The polling company, YouGov, issued a press release last week with the heading “Mixed response towards grading system for charities”. The survey reported in the press release, which followed conversations between YouGov and NPC, asked people how interested they would be in an independent rating system measuring charities performance. The results are confusing to say the least, and not particularly encouraging.
According to the survey, 68% of people would switch their donations to another charity if they found the one they were supporting was performing badly. So far, so logical. But only 40%—a substantial minority, but still a minority—are interested in a charity rating scheme to provide independent assessments of organisations.
Given this, it is hardly surprising to find that 68% of people think that an independent rating system would not affect their giving decisions. Only 25% would be more likely to give.
There is something strange in these figures. In particular, the fact that 68% say they would change the pattern of donations if they were given evidence of poor performance, and the same percentage saying they would not respond to independent evidence. Reconciling these is tricky.
One possibility is that donors think they have the right information already so adding to this would not help much. If so, that is surprising. The quality of information provided by charities about their work and, crucially, their impact, is poor.
If donors wouldn’t respond to more information, that suggests they don’t want more. This is bad news for people who assume that some form of ‘market pressure’ will lead to better communication of charities’ results, a more sensible allocation of donations and more giving. Or, abandoning a market-based rhetoric, it is bad news for people who think that donors can be helped to give more sensibly and rationally.
Of course, it is possible that the general public is simply wrong, and more information would lead to changes in behaviour. And there seems little doubt that more information, including about performance and reputation, is coming. But the survey certainly provides food for thought and cautions against those—including, to some extent, NPC in its earlier form—who believe that more information is straightforwardly the key to a better sector.
NPC has in the past argued that rich people need to be encouraged to give more and that the distribution of donations is wrong. We have sought to address these issues by improving the quality of information and advice about the work and performance of charities. The YouGov survey questions whether people really want additional information.
As we have learned and reflected in our strategy, getting more donors to care about the performance of charities is an important part of building a better ‘market place’ for charitable funding. Building a market is very different from servicing an existing market and demand. The YouGov survey reinforces the importance of that shift.
NPC’s experience and analysis demonstrates that there are many charities doing good work. Improving their ability to attract funding and grow their work by building this market place remains a worthwhile mission.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Do enough donors care? New NPC blog post by me, -- Topsy.com
Hi Martin -
I feel that there are a few unspoken assumptions that are underpinning this analysis, the most important being that of the feasibility of an ‘independent rating system’.
Currently, those of us in the voluntary and community sectors have not agreed on universal measures of rating charity performance, nor, I would argue, should we – there is far too much in the way of ‘apples and oranges’ in this sector to apply such a cross-cutting system of measurement. Thus any rating system, would be an imposition of a particularly influential minority opinion on what charities should be measuring, and how they are expected to measure it; an imposition bound to work to the strengths of the types of organisations that advocate for it, and hinder those who have less access to the type of comparative data and collection methods required to achieve it.
We need look no further than the systems of supposed accountability imposed by many governmental and non-governmental funders, to see that enforced accountability measures, often push organisations delivering support in complex and ever-changing social situations, to find ways of creatively adapting their reporting, to ensure the next cheque arrives. This is nothing new to anyone who reports to grant funders, yet the effect is quite the opposite of accountability, both inhibiting this, and the organisation’s ability to honestly learn from what has worked and what has not.
You can see a fuller account of my thoughts on the question on my blog:
http://www.concretesolutions.org.uk/?p=437
Looking forward to your response!
Various surveys show that the majority of donations by value come from a very small segment of the general population (<10%), generally wealthier or with greater commitment to specific charities or faith groups. These donors are the ones who tend to value rating systems and other guidance on the most effective ways of "investing" their wealth. NPC and others have done much to facilitate this group.
The vast majority of the population give relatively small amounts (less than 1% of their net income) to a few charities, usually because someone asks them or they or their family/friends are directly involved. Using rating systems is irrelevant to this majority. So I'm not surprised that a survey of the general population appears to be contradictory. What is needed is a survey of committed donors.
I agree with Liam’s point above that at the heart of the response is probably a deep scepticism about the feasibility of an “independent ratings system”. What would you rate? Who would assess? Who would pay? Even if you got over those hurdles then any system would almost inevitably lead to perverse incentives and “tick box” approaches to get good scores. While there might, ultimately, be some correlation between good organisations and those that score well the whole activity would be in danger of creating a bureaucratic burden that would drown many of the smaller charities who rely on volunteers to do so much valuable work.
While I think we have to continue to hold charities to account for how they spend donations and other money I do not think that an independent ratings system is the way to do it.
Adrian
Pingback: Do Donors Care Whether Nonprofits Are Any Good? | Tactical Philanthropy
I wonder if the scepticism is to do with the feasibility issue, or whether it’s more to do with the interesting point that Mark Phillips (http://www.queerideas.co.uk/my_weblog/2010/06/why-do-we-treat-donor-like-mushrooms.html) made in his blog that donors don’t want to find out that they’ve made poor decisions? I found this argument rather compelling and a good reminder that humans are often more emotional than rational creatures.
Obviously the YouGov survey was more concerned with finding out donors’ responses to the idea of an independent charity grading system in principle, rather than what the nitty gritty of this would involve. But it would be interesting to know if donors’ decisions were influenced by the feasibility issue.
Pingback: Do donors care about impact? Why we need six answers. | New Philanthropy Capital's Blog
Pingback: Picking charities – peers as a proxy for quality | The Discomfort Zone