Two thirds of people believe that charities spending money on rebrands and on offices in London are wasting donations, according to research from nfpSynergy.
In research released today based on a January 2015 survey of 1,000 people , nfpSynergy say that 67 per cent of people feel that charity rebrands are either “somewhat” or “very wasteful”, while 68 per cent of respondents said that same thing about charities having offices based in London.
According to the report, the public would rather see charities spend income on websites and advertising. Some 50 per cent of those surveyed also said they “prefer it” when charities are run entirely by volunteers.
The survey also asked people to “name ways a charity could make them feel confident their donation would be spent well”. Around 50 per cent of respondents said that charities that did not pay staff to travel first class or, instead, were staffed entirely by volunteers, would have that effect. A further 45 per cent said that they’d feel more confident if “no one in an organisation” was paid more than £50,000 a year.
A tenth of those surveyed said they’d like to see full-time, charity employees working “one day a month” for free.
However, the survey did find that nearly half of the public feel that charities spending money on lobbying the government is a “fairly” or “very” worthwhile way of spending donated income.
nfpSynergy’s deputy managing director, Patrick Brennan (pictured), said: “The public’s desire for information is high, but their willingness to study rows and rows of figures is usually limited. Charities can’t simply publish their accounts and expect donors to just reassure themselves by reading cover to cover. Instead, they need to provide just enough detail to give people the confidence that their donation will be spent wisely and without waste.
“While nobody travelling first class on expenses might save relatively small amounts of money, it is symbolic of a frugal charity. ‘Key facts’ buttons or tabs on charity websites are also effective ways of presenting impact in an accessible and aesthetically appealing way.”
