Fundraising Deserves More Research

Howard Lake | 24 July 2009 | Blogs

As some readers may be aware I am presently running a campaign to persuade the funders of the new Centre for Charitable Giving and Philanthropy to focus its last £600K on fundraising research and to open up access to these funds to those who were unable to bid when the Centre was first commissioned. We now have what I regard as a completely ludicrous situation where over £2 million could now be spent on ‘giving’ research yet excluding the topic of fundraising (and researchers currently working in that field) altogether.

This is truly bizarre and was never the intent of the Home Office when the idea was first mooted. Originally it was intended that the Centre would conduct practical research that would aid fundraisers in their role, strive to grow giving in the United Kingdom and perhaps most significantly of all, enhance the quality of our donors’ experience of giving.

Somewhere along the way the idea appears to have been highjacked. Rather than outline a series of concrete goals or projects that would make the kind of difference I allude to above, the funders mapped out only a series of vague overall aims and allowed researchers to bid for the projects that they believed would be of interest. The result has been an eclectic mix of projects that while academically interesting offer nothing of value for fundraising.

The mix of projects is disappointing in itself, but as a consequence of their selection there were obviously no fundraising academics included in the Centre initially. We now have a giving research centre that while populated by some very eminent academics has a critical gap in its subject expertise.

Does this matter? Well – for the existing projects – frankly no. The folks recruited are ideally suited to be conducting the projects they have bid for. As I have just noted the Centre includes some very eminent scholars in domains such as business history, voluntary sector history, social policy and sociology. These are all very competent professional people with a genuine passion for their work.

But the lack of fundraising expertise and the engagement with professional practice this brings could well pose a problem in the future. The funders of the Centre have indicated that in January they will publish their decisions about how the remaining funds are to be allocated. It is yet possible that they might consider spending some of this total on fundraising. They haven’t explicitly ruled this out. Unfortunately the funders are quite adamant that they will ONLY spend these monies within their existing structure specifically ruling out the inclusion of additional expertise.

I feel passionately this is not acceptable and would urge the funders to do three things:

1) Some of the 600K they have remaining MUST be spent on fundraising projects. Even a small sum of money like this could make a substantive difference to the field. Giving and fundraising are so closely related it isn’t appropriate to completely ignore the latter as they have to date.

2) Fundraising/giving academics (i.e. those that have published substantively in the domain) should be involved in the decision about which projects to fund. Otherwise I can’t see how such decisions can be taken in a meaningful way. You need folks who are well versed in the field to shape an agenda – and in the case of applied research – ideally in consultation with the practitioners they serve. Professional fundraisers must be given a voice. Doing so would both guide the selection of meaningful projects AND encourage a wide range of charities to participate in the research to make it as good as it can possibly be.

3) Fundraising/giving academics must be allowed to bid for funding for fundraising projects. The funders are presently not intending that this would happen. They are presently intending to spend the remaining monies ONLY within their existing hub and spoke network. This despite them have failed to recruit extant giving/fundraising academics in the first round. There is absolutely nothing wrong with encouraging new talent in the way that the Centre is currently – but alongside this I don’t believe it should be controversial to request that at least one member of the existing academy be included. There is a wealth of expertise that should be being drawn on. Fundraising academics don’t need to be given any kind of preferential treatment – just a level playing field from which to apply.

The full story on this and the response from the funders is provided at http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/News/FundraisingBulletin/921200/Research-ce Please feel free to post comments below.

About Howard Lake
Howard Lake is consultant editor of UK Fundraising. He founded the site in 1994 and successfully sold it in 2022. As director of Giving X Ltd he is exploring growing giving on a massive scale. He is the founder of Fundraising Camp and co-founder of GoodJobs.