Intelligent Giving takes a shot at Good Gifts

Fundraising | Tania Mason | 6 Jan 2009

The Charities Advisory Trust, creator of the Good Gifts catalogue, is the latest organisation to come under fire from Intelligent Giving.

Intelligent Giving researcher James Asfa used his blog to compare various Christmas gift catalogues, advising which ones donors should shop with if they think it's important that the gift they buy is the gift that's given, and which ones they should support if they don't mind their donation going into general funds.

At the end of the blog is a footnote about Good Gifts, accusing it, effectively, of double standards.

Asfa claims that on one hand Good Gifts promises that if you buy a goat, a goat is what's given, but several pages later comes the caveat: it 'reserves the right to divert funds to a similar project'.

Blume dismisses ‘double standards' accusation

But Dame Hilary Blume, founder of the catalogue and director of Charities Advisory Trust, rejected the criticism.

"If he knew anything about charity law, he would know it is good practice to include that disclaimer because if it's not there, and we ever needed to use the funds for something else, we would have to go to the Charity Commission to get permission."

But, she added, despite facilitating "hundreds of thousands of gifts" since its launch, Good Gifts has never once had to exercise the right to reallocate funds.

"We've never had to divert a gift to anything else because before we choose a gift, we make sure the recipient charity is able to deal with 2,000 or more of the same type of gift. And if we think a charity can't use them all, we can name other charities to receive them. If Intelligent Giving is looking for a new scandal, sorry - it's not us."

Directory: Charity Commission | Intelligent Giving
Who's Who: Tania Mason

Comments

[Cancel] | Reply to:

Name *

Email *

Organisation

Job Title

Comments *

Verification *

* Please read our Community Standards

Close »

Community Standards

The civilsociety.co.uk community and comments board is intended as a platform for informed and civilised debate.

We hope to encourage a broad range of views, however, there are standards that we expect commentators to uphold. We reserve the right to delete or amend any comments that do not adhere to these standards.

We welcome:

Robust but respectful debate
Strongly held opinions
Intelligent relevant discussion
The sharing of relevant experiences
New participants

We will not publish:

Rude, threatening, offensive, obscene or abusive language, or links to such material
Links to commercial organisations or spam postings. The comments board is not an advertising platform
The posting of contact details for yourself or others
Comments intended for malicious purpose or mindless abuse
Comments purporting to be from another person or organisation under false pretences
Gratuitous criticism, commentary or self-promotion
Any material which breaches copyright or privacy laws, or could be considered libellous
The use of the comments board for the pursuit or extension of personal disputes

Be aware:

Views expressed on the comments board are left at users’ discretion and are in no way views held or supported by Civil Society Media
Comments left by others may not be accurate, do not rely on them as fact
You may be misunderstood - sarcasm and humour can easily be taken out of context, try to be clear

Please:

Enjoy the opportunity to express your opinion and respect the right of others to express theirs
Confine your remarks to issues rather than personalities

Together we can keep our community a polite, respectful and intelligent platform for discussion.