This post is by Patrick Newton, who is currently an intern at NPC.
Christmas is a time when, amongst the relentless cheer and merriment, springs a will to help those in need. It is the time when giving to charity in the UK reaches its peak.
Usually the first question that we ask ourselves when considering donating at Christmas is ‘how much should I give?’
This question is important. But anyone who reads this blog regularly will realise that giving is not just about quantity, it is about quality. More money does not necessarily translate to greater impact on the lives of the needy, just as a more expensive Christmas present does not always impart greater pleasure or satisfaction for the recipient.
Indeed, the rules of giving to charity share some common features with the giving of presents.
Consider buying a young nephew a Christmas gift. What do you care most about – that you are seen to spend a great amount of money, or that you give him a present which is enjoys and that he finds satisfying?
Of course, if you have the interests of your nephew at heart, you will care far more about the latter. You won’t just ask ‘how much should I spend?’, you will think about what present will be best for your nephew, whether he wants or needs something specific, and how you can best spend the money you have to achieve this.
Similarly, with giving to charity, the crucial questions are about what the donation will achieve and how it will be spent. By far the most important consideration is the impact it will have on the lives of the people it is intended to help.
Like giving Christmas presents, donating to charity is about more than just the amount we spend. At a time when more people are dipping into their pockets, spreading the message about giving effectively is as important as ever.
Wednesday, 23 December 2009
Monday, 21 December 2009
THE think tank for the UK charitable sector
The biggest story in the UK charitable sector over the last two weeks has been the resignation of Lindsay Boswell, the chief executive of the Institute of Fundraising, from an advisory panel of the Centre for Charitable Giving and Philanthropy.
His complaint is that the research done by the Centre does not have a practical use for fundraisers – something that he says that he has argued for in vain. His very public resignation was accompanied an announcement that he plans to create a new think tank to fill this gap.
Aside from the politics of this event, it is heartening to see a key figure in the fundraising world getting exercised the importance of research. This is another indication that the great and good in the charitable sector are be waking up to its importance.
The Westminster think tanks are a familar part of decision-making in politics and the public sector. They are the laboratories in which the policies of present and future governments are developed and tested. But charities are only a marginal part of their work.
At NPC, we like to think of ourselves as the think tank for the charitable sector. One of our founding principles is that more research into charities can help the sector to improve. And unlike the Westminster think tanks, we understand the challenges that real organisations face: in measuring performance, in getting the full costs of services, in controlling cash flow, and in managing and paying for staff and volunteers.
Lindsay Boswell has identified the lack of research on charities that is of practical value. That is the gap that NPC seeks to fill.
***
Happy Christmas from everyone at NPC!
His complaint is that the research done by the Centre does not have a practical use for fundraisers – something that he says that he has argued for in vain. His very public resignation was accompanied an announcement that he plans to create a new think tank to fill this gap.
Aside from the politics of this event, it is heartening to see a key figure in the fundraising world getting exercised the importance of research. This is another indication that the great and good in the charitable sector are be waking up to its importance.
The Westminster think tanks are a familar part of decision-making in politics and the public sector. They are the laboratories in which the policies of present and future governments are developed and tested. But charities are only a marginal part of their work.
At NPC, we like to think of ourselves as the think tank for the charitable sector. One of our founding principles is that more research into charities can help the sector to improve. And unlike the Westminster think tanks, we understand the challenges that real organisations face: in measuring performance, in getting the full costs of services, in controlling cash flow, and in managing and paying for staff and volunteers.
Lindsay Boswell has identified the lack of research on charities that is of practical value. That is the gap that NPC seeks to fill.
***
Happy Christmas from everyone at NPC!
Thursday, 17 December 2009
Getting back on track
Youth unemployment has hit a record high. The latest government figures, released yesterday, show that 952,000 young people aged 16–24 are currently out of work—the highest number since records began in 1992.
This number is also dangerously close to the one million mark, which the government is understandably keen to avoid. Memories from the 1980s still linger, when youth unemployment actually did hit one million, and continued to rise for several years after the recession ended. A deep and long-lasting ‘wage scar’ afflicted many of those who were unemployed for a year or more, affecting their job prospects for decades.
To prevent history repeating itself, the government has announced a scheme giving young people the guarantee of a job, training or work experience. It hopes this will lead to a fall in youth unemployment by the second half of next year. This would be an achievement, but it should not be forgotten that some young people will not bounce back or into jobs as easily as others.
Young people with serious obstacles to unemployment—drug abuse, caring responsibilities, low self-esteem—may need additional help. Our recent research looking at the issue of young people not in education, employment and training found that charities are often best-placed to do so. They employ a variety of approaches to help young people others whom others have struggled to reach, from social and emotional support to children in primary schools to intensive one-to-one support to young people already unemployed. By recognising that behind the headline statistic lie a multitude of individual experiences, charities have an important role to play in reducing the number of unemployed young people.
This number is also dangerously close to the one million mark, which the government is understandably keen to avoid. Memories from the 1980s still linger, when youth unemployment actually did hit one million, and continued to rise for several years after the recession ended. A deep and long-lasting ‘wage scar’ afflicted many of those who were unemployed for a year or more, affecting their job prospects for decades.
To prevent history repeating itself, the government has announced a scheme giving young people the guarantee of a job, training or work experience. It hopes this will lead to a fall in youth unemployment by the second half of next year. This would be an achievement, but it should not be forgotten that some young people will not bounce back or into jobs as easily as others.
Young people with serious obstacles to unemployment—drug abuse, caring responsibilities, low self-esteem—may need additional help. Our recent research looking at the issue of young people not in education, employment and training found that charities are often best-placed to do so. They employ a variety of approaches to help young people others whom others have struggled to reach, from social and emotional support to children in primary schools to intensive one-to-one support to young people already unemployed. By recognising that behind the headline statistic lie a multitude of individual experiences, charities have an important role to play in reducing the number of unemployed young people.
Wednesday, 16 December 2009
Do charities have a right to Gift Aid?
Is tax relief on charitable giving a entitlement? Or is it something charities should have to earn? It’s a tough question and one I have been mulling over since it was raised at a seminar I went to yesterday at the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
The seminar was presenting the research of Kim Scharf and Sarah Smith into how changing Gift Aid tax relief would impact on donations. Kim and Sarah based their research on surveys of Charities Aid Foundation and JustGiving clients and interviews conducted by our very own NPCers.
One of the most surprising findings was that higher-rate taxpayers are not very sensitive to the amount of money that the government gave alongside their own donation (although the sensitivity did increase with donation size). What surprised me more though, was how many of those in the audience spoke of Gift Aid as if it as if it were an inalienable right of the charitable sector, that more government subsidy of charities based on individual donations was automatically a good thing. This seems far from obvious to me. It is, after all, taxpayers’ money.
Back in 1863 Gladstone proposed to repeal the income tax exemption in favour of charities, on the grounds that the exemption amounted to a grant of public money without public control, and a large number of charities were not beneficial to the community. I can’t help but think that Gladstone had a point. At a time when the government is strapped for cash it could be argued that the government needs all the money it can get to reduce the national debt or reduce unemployment.
On the other hand you could argue that many charities do excellent work tackling just those social problems that increase during a recession. For example, the Samaritans offering counselling to those in distress or Quaker Social Action helping families in poverty.
Professor Mirrlees (winner of the 1996 Nobel Prize in Economics) was sitting on the panel at yesterday’s seminar argued something similar. If a number of people are giving to a charity with the intention of improving lives then giving taxpayers’ money to those charities should improve lives too. But, as Mirrlees pointed out (and as NPC bangs on about all the time), people don’t give purely based on the good a charity does. They give out of guilt or esteem or habit or a million other reasons.
So, is the logical conclusion of all this that only charities that can demonstrate their impact should receive gift aid? I’m still confused, let me know what you think. Do you think charities have a right to Gift Aid or should they be forced to be accountable for all taxpayers’ money they receive?
The seminar was presenting the research of Kim Scharf and Sarah Smith into how changing Gift Aid tax relief would impact on donations. Kim and Sarah based their research on surveys of Charities Aid Foundation and JustGiving clients and interviews conducted by our very own NPCers.
One of the most surprising findings was that higher-rate taxpayers are not very sensitive to the amount of money that the government gave alongside their own donation (although the sensitivity did increase with donation size). What surprised me more though, was how many of those in the audience spoke of Gift Aid as if it as if it were an inalienable right of the charitable sector, that more government subsidy of charities based on individual donations was automatically a good thing. This seems far from obvious to me. It is, after all, taxpayers’ money.
Back in 1863 Gladstone proposed to repeal the income tax exemption in favour of charities, on the grounds that the exemption amounted to a grant of public money without public control, and a large number of charities were not beneficial to the community. I can’t help but think that Gladstone had a point. At a time when the government is strapped for cash it could be argued that the government needs all the money it can get to reduce the national debt or reduce unemployment.
On the other hand you could argue that many charities do excellent work tackling just those social problems that increase during a recession. For example, the Samaritans offering counselling to those in distress or Quaker Social Action helping families in poverty.
Professor Mirrlees (winner of the 1996 Nobel Prize in Economics) was sitting on the panel at yesterday’s seminar argued something similar. If a number of people are giving to a charity with the intention of improving lives then giving taxpayers’ money to those charities should improve lives too. But, as Mirrlees pointed out (and as NPC bangs on about all the time), people don’t give purely based on the good a charity does. They give out of guilt or esteem or habit or a million other reasons.
So, is the logical conclusion of all this that only charities that can demonstrate their impact should receive gift aid? I’m still confused, let me know what you think. Do you think charities have a right to Gift Aid or should they be forced to be accountable for all taxpayers’ money they receive?
Friday, 11 December 2009
The 2009 NPC Haiku Competition
As the Christmas festivities begin and we prepare to say goodbye to 2009, we all need to find some time for our poetic side.
With that in mind, you are invited to enter the inaugural NPC Haiku Competition. 2009 may have been a tough year, but muster what is left of your energy and creative spirit to write a bit of charity or philanthropy-inspired lyrical magic.
The rules are simple:
1. Create your own haiku, a short three-line verse with a 5-7-5 syllable structure (we won’t be too strict – poetic license is allowed).
2. Be creative – haikus can be autobiographical, mission-related, express hopes and fears for 2010, or be humorous.
3. Post as a comment here (with your name and organisation if you wish).
4. We’ll then publish the best of them on this blog and in our next issue of Giving Insights, which has a readership of around 20,000.
5. The winner gets a bottle of champagne.
6. Closing date is 1 January 2010.
Below are a few early entries to start you off. I'm sure that you can do much better...
Enough earnest talking
Passing year of charity
Let’s begin the party
Charity’s OK
With a bit of evidence
Doing good, better
End of term feeling
Grown-ups fret about budgets
The kids play haiku
With that in mind, you are invited to enter the inaugural NPC Haiku Competition. 2009 may have been a tough year, but muster what is left of your energy and creative spirit to write a bit of charity or philanthropy-inspired lyrical magic.
The rules are simple:
1. Create your own haiku, a short three-line verse with a 5-7-5 syllable structure (we won’t be too strict – poetic license is allowed).
2. Be creative – haikus can be autobiographical, mission-related, express hopes and fears for 2010, or be humorous.
3. Post as a comment here (with your name and organisation if you wish).
4. We’ll then publish the best of them on this blog and in our next issue of Giving Insights, which has a readership of around 20,000.
5. The winner gets a bottle of champagne.
6. Closing date is 1 January 2010.
Below are a few early entries to start you off. I'm sure that you can do much better...
Enough earnest talking
Passing year of charity
Let’s begin the party
Charity’s OK
With a bit of evidence
Doing good, better
End of term feeling
Grown-ups fret about budgets
The kids play haiku
Wednesday, 9 December 2009
Preaching to the unconverted
NPC meets with lots of charities who try to change people’s attitudes and behaviour, from organisations trying to improve public attitudes to asylum seekers, to those trying to encourage people to live healthier lives.
Influencing people’s attitudes and behaviours is difficult. I think that many charities fail by talking in the wrong language, to the wrong people: charity campaigns are often written by and therefore subconsciously aimed at educated, middle-class, liberal people who care about things like poverty and giving to charity. This is all well and good, but it means that large swathes of the population either don’t listen to your message, or may even be turned off by it.
I’ve come across two charities recently that have worked hard not to fall into this trap.
National Literacy Trust understands that its work (getting more people into reading) isn’t immediately appealing, especially to the very people it is trying to influence—such as families from low-income households who don’t read with their kids. It realised that it had to reach out beyond its core audience of literacy professionals, who are mostly teachers and librarians.
It undertook some market research about its target audience. It realised that while charities and government often struggle to engage with such people, companies do not. Therefore the Trust teamed up with brands who are well-known among the target market, such as Iceland and Haven Holidays. For example, staff at Haven Holidays sites ran fun reading activities with families, and parents could pick up free children’s books at Iceland. Surveys have shown that this kind of work has made a difference: eg, 20% of parents from low-income households now read to their child, up from 15% before the work began.
Global Cool* works on climate change, and also uses extensive market research to work out how to get people to save carbon - eg, by taking the bus rather than driving; holidaying by train rather than by car; keeping the heating low. It found that the quickest way to ignite changes in consumer behaviour is to target people interested in going out, having a great time, looking fabulous. So it uses glamour, celebrities, social networks and media which reach those people. Global Cool tries to make carbon-saving cool and fun, rather than about hairshirts and being boring. Shouting at people to unplug mobile phone chargers won’t get you very far; Global Cool thinks it's better to show fashion-conscious young people how to look great in Winter knits and how they can burn calories (not money) by turning down the heating.
I’m impressed by both organisations’ approaches, and would urge charities with similar missions to take a closer look at them. And I’d be interested in hearing from others who have had success in having an influence beyond the usual Guardian-reading liberals.
*Chronyism alert: It’s run by a former NPCer, Caroline Fiennes.
Influencing people’s attitudes and behaviours is difficult. I think that many charities fail by talking in the wrong language, to the wrong people: charity campaigns are often written by and therefore subconsciously aimed at educated, middle-class, liberal people who care about things like poverty and giving to charity. This is all well and good, but it means that large swathes of the population either don’t listen to your message, or may even be turned off by it.
I’ve come across two charities recently that have worked hard not to fall into this trap.
National Literacy Trust understands that its work (getting more people into reading) isn’t immediately appealing, especially to the very people it is trying to influence—such as families from low-income households who don’t read with their kids. It realised that it had to reach out beyond its core audience of literacy professionals, who are mostly teachers and librarians.
It undertook some market research about its target audience. It realised that while charities and government often struggle to engage with such people, companies do not. Therefore the Trust teamed up with brands who are well-known among the target market, such as Iceland and Haven Holidays. For example, staff at Haven Holidays sites ran fun reading activities with families, and parents could pick up free children’s books at Iceland. Surveys have shown that this kind of work has made a difference: eg, 20% of parents from low-income households now read to their child, up from 15% before the work began.
Global Cool* works on climate change, and also uses extensive market research to work out how to get people to save carbon - eg, by taking the bus rather than driving; holidaying by train rather than by car; keeping the heating low. It found that the quickest way to ignite changes in consumer behaviour is to target people interested in going out, having a great time, looking fabulous. So it uses glamour, celebrities, social networks and media which reach those people. Global Cool tries to make carbon-saving cool and fun, rather than about hairshirts and being boring. Shouting at people to unplug mobile phone chargers won’t get you very far; Global Cool thinks it's better to show fashion-conscious young people how to look great in Winter knits and how they can burn calories (not money) by turning down the heating.
I’m impressed by both organisations’ approaches, and would urge charities with similar missions to take a closer look at them. And I’d be interested in hearing from others who have had success in having an influence beyond the usual Guardian-reading liberals.
*Chronyism alert: It’s run by a former NPCer, Caroline Fiennes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
