New on our blog
Email this page
Adam Rothwell
- Friday, June 29, 2007
WE'VE CONCLUDED that Wallace and Gromit do actually run the Wallace and Gromit Children's Foundation.This is the only way we can explain one of the oddest and most uninformative annual reports we have seen - an unpleasant surprise on the day of their big annual appeal.
Today, they want you to come to work wearing 'funny' trousers, and give their charity a pound for the privilege. They then promise to pass on your cash to children's hospitals and hospices around the country.
But upon reading their annual report, we learned that:
- The charity didn't give any money at all to any hospital or hospice last year (so your donations stayed in the bank for at least 12 months)
- It spent all last year's expenditure on fundraising
- It only raised £2 for every £1 spent on fundraising - a significantly lower return than average
- And hardly anything else, because the annual report is so dreadful.
We're sure that the charity plans to spend some of its money at some point. But sitting on a pile of cash - £253,000 to be exact - for over a year is irresponsible. If you gave to the Wrong Trousers Appeal in 2005, your money could still be sitting in Wallace's bank account.
On top of this, we've got almost no idea how the charity ticks. Its annual report was apparently signed off by the trustees before it was even finished. And the assertion that 'The Foundation has no [financial] reserves' looks pretty odd when compared with the balance sheet, which declares there to be over £250,000 in the bank.
Wallace and Gromit's Children's Foundation sets a new, low standard for national fundraisers. Its operations are a mystery, it spends a shocking amount on fundraising, and its habit of sitting on donations for months on end is worrying. If you want to help your local hospice, give to them direct - or to Help the Hospices or The Association of Children's Hospices. But don't entrust your money to a plasticine inventor - or his dog.
Yes, but doesn't working with W&G do rather more to enhance the John Lewis brand? I'm not giving an opinion as to whether that's a reasonable consideration when chosing a charity partner,but I'm willing to bet that it's got a lot to do with it!
Don't shoot the messenger
http://www.institute-of-fundraising.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/1DFD7E54-AB87-42...
This is a podcast from an Institute of Fundraising conference on corporate fundraising. Kate Green of John Lewis explains how The Wallace & Gromit Foundation were chosen as their charity of the year.
It seems a very underhand tactic by W&G to win their charity of the year by saying that their charity operates in areas near Lewis's stores. They can give funds to any charity in any area in the UK that fits their grant making criteria which is not the same as actually operating in a particular area.
Surely John Lewis would be much better choosing a local children's charity near each of their stores rather than just giving their funds on to a third party to pass on. If 100% of the funds raised by John Lewis is passed on to other charities by W&G what is the point in having them as your charity of the year?
I understand that The Wallace & Gromit Foundation were chosen by The John Lewis Partnership as their charity of the year in 2008 (link ).
This seems strange as John Lewis clearly state that they do not give money to third-party fundraising. It seems very strange that they have decided to give money to a foundation so they can pass it on to another charity.
This seems strange as John Lewis clearly state that they do not give money to third-party fundraising. It seems very strange that they have decided to give money to a foundation so they can pass it on to another charity.
We've been asked to clarify one of the arguments we make in the blog entry above. We understand that if someone gave the Wallace and Gromit Foundation a donation on 30 March 2006, then it would be spent within two months if, as the charity claims, it released 2005/6’s grants two months after the year end (i.e. in June 2006).
But we don't know for sure whether they did this (as yet, there's no official record of it having taken place); and, staggeringly, it remains the case that this charity spent no money at all on charitable activities in the year 2005/06.
Add this to the fact that the Foundation is one of the least transparent charities we have ever seen, and our judgement remains the same: Wallace and Gromit really are Mickey Mouse.
Adam, Intelligent Giving
As someone who works in the hospice movement I asked a few colleagues in children's hospices about this. Two different children's hospices both stated that they had received £10,000 in 2006 and 2007, so it seems that W&G are distributing some money, but somehow neglecting to include it in their annual report!
Also rather than giving moeny to Help the Hospices or an other umbrella organisation, i'd suggest supporting your local hospice (adult or children) directly.
Did anyone notice the fact that Nick Park - the creator of Wallace and Gromit and founder of Aardman animations - won the Metro prize for the 'wrongest trousers'?
I know the competition is supposed to be voted for by readers but I smell a rat...
Sal
50% on fundraising is appalling for a grant-maker. Especially if you take into account that the organisations that they are funding will have their own valid overheads - including fundraising costs - which makes the direct return to beneficiaries in terms of beds/services much less than 50% of whatever the squishy guys have managed to rake in.
Totally with you on the setting up a new trust when there's already something there ... my favourite soapbox of the moment <size=1>*cough* egotism *cough*<size>
-----------------------------------------------
... nearly Vlad the Impaler
Good article, raising interesting questions. I don't have a problem, myself, with the Wrong Trouser's day producing a 2:1 return on investment, ie spending 50% on what was raised on fundraising. That's not actually that terrible for a fundraising event (and yes I am a fundraiser and yes I have run events that did worse than this but I don't talk about them).
The real issue to me is why Aardman/Nick Parks set up an entirely new grant giving charity withall the associated admin and running costs to distribute the proceeds from a single fundraising event. This is completely unnecessary. Why not just give the money directly to an existing charity (Help the Hospices maybe?) who could have distributed the money for them.
The reporting is, I agree hopelessly bad. Managing not to pay the money out in the financial year it was raised was also very sloppy. They probably throught no one would look at the accounts. Oh dear.
LMC, Cameron, hokum - you all ask excellent questions. And we're going to answer them (or at least, try to), tomorrow. Watch this space.
Adam, Intelligent Giving
doesn't even *begin* to describe it.
Egotism again. How come no-one has blown the whistle on them?
-----------------------------------------------
... nearly Vlad the Impaler
Erm, this lot look a lot worse than Children in Need so how come this didn't get into the papers...? Did you not tell them?
........................................................................................
"How many people work here?" "About half of them"
Isn't a grant-giving charity which gives no grants the definition of a scandal? Why is there no more fuss about this shocking situation?
Post new comment
Recent comments
3 days 19 hours ago
3 days 19 hours ago
4 days 8 hours ago
4 days 13 hours ago
4 days 14 hours ago
4 days 15 hours ago
4 days 16 hours ago
4 days 18 hours ago
5 days 6 hours ago
6 days 19 hours ago