When is a Charity Register not a Charity Register?

I'll get my position up front here: I also believe that this is a negative trend. However, don't *just* blame funders/potential philanthropists. Also blame an ever-increasing demand for limited supplies of cash by applicants who don't bother to do their research. Sorry, but it's true.
(Please note that I have not dignified such applicants with the title 'fundraiser')

Mark Cassidy is exaggerating about the increased admin costs. There is no legal requirement for us to answer applications - only an ethical one. If funders state eligibility criteria and exclusions on their website (or at the very least, in their annual report) together with a statement that applications that are *obviously* not eligible [*mutter* if you'd just bothered to take two minutes for a Google search and a couple of hundred words read] will not be answered. Sorted. Saves me hours.

For a trust that accepts applications to be entirely 'off register' is ridiculous and I'm fully in agreement with Finbar for these - if they do accept proposals, they should be transparent about it as we try to be.

However, if individual donors are allowed free choice and privacy about their giving then why should not groups of individuals be allowed the same freedom of choice and privacy?

OK, so such groups of individuals who have their chosen causes will get the tax breaks from setting up a trust - but they will also presumably have to account to the Charity Commission (or similar body in whichever country) for their donations and prove reasonable benefit/'due diligence'/monitoring of outputs and outcomes. Unlike a 'non-trust' where donors can give to whoever they please, value added or not.

"Otherwise, no matter how knowledgeable the philanthropist might be, they could easily slip into a lazy way of allocating funds or even sitting on them."

To the first - hmmm, lazy is unfair. It's down to freedom of choice again. Finbar, you've put funders in a no-win situation here. We often hear "Trusts Are Evil because they only make grants for a limited time". In this article, you're implying that "Trusts Might Be Evil because they want to choose their causes and stick to them and not change".

Of course, as a fundraiser your cause is the *best* - but you have to accept that not everyone will see it that way. In fact, Finbar doesn't even say trusts in the bit I've quoted - he says philanthropist. An individual. I call double standards. Just because they are rich doesn't give them any more or any less right *or obligation* than any other person-on-the-street when it comes to how they decide to give to charity.

You may argue that 'private' trusts should still be 'public' and clearly state that they won't accept applications/will only accept applications in certain areas. As you know, many already do. However, there are - still - too many applicants out there who pay no attention to criteria/exclusions (particularly exasperating are the "I know it says, but ..." applications. I still hear regularly, every 6 months, from an organisation that I wrote to at least four times - when we still had a 'respond to all' policy - and even telephoned to ask them not to waste their time - and postage - as they would never be eligible). Let alone the vast quantities of what I call "Greetings in the name of the Lords" - and they're not all scams.

To the second point in the quote - actually, groups of philanthropists set up as a trust (which makes them trustees) would be *less* likely to sit on funds because the Charity Commission would smack them if their free reserves are overly excessive. We have to justify any unallocated money that we are holding for grants.

All I can see as an end result of allowing privacy (= making it easier to run a trust) is more money in the charity sector, and probably (because of the audit/accounting rules) doing more good. There are an awful lot of organisations that go on and on about donor comfort/interest/importance but forget that trusts are donors too. People give to people - and believe it or not, funders' trustees *are* people (not Horrible Monsters Who Want To Make Your Life A Misery - that would be me as the grants officer).

Imagine you're rich. Giving should be positive and feel good, right? How can it be if you're saying 'No' to most of the requests you receive - many for very worthy causes? Saying No a lot makes me want to hide and I'm paid to do it!

"New" philanthropists who have made their money from business are often very energetic about finding new causes - and small/sidelined organisations. So although this privacy trend *could* lead to even more exclusion of the smallest than there already is, it's not a 'given'.

Sandre
-------