Intelligent giving: in defence of Adam!

I originally planned to write about Adam Rothwell's 'Agent Provocater' article in July's Professional Fundraising Magazine, but have been slightly overtaken by the debate raging on the Intelligent Giving blog on whether fundraisers are doing a good job.

Unfortunately, some of the debate has descended into personal attacks, but the general point that Adam is trying to make is a relevant one: do we do enough as a profession to raise the overall level of philanthropy in the UK or do we simply compete with each other for a fairly static pot of cash?

The stats used to support both sides of the argument are pretty ropey (another problem for the sector), but my hunch is that Adam is right.  Overall, charitable income hasn't grown substantially over the last few years, despite big increases in fundraising spending.

Take the example of the NSPCC, who I believe are one of the best fundraising organisations in the UK.

According to the Charity Commission in 2004 the NSPCC spent approx 15.5 million and raised approx 84 million.  An ROI of 5.4:1.

In 2008 they spent 32.6 million and raised 124.4 million.  A drop in ROI to 3.8:1.

Their net income has increased dramatically, but it has got more expensive (less efficient) to raise the funds.

Anyway, the purpose of the post was to say that I think that as a profession it's been good to have an outsider who is prepared to challenge the status quo and to ask awkward questions.

Although I think Adam's style has been a bit too adversarial and some of his logic has been flawed at times, he has done more to expose bad fundraising and create debate about fundraising methods than the toothless FRSB has achieved.  He was written eloquently on the importance of short term v long term thinking in fundraising and also exposed a number of less than transparent charities.

I hope Adam's successor (Dr Richard Marsh) continues to highlight bad fundraising practice and will retain Intelligent Giving's reputation as an independent voice who may say things we don't like to hear.

Thanks Adam for providing some lively debate over the last few years.