Hello again Adam and thanks for the prompt response.

I agree with you on many of your points and understand that producing an annual report along with publishing of accounts is a legal requirement of all registered charities. I have had the opportunity to read a wide variety of reports some inspiring, some dull. Clearly there are effective and vague ways to report on these crucial facts.

I also agree that the marketplace is changing and some major donors are looking for a greater degree of information about the organisation, although I think (and it is only my opinion) that they may be looking for a greater level of detail about the short and long term impact of their gift rather than the charity’s financial strategy being in line with their own ideas of what good financial propriety is.

I could get evidence to back up my views that annual reviews don’t generate many donations, I just don’t feel that asking our database team to run the relevant queries would be the best use of our donors money. By the way, on what basis are you judging New Philanthropy Capital a runaway success? Column inches in Third Sector?

As I have already mentioned, I understand that Charities have legal reporting requirements and was not saying that producing technical information is akin to "fannying around" (nice turn of phrase). From my experience of talking to everyone who asks me what I do for a living, I just don’t think that large proportions of the public want or can assimilate large amounts of technical information. If the answer then is organisations like yourselves summing this information up into a percentage, a couple of bar charts and a smiley/moody face then I would much rather we look for a clearer way to present the actual information rather than relying on you. The work that the IMPact coalition are (slowly) undertaking goes for a very different approach, that of high level statements to breed a level of confidence in the public. This has its own issues in the old "Trust me, I’m a doctor" ways but at least the public aren’t being given a thumbs up/down on certain organisations.

I suppose the proof is in the pudding and that is me. As a fundraiser I understand the nuts and bolts and appreciate why you can’t measure all charities in the same way. As a donor, I give to causes that can show me how they will use my donation to make real change. And if they take the money and don’t bother to feedback if it has made a difference then I will take my support elsewhere.

Best wishes,

Catman

Hi Catman,

Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately, however, your assertions left me feeling a little perplexed.

 First, your suggestion that we ‘struggle to comprehend’ our transparency criteria seems a bit odd. We have always known what our criteria mean: but more challenging has been codifying that meaning to ensure that our reviewers understand each criterion in the same way. As the blog entry states, we have now done this.

Second, the argument that writing reports and reviews is a waste of time since few people read them, strikes me as even odder. Most fundamentally, charities have a legal duty to report transparently on their activities and plans, and this can’t go ignored. But more importantly from a donor’s point of view, a charity’s annual report is the only place where some key information can be found. You say that a comment on investment performance rarely generates donations, but I notice you provide no evidence to back this up. On the other hand, however, and as the runaway success of the charity-ratings outfit New Philanthropy Capital shows, donors (and especially major donors) are becoming increasingly analytical in their approach to giving. On a purely personal level, too, I know I would be less likely to give to a charity which frittered away its endowment by keeping it in a low-interest bank account than one which invested it carefully.

Third, you set up something that looks suspiciously like a false dichotomy looms in one of your key arguments. You say, “The vast majority of donations are given because the potential donor can understand a) what the need is b) what the solution is and c) how a donation they give will be used.” You say that these are the key pieces of information charities should provide – and that they shouldn’t fanny about providing commentary about investments and reserves. I’ve dealt with this final point already, but in answer to your major assertion – that charities ought to prioritize providing this fundamental information – I agree. That’s why our Quality of Reporting score is primarily calculated on the basis of these fundamental facts. But this information does not have to be provided at the expense of more technical comment.

Fourth, you say, “If everyone was forced to take these [technical reporting points] into account before they made a donation, I think a large proportion of them [donors] would either not give a gift because it was too complicated a decision, would pick a charity they have an affinity with or the charity that has spent the most on above the line advertising.” Hmm. Maybe, maybe not. All we do is provide an indication of whether charities give this information or not. We don’t force donors to do anything.

Finally, you say, “Should a head of fundraiser take 2 hours out of their day to explain to a low value donor why they have chosen a certain mix of fundraising to match a certain strategy to get a £10 donation? Should a fundraiser justify why they use a certain print supplier if a donor asks?” That’s a good question. It’s up to fundraisers to make that call. But I would humbly suggest that if the fundraiser in question included answers to such queries in their charity’s annual report, then the dilemma would not even arise.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

Just a quick message to say well done for picking criteria to measure a charity which you struggle to comprehend yourselves.

As a fundraiser of 6 years I can remember barely 10 enquiries for an annual review which led to approx 2 donations. That is because the annual review isn't written to stimulate a donation. The vast majority of donations are given because the potential donor can understand a) what the need is b) what the solution is and c) how a donation they give will be used. Unsuprisingly, a charities ability to comment on the performance of it's investments rarely generates donations.

I'm not saying what you do isn't important, or that charities shouldn't be scrutinised about the way they invest their reserves, their plans for future expenditure or how they report their success, it's just that if everyone was forced to take these into account before they made a donation, I think a large proportion of them would either not give a gift because it was too complicated a decision,  would pick a charity they have an affinity with or the charity that has spent the most on above the line advertising.

And (this is oviously no longer a quick message but I am on my lunch break) charities with different strategies will invest in different forms of fundraising, at different levels to raise enough money to achieve their goals. Should a head of fundraiser take 2 hours out of their day to explain to a low value donor why they have chosen a certain mix of fundraising to match a certain strategy to get a £10 donation? Should a fundraiser justify why they use a certain print supplier if a donor asks? Some would say yes, I can always justify spending time talking to a donor about how the organisation I work for has spent their donation, I can't afford to spend time justifying why we use "such expensive paper".

Rant over

I'd be interested in how that pans out. It would be great if you could set meaningful accountability criteria because all you're able to do at the moment is praise a charity f(or not) for the fullness (or not) of it's reporting. Whether or not it's accurate and what the charity does to address serious concerns of impropriety (including the involvement or otherwise of the Trustee board) is going to be very tricky to ascertain. I can only applaud you for giving the matter serious consideration though. In my opinion the sector is very poorly regulated by the Commission. I know that IG have had their own frustrating experience of illogical case handling!

Don't shoot the messenger

Please also note that our profiles currently only assess charities according to transparency criteria, although we are working on introducing accountability criteria.

Marijke, Intelligent Giving

When there has been a big change in the quality of reporting score on the previous year, we usually make a comment about it in the overview paragraph.  However, we are looking at doing more quantitative analysis of changes in scores.  In particular, we would like to recognise charities with the 'Most Improved Reporting'.  However these systems are currently not in place. 

Marijke, Intelligent Giving

Are you going to provide year-on-year comparisons, so you can see if a charity is improving its performance; or alternatively where a charity that used to be accountable slips?

Hi Charity Chris

To answer your question, we have a process whereby we review each profile annually, once the new annual report has been published on the Charity Commission website.  In fact, we have already done 3 sets of reviews for some charities. 

Currently we do about 400 detailed profiles of charities with an expenditure of about £4million or more and that solicit donations from the public.

Marijke, Intelligent Giving

What are your plans for continuing the profiles? Are you aiming to review every charity above a certain size, or concentrating on those that are more overtly fundraising organisations?

Once a charity has been reviewed, how often will its profile be updated - will the target be to do this annually, or less frequently?