giving/philanthropy

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

Catherine Bennett
theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

I want to start this week with a blatant plug for a job I'm recruiting for. I'm looking for a talented, ambitious and hard working Direct Marketing Exec to join my team. The deadline is Monday, but I can take late applications for outstanding candidates. Get in touch if you'd like to know more.

Plug  over and on to this week's reading round up...

There has been a lot of discussion about this article in the Daily Telegraph on charity Chief Executive pay. This response from Derek Humphries on UK Fundraising is the best response I've seen.

Pamela Grow on the Shoemaker and the elves and fundraising success.

 A couple of posts from 101 Fundraising:

• How are you managing your donor journeys?
• Giving in the name of
• 30 letters that changed the world.

 Paul shares some great links on mobile.

What do donors think of text campaigns? Kivi has the answer.

According to Amanda, the devil is in the detail.

Karen on using emotion to get action.

Veritus Group on head and heart messaging.

Good Works: how well do you thank your donors?

Future Fundraising Now have a great guest post on winning the overhead battle.

Can you give your donors an occasional miracle?

Over at the Agitator, I loved this use of the telephone to keep donors informed.

Lucy with seven tips to be a brilliant fundraiser.

The Fundraising Coach with fifteen mistakes that have already been made for you.

On a related theme, Clarification blog on the Old Macdonald theory of outstanding fundraising qualities.

This made me smile: A fundraising letter from Prince Leia via Agents of Good, Rory Green and Fundraising Yoda. Also contains some great direct mail tips!

One of the paradoxes of engaging in social media is that the busier you are doing things that are actually worth blogging or tweeting about, the less time you have to blog and tweet.

These past 4 months I have been immersed in rich data on rich givers – writing up a year of in-depth study of UK philanthropists for a new book Richer Lives: why rich people give, co-authored with the wonderful Theresa Lloyd, which thankfully – after many many late nights of writing and re-writing – was sent off to the printers last week and will be published on the 30th September.

I’ll write more about the findings once I don’t risk spoiling the media embargo, and once I’ve got off my chest all the things I’ve wanted to write about but have been too busy to breathe never mind blog.

The first ‘something worth blogging about’ is a new effort to encourage more open data on philanthropic activity. The Indigo Trust  is helping to promote an important initiative to encourage UK donors to be more transparent in their grant making. As a researcher, I’m obviously all for people sharing the detail of how much they give and to what causes, but there is a much more important agenda at stake here than making the lives of researchers that bit easier. Opacity favours none and causes concern to many – we all know there is a climate of suspicion about philanthropy and philanthropists in the UK, so why not dispel some misconceptions about the shady goings-on of rich givers and cast a light on what they actually do, rather than what the cynics think they do?

In a note of the first meeting to discuss this initiative, Indigo explain the benefits better than I can:

We believe that being transparent in itself is the right thing to do, but the reasons for encouraging openness go far beyond this.  In summary, openness makes grant making better.  We believe that opening up grant data will enable more effective collaboration amongst funders and between civil society and funders, allow for more effective strategic planning which will ensure that money gets to where it’s needed the most, enable grant-makers to assess their impact and demonstrate this to the public and enable analysis of interventions across a whole sector such as health or higher education.

If you want to keep up with developments then check out the Open Philanthropy UK blog  – and if you’re a philanthropist keen to emerge from the shadows and shine a spotlight on your giving decisions, then do get in touch!

Report post

One of the paradoxes of engaging in social media is that the busier you are doing things that are actually worth blogging or tweeting about, the less time you have to blog and tweet.

These past 4 months I have been immersed in rich data on rich givers – writing up a year of in-depth study of UK philanthropists for a new book Richer Lives: why rich people give, co-authored with the wonderful Theresa Lloyd, which thankfully – after many many late nights of writing and re-writing – was sent off to the printers last week and will be published on the 30th September.

I’ll write more about the findings once I don’t risk spoiling the media embargo, and once I’ve got off my chest all the things I’ve wanted to write about but have been too busy to breathe never mind blog.

The first ‘something worth blogging about’ is a new effort to encourage more open data on philanthropic activity. The Indigo Trust  is helping to promote an important initiative to encourage UK donors to be more transparent in their grant making. As a researcher, I’m obviously all for people sharing the detail of how much they give and to what causes, but there is a much more important agenda at stake here than making the lives of researchers that bit easier. Opacity favours none and causes concern to many – we all know there is a climate of suspicion about philanthropy and philanthropists in the UK, so why not dispel some misconceptions about the shady goings-on of rich givers and cast a light on what they actually do, rather than what the cynics think they do?

In a note of the first meeting to discuss this initiative, Indigo explain the benefits better than I can:

We believe that being transparent in itself is the right thing to do, but the reasons for encouraging openness go far beyond this.  In summary, openness makes grant making better.  We believe that opening up grant data will enable more effective collaboration amongst funders and between civil society and funders, allow for more effective strategic planning which will ensure that money gets to where it’s needed the most, enable grant-makers to assess their impact and demonstrate this to the public and enable analysis of interventions across a whole sector such as health or higher education.

If you want to keep up with developments then check out the Open Philanthropy UK blog  – and if you’re a philanthropist keen to emerge from the shadows and shine a spotlight on your giving decisions, then do get in touch!

Report post

I'm the proud host of July's nonprofit blog carnival and this month we are looking at regular giving.

Monthly giving is the backbone of many individual giving programmes, but it can be hard to get right, especially in small charities . This month we'll be looking at how to acquire monthly givers, how to welcome them to your nonprofit and then how to look after them so they keep giving for many years.

Acquiring monthly givers and general advice

The main sources of recruiting monthly givers include:

• Street fundraising
• Door to door fundraising
• Direct response television
• Direct mail
• Panels on trains and in washrooms
• Asking your current supporters to sign up

The effectiveness and popularity of each method depends on where you are in the world and the budget you have available.

As acquisition becomes increasingly expensive it is important that fundraisers think creatively about recruiting new donors.

Pamela Grow shares advice on how to start up a monthly giving programme.

A Small Change on setting expectations for your programmes.

The Fundraising Authority with seven steps to launching a monthly giving program at your nonprofit.

Joanne Fritz at About.com posts eight tips for keeping monthly giving simple.

Kunye Consulting with a view on regular giving from South Africa.

SOFII has a wealth of examples of great monthly giving campaigns and products. Here are a few of my favourites:

• Dogs Trust sponsor a puppy product.
• The story of the origins of street fundraising by Greenpeace.
• Save the Children's Gaza campaign - used SMS and then telephone to convert to monthly giving.

Welcome and thank you

Depending on the type of recruitment you use for regular givers, attrition can be up to 65 per cent in year one. That's why it is so important that you do everything you can to welcome your new donors and make them feel appreciated.

Read how WRVS reduced their first gift attrition by 40% by sending a simple, heartfelt and personalised postcard.

101 Fundraising on calculating retention and building a retention and development strategy.

mGive share how you can use mobile and text giving to build a regular giving community.

Stewardship

Once you've welcomed and thanked your donors, you need to think how you are going to build your communications programme to inspire your donors and make them glad they gave.

Stuart Glen shares a lovely story about how he received a personal thank you for his monthly gift to Child's i.

Over at Pamela Grow's blog, Lisa Sargent shares some thoughts on the importance of on-going communication with your regular donors and getting your back end systems working correctly.

The Clarification blog share seven ways to build rapport with your donors using creative thank you's.

The Nonprofit Consultant blog on how your regular givers are changing.

August's nonprofit blog carnival

Kivi Leroux Miller at Nonprofit Marketing Guide is hosting next month's carnival and the topic is "playing nice with others" so you can get more work done, and done effectively, in a nonprofit environment.

Thanks for reading July's carnival - do get in touch if you have any questions or comments.

P.S. If you want to become a “Friend of the Carnival” and receive emails twice a month with reminders about the Carnival from Joanne Fritz, the nonprofit guide at About.com and manager of the carnival, you can sign up for the mailing list here. - See more at: http://www.nonprofitmarketingguide.com/blog/2013/07/30/need-your-posts-on-getting-along-with-others/#sthash.dHO3feKb.dpuf P.S. If you want to become a “Friend of the Carnival” and receive emails twice a month with reminders about the Carnival from Joanne Fritz, the nonprofit guide at About.com and manager of the carnival, you can sign up for the mailing list here. - See more at: http://www.nonprofitmarketingguide.com/blog/2013/07/30/need-your-posts-on-getting-along-with-others/#sthash.dHO3feKb.dpuf

P.S. You can become a "Friend of the Carnival" and sign up for regular updates from Joanne Fritz, the nonprofit guide at About.com and manager of the carnival.

P.S. If you want to become a “Friend of the Carnival” and receive emails twice a month with reminders about the Carnival from Joanne Fritz, the nonprofit guide at About.com and manager of the carnival, you can sign up for the mailing list here. - See more at: http://www.nonprofitmarketingguide.com/blog/2013/07/30/need-your-posts-on-getting-along-with-others/#sthash.dHO3feKb.dpuf

A couple of days later than usual, here is my latest round-up of articles worth reading. Enjoy.

Amanda dissects a thank you letter she received from Sightsavers.

The Fundraising Collective reflect on the 2013 IoF Convention.

Lucy finally quits supporting a charity after over a decade of support. It couldn't happen to your organisation could it?

 Kevin skips Twitter for a week. What did he learn?

 Agents of Good are donor focussed.

Future Fundraising Now share another stupid nonprofit ad.

Sean with a great way to destroy your individual giving fundraising.

Five questions determine if you can know a charity's effectiveness.

Nancy shares a lovely story about her 107 year old aunt and relationship building.

Karen gives us 13 quick tips on acquisition and retention.

Change Fundraising on when to refuse a donation.

The latest series of posts by the Veritus Group is on staff retention.

Seven steps to setting up a major gift solicitation meeting from the Fundraising Coach.

Seth on marketing magic beans.

As one fundraising website is suspended, we look at how the key players operate and whether all your money gets through

Millions of people generously pledge money online, sponsoring friends and colleagues to complete a sporting event for a charity. But how safe is the cash and how sure can donors be that their money will reach the charity?

Last week one online service, Charitygiving.co.uk, was suspended, with an estimated £250,000 of charitable donations missing, raising concerns for anyone who has donated via a fundraising website.

The Charity Commission, the independent regulator of charities in England and Wales, suspended the CharityGiving site after an inquiry into the registered charity that runs it, the Dove Trust. "It appears there is an estimated £250,000 shortfall between the funds CharityGiving holds and what it owes to charities," said a Charity Commission spokesperson.

Approximately 7,000 people have been raising funds for charities via the portal but the commission, which has appointed an interim manager to investigate, has yet to establish which charities and donors are affected.

Donors and charities can contact the interim manager, Pesh Framjee of accountants Crowe Clark Whitehill, on 0207 842 7313 – or email DoveTrustInterimManager@crowecw.co.uk.

This is the first such scandal in the online fundraising sector – where individuals have, until now, generally assumed their donations are safe. CharityGiving is a tiny player in a market dominated by large, established portals including the world's largest platform for charitable giving JustGiving and not-for-profit platforms run by financial services company Virgin Money and telecoms giant BT.

CharityGiving is also unusual in being run by a registered charity; hence the involvement of the Charity Commission as regulator. There is no dedicated regulator of fundraising platforms run by non-charities.

Aiming to put the suspension of CharityGiving into context, Michelle Russell, head of investigations and enforcement at the Charity Commission, said: "Our concerns are limited to the Dove Trust and the CharityGiving portal, and this should not undermine public confidence in online giving."

The big players in the online fundraising sector were last week keenly reassuring donors and fundraisers shaken by the demise of CharityGiving.

JustGiving chief executive Zarine Kharas said: "The news that charitygiving.co.uk has closed should remind charities and donors to ensure they are giving through a route which separates out, and ring-fences, all donations from the provider itself.

"What has happened could not happen with us because every gross donation made via JustGiving goes into a separate trust account and is passed on to the relevant charity within three days of the donation being made. So if JustGiving were ever to go bust, all donations would be protected."

When it comes to Virgin and BT, many will rely on the power of the brand name. A spokesperson for Virgin Money Giving, said: "We have access to the support, infrastructure and financial services expertise of the Virgin Money group to ensure that our service is both reliable and secure.

"The board of directors includes external members to substantiate governance and all donations that come to Virgin Money Giving are held in a ring-fenced trust account and passed in full to charities on a weekly basis."

Gross donations paid in to BT MyDonate, also go straight into a trust account and are passed on to charities on a weekly basis via a BACS transfer, while the gift aid it collects gets passed on within a month.

But security is not the only factor donors and fundraisers should be aware of.

There are also differences in how much each of the websites charges charities for their service and, hence, how much of donors' donations plus gift aid actually gets passed on.

When Guardian Money compared the main providers, we found that BT's service is the best way for charities to receive the most from donations.

JustGiving

The biggest player in the sector, channelling £1.5bn to over 13,000 charities since its launch in 2001, JustGiving is a private company that recorded profits of £1.4m in 2011.

In the UK, where it reclaims an extra 25% on donations via the gift aid scheme, it charges charities £15 a month plus a fee of between 2% and 5% (volume discounts apply) on every donation. Card transaction fees of 1.3% are also deducted.

"We hand over 100% of each donation made to the relevant charity within days. We then reclaim the gift aid, which can take weeks, and take our fee out of that before passing it on to the charity," a spokesperson says.

On a £10 donation plus £2.50 gift aid, a charity charged 2% commission will get £12.17 after deduction of 20p commission and 13p card transaction fee, while a charity charged 5% commission will get £11.87 after deduction of 50p commission and 13p card fee.

Virgin Money Giving

With more than 6,500 charities registered, Virgin Money Giving has delivered more than £200m to charity since it was established in 2009. As a not-for-profit operation, it says it charges "just enough to cover our running costs when operating at scale".

Charities pay a one-off set-up fee of £100+VAT and are charged 2% of donations. A card processing fee is also deducted; 1.45% applies to all credit and debit cards except American Express, which is 1.6%. The processing fee for PayPal is also 1.6%.

On a £10 donation with £2.50 gift aid added, the charity will get £12.15 after deduction of 20p in commission and a 15p card processing fee.

MyDonate

Launched in 2011 as part of BT's "better future" corporate responsibility programme, the company bears all the costs of providing the not-for-profit service so that charities pay no fees and get 100% of donations, with gift aid if applicable.

The only fees deducted are charges levied by the donor's own credit/debit card company; a 15p flat rate fee for a debit card transaction of any size or a 1.3% credit card charge.

On a £10 donation with £2.50 gift aid added, the charity will get £12.35, with a 15p debit card deduction or £12.37 with a 13p credit card deduction.

BT claims: "Your chosen charity will receive up to 50p more for every £10 donated (excluding gift aid) through MyDonate when compared with other online fundraising services."

• Charitable giving
• Consumer affairs
• Charities

Jill Papworth
theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

As one fundraising website is suspended, we look at how the key players operate and whether all your money gets through

Millions of people generously pledge money online, sponsoring friends and colleagues to complete a sporting event for a charity. But how safe is the cash and how sure can donors be that their money will reach the charity?

Last week one online service, Charitygiving.co.uk, was suspended, with an estimated £250,000 of charitable donations missing, raising concerns for anyone who has donated via a fundraising website.

The Charity Commission, the independent regulator of charities in England and Wales, suspended the CharityGiving site after an inquiry into the registered charity that runs it, the Dove Trust. "It appears there is an estimated £250,000 shortfall between the funds CharityGiving holds and what it owes to charities," said a Charity Commission spokesperson.

Approximately 7,000 people have been raising funds for charities via the portal but the commission, which has appointed an interim manager to investigate, has yet to establish which charities and donors are affected.

Donors and charities can contact the interim manager, Pesh Framjee of accountants Crowe Clark Whitehill, on 0207 842 7313 – or email DoveTrustInterimManager@crowecw.co.uk.

This is the first such scandal in the online fundraising sector – where individuals have, until now, generally assumed their donations are safe. CharityGiving is a tiny player in a market dominated by large, established portals including the world's largest platform for charitable giving JustGiving and not-for-profit platforms run by financial services company Virgin Money and telecoms giant BT.

CharityGiving is also unusual in being run by a registered charity; hence the involvement of the Charity Commission as regulator. There is no dedicated regulator of fundraising platforms run by non-charities.

Aiming to put the suspension of CharityGiving into context, Michelle Russell, head of investigations and enforcement at the Charity Commission, said: "Our concerns are limited to the Dove Trust and the CharityGiving portal, and this should not undermine public confidence in online giving."

The big players in the online fundraising sector were last week keenly reassuring donors and fundraisers shaken by the demise of CharityGiving.

JustGiving chief executive Zarine Kharas said: "The news that charitygiving.co.uk has closed should remind charities and donors to ensure they are giving through a route which separates out, and ring-fences, all donations from the provider itself.

"What has happened could not happen with us because every gross donation made via JustGiving goes into a separate trust account and is passed on to the relevant charity within three days of the donation being made. So if JustGiving were ever to go bust, all donations would be protected."

When it comes to Virgin and BT, many will rely on the power of the brand name. A spokesperson for Virgin Money Giving, said: "We have access to the support, infrastructure and financial services expertise of the Virgin Money group to ensure that our service is both reliable and secure.

"The board of directors includes external members to substantiate governance and all donations that come to Virgin Money Giving are held in a ring-fenced trust account and passed in full to charities on a weekly basis."

Gross donations paid in to BT MyDonate, also go straight into a trust account and are passed on to charities on a weekly basis via a BACS transfer, while the gift aid it collects gets passed on within a month.

But security is not the only factor donors and fundraisers should be aware of.

There are also differences in how much each of the websites charges charities for their service and, hence, how much of donors' donations plus gift aid actually gets passed on.

When Guardian Money compared the main providers, we found that BT's service is the best way for charities to receive the most from donations.

JustGiving

The biggest player in the sector, channelling £1.5bn to over 13,000 charities since its launch in 2001, JustGiving is a private company that recorded profits of £1.4m in 2011.

In the UK, where it reclaims an extra 25% on donations via the gift aid scheme, it charges charities £15 a month plus a fee of between 2% and 5% (volume discounts apply) on every donation. Card transaction fees of 1.3% are also deducted.

"We hand over 100% of each donation made to the relevant charity within days. We then reclaim the gift aid, which can take weeks, and take our fee out of that before passing it on to the charity," a spokesperson says.

On a £10 donation plus £2.50 gift aid, a charity charged 2% commission will get £12.17 after deduction of 20p commission and 13p card transaction fee, while a charity charged 5% commission will get £11.87 after deduction of 50p commission and 13p card fee.

Virgin Money Giving

With more than 6,500 charities registered, Virgin Money Giving has delivered more than £200m to charity since it was established in 2009. As a not-for-profit operation, it says it charges "just enough to cover our running costs when operating at scale".

Charities pay a one-off set-up fee of £100+VAT and are charged 2% of donations. A card processing fee is also deducted; 1.45% applies to all credit and debit cards except American Express, which is 1.6%. The processing fee for PayPal is also 1.6%.

On a £10 donation with £2.50 gift aid added, the charity will get £12.15 after deduction of 20p in commission and a 15p card processing fee.

MyDonate

Launched in 2011 as part of BT's "better future" corporate responsibility programme, the company bears all the costs of providing the not-for-profit service so that charities pay no fees and get 100% of donations, with gift aid if applicable.

The only fees deducted are charges levied by the donor's own credit/debit card company; a 15p flat rate fee for a debit card transaction of any size or a 1.3% credit card charge.

On a £10 donation with £2.50 gift aid added, the charity will get £12.35, with a 15p debit card deduction or £12.37 with a 13p credit card deduction.

BT claims: "Your chosen charity will receive up to 50p more for every £10 donated (excluding gift aid) through MyDonate when compared with other online fundraising services."

• Charitable giving
• Consumer affairs
• Charities

Jill Papworth
theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

From Raphael to Picasso, our heritage is being squandered by a rich elite who would rather sell paintings than save them

According to the Tate chairman Lord Browne, Britain can give itself half a pat on the back. We are the eighth most generous nation in the world in terms of charitable donations, according to the world giving index. However, we are some way behind Americans and Australians.

Browne gave a speech last night calling for a new approach to philanthropic support for the arts. But he would not have had to make it if there were no problem with charitable giving to the arts in Britain. The average British charity donation per head is 0.5% of income. That percentage, in Browne's words, is "relatively flat across the income scale, which is a sign that philanthropy is widespread." But, as he gently hinted – and as I am about to put in far starker terms – there is another way to read that information.

That flatness means the rich in Britain give on average the same proportion of their wealth to charity that those on lower incomes do – which actually makes them impressively stingy. Our middle classes may be "decent", as Browne claimed, but our millionaires are mean: if charitable giving in Britain were compulsory, it would on these figures be a flat tax.

In the arts, this is becoming a problem. Lord Browne put it carefully and in the language of consensus, obviously hoping to persuade, but the fact is that museums and galleries are increasingly desperate for big donations from society's richest.

Fat chance.

When Picasso's painting Child with a Dove went on the market recently, the custodians of culture hoped for a super-generous white knight to come along – and were crushingly disappointed. No one stepped in, and the painting was sold abroad. Lord Inglewood told the BBC: "While steps are being taken to increase philanthropy in this country, this suggests they may not be enough."

Why are the rich in Britain so lacking in public spirit? In fact, to talk of philanthropy may be missing the point. When it comes to art, our elite are more interested in making money than giving it. Why did the nation have to buy Titian's two great masterpieces from the Duke of Sutherland? Because otherwise he was going to sell them abroad. Similarly, Picasso's masterpiece was sold by its aristocratic owners, the Aberconway family.

Last year, I got stung myself by the aristocracy. I went to Chatsworth in Derbyshire to write in praise of a new gallery created by the Duke of Devonshire for his famous collection of old master drawings. I assumed this was some sort of public-spirited act. But there was more going on. Last December, a Raphael drawing from the duke's collection sold for nearly £30m. The Duke claims the sale will help run Chatsworth and fund its art. But that's a Raphael, casually sold off.

Philanthropy? Before getting the rich to subsidise our art heritage, we need to stop them profiting from it.

• Painting
• Art
• The art market
• Pablo Picasso
• Raphael
• Titian
• Heritage
• Charitable giving
• Consumer affairs
• Philanthropy

Jonathan Jones
theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

From Raphael to Picasso, our heritage is being squandered by a rich elite who would rather sell paintings than save them

According to the Tate chairman Lord Browne, Britain can give itself half a pat on the back. We are the eighth most generous nation in the world in terms of charitable donations, according to the world giving index. However, we are some way behind Americans and Australians.

Browne gave a speech last night calling for a new approach to philanthropic support for the arts. But he would not have had to make it if there were no problem with charitable giving to the arts in Britain. The average British charity donation per head is 0.5% of income. That percentage, in Browne's words, is "relatively flat across the income scale, which is a sign that philanthropy is widespread." But, as he gently hinted – and as I am about to put in far starker terms – there is another way to read that information.

That flatness means the rich in Britain give on average the same proportion of their wealth to charity that those on lower incomes do – which actually makes them impressively stingy. Our middle classes may be "decent", as Browne claimed, but our millionaires are mean: if charitable giving in Britain were compulsory, it would on these figures be a flat tax.

In the arts, this is becoming a problem. Lord Browne put it carefully and in the language of consensus, obviously hoping to persuade, but the fact is that museums and galleries are increasingly desperate for big donations from society's richest.

Fat chance.

When Picasso's painting Child with a Dove went on the market recently, the custodians of culture hoped for a super-generous white knight to come along – and were crushingly disappointed. No one stepped in, and the painting was sold abroad. Lord Inglewood told the BBC: "While steps are being taken to increase philanthropy in this country, this suggests they may not be enough."

Why are the rich in Britain so lacking in public spirit? In fact, to talk of philanthropy may be missing the point. When it comes to art, our elite are more interested in making money than giving it. Why did the nation have to buy Titian's two great masterpieces from the Duke of Sutherland? Because otherwise he was going to sell them abroad. Similarly, Picasso's masterpiece was sold by its aristocratic owners, the Aberconway family.

Last year, I got stung myself by the aristocracy. I went to Chatsworth in Derbyshire to write in praise of a new gallery created by the Duke of Devonshire for his famous collection of old master drawings. I assumed this was some sort of public-spirited act. But there was more going on. Last December, a Raphael drawing from the duke's collection sold for nearly £30m. The Duke claims the sale will help run Chatsworth and fund its art. But that's a Raphael, casually sold off.

Philanthropy? Before getting the rich to subsidise our art heritage, we need to stop them profiting from it.

• Painting
• Art
• The art market
• Pablo Picasso
• Raphael
• Titian
• Heritage
• Charitable giving
• Consumer affairs
• Philanthropy

Jonathan Jones
theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

I had a great time at the IoF Convention last week. It was great to chat to so many fundraising folk and to attend some thought provoking sessions. I'll share some of my learnings next week.

In the meantime here are some articles that have caught my eye recently. Enjoy the sunshine!

From the IoF Convention:

Notes from Tony Elischer's inspiring Monday plenary.

Alan Clayton on why we cannot fundraise alone.

Simon Shriver shares his notes from convention.

Elsewhere:

The PFRA launch a newsletter for councils. There's some good info on face to face fundraising that fundraisers can use too.

Kevin on turning buzzwords into action.

Rosie shares her favourite charity newsletter and some tips to improve yours.

Karen shares her newsletter tips too.

Two posts on capital appeals. Richard Turner on the private phase and Simon George on feasability studies.

Ten copywriting tips from Dr Seuss by Stuart Glen. 

Cause 4 Opinion ask where are the UK's social innovators?

Veritus Group look at emotional intelligence and major gift fundraising.

Donor Dreams Blog: Why spray and pray fundraising strategies don't work anymore.

Lucy with ten tips to get the best deal every time.

Penelope Burk discusses what causes donor burnout.

Good Works with eight tips for donor retention.

Nonprofit brand: who are you? A guest post worth checking out at Future Fundraising Now.

Another great retention article (and a simple calculation to help you) on 101 Fundraising.

Pamela Grow on the importance of getting your backend systems in place for monthly giving.

Four ways to create a culture of giving at your nonprofit.

Today is the start of the annual Institute of Fundraising Convention. If you are going along, then do come and say hello - it would be lovely to meet you.

As I've been working on my presentations over the weekend, it means I'm a bit late with the reading round-up. Sorry for the delay!

The Fundraising Collective on Impossibly Monstrous Projects.

Barbara Talisman: Donors don't have to give anything.

Are you adding to your donor's 'experience CV'? asks Amanda.

Charlie on how to make your story stand out.

Stuart Glen joins the blogging scence and shares his thoughts on in-memory giving.

Tom Peters goes from outraged to open minded about the use of big data.

Copyblogger looks at the evolution of permission marketing.

Fututre Fundraising Now with nine ways to be an antil-donor fundraiser.

Veritus Group share 26 conversation tips.

Kivi wants to know if your nonprofit is ready to be super relevant?

Why screaming goats and random cats matter. Conor Byrne gives his opinion.

20 symptoms of fundraising trouble by Reinier at 101 Fundraisin.

This list of fundraising ideas that Change Fundraising will never do made me smile.

Paul shares some bits and bobs about mobile.

Charity Chicks reflect upon Once Upon I Wish I'd Thought Of That.

Do you know your failure rate asks the Agitators?

The best fundraising offer that Agents of Good never got.

Beth wants to know if you are a giver, taker, or matcher?

Karen Zapp: Ignoring Supporters. Donors and members retaliate.

 

Not only does the public not appreciate be accosted by strangers asking for money in the street, 'chugging' ignores the fact that most of us give in many other ways

An important point not mentioned in your article on the problems with 'chugging' is the simple fact that there are a lot more people living on or below the bread line as the economic squeeze continues with no end in sight.

I must admit that I personally dislike this form of fundraising and consider it to be one of the worst ways to raise awareness for any charity, the only one worse than this is the 'knock on the door' at teatime with the same 'guilt trip' message hammered home by the young person in the charity shirt.

What many of these charities using guilt and bully tactics overlook is what happens during the course of an average day for some of us – I'll use myself as an example. I buy goods that support growers and farmers from the local shops to support local business; my change goes into the charity tin on the counter or to the quiet folk simply standing with a tin at the doorway. I will pay for someone to pack my goods to support a local charity and sponsor friends and family doing things to raise money for good causes. All of this is done whilst juggling bills and day to day expenses, just to get by. Then I am accosted by someone with a clipboard demanding my bank details, while saying to me: "But it's only X amount per month..."

It is ironic that even some of the larger charities have not learned anything from the TV, where huge fundraising happens every year. Those campaigns entertain, educates and make people laugh and cry, and they raise millions in a matter of hours. It works because it does not simply expect you to put your hand in your pocket or give your bank details. It works because it engages you without the bully tactics. I am not saying that this is the perfect way to fundraise, as I know there have been scandals, but to me it is far better than accosting strangers in the street.

Peter Dean

Partner and web design consultant at Debayne Web Design

Views and reviews is a weekly space to share the correspondence we get from our readers and also for our members to tell us what global development books you are reading. Sign up here to become a member

• Fundraising
• Charities
• Charitable giving
• Aid

theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Not only does the public not appreciate be accosted by strangers asking for money in the street, 'chugging' ignores the fact that most of us give in many other ways

An important point not mentioned in your article on the problems with 'chugging' is the simple fact that there are a lot more people living on or below the bread line as the economic squeeze continues with no end in sight.

I must admit that I personally dislike this form of fundraising and consider it to be one of the worst ways to raise awareness for any charity, the only one worse than this is the 'knock on the door' at teatime with the same 'guilt trip' message hammered home by the young person in the charity shirt.

What many of these charities using guilt and bully tactics overlook is what happens during the course of an average day for some of us – I'll use myself as an example. I buy goods that support growers and farmers from the local shops to support local business; my change goes into the charity tin on the counter or to the quiet folk simply standing with a tin at the doorway. I will pay for someone to pack my goods to support a local charity and sponsor friends and family doing things to raise money for good causes. All of this is done whilst juggling bills and day to day expenses, just to get by. Then I am accosted by someone with a clipboard demanding my bank details, while saying to me: "But it's only X amount per month..."

It is ironic that even some of the larger charities have not learned anything from the TV, where huge fundraising happens every year. Those campaigns entertain, educates and make people laugh and cry, and they raise millions in a matter of hours. It works because it does not simply expect you to put your hand in your pocket or give your bank details. It works because it engages you without the bully tactics. I am not saying that this is the perfect way to fundraise, as I know there have been scandals, but to me it is far better than accosting strangers in the street.

Peter Dean

Partner and web design consultant at Debayne Web Design

Views and reviews is a weekly space to share the correspondence we get from our readers and also for our members to tell us what global development books you are reading. Sign up here to become a member

• Fundraising
• Charities
• Charitable giving
• Aid

theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

I'm delighted to be hosting the Nonprofit Blog Carnival again this year. The carnival is a great way to share tips, advice and case studies on a specific topic and I hope people will take the opportunity to blog and share their stories. I'll do a full round up at the end of July.

July's theme is: Regular (AKA sustainer & monthly) giving

I've chosen this topic as it is the bedrock of many fundraising programmes - especially outside North America. I'm looking for people to share their insight and tips on:

• Acquiring regular donors
• Converting your current givers (and is it always wise and worthwhile?)
• Welcoming and thanking regular donors
• Retaining and upgrading donors

It's a huge topic and I look forward to gathering the best posts and collating them in my final round-up at the end of July.

How to participate in the July Nonprofit Blog Carnival

If you’d like to share your thoughts on Regular Giving, submit your post (or send along one you’ve published recently) – by emailing the URL to nonprofitcarnival@gmail.com – no later than  July 27, 2013.

Then check back on this blog on  July 30 to see the full Regular Giving carnival round-up.

In the meantime, check out the June Nonprofit Blog Carnival over at Wild Apricot. The topic is one close to my heart: Data for Good.

If you want to become a “Friend of the Carnival” and receive emails twice a month with reminders about the Carnival - click here  to sign up.

Chugging – street fundraising – turns members of the public into prey, releasing adrenalin that triggers fight or flight instincts. It'll take a little more imagination to create behaviour change

It's a beautiful day and as I walk down a busy street, I'm feeling good. I'm in control. But then I get the feeling that I'm being watched, that I've been caught in a predator's gaze. Looking around, I see her – a chugger. I begin to weigh up my options (walk faster; pretend to be on the phone; find another way across) when the worst thing possible happens. We make eye contact. Now confrontation is inevitable, as are the lies I must invariably tell to get out of this situation:

"Sorry, do you have two minutes?"

"No", I answer.

Her senses are sharp and she can tell I am uncertain, so presses on: "Have you heard of Unicef?," she asks.

"Yes".

She flips open her folder and an African child's eyes stare up at me: "Have you considered supporting us?"

"Ehh, yes, I'm a member," I say without thinking.

"We don't have members," she shoots back.

Defeated, I mutter: "Ahh. Ok ... I gave some money once …"

I'm sinking now, my internal peace eroding as I begin to feel morally inferior. The chugger represents the good in the world, and has a UN logo to prove it. I represent the moral decline of my society. We have become such selfish bastards that we don't even want to stop and listen, let alone care about anyone else's troubles.

City dwellers across the global north can identify with that experience. Our days are littered with these interactions in which we have just three options: the first, say you support other NGOs and feel bad it's a weak lie. Second, show interest in the subject matter but not in giving funds, and hope the chugger loses interest. Or third, surrender your bank details. You'll feel good about none of the above because you've simply done what was expected of you. However you slice it, you lose.

So what can we learn from this? For me chugging – or street fundraising – represents three things that are wrong with much of development communications. 1. It presents a negative and pessimistic world view, and mostly uses negative and stereotypical imagery. 2. It triggers action out of guilt, and does not motivate or educate. 3. It lacks creativity.

Indeed, a lot of development communications is about pursuing target audiences with negative pictures, and with messages that tell people what to do or think. An exaggerated version of many fundraising messages says: "The world is falling apart, you should care, we (with the help of some celebrities) are on the case, but we need your money."

Of course fundraising is necessary, but there is a flipside to this type of messaging: the repeated negative portrayal of communities does not make us care more, but less. It makes us feel bad and we stick our heads in the sand. The reason? Being confronted by a chugger releases adrenaline, and adrenaline is not what you want to stimulate if you want to motivate people to give, think or change behaviour.

What is needed instead is the release of endorphins. When we laugh and when our curiosity is sparked, endorphins makes us relax, and help lower our personal defences. Humour and creative curiosity also invites people to think for themselves. I don't like it when people tell me what to think, so why should I ask others to?

Last year my organisation, SAIH, made a music video 'Africa for Norway', a spoof that questioned development messaging. The success of that video helped me realise that although an issue is really important, it doesn't have to be wrapped up in a serious way to make its point. Breaking free from conventional communication techniques isn't always easy but the benefits can be great.

Development communicators can learn a thing or two from the fun theory, an initiative started by Volkswagen and based on the idea that making something fun is the easiest way to change people's behaviour for the better. For example, instead of saying: "Work out more," a 'piano staircase' was installed at a metro station in Sweden. Doing so increased the use of the stairs by 66% .

There is reason to be optimistic that NGOs are starting to get and use this approach. In Spain a concept called 'Bet for food', developed to support the growing use of food banks in Catalonia, capitalised on the competitive passion of football fans and led to 210,000 kilos of food collected in just one month.

US NGO, Mama Hope, has also developed 'Stop the Pity' campaign, a fundraising strategy based on dignity and fun. They have had massive outreach while turning negative stereotypes of Africans on their head. New and different approaches create curiosity, which is important in order to entice people to learn more about the issues.

And the 'fun theory' concept can be extending from fundraising to campaigning. It's a simple logic: if we're smart, there will be no need to hunt people down in the streets. They will come to us.

Sindre Edland-Gryt is communication advisor at, Norwegian Students' and Academics' International Assistance Fund (SAIH). He tweets as @sindreolav

This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To get more articles like this direct to your inbox, sign up free to become a member of the Global Development Professionals Network

• Fundraising
• Communications
• Charities
• Voluntary sector
• Charitable giving
• Consumer affairs
• Fundraising

theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Chugging – street fundraising – turns members of the public into prey, releasing adrenalin that triggers fight or flight instincts. It'll take a little more imagination to create behaviour change

It's a beautiful day and as I walk down a busy street, I'm feeling good. I'm in control. But then I get the feeling that I'm being watched, that I've been caught in a predator's gaze. Looking around, I see her – a chugger. I begin to weigh up my options (walk faster; pretend to be on the phone; find another way across) when the worst thing possible happens. We make eye contact. Now confrontation is inevitable, as are the lies I must invariably tell to get out of this situation:

"Sorry, do you have two minutes?"

"No", I answer.

Her senses are sharp and she can tell I am uncertain, so presses on: "Have you heard of Unicef?," she asks.

"Yes".

She flips open her folder and an African child's eyes stare up at me: "Have you considered supporting us?"

"Ehh, yes, I'm a member," I say without thinking.

"We don't have members," she shoots back.

Defeated, I mutter: "Ahh. Ok ... I gave some money once …"

I'm sinking now, my internal peace eroding as I begin to feel morally inferior. The chugger represents the good in the world, and has a UN logo to prove it. I represent the moral decline of my society. We have become such selfish bastards that we don't even want to stop and listen, let alone care about anyone else's troubles.

City dwellers across the global north can identify with that experience. Our days are littered with these interactions in which we have just three options: the first, say you support other NGOs and feel bad it's a weak lie. Second, show interest in the subject matter but not in giving funds, and hope the chugger loses interest. Or third, surrender your bank details. You'll feel good about none of the above because you've simply done what was expected of you. However you slice it, you lose.

So what can we learn from this? For me chugging – or street fundraising – represents three things that are wrong with much of development communications. 1. It presents a negative and pessimistic world view, and mostly uses negative and stereotypical imagery. 2. It triggers action out of guilt, and does not motivate or educate. 3. It lacks creativity.

Indeed, a lot of development communications is about pursuing target audiences with negative pictures, and with messages that tell people what to do or think. An exaggerated version of many fundraising messages says: "The world is falling apart, you should care, we (with the help of some celebrities) are on the case, but we need your money."

Of course fundraising is necessary, but there is a flipside to this type of messaging: the repeated negative portrayal of communities does not make us care more, but less. It makes us feel bad and we stick our heads in the sand. The reason? Being confronted by a chugger releases adrenaline, and adrenaline is not what you want to stimulate if you want to motivate people to give, think or change behaviour.

What is needed instead is the release of endorphins. When we laugh and when our curiosity is sparked, endorphins makes us relax, and help lower our personal defences. Humour and creative curiosity also invites people to think for themselves. I don't like it when people tell me what to think, so why should I ask others to?

Last year my organisation, SAIH, made a music video 'Africa for Norway', a spoof that questioned development messaging. The success of that video helped me realise that although an issue is really important, it doesn't have to be wrapped up in a serious way to make its point. Breaking free from conventional communication techniques isn't always easy but the benefits can be great.

Development communicators can learn a thing or two from the fun theory, an initiative started by Volkswagen and based on the idea that making something fun is the easiest way to change people's behaviour for the better. For example, instead of saying: "Work out more," a 'piano staircase' was installed at a metro station in Sweden. Doing so increased the use of the stairs by 66% .

There is reason to be optimistic that NGOs are starting to get and use this approach. In Spain a concept called 'Bet for food', developed to support the growing use of food banks in Catalonia, capitalised on the competitive passion of football fans and led to 210,000 kilos of food collected in just one month.

US NGO, Mama Hope, has also developed 'Stop the Pity' campaign, a fundraising strategy based on dignity and fun. They have had massive outreach while turning negative stereotypes of Africans on their head. New and different approaches create curiosity, which is important in order to entice people to learn more about the issues.

And the 'fun theory' concept can be extending from fundraising to campaigning. It's a simple logic: if we're smart, there will be no need to hunt people down in the streets. They will come to us.

Sindre Edland-Gryt is communication advisor at, Norwegian Students' and Academics' International Assistance Fund (SAIH). He tweets as @sindreolav

This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To get more articles like this direct to your inbox, sign up free to become a member of the Global Development Professionals Network

• Fundraising
• Communications
• Charities
• Voluntary sector
• Charitable giving
• Consumer affairs
• Fundraising

theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

The Agitator has three articles on the 50 worst charities and a scandal about fundraising costs. It's not pretty reading, but contains a lot of food for thought for the ethical fundraiser. Part one, part two and part three.

Charity Chicks and Change Fundraising take a closer look at the numbers in PFRA report on complaints in fundraising. Lesson: don't believe everything you read!

Penelope Burk on the importance of the little things.

Gordon Michie with an in-depth look at telephone fundraising.

101 Fundraising on customer journey mapping and BHAG's - something my team know all about!

Clarification warns against boring your donors.

Karen looks at how you can use fiction and non-fiction techniques in your appeals.

Kevin asks why Help for Heroes is so successful?

If you commute into London via train then it's been hard to avoid the Friends of the Earth bee campaign. Open share the story of the train ad and Bluefrog talk in-depth about the donor recruitment direct mail.

The Data Monkey on Dorothys and other names on your database.

What Mick Jagger teaches us about public speaking.

Customer service technology. Part one of a seven part series from Forrester Research. Important, as many charities aren't very good at this.

I've always been a big believer in sharing fundraising results and talking candidly about what has gone well and not so well. I've found the more I'm willing to share, the more I learn.

I'm always surprised when fundraisers are reluctant to share their results. This is especially frustrating when it happens at a conference and you've no idea if the campaign being presented worked or not.

Often commercial confidence is cited as the reason to withhold sharing results. I don't buy this argument. Your cause, proposition and offer are hard to replicate so sharing some headline figures isn't going to compromise your future campaigns.

Last week saw a great of example of fundraisers coming together to share the best of our profession. The 'Once upon I wish I'd thought of that' event celebrated 20 great fundraising stories. I was really disappointed to miss the event, but read some great comments about the talks on twitter afterwards.

As lovely as it is to share success you often learn more when things go wrong.  That's why I'd thought I'd dig out a couple of old posts of mistakes I've made over the years.

Just because it worked once....

Not saying thank you

Elsewhere, one of the best examples I've read about a failed campaign and the learnings from it is Lucy Gower's candid interview with Richard Turner (then of Action Aid) about AA's failed  'What a feeling' campaign.

It can be hard to say 'I got something wrong' or 'this bombed', but often by sharing the experience you can learn from others and make improvements so you don't make the same mistake again.

So in the interests of sharing, who is brave enough to reveal their biggest fundraising mistake? Do get in touch. I'd love to hear your story.

 

 

 

I'm clearing out my mother's house and would like to give her belongings to someone who needs them. But where to begin?

Every week a Guardian Money reader submits a question, and it's up to you to help him or her out – a selection of the best answers will appear in next Saturday's paper.

This week's question

I'm clearing out my late mother's home and am wondering what to do with all her furniture, linen, pans etc. It's all good stuff and I'd like to give it to someone who really needs it – but how do I find them? I've thought of Freecycle but fear dealers could sell it on. Anyone found a solution?

What are your thoughts?

• Have you got a personal finance question you want readers to answer? Email personal.effects@guardian.co.uk

• Consumer affairs
• Charitable giving
• Death and dying
• Charities

theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds