I don't believe it! Are they mad or am I losing it?
I applaud the fundraising efforts of the Evening Standard to raise money for London's homeless and dispossessed (now £8.3m). Equally I applaud All of Sport Relief's work in raising £52m for a huge range of good causes. However, what is the logic of one grant provider giving to another?
The Evening Standard are actively fundraising using the oxygen of free publicity via the daily paper and having those funds managed and distributed by CAN (Community Action Network). Nothing wrong in that. Similary Sport Relief fundraises using the oxygen of free publicity from the Beeb and then adds the money to that already administered by Comic Relief. OK so far? So now why is Sport Relief giving £1m to the standard to pass on to CAN to distribute?
It's a bit like Help for Heroes who fundraise (very successfully) using (amongst others) Murdock publicity and then give the money to some of the existing well established service charities. Perhaps they are more effective, not least because of all the extra publicity generated. However one can't help worrying whether much real additional cash is being raised and whether some events and activities cannibalize the efforts of those same charities that are supported by the new kids on the block?
I suppose I could be less grumpy and grateful for small mercies. At least they are giving the money to established providers who (hopefully) know what they are doing, rather than really reinventing the wheel and getting into direct service provision. Still it makes you think that there might be a better alternative.
Wednesday, 28 March 2012
Friday, 2 March 2012
What do you think of Fundraising Consultants?
The original Grumpy Old Fundraiser, John Sauve-Rodd sent me a very interesting survey about what clients think of their consultants and (and why not) what consultants think about their charity clients! Makes for some interesting reading, have a look at: http://www.theagitator.net/dont-miss-these-posts/clients-consultants-punch-bowl-survey-results/
Of particular interest is the observation that "we only used them to persuade our boss to do what we wanted" because in my book that is one of the three worthwhile times to invest in the fundraising consultant. When you are a prophet in your own land, you often need the external "objective" voice to help win the arguement. My old friend Redmond Mullin, who sadly died last year was a consumate professional at persuading trustee boards and senior managment teams of the need to invest in fundraising. They would listen to Redmond in a way that they, sadly, would not listen to their own director of fundraising. (Yes that is the voice of experience speaking).
The second of the usual reasons for employing consultants is simply to provide the expertise or capacity that does not exist in-house. The capital campaign feasibility study, the fundraising audit in an under performing area and so on.
The third and I think least understand, is that of the change agent. The consultants can come in on an interim or time limited project basis, help to implement and manage change and then leave with all the monkeys on their backs. Its what they're paid for and helps the new team or reorganised department function far more effectively.
Each of these areas benefit from the use of consultants, provided that the brief was clear, unambiguous, without unrealistic expectations and, most importantly, fully agreed by both parties. It goes without saying, I hope, that you've got to find the right consultant with the right skill set and approach to be able to work within the culture of your organisation.
Anyway, do let me know what you think of the survey results.
Of particular interest is the observation that "we only used them to persuade our boss to do what we wanted" because in my book that is one of the three worthwhile times to invest in the fundraising consultant. When you are a prophet in your own land, you often need the external "objective" voice to help win the arguement. My old friend Redmond Mullin, who sadly died last year was a consumate professional at persuading trustee boards and senior managment teams of the need to invest in fundraising. They would listen to Redmond in a way that they, sadly, would not listen to their own director of fundraising. (Yes that is the voice of experience speaking).
The second of the usual reasons for employing consultants is simply to provide the expertise or capacity that does not exist in-house. The capital campaign feasibility study, the fundraising audit in an under performing area and so on.
The third and I think least understand, is that of the change agent. The consultants can come in on an interim or time limited project basis, help to implement and manage change and then leave with all the monkeys on their backs. Its what they're paid for and helps the new team or reorganised department function far more effectively.
Each of these areas benefit from the use of consultants, provided that the brief was clear, unambiguous, without unrealistic expectations and, most importantly, fully agreed by both parties. It goes without saying, I hope, that you've got to find the right consultant with the right skill set and approach to be able to work within the culture of your organisation.
Anyway, do let me know what you think of the survey results.
Wednesday, 15 February 2012
Sir Stuart Etherington and the 4th Sector!
Stuart is absolutely right (Civil Society News 15/2) to highlight the dangers of current government policy that will allow a small number of for profit companies to dominate the provision of public service which were previously the baliwick of smaller, innovative charities focussing, not on profit, but on delivering the best possible services and outcomes for beneficiaries.
What's worse is the cognative dissonance being shown by the coalition, in supposedly promoting and encouraging "the big society" whilst retreating from and slashing the funding for such services. The reality is that we have a big society which needs investment. As it is we'll finish up with a smaller society which will penalize those least able to speak up and complain.
NCVO reckon there's £2bn coming out of the sector, Cathy Pharoah says £3bn. By my sums I reckon that it'll be closer to £5bn by the time you include all the small local authority grants and funding to community organisations that is being wiped out.
What's worse is the cognative dissonance being shown by the coalition, in supposedly promoting and encouraging "the big society" whilst retreating from and slashing the funding for such services. The reality is that we have a big society which needs investment. As it is we'll finish up with a smaller society which will penalize those least able to speak up and complain.
NCVO reckon there's £2bn coming out of the sector, Cathy Pharoah says £3bn. By my sums I reckon that it'll be closer to £5bn by the time you include all the small local authority grants and funding to community organisations that is being wiped out.
Monday, 30 January 2012
Philanthropy is not fair
With all the talk of bankers (or as I prefer, banksters) bonus' and whether they could, should, might give them to charity it is worth reminding ourselves of why people give. After all, as some of you know, I'm doing a bloody PhD on the "Nature of Philanthropy" and some of the bankers I've talked to in the past have actually been really quite nice people with a social conscience!
Equally, as the Guardian put it, most people don't want charity, they want fairness. Equality of opportunity whether it's in jobs and homes or clean water and food. Giving philanthropically does little to address those concerns but may still help make the world a slightly better place. It doesn't matter whether it's Bill Gates trying to abolish polio (winning) or malaria (way to go) or a mere mortal making a more modest £10 per month to help bring books to kids trying to get educated. The charitable intention is, I believe, a healthy one and capable of making the world a nice place both in the givers' own community or country as well as where the funds are used.
However, just as inducing a guilt trip for a quick one-off donation is, usually, counter productive for developing good relations with a giver; so, blackmailing a bonus receiver into forgoing it or giving it to "charidy" will probably provoke a backlash in the individual's own charitable motivations and also in his or her working community. Maybe, just maybe, we've got to use intellectual persuasion to change beliefs in order to change attitude and behaviour as those of you who've read the "Spectrum of Philanthropy" might twig.
It's a harder, longer, slower path but I think it could pay dividends.
Equally, as the Guardian put it, most people don't want charity, they want fairness. Equality of opportunity whether it's in jobs and homes or clean water and food. Giving philanthropically does little to address those concerns but may still help make the world a slightly better place. It doesn't matter whether it's Bill Gates trying to abolish polio (winning) or malaria (way to go) or a mere mortal making a more modest £10 per month to help bring books to kids trying to get educated. The charitable intention is, I believe, a healthy one and capable of making the world a nice place both in the givers' own community or country as well as where the funds are used.
However, just as inducing a guilt trip for a quick one-off donation is, usually, counter productive for developing good relations with a giver; so, blackmailing a bonus receiver into forgoing it or giving it to "charidy" will probably provoke a backlash in the individual's own charitable motivations and also in his or her working community. Maybe, just maybe, we've got to use intellectual persuasion to change beliefs in order to change attitude and behaviour as those of you who've read the "Spectrum of Philanthropy" might twig.
It's a harder, longer, slower path but I think it could pay dividends.
Wednesday, 4 January 2012
Happy New Year (or is it?)
Last year I posed the question where are the baby boomer philanthropists? Bingo the New Year honours list has 14 according to Howard Lake at Fundraising.co.uk. This list includes Doug Ellis and Paul Ruddock as well as my old Cranfield mate Mike Bear (now Sir Michael - so many congratulations!)
Perhaps most notable of these good doing generally baby boomers is probably Gerald Ronson for his (reported by Civil Society) £100m fundraised for charity (and £30m donated!) after a spell in prison in the 1990s. This is a bit reminicent of John Profumo who, (after the Christine Keeler scandel) spent many years working in the East End for Toynbee Hall. Maybe redemption (or the pursuit of) is something we all begin to think about as age beckons. I for one have certainly started thinking about these things far more since hitting 60. So what lessons are there for fundraisers?
Well don't assume we've all found god. Giving motivation is (as I'm discovering) fiendishily complex and anyone who says otherwise doesn't have a clue. I think fundraisers have to start with themselves! How generous we we? And why do we give (or not)? Know thyself (which according to Wikipedia Diogenes attributes to Thales) and you might begin to know Mankind (according to Alexander Pope). More insight and introspection may not make for a happier New Year but it will definitely help your fundraising.
Perhaps most notable of these good doing generally baby boomers is probably Gerald Ronson for his (reported by Civil Society) £100m fundraised for charity (and £30m donated!) after a spell in prison in the 1990s. This is a bit reminicent of John Profumo who, (after the Christine Keeler scandel) spent many years working in the East End for Toynbee Hall. Maybe redemption (or the pursuit of) is something we all begin to think about as age beckons. I for one have certainly started thinking about these things far more since hitting 60. So what lessons are there for fundraisers?
Well don't assume we've all found god. Giving motivation is (as I'm discovering) fiendishily complex and anyone who says otherwise doesn't have a clue. I think fundraisers have to start with themselves! How generous we we? And why do we give (or not)? Know thyself (which according to Wikipedia Diogenes attributes to Thales) and you might begin to know Mankind (according to Alexander Pope). More insight and introspection may not make for a happier New Year but it will definitely help your fundraising.
Friday, 2 December 2011
What did the Baby Boomers ever do for us? Part two
Isn't it Interesting? The UK Giving Report for 2011 shows giving back to 2009 levels, though with more people giving a bit less. The comparisons with the US however are really revealing. In the UK CAF reckon around 60% of adults give to charity whilst in the states it's nearer 80% according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy. This reflect the almost straight line negative correlation some of our LSBU research showed between giving in the USA, UK and Denmark against comparitive overall tax rates!
However what is even more interesting (and depressing) is the role of the Baby Boomers in all this. As one of that self obsessed generation I had thought that we're nice socially minded, philanthropic individuals. As Francis Beckett pointed out however, when I took him to task over his critique of this generation, where are the seriously wealthy philanthropists? In the US the top decile give over 2% of their income. In the UK it is less than 1%. What's worse, whilst Cathy Pharoah points to the 100 donations of £1m plus where are the English (or Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish) equivalents of Bill Gates? Gates, along with Warren Buffet is trying to persuade the seriously rich to give 50% of their wealth to charity!
In the UK the likes of Richard Branson, Alan Sugar, Felix Dennis,Philip Green, Nicky Oppenheimer and Andrew Lloyd-Webber are seen giving a bit to charity but pledging 50% seems a giant step too far for them. So is Francis Beckett's premise right? Are we not only wastrels but bloody mean with it?
However what is even more interesting (and depressing) is the role of the Baby Boomers in all this. As one of that self obsessed generation I had thought that we're nice socially minded, philanthropic individuals. As Francis Beckett pointed out however, when I took him to task over his critique of this generation, where are the seriously wealthy philanthropists? In the US the top decile give over 2% of their income. In the UK it is less than 1%. What's worse, whilst Cathy Pharoah points to the 100 donations of £1m plus where are the English (or Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish) equivalents of Bill Gates? Gates, along with Warren Buffet is trying to persuade the seriously rich to give 50% of their wealth to charity!
In the UK the likes of Richard Branson, Alan Sugar, Felix Dennis,Philip Green, Nicky Oppenheimer and Andrew Lloyd-Webber are seen giving a bit to charity but pledging 50% seems a giant step too far for them. So is Francis Beckett's premise right? Are we not only wastrels but bloody mean with it?
Monday, 28 November 2011
What did the Baby Boomers ever do for us?
Meeting Francis Beckett tomorrow so do you have any questions for him? His thesis is that the self obsessed generation took the money and ran, with little regard for the consequences. He might be right. A lot of my friends have made a lot of money in property and financial services. On the other hand there are quite a few Gen X successes with computers and the internet, not to mention Gen Y and professional sport. I think what is really interesting (if sad) is that that the gap in the distribution of wealth is widening not shrinking.
Philip Beresford has commented that when he started doing the Sunday Times Rich List 25 years ago, 85% of the wealth was inherited. Today 85% is first generation. People are creating fortunes rather as they did at the end of the 19th Century and there are perhaps some more rather disturbing parallels.
Unfortunately, as Wilkinson and Pickett comment in The Spirit Level,happiness and good health lies with reduced wealth gaps and greater equality in distribution. Its a good read and very worrying that the UK is moving in the wrong direction. I'm not however convinced that it is all the fault of the baby boomers. The banking problems for example started with Reagan and Thatcher, both Seniors or members of the Silent Generation!
Watch this space and let me know if you think Beckett's got it right?
Philip Beresford has commented that when he started doing the Sunday Times Rich List 25 years ago, 85% of the wealth was inherited. Today 85% is first generation. People are creating fortunes rather as they did at the end of the 19th Century and there are perhaps some more rather disturbing parallels.
Unfortunately, as Wilkinson and Pickett comment in The Spirit Level,happiness and good health lies with reduced wealth gaps and greater equality in distribution. Its a good read and very worrying that the UK is moving in the wrong direction. I'm not however convinced that it is all the fault of the baby boomers. The banking problems for example started with Reagan and Thatcher, both Seniors or members of the Silent Generation!
Watch this space and let me know if you think Beckett's got it right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)