Intelligent Giving - blog entry - Comments

Etherington's accountability

Adam Rothwell — Mon, 12 May 2008 16:16:20 +0100

Thanks for that, David - it does make things rather clearer. It would also suggest that, instead of 'carving out his own definition of accountable behaviour,' Stuart was in fact 'quoted out of context.'

Apologies to Stuart and the NCVO for the misinterpretation. The article in Third Sector was rather less than clear (I thought) in explaining the difference between the two speeches.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

Accountability

David Abse — Mon, 12 May 2008 15:39:27 +0100

To be fair to Stuart Etherington, I think you are misunderstanding the article. The bit about accountability is what one speaker, Michael Hammer from the One World Trust, said at the Charity Finance Directors' Group conference. My understanding is that the quote from Etherington is what he said in his speech at the same conference - it was not a reply to the 'accountability' speech, but a different speech about the need to 'educate stakeholders about the need to spend money on good administration'.

Blogging

Adam Rothwell — Mon, 12 May 2008 10:10:03 +0100

I will certainly do that - and you'll also be able to find out about our updates via Twitter (see right and http://twitter.com/adamrothwell).

Adam, Intelligent Giving

Do please still post to the

clare — Fri, 09 May 2008 16:22:48 +0100

Do please still post to the blog to let us know when there's a new article put up though!

Sweeping statements

Adam Rothwell — Fri, 09 May 2008 16:06:48 +0100

Hi Catman,

You may be right about this. But having been exposed to most big-charity fundraising drives over the past few years, I've never come across anything which is so resoundingly positive as Oxfam's efforts here, which is why it struck me as so refreshing.

So yes, 'first time in history' might have been a bit of an overstatement. But positive fundraising campaigns are exceptionally rare, to say the least.

Wouldn't you agree?

Adam, Intelligent Giving

In depth research

catman — Fri, 09 May 2008 15:50:33 +0100

Hey Adam,

So you have read every piece of direct mail that has been sent out by charities this year have you? What about last year? Or the previous 10 years before that? Of course you haven't, yet you still feel the need to make sweeping statments like "Hooray! Oxfam may be the first big charity in history not to guilt-trip its supporters into giving".

Making statements like these makes me worry about the credibility of your research.

Catman

Point taken..

Adam Rothwell — Fri, 09 May 2008 13:41:54 +0100

Hi Ginsters,

I take your point: posters aren't the place to get into the details of international-development policy. My concern, though, was that Oxfam's ads might give the impression that ending poverty is easy. I think that would be misleading - but I also think that, if Oxfam's website is up to the job, then this shouldn't be a big issue. (In other words, I agree with Martin.)

Adam, Intelligent Giving

They are good

Martin Davies — Fri, 09 May 2008 13:27:30 +0100

Yes, the advertising is good. Short, can make people think, and don't try and recreate their entire website onto a poster.

I particularly love the one with three names that made a huge difference. Gandhi, Mandella ........
If you haven't seen it, I won't give the third name. But made me smile. :)

Martin

Token criticism

Ginsters Dragon — Fri, 09 May 2008 13:26:47 +0100

I totally concur with almost everything you've written Adam, Simplifying your message and keeping it fresh is absoultely essential........... But I can't see the sense in criticising Oxfam for not fully explaining 'the complex reality of poverty-reduction work" (albeit that your cristcism is qualified), that's not what they're trying to do with their posters and adverts. Can't something be a 100% success - you know, like your own Annual Report ;-)

Don't shoot the messenger

There's a balance to be found

Ginsters Dragon — Thu, 08 May 2008 14:33:12 +0100

........I agree Martin. I'm not sure quite where the line should be drawn, but I'm convinced that something along the lines of 'The Trustees consider it prudent for the charity to maintain reserves of between six and nine months running costs' comes anywhere close to answering the reasonable questions of an 'intelligent giver'.

The organisation that I'm currently working for at least goes on to say that the approved level of reserves was decided upon after a comprehensive risk analysis (so not just pulled out of thin air then!)

Don't shoot the messenger

Investment?

Martin Davies — Thu, 08 May 2008 10:15:47 +0100

So it comes down to proper use of money?

Either using money immediately (that year), or investing it to keep on spending money in leaner years.

I've read many reports, some of them giving me far too much information about their investments. Others have a simple statement about what they won't invest in and that risk is checked at every meeting.

So exactly how much should any size charity report on for its investments? 1/2 page? 20+ pages?
Not forgetting that the larger the report, the more paper to print it - something any charity involved in conservation should be aware of.

Investing for good?

Adam Rothwell — Thu, 08 May 2008 09:48:46 +0100

Catman,

I have a lot of sympathy for your views - but I don't agree with your conclusions.

Of course, I wouldn't expect National Trust members to cancel their subscriptions because of the Trust's foggy explanation of its investments. I'm a member myself, and its lack of disclosure doesn't make me think ill of the Trust at all.

Likewise, I undertstand that the Wellcome Trust has a much greater impetus to report in detail on its investments. It has more of them, and its success as a charity depends on their performance to an unusual degree.

But this doesn't alter the fact that charities like the National Trust should learn from Wellcome's approach. It doesn't take much to put together a pie-chart showing how investments are distributed, or to provide a graph plotting the charity's investment performance against the wider market. Likewise, being a bit more forthcoming about future investment policy can't be hard - since we assume that chatrities with so much in the bank must have this policy lurking in a draw somewhere.

Most people, I agree, will - and should - support a charity after seeing the impact of its work. But charities look after donors' money on trust. They should try their hardest to justify this.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

blurring the lines

catman — Wed, 07 May 2008 13:56:44 +0100

Afternoon,

Your example of the National Trust is a lot more relevant than that of the Wellcome Trust.

The Wellcome Trust is a funder, distributing its wealth to a range of causes. These funds are based on how effectively they have invested their reserves. Equally, they need to report primarily to those who funded the pot which is not me, or the average person on the street. So, the main remit of the Wellcome Trust is to invest effectively to fund other causes...of course they will be good at investments and reporting on it. Much the same way that Intelligent Giving are good at writing transparent Annual Reports as your main remit is to....analyse annual reports for tranparency.

I still do believe (and call me arrogant if you wish), that the majority of people who wish to give to a charity, will be motivated by the proof that their donation is making a difference. Some will be confused by a balance sheet, others will want the bottom line and a few will want the whole shebang.

When private companies release figure about their trading, do they tell us everything or do they give us a number (Shell made £7b in the last 3 months)? They have the nitty gritty for the shareholders.

Do you think that National Trusts members would cancel their subscription because of the level of investment reporting in their annual review?

In complete agreeance

Ginsters Dragon — Wed, 07 May 2008 12:26:39 +0100

Having a background which encompasses both fundraising and PR, I think it's absolutely critical that charities take the trouble to fully explain their financial position (including reserves). At one organisation in particular I was mortified to hear a Finance Director state 'that's our policy and that's all they (the donating public) need to know'.... He may have had a point had the policy actually contained a rational explanation for how the six to nine months of runnning costs was arrived at. As it was the 'policy', really nothing more than a bald statement of fact, amounted to 'this is what we need and as we're the experts you'll just have to trust us.' Oh, the arrogance.

Don't shoot the messenger

All very well but....

Anonymous — Fri, 02 May 2008 09:40:18 +0100

you are not actually running a charity with several fundraising arms, several projects around the country spending money, dozens of employees, so it hardly makes it a valid comparison in my opinion. It's a bit like comparing a small one branch building society with one of the major banks and saying we can do X & Y efficiently so why can't all the others.