Not all charities think they are perfect... this is an excellent example of a charity determined to do better:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/article35...

I didn't ask for or expect you to agree with me Ginsters and if you are referring to fundraising by direct marketing (oohh another bit of jargon - sorry) then Charities have never been more focussed on the personal touch. Using Geo demographic data (oops slap my wrist) and analysing response histories (pardon me) the segment of one (now I personally hate that phrase) is becoming a reality.

In my humble opinion, it isn't the personal touch that is missing, but an understanding of how modern charities work. The world and his wife expect charities to make the best use of their donation, but when they find out that cutting edge marketing techniques (is that okay?) are used it appears wrong to them. I have read on IG that the best way to give is to go online and sign a direct debit instead of speaking to a street fundraiser as it cost the charity a minimal amount. This is true, so why charities still employ street fundraisers? Because the amount of people who go online and sign up a charity isn't large enough to fund the work of the charity sector. I don't think that people are turned off by charities use of language, more that we haven't found a way to turn them on yet (not in the pervy way).

And I would never call one of the people who give money to the charity I work for a donor or a supporter I would call her Mrs Jones/ Mr Smith.

Catman

I can't agree with your dismissive attitude towards the importance (or lack of it) that should be placed on the precise use of wording: 'Heineken Shmineken'  

I don't think there's too much of a doubt that as the charity sector expands and fundraising gets more competitive there's a growing perception amongst the public that the 'personal touch' has been sacrificed. I honestly believe that by bandying about phrases such as 'donor care strategy' we are likely to reinforce rather than challenge that negative perception.  

As for renaming HR, what was wrong with 'Personnel' anyway?! 

Don't shoot the messenger

Fine Ginster, please read "supporter" where I put "donor". Please note, I am a "supporter" of charities and I am not offended by the word "donor". Just out of interest, what pray would you rename the world of Human Resources?

Catman

Because I was taking part in a debate about 'accountability criteria' - a phrase first introduced by somebody else.

Secondly, I wasn't just objecting to your particular choice of words because it could confuse the non- charitable sector professional, but also because the term 'donor' is so cold and impersonal. It's rather like the expression 'Human resources", both imply a degree of exploitation

Don't shoot the messenger

Hi Ginster,Sorry to have offended you with the term "donor care strategy". In the paragraph before I referred to "effective thanking of gifts and reporting back directly to the donor". Was this clear enough for you? And you don't always use accessible language now do you? Do you fancy elaborating on "meaningful accountability criteria" or should we just assume that the people on this website know exactly what you were getting at?Catman

To my mind one of the biggest problems with the image of the sector (certainly to those outside it), is the cold and impersonal impression that is sometimes conveyed by jargon such as 'donor care strategy' - urghhh! How about 'communicating properly with your supporters', or would that be too simple?

Don't shoot the messenger

Transparency in accounting is of course important, but the large majority of the public who were moved to give financial support to the survivors of the Tsunami wouldn't have read the document. Plus, they gave their donations in Dec 05/Jan 06 and the annual report would have likely been available from Aug 06 onwards.

What was missing from the DEC response to the Tsunami was effective thanking of gifts and reporting back directly to the donor about how their gift made a difference. I know this as I donated as did most of my family and we weren't thanked or kept in the loop about the difference we had made.

For us this isn't really an issue as we gave before the Tsunami and after to our favourite causes, but the difference with the Tsunami was that millions of people who don't usually give were motivated to do so. With no donor care strategy in place, these people may not have understood how valuable their gift was and may not be motivated to give again unless something huge happens again (and British people are affected). There were many debates in the charity sector about the impact on income and some people (including me) thought it could prove positive as many people were giving for the first time. As there was no strategy to thank and update these donors, I can’t help but see it as a missed opportunity.

Anonymous, you've got a point. It does look like we are a bit inconsistent when it comes to asessing the DEC's work. But that's because the DEC itself has been through some changes recently - and they're not necessarily for the better.

The DEC used to have an admirable policy of publishing all the evaluation reports relating to its work on its website. Elsewhere on this site, we've praised that honesty. But, for some reason, these reports have recently disapeared from the public domain. I've tried to find out why the DEC has decided to take this retrograde step, but couldn't get a straight answer. Surely it couldn't be a misguided response to the Newsnight story?

But. Even though the DEC behaved stupidly in the Newsnight episode, and even though it's a charity that seems to be going backwards as regards transparency, it nonetheless looks like it's doing a good job overall. Whatever problems it has, giving to the DEC is still the best way to support emergency relief.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

I'm interested to hear that you hold DEC in such low regard, especially as you've often held them up as an example of transparency and efficient giving (just type in DEC to the search box at the top of the page). Isn't it about time you got your story on them straight?

At the end of the day Charities are run by people and people don't like to admit they are wrong sometimes and make mistakes - or at least most don't. I'd say the same applies to anything run by people be it charities, companies or religions.

Amen to that!

But sometimes the Charity Commission doesn't help matters with their generous interpretation of accounting law..... Did you know for example that, according to them, a charity can hide legal fees pertaining to perfectly avoidable Employment Tribunal cases in 'operating and administration costs!' That just has to be misleading.

Needless to say that a few of us are putting pressure on the Commission to explain themselves. All too often regulatory bodies such as the Charity Commission make protecting the reputation of the charity (which can be interpreted as potecting the reputation of individual Trustees and Senior Employees) their main priority. It might be understandable if that was one of their many considerations, but not in a situation where that consideration clashes with the best interests of the charity as a whole, the protection of the reputation of the sector as a whole and the overriding obligation to be honest with the public.

I completely agree that charities should admit where things have gone wrong, both in their Annual Report and elsewhere. After all, wouldn't you prefer to support an organisation that learns from its mistakes and strives to improve?