giving/philanthropy

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

Researchers at the Centre for Charitable Giving are investigating the reasons why prominent entrepreneurs, like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, become philanthropic

"How do you become philanthropic?," is a question that has never really been studied in depth. What does the journey from entrepreneur to philanthropist look like, and how can we chart these experiences to help the cause of more and increasingly effective giving?

Our research team, based at the universities of Newcastle, Exeter and Strathclyde, has conducted a major initiative to understand the experiences of entrepreneurs turned philanthropists: the 'big-givers' of all backgrounds, whether they are local or international players, who have become committed to sharing their wealth. The group will present its findings on "Understanding the philanthropic journey" at a CGAP Conference in London on Thursday where they will co-present with two leading entrepreneur-philanthropists: Sir Tom Hunter of West Coast Capital and Hunter Foundation, and Rakesh Bharti Mittal of Bharti Enterprises and Bharti Foundation.

We want this research to show there is a logical process at play which many struggle to understand. Entrepreneurs apply the same rigour and disciplines from the world of commerce to the charitable sector, which suggests there is in fact a science to giving at this level that can be replicated and learned from.

Entrepreneurs bring business methods and disciplines to philanthropy – they don't like wasting money and like to be focussed and planned and their charitable partners to be vetted. Andrew Carnegie, a man famed for the mass manufacture of steel in America, is perhaps the best example of this.

His pervasive influence within the field of philanthropy stems more than anything from his treatise on 'wealth', known as 'The Gospel of Wealth', where he concludes: "the problem of our age is the proper administration of wealth, so that the ties of brotherhood may still bind together the rich and the poor in harmonious relationship." Through his charitable projects Andrew Carnegie gave away almost everything he had earned to a wide range of projects, from arts to education. Entrepreneurs tend to be gifted in recognising and consciously applying the principles of capital accumulation. This is critical to making philanthropy more effective at a time when there is increasing inequality of wealth and income. What are the hallmarks of entrepreneurial philanthropy? Our research shows the following:

• It is the pursuit by entrepreneurs on a not-for-profit basis of big social objectives through active involvement of their economic, cultural, social and symbolic resources.

• They apply business-like methods when making social investments: key performance indicators and rates of return.

• Entrepreneurs invest more than simply money to their causes: time, connections, the 'know-how', branding.

• They like to leverage investments and frequently partner with others, including governments.

• Businessmen and women don't believe in giving handouts. They want to help others to help themselves.

Our studies have also shown that philanthropy is not a one way street. Entrepreneurs benefit from forms of capital, like honorary titles, degrees and recognition. Their world becomes a lot richer, they meet interesting people and come to mix in very interesting circles. What they learn can be turned to economic advantage. The possession of this status and level of connections within the world helps build philanthropy further over time. Therefore, giving encourages these greater returns and helps facilitate more philanthropic enterprises.

A large aspect of the research has been interviewing businessmen and women confronted by the burdensome issue of what to do with more money than they could ever spend in a lifetime. We have asked why they decided to become philanthropic and what they got out of it.

Their motivation is often revealed in their personal experiences and personal values. What makes them get involved in the voluntary sector is commonly understood to be a landmark event within their life that triggers a transition. One entrepreneur said the death of his mother from cancer in 2008 had prompted the change:

"Suddenly life felt a bit meaningless. We were sitting there in a big house in Berkshire, with a house in the south of France, and two beautiful little girls and everything seems perfect ... It [the death of his mother] made me feel more emotional ... It probably made me start thinking about giving ... I think another thing is when I sold the business I didn't know, I felt like I wanted to start giving but I didn't know how to or who to give to or what way to do it, I hadn't a clue, no one teaches you how to be philanthropic."

While entrepreneurs have all the intellectual capacity to make giving more effective, they frequently search for the guidance to become philanthropic. What we need are more stories to be told by philanthropists because they are its best advocates.

We also need access to fellow philanthropists to share their experiences. The level of giving relative to wealth and also need is nowhere near as high as it could or should be. What we witness are some very generous individuals among a lot of people who do little or nothing. A lot can be learned from these practised entrepreneurs and philanthropic groups, such as The Philanthropy Fellowship led by UK Community Foundations and funded by the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, to inspire more and better philanthropy.

The voluntary redistribution of wealth, however, cannot serve as a substitute for welfare in times of austerity. IMF figures (2012) show there is a clear relationship between income inequality and the dynamics of the global economy. The gap between the top 5% and the rest of us has risen very sharply since the early 1980s in the UK & US and other countries of the developed world. As profits and top pay rise it becomes more obvious that this is unsustainable. The power of entrepreneurial philanthropy lies in helping others to help themselves and seize opportunities for betterment.

Professor Charles Harvey is pro-vice-chancellor for humanities and social sciences at Newcastle University

This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the Guardian Voluntary Sector Network, click here.

• Voluntary sector network blog
• Impact and effectiveness
• Philanthropy
• Voluntary sector
• Bill Gates
• Warren Buffett
• Charitable giving
• Consumer affairs
• Charities
• Newcastle University

Researchers at the Centre for Charitable Giving are investigating the reasons why prominent entrepreneurs, like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, become philanthropic

"How do you become philanthropic?," is a question that has never really been studied in depth. What does the journey from entrepreneur to philanthropist look like, and how can we chart these experiences to help the cause of more and increasingly effective giving?

Our research team, based at the universities of Newcastle, Exeter and Strathclyde, has conducted a major initiative to understand the experiences of entrepreneurs turned philanthropists: the 'big-givers' of all backgrounds, whether they are local or international players, who have become committed to sharing their wealth. The group will present its findings on "Understanding the philanthropic journey" at a CGAP Conference in London on Thursday where they will co-present with two leading entrepreneur-philanthropists: Sir Tom Hunter of West Coast Capital and Hunter Foundation, and Rakesh Bharti Mittal of Bharti Enterprises and Bharti Foundation.

We want this research to show there is a logical process at play which many struggle to understand. Entrepreneurs apply the same rigour and disciplines from the world of commerce to the charitable sector, which suggests there is in fact a science to giving at this level that can be replicated and learned from.

Entrepreneurs bring business methods and disciplines to philanthropy – they don't like wasting money and like to be focussed and planned and their charitable partners to be vetted. Andrew Carnegie, a man famed for the mass manufacture of steel in America, is perhaps the best example of this.

His pervasive influence within the field of philanthropy stems more than anything from his treatise on 'wealth', known as 'The Gospel of Wealth', where he concludes: "the problem of our age is the proper administration of wealth, so that the ties of brotherhood may still bind together the rich and the poor in harmonious relationship." Through his charitable projects Andrew Carnegie gave away almost everything he had earned to a wide range of projects, from arts to education. Entrepreneurs tend to be gifted in recognising and consciously applying the principles of capital accumulation. This is critical to making philanthropy more effective at a time when there is increasing inequality of wealth and income. What are the hallmarks of entrepreneurial philanthropy? Our research shows the following:

• It is the pursuit by entrepreneurs on a not-for-profit basis of big social objectives through active involvement of their economic, cultural, social and symbolic resources.

• They apply business-like methods when making social investments: key performance indicators and rates of return.

• Entrepreneurs invest more than simply money to their causes: time, connections, the 'know-how', branding.

• They like to leverage investments and frequently partner with others, including governments.

• Businessmen and women don't believe in giving handouts. They want to help others to help themselves.

Our studies have also shown that philanthropy is not a one way street. Entrepreneurs benefit from forms of capital, like honorary titles, degrees and recognition. Their world becomes a lot richer, they meet interesting people and come to mix in very interesting circles. What they learn can be turned to economic advantage. The possession of this status and level of connections within the world helps build philanthropy further over time. Therefore, giving encourages these greater returns and helps facilitate more philanthropic enterprises.

A large aspect of the research has been interviewing businessmen and women confronted by the burdensome issue of what to do with more money than they could ever spend in a lifetime. We have asked why they decided to become philanthropic and what they got out of it.

Their motivation is often revealed in their personal experiences and personal values. What makes them get involved in the voluntary sector is commonly understood to be a landmark event within their life that triggers a transition. One entrepreneur said the death of his mother from cancer in 2008 had prompted the change:

"Suddenly life felt a bit meaningless. We were sitting there in a big house in Berkshire, with a house in the south of France, and two beautiful little girls and everything seems perfect ... It [the death of his mother] made me feel more emotional ... It probably made me start thinking about giving ... I think another thing is when I sold the business I didn't know, I felt like I wanted to start giving but I didn't know how to or who to give to or what way to do it, I hadn't a clue, no one teaches you how to be philanthropic."

While entrepreneurs have all the intellectual capacity to make giving more effective, they frequently search for the guidance to become philanthropic. What we need are more stories to be told by philanthropists because they are its best advocates.

We also need access to fellow philanthropists to share their experiences. The level of giving relative to wealth and also need is nowhere near as high as it could or should be. What we witness are some very generous individuals among a lot of people who do little or nothing. A lot can be learned from these practised entrepreneurs and philanthropic groups, such as The Philanthropy Fellowship led by UK Community Foundations and funded by the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, to inspire more and better philanthropy.

The voluntary redistribution of wealth, however, cannot serve as a substitute for welfare in times of austerity. IMF figures (2012) show there is a clear relationship between income inequality and the dynamics of the global economy. The gap between the top 5% and the rest of us has risen very sharply since the early 1980s in the UK & US and other countries of the developed world. As profits and top pay rise it becomes more obvious that this is unsustainable. The power of entrepreneurial philanthropy lies in helping others to help themselves and seize opportunities for betterment.

Professor Charles Harvey is pro-vice-chancellor for humanities and social sciences at Newcastle University

This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the Guardian Voluntary Sector Network, click here.

• Voluntary sector network blog
• Impact and effectiveness
• Philanthropy
• Voluntary sector
• Bill Gates
• Warren Buffett
• Charitable giving
• Consumer affairs
• Charities
• Newcastle University

Researchers at the Centre for Charitable Giving are investigating the reasons why prominent entrepreneurs, like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, become philanthropic

"How do you become philanthropic?," is a question that has never really been studied in depth. What does the journey from entrepreneur to philanthropist look like, and how can we chart these experiences to help the cause of more and increasingly effective giving?

Our research team, based at the universities of Newcastle, Exeter and Strathclyde, has conducted a major initiative to understand the experiences of entrepreneurs turned philanthropists: the 'big-givers' of all backgrounds, whether they are local or international players, who have become committed to sharing their wealth. The group will present its findings on "Understanding the philanthropic journey" at a CGAP Conference in London on Thursday where they will co-present with two leading entrepreneur-philanthropists: Sir Tom Hunter of West Coast Capital and Hunter Foundation, and Rakesh Bharti Mittal of Bharti Enterprises and Bharti Foundation.

We want this research to show there is a logical process at play which many struggle to understand. Entrepreneurs apply the same rigour and disciplines from the world of commerce to the charitable sector, which suggests there is in fact a science to giving at this level that can be replicated and learned from.

Entrepreneurs bring business methods and disciplines to philanthropy – they don't like wasting money and like to be focussed and planned and their charitable partners to be vetted. Andrew Carnegie, a man famed for the mass manufacture of steel in America, is perhaps the best example of this.

His pervasive influence within the field of philanthropy stems more than anything from his treatise on 'wealth', known as 'The Gospel of Wealth', where he concludes: "the problem of our age is the proper administration of wealth, so that the ties of brotherhood may still bind together the rich and the poor in harmonious relationship." Through his charitable projects Andrew Carnegie gave away almost everything he had earned to a wide range of projects, from arts to education. Entrepreneurs tend to be gifted in recognising and consciously applying the principles of capital accumulation. This is critical to making philanthropy more effective at a time when there is increasing inequality of wealth and income. What are the hallmarks of entrepreneurial philanthropy? Our research shows the following:

• It is the pursuit by entrepreneurs on a not-for-profit basis of big social objectives through active involvement of their economic, cultural, social and symbolic resources.

• They apply business-like methods when making social investments: key performance indicators and rates of return.

• Entrepreneurs invest more than simply money to their causes: time, connections, the 'know-how', branding.

• They like to leverage investments and frequently partner with others, including governments.

• Businessmen and women don't believe in giving handouts. They want to help others to help themselves.

Our studies have also shown that philanthropy is not a one way street. Entrepreneurs benefit from forms of capital, like honorary titles, degrees and recognition. Their world becomes a lot richer, they meet interesting people and come to mix in very interesting circles. What they learn can be turned to economic advantage. The possession of this status and level of connections within the world helps build philanthropy further over time. Therefore, giving encourages these greater returns and helps facilitate more philanthropic enterprises.

A large aspect of the research has been interviewing businessmen and women confronted by the burdensome issue of what to do with more money than they could ever spend in a lifetime. We have asked why they decided to become philanthropic and what they got out of it.

Their motivation is often revealed in their personal experiences and personal values. What makes them get involved in the voluntary sector is commonly understood to be a landmark event within their life that triggers a transition. One entrepreneur said the death of his mother from cancer in 2008 had prompted the change:

"Suddenly life felt a bit meaningless. We were sitting there in a big house in Berkshire, with a house in the south of France, and two beautiful little girls and everything seems perfect ... It [the death of his mother] made me feel more emotional ... It probably made me start thinking about giving ... I think another thing is when I sold the business I didn't know, I felt like I wanted to start giving but I didn't know how to or who to give to or what way to do it, I hadn't a clue, no one teaches you how to be philanthropic."

While entrepreneurs have all the intellectual capacity to make giving more effective, they frequently search for the guidance to become philanthropic. What we need are more stories to be told by philanthropists because they are its best advocates.

We also need access to fellow philanthropists to share their experiences. The level of giving relative to wealth and also need is nowhere near as high as it could or should be. What we witness are some very generous individuals among a lot of people who do little or nothing. A lot can be learned from these practised entrepreneurs and philanthropic groups, such as The Philanthropy Fellowship led by UK Community Foundations and funded by the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, to inspire more and better philanthropy.

The voluntary redistribution of wealth, however, cannot serve as a substitute for welfare in times of austerity. IMF figures (2012) show there is a clear relationship between income inequality and the dynamics of the global economy. The gap between the top 5% and the rest of us has risen very sharply since the early 1980s in the UK & US and other countries of the developed world. As profits and top pay rise it becomes more obvious that this is unsustainable. The power of entrepreneurial philanthropy lies in helping others to help themselves and seize opportunities for betterment.

Professor Charles Harvey is pro-vice-chancellor for humanities and social sciences at Newcastle University

This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the Guardian Voluntary Sector Network, click here.

• Voluntary sector network blog
• Impact and effectiveness
• Philanthropy
• Voluntary sector
• Bill Gates
• Warren Buffett
• Charitable giving
• Consumer affairs
• Charities
• Newcastle University

Time for another round-up of some of the articles I've been reading recently.

Katya hosts this month's non-profit blog carnival featuring 25 great pieces of advice.

The Agitator with two articles on direct mail: Stop Mailing! Don't stop mailing! and a look at the ACS decision to stop direct mail acquisition. 

Aline on editing and advice from David Oglivy. If you are interested in David Oglivy then Drayton Bird has a fascinating look at his life: Part 1 and part 2.

Simon George on fundraising and organisational culture.

Karen Zapp on the power of handwritten notes.

A new series from Agents of Good. It starts with three things you can do to love your donors more.

Wild Woman Fundraising shares how to write a story for an appeal letter.

Jeff's nine part series on the levels of fundraising hell ends with level 9: The treacherous.

Charlie asks if you are ok with ok?

Clarification with seven little-known secrets that will get you a visit with your donor.

Open Fundraising share a some fascinating research on attitudes to mobile giving.

The Far Edge of Promise share a story about ugly socks and major giving.

Seth asks about your manifesto and culture.

Out of office replies are normally pretty dull. Sean shares how he makes his stand out and be memorable!

Shoppers urged to pay voluntary donation representing fairer factory wages towards ActionAid charity helping victims' families

A new campaign has been launched to raise money for the Bangladesh factory collapse victims by urging shoppers to pay a voluntary "T-shirt tax". The cash is going to the charity ActionAid which will distribute it to the families of victims killed in the disaster, as well as to workers who survived.

Victoria Butler-Cole, a 36-year-old barrister from Kent who came up with the idea, said: "It seems to me we have a moral duty to help. Everyone has something in their wardrobe from Bangladesh. This isn't just the fault of companies who supply cheap clothes."

Butler-Cole said shoppers should consider donating the difference between what they paid for a T-shirt – and what it would cost if it had been produced by workers treated property. For example, if a T-shirt produced in Bangladesh cost £3, a £3 donation would be fair, she said.

On Saturday demonstrators gathered outside cut-price retailer Primark's flagship store in Oxford Street. A petition has been launched calling for Primark and other brands, including Matalan and Mango, which used businesses based inside the Dhaka building, to compensate the families of workers killed or injured.

Butler-Cole acknowledged struggling families wouldn't be able to pay a T-shirt tax, and often relied on cut-price clothes. But she said others should consider it. The tax was better than a high-street boycott, which could lead to Bangladeshi workers losing their livelihoods, she added.

Butler-Cole's sister Imogen, who lived in Bangladesh, has launched a Facebook page and Twitter campaign with the hashtag #TShirtTax.

Currently ActionAid Bangladesh has 200 volunteers helping with the rescue operation and providing food, water and emergency equipment.

• Bangladesh
• Charities
• Voluntary sector
• Charitable giving
• Fashion industry
• Primark
• Retail industry

Shoppers urged to pay voluntary donation representing fairer factory wages towards ActionAid charity helping victims' families

A new campaign has been launched to raise money for the Bangladesh factory collapse victims by urging shoppers to pay a voluntary "T-shirt tax". The cash is going to the charity ActionAid which will distribute it to the families of victims killed in the disaster, as well as to workers who survived.

Victoria Butler-Cole, a 36-year-old barrister from Kent who came up with the idea, said: "It seems to me we have a moral duty to help. Everyone has something in their wardrobe from Bangladesh. This isn't just the fault of companies who supply cheap clothes."

Butler-Cole said shoppers should consider donating the difference between what they paid for a T-shirt – and what it would cost if it had been produced by workers treated property. For example, if a T-shirt produced in Bangladesh cost £3, a £3 donation would be fair, she said.

On Saturday demonstrators gathered outside cut-price retailer Primark's flagship store in Oxford Street. A petition has been launched calling for Primark and other brands, including Matalan and Mango, which used businesses based inside the Dhaka building, to compensate the families of workers killed or injured.

Butler-Cole acknowledged struggling families wouldn't be able to pay a T-shirt tax, and often relied on cut-price clothes. But she said others should consider it. The tax was better than a high-street boycott, which could lead to Bangladeshi workers losing their livelihoods, she added.

Butler-Cole's sister Imogen, who lived in Bangladesh, has launched a Facebook page and Twitter campaign with the hashtag #TShirtTax.

Currently ActionAid Bangladesh has 200 volunteers helping with the rescue operation and providing food, water and emergency equipment.

• Bangladesh
• Charities
• Voluntary sector
• Charitable giving
• Fashion industry
• Primark
• Retail industry

I was going to blog about the decision of KBH Media to limit the amount of charity advertising on trains in London and the south east. However, Paul at Open beat me to it and made many of the points I was going to make.

However, there is one main observation that I would still like to share, which backs the point Charlie Hulme made on 101 Fundraising earlier this week.

Quality over quantity

For me the problem is not one of over supply, it's one of quality. As this channel is increasingly popular, it means that charities will have to work harder to stand out and innovate. What worked six months ago, may not work now.

KBH say that some charities have asked for a limit to be imposed on the number of ads per carriage. I'd wager a fair amount it is charities that have seen disappointing results and not those who have made a big success of train ads.

I've seen this first hand. With our first two attempts at train ads we got some great results. On roll-out we had a part disaster/part qualified success. I don't blame too much competition for this; I blame us for not improving between campaigns.

When fundraising fails, people normally blame external factors rather looking at the quality of their work. High quality fundraising works regardless of the competition.

Unintended consequences

What will be the impact of limiting the supply?

Based on classic economic theory, whenever you limit supply price goes up. 

KBH insist that isn't their intention, but I do worry that many smaller and medium sized charities will be squeezed out of using this medium as the big charities hoover up the capacity.

We've seen this happen with face to face fundraising with many smaller charities unable to meet supplier minimums for recruiting donors as larger charities buy up much of the capacity.

This has led to an issue of quantity over quality (with a race to the bottom on cost), which is one of the reasons for face to face has had such a bad press. It's still a great way to recruit donors, but it's becoming increasingly important to stand out and engage donors in different ways - see how Oxfam have used a bucket to improve their street results.

I hope KBH’s offer of dialogue is genuine and fundraiser’s can work together to make the most of mobile and train advertising.

It's been a manic few weeks with having a number of new team members starting, a couple of events to attend and (seemingly) a million and one other things to do -  this means the blogging has had to take a bit of a backseat. I'm hoping next week will bring a bit more time to get back into the swing of things, in the meantime, here is the latest reading round-up. Enjoy.

Clayton Burnett have released a fantastic report called 'Great Fundraising'. You can request a copy here or read some of the key points over at the Agitator.

Another report that is worth a look is this guide to visual storytelling from Visual Story Lab.

The Clarification blog with five things to do to sustain donor relationships.

Kev on the differences between leadership and management.

Kirsty shares some of her favourite thank-you's on UK Fundraising.

Kivi with the best nonprofit videos of the past year. I think the winner is fab and worth watching.

Agents of Good ask 'Are you really social?'

Return on (fundraising) talent on 101 Fundraising.

Nonprofit storytelling: what it is and what it isn't - from Karen Zapp's blog.

Sean looks at the myth of donor fatigue.

What are the 20 best films for fundraising inspiration? Stephen George proposes some of his favourites.

Seth on branding: The brand is a story. But it is a story about you, not about the brand.

Adrian Sargeant critiques the Money for Good UK report. Great reading for anyone interested in fundraising research and an important warning about believing everything you read.

Finally, I wanted to share a new blog that may be of interest to fundraiser's in small UK charities -  Lostandfoundfundraising. This post on learning to speak to your audience has some good practical advice.