giving/philanthropy

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

Northern & Shell boss, who operates rival Health Lottery, says he wants Camelot's licence when it next comes up

Richard Desmond has expressed an interest in bidding to run a "bigger, better" National Lottery, with ticket prices of £1, when the licence next comes up for renewal.

Desmond, who has been at loggerheads with National Lottery operator Camelot since unveiling his rival the Health Lottery in February 2011, made the claim following comments reportedly made by the rival company's chief executive, Dianne Thompson.

Thompson, who led a failed high court bid to get the Health Lottery's gambling licence revoked, has said that it is a "possibility" that Camelot might not look to bid to renew the licence it has held for 19 years because of the Health Lottery.

Speaking to GamblingCompliance.com at the European Lotteries Congress in Tel Aviv she said that it it was a possibility that Camelot would not rebid.

Desmond has seized on the PR opportunity to state that his media company Northern & Shell is interested in the franchise.

He said that if it was the successful bidder it would reduce the cost of tickets to £1 and pledged to give all profits back to charities. In January Camelot announced that the price of a ticket would be doubling later this year from £1 to £2, the first rise since the lottery was introduced in the UK nearly 20 years ago.

"I would be very happy to bid to run the National Lottery, which I will make bigger, better and British as well far more cost-effective," said Desmond. "I will raise more money for good causes and put all the profits back to support charities and good causes. I will put the ticket prices back to a pound."

Camelot declined to comment. It has been the sole licence holder since the National Lottery was set up in 1994 and has a contract to run it until 2023. Camelot's profits last year were £55m on record sales of £6.9bn.

Desmond's Health Lottery has so far raised £34m for good causes, with a top prize of £100,000.

• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email media@guardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication".

• To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook

• This article was amended on 11 June 2013 to clarify that the Lotto ticket price has not yet risen to £2. Camelot announced in January that the price would rise later in the year.

• Richard Desmond
• National Lottery
• Northern & Shell
• Newspapers & magazines
• Charities
• Charitable giving
• Consumer affairs

Northern & Shell boss, who operates rival Health Lottery, says he wants Camelot's licence when it next comes up

Richard Desmond has expressed an interest in bidding to run a "bigger, better" National Lottery, with ticket prices of £1, when the licence next comes up for renewal.

Desmond, who has been at loggerheads with National Lottery operator Camelot since unveiling his rival the Health Lottery in February 2011, made the claim following comments reportedly made by the rival company's chief executive, Dianne Thompson.

Thompson, who led a failed high court bid to get the Health Lottery's gambling licence revoked, has said that it is a "possibility" that Camelot might not look to bid to renew the licence it has held for 19 years because of the Health Lottery.

Speaking to GamblingCompliance.com at the European Lotteries Congress in Tel Aviv she said that it it was a possibility that Camelot would not rebid.

Desmond has seized on the PR opportunity to state that his media company Northern & Shell is interested in the franchise.

He said that if it was the successful bidder it would reduce the cost of tickets to £1 and pledged to give all profits back to charities. In January Camelot announced that the price of a ticket would be doubling later this year from £1 to £2, the first rise since the lottery was introduced in the UK nearly 20 years ago.

"I would be very happy to bid to run the National Lottery, which I will make bigger, better and British as well far more cost-effective," said Desmond. "I will raise more money for good causes and put all the profits back to support charities and good causes. I will put the ticket prices back to a pound."

Camelot declined to comment. It has been the sole licence holder since the National Lottery was set up in 1994 and has a contract to run it until 2023. Camelot's profits last year were £55m on record sales of £6.9bn.

Desmond's Health Lottery has so far raised £34m for good causes, with a top prize of £100,000.

• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email media@guardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication".

• To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook

• This article was amended on 11 June 2013 to clarify that the Lotto ticket price has not yet risen to £2. Camelot announced in January that the price would rise later in the year.

• Richard Desmond
• National Lottery
• Northern & Shell
• Newspapers & magazines
• Charities
• Charitable giving
• Consumer affairs

MPs have told firms involved in street fundraising that they have five years to address public concerns over the practice

A regulatory crackdown on street fundraising – known as "chugging" – is inevitable if charities fail to address public concerns over the practice, MPs have warned.

Critics of chugging, in which salespeople cajole passersby to sign up for direct debit donations to good causes, say it is a form of public harassment and causes nuisance to shoppers.

Firms involved in street fundraising, which raises about £130m a year, are regulated by the voluntary sector itself. But the report by the House of Commons public administration select committee (Pasc) says this is not working.

"It is clear that self-regulation has failed so far to generate the level of public confidence which is essential to the success of the system and the reputation of the charitable sector," it says.

The Pasc proposes the current system be "placed on notice", and if there are no improvements within five years, statutory regulation should be introduced. "There should be no complacency from the charitable sector about the need to rebuild public confidence in charity fundraising."

Fundraisers told MPs that chugging – a name derived from "charity mugging" – had attracted few complaints. Public annoyance at the practice stemmed from feelings of guilt because "some people just do not like to be asked to support charity".

The report rejected calls by a rightwing thinktank to tighten up the rules to curtail political campaigning by charities such as Shelter and Child Poverty Action group. But it does recommend that all charities be required to declare in their annual accounts what money they spend on "political and communications work".

"Clear information about how much a charity spends on political and campaigning activity would enable members of the public to make an informed choice about whether to donate based on an understanding of how an organisation would use their donation," the report says.

However, Sir Stephen Bubb, chief executive of charity umbrella body the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations (Acevo), said there was no public support for restricting charities' right to campaign and called the proposal "an unnecessary piece of red tape".

He said: "The proposal is entirely without foundation and would impose a regulatory burden that would mean more donations being spent on bureaucracy, and less on good causes. It is a regulatory madness and the government should reject it."

The report partly exonerates the Charity Commission for its apparent failure to detect a fake charity, the Cup Trust, which was used as a front for a multimillion pound tax avoidance scheme.

The commission was criticised this week by Margaret Hodge, chair of the Commons public accounts committee, who said she would launch an investigation into whether the commission was "fit for purpose".

But the Pasc report concludes that the commission, which has lost a third of its budget in two years, did not have the capacity to investigate potential tax fraud, which is the role of HMRC.

It warned that if ministers wanted the commission to investigate tax avoidance, they should fund it adequately. "Ministers must decide whether they think it is necessary to have a proactive regulator of the charitable sector, and if so, the government must increase the commission's budget and ask Parliament to clarify their powers."

• Charities
• Voluntary sector
• Consumer affairs
• Charitable giving

MPs have told firms involved in street fundraising that they have five years to address public concerns over the practice

A regulatory crackdown on street fundraising – known as "chugging" – is inevitable if charities fail to address public concerns over the practice, MPs have warned.

Critics of chugging, in which salespeople cajole passersby to sign up for direct debit donations to good causes, say it is a form of public harassment and causes nuisance to shoppers.

Firms involved in street fundraising, which raises about £130m a year, are regulated by the voluntary sector itself. But the report by the House of Commons public administration select committee (Pasc) says this is not working.

"It is clear that self-regulation has failed so far to generate the level of public confidence which is essential to the success of the system and the reputation of the charitable sector," it says.

The Pasc proposes the current system be "placed on notice", and if there are no improvements within five years, statutory regulation should be introduced. "There should be no complacency from the charitable sector about the need to rebuild public confidence in charity fundraising."

Fundraisers told MPs that chugging – a name derived from "charity mugging" – had attracted few complaints. Public annoyance at the practice stemmed from feelings of guilt because "some people just do not like to be asked to support charity".

The report rejected calls by a rightwing thinktank to tighten up the rules to curtail political campaigning by charities such as Shelter and Child Poverty Action group. But it does recommend that all charities be required to declare in their annual accounts what money they spend on "political and communications work".

"Clear information about how much a charity spends on political and campaigning activity would enable members of the public to make an informed choice about whether to donate based on an understanding of how an organisation would use their donation," the report says.

However, Sir Stephen Bubb, chief executive of charity umbrella body the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations (Acevo), said there was no public support for restricting charities' right to campaign and called the proposal "an unnecessary piece of red tape".

He said: "The proposal is entirely without foundation and would impose a regulatory burden that would mean more donations being spent on bureaucracy, and less on good causes. It is a regulatory madness and the government should reject it."

The report partly exonerates the Charity Commission for its apparent failure to detect a fake charity, the Cup Trust, which was used as a front for a multimillion pound tax avoidance scheme.

The commission was criticised this week by Margaret Hodge, chair of the Commons public accounts committee, who said she would launch an investigation into whether the commission was "fit for purpose".

But the Pasc report concludes that the commission, which has lost a third of its budget in two years, did not have the capacity to investigate potential tax fraud, which is the role of HMRC.

It warned that if ministers wanted the commission to investigate tax avoidance, they should fund it adequately. "Ministers must decide whether they think it is necessary to have a proactive regulator of the charitable sector, and if so, the government must increase the commission's budget and ask Parliament to clarify their powers."

• Charities
• Voluntary sector
• Consumer affairs
• Charitable giving

MPs have told firms involved in street fundraising that they have five years to address public concerns over the practice

A regulatory crackdown on street fundraising – known as "chugging" – is inevitable if charities fail to address public concerns over the practice, MPs have warned.

Critics of chugging, in which salespeople cajole passersby to sign up for direct debit donations to good causes, say it is a form of public harassment and causes nuisance to shoppers.

Firms involved in street fundraising, which raises about £130m a year, are regulated by the voluntary sector itself. But the report by the House of Commons public administration select committee (Pasc) says this is not working.

"It is clear that self-regulation has failed so far to generate the level of public confidence which is essential to the success of the system and the reputation of the charitable sector," it says.

The Pasc proposes the current system be "placed on notice", and if there are no improvements within five years, statutory regulation should be introduced. "There should be no complacency from the charitable sector about the need to rebuild public confidence in charity fundraising."

Fundraisers told MPs that chugging – a name derived from "charity mugging" – had attracted few complaints. Public annoyance at the practice stemmed from feelings of guilt because "some people just do not like to be asked to support charity".

The report rejected calls by a rightwing thinktank to tighten up the rules to curtail political campaigning by charities such as Shelter and Child Poverty Action group. But it does recommend that all charities be required to declare in their annual accounts what money they spend on "political and communications work".

"Clear information about how much a charity spends on political and campaigning activity would enable members of the public to make an informed choice about whether to donate based on an understanding of how an organisation would use their donation," the report says.

However, Sir Stephen Bubb, chief executive of charity umbrella body the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations (Acevo), said there was no public support for restricting charities' right to campaign and called the proposal "an unnecessary piece of red tape".

He said: "The proposal is entirely without foundation and would impose a regulatory burden that would mean more donations being spent on bureaucracy, and less on good causes. It is a regulatory madness and the government should reject it."

The report partly exonerates the Charity Commission for its apparent failure to detect a fake charity, the Cup Trust, which was used as a front for a multimillion pound tax avoidance scheme.

The commission was criticised this week by Margaret Hodge, chair of the Commons public accounts committee, who said she would launch an investigation into whether the commission was "fit for purpose".

But the Pasc report concludes that the commission, which has lost a third of its budget in two years, did not have the capacity to investigate potential tax fraud, which is the role of HMRC.

It warned that if ministers wanted the commission to investigate tax avoidance, they should fund it adequately. "Ministers must decide whether they think it is necessary to have a proactive regulator of the charitable sector, and if so, the government must increase the commission's budget and ask Parliament to clarify their powers."

• Charities
• Voluntary sector
• Consumer affairs
• Charitable giving

Margaret Hodge says alarm bells should have rung over Cup Trust, run by creator of Jimmy Carr's tax scheme

MPs have attacked the charity watchdog for its "astounding" failure to close down a fake charity that gave just 3p out every £100 of donations to good causes.

Margaret Hodge, chair of the influential public accounts committee (PAC), said that if the Charity Commission had "only bothered to pick up the phone" to the tax authorities it would have discovered that the Cup Trust charity was a front for a multimillion-pound tax-avoidance scheme.

The Cup Trust, the claimed objective of which was to "improve the lives of young children and adults", donated just £55,000 of its "staggering" £176m income to charitable causes. Despite its scant donations, the trust used a complex web of transactions to seek £46m in gift aid, and its "donors" claimed £55m in charitable-giving tax relief.

Hodge said it should have been obvious to the commission that the trust, which was founded with only one trustee, in the Caribbean, had been "set up as a tax-avoidance scheme by people known to be in the business of tax avoidance".

The Cup Trust was controlled by Matthew Jenner, the boss of NT Advisors, who Hodge said was "already renowned in HMRC" for setting up tax-avoidance schemes.

Other schemes set up by NT Advisors – the initials stand for "no tax" – include those used by the comedian Jimmy Carr and the TV presenter Chris Moyles. HMRC has won three successive tax-avoidance cases against the Jersey-based NT Advisors, including one case last week.

"It is so astounding," Hodge said. "It stares you in the face. Yet it didn't appear to raise any questions [with the commission] before it was registered. If only someone had bothered to pick up the phone and ask them [HMRC] about NT Advisors. Elementary checks with HMRC could have alerted the commission to the true purpose of the trust and its trustee … Its purpose was to avoid tax."

Hodge said it was remarkable that HMRC had not queried why the Cup Trust, which collected more annual "donations" than the RSPB, the British Heart Foundation or the Salvation Army, had just one trustee: Mountstar, based in the British Virgin Islands. The directors of Mountstar are also the directors of NT Advisors. "Alarm bells should have rung," she said.

A public accounts committee report said the trust operated by buying £176m of government bonds, known as gilts, which it sold on to "donors" for only £17,000.

The donors, whom Hodge described as "Jimmy Carr types", sold the gilts and donated the proceeds – which were roughly the same as the purchase price – to the charity. In doing so, they were able to try to claim £55m in charitable-giving tax relief.

The trust went on to claim £46m in gift aid from HMRC. The tax authorities have not paid the claim, vowing to stop "tax dodgers" from exploiting charitable tax relief.

If the scheme had worked, Jenner and his partner, Anthony Mehigan, could have collected 5-10% of the tax saved for their wealthy clients. Tax experts said the pair may have already collected some fees in advance.

Hodge described the exploitation of charitable status by tax avoiders as "repugnant" but warned that there were "devils in this world" who would continue to exploit well-intentioned government tax-relief measures.

The PAC report said it was "unacceptable" that the Cup Trust had ever been allowed to register as a charity, and it was shocking that the commission had failed to close it down when it investigated it, between 2010 and 2012.

"In the last 25 years, the committee and the National Audit Office have repeatedly found severe shortcomings in the commission's performance, particularly in relation to investigation and enforcement," the report said.

In the last four years, the commission has removed only one trustee, after a judge ruled that he had perjured himself, and appointed only five interim managers to run suspect charities.

Hodge said the commission appeared to have "simply failed" to implement the PAC's previous recommendations, and said her committee would now "undertake yet another" investigation into whether the regulator for charities in England and Wales is fit for purpose.

The commission said it had opened a new statutory inquiry into the Cup Trust, but not until after its chairman was hauled before the PAC, in March. It has also appointed an interim manager to run the charity, in a move that Mountstar has challenged.

A spokeswoman said the commission was "discussing better ways to share information and work together to tackle abuse of charity. We are targeting our resources on the areas of highest risk, with a particular emphasis on tackling fraud, terrorist abuse and risks to vulnerable beneficiaries."

Hodge warned that the commission's failure to act against the Cup Trust was "disastrous" for the reputation of the commission and for the charity sector in general. She also raised concern that the Cup Trust scandal may "just be the tip of the iceberg". HMRC investigates 300 incidents of fraud relating to charities every year.

• Tax and spending
• Charitable giving
• Tax
• Consumer affairs
• Jimmy Carr
• Charities
• Voluntary sector

Margaret Hodge says alarm bells should have rung over Cup Trust, run by creator of Jimmy Carr's tax scheme

MPs have attacked the charity watchdog for its "astounding" failure to close down a fake charity that gave just 3p out every £100 of donations to good causes.

Margaret Hodge, chair of the influential public accounts committee (PAC), said that if the Charity Commission had "only bothered to pick up the phone" to the tax authorities it would have discovered that the Cup Trust charity was a front for a multimillion-pound tax-avoidance scheme.

The Cup Trust, the claimed objective of which was to "improve the lives of young children and adults", donated just £55,000 of its "staggering" £176m income to charitable causes. Despite its scant donations, the trust used a complex web of transactions to seek £46m in gift aid, and its "donors" claimed £55m in charitable-giving tax relief.

Hodge said it should have been obvious to the commission that the trust, which was founded with only one trustee, in the Caribbean, had been "set up as a tax-avoidance scheme by people known to be in the business of tax avoidance".

The Cup Trust was controlled by Matthew Jenner, the boss of NT Advisors, who Hodge said was "already renowned in HMRC" for setting up tax-avoidance schemes.

Other schemes set up by NT Advisors – the initials stand for "no tax" – include those used by the comedian Jimmy Carr and the TV presenter Chris Moyles. HMRC has won three successive tax-avoidance cases against the Jersey-based NT Advisors, including one case last week.

"It is so astounding," Hodge said. "It stares you in the face. Yet it didn't appear to raise any questions [with the commission] before it was registered. If only someone had bothered to pick up the phone and ask them [HMRC] about NT Advisors. Elementary checks with HMRC could have alerted the commission to the true purpose of the trust and its trustee … Its purpose was to avoid tax."

Hodge said it was remarkable that HMRC had not queried why the Cup Trust, which collected more annual "donations" than the RSPB, the British Heart Foundation or the Salvation Army, had just one trustee: Mountstar, based in the British Virgin Islands. The directors of Mountstar are also the directors of NT Advisors. "Alarm bells should have rung," she said.

A public accounts committee report said the trust operated by buying £176m of government bonds, known as gilts, which it sold on to "donors" for only £17,000.

The donors, whom Hodge described as "Jimmy Carr types", sold the gilts and donated the proceeds – which were roughly the same as the purchase price – to the charity. In doing so, they were able to try to claim £55m in charitable-giving tax relief.

The trust went on to claim £46m in gift aid from HMRC. The tax authorities have not paid the claim, vowing to stop "tax dodgers" from exploiting charitable tax relief.

If the scheme had worked, Jenner and his partner, Anthony Mehigan, could have collected 5-10% of the tax saved for their wealthy clients. Tax experts said the pair may have already collected some fees in advance.

Hodge described the exploitation of charitable status by tax avoiders as "repugnant" but warned that there were "devils in this world" who would continue to exploit well-intentioned government tax-relief measures.

The PAC report said it was "unacceptable" that the Cup Trust had ever been allowed to register as a charity, and it was shocking that the commission had failed to close it down when it investigated it, between 2010 and 2012.

"In the last 25 years, the committee and the National Audit Office have repeatedly found severe shortcomings in the commission's performance, particularly in relation to investigation and enforcement," the report said.

In the last four years, the commission has removed only one trustee, after a judge ruled that he had perjured himself, and appointed only five interim managers to run suspect charities.

Hodge said the commission appeared to have "simply failed" to implement the PAC's previous recommendations, and said her committee would now "undertake yet another" investigation into whether the regulator for charities in England and Wales is fit for purpose.

The commission said it had opened a new statutory inquiry into the Cup Trust, but not until after its chairman was hauled before the PAC, in March. It has also appointed an interim manager to run the charity, in a move that Mountstar has challenged.

A spokeswoman said the commission was "discussing better ways to share information and work together to tackle abuse of charity. We are targeting our resources on the areas of highest risk, with a particular emphasis on tackling fraud, terrorist abuse and risks to vulnerable beneficiaries."

Hodge warned that the commission's failure to act against the Cup Trust was "disastrous" for the reputation of the commission and for the charity sector in general. She also raised concern that the Cup Trust scandal may "just be the tip of the iceberg". HMRC investigates 300 incidents of fraud relating to charities every year.

• Tax and spending
• Charitable giving
• Tax
• Consumer affairs
• Jimmy Carr
• Charities
• Voluntary sector

Internet giant pledged only £20,000 to Internet Watch Foundation last year, despite multibillion-dollar turnover

Google donated little more than £20,000 last year to the charity responsible for policing child abuse images online – the equivalent of 90 seconds' profit for the internet firm.

The search giant was one of a number of firms, including Facebook and Microsoft, that pledged relatively small amounts to the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) in 2012, despite their multibillion-dollar turnovers.

Facebook made a baseline donation of around £10,000 and Microsoft's Bing search engine gave about £20,000, according to the IWF's own records.

Keith Vaz, the chairman of the home affairs select committee, said internet companies needed to ensure the IWF was properly resourced to tackle urgently the proliferation of child abuse images online following the murder of five-year-old April Jones.

"I am shocked that, despite the importance they have said they place on its role in keeping our children safe, they have donated such paltry amounts to it, which for them represent a drop in the ocean. As it stands, it is difficult to take their commitment to protecting our children seriously," Vaz said.

Google, Facebook and Microsoft insisted they had a strong relationship with the IWF and other child protection bodies. Facebook sponsored an event hosted by the IWF last year and made donations to agencies in other countries, it said.

Sir Richard Tilt, the IWF's chair of the board of trustees, said it would welcome more money from members. "There's certainly scope for increasing our number of analysts and we know if we had more analysts we could do better. If we could get more money that would enable us to do more," he said.

The scrutiny came after Mark Bridger was jailed for life for the sexually-motivated murder of April Jones, having earlier looked at child abuse images online. The biggest web companies – apart from Twitter and Amazon – are members of the IWF and block about 1,000 illegal sites at any one time.

But the IWF's five-strong team of analysts has become overwhelmed as reports of child abuse sites soared by 40% compared with last year, to 40,000, or 150 a day. The body is pushing companies to introduce new measures in the next 12 months including a "splash page", which would warn visitors to websites showing unlawful abuse images.

Tilt, a former director of the prison service, believes the setting will be a strong deterrent and potentially prevent further attacks. "Most of us who work in this area feel it will make a difference. There probably is a link that [online abuse images] make people more likely to commit dreadful offences, but the trouble is there isn't any clear evidence," he said.

Deborah Denis of the Lucy Faithful Foundation, a children's charity dedicated to preventing child sexual abuse, called on search engines to become more involved. But she said more stringent measures for those caught with indecent images would be "unacceptable and unrealistic", and instead there should be better sex and relationship education in schools.

Denis said: "If we attempted to lock up everybody who looked at indecent images of children, we simply wouldn't have enough space in prison. The police already do excellent work in this area, but it is a problem that is just too big for them to tackle alone."

Google was singled out for criticism by Liz Longhurst, whose daughter Jane was murdered by extreme pornography user Graham Coutts in 2003, prompting her to campaign for internet firms to ban such images. She said internet firms must "get their act together" and start tackling violent online imagery. "What annoys me immensely is that Google won't block these sites. They say we've got to have freedom. All I ask them is where was my daughter's freedom – tell me that."

There have been calls for Google to enforce its "safe search" option as the default setting, which would block pornographic material in search results. However, insiders insisted the move would be ineffectual as the stricter setting operates as an algorithm for legal content – and child abuse imagery is illegal, so is covered by extra blocking measures.

Scott Rubin, Google's director of communications outside America, said the company has a "zero-tolerance approach" on child abuse images and added: "The SafeSearch filter, which is designed to prevent sexually explicit material of all kinds from showing up in your search results, should not be conflated or confused with our dedication to keeping illegal abuse imagery out of our products. We don't rely simply on filtering technology to block child abuse images; we go beyond that.

"We are very proactive and work with the right people, including the National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children in the US and the IWF, to keep child abuse content off all of our sites. Any implication we aren't doing anything or we refuse to be part of removing this material is wrong."

A spokeswoman for Microsoft said: ""When we are made aware of any illegal content, we remove it from our services, including our search engine and report it to the police."

Facebook said it has technology that scans for child exploitative content and automatically flags images to law enforcement. It added: "Facebook works closely with CEOP [the Child Exploitation and Online Protection centre] in the UK to help bring offenders to justice."

• Google
• Charitable giving
• Internet
• Pornography
• Child protection
• Children
• Charities
• Voluntary sector
• ISPs

Internet giant pledged only £20,000 to Internet Watch Foundation last year, despite multibillion-dollar turnover

Google donated little more than £20,000 last year to the charity responsible for policing child abuse images online – the equivalent of 90 seconds' profit for the internet firm.

The search giant was one of a number of firms, including Facebook and Microsoft, that pledged relatively small amounts to the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) in 2012, despite their multibillion-dollar turnovers.

Facebook made a baseline donation of around £10,000 and Microsoft's Bing search engine gave about £20,000, according to the IWF's own records.

Keith Vaz, the chairman of the home affairs select committee, said internet companies needed to ensure the IWF was properly resourced to tackle urgently the proliferation of child abuse images online following the murder of five-year-old April Jones.

"I am shocked that, despite the importance they have said they place on its role in keeping our children safe, they have donated such paltry amounts to it, which for them represent a drop in the ocean. As it stands, it is difficult to take their commitment to protecting our children seriously," Vaz said.

Google, Facebook and Microsoft insisted they had a strong relationship with the IWF and other child protection bodies. Facebook sponsored an event hosted by the IWF last year and made donations to agencies in other countries, it said.

Sir Richard Tilt, the IWF's chair of the board of trustees, said it would welcome more money from members. "There's certainly scope for increasing our number of analysts and we know if we had more analysts we could do better. If we could get more money that would enable us to do more," he said.

The scrutiny came after Mark Bridger was jailed for life for the sexually-motivated murder of April Jones, having earlier looked at child abuse images online. The biggest web companies – apart from Twitter and Amazon – are members of the IWF and block about 1,000 illegal sites at any one time.

But the IWF's five-strong team of analysts has become overwhelmed as reports of child abuse sites soared by 40% compared with last year, to 40,000, or 150 a day. The body is pushing companies to introduce new measures in the next 12 months including a "splash page", which would warn visitors to websites showing unlawful abuse images.

Tilt, a former director of the prison service, believes the setting will be a strong deterrent and potentially prevent further attacks. "Most of us who work in this area feel it will make a difference. There probably is a link that [online abuse images] make people more likely to commit dreadful offences, but the trouble is there isn't any clear evidence," he said.

Deborah Denis of the Lucy Faithful Foundation, a children's charity dedicated to preventing child sexual abuse, called on search engines to become more involved. But she said more stringent measures for those caught with indecent images would be "unacceptable and unrealistic", and instead there should be better sex and relationship education in schools.

Denis said: "If we attempted to lock up everybody who looked at indecent images of children, we simply wouldn't have enough space in prison. The police already do excellent work in this area, but it is a problem that is just too big for them to tackle alone."

Google was singled out for criticism by Liz Longhurst, whose daughter Jane was murdered by extreme pornography user Graham Coutts in 2003, prompting her to campaign for internet firms to ban such images. She said internet firms must "get their act together" and start tackling violent online imagery. "What annoys me immensely is that Google won't block these sites. They say we've got to have freedom. All I ask them is where was my daughter's freedom – tell me that."

There have been calls for Google to enforce its "safe search" option as the default setting, which would block pornographic material in search results. However, insiders insisted the move would be ineffectual as the stricter setting operates as an algorithm for legal content – and child abuse imagery is illegal, so is covered by extra blocking measures.

Scott Rubin, Google's director of communications outside America, said the company has a "zero-tolerance approach" on child abuse images and added: "The SafeSearch filter, which is designed to prevent sexually explicit material of all kinds from showing up in your search results, should not be conflated or confused with our dedication to keeping illegal abuse imagery out of our products. We don't rely simply on filtering technology to block child abuse images; we go beyond that.

"We are very proactive and work with the right people, including the National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children in the US and the IWF, to keep child abuse content off all of our sites. Any implication we aren't doing anything or we refuse to be part of removing this material is wrong."

A spokeswoman for Microsoft said: ""When we are made aware of any illegal content, we remove it from our services, including our search engine and report it to the police."

Facebook said it has technology that scans for child exploitative content and automatically flags images to law enforcement. It added: "Facebook works closely with CEOP [the Child Exploitation and Online Protection centre] in the UK to help bring offenders to justice."

• Google
• Charitable giving
• Internet
• Pornography
• Child protection
• Children
• Charities
• Voluntary sector
• ISPs

 Next Thursday SOFII and Open Fundraising are holding the second 'I wish I'd thought of that' event.

I was lucky enough to speak at the first one last year and it was a fantastic event. One of my favourite conferences/events I attended all year.

Tickets are still available (£25-£100) and I'd highly recommend going along if you can. There's a fabulous line up of speakers who will all be sharing a great fundraising idea. If you don't come away inspired and with a number of ideas you can copy, then I'd be amazed!

You can read my summary of last year's event or read on for a list of articles that have caught my eye recently.

The May nonprofit blog carnival is hosted by the Donor Dreams blog. It features open letters from nonprofit workers to their boards.

Paul shares some 2013 internet trends.

From the mouths of donors by Agents for Good.

Ken Burnett on the real point of face to face fundraising.

Rachel on 101 Fundraising asks why digital fundraising is still so rubbish?

Karen asks why don't people  read your appeals or e-mails.

The foibles and follies of donor conversion.

Sean Triner on direct mail in NZ and Australia.

The Data Monkey with networking tips for introverts.

Veritus Group with the seven absolutes of major gift fundraising success.

Clarification reveal the 'Oh Goody!' rule of e-mail appeals.

Lot's of love for Katya Andersen as she writes her last blog post on her non-profit marketing blog. The Agitator leads the tributes and Fundraising Success share ten of Katya's best posts. Thanks  for the inspiration and good luck!

I'm currently doing some work on fundraising propositions and offers and received a timely reminder from the Wizard of Ads in his Monday Morning Memo about the importance of offering the public what you already know they want.

It is really tempting when your charity does lots of good work to try and fundraise off every service. Yet the likelihood is that only one or two of the things that you do are going to appeal to the general public.

It takes a lot of internal discipline to do this and the temptation is always there to try and promote your latest new service.

However, your job as a fundraiser is to maximise funds for the cause, not 'educate' the general public.

It's for this reason that many WWF recruitment ads feature tigers. Why Marie Curie always talk about their nurses and the reason child sponsorship is so important - these are the things that most donors want to give to.

Once the bait has been taken you can then (when the time is right) talk about the other great things that donors can help you achieve.

This is what Roy had to say about the subject in his newsletter when talking about products. Much of his advice equally applies to fundraising:

    "Your copy, indeed, was fabulous. You employed an excellent angle of approach, held the     listeners' attention and made your point in a clever way. Well done! But your fundamental     strategy was flawed; your ad answered a question that no one was asking.

    "You walked into the trap when you failed to question why the client was overstocked on the item     he wanted you to advertise. The real problem is that no one wants the item. It's a loser, a dog, a     mistake. Your client assumed - and you assumed with him - that if people "only knew and     understood," then they'd rush in to buy the product. So you told the people, you made them     understand. And they still didn't want the product.

    "Advertising will only accelerate what was going to happen anyway.

    "Convince your client to let you offer the public what the public already wants. This is what     drives traffic into a store. And many of those people will find other things to buy from your     client. In other words, fish with bait that you know the fish love. Don't try to convince the fish to     swallow bait they don't really like."

Military support charity inundated with calls and web traffic over soldier killed while wearing Help for Heroes top

Help for Heroes has been swamped with donations, leading to its website crashing, after Drummer Lee Rigby was murdered while wearing one of the charity's tops.

Supporters of the military charity took to social networks in an attempt to boost its coffers after the 25-year-old was killed in Woolwich, south-east London, on Wednesday.

The former England cricket captain Michael Vaughan was among the sports stars, actors, broadcasters and politicians who spoke out in support of the charity, urging the public to give money.

David Cameron tweeted his support and a photograph of him wearing a Help for Heroes wristband. He wrote: "Proud to support @HelpforHeroes in tmrw's @TheSunNewspaper in memory of Drummer Lee Rigby £H4H".

The Oscar-winning actor Dame Helen Mirren donned a Help for Heroes polo shirt. The Labour leader, Ed Miliband, and London's mayor, Boris Johnson, also gave their backing.

Help for Heroes offered its thanks for the "extraordinary demonstration of support", which it said had taken it by surprise.

In a statement on its website, the charity said: "Since the sad news emerged that a serving soldier had been murdered in Woolwich, Help for Heroes has been overwhelmed with people spontaneously showing their support for the armed forces.

"Our website is struggling to cope with this overwhelming reaction from the British public, some of whom are choosing to buy T-shirts and hoodies."

It added: "This sudden surge of interest in the work we're doing to help the wounded and their families has taken us completely by surprise. We just want to help, and all funds we receive will be used to provide direct, practical support to those affected by their service to our country.

"We ask all our volunteers, fundraisers and donors to remember Lee Rigby's family, colleagues and friends."

The charity said: "Thousands of people have visited our website wishing to donate or to buy H4H T-shirts in an extraordinary demonstration of support and defiance of terrorism. We are working hard to respond to this level of activity."

• Woolwich attack
• Charities
• Military
• London
• Voluntary sector
• Charitable giving

Military support charity inundated with calls and web traffic over soldier killed while wearing Help for Heroes top

Help for Heroes has been swamped with donations, leading to its website crashing, after Drummer Lee Rigby was murdered while wearing one of the charity's tops.

Supporters of the military charity took to social networks in an attempt to boost its coffers after the 25-year-old was killed in Woolwich, south-east London, on Wednesday.

The former England cricket captain Michael Vaughan was among the sports stars, actors, broadcasters and politicians who spoke out in support of the charity, urging the public to give money.

David Cameron tweeted his support and a photograph of him wearing a Help for Heroes wristband. He wrote: "Proud to support @HelpforHeroes in tmrw's @TheSunNewspaper in memory of Drummer Lee Rigby £H4H".

The Oscar-winning actor Dame Helen Mirren donned a Help for Heroes polo shirt. The Labour leader, Ed Miliband, and London's mayor, Boris Johnson, also gave their backing.

Help for Heroes offered its thanks for the "extraordinary demonstration of support", which it said had taken it by surprise.

In a statement on its website, the charity said: "Since the sad news emerged that a serving soldier had been murdered in Woolwich, Help for Heroes has been overwhelmed with people spontaneously showing their support for the armed forces.

"Our website is struggling to cope with this overwhelming reaction from the British public, some of whom are choosing to buy T-shirts and hoodies."

It added: "This sudden surge of interest in the work we're doing to help the wounded and their families has taken us completely by surprise. We just want to help, and all funds we receive will be used to provide direct, practical support to those affected by their service to our country.

"We ask all our volunteers, fundraisers and donors to remember Lee Rigby's family, colleagues and friends."

The charity said: "Thousands of people have visited our website wishing to donate or to buy H4H T-shirts in an extraordinary demonstration of support and defiance of terrorism. We are working hard to respond to this level of activity."

• Woolwich attack
• Charities
• Military
• London
• Voluntary sector
• Charitable giving

I am delighted to introduce this blog, written by my good colleagues Dr Balihar Sanghera and Dr Kate Bradley, who have spent the past year running a project on Social Justice Philanthropy:

The end-of-project conference, held at NCVO in London on Friday 1 March 2013, was an excellent opportunity to bring practitioners and academics together to discuss the state and future of social justice philanthropy.

The morning part of the conference explored the more philosophical and theoretical dimensions of what social justice philanthropy is, and what it might be. The first session brought together speakers from a wide range of organisations, and likewise a diverse range of viewpoints. This session opened up an extremely useful consideration of the historical development of social justice philanthropy (Stephen Pittam) and a case study of social justice philanthropy (Sara Llewellin), as well as reflective criticism on what exactly we mean by ‘social justice philanthropy’ and its purposes (Andrew Barnett). Issues raised included the idea of whether the sector is ‘retro-fitting’ social justice to philanthropic activities, the need to consider the structural issues that create inequality in a rigorous and critical manner, and to avoid creating an industry that serves its own ends rather than the needs of the disadvantaged (Matthew Taylor, Paul Hackett and Samantha Callan – Callan’s response is here). The second session brought in discussion of our project findings, which drew attention to how grant-making foundations often reject the label ‘social justice’ and only partly realise the liberal ideas of social justice. The session also heard Diana Leat’s reflections on how foundations might change over time.

The afternoon part of the conference heard a rich collection of case studies from practitioners and academics that explored the potential and limitations of social justice philanthropy. Gareth Morgan discussed the implications of the Charities Act 2011 for small grant-making trusts and foundations, pointing out the political significance of the public benefit test. Sinead Gormally presented a comprehensive model of social justice to community development, drawing upon her case study of the Community Foundation for Northern Ireland.

Some speakers critically examined the implications for social justice of ‘new’ and ‘venture’ philanthropy,’ Stephen Ball argued how corporate and family foundations and philanthropic individuals are beginning to assume socio-moral duties that were previously assigned to the state, and pointed out some negative consequences in the education sector. Niamh McCrea also provided a fascinating study on how practices associated with ‘performance-based funding’ can enable and inhibit relationships of love, care and solidarity.

In addition, the delegates heard a variety of practices and experiences from activists, who pursue social justice, peace and civic participation. Representing the radical philanthropy Edge Fund, Sophie Pritchard posed the question that given that most foundations are set up by those who have benefitted from the economic and political systems that produce social inequalities, how will they challenge the status quo? Carolyn Hayman and Tom Gillhespy from Peace Direct shared their ideas on the theory of change and how to evaluate the impact of peacebuilding grants, drawing upon several case studies of conflict resolution. Rob Williamson (Tyne & Wear and Northumberland Community Foundation) and Cathy Elliott Community Foundations for Lancashire & Merseyside) discussed how Vital Signs UK assesses the vitality and aspirations of local communities, identifies local social needs, and opens a debate on the contribution that local philanthropists can make to address them. Natalie Branosky from InclusionUS examined how the concept of ‘philanthropub’ can promote community engagement, volunteerism and civic participation.

We feel that the social justice philanthropy journey is still at a relatively early stage in its development. Foundations who seek to promote social justice and peace should take time to reflect on how they can best embed it in their practices. For example, moving into (or expanding) social investment would increase the impact of foundation cash, by opening up a further front on which foundations can help communities in need. We also need to scrutinise to what extent the income from endowments and philanthropic donations are earned and deserving, as well as to focus on addressing the unhealthy levels of concentrated wealth and power in the UK and overseas. Ways of increasing the input that marginalised groups have into how resources are provided to their communities should be explored. Such activity could range from inviting more people with experience of poverty and deprivation to serve on the trustee boards, setting up advisory boards as well as focus groups. Including previous grantees and other frontline groups in the governance processes of foundations would also be welcome. Social justice philanthropy is a process, and with critical reflection and creative thinking, foundations can continue to progress towards their aims. We hope that the conference on 1 March starts or continues a reflexive conversation about what social justice is.

This blog was written by Dr Balihar Sanghera and Dr Kate Bradley, University of Kent

Report post

I am delighted to introduce this blog, written by my good colleagues Dr Balihar Sanghera and Dr Kate Bradley, who have spent the past year running a project on Social Justice Philanthropy:

The end-of-project conference, held at NCVO in London on Friday 1 March 2013, was an excellent opportunity to bring practitioners and academics together to discuss the state and future of social justice philanthropy.

The morning part of the conference explored the more philosophical and theoretical dimensions of what social justice philanthropy is, and what it might be. The first session brought together speakers from a wide range of organisations, and likewise a diverse range of viewpoints. This session opened up an extremely useful consideration of the historical development of social justice philanthropy (Stephen Pittam) and a case study of social justice philanthropy (Sara Llewellin), as well as reflective criticism on what exactly we mean by ‘social justice philanthropy’ and its purposes (Andrew Barnett). Issues raised included the idea of whether the sector is ‘retro-fitting’ social justice to philanthropic activities, the need to consider the structural issues that create inequality in a rigorous and critical manner, and to avoid creating an industry that serves its own ends rather than the needs of the disadvantaged (Matthew Taylor, Paul Hackett and Samantha Callan – Callan’s response is here). The second session brought in discussion of our project findings, which drew attention to how grant-making foundations often reject the label ‘social justice’ and only partly realise the liberal ideas of social justice. The session also heard Diana Leat’s reflections on how foundations might change over time.

The afternoon part of the conference heard a rich collection of case studies from practitioners and academics that explored the potential and limitations of social justice philanthropy. Gareth Morgan discussed the implications of the Charities Act 2011 for small grant-making trusts and foundations, pointing out the political significance of the public benefit test. Sinead Gormally presented a comprehensive model of social justice to community development, drawing upon her case study of the Community Foundation for Northern Ireland.

Some speakers critically examined the implications for social justice of ‘new’ and ‘venture’ philanthropy,’ Stephen Ball argued how corporate and family foundations and philanthropic individuals are beginning to assume socio-moral duties that were previously assigned to the state, and pointed out some negative consequences in the education sector. Niamh McCrea also provided a fascinating study on how practices associated with ‘performance-based funding’ can enable and inhibit relationships of love, care and solidarity.

In addition, the delegates heard a variety of practices and experiences from activists, who pursue social justice, peace and civic participation. Representing the radical philanthropy Edge Fund, Sophie Pritchard posed the question that given that most foundations are set up by those who have benefitted from the economic and political systems that produce social inequalities, how will they challenge the status quo? Carolyn Hayman and Tom Gillhespy from Peace Direct shared their ideas on the theory of change and how to evaluate the impact of peacebuilding grants, drawing upon several case studies of conflict resolution. Rob Williamson (Tyne & Wear and Northumberland Community Foundation) and Cathy Elliott Community Foundations for Lancashire & Merseyside) discussed how Vital Signs UK assesses the vitality and aspirations of local communities, identifies local social needs, and opens a debate on the contribution that local philanthropists can make to address them. Natalie Branosky from InclusionUS examined how the concept of ‘philanthropub’ can promote community engagement, volunteerism and civic participation.

We feel that the social justice philanthropy journey is still at a relatively early stage in its development. Foundations who seek to promote social justice and peace should take time to reflect on how they can best embed it in their practices. For example, moving into (or expanding) social investment would increase the impact of foundation cash, by opening up a further front on which foundations can help communities in need. We also need to scrutinise to what extent the income from endowments and philanthropic donations are earned and deserving, as well as to focus on addressing the unhealthy levels of concentrated wealth and power in the UK and overseas. Ways of increasing the input that marginalised groups have into how resources are provided to their communities should be explored. Such activity could range from inviting more people with experience of poverty and deprivation to serve on the trustee boards, setting up advisory boards as well as focus groups. Including previous grantees and other frontline groups in the governance processes of foundations would also be welcome. Social justice philanthropy is a process, and with critical reflection and creative thinking, foundations can continue to progress towards their aims. We hope that the conference on 1 March starts or continues a reflexive conversation about what social justice is.

This blog was written by Dr Balihar Sanghera and Dr Kate Bradley, University of Kent

Report post

Another fortnight has flown by and it is time for another summary of recent articles that have caught my eye. Enjoy.

Two excellent 101 Fundraising articles:

• A DIY workshop for lead conversion
• So you want to grow your income?

Karen with 15 ideas for testing in direct mail.

Pamela Burk shares some great comments from donors.

Agents of Good on jargon.

Stephen with the 21 habits of poor fundraisers.

Kevin on why charity branding is good for fundraising.

Beth with six steps to great graphs and charts.

John Baguley on zombie fundraising techniques.

Flat Earth Direct on value v values.

ifundraiser with 10 things to if you were to start again from scratch.

Good Works on creating a warm welcome for new donors.

The Fundraising Coach shares 21 social media tips from nonprofit experts.

Ian McQuillin explains why fundraisers are angry.

The Agitator: Generosity pays

Seth on typography.

Another new blog to share - Charity Winehouse. Check out this post which asks, "Who is your 'go to' guy?".

Britons are more likely to donate to campaigns that help people survive, than thrive. Christain Aid explains its decision to concentrate its new ad campaign on the upside

Over the past few days, television viewers in the UK might have caught a glimpse of an ad shot by Christian Aid to mark our annual week-long fundraising drive. The campaign, filmed on location in Sierra Leone, depicts the difference a solar freezer could make to the life of a local fisherman, helping him not only feed his family, but then market his catch and maybe even open a small restaurant.

Instead of grinding poverty, the ad features smiling faces, energetic children and upbeat music – our attempt to tell the true story of positive intervention. However the fact remains: UK-based NGOs, seeking donations from the British public for development and aid work overseas today, face something of an obstacle course in presenting the case that urgent need still exists.

In choosing to tell the true story of a positive intervention made through one of our partner agencies in the life of the York Island community, Christian Aid has had to walk a delicate line, leaving viewers with the sense that an end to poverty is possible – some of the world's fastest growing economies are in sub-Saharan Africa – but that real needs still exist that Britons can help to alleviate. But the million dollar question is how.

My team recently conducted research involving groups most likely to support Christian Aid. The findings suggested that while people were perfectly willing to donate to help people survive, they were more reticent to put their hands in their pockets to help people thrive. Any footage showing a poor person with a mobile phone – or colour television – would be counterproductive, we were told. That response rang true recently when I gave a talk using one of the case studies for Christian Aid Week that features a mobile phone project. There was an audible gasp from the group on first mention of phones.

It was only when we'd watched the film together and discussed the project in detail that they could see for themselves the usefulness of mobile phones in delivering early warnings to communities exposed to extreme weather events as a result of climate change. We don't have that luxury with a television advert. It has to do the job of announcing Christian Aid Week, support our army of volunteer collectors and motivate people to give. All in just 30 seconds.

We would never resort to an advert that portrays people living in poverty as people without their own dignity. The question for us was whether we could move away from a Christian Aid Week advertising message that had been fairly simple – 'sending money over there' – to a more complex message about food security, hope and independence.

It's an age-old question, the dissonance between rhetoric and reality in advertising, can we talk about our work and world view without depressing income? The potential supporters we discussed it with said yes. That was enough to take the risk and make the ad.

So far, the advert has been well received by the public and our volunteer collectors. Perhaps more importantly still, our colleagues and the community in Sierra Leone like the film. As someone said to me on Twitter: "This is an ad you can be proud to show your beneficiaries".

Proof of how successful we have been will come when we discover whether this year's fundraising week has reached or exceeded the target of £12.7m. That's the hard reality: if the film changes perceptions but doesn't support the donations that are urgently needed then we'll need to think again.

The challenges that we and other agencies face in tapping into the generosity of the British public start at home. As this newspaper recently remarked, the economic climate today is much tougher than it was eight years ago when Make Poverty History galvanised public opinion and G8 leaders at Gleneagles delivered on trade and debt, or said they would.

Africa too has changed. Once the graveyard of good intentions, it is fast changing its image. The former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan announced in an annual progress report last week that there was "good reason to be optimistic". Nearly half of the countries there have been identified as resource rich by the IMF, and have "sustained high growth and improved their citizens' daily lives".

It is not all good news though. The same report goes on to say that in many African countries, rising inequality is slowing the rate at which growth reduces poverty. "Countries across Africa are becoming richer, but whole sections of society are being left behind," it warns.

This is the complexity we need to get across in our stories. While there will always be a need for advertising that emphasises desperation – in response to natural disasters for instance – we think it's time to try and present aid and development in a different way.

In our ad, the sun may be shining, and the participants – all local villagers - may look buoyant. But more than 60% of Sierra Leoneans live below the poverty line, the average life expectancy is 48, and malnutrition ranks among the world's highest, with acute malnutrition at or above the emergency level of 15% of children under five years old.

Helping alleviate poverty is not simply about feeding the hungry, it's about enabling communities to help themselves. That is the message that needs to come across loud and clear.

Steven Buckley is head of communications at Christian Aid. You can follow him on Twitter @stevenbuckley

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
• Aid
• Advertising
• Fundraising
• Charitable giving
• Charities
• Voluntary sector

Britons are more likely to donate to campaigns that help people survive, than thrive. Christain Aid explains its decision to concentrate its new ad campaign on the upside

Over the past few days, television viewers in the UK might have caught a glimpse of an ad shot by Christian Aid to mark our annual week-long fundraising drive. The campaign, filmed on location in Sierra Leone, depicts the difference a solar freezer could make to the life of a local fisherman, helping him not only feed his family, but then market his catch and maybe even open a small restaurant.

Instead of grinding poverty, the ad features smiling faces, energetic children and upbeat music – our attempt to tell the true story of positive intervention. However the fact remains: UK-based NGOs, seeking donations from the British public for development and aid work overseas today, face something of an obstacle course in presenting the case that urgent need still exists.

In choosing to tell the true story of a positive intervention made through one of our partner agencies in the life of the York Island community, Christian Aid has had to walk a delicate line, leaving viewers with the sense that an end to poverty is possible – some of the world's fastest growing economies are in sub-Saharan Africa – but that real needs still exist that Britons can help to alleviate. But the million dollar question is how.

My team recently conducted research involving groups most likely to support Christian Aid. The findings suggested that while people were perfectly willing to donate to help people survive, they were more reticent to put their hands in their pockets to help people thrive. Any footage showing a poor person with a mobile phone – or colour television – would be counterproductive, we were told. That response rang true recently when I gave a talk using one of the case studies for Christian Aid Week that features a mobile phone project. There was an audible gasp from the group on first mention of phones.

It was only when we'd watched the film together and discussed the project in detail that they could see for themselves the usefulness of mobile phones in delivering early warnings to communities exposed to extreme weather events as a result of climate change. We don't have that luxury with a television advert. It has to do the job of announcing Christian Aid Week, support our army of volunteer collectors and motivate people to give. All in just 30 seconds.

We would never resort to an advert that portrays people living in poverty as people without their own dignity. The question for us was whether we could move away from a Christian Aid Week advertising message that had been fairly simple – 'sending money over there' – to a more complex message about food security, hope and independence.

It's an age-old question, the dissonance between rhetoric and reality in advertising, can we talk about our work and world view without depressing income? The potential supporters we discussed it with said yes. That was enough to take the risk and make the ad.

So far, the advert has been well received by the public and our volunteer collectors. Perhaps more importantly still, our colleagues and the community in Sierra Leone like the film. As someone said to me on Twitter: "This is an ad you can be proud to show your beneficiaries".

Proof of how successful we have been will come when we discover whether this year's fundraising week has reached or exceeded the target of £12.7m. That's the hard reality: if the film changes perceptions but doesn't support the donations that are urgently needed then we'll need to think again.

The challenges that we and other agencies face in tapping into the generosity of the British public start at home. As this newspaper recently remarked, the economic climate today is much tougher than it was eight years ago when Make Poverty History galvanised public opinion and G8 leaders at Gleneagles delivered on trade and debt, or said they would.

Africa too has changed. Once the graveyard of good intentions, it is fast changing its image. The former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan announced in an annual progress report last week that there was "good reason to be optimistic". Nearly half of the countries there have been identified as resource rich by the IMF, and have "sustained high growth and improved their citizens' daily lives".

It is not all good news though. The same report goes on to say that in many African countries, rising inequality is slowing the rate at which growth reduces poverty. "Countries across Africa are becoming richer, but whole sections of society are being left behind," it warns.

This is the complexity we need to get across in our stories. While there will always be a need for advertising that emphasises desperation – in response to natural disasters for instance – we think it's time to try and present aid and development in a different way.

In our ad, the sun may be shining, and the participants – all local villagers - may look buoyant. But more than 60% of Sierra Leoneans live below the poverty line, the average life expectancy is 48, and malnutrition ranks among the world's highest, with acute malnutrition at or above the emergency level of 15% of children under five years old.

Helping alleviate poverty is not simply about feeding the hungry, it's about enabling communities to help themselves. That is the message that needs to come across loud and clear.

Steven Buckley is head of communications at Christian Aid. You can follow him on Twitter @stevenbuckley

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
• Aid
• Advertising
• Fundraising
• Charitable giving
• Charities
• Voluntary sector

Better scrutiny will ensure religious organisations with links to homophobia are not awarded public funds

Across most of the world today gay rights are something between an absurdity and an abomination. This makes a difficulty in an age of religious globalisation. When the government, which believes in equality, tries to reach minority communities through their faith organisations, how far should it engage with them if they hold repulsive views?

Not all of the cultural homophobia in the world is religiously based or tinged. Some forms of Jamaican music and rap are violently homophobic without being in the least bit religious. But the problem does not arise with them in the same form, since they are not applying for government grants to do anything. Churches with an African background, or strong African links, are quite another matter.

The sometimes literal demonisation of homosexuality is an important part of much African Christianity. Pressure from the former colonial powers simply entrenches this attitude. In countries such as Nigeria, Zimbabwe and Uganda, demonstrative attacks on gay people and gay marriage are proven crowd-pleasers and in the context of the Anglican communion have been used as ways to stick two fingers up at the Archbishop of Canterbury and his woolly, liberal, colonial church. The same dynamic works almost as strongly with independent evangelical or charismatic churches.

Yet the government's supporters say that the same arguments should apply as are used when dealing with Muslim organisations. Some of them are likely to be just as homophobic but with them the problem may be jihadism and, to some extent, the oppression of women. The question is whether it is better to shun them or to bring some of them into the ordinary mechanisms of local life.

Helping some with public funds is a way to promote integration and deliver services to populations that are otherwise hard to reach. That way the social changes at work in wider British society can spread within the target groups as well.

There are precedents for the success of this approach. One of the most important British leaders of an independent charismatic group of churches, Steve Chalke of the Oasis Trust, recently announced his conversion to equality.

But whatever the principles involved, the practice will be messy. Some people will get funds who shouldn't. Some groups who should be funded won't be. Scrutiny is an essential part of cleaning it up.

• Gay rights
• Sexuality
• Religion
• National Lottery
• Charitable giving
• Consumer affairs