Intelligent Giving poll to examine fundraising returns of top 500 charities 2

Fundraising | Tania Mason | 1 Apr 2009

Clothes Aid, the organisation that collects and sells second-hand garments to raise money for other charities, has commissioned Intelligent Giving to conduct a survey into the return on investment offered by various different fundraising methods.

Intelligent Giving has sent a questionnaire to the top 500 charities by voluntary income, requesting details on what percentage of total expenditure they allocated to different techniques in their most recent financial year, and what percentage of their total income each one raised.

The study covers ten fundraising tools, including direct mail, telephone fundraising, advertising in newspapers and magazines, face-to-face, and door-to-door clothing collections (pictured).

The survey also requests details on why respondents use each method, and how long they expect a campaign of each technique to provide a return for.

And it asks respondents to state how much financial risk they associate with each of the techniques.

New protocols in Charities Act

Clothes Aid business manager Michael Lomotey said the organisation was prompted to commission the study by new protocols in the Charities Act. These changes mean professional fundraising organisations and commercial participators have to present their remuneration in a more transparent way not only to the public, but to licensing authorities who have responsibility for door-to-door collection permits.

Clothes Aid is hoping the research will help demonstrate that clothing collections are transparent, cost-effective and "without risk" to charities and that this will help licensing authorities to better compare various types of fundraising when deciding whether to award collection licenses.

IG director Adam Rothwell said the results would show whether the perception of how effective various methods are, matched the reality.

The deadline for responses is 31 March and every charity that takes part will be provided with a copy of the report.

Intelligent Giving 'young and fresh'

Lomotey added that Clothes Aid chose IG to conduct the research because "there are only a couple of people that do this kind of research, and they are young and fresh".

Directory: Intelligent Giving
Who's Who: Tania Mason

Place a comment

Mick Aldridge
Chief Executive
PFRA
26 Mar 2009

I read this piece with increasing bemusement. First of all I can't quite grasp what "problem" ClothesAid think they are addressing; under the Charities Act 2006 (when it comes into effect) local authorities will be exppressly FORBIDDEN from making value judgments such as "compar[ing] various types of fundraising when deciding whether to award collection licenses". Local councils will be REQUIRED to issue permits when- and wherever they are presented with a valid application, except on very narrow grounds of frequency of activity - the type of activity (cash collections, clothes collections, face-to-face), still less the perceived / alleged RoI - simply won't come in to it. If they want to get the gen, perhaps they would benefit from having a chat with us, or the Institute, before they panic?

Secondly I can't get my head around why they might want to 'compare' RoI's on public collections with those of mediums that are nothing to do with the Charities Act (DM, press adverts etc). Could it be, the old cynic in me asks, that they have been sold a pup by 'Intelligent (sic) Giving' who think they have found a convenient smoke-screen to conceal a fishing exercise prior to another round of fundraiser-bashing? Shurely shome mishtake? I think we should be told!

[Reply]

Andrew Malin
25 Mar 2009

I am sure that Clothes-Aid is a reputable organisation. I am much less sure about the many commercial clothes collections whose plastic bags come through my letter box. These usually refer to a cash sum paid regularly to a named registered charity (several names have appeared in the last year).
So, are reputable clothes collectors at risk of reputation damage from parallel, but shadier, operators?

[Reply]

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.