While its always a risk for charities to chase the money, in this case it looks like the conditions attached are a 'win-win' for both the donor and the charity.
So long as it is agreeable to both sides and doesn't take away or move the mission of the charity, it can be a good thing.

And isn't the promise of getting the rest of the donation promised a great incentive to get going?
I just wish my charity had some donors like that.

Martin

That's a "partnership in the true sense" to my mind then Adam. It sounds like a sound and productive relationship - well done for securing Mr Mulder's support.

Don't shoot the messenger

Ginsters and Chris: I agree with you that donors ought not to dictate the strategy of any charity. The trustees should always exercise this responsibility. That's what they're for. 

However, if a potential donor sees that a charity could perform better by acting in a certain way, I think it's legitimate for the donor to make their gift contingent on the charity changing its behaviour.

Of course, this isn't something that should be done lightly. When Fred attached conditions to his gift to us, he did so after meeting with our founder, Dave Pitchford, and asking whether Dave agreed that IG could benefit from making the relevant change to our business-model. Dave - and our trustees - agreed that it would. 

I agree that 'activist donors' may not always be a positive force. But when they take their repsonsibilities seriously, they most certainly can be.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

Insisting on accountability is one thing, but dictating strategy is quite another. Had you planned to improve the website in the ways suggested anyway Adam?

To my mind you should have your mission and direction clearly mapped out and then look for funders to support you in achieving your aims. If you flip that relationship round then it's very difficult to justify the existence of the organisation seeking funding. Admitedly it's not that black and white; if you have a partnership in the true sense then your funder might come up with ideas which genuinely change the way that you work for the better. It's important to be vigilant though.

Don't shoot the messenger

It's certainly an interesting way to give. Isn't there a danger in this kind of case that the charity ends up with their donors dictating strategy to them?

I can see your argument: the donor certainly gets to make sure that their donation is spent how they want it. However, if the charity is the expert voice in its field, shouldn't they be able to convince their major donors that their strategy is the right way to bring about change / results / public benefit in their field of operation?

If they can't do that, and instead respond to the wishes of the donor, to me the relationship looks more like an individual commissioning a commercial project from a private supplier rather than a donor giving for charitable purposes.