Aggregated External News

Donors may feel uneasy that charity bosses earn a lot. But well-meaning volunteers simply couldn't do the job

Even in the City, there is now a certain awareness about showy braces; a Debenhams trouser historian has traced the decline of these accessories to the financial crash of 2008, with a current shift to more muted tones. In a more sensitive age, bankers are trying not to resemble Gordon Gekko, or – in a painful image that some of us still struggle to suppress – a younger Andrew Neil . "The message they send out is clear," said the expert, of the grey suspenders trend. "It is one of trust, caution and a highly conservative approach for handling money."

It is all the more unfortunate, given this culture of restraint, that Sir Nick Young, the chief executive of the British Red Cross and the best-remunerated figure in the Telegraph's cash-for-charity-leaders story, should have been pictured in loud braces: which send an enduring message of greed, recklessness and a highly unorthodox approach to handling money.

Actually, Young may have learned his lesson: readers' comments earlier last week beneath a Guardian report illustrated by a photograph of the Red Cross chief executive, included: "He looks more like a CO [sic] of a hedge fund … Give to charity NEVER."

Plainly, Young's next mission must be the acquisition of the dressed-down, slightly crumpled wardrobe recommended for privileged people on philanthropic errands: one thinks of Prince Harry's desert boots in Jamaica, Madonna's flowing scarves for Malawi.

Could Young not, even in his London base, channel a more misery-friendly vibe, along the lines, say, of the chief executive of the Donkey Sanctuary, David Cook, in his modest sports jacket and slacks? After all, nobody appears to have objected this last week that Mr Cook also earns six figures, for his comparatively niche work, with distressed quadrupeds. "The financial squeeze is being felt here," says the sanctuary website. "Can you spare £2 for the donkeys?"

When even an over-prosperous appearance causes resentment, Sir Stephen Bubb, who runs the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, was probably ill-advised to claim of their salaries, on Radio 4: "This simply isn't an issue for donors. They are more concerned about the outcomes, the performance and the efficiency of these organisations." Any little people who were not thereby reminded of their total incuriosity were further invited by Sir Stephen to consider, in emulation of the feeble patter from banks and the BBC, the dreadful consequences if charities did not appeal, via competitive remuneration, to some of the richest people in the world. Do we want to live in a world where a Bob Diamond or Graham Norton would have to take a pay cut to run Battersea Dogs and Cats Home?

The only positive thing chief executives could really take away from Bubb's performance was that, at least, their champion was not asked about paying trustees, of which he is in favour, or about his Bubb's Blog – "the inside track of a third sector leader influencing in (sic) Whitehall" – in which he demonstrates that wrenching concern for the unfortunate need be no enemy to epicureanism. "The vineyard was, as all vineyards are in my experience, wonderful," noted the third sector's answer to Charles Pooter, on a recent working trip. With its round of fish dinners and splendid lunches, trips "to the Opera at Glyndebourne (The Marriage of Figaro)", and any number of rustic hostelries ("my room looked out over the churchyard"), Bubb's Blog could have been designed to reassure the charitable world's army of desperate interns that one day, and in this world, not the next, their privations will be rewarded. When it comes to reassuring the public about charitable probity, after a story that has united Telegraph and Guardian readers in disgust, not so much.

As for the charity leaders, you could see their collective reluctance, over the last few days, to correct public misconceptions about their sector and its massive bureaucracies, one-third financed by the state, as more culpable, even, than a display of ostentatious braces only inches from a Red Cross flag. Or is it impossible to explain that an able chief executive could be as useful to a charity, in alleviating human misery, as a nurse?

That donors might prefer, along with the Telegraph, that the chiefs of Oxfam and Save the Children should earn less than many London head teachers (up to £112,000) or a GPs (average £104,000) or, of course, a Godfrey Bloom (£182,826) to say nothing of middle-ranking BBC suits, senior civil servants, university provosts, NHS executives and the legions of consultants on secondment to government departments, is no excuse for preserving the myth that the leadership of gigantic charities could be delegated, almost entirely, to people willing to work for nothing.

If, understandably, it sticks in poorly paid donors' craws that more than 119,000 people would have to give a pound to pay Oxfam's chief executive to run its £385.5m budget (assuming none of it came from government), how many multiples of the national average wage, of £26,500, would it be decent to extract from collecting tins, in exchange for gifted leadership? Two? Three? Or should the whole outfit be reduced to the point that it is potentially manageable, on such days as they can turn up, by amateurs, of the noble type Cameron liked to conjure up during his Big Society moment?

Some donors, though equally concerned about their contributions, might still prefer direction and campaigning by experienced, accountable staff, to an administration in which some great and good artiste in the throes of reputation management presides over a host of randomly available volunteers, perhaps with some experience of promoting feudalism in National Trust sculleries.

Intriguingly, given his position and salary, pro rata, of £130,000, William Shawcross, the royal biographer and chair of the Charity Commission, has contributed to popular mistrust, telling the Daily Telegraph: "Disproportionate salaries risk bringing organisations and the wider charitable world into disrepute." Of course, anyone who has read his delirious descriptions of lunch parties given by another charitable luminary, the late Queen Mother, will appreciate Shawcross has fairly flexible definitions of "disproportionate" and "disrepute", where public funds are involved. "The food was good, the cocktails were mixed and the wine was poured with generous aplomb by uniformed stewards," he wrote of her entertainments, conceding that her style was not uniformly popular "in the more egalitarian times at the end of the 20th century". Maybe he, too, has the excuse for his own stipend of an irrepressibly Edwardian disposition?

With his implied rebuke to those running organisations massively more complex than his own, Shawcross endorses a peculiarly British beadiness about wealth, in which it is widely accepted that, say, footballers, Ecclestones, lawyers, and financiers who cheat and speculate, should take home obscene multiples of the average wage, but expected of the well-intentioned that they renounce material aspirations. For charity leaders, like sheep farmers, librarians and – to purists – MPs, virtue should be largely its own reward. It would also be appreciated, you gather, if these charity workers would have the decency to look a bit poor.

• Charities
• Charitable giving
• Voluntary sector

Donors may feel uneasy that charity bosses earn a lot. But well-meaning volunteers simply couldn't do the job

Even in the City, there is now a certain awareness about showy braces; a Debenhams trouser historian has traced the decline of these accessories to the financial crash of 2008, with a current shift to more muted tones. In a more sensitive age, bankers are trying not to resemble Gordon Gekko, or – in a painful image that some of us still struggle to suppress – a younger Andrew Neil . "The message they send out is clear," said the expert, of the grey suspenders trend. "It is one of trust, caution and a highly conservative approach for handling money."

It is all the more unfortunate, given this culture of restraint, that Sir Nick Young, the chief executive of the British Red Cross and the best-remunerated figure in the Telegraph's cash-for-charity-leaders story, should have been pictured in loud braces: which send an enduring message of greed, recklessness and a highly unorthodox approach to handling money.

Actually, Young may have learned his lesson: readers' comments earlier last week beneath a Guardian report illustrated by a photograph of the Red Cross chief executive, included: "He looks more like a CO [sic] of a hedge fund … Give to charity NEVER."

Plainly, Young's next mission must be the acquisition of the dressed-down, slightly crumpled wardrobe recommended for privileged people on philanthropic errands: one thinks of Prince Harry's desert boots in Jamaica, Madonna's flowing scarves for Malawi.

Could Young not, even in his London base, channel a more misery-friendly vibe, along the lines, say, of the chief executive of the Donkey Sanctuary, David Cook, in his modest sports jacket and slacks? After all, nobody appears to have objected this last week that Mr Cook also earns six figures, for his comparatively niche work, with distressed quadrupeds. "The financial squeeze is being felt here," says the sanctuary website. "Can you spare £2 for the donkeys?"

When even an over-prosperous appearance causes resentment, Sir Stephen Bubb, who runs the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, was probably ill-advised to claim of their salaries, on Radio 4: "This simply isn't an issue for donors. They are more concerned about the outcomes, the performance and the efficiency of these organisations." Any little people who were not thereby reminded of their total incuriosity were further invited by Sir Stephen to consider, in emulation of the feeble patter from banks and the BBC, the dreadful consequences if charities did not appeal, via competitive remuneration, to some of the richest people in the world. Do we want to live in a world where a Bob Diamond or Graham Norton would have to take a pay cut to run Battersea Dogs and Cats Home?

The only positive thing chief executives could really take away from Bubb's performance was that, at least, their champion was not asked about paying trustees, of which he is in favour, or about his Bubb's Blog – "the inside track of a third sector leader influencing in (sic) Whitehall" – in which he demonstrates that wrenching concern for the unfortunate need be no enemy to epicureanism. "The vineyard was, as all vineyards are in my experience, wonderful," noted the third sector's answer to Charles Pooter, on a recent working trip. With its round of fish dinners and splendid lunches, trips "to the Opera at Glyndebourne (The Marriage of Figaro)", and any number of rustic hostelries ("my room looked out over the churchyard"), Bubb's Blog could have been designed to reassure the charitable world's army of desperate interns that one day, and in this world, not the next, their privations will be rewarded. When it comes to reassuring the public about charitable probity, after a story that has united Telegraph and Guardian readers in disgust, not so much.

As for the charity leaders, you could see their collective reluctance, over the last few days, to correct public misconceptions about their sector and its massive bureaucracies, one-third financed by the state, as more culpable, even, than a display of ostentatious braces only inches from a Red Cross flag. Or is it impossible to explain that an able chief executive could be as useful to a charity, in alleviating human misery, as a nurse?

That donors might prefer, along with the Telegraph, that the chiefs of Oxfam and Save the Children should earn less than many London head teachers (up to £112,000) or a GPs (average £104,000) or, of course, a Godfrey Bloom (£182,826) to say nothing of middle-ranking BBC suits, senior civil servants, university provosts, NHS executives and the legions of consultants on secondment to government departments, is no excuse for preserving the myth that the leadership of gigantic charities could be delegated, almost entirely, to people willing to work for nothing.

If, understandably, it sticks in poorly paid donors' craws that more than 119,000 people would have to give a pound to pay Oxfam's chief executive to run its £385.5m budget (assuming none of it came from government), how many multiples of the national average wage, of £26,500, would it be decent to extract from collecting tins, in exchange for gifted leadership? Two? Three? Or should the whole outfit be reduced to the point that it is potentially manageable, on such days as they can turn up, by amateurs, of the noble type Cameron liked to conjure up during his Big Society moment?

Some donors, though equally concerned about their contributions, might still prefer direction and campaigning by experienced, accountable staff, to an administration in which some great and good artiste in the throes of reputation management presides over a host of randomly available volunteers, perhaps with some experience of promoting feudalism in National Trust sculleries.

Intriguingly, given his position and salary, pro rata, of £130,000, William Shawcross, the royal biographer and chair of the Charity Commission, has contributed to popular mistrust, telling the Daily Telegraph: "Disproportionate salaries risk bringing organisations and the wider charitable world into disrepute." Of course, anyone who has read his delirious descriptions of lunch parties given by another charitable luminary, the late Queen Mother, will appreciate Shawcross has fairly flexible definitions of "disproportionate" and "disrepute", where public funds are involved. "The food was good, the cocktails were mixed and the wine was poured with generous aplomb by uniformed stewards," he wrote of her entertainments, conceding that her style was not uniformly popular "in the more egalitarian times at the end of the 20th century". Maybe he, too, has the excuse for his own stipend of an irrepressibly Edwardian disposition?

With his implied rebuke to those running organisations massively more complex than his own, Shawcross endorses a peculiarly British beadiness about wealth, in which it is widely accepted that, say, footballers, Ecclestones, lawyers, and financiers who cheat and speculate, should take home obscene multiples of the average wage, but expected of the well-intentioned that they renounce material aspirations. For charity leaders, like sheep farmers, librarians and – to purists – MPs, virtue should be largely its own reward. It would also be appreciated, you gather, if these charity workers would have the decency to look a bit poor.

• Charities
• Charitable giving
• Voluntary sector

• Direct mail fundraising is often counter-intuitive and the chances are that your CEO, trustees or staff will have plenty of opinions about it. But, the reality is that some of their opinions might do more harm than good to your fundraising appeals. So, here is a rule of thumb for dealing with people who mean well but who aren't trained fundraisers or marketers - don't change your appeals simply because one of them 'has a feeling that this will not work'.

• The best way to improve the performance of your fundraising appeals is to do some testing. So go ahead and test cause concepts, creative approaches, donor motivations, giving handles - then adjust your future appeals based on what you discover.

• Focus on Audience and Cause Concept first then on the Creative. When developing a direct mail campaign some clients want to focus their time and effort on getting the Creative right. Although the Creative matters, because donors are visual, understanding what motivates your audience and speaking to their needs is the most critical element of the planning process. After that, the focus should be on the Cause Concept (why the donor should give, and why now). Remember that Audience and Cause Concept account for up to 80% of the success of fundraising mailings.

• Are you hiding your ask deep in the middle of your appeal? If you are spending time and money to send out fundraising letters, be bold! Make your ask prominent and repeat it throughout the letter. And, while you are at it, make sure you are asking for a specific gift based on donors' past giving history.

• Did you know that matching gifts challenges are likely to increase direct mail response rates and total income? That's because donors love leverage. So, if you get one or more gifts from a grant making trust for a project you can follow that up with a direct appeal asking your donors to match the gifts you have received from the trust/s.

• Most people love handwritten notes, so you might not be surprised to hear that including a handwritten PS in your appeals can help to increase their effectiveness. Use handwritten notes on major donor appeals to make them more authentic and see your response rates and average gifts go up.

• Don't use generic thank you letters for your fundraising appeals - make sure you write a tailored thank you letter for each appeal instead. Use the thank you letter as a powerful tool to enable donors to experience how their gift made a difference and to show appreciation for their support.

• Stop treating direct mail fundraising as a selection of random appeals and think of it as an intentional programme for converting prospects into donors and for growing their engagement with your cause. Take time to plan your direct mail programme - jot down some key themes, provide continuity of stories and images, build upon previous appeals and take the donor on an exciting journey of changing the world through your charity. 

Khloe Kardashian needs your help to save the tigers – and she’s giving you the chance to win a shopping spree at Dash.

The star is raising money for the WWF's mission to save tigers with a new campaign on fundraising platform Prizeo.com.

“You guys know how much I love tigers, so in honor of Global Tiger Day I’ve decided to do something really special to raise some much needed funds and awareness for WWF,” she says. "I’m offering all my incredible fans probably the best prize I’ve ever offered – the chance to be flown over to Los Angeles, where you’ll enjoy a shopping spree at DASH boutique, with me as your very own personal shopper!!

More: http://www.looktothestars.org/news/10621-save-the-tigers-with-khloe-kardashian

Understanding how assessing a charity's performance can help to bring about real change in people's lives

There's a battle raging in the impact measurement landscape.

Our standards of evidence are too low, say experts. To identify the impact of an intervention—in other words to attribute impact—we need sophisticated evaluations that must involve control groups, and preferably randomisation.

Our standards of evidence are too high, complain others. It's unreasonable to expect cash-strapped charities and busy social enterprises to incorporate high-end evaluation into their work. We should focus on managing performance and give up on unrealistic expectations of attribution.

Of course these are two ends of a spectrum, and there's no one right answer. But while I am an ardent supporter of evaluation, my hunch is that most of the time we should be focusing on the practical rather than theoretical, and evaluation that helps us manage performance rather than attributing change precisely.

That's not because I want social purpose organisations to be let off the hook, to get on with delivering impact rather than measuring it. No—it's because I believe that attribution can almost never be established with certainty, yet is commonly asserted or implied when charities make claims about their results. I don't believe attribution or proof should be the primary purpose of evaluation and impact measurement—rather it should be learning and improvement.

I started to gravitate towards this view when I was researching evaluation in the field of campaigning. In these cases, change happens as a result of complex, interacting actions by multiple actors, mediated by social, political, economic and technological factors. It is, in general, impossible to isolate a particular element of the system and study its impact. As a result, evaluators in the field of campaigning tend to talk about contribution, not attribution.

Back in the world of charities delivering services, I started to question whether this world was really so different from the campaigning field. Don't multiple actors, actions and conditions also exist for individuals receiving services?

For example, if a young boy turns away from a life trajectory dominated by gangs, to focus on doing well in school, can we really know exactly which actions (or actors) led to that impact? Was it the teacher who offered a listening ear, and persistent encouragement for the boy to recognise his own skills? Was it the mentor who shared his own experience of making the same transition? Was it the shock of seeing a friend seriously injured in gang violence? Or all of these factors? Or none of them—the boy's own grit and resilience eventually winning through?

My point is that life—people, families, communities—is messy. Even when it looks simple, the chances are that isn't once you scratch the surface.

Ultimately, I believe that no single organisation, or programme, creates any social impact in complete isolation. So any attempt to seek attribution, I believe, should start from a desire to understand and improve—rather than prove—and must be tempered with a realistic understanding of that intervention's context.

There are ways that charities can start to explore this without breaking the bank—the Justice Data Lab will compare the outcomes of a given group of ex-offenders with a matched group of a similar profile, for example. Or charities can create a control group by selecting participants from their waiting list. But I would still caution those charities from using such studies to claim that their results occur purely because of their work.

If we want really to understand how change happens, then we need to embrace its complexity. Let's not seek to isolate and attribute impact, but instead to understand our own contribution, and role, within the system.

Can that be done? My experience of the campaigning field tells me that it can, and that seeking to understand social change from a systems perspective will drive more collaborative, collective attempts actually to deliver it.

If I find, for example, that my mentoring programme's results are heavily influenced by the behaviour and practices of the participants' teachers, I start to think I should be directly working with them to help shape a partnership programme.

Working collaboratively requires a leap of faith. Charities' boards may need to embrace working with competitors, in what is a fiercely competitive sector. Funders need to encourage collaboration, and seek evidence of the impact of coalitions and groups, not specific projects in isolation. The leaders of social enterprises and charities need to stop obsessing about proving their impact, and instead focus on improving it.

Ultimately, if we're trying to bring about change within a system, doesn't it make sense to seek out this rich, complex, messy understanding of the world and stop pretending everything's simple, and can be reproduced under experimental conditions? If we don't, we may end up lying to our funders, lying to our beneficiaries, and lying to ourselves.

Tris Lumley is the head of development at NPC.

This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the voluntary sector network, click here.

• Impact and effectiveness
• Voluntary sector
• Charities

The one and only Lily Tomlin will host The 2013 Women’s Media Awards this year.

Jane Fonda, Robin Morgan and Gloria Steinem, Co-Founders of the Women’s Media Center, made the announcement. This celebration will be held on October 8th at 583 Park Avenue in New York City. Tables and tickets can be purchased now.

This is the one night each year when The Women’s Media Awards honors game-changers for women in media. By deciding who gets to talk, what creates the debate, who writes, and what is important enough to be visible, the media shapes our understanding of who we are and what we can be.

More: http://www.looktothestars.org/news/10611-lily-tomlin-to-host-2013-womens-media-awards

The United Nations Foundation joined its partner Dell at Dell’s #Inspire House in Wainscott, New York for a weekend dedicated to social good.

The #Inspire House served as a venue to connect individuals from various sectors, from fashion to humanitarian aid, to discuss the ways in which technology, entrepreneurship and innovative thinking can be harnessed to inspire and empower the next generation of young leaders.

Over the course of three days, the partners brought together individuals to discuss global engagement with MY World, a global survey for citizens led by the United Nations and its partners, and highlight Pay It Forward, a movement that harnesses the power of women’s networks to positively impact the future of women leaders around the world.

More: http://www.looktothestars.org/news/10620-monique-coleman-pays-it-forward-with-girl-up

Musicians on Call supporter Amos Lee will tour the U.S. this fall in support of his fifth studio album, Mountains Of Sorrow, Rivers Of Song, which will be released on October 8 by Blue Note Records.

The headline run will kick off on November 5 at Riverside Theatre in Milwaukee, and Amos will donate $1 from each ticket sold during the fall tour to Musicians on Call.

More: http://www.looktothestars.org/news/10619-amos-lee-supports-charity-with-new-tour

HowardLake posted a photo:

Here is your chance to meet Dick Van Dyke, his wife Arlene and Geffen Playhouse Board Chairman Frank Mancuso for lunch at the Malibu Beach Inn.

A new online auction is giving you the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to sit down with the stage and screen legend and benefit the Geffen Playhouse. Founded by theater, film and television luminary Gil Cates, the Geffen Playhouse has been an integral part of Los Angeles theater since opening its doors in 1995. Noted for its intimacy and celebrated for its commitment to the development of new plays, the Geffen Playhouse continues to present a body of work that garners national recognition. Named in honor of entertainment mogul and philanthropist David Geffen, who made the initial donation to the theater, the organization is currently helmed by Artistic Director Randall Arney, Managing Director Ken Novice and Chairman of the Board Frank Mancuso. An active member of the community, the Geffen Playhouse has a groundbreaking education and outreach program that targets students, seniors and everyone in between who otherwise would not have access to live theater.

Actor, comedian, writer, singer, dancer, and producer Dick Van Dyke has had a career spanning seven decades. Van Dyke starred in such iconic films as Bye Bye Birdie, Mary Poppins and Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and in the TV series The Dick Van Dyke Show and Diagnosis: Murder. He has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame and received The Life Achievement Award at the annual Screen Actors Guild Awards ceremony on January 27, 2013.

More: http://www.looktothestars.org/news/10618-have-lunch-with-dick-van-dyke-for-charity