This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jul/03/post-oxfam-charities-must-come-clean-on-how-donors-money-is-spent
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Post-Oxfam, charities must come clean on how donors' money is spent | Post-Oxfam, charities must come clean on how donors' money is spent |
| (about 1 hour later) | |
| If a week is a long time in politics, four months seems to be an aeon, as least as far as charity donations from individual givers are concerned. | If a week is a long time in politics, four months seems to be an aeon, as least as far as charity donations from individual givers are concerned. |
| At the start of year, when scandals broke about Oxfam and the Presidents Club, dire consequences were predicted. Thousands of donors were, it was reported, cancelling direct debits as a result of their disillusion with charities. Charity leaders felt they had been dealt another body blow, just as they were starting to recover from the collapse of Kids Company and questionable fundraising practices. | At the start of year, when scandals broke about Oxfam and the Presidents Club, dire consequences were predicted. Thousands of donors were, it was reported, cancelling direct debits as a result of their disillusion with charities. Charity leaders felt they had been dealt another body blow, just as they were starting to recover from the collapse of Kids Company and questionable fundraising practices. |
| Four months on, the latest report by Blackbaud on charitable giving, published to coincide with the Institute of Fundraising (IoF) annual conference this week, shows that, by and large, most of us are still willing to donate. Of the 800 UK charity staff who responded, 65% had seen a rise in their charity’s income since 2017. The Charities Aid Foundation’s 2018 report saw a similar trend, with the total amount given to charity in 2017 having increased to £10.3bn. | |
| This is not to minimise the consequences for Oxfam, which has been forced to make cuts of £16m to its aid programmes and lay off staff, after losing government funding. And Sports Relief saw a big fall in the amount it raised on the night of its televised appeal in March, from £55m in 2016 to just £38m this year – the lowest for a decade. But many in the sector are breathing a sigh of relief that the general impact seems to have been less cataclysmic than predicted. | This is not to minimise the consequences for Oxfam, which has been forced to make cuts of £16m to its aid programmes and lay off staff, after losing government funding. And Sports Relief saw a big fall in the amount it raised on the night of its televised appeal in March, from £55m in 2016 to just £38m this year – the lowest for a decade. But many in the sector are breathing a sigh of relief that the general impact seems to have been less cataclysmic than predicted. |
| However, charities still need to address some worrying trends. The CAF report noted that charities are relying on a diminishing pool of dedicated individual donors who are giving more. That matters, since individual donations form the largest chunk – 28% – of income for most of the charities in the IoF survey. | However, charities still need to address some worrying trends. The CAF report noted that charities are relying on a diminishing pool of dedicated individual donors who are giving more. That matters, since individual donations form the largest chunk – 28% – of income for most of the charities in the IoF survey. |
| Part of the problem is that funders continue to believe they maximise their impact by giving every penny to the frontline, and they want charities to be able to demonstrate that almost every last penny they raise goes directly to the projects and people they support. This is in line with the narrative peddled by all UK governments since 2010 that public services are “bloated” with administrative staff. In the public sector, this has resulted in vital support staff being valued much less than those on the frontline. For charities, this focus could be lethal, as a new report by the thinktank, Charity Futures, makes clear. In the report, Stephen Bubb, the former chief executive of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, points out that charities need to spend money on administration and monitoring in vital areas like safeguarding. He singles out Comic Relief, but there are plenty of other examples where charities shy away from any idea that they have admin costs: Crisis, asking for £26.08 last Christmas to cover the “exact cost” of funding a place at one of its Christmas centres, Combat Stress’s pitch for £21 to pay for an hour of its helplinefor veterans suffering mental health problems, or the RSPCA’s winter appeal request for £8 to feed a cat over three days of the holidays, £10.40 for a rabbit, or £12 for a dog. | Part of the problem is that funders continue to believe they maximise their impact by giving every penny to the frontline, and they want charities to be able to demonstrate that almost every last penny they raise goes directly to the projects and people they support. This is in line with the narrative peddled by all UK governments since 2010 that public services are “bloated” with administrative staff. In the public sector, this has resulted in vital support staff being valued much less than those on the frontline. For charities, this focus could be lethal, as a new report by the thinktank, Charity Futures, makes clear. In the report, Stephen Bubb, the former chief executive of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, points out that charities need to spend money on administration and monitoring in vital areas like safeguarding. He singles out Comic Relief, but there are plenty of other examples where charities shy away from any idea that they have admin costs: Crisis, asking for £26.08 last Christmas to cover the “exact cost” of funding a place at one of its Christmas centres, Combat Stress’s pitch for £21 to pay for an hour of its helplinefor veterans suffering mental health problems, or the RSPCA’s winter appeal request for £8 to feed a cat over three days of the holidays, £10.40 for a rabbit, or £12 for a dog. |
| Bubb and Daniel Fluskey, head of policy and research at the IoF, believe the way forward is to change the language used around fundraising. The Charity Futures report says charities should attach a “warm glow” to core costs by identifying the backroom staff who are integral to a charity’s function. | Bubb and Daniel Fluskey, head of policy and research at the IoF, believe the way forward is to change the language used around fundraising. The Charity Futures report says charities should attach a “warm glow” to core costs by identifying the backroom staff who are integral to a charity’s function. |
| Warm glow or not, more has to be done on the narrative about how charities operate and spend donors’ money. | Warm glow or not, more has to be done on the narrative about how charities operate and spend donors’ money. |
| Jane Dudman is the Guardian’s public leaders editor | Jane Dudman is the Guardian’s public leaders editor |
| Charities | Charities |
| Voluntary sector | Voluntary sector |
| Oxfam | Oxfam |
| comment | comment |
| Share on Facebook | Share on Facebook |
| Share on Twitter | Share on Twitter |
| Share via Email | Share via Email |
| Share on LinkedIn | Share on LinkedIn |
| Share on Pinterest | Share on Pinterest |
| Share on Google+ | Share on Google+ |
| Share on WhatsApp | Share on WhatsApp |
| Share on Messenger | Share on Messenger |
| Reuse this content | Reuse this content |