Transparency...

The expenses fiasco that has gripped the House of Commons and the Nation over the past few weeks has shown us unequivocally that few politicians can be trusted with public money. Whether a Scottish former Metal Worker whose wife could not walk to Tesco or a landed Grandee who desperately needed to have their moat cleaned these men and women have done lasting damage to both their position and that of those who will follow them. Yet their defence has been a Nuremberg-esque "we were following orders" and indeed they were, but in the current economic climate the public simply cannot stand for it anymore. Which leads me to question what we should expect a Charity to take out of a donation for "fundraising" / how much of our £1 will actually make it to the cause that we have decided to support? Alas there is no set guideline or standard in this respect; Charity fundraising operates much like a business with wage bills, promotional costs, travel, rent and other overheads all having to come out of the pot of money before it can be used to build the new wing, hire the extra nurse or achieve anything else. As income is not guaranteed it is very difficult for a Fundraising Director to maintain an exact level; some years they will be more efficient and in others they will be less efficient. However, Charities submit meticulous accounts to the Charity Commission and it is here that you can see just how much of your money makes it through to the cause you favour and therefore can always send your money elsewhere or even lend a hand to better increase the efficiency. There have been recent calls for Charities to become more transparent in regards to what they pay their fundraising staff. This has mainly been instigated to prevent Charities being used as elaborate money laundering schemes, but it did make me think about an alternative interpretation which would be; fundraisers should work for peanuts because otherwise they're monsters! Extreme I know but there will be people that will think like this. There can be little doubt that the career fundraiser is not driven purely by thought of monetary gain, but similarly talent deserves rewarding and for people at the top of their game it is only fair that they are suitably recognised and rewarded but also encouraged to remain in the 3rd Sector. If a fundraiser told you that they earned £100,000 / year I imagine that your latent reaction would be horror, possibly even outrage. But why should this be? If they are incredibly well connected and are responsible for a network of donors who between them contribute over £5,000,000 then this fundraiser is only a 2% overhead, if they raise £1,000,000 then they are a 10% overhead and so on. What if this person was a "guru" in Social networking who would revolutionise the way that their Charity communicated? If another said they earned £25,000 you might not think twice, but would you be outraged if they had brought in £50,000 in the past year making them a 50% overhead? What if the sector they worked in was only just emerging and this nett £25,000 was a vital part of income and was forecast to explode by 200% in the next year are they not then underpaid? As you can see this is an extremely difficult situation - should talent be rewarded, or should the job be deemed reward enough? But most importantly should we care about this at all or simply the total amount that is used to raise funds? What are your thoughts? -- The 3rd Sector is becoming an increasingly popular career choice for people at different life-stages. I am proposing to interview a number of fundraisers at different levels to find out what inspired them into the career they are following. Some will have always worked in the 3rd Sector while others will have left "successful" careers and switched sectors only recently. I would like you to submit any questions you might have and I shall ensure that they are asked.