That's absolutely a proper, valid criticism. Without another question asking "which of the following methods of fundraising have you experienced?", then those figures are frankly pretty meaningless. I wondered whether anyone would spot that. (There's also the fact that some of the people questioned might not know what we charity geeks mean by "face to face" or "street fundraising" and may have gone away from the survey wondering why they weren't asked about chugging).

So while I still don't believe there is a shred of evidence to suggest that face to face harms charities in the long run, I'd admit that this survey certainly isn't the be-all and end-all of proving otherwise (mind you, it's always harder to prove a negative)

Just because Joe Saxton is influential doesn't mean he talks sense. Often he doesn't, and that's what I was pointing out in the PF article you link to. Does he sometimes spout "overspun nonsense"? The answer is a straightforward Yes.

The fact that fundraisers are so often willing to take Joe's conclusions at face value accounts for a lot of the common misconceptions many people in the voluntary sector have about fundraising efficiency (for example) - which is another way of saying that a bit more lively debate about Mr S's methods wouldn't go amiss.

The point about how annoying people find chuggers illustrates this point well. Of course people find chuggers less irritating than - for example - direct mail. That's because direct mail is much more widely used than chuggers are, so people have more experience of it. Anyone who doesn't spend a lot of time in a city will likely have almost no experience of being chugged - whereas almost everyone receives charity mailings.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

I haven't commented at all on the question of whether the public cares more about how money is raised or spent - I've only looked at the different ways of raising it. So as far as this particular issue is concerned, if you want to criticise anyone's spinning it'll have to be mine!

Now, admittedly, there are valid criticisms to be made of the methodology of this survey. But I still think it's interesting that the top-line figures suggest that face-to-face is one of the least annoying ways to raise money.

Yes SimonK. you would think that Joe Saxton, founder of NFP Synergy, esteemed statistitian and PF magazines No1 most influencial person in fundraising would a valid person to quote.

However, Adam thinks his report is "overspun nonsense" http://www.professionalfundraising.co.uk/home/content.php?id=1558&pg=2&cat=49

Word on the street is that IG have some research coming out soon. I wonder how statistically accurate that will be.

catman

Here's some proper evidence, and we can even see what question was asked:

http://www.nfpsynergy.net/includes/documents/cm_docs/2008/c/cemjuly08worriesmediaedit1.pdf

A representative sample of 1000 people were asked:"When you think about charities and the work that they do, is there anything that you find off-putting, worrying or irritating?"

19% of people answered that they found "Fundraising on the street" offputting, worrying or annoying. However, this is considerably less than felt the same way about Direct Mail, telephone calls at home, collection envelopes/envelopes through the door, or door-to-door collections. In fact, the only method of fundraising which was (marginally) less unpopular than face-to-face was tin ratting.

On this basis, if charities want to avoid damaging their reputations then obviously they should massively expand their "armies of chuggers" (copyright Daily Mail) to make up for all the money they will lose by abandoning all the more unpopular ways to raise money.

Or am I wrong?

Very well then ‘Mike Smith (not verified)'  I, like SimonK it seems, do not know Mick Aldridge, although I know of him. 

You give us the statistics that the local council have told you "they have received ‘thousands of complaints'."  Ignoring councils' tendency for hyperbole, why have the council not passed on the details to the PFRA, or passed on the details OF the PFRA to the thousands of callers.  Or if they have, why have the callers not taken the next step. 

If there's proof that F2F will cause donations to a charity to fall in the long term, then I'll be against it, but until you, or anyone can prove it (and I'll even accept statistics), then it should continue...

I'd like to state for the record that I don't know Mike Aldridge at all - indeed, I'd never even heard of him until he posted on this thread. I can't prove that, of course, so please feel free to disbelieve me if you wish.

I have been talking to several friends about charity issues over the last few weeks. None of them work in the sector but all have a favourite charity or two. Four out of the six people I talked to have made regular donations to charity because of someone stopping them and asking them.
By F2F.

So thats four people that perhaps wouldn't have given in another way that those charities got as supporters.

From my own experience, and seeing the chuggers in town many times as I pass through on my way home from work, I've never had any hassle, never seen anyone get any hassle and have seen many people sign up with whichever charity.

I have to wonder, is the situation of people being against the method simply because of a small percentage of chuggers giving everyone else a bad name?

I for one am glad the chuggers are around. No single method of asking for money avoids people getting annoyed (some people get annoyed that charities even want money!). F2F is merely one method.
Somehow I can't see Oxfam or NSPCC stopping doing it when it brings in supporters.

Martin

I think its also worth pointing out that I have been in regular contact with Mick Aldridge the ‘Chief Executive’ of PFRA and still await a reply from my last communication with him asking him how F2F is funded and why isn’t it widely publicised on F2F websites. I’ve waited two weeks for a reply and wonder why PFRA are being so coy with the facts. Is the funding true in the link posted by Adam Rothwell in his blog above? Lets see if Mick Aldridge is open an honest about this issue. In fact PFRA is appointed by the F2F sector as a self regulatory body that partly deals with bad practice by street fundraisers. In reality they are just a political pressure/self marketing group. The reason why we believe this is because PFRA does not like ‘negative’ publicity. Mick Aldridge himself has called us ‘complainers’ on at least two occasions when pointing out bad practices by fundraisers instead of taking an impartial view and dealing with this in a professional and positive manner. PFRA thinks that just because they receive very few complaints that everything is fine and people have no issues with F2F. Reality is that few people know how to complain and have never heard of PFRA. Mick Aldridge has told me that no complains other from us from our local area have ever been received by PFRA but I have contacted the local council who have told me they have received ‘thousands of complaints’. PFRA are hiding behind their own ignorance. Maybe people should now who PFRA are and who to complain to by posting the link to PFRA on this website and others so that PFRA can’t hide behind their own obscurity. Maybe PFRA will then realise that the public are getting very frustrated with this offensive fundraising tactic and why many people consider them as charity leaches and charity spongers. Lets face it, there are too many people and organisations making a very nice living in the name of charity. Its about time people were educated a little more about this issue.

Thank you 'mikemuses' and 'SimonK' for your contributions but I feel that perhaps you know Mick Aldridge and perhaps you are his stooges? I think both your contributions are absolutely absurd and I will answer you both below: 'mikemuses' If you wish to know why many people do not like F2F fundraising I suggest you speak to Mick Aldridge with regards to this as PFRA knows very well why this is the case. I have been in contact with PFRA and from my communications they know very well what the issues are. Or maybe you wish to search online using the word 'chugger' and maybe that will enlighten you further. Alternatively maybe you may wish to ask yourself the question as you are not *for* face to face fundraising? With regards to 'SimonK''s comments, I am one of a number of people who will be actively fighting against this offensive tactic in the name of charity. Evidence is exactly what we are after and as members of the public with questions I think evidence is what we should get. We reject mindless statistics unless they are proved to be reliable. The reason why we think PFRA provides biased statistics is because PFRA, we believe, have vested interests in F2F and are financed by the sector. Prove to us otherwise? Your comment in the last chapter doesn't make sense in that if people are complaining to councils because they are saying 'I don't like it' isn’t that evidence enough. Perhaps if they knew that PFRA existed maybe they would also voice their opinions to them also and maybe you would be provided with some more evidence. We are currently in communication with the Home Office. This is with regards to the powers that councils have in granting and enforcing licences with the upcoming Public Collections Certificate. If the Home Office confirms that councils will have the power to reject these licences then there will be less work for us to do. If this is not sufficient then we will use every power to ensure that F2F, as it stands will fail or be reformed so that the public are not harassed and hustled in the street. F2F as it stands has had its time.

Very well then Martin and Mike.  I'd say prove, without using statistics (as they're so flawed), that there's anything wrong with face to face fundraising.

 And I'm not even particularly *for* face to face fundraising

Well you can prove anything with statistics.
The way they are collected, how they are interpreted, even using them for purposes beyond what they were collected for.
They can even be based on false information to start with.

Our own biases, our own experiences and our own ways of working all affect how we get statistics.
One statistic is that 100% of divorces are caused by marriage.
While correct, it doesn't mean all marriages end in divorce.

The press are very good at giving statistics that agree with the slant they want to present the story with. Doesn't make them accurate, applicable or even based on reality.

79% of all statistics are made up (including this one). :)

Martin

How is it possible to effectively argue with someone who dismisses the evidence out of hand?

If you think there's something wrong with the statistics that Mike Aldridge provided, then tell us what it is! Criticise the methodology of the studies, if you think they are flawed. Maybe you think that they asked biased questions - if so, tell us what those were and how they would have biased people. Maybe you think he's cherry-picking studies that support his view and ignoring others that suggest something different. Maybe... oh, I don't know. Read Ben Goldacre's book "Bad Science" and see if you can learn something about how to engage with proper evidence.

Because, frankly, the only 'evidence' anyone has so far provided to argue against face-to-face fundraising is "I don't like it". Fine - no-one is asking you to. But if the best you can do when confronted by Mike's figures is to say "you can prove anything with statistics", then I'm sorry, but you've already lost the argument.

With regards to Mick Aldridges rather heavy stat based comment, I would like to remind him that many intelligent people are aware of the use of statistics to proove an arguement and you are obviously very practiced in this. In reality we all know that politicians use this technique in order to empower themselves and brainwasht he gullible into thinking that if you fire statistics at people you will eventually persuade them inot thinking you're line of thought.

I used to work in a marketting department in a large company and we used to contact market research companies for the perpose of selling our brand to the public. I know the tactics that are used for receiving the desired results for the company. They used to ask us what type of results/figures we were looking for and they used to use certain questions, target certain types of people and certain area etc in order to achieve the desired statistics. The market research company were paid by our company so had vested interests in maintaining us as customer.

So, Mr Aldridge, please don't come out with junk science and junk statistics in order to proove your arguement as we are more intelligent than that.

Having worked in F2F both for an agency and directly for the same charity, i can say, im my experience, the agency was better value. Both approaches have there benefits. Fundraising is expensive, however you do it.

It's statistically possible to prove any old rubbish.

As you have expertly proved. Well done.

At the risk of breathing renewed life into a stagnant blog (which seems in any case to have veered of into a vendetta against Quarriers?) I think that, as these things remain available indefinitely as a resource for research and debate, it might be worthwhile to contribute a few observations regarding two of the key propositions put forward by F2F opponents in this strand and elsewhere, namely -
• Vast numbers of the public hate F2F
• Therefore its practice can only damage the reputation of charities using it

With regard to the first point, the PFRA has never suggested that F2F is "popular" on an absolute basis. There is no method of fundraising of which I am aware which is universally popular and never attracts any criticism at all. What we have asserted (and will continue to do so) is that F2F is "popular" relative to the un-popularity of other major mediums. The evidence for this is compelling. In the first place, when the FRSB asked its members to list and quantify what forms of fundraising practice consumers had complained about, the figures were 31% for complaints about Direct Mail (DM), 21% for complaints about telemarketing (TM) and only 13.6% for complaints about F2F. Even more telling, even when directly prompted, respondents to nfpSynergy’s research (“The 21st Century Donor”, Feb 2008) only scored F2F 10th out of 14 in the list of “Most Off-Putting Charity Behaviours”, with only 15% highlighting it – compared with DM and TM coming in at a staggering 47% and 41% respectively. This is remarkably consistent.

To put it another way – imagine if a Town Centre Manager (TCM) in a ‘typical’ market town like Bournemouth received 10 complaints a day about F2F (and no TCM has ever come to me with such a figure – but let’s just conjecture), this would be in the context of an average footfall of at least 100,000 people per week (source: footfall presentation logged on ATCM members access website). So 60 complaints a week (F2F rarely if ever takes place on Sundays) represents 0.06% of the population exposed to it. Let’s suppose however that we follow the old marketing rule that each complainant actually represents 9 others – so 600 people objected; that’s still only 0.6% - half a percent. Let’s throw caution to the winds and suppose that each complainant who actually took the trouble represents 1000 malcontents – that’s still only 6% of the population. Yes, I hear you say, but the fact is not every single one of those feet falling will be a unique individual; some will be people who live and work in the area revisiting again and again on a daily basis. So let’s assume all this is based on a footfall of just half – 50,000. The maximum number of complainants still only amounts to 12%. Whatever way you cut it, it seems unlikely more than 15% or so of the public do actually loathe F2F. Which begs the question of why the prohibition fanatics are prepared to disregard the fact that 85%+ of the population don’t give a hoot – or, perish the thought, do actually like it?

So to the second point – it damages reputations. Unfortunately there is very little hard evidence one way or the other on this point, but once again there is some compelling “anecdotal” evidence. In 2000 Austrian researchers (Public Opinion GmbH) published tracking research for the period 1995 – 2000 indicating which charities had increased their “(brand) recognition” and “(unprompted) sympathy” with consumers over the previous five years. Practically every charity which had risen significantly on both measures – and we’re talking rises of 10 – 14% compared with averages of 5 / 6% – were those which had been using F2F extensively throughout the period in question, compared with those which had not. Similarly, recent Ipsos MORI research for the Charity Commission (Charity Commission Study into Public Trust and Confidence in Charities, May 2008) showed that those charities experiencing the greatest growth in public trust and confidence over the last three years, such as the NSPCC and Oxfam, are often the largest users of F2F. This does not of course prove that F2F “enhances” reputations – but it must surely demonstrate that any “damaging” effect is negligible or non-existant.

The bottom line is, no form of fundraising is ever universally popular, but all the evidence to date is that ‘hard-line’ dislike of F2F is restricted to a fairly small minority of about 15% of the population compared with those who really don’t care. It is telling that the same Charity Commission research states that “most of the public (85%) say they have donated money to a charity within the last year” (page 21). It is statistically possible to argue that the minority of grumblers who object to F2F is entirely populated by the hard-core 15% of meanies who are never going to give anyway – so why are we listening to them at all? In fact it is fatuous and irresponsible of opponents of F2F to continue to ‘campaign’ against it when it is clear (not least from the half a million people who sign up every year, let alone the statistics noted above) that they are far outnumbered by fellow citizens who chose to give – or not – in reasoned and rational ways, not according to bizarre visceral knee-jerks which actually only serve to mask their proponents own profound ungenerosity. Consider yourselves unmasked.

Martin, Mike & Tricia

I fully respect your commitment.

A constructive way forward would be to call upon OSCR amongst others to promote whistle blowing in the sector, where it covers the topics we are debating, namely how charities present expenditure, how they raise and spend their funds and evidence of genuine charitable and voluntary activity.

For example Quarriers is a £40m turnover not for profit organisation but its charitable efforts are minimal both in terms of spend and service. They rightly refuse to subsidise the public sector.

Any evidence of charitable or voluntary effort with comparable costings other than anecdotal welcome?

Please, please, not the silly stuff about the Great Wall of China trek where unsuspecting donors cough up £3000 to pay for a £2000 holiday or the marginal spend on sensory gardens, equipment etc ( I don’t belittle the intention or the impact but tiny amounts in real terms against actual expenditure).

Remember all this noise generates about 1% of £40million or around £400,000. My point is that around 1% of Quarriers could actually be classified as charitable and for the unsuspecting donor it might cost them three times that amount to fund given the admin costs involved.

Let’s have the number of volunteers deployed in service delivery, at what expense/saving to the public purse? That’s charity.

1800 staff paid for through the public purse, next to no voluntary service and at a cost level that they themselves admit is too costly for LA’s to continue to fund. And as for charity and fundraising teams, a fig leave, neither more nor less, all the money spent on those fundraising staff and raised from donors in a whole year would keep Quarriers going for less than 4 days.

....and people think Quarriers is a charity

....think about it.

It's not right and we need to drive this out of the charitable sector and re-classify these organisations.

Many of the larger charities have contracts to provide services.
We've all noticed the rise in bills recently. What do the charities do if their contract only allows for a 1% increase in cost? Ditch the contract, as some have done? Or carry on the contract with shortfalls made up from charity funds.
Not actually illegal - just not something you really want to do.

Then there is good quality of care - what the government or council will fund and what the beneficiaries need can be 2 different things.
We've done it ourselves in the charity I work for. Council gave us a grant covering only a portion of the services we offer. We didn't reduce services to match - we still gave the clients the support they needed - which no-one else was paying for!

Can just walk away. But who does that benefit?

I for one am glad that charities can enhance the quality of services someone gets even while I wait for the time local or national government pays for it......

Until the day that government and local authorities pay a fair price for the services they get from charities, or they start to provide the right kind of services themselves, then your argument simply does not exist.

CHarities like quarriers have developed and pioneered better ways of providing these services, and now, rightly, the public sector realises that to give people the best care, they need to use these services. What they don't yet do is appear willing to pay for them.  Perhaps they should, but the don't and won't in most cases.  So here;s the real world choice.  Someone you love gets proper care, part funded by government, part funded by vountary funding, - with specialist equipment, such as bathing equipment, staff on hand to meet their needs, OR, the government fund all the 'care;, by leaving them alone in a hospital bed 20 hours a day bathing them on their bed twice a week to the severe detriment to their physical and mental well being.  (and they are the luckier ones, some people with neurological conditions end up in psychiatric units - simply because local authority staff don't have the time, knowledge, understanding or funds to actually provide care.  After all, they're still being 'cared for', it's just much more cost efficient, and it leaves those 'nasty charities' out of the picture.

Tricia

I really think you need to ask some questions. Lets look at the typical £450k renovation in Quarriers village. The services provided are fully funded by the local authority and that includes a rental charge paid by the LA which in effect repays the "loan" of the capital invested. It certainly is not a charitable donation. Name the units and lets see the managment accounts for each one.

I'm not interested in a debate but I do think you people are either naive or dishonest. I can't believe you personally are the latter because you sound well intentioned but don't believe the public are fools either.

It's only a matter of time albeit a few years before charity law and regulation finally catches up with current practices in the sector. Quarriers is no more than a sub contractor for the public sector.

Lawrie, I noted your comments with interest but wanted to respond to dispel some of the myths contained within your narrative.

•Quarriers has been a charity for more than 135 years and for the last 30 years, serving all age groups and abilities or levels of disability. It seeks to provide help and support to children, families, young people and adults at any point in their lives.

•Like virtually every other major charity in the country supporting adults or children with a disability, Quarriers contracts for this work with local authorities. However and very importantly, these contracts tend to be for a pretty basic level of support. Voluntary income, including that as gifts from individuals, makes a huge contribution in helping provide added value and positive living for the most vulnerable people in Scotland today. Voluntary income also provides the money that enables us to build, or buy and refurbish, property in which services are provided – for example a brand new children’s respite centre or the conversion of an older building for 6 adults with a learning disability: both here in Quarriers Village and which cost around £450,000 each funded largely from generous gifts. Other examples could be; for a sensory garden, or music therapy, or specialist bathing equipment and facilities, or employment training etc etc. But there are many such examples around Scotland and thanks to those people who do make a charitable gift, Quarriers has an impact on the lives of some 18,000 people a year!

•It is a pity Lawrie took the view he did of the fundraiser who approached him in the street to seek his support for Quarriers in the form of a direct debit. Like every other charity, Quarriers needs to recruit donors who will be kind enough to make a donation to enable us to do our work. Donors do not mysteriously appear out of thin air or all come to a charity through direct personal experience of an issue! They are usually recruited via direct mail and door drop programmes, as a result of press and publicity, via advertising of one sort or another, even increasingly by means of new media (email, websites and the like), and, of course, by fundraisers on the street or calling at the door.

ALL these methods cost money – either directly in the form of print and advertising costs, or through staff overheads or in the case in question, through an outsourced agency – which is of course cheaper to operate than through paid staff! What is important is that over the average life-span of a donor, the costs of the recruitment are repaid many times over. In Lawrie’s case – if he had signed up for a direct debit at say the average £8.50 a month – over 4 years that would have equated to more than £300 net income – for which the people we support would have been very grateful! The fact that nearly every charity that is able to do this, in fact does, demonstrates that it works in a cost effective way.

•Lawrie, like everyone else, you should be wary when reading annual reports. The charity and accounting reporting rules by which Quarriers and other charities are quite rightly regulated and comply, often disguise the actual total amounts of money that are raised every year. We generally aim to generate some £3 million in cash and pledges annually and aim at a target cost of 30%. That ratio will often vary according to charity type. The fact is that it is more difficult, and therefore costly, to raise funds for adults with a disability than it is children, or humanitarian disaster relief, or ill-treated donkeys and stray cats or cancer research etc etc. All research validates this.

Fundraising costs will also look quite different depending on when they are examined. Obviously at the beginning of a fundraising campaign that might last 3 years for example, costs are higher when a charity might be in donor recruitment phase. Those costs would appear minimal towards the end of that cycle. All this demonstrates that a cursory and ill informed examination of these matters will often yield a completely false picture – as it has done for Lawrie.

•Charity fundraisers have a pretty difficult time of it these days – especially as we head into recession. Our beneficiaries welcome and are grateful for every penny that the public contributes. The investment charities make in fundraising delivers returns far in excess of stocks and shares, buying, asset stripping and selling companies, or leaving it in a high deposit account in the bank. But nothing is totally for free and Lawrie should remember that – or perhaps he can come up with an answer that has eluded every fundraiser everywhere in the world for the last few thousand years and who have been working on behalf of people in need!

Tricia Imrie

I have previously complained to the police and the local coucil about these people who told me they are powerless to do anything about it even though the tactics are boarding on illegal (such as obstruction). They are basically exploiting a loophole in the law which in my eyes show that they have no integrity. In the last 12 months I have written a letter to my Local MP about this issue and was told that this form of public nuicance is a known problem and this will be properly regulated by the end of 2010. This will be in the form of empowering local councils to provide licences which will be revoked if anyone makes a legitimate complaint against them.

I am not against charities but the methods that are being used to raise funds for these charities. It should a basic human right not be be harrassed when walking the streets.

I have recently been abused by chuggers simply by walking past minding my own business and enough is enough. I will be starting a sustained internet campaign to get this practice stopped whatever the cost.

Having read this debate from start to finish, I have to say I am astounded at the views taken by some people, especially when those people presumable pay their rent, mortgage, taxes, and ever-increasing fuel bills from money that was (at some point down the line) donated to charity.

I work for a charity who spend a vast amount of money on marketing, fundraising, and on face-to-face fundraising, but we do this in a very calculated way, and we monitor and analyse the results week by week by week. I know, for example, how much those supporters who responded to a particular press advert in daily Mirror in January 2006 have donated since then, and most importantly I know if I made the charity money by placing that ad. That is my job as a fundraiser.

For those people who say, they 'don't like' marketing/"chuggers"/the fact that the government doesn't tax us all more to fund charities, I'm afraid "like" doesn't fund the work my charity does, and the income that I, and my fellow fundraisers, generate does.

I appreciate there are those members of the public that are put off individual charities by certain fundraising methods such as face-to-face, DRTV, cold mailing, but for every X people that are put off, someone somewhere is not, and that person starts a relationship with the charity that otherwise may not have happened. I'm afraid the "don't ask, don't get" rule applies more and more these days, with more and more charities chasing the same pounds.

Lawrie you commented that Quarriers "raise less than £2m a year and it costs £1.5m. A total waste of my money."? Is generating half a million additional income for the charity really a "total waste of money"? I'm assuming you'd walk past a shop selling £20 notes for £15 then!

As for the cost of face-to-face, I continually see people state how a large percentage of the donations they make in the first year are taken by the agency, and each time I can't help but think these people are missing the point somewhat. To use an similar example, The Mirror advert paced in January 2006 received 34 response, 14 of these responses resulted in immediate agreements of regular giving. The ad cost over £1.5k, the first year value of these 14 responses was less than £1.5k, and that's assuming everyone honoured their pledge to give for 12 months. ROI of 0.78 before gift aid, 0.9 after. Looking now, 32 months later, the 34 responses have resulted in 222 payments, totalling £3614.42 of donations (as of Sunday), plus an additional £499.24 in gift aid from the 8 people who have made a declaration. The point is, looking at the first year value is an indication of the profitability of the fundraising method, but it doesn't tell you the whole story. Hopefully after 12 months of good communication with the donor, that donor will be committed to your charity, committed to your work, and will continue to support. It's about life time value, and anybody who has seen the CRUK annual review and the amount it raised from legacies last year will agree!

Finally, as a fundraiser, there is a benefit to face-to-face and it's budgeting predictability. I didn't know The Mirror ad would get me the responses it, I had an idea based on past results of the title, the advert copy, the advert size etc, but I couldn't be sure. With face-to-face I do know what I get for the charities money, I get a donor. How connected/committed to the charity that individual is, is a different thing, and something I try to measure using no show rates and attrition. Face-to-face is a successful method of fundraising for my charity, and it sits happily in our donor recruitment armoury with DRTV, press, online and mailings…. mind you, I hate cold mailings, so intrusive, and such a waste of money...

David, you seem to want the government to be the main funder of charities, taking over from individuals.
Fine, if you like paying taxes.

How much to give though? I daresay many charities would love to have more money from government, to be able to run all the services they think they want.
But how much is enough? Doubling the income tax payable by everyone might not be enough to pay for it all.
I choose to support some charities. I also work for one as a fundraiser so I see the need for money every working day.

I'd like the government to give us £200k a year for homeless provision in this town. Not give to the council to waste, but to give to the charity. Between all the charities in this town, I daresay they'd want many millions of pounds between them to run the services needed. Thats just one town!
But government, luckily, doesn't pay for that. It comes down to people like me and you to raise charity profiles, increase donations, arrange funding and use our skills to enable others to provided much needed services. And without even more governmental oversight.
Would they give us £200k for a town the government records show has no homeless? Or would they decide, as government often does, that it knows best and refuse to pay for what they cannot see for themselves?

You may not like marketing but its an effective tool. I do have to wonder what you are advising your paying clients though as you seem to be against charities raising money using all available means. What, besides government funds, do you suggest people do?

Oh, and don't worry. I won't be asking you to donate to my type of charities.

Martin <>

In the past I've worked for a charity where several of us blew the whistle on some absolutely abhorent (and unlawful) behaviour by senior colleagues...... We were all shown the door. Enough said.

Don't shoot the messenger

Quarriers don't actually do charity work or voluntray work with adults with a learning disability.

Hmmmm

All their work is fully funded by Local Authorities.

Hmmm

Time for some scutiny of the so called charities/vol orgs.

Why? I was approached by a Quarriers fundraiser in Glasgow to sign a direct debit for a monthly amount.

Hmmm

I checked them out, the person that apporached me works for a private for profit organisation on behalf of Quarriers, 85% of my contribution would have gone to that company in the first year to pay for their staff and their profit.

Hmmm

I then checked Quarriers acccounts to find they raise less than £2m a year and it costs £1.5m. A total waste of my money.

Hmmm

but finally they turnover nearly £40m in Local Authority contracts to provide care to vulnerable people. All the advertising was telling me that it was provided by charity.

Time for some serious regulation.

OSCAR have a look at the misleading advertising by Quarriers suggesting that my money would support vulnerable and homeless people when I find it would be spent on admin costs and the services described have all been won under tender with Local Authorities.

Its a scandal.

From me on this subject yes!

Davey, why you consult on fundraising when you don't like it and clearly have limited knowledge of it escapes me. I see that you chose not to respond to my clarification on the law around public collections  so at least we have sorted out one of your many issues.

Onto bringing your political opinions into fundraising. Fine, but I know you will remember what happened to Adam when he wrote about the Beer Co-operative.

I was raised as a socialist with a small s, but we live in a capitalist world now whether we like it or not. And the communists ideas about economics, i.e. planned economies and market socialism failed miserably. The main reason Russia became a superpower is because Stalin and his successors had lots of eggs to crack to make his omlette. Not a society I would choose to live in. Maybe you should read up more on economics rather than flicking through your old copies of the socialist worker magazine.

I agree with you (!) that it would be lovely if the state provided all the services and support our society needs, but the public are not willing to pay higher taxes. If we don't pay through taxes, we pay by making donations.

And thanks for the cartoon image, really mature of you. Are you disappointed that I don't work for a face to face agency like that Dialog lot? I would work with them any day of the week over your consultancy. Oh and nice to hear you admit that charities pay you for your services - the words pot and kettle spring to mind.

I could go on but to me honest, you really aren't worth it.

ChrisA, Ginsters, mikemuses, MikeNaidu please keep posting. Adam, in the words of the person who started this debate you are "becoming predictable, boring, and I think increasingly irrelevant".

catman

For the fat-fingered typing errors

Don't shoot the messenger

As a fan of tha late, great Bill Hicks I think I know where David gets his 'material' from. Just a note of caution though, it was satirical humour not neccessarily to be taken as gospel. That's the difference between a fan and a slightly scary disciple., Apologies if you're unfamiliar with Mr Hicks' canon of classic comedy.

Don't shoot the messenger