Just come back from the FINZ Conference held at Waipuna last week. Great line up of speakers, exhibitors and attendees. Over fifty percent were new attendees which shows some activity in the profession. International guests included Sandy Rees, Stephen Pidgeon and James Greenfield. Sandy invites people to register for her enewsletter. Sean Trinor, who hasn't missed a conference in years, was also (as usual) a popular speaker.
Awards were won by such diverse organisations as Rural Women and Ronald McDonald House Canterbury through to the Cancer Society for their relationship with ANZ National Bank.
Frank Claridge won the Henry A Rosso Award for his contribution to the profession. I became a Fellow for my contribution the Institute and the sector. Wow that was a special moment! I need to change my cards!
We had some good discussions on topics such as whether it was appropriate to take government money, through to what are the attributes of high performing fundraisers and whether they are a liability or an asset. I know which one I think is right!
Keith Dignan once again shared some fantastic statistical insights into telemarketing. A morning tea with James Greenfield persuaded me that we do need to take a lot of notice of financial reporting requirements. Breakfast with our good friend Trevor Garrett from the Charities Commission warned us about the update to the Fair Trading Act which would require charities to report on cost of fundraising. We will have to up the ante on our reporting if that is passed. It's already moving through the process. Remember this was the Amy Adams proposal from a few years ago. It didn't go away.
Showing posts with label Charities Commission. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Charities Commission. Show all posts
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Blackbaud Index of Charitable Giving
The latest Blackbaud survey of charitable giving shows that fundraising in the US has returned to pre-recession levels. In fact it has above the level of giving last seen in 2007.
My gut reaction, because we don't keep regular statistics in this way, is that New Zealand's donation levels will be fairly static across the board but increased for emergency causes such as the Canterbury earthquake.
Blackbaud is able to gather such significant statistics because it runs a benchmarking product with regular subscribers. The benchmarking product is available in New Zealand but there are insufficient subscribers to create a regional group.
Otherwise we are reliant on the annual statistics collected by the Charities Commission, which of course, relate to the previous financial year.
The appetite for measurement and evaluation of one' s success is poor. There are few organisations that I talk to that want to invest in benchmarking. Chief executives don't understand enough about fundraising to know that the service is available and fundraisers may not want to put their efforts to the test.
For a number of organisations that I've come across the job descriptions don't specify the actual financial targets, even when a performance bonus is part of the remuneration. So why would these organisations be interested in benchmarking?
I talked recently to a senior fundraiser in a well known organisation who was struggling to satisfy a new CEO who was setting objectives. I had a look at what the CEO had proposed. There was no simple financial target. Instead a list of wishy, washy, unmeasurable challenges. The CEO called an emergency meeting, without consulting the fundraiser and announced that the organisation was in a poor financial position. Feeling very miffed, the fundraiser resigned. Later I did some research on the organisation. Its bequest income was very successful and the organisation would be held up as a model for its active bequest strategy. The results found through the Charities Commission register showed the organisation to be doing well. This is obviously a justification for benchmarking but without any comparison to go on, the fundraiser could not prove that she was doing a good job!
My gut reaction, because we don't keep regular statistics in this way, is that New Zealand's donation levels will be fairly static across the board but increased for emergency causes such as the Canterbury earthquake.
Blackbaud is able to gather such significant statistics because it runs a benchmarking product with regular subscribers. The benchmarking product is available in New Zealand but there are insufficient subscribers to create a regional group.
Otherwise we are reliant on the annual statistics collected by the Charities Commission, which of course, relate to the previous financial year.
The appetite for measurement and evaluation of one' s success is poor. There are few organisations that I talk to that want to invest in benchmarking. Chief executives don't understand enough about fundraising to know that the service is available and fundraisers may not want to put their efforts to the test.
For a number of organisations that I've come across the job descriptions don't specify the actual financial targets, even when a performance bonus is part of the remuneration. So why would these organisations be interested in benchmarking?
I talked recently to a senior fundraiser in a well known organisation who was struggling to satisfy a new CEO who was setting objectives. I had a look at what the CEO had proposed. There was no simple financial target. Instead a list of wishy, washy, unmeasurable challenges. The CEO called an emergency meeting, without consulting the fundraiser and announced that the organisation was in a poor financial position. Feeling very miffed, the fundraiser resigned. Later I did some research on the organisation. Its bequest income was very successful and the organisation would be held up as a model for its active bequest strategy. The results found through the Charities Commission register showed the organisation to be doing well. This is obviously a justification for benchmarking but without any comparison to go on, the fundraiser could not prove that she was doing a good job!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)