consultant’s reports suggested simple andeffective ways of expanding the output of the FAD through the hiring of additional staff, while also streamlining processes and establishingsources of sustainable income for the FAD and theRSPCA. The Trust awarded the RSPCA a grant of£3.4 million to implement these plans for a morerobust and sustainable farmed animal presence inthe UK and internationally.

www.rspca.org.uk

Royal Society for the Preventionof Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA)Capacity building grant

Date: June 2011


Grant: £3.4 million

Pig Welfare © RSPCA


Size mattersThe organisations we worked withover the years came in all shapesand sizes. Some, such as the RSPBor Comic Relief, had assets in thetens of millions. By contrast, somecommunity action groups werespending just a few thousandpounds in most years and in someyears nothing at all. Our initialprejudice had been in favour of ‘thelittle guys’. But, while we continuedto admire and support manyorganisations punching above theirweight, as we became moreexperienced, we began to see theadvantages of size in manyinstances. Particularly once wemoved into legacy mode, wepositively discriminated in favour of,if not always ‘big’ players, thencertainly those we felt would still bein business and making adifference well into the future.

There were important exceptions,mostly in our biodiversityprogramme. Here we found somevery small charities whose expertiseand focus filled in important gapsthat might easily have been

overlooked by their more broad-based peers. Some, like Buglife,were concerned with relativelyunpopular species groups. Others,such as Pond Conservation, weretrying to save a unique, under-appreciated and threatened habitat.

In some instances, the amount oftime and attention we gave theseorganisations was out of proportionto the size of the grants: we felt theycould benefit from a closer andlonger-term exchange of ideas andadvice. Nonetheless, in such cases,even relatively small sums wereoften transformative. We thought ofthese almost like start-upcompanies. Naturally, the risks ofgiving them money were higher, butwe felt the return on our investment,if successful, would be higher too.We wanted to be sure as well thatthese organisations were scalable,that the management and Trusteeswere capable of taking fulladvantage of an injection ofconsiderable new funding, and thatthey could sustain themselves atthis higher level once our moneyhad run out.

Lessons learned

■ Focus on organisations best equipped to make a sustaineddifference in the future, rather than those that seem to needthe money most.

Sharing lessonslearnedWe were committed todisseminating experiences andlessons learned for two reasons. On one level we worried that whatone charity had worked out throughgraft and trial and error was notbeing transferred to other charitiesfacing similar problems. On another,we were keen to distil our ownlearning as an organisation.

From the outset we seemedconstantly to come up against aproblem in one organisation thatanother organisation we wereworking with had already resolved.The issue of membership retentionwas a classic example. While we

generally asked for a disseminationplan for a major project or providedsubsequent funds for publicationsor conferences, we realised thatdissemination isn’t just or primarilyabout a stock or record of specificknowledge that can be captured ina formal manner. Probably moreimportant were the informalcontacts and networks betweengrant recipients, which staff wereencouraged to facilitate.

Because we were keen onidentifying tasks, roles andoutcomes, it took us a long time toaccept that much of thedissemination we sought was bestachieved informally, on an ad hocbasis, without our mediation orcontrol, in the tradition of peer-to-peer learning. So we did our best tobring people together to share whatthey had learned. Often our role orthe role of advisors was tosummarise and articulate what theorganisations were saying. Despitethe amorphous nature of thiscommunication we did our best tolog and monitor what we weredoing across the board in this area,producing summary documentsand organising meetingsspecifically to review our overalldissemination plans. Finally, werealised there where some thingswe wanted to articulate forourselves and for like-minded grant-makers. This is how this bookletcame into being.


Lessons learned

■ Sharing experiences, knowledge, best practice and thelessons of failure means better progress for all and avoidswasting precious resources. This is particularly important inthe fragmented and under-resourced charitable sector.

The TrusteeBoard

Keeping the sameTrusteesAlthough the same four individualsserved as Trustees throughout thelife of Tubney, or at least since thedeaths of our founders, it would bea mistake to think we were the samepeople at the end as at thebeginning. It has been atremendous personal growingexperience for each of us.

The Board was very careful toconform both to the legal guidanceissued by the Charity Commissionand to best practice in the sector.We set out to be a learningorganisation and gave significanttime to reviewing previous grants,grant procedures, boardpreparation and boardperformance. Indeed, one of ournumber is a practising charitylawyer. We took expert advice on avariety of legal, technical, financialand human resource issues andmade sure that we were fully awareof our responsibilities. We tableddiscussions on governance at eachtrustee meeting.

But in one important aspect weconsciously broke best practiceguidance: the same four Trustees saton the Board throughout all of the last10 years of the Trust’s life. During thattime two of the four served aschairman. Two are lawyers; two are

businessmen. All are white middle-class men of middle age. We talkedabout expanding and renewing theBoard on a number of occasions, buteach time we decided against. Weagreed informally on a rule to allow amajority of Trustees to remove aTrustee should they becomeobstructive or unable to perform theirduties – happily this never occurred.

We had been chosen by the donors,but there was nothing stopping usfrom recruiting additional Trustees oragreeing on fixed terms for Trustees.Why didn’t we? Were we enjoyingourselves too much to want to share‘power’ with others? Were we toocomfortable or complacent? Theseare difficult questions to answer withcomplete honesty. All we can do isrecount the reasons why, each timewe considered it, we decided not tochange the Board’s composition.

The donors had selected asTrustees two lawyers and twopeople who had worked with MilesBlackwell in the family business.


As it happened, the first two kneweach other chiefly through theirprofessional work on behalf of thedonors; the two from the familybusiness had known each otherand been good friends for manyyears. Although they had verydifferent background and interests,one thing the Trustees had incommon was a personalrelationship with our late donors.

It would be difficult to exaggeratethe symbolic and emotionalimportance of this common history.It was a bond between us and afixed point of reference. When wewere undecided or indisagreement, someone on theBoard would invariably posit what

the donors would have thought orwanted. It was something we usedto move us on or to defuse aparticularly heated exchange. This ritual reminded us why wewere there and helped us to renewour connection to the founders andto each other. Anyone joining theBoard without that personal link tothe donors might have been at a disadvantage.

At the outset at least, we seemedbetween us, providentially, to havethe broad mix of the backgroundand experience appropriate to theBoard of a charitable trust:communications, human resources,charity law, publishing, finance andaccounting, project management,and strategic planning. Moreimportantly, we got on well together,but not too well. When we hadarguments they were generallyabout the issues, not about egos.Everyone felt their contribution wasboth necessary and valued. Themutual appreciation and collectiveresponsibility were highlymotivating. After all, with theaccrued income on the originalportfolio, we had almost £65 millionto dispose of. A similar sense ofcollegiality infected the staff and thesame continuity and commitmentprevailed. It felt like a winning teamand we were reluctant to tamperwith it.

With long-standing Trustees, oneissue that can arise is trusteefatigue, especially in the spend outphase. The Trustees can see the


end in sight but have to increasetheir work-rate or engagementshort-term to make it happen ontime. The most demanding andstressful time of Tubney’s life, forboth staff and Trustees, was its finalphase. Our payout rate hadincreased dramatically and inaddition to routine administrativeduties we had a long ‘closingdown’ checklist to work through.Lease periods, serviceagreements, staff contracts,grantee contracts, investmentliquidation, accounts, merger – allhad to dovetail. We had to selectan end date nearly two yearsahead and ensure that everythingwas completed by that date.


Lessons learned

■ Board review is essential.

■ Don’t under-estimate the value of staff and trustee continuityand experience.

Becoming experts inour core areasIt appears to us that the Trustees

became far more directly involved

in the selection of specific projects

and individual organisations than

many of our peers in other

organisations. We went on site

visits, worked alongside the

executive team in critiquing

preliminary drafts of proposals, and

helped review grant guidelines andstandard contracts. Over time, andespecially after our grant-makingbecame much more focused, theTrustees became very well informedon our core funding areas.

The amount of time trust affairs tookup varied from Trustee to Trusteeand from month to month. Therewere, however, prolonged periodsof intense activity where some ofthe Trustees who were no longer infull-time employment were givingthe Trust two days a week. Becausethere were only four Trustees, andwe had an effective system ofsubcommittees that met betweentrustee meetings, it was possiblewhen necessary to make majordecisions within hours. When, forexample, the financial marketslooked shaky in early 2008, it onlytook an hour’s conference callbetween the four Trustees to agree to divest entirely of equities immediately.


Lessons learned

■ Divide up administrative, background and preparatory workbetween Trustees so that full trustee meetings can bedevoted to the ‘big’ issues.

Relationshipbetween Trusteesand staffFor the staff this intensiveengagement by the Trustees wasboth a frustration and a blessing.They literally had the Trusteeslooking over their shoulders.Sometimes this must have been anuisance; at other times an asset –when they needed help of either atechnical or tactical nature, boardmembers could be called on tocome to their aid. No doubt thisblurred the line between executiveand non-executive roles.

However, to maintain goodgovernance, we ensured thatimportant decisions were made onthe basis of formal papers and fulldiscussions at minuted boardmeetings. And because boardmeetings were so important and therole of each person crucial, we hadvirtually 100% attendance of all staffand Trustees at all the quarterlyboard meetings. Since 2008 andthe beginning of our spend outphase, we also had monthlyconference calls between allTrustees facilitated by the Chair,which were seldom missed by any.


Lessons learned

■ Teams of trustees and staff working shoulder-to-shoulder canbe very effective, but maintain the formal procedures of goodgovernance, no matter how small or close-knit the team.

Watch yourlanguage Every organisation creates its ownlanguage to express its values,intentions and customs. To beeffective it must be a living,breathing vocabulary, notbuzzwords imported from the pressor management handbooks. Ofcourse, the language we created atTubney adopted concepts ingeneral currency within the charitysector and society at large. But weneeded to make them our own.Interestingly, our own internaldefinition of these terms evolvedover time to accommodate what wehad learned and where we were inthe Tubney life cycle.

At the end of the day, neither ourdefinitions nor even the words perse were important: sustainability,measurable outcomes,


Lessons learned

■ The language of an organisation will change in line with itsstrategy and vision. Time spent clarifying terms and definingwords, particularly as their meanings change, strengthensand gives depth to the strategy and ensures everyone isgiving the same message to the outside world.

collaboration, connectivity,replicability, manageable,landscape-scale, transformative,uncharismatic, legacy,accountability. What mattered wasour repeated effort to define andredefine our terms explicitly, andthe shifting rank order of thesequalities as positive attributes ingrant proposals. ‘Pump priming’and ‘seed corn’, for example, werekey concepts in the early dayswhen we saw ourselves asproviding the ‘spark plug’ moreoften than the engine. We remaineddubious throughout about ‘pureresearch’ but keen on ‘bestpractice’, and even keener on‘dissemination of best practice’. We had endless discussions aboutwhat ‘legacy’ meant.

In board meetings we often called ahalt to proceedings to talk throughyet again what we meant by aparticular shorthand descriptor.Though at the time it often felt like afrustrating distraction from theformal agenda, the time was neverwasted. Indeed, such deliberationsplayed a key role in moving usforward. Our progress was oftenpropelled by the dialectic of twoopposing views around a singleword or concept. We chose ourwords, then defined them, then re-defined them. The executive team,which participated fully in thesedebates, patiently and repeatedlysought and offered clarification soits members could in turn provideclear guidance to grant applicants.

Spend out

“There is no question in our minds that ‘spend out’ focuses the collective mind and

resources of a trust in an extraordinary way and can do more to achieve a trust’s long-

term goals than a slow, modest, and possibly uninspired, perpetual outward flow of

funds. Equally, no trust should head down this path without realising that it can be

difficult and untidy. Getting all aspects of the operation to dovetail – from leases and

employment contracts to grant contracts and final accounts – requires outstanding

planning and often quick decision-making.”

René Olivieri, Chair of Tubney Trustee Board


Lessons learned

■ Live every year as if it were your organisation’s last and askyourself, why shouldn’t it be?

Why do it?Although spend out was a given forthe Tubney Trustees – an explicitwish of the donors – we had notrouble seeing its attractions. In theprivate sector competitive pressuresdrive companies to acquire andmerge. No such pressures exist inthe charity sector, so it could beargued that there are too manycharities with too few resources andtoo little expertise. Every charity’sBoard of Trustees shouldperiodically ask itself whether thecharity is truly necessary, i.e.whether it could achieve more bymerging or combining its resourcesand expertise with another charity or charities.

Encouragingphilanthropy For us, an essential part ofpreparing for our own closure wasto consider who would fund ‘our’areas when we were no longerthere. In other words, where werethe future philanthropists and grant-making charities who would stepinto the financial breach created byour demise? And just as we didn’twant the financial base to shrinkonce we were gone, so we worriedthat the knowledge we hadaccumulated over time woulddisappear. It would have been

hypocritical to demand adissemination plan from ourpartners and not have one forourselves. We felt we had aresponsibility to tell other funderswhy our sectors mattered, and whatwe had learned about the needsand capabilities of those sectors.

‘Encouraging philanthropy’ becamepart of our mission as it dawned onus how narrow the funding basewas for some of the causes wesupported. Realising our spend outpolicy meant more today for someorganisations but commensuratelyless tomorrow, we set out tounderstand the barriers to attractingnew funders by commissioningindependent professional research.We also tried to pull in new playersby encouraging match-fundingwherever feasible. Finally, weworked with our chosenorganisations to develop their ownfundraising skills. In some cases wefunded research or consultancy tomap our concerns against those ofother grant-makers, hoping to makeinter-relationships explicit.


Lessons learned

■ Think hard about how you can connect your concerns tothose of new funders and philanthropists with interests inrelated issues.


One of our stated objectives was to galvanise more and betterphilanthropy through encouraging reflection on the mosteffective use of charitable resource. We did so by providingresearch and guidance on how to increase philanthropic givingto our sectors long-term.

For example, the Trust has:

• Established a group for organisations that have decided tospend out;

• Supported the publication of two booklets on the subject:

Spending Out: learning lessons from time-limited grant-making;

The Power of Now: Spend Out Trusts and Foundations in the UK;

• Provided a grant to the Association of CharitableFoundations to promote effective foundations;

• Fostered the growth of the Environmental Funders Networkthrough serving on the steering committee and the awardingof a capacity building grant;

• Supported the creation and development of a ‘food funders’forum’, a network for philanthropists concerned with food-related issues, whether this be obesity, internationaldevelopment or farmed animal welfare.


Ten reasons to considerspending out

1 To help address an immediate need

Needs exist today, so why not accomplish as much as possible withsubstantial support in the short term rather than rationing fundsover a longer period? Some opportunities simply cannot wait for thefuture, such as the purchase of land to save it from development,for example. And investments now – in the education of young girlsin Africa which has been shown to dramatically reduce povertyrates, for example – offer the promise of high ‘returns’ that are hardto ignore.

2 To maximise the amount of money available toaccomplish as much as possible in the short term

By spending its capital, a trust or foundation is able in the shortterm to substantially increase its payout rates to the causes itsupports, significantly enhancing the impact even a small ormedium-sized trust is able to achieve.

3 To take advantage of the ‘time value’ of money

The ‘time value’ of money is a standard financial concept which,when applied to charitable giving, suggests that using anendowment to finance investments sooner rather than later offerssignificant social returns. In other words, high inflation and risingcosts can erode the ‘value’ of an endowment – what the money canactually buy over time.

4 To focus attention

Limiting the lifespan of a trust or foundation requires Trustees andstaff to focus with extra vigour on what is to be achieved within thatperiod. Another factor is that by focusing resources on only a fewtargeted sectors, a trust or foundation may be able to make asignificant contribution to under-served areas and bring publicattention to those subjects.


5 To avoid creating an ongoing bureaucracy

Some argue that the management of perpetual trusts or foundationswith endowments producing annual income for disbursement canrequire a large administrative bureaucracy, and that supporting thismay not be the best use of the trust or foundation’s funds.

6 To avoid the possibility that the purpose willbecome obsolete or obscured

The purpose and goals of any trust or foundation could becomeobsolete over the years and a time limit could help prevent this. In afamily trust or foundation, the expanding family may have charitablegoals that differ from or are in conflict with the donor’s original intent.

7 To fulfil the wishes of the founder(s)

A growing number of founders are specifying that their trust orfoundation must spend all assets within a limited time. This approachcan also ensure that funds are managed by Trustees the founder(s)knew and trusted and are directed to causes the founder supported.

8 To allow the founder(s) to participate in decision-making

The ‘giving while living’ approach allows wealthy individuals toengage in philanthropy today and see the fruits of their efforts withintheir own lifetimes. The idea is not new. In 1889, Andrew Carnegie,the industrialist and philanthropist, suggested: “The man whodies... rich, dies disgraced.”

9 To set an example to others

Modelling to others about where and how one might give can bevery important. Many parents involve their children in theircharitable plans, using philanthropy as a tool to teach them how tomanage family wealth as well as to instil values such as generosity.

10 To enjoy giving

Many philanthropists say they enjoy the personal involvement andmotivation that comes from the focus of setting objectives to beachieved within a set timeframe.

Thepracticalities

ManagementAs a spend out organisation,schedules, investment management,budgets, cash flows, contracts andservice agreements all becamemore complex, critical and time-sensitive the closer we got to ourfinal closure date. Logistically, wehad to give these important ‘details’the time and attention they deservedwithout letting them squeeze theagenda, leaving no time to thinkabout the ‘big’ issues. We tackledthis through a combination of

prioritisation, delegation, eliminationand extra effort.

Early on, we set up an effective andempowered Finance andInvestment Committee involving twoTrustees and our excellent financeand administration staff. In ourspend out phase we created twofurther subcommittees made up ofTrustees and staff. The first wecalled the Legacy Review Team, thesecond, the Spend Out Team. Theremit of the former was to conductpreliminary discussions with anddue diligence on prospectivebeneficiaries. The latter kept trackof and made specificrecommendations on a range oftechnical and logistical mattersrelated to spend out, from leases tomerger partners. Our regularmonthly conference calls were nowused to cover anything to do withadministration or governance,leaving the few remaining trusteemeetings generally free fordiscussion with staff and Trusteesfrom other organisations, and forconsidering major grants andstrategic issues.


Lessons learned

■ Ensure that a rigorous and effective mechanism is in placeto focus on details of closure.

■ Plan and prioritise, and don’t lose sight of the big issues indealing with the mountain of practical details.

Investments,finances andschedulingThe financial affairs of manycharities are complex. Incomecomes from a variety of sources,some of them uncertain orunreliable. With reserves often onlysufficient to cover ongoingexpenses for a few months, long-term survival depends on keeping awary eye on cash flow. As a wellresourced grant-maker we madescrupulous financial forecasts butwere relieved of many of thefinancial pressures other charitiesface. As we approached spend out,however, we recognised the needfor more detailed reporting andmore frequent review of finances. At the beginning of trustee meetingswe reviewed the spreadsheets andthen looked at them again at theend of the meeting to see theimpact of the funding decisions wehad just taken.

Similarly, we were moderatefinancial risk-takers and had arelatively long-term investmenthorizon in the early days. But whenequity markets first looked shaky inearly 2008, knowing we were not farfrom the end of our spend out, wewithdrew completely from the stockmarket in order to enable us toknow with some certainty the scaleof the funds we had to spend. Thisturned out to be an excellently-timed investment decision, but wasmore driven by our spend out policy

than by any prescience about stockmarket movements! Thereafter wedrew up a detailed timelineanticipating all major grants; on theback of this we did a three-yearforecast which was amended atleast quarterly. Any bonds ordeposits were timed to mature inline with our budget and these toowere reviewed each time we met tomaking funding decisions.

Planning the timetable becamesomething of an obsession.Working backwards from theexpected closure date, wedetermined exactly how manytrustee meetings remained and howmany grant decisions we could andneeded to make at each of thosemeetings. We were very aware oftwo risks: that we could loseconfidence in one of our preferredorganisations, leaving us with toolittle time to find an alternativeorganisation to invest in; or that wewould not get all the information we required in time to makeresponsible decisions beforeclosing down.


To avoid a build-up of hurried andlast-minute decision-making, wewere very clear about deadlines forsubmissions of proposals andfeedback reports. Where we felt weknew enough about an organisationand its potential already, we lookedto simplify the review process. We

were conscious that at times weforced the pace, sometimes to thealarm of potential recipients. As itturned out, the fact that we alreadyknew a great deal about the largestof the organisations we had chosen to work with reduced therisks significantly.


Lessons learned

■ Spending out i.e. ‘getting to zero’ requires meticulousplanning and constant scrutiny.

■ Getting to know your grantees over an extended period oftime can help you ‘let go’.

Communication –inside and outA major concern regarding ourspend out was to communicateexactly what was happening andwhy to the outside world. Thisentailed both ‘behind the scenes’informal conversations with ourpartners and then the publication ofa very carefully thought-throughstatement on our website. We dealtwith expressions of confusion orfrustration sympathetically and asflexibly as possible. But in theinterests of fairness and to avoidwasted energies, we had clear rulesand deadlines for moving from oneset of grant-making guidelines toanother. Our success in making thetransition widely known andaccepted was entirely due to verycareful planning.

Once the time horizon for closingwas established, our greatestconcern was to make sure our ownstaff were not destabilised. Theyhad important knowledge andrelationships that could not easilybe replaced.

The Trustees felt great loyalty to thestaff and this sentiment was, we felt,reciprocated. Nevertheless, weconstantly reminded each other andthe staff that our primary loyalty wasto the Trust and its aims.

It would have been understandableif anyone had decided to leavebefore closedown, but wedepended crucially on key peopleremaining in place and motivated

during our final stressful phase. We spoke to staff openly about ourinitial inability to give either aprecise end date or specific detailsof their redundancy packages. Butwith good professional advice andinvaluable input from other charitiesthat were going through a spendout phase of their own, by May2010 – two years before theanticipated closure date – we wereable to give staff estimates of thefinal date, the likely notice period,and the kind of termination packagethey could expect.

It was difficult to gauge whatincentives we could justifiably offerto minimise the risk of a highlydisruptive staff departure, given therelatively small number ofemployees we had and the relatively large amounts of money –over £20 million – we wereawarding in grants in the last twoyears. However, we soughtindependent advice from bothhuman resources and legal expertsabout the scale and conditions ofseverance agreements.


We put redundancy plans in placeand arranged bonus schemes toretain and reward individuals for the achievement of their final set of objectives.

The trickiest part of negotiationswith staff was eventually agreeingthe timeframe for departure, whichdepended in each case on havingachieved very specific personalobjectives. We understood that no-one wanted to be sitting at theirdesks with nothing to do, but we

also knew that the greatest risk toour spend out plans would be nothaving the labour or knowledge tocomplete our work, especially oncewe had agreed and announced aspecific date for closure. Althoughwe engaged in formal consultationwith staff to try to manage thissituation, at the end of the day werelied – justifiably as it turned out –on strong interpersonalrelationships and professionalintegrity to keep the team together.

It was the implicit rather than theexplicit contract that kept the showon the road: everyone agreed on therationale for spend out, which wesaw as an exceptional opportunity,and we each felt personally andcollectively responsible for seeing itthrough to the end. Indeed, whenasked, most of our staff saw this asa once-in-a-lifetime chance to havea profound and lasting impact onissues they understood and caredabout deeply.


Lessons learned

■ Plan all communications; their content and timing are crucial.

■ Be open and transparent with staff.

■ Take professional advice if necessary.

■ Be clear about timescales and redundancy packages assoon as you are able.

■ Keep the entire team together as long as you can; piecemealredundancies can be very demoralising.

Transfer of assetsOur final big concern was that itwould be impractical, too drawn outand too expensive to attempt to tieup all the loose ends to the best ofour ability and then shut up shop.We felt we needed some residualorganisation to deal with unforeseenqueries or liabilities. Our Spend OutTeam, which included our twolawyers, identified three options:

a. Gradual wind-up with anaccounting firm providingsupport;

b. Gradual wind-up with aspecialist legal firm providingsupport;

c. ‘Merge’ with another charity inorder to allow the transfer of anyresidual Tubney liabilities andassets.

After numerous discussions itbecame clear that the third optionwas by far the most desirable fromTubney’s point of view as itcombined knowledge of our sectorswith a clean exit. A drawn-outclosure period, simply waiting forany unforeseen financial liability orlegal claim to emerge, meantkeeping a skeleton crew in placeuntil the filing of final accounts. This seemed wasteful.

Unfortunately, it was not so clearwhy another charity would want tooblige us. We looked among ourpartner organisations, who might besympathetic and knew we ran a tidyship. Clearly, we didn’t want to put

potential legacy grant recipientsunder pressure to accommodateus. We identified an idealcandidate, and then waited until wehad completed our legacy grant-making before we broached theidea of it becoming our transferpartner. We were careful to avoid aconflict of interest, or to imply thatany grant under consideration wasconditional on them becoming ourtransfer partner. In the end,thankfully, it was happy to agree totake on the role.

Once we had an agreement inprinciple, it still took some time tosort through the details. Whatexactly would the transferorganisation be taking over fromus? Clearly, it needed to be assuredthat it would not be open tounexpected third-party claims, suchas unpaid bills. But there was thelarger question of responsibility forthe literally hundreds of grantagreements that Tubney had signedover the years.


The process of formally transferringthese contracts to our legacypartner was daunting and in theend everyone agreed that this wasimpractical; instead they were all

either formally terminated or the(hopefully academic) right toreclaim misspent funds or claimsarising on insolvency remained witha moribund Tubney.


Lessons learned

■ Consider how best to deal with residual assets andliabilities; an existing partner may be willing to take them on.

■ Start thinking early about how any outstanding issues willbe dealt with after your closure date.

SummaryWhat an exciting and fulfillingjourney it has been! We hope andbelieve that our founders wouldapprove of our actions, since ourknowledge of them and their viewsinformed us at every step.

Although the Trust has existed for aremarkably short time, it has playeda very important part in the lives ofits Trustees and staff. It was alwaysa team effort, but we enjoyedenormous freedom of action. Ingiving us such freedom and,consequently, such responsibility,we naturally think our donors wereextremely far-sighted. We were ableto determine our own mission,objectives and timetable. We mademany mistakes but we tried to learnfrom those mistakes and correctthem where we could. We wentback to the strategic drawing boardon more than one occasion. Eachtime we emerged with a modified orrefined mission and priorities. Inbusiness-speak terms, each timewe ‘owned’ the new organisationand strategy.

In our grant-making we becameincreasingly focused over time andthis allowed us to develop profoundsubject knowledge andrelationships. As our understandingof the issues we were confrontingincreased, so did our awareness ofthe social, economic and politicalcontext in which those issuesneeded to be addressed. And asour remit and goals changed, so

did our approach to businessplanning, grant applications andfeedback; the more speculative andlong-term our grants became, themore thoughtful we had to be abouthow we would measure ‘success’.For us, ‘adding value’ was onlypartly about funding. It was ameans to an end, but it wasn’t theonly means.

Once we had discovered ourstrengths as an organisation, wenaturally tried to play to them. Weactively sought out projects andother organisations that wouldbenefit most from engagement with us. We strove to improve thequality and effectiveness of everyproject and every organisation we supported.



Tubney House, the former homeof Miles and Briony Blackwell,was donated by the Trust toOxford University to serve asthe base for WildCRU, theUniversity’s internationally-renowned Wildlife ConservationResearch Unit.

At times we may have come acrossto applicants as ‘meddlers’ and‘back seat drivers’, but in the end,especially as we became moreadept at knowing where and how tointrude our views, we believe thatmost of our partners came toappreciate our deep interest andenthusiasm for what they were doing.In the process, we learned to accept the inevitability of risk and uncertainty.

Because of our commitment from theoutset to ‘spending out’, we wereacutely aware that our role, bothfinancially and otherwise, wastransitory. This brought us eventuallyto the realisation that our most

important goal should be to build up

the capacity of the organisations that

would outlive us and to strengthen

the networks and collaborations

between those organisations.

We hope that most of our partner

organisations feel they are in a better

place – organisationally, strategically

and financially – than they would

have been had Tubney never

existed. We also wanted to ensure

that the very many lessons, some of

them painful ones, that we learned

along the way were passed on.

In this spirit we offer this brief

account of our experiences during

the short but mostly happy life of

The Tubney Charitable Trust.

a


Trustees and friends at Tubney House


AcknowledgementsEach of the following played a keyrole in the Tubney story. If anyonehas been inadvertently missed offthe list, we hope they will acceptour apologies for the oversight andunintended omission.

Founders and benefactors

Miles and Briony Blackwell

Trustees

Jonathan Burchfield (Chairman, 2002-2008)

Terry Collins

Jim Kennedy

René Olivieri (Chair, 2008-2012)

Staff

Nick Forster – ProgrammeDirector – Environment

Anil Patil – Programme Officer –Farmed Animal Welfare

Sarah Ridley – Executive Director

Angie Seal – Grants Manager

Claire Tyrrell – Administration andFinance Manager

James Webb – Team Administrator

Bankers

Barclays Bank PLC, PO Box 49,Wantage, Oxon, OX12 8HX

Investment Manager

Sarasin & Partners LLP, JuxonHouse, 100 St Paul’s Churchyard,London, EC4M 8BU

Independent Financial Adviser

Optimum Support for Charities, 90 Long Acre, Covent Garden,London, WC2E 9RZ

Auditor

Buzzacott LLP, CharteredAccountants, 130 Wood Street,London, EC2V 6DL

Accountant

Karen Roberts

Ali HoodAlison MaydomAndrew LambertAndrew NicholsonAngela Morvan Anne, Julius and Luisa LutkeAstrid BonfieldBCM GroupBen CattermoulBenet NorthcoteBob WallerBuzzacott Giving SolutionsBryan Seal Carol MackCatherine SmallChani and Chris at Chan ChamChristine NicolChristopher StopesColin Bridges Colin SpeddingConor Jameson Co-operative Systems Danyal SattarDavid and Joan PetcheyDavid CarringtonDavid ClarkDavid Emerson


David MacdonaldDavid MainDavid SmellieDawn AustwickDiana LeatDiane CourtneyDick SibleyDrew BenelickEddie FinchEileen Rayner Enid RuddockEnvironmental Funders NetworkFelix GummerFiona Dauppe Graham Clow Graham WynneHelen BrowningIan BurgessJacquie KennedyJane BurchfieldJanet SharpJenny DaddJeremy BiggsJoan EdwardsJock Campbell John and Jane Marie ZelenikJon CracknellJoyce D’SilvaJudith McNeill Julia WrathallJulian SmithLaura McCaffreyLeigh Grant Lesley LambertLouise Postle Lucas FettesMargaret Perrott Marian DawkinsMark CooperMark RabetMark SmithMark WattsMartin PriceMatt Shardlow

Michael AllenMichael Petchey Mike BakerMike HudsonNatalie GriffithsNatasha Barker BradshawNick PerksNigel Wale Olivia ForsterPaul GricePaul RidoutPenny FoxPeter BradnockPhilip KnightPhilip LymberyPhilip Wilkinson Pippa Vincent Ray SelbyRichard BrooksRichard GrahamRG ServicesRob WilkinsonRobert BoddingtonRobert KirtlandRoger HancockRoland BonneyRuth LaytonRuth, Asha and Maya PatilSam FanshaweSandra EdwardsSharon WalkerSimon RobinsonStella TangStephanie HilborneStephanie WanklingStephen PittamSue HoldenTheresa LloydTim O’BrienTom ShebbeareTotal CoverageTris LewisVictoria ChesterZoë Bunter


Tubney-funded publicationsThe Trust has funded work inpursuit of its objectives to supportorganisations and activities thatdeliver a long-term impact in thefollowing two areas:

• Conservation of the naturalenvironment of the UnitedKingdom;

• Improvement of the welfare offarmed animals both in the UKand internationally.

Reports that have resulted from ourfunding are listed below and areavailable fromwww.tubney.org.uk/publications.html

Responding to the threats toUK marine biodiversity

The Trust and the Esmée FairbairnFoundation jointly commissioned areview of current and impendingthreats to the marine environment inUK waters to inform their grant-making in this area. IMM Ltd wasselected to undertake this work andreported to the funders in January2009. The Trustees of the twoorganisations considered thefindings of the report and how theirfunding should be directed to mosteffectively meet their grant-makingobjectives.

The socio-economic impacts offisheries management andpolicy designed to achievebiodiversity conservation

The Trust commissioned this reportas part of a review as to how itmight best support more effectiveuse of socio-economic data byNGOs working to achievebiodiversity gains in UK waters. The report is a basic review ofcurrent knowledge of the socio-economic impacts of fisheriesmanagement and policy designedto achieve biodiversityconservation. It covers themechanisms of fisheriesmanagement and policy, theimportance and diversity of socio-economic knowledge, and how itcan help to place fisheries into thebroader, more holistic, framework ofsustainable development.

This work led to a further, internalreport, which the Trustees used toinform their grant-making in this area.

Farming tomorrow: FarmedAnimal Welfare Forum 10-YearStrategic Plan

The Trust facilitated the creation ofthe Farmed Animal Welfare Forum,an informal forum consisting ofinfluential farmed animal welfareorganisations, scientists concernedwith improving farmed animalwelfare, and representatives of thefood industry and certifying bodies.


The Forum developed a workingdocument for a co-ordinated 10-yearstrategic plan to effect large-scale,long-term and sustainableimprovements in the welfare offarmed animals.

Encouraging philanthropicsupport to improve the welfareof farmed animals

The Trust commissioned EcoSConsultancy Ltd to carry out aprospect research and feasibilitystudy for encouraging philanthropicsupport for activities that improvethe welfare of farmed animals. EcoSwas also asked to explore how theFarmed Animal Welfare Forum’s 10-year strategic plan (as above)was likely to be viewed by potential funders.

Spending out

As a ‘spend out’ charity, The TubneyCharitable Trust had a limited life andspent all its income and capital toachieve its objectives. We supportedthe dissemination of two publicationson spending out. The guides aim toaddress the key issues andquestions relating to spend out andto provide a structure fordiscussion/decision-making.

Spending out: learning lessonsfrom time-limited grant-making,Association of CharitableFoundations www.acf.org.uk

The power of now: spend outtrusts and foundations in the UK,Institute for Philanthropywww.instituteforphilanthropy.org

History of the Trust

■ The Tubney Charitable Trust was registered at the Charity Commission

■ Briony Blackwell and Jonathan Burchfield were the original Trustees

■ The charity was administered out of Jim Kennedy’s law firm’s office in Winchester

■ Grant-making commenced

■ The founders died unexpectedly

■ Three additional Trustees started work in earnest – Terry Collins, Jim Kennedy and René Olivieri

■ Jonathan Burchfield took on the role of Chairman and the charity wasadministered out of his law firm’s office in Reading

■ Sarah Ridley joined the Trust as its first permanent staff member

■ A thorough strategic review was undertaken and the Trustees decided to focus on two programme areas:

– Conservation of the Natural Environment in the UK

– Improving the Welfare of Farmed Animal in the UK and internationally

■ Three professional staff members joined the Trust – Nick Forster, Angie Seal and Claire Tyrrell

■ The Charity opened its own office in Reading

■ The Trust revised its guidelines

■ Two further staff members joined the Trust: Anil Patil and James Webb

■ René Olivieri took over the role of Chair

■ Following another strategic review, the Trust shifted its grant-makingpractices from reacting to applicants’ requests for project funding toproactively selecting organisations to receive capacity building grants

■ All grants were agreed and funds disbursed

■ The Trust’s minimal remaining assets were transferred to a residualbeneficiary and the office of The Tubney Charitable Trust was formally closed.

1997

20022001

2003

2004

20072008

20112012

Timeline

102 The Tubney Charitable Trust

www.tubney.org.uk Charity Number 1061480

This short book recounts the evolution of The Tubney Charitable Trust andthe various challenges it faced over time. Against this background it exploresissues of interest to all grant-makers: strategic planning, governance,campaigning, risk management, project management, partnerships andfinancial management. It will be of particular interest to grant-makers likeTubney who have committed to, or are contemplating, spending out.

Giving our all:reflections of a spend out charity

Designed and produced by www.totalcoverage.coop

Giv

ing o

ur a

ll The Tubney C

haritable Trust

Legacy Book Cover AW 10mm_Layout 1 17/10/2011 16:31 Page 1

giving our all: reflections of a spend out charity

Documents