Intelligent Giving

Thanks for your comments, John - and I'm glad you liked our annual report. We understand that not all charities have the resources to put together reports that are quite so detailed as ours, and we also understand that some charities might lose out if they are quite as frank about their failings as we are. That explains why we think that charities which score over 75% on our scale are doing pretty well.

As for whether it would be worthwhile for you to put in the effort to be so transparent - we think it definitely would. Over 100,000 people have read at least one of our charity profiles since our launch, and a recent survey showed that one-third of respondents changed their choice of charity as a result of visiting this site.

And as for linking to Guidestar - well, that's something we've got under review. We'll let you know the future of those links as soon as we've decided.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

It is now April, another three months have gone by, and guidestar is still out of date. Intelligent giving has just had a great write up in Third Sector, and has patted itself on the back for its reporting. Now the next step should be to listen to some ogf its supporters (like me) and ditch the links to Guidestar. The links give Guidestar credibility, which is undeserved. IG is doing a great job. In looking at their Report, I can see why they go 100%, but, the problem is, that if we were to do a report like this (which I am sure we could) it would only be to make IG happy -- and I am not sure that would be the best use of our resources. But maybe I'm wrong. If there was evidence that donors were using IG then I certainly would consider... and perhaps I've not spotted it, but is there analysis showing use of donors?

Whtever happens don't get disillusioned. You are doing a good job so far.

But my comment still stands -- why does IG continue to give links to Guidestar when it is so useless. There must be other links which are much more helpful to users CAF etc...

I get censured/wrist slapped for stating perfectly reasonable opinions, yet somehow a post entitled 'Kill Guidestar' (sounds like incitement to me), is given the green light. Hey 'ho - as the sign off says..... 

Don't shoot the messenger

The Charity Commission website is nearly as functional now - many charities' reports and accounts are downloadable and there is a function for us to add our own info. Which, at the time Guidestar was founded, were the only two things that Guidestar offered that CC didn't.

Oh, I tell a lie. Guidestar has forums which the CC doesn't. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha (breathe) ha ha ha ha (contd. p94) - moderator information was completely out of date last time I tried to report a spam post on there.

IG review of Guidestar (charity # 1114615) please?

*eats popcorn - with wooden spoon (to prevent greasy fingers of course, what else?)*

-----------------------------------------------

... nearly Vlad the Impaler

Again, points taken, but I still feel that as far as I am concerned the statutory annual report is what it says on the label. Perhaps it is not clear that we do also produce a pretty summary of the report, with pie charts, which goes to funders. They can then ask for the statutory report if they want the detail. Perhaps I should have made this clear earlier -- we are probably doing what most people want.

But I would like to return to a comment I made earlier. I think it is very important indeed that sites like Intelligent Giving are bang up to date. If a charity like ours is trying to be reactive and make the changes suggested, then we want to see this recognised a.s.a.p. Guidestar is still showing our 2005 accounts, and soon our 2007 accounts will be available.  This degree of delay is unacceptable, and does not help charities. So IG, keep up to date, and keep up the good work.

That should have read "Hello" Mr Burton!

Don't shoot the messenger

Hell Mr Burton

I agree that the Annual Report is far from the most relevant marketing tool in an increasingly digital age. But as you have to provide a set of annual accounts for compliance reasons anyway then why not make sure that the accompanying report answers the range of reasonable questions and concerns that a prospective funder may have. It's just a case of being more efficient and getting more from your existing budget as far as I'm concerned.

I have to say that I think your approach to IG's critique is preciesly the right one though. I'm left with the impression of a well run, open and honest organisation committed to improvement (whilst not being afraid to fight its corner!)

Don't shoot the messenger

I have just checked our entry on Guidestar -- and it is way out of date. If this is generally true, is it worth a good site such as IG maintaining links?

Thanks for all the feedback, and the points are taken on board.  I still have reservations about an annual report being the right place for reporting on the future, but one point is of course that by the time an Annual Report is actually published -- nearly 6 months after year end -- much of the future is already history anyway, so we could mention it. As a point of interest, the original Sid Templer reserve (mentioned by Chris) has now grown to over 30,000 acres, and as a result of all the international interest, we are helping create a massive network of protected areas -- more on this to come. Unfortunately another point with promising the future, is that our work often needs to be treated as confidential until th deal is signed and sealed.

Notheless, I fully appreciate that there is ample scope for improvements, and we will try harder next year. Meanwhile I would encourage anyone interested, to sign up to our eBulletin, as that does keep every one well informed. Despite the failings mentioned by my correspondents below, we must be doing something right, as our support, gre rapidly last year, and we raised around £1,600,000, and we are continuing that growth. And a lot of our support comes from the business world, who obviously take a keen interest in our reporting, and indeed have complimented us on it.

Finally, I disagree slightly with Ginsters Dragon, as we hardly ever use the Annual Report as a Marketting Tool. I realise that many charities do, but as far as we are concerned it is old technology, and while it may be useful if you are sending out hundreds of grant applications (which we do not do any more), the main use we have for our Annual Report, is actually statutory compliance issues. This is not to say that the Annual Report isn't a useful marketting tool for other charities -- it's just not the way we use it. I would also point out, that I personally am very put off by many charity Annual Reports -- far too glossy, and obviously have taken a huge amount of staff time in compilation -- time and money better spent on actually doing something.

Thanks for all your feedback, anything else will be welcome, and certailny noted, and acted on when appropriate 

John A Burton

Whilst it's probably the case that more people will see the website than look at the annual report, I think Ginster's Dragon is right.  IG aren't saying what they say for fun - everyone is assessed against the same criteria. One can either carp and make digs, or deal with it. For me,  the annual report is short on detail in terms of the impacts the charity makes, future plans and is barely SORP compliant.

The SORP says "The report should explain the charity's plans for the future including the aims and key objectives it has set for future periods together with details of any activities planned to achieve them." - this means an explanation of what activities are going to be carried out and what the impact will be. Raising money and setting a budget are not in themselves  charitable activities.

Also, in terms of what has been done in the year - "Two site visits were made [to Paraguay] and with funds provided by the Generations Trust further land purchase was initiated with Guyra Paraguay, for land near the Sid Templer reserve." So what?  Why should I care? Some more information on why this project is being carried out, and what it will achieve would be interesting. On reading the report, what encourages me to look at the website or eBulletins? The information is given in more detail on the website, but the report doesn't work as a stand alone document.

Donors and funders are becoming more and more sophisticated in how they choose charities to give to, and the charities that respond to that challenge and get their message across in all their communications are the ones that will succeed in the long term.

The best accounts I've seen both celebrate achievements in that year and set out plans for the future.

eg We helped 30 villages in Mozambique in the last year to build their own well for water supplies.

Next year we are planning to build an aqueduct to pipe water away from Britain.

Martin
PS anyone remember hosepipe bans with fondness?

I'm sure  the World Land Trust is a great charity, but I'm staggered at the lack of ambition that you seem to have for your Annual Report. Sure, the statutory bits (accounts etc) are neccesaily a reflection of the year gone by, but the very best Annual Reports serve as effective marketing tools laying out a charity's past record as well as their future vision. Why not excite and motivate the funder to get involved in what you plan to achieve with their help?

Don't shoot the messenger

Thanks for updating the website -- though a little tardy. We are at a loss to understand the marking down -- as an annual report is based on the past. If anyone wants to know what the present and future holds, we have an excellent website, and regular eBulletins. If we were to rport on what we thought the future held in our Annual Report, it would be out of date far too rapidly.