Intelligent Giving

Intelligent Giving aimed to raise public interest in charitable giving and advised donors how to make the most satisfactory use of their money. It was one of several organisations, including New Philanthropy Capital (UK) and Charity Navigator (US), that formed for this purpose, and it operated in a relatively new sector in the not-for-profit arena. It sought to bring its findings to as wide a readership as possible, employing a casual, witty approach on its website.{{cite web | url=http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/16th-february-2008/44/how-to-give | title = How to Give| newspaper= The Spectator | accessdate=24 July 2014}} The authors aligned themselves with donors, not with the charity fundraising community. The organisation was a company limited by guarantee and itself gained charitable status in 2008.

The central feature of Intelligent Giving's website was a charity ratings service. In 2005–06, it researched and rated over 500 UK charities and listed a further 1,000. Although it clearly acknowledged that quality of work is the most important way to judge a charity, it held transparency as an important indicator of a charity’s diligence, and said that this was the most important aspect—and a cross-sector comparable one—of a charity's annual report.{{cite web | first=Dave | last=Pitchford | url=http://thecharitysleuths.blogspot.com/2006/09/why-annual-reports.html | title = Why the Obsession with annual reports?| publisher= Intelligent Giving | date=11 September 2006}}

In March 2007, Intelligent Giving claimed that English Premiership football clubs were not giving enough to charity. Chelsea FC was particularly criticized in this work, and a man calling himself "Dave from Chelsea" left a telephone message "I'm going to punch you in the face" for Intelligent Giving's lead researcher in response to media reports.{{cite news | first=Oliver| last=Marre| url=http://observer.guardian.co.uk/7days/story/0,,2052514,00.html| title = Pendennis: Chelsea play hard – off the pitch as well as on| newspaper= The Observer|date=8 April 2007| location=London}}

In June 2007, the organisation analysed the Jewish charities it had profiled and concluded, "They are pretty appalling in terms of transparency." Details from the report were published in The Jewish Chronicle.{{cite web | first=Simon| last=Rocker| url=http://www.thejc.com/home.aspx?ParentId=m11s18&SecId=18&AId=53556&ATypeId=1| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927010959/http://www.thejc.com/home.aspx?ParentId=m11s18&SecId=18&AId=53556&ATypeId=1| url-status=dead| archive-date=27 September 2007| title='Secret' charities under attack |newspaper=The Jewish Chronicle|date=29 June 2007}}

In July 2007, Intelligent Giving won the New Statesman New Media Award for Information & Openness.{{cite magazine| url=http://www.newstatesman.com/200707190060|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070827103027/http://www.newstatesman.com/200707190060|archive-date=27 August 2007|title=New Media Awards 2007 Winners|date=19 July 2007|magazine=The New Statesman}}

October 2007 saw Intelligent Giving name and shame in The Guardian the rugby union charity Wooden Spoon Society for providing a very low return on its fundraising activities.{{cite news | first=Rob| last=Booth| url=http://sport.guardian.co.uk/rugbyleague/story/0,,2200914,00.html| title=Watchdog blows whistle on rugby charity's £2m bill for high living | newspaper=The Guardian| accessdate=29 October 2007 | location=London | date=29 October 2007}}

Intelligent Giving's argument was rejected by John Inverdale, a BBC broadcaster, in an opinion piece in The Daily Telegraph as "misguided reporting that fails to understand how fund-raising operates." It was also condemned by Wooden Spoon in a statement.{{cite news | first=John| last=Inverdale| url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/drugsinsport/2324576/Dick-Pound-can-still-help-future-Tom-Simpsons.html| title=Dick Pound can still help future Tom Simpsons | newspaper=The Daily Telegraph| location=London | date=31 October 2007}} The Charity Commission's judgement subsequently attracted attention in The Sunday Telegraph, where it was given as an example of the Charity Commission's poor decision-making process.{{cite news | first=Alasdair| last=Palmer| url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3553922/To-be-charitable-this-commission-is-warped.html| title=To be charitable, this commission is warped |publisher=The Sunday Telegraph| location=London | date=2008-01-20}}

Critics included Steve Taylor of Sue Ryder Care, who decried the organisation as a "self appointed guardian" with "little demonstrable understanding of the operating framework" of charities; the Institute of Fundraising, which called its research methods "rudimentary"; and Sir Terry Wogan (a trustee of Children in Need) who condemned its work as "contemptible".{{cite news | first=Annie | last=Kelly | url=http://society.guardian.co.uk/voluntary/story/0,,1959140,00.html | title=Pudsey's worst nightmare | newspaper=The Guardian | date=29 November 2006 | accessdate=18 January 2007 | location=London}}{{cite news|first=Terry |last=Wogan |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3634420/Wogans-world.html |title=Wogan's World |newspaper=Daily Telegraph |date=19 November 2006 |accessdate=1 May 2013 |location=London |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110604043713/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3634420/Wogans-world.html |archivedate=4 June 2011 }}

Intelligent Giving said that its approach was significantly more nuanced than that of other charity-profiling services, such as Charity Navigator in the US.{{cite news| first=David| last=Pitchford| url=http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/charity_news/full_news.cfm?ID=21148| title=Are charities really afraid of committing to transparency?| publisher=Third Sector| date=10 January 2007| accessdate=19 January 2007| url-status=dead| archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070218032324/http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/charity_news/full_news.cfm?ID=21148| archivedate=18 February 2007| df=dmy-all}}

• GuideStar: UK and US databases and information on charities
• GiveWell: An American non-profit charity evaluator, focused on identifying outstanding charities that are proven, cost-effective, scalable, and transparent.

{{reflist|30em}}

{{charity}}

Category:British fundraising websites