ICO rulings and Database Screenings

The ICO fines for BHF and RSPCA that were announced this week have caused understandable concern for prospect researchers and wider fundraising teams across the sector. This blog post is Factary’s initial response to this news.

The ICO has so far issued two statements about the fines levied (these can be seen here and here). The statements outline that the fines are being issued for various infringements of the Data Protection Act through wealth screening, data appending and data sharing. To be clear, this blog post refers only to the situation with wealth screening, or, as we call it, Database Screening. Data appending and data sharing of bulk data are not services we provide at Factary so we won’t comment on the situation with these fines.

The first thing to mention is that we are expecting more comprehensive information about these fines to be issued on Friday 9th December by the ICO. The full penalty notices will be published on the ICO website and Twitter feed along with details of the enforcement action. Until we have reviewed the full documents it will be difficult to respond properly to this situation. That said, since the Daily Mail broke the story (ahead of the ICO announcement) of the fines on Tuesday 6th, we have received many emails from concerned clients, colleagues and friends worrying about the implication of these fines for non-profits and prospect research, so we wanted to issue a response as soon as possible to answer some of the most pressing questions, some of which are…

Can we still carry out Database Screenings?

It seems that one of the main reasons for the fines levied for ‘wealth screenings’, as explained in the information we have seen from the ICO so far, was because “Donors were not informed of these [Screening] practices, and so were unable to consent or object” to them. The lesson here is not that Screening is unlawful from the ICO’s viewpoint, but that non-profits and Screening service providers need to be open and transparent about what they will use personal data for. This is something that we mentioned in our previous blog on data protection.

The problem still remains, of course, that we feel neither the ICO nor the Fundraising Regulator have been too clear on how this information should be presented to supporters or indeed what information is necessary / sufficient. Hopefully they will do more to educate the sector and provide greater clarity. In the meantime we would expect that the vast majority of non-profits have completed and published, or are working on, improved privacy notices that include information about prospect research so that their supporters are fully aware of what their data is used for. The RiF ‘data protection working group’ will be drawing together samples of these, and this is something Factary will be helping with. We’ll post news on this here on the blog, on our Twitter feed and the RiF committee will also post on their Twitter feed, so keep an eye out.

If you’d like to discuss privacy notices or statements please do email me.

What about previous Screenings?

One of the questions many are asking now is, “When I last undertook a Screening, the non-profit I work for did not have a robust privacy policy in place. Is there a chance that we will be fined, too?” The short answer to this is, of course, that it is entirely possible more fines will be issued. The long answer may have to wait until we have received more information from the ICO on the nature of the fines against BHF and RSPCA in relation to Screening; until we know the full extent of the infringement, it will be difficult to understand the full impact.

Either way, there is very little you can do about previous Screenings; you can really only make sure you are fully prepared and compliant for the next.

What can the sector do?

From our point of view, some of the ICO’s latest statements set a tone which portrays Screening (and prospect research more generally) negatively. The ICO statements said, “The millions of people who give their time and money to benefit good causes…will be upset to discover that charities abused their trust to target them for even more money”. This kind of reporting will no doubt result in harmful press articles (aside from the inevitable articles from the Daily Mail which I won’t reference here) such as the BBC and even Third Sector where they have reported negatively that charities are “secretly screening donors” with a “disregard for people’s privacy”.

We feel the general tone used to report on these fines suggests a lack of understanding of what Screening is and why it is used – and, by extension, what prospect research is and what it is for. We should, as a sector, take some responsibility for this as we have not historically been very open in explaining how Screening and prospect research benefits donors and helps to improve their relationships with the causes they support. That said, we can’t shoulder all the blame, as many people I have spoken to have found the ICO’s approach to communication on these issues (and when directly speaking at conferences during 2016) to also be quite negative. For example, many of the emails I have received since Tuesday start with, “One of my trustees has read the Daily Mail article…” or, “Our compliance team has seen the ICO report…”, followed by concerned questions about the legality of Screening / research. This highlights that the negative and sometimes misleading reports that are in the public domain are already having a troubling impact on our abilities to carry out the normal functions of prospect research. We understand the genuine reasons for the ICO’s actions, but it serves no purpose to paint a negative image of the sector, who largely do incredible work for people and society.

This means it is up to us push back on the negativity and educate our supporters, the wider public and even (in some instances) our own colleagues about prospect research. This echoes what was said at the RiF Conference; we need to take ownership of communicating the need, impact and benefits of prospect research through privacy statements, protocol and policies. We need to be positive in our communication and underline the benefits to donors and non-profits of prospect research – and, to highlight the negative consequences of fundraising without prospect research.

What should we do now?

  • Be clear on why prospect research is vital for fundraising in your organisation
  • Educate trustees (and wider colleagues) if necessary on the need and impact of research
  • Ensure privacy notices are robust and include information on Screening and research
  • Share best practice with colleagues from other non-profits on privacy notices
  • Also, note that when including information on Screening in a privacy notice you’ll need to link to the privacy statements of your chosen Screening company to ensure that the company is also compliant with data protection (as examples, Factary’s is here and Prospecting for Gold’s can be found here)

What happens next?

  • Friday 9 December: The penalty notices will be published on the ICO website along with details of the enforcement action. Hopefully this will give us more of an idea of what the scale of the Screening problem is (in comparison to the data appending and sharing), and exactly what the RSPCA and BHF have been fined for
  • The Institute of Fundraising is likely to respond properly to these fines when the full report has been released, keep an eye on their Twitter feed or the feed of Dan Fluskey, IoF Head of Policy and Research, who has been working with RiF on this issue. He wrote a great piece in fundraising.co.uk about this issue yesterday
  • The ICO is organising “an educational event in partnership with the Charity Commission and the Fundraising Regulator” (no date for this has been announced, presumably early 2017), keep an eye on their announcements for more information on this
  • The ICO will also present an in-depth report in regards to charity fundraising practices to Parliament in 2017; based on the negative stance the ICO has taken on fundraising practices, this has the potential to be damaging and as a sector we need to be ready to respond to this

As ever, if anyone has any questions on this please do not hesitate to contact me at nicolaw@factary.com.

We would also like to take this opportunity to thank many of our colleagues and friends from the sector who have contacted us with messages of support in the past 48 hours – we really appreciate it!

Data Protection, Consent and Prospect Research

Many of Factary’s clients and colleagues have been in touch with us recently voicing their concerns, frustrations and confusion over recent news regarding the use of personal data in fundraising and prospect research. It’s not surprising that there is confusion; this year has seen a whirlwind of news and opinion from various regulatory bodies, some of it conflicting.

Our clients have asked if we can provide some clarity – this is a tall order right now as the situation is not completely clear and evolving more-or-less by the day, but below we have outlined recent events, the current situation and news on what is happening over the next few months.

The current situation – how did we get here?

As we know, 2015 was a challenging year for fundraising and charities in the UK. Negative press reports regarding certain fundraising practices ultimately resulted in a review of all fundraising and the publication of the Etherington Review in September 2015, which outlined recommendations for the future of fundraising.

Recommendations in the Etherington Review included that a new Fundraising Regulator be established (to set and promote standards for fundraising practice) and a ‘Fundraising Preference Service’ (FPS) be launched. The Fundraising Regulator launched in July 2016 and is in the process of setting up the FPS so that “individuals only get the fundraising communications they want and need”.

Whether or not people feel the FPS is necessary (alongside the MPS, the TPS and PECR), the decision has been made and the Regulator is aiming to launch it sometime in 2017. The official consultation period on the FPS has passed but the proposal papers can be viewed here.

The Etherington Review also worked closely with the ICO in developing the recommendations. It was outlined in the Review that the ICO had not been communicated with sufficiently in the past by either the Institute of Fundraising or the (now defunct) Fundraising Standards Board and that a stronger relationship between the new Regulator and the ICO should be established.

The upshot of this is that the ICO turned its attention to the non-profit sector and began reviewing if and/or how charities were adhering to the Data Protection Act (DPA) and PECR through fundraising practices such as direct marketing, telephone fundraising and electronic communications.

The general issue of consent

The ICO have been in attendance at many fundraising conferences, seminars and events this year, usually alongside representatives from the Regulator. The ICO have outlined their concerns over how well (or otherwise) non-profits have been adhering to the DPA, with a particular focus on the apparent lack of evidence around ‘consent’ for non-profits to use the personal data of their supporters. This is not just about obtaining consent from supporters for non-profits to hold personal data on a database but also about obtaining consent for how the data is then used for marketing, fundraising and, importantly for us, in prospect research.

The issue of gaining consent is simultaneously very clear and also incredibly complex. On the one hand, it is straightforward because there is universal agreement in the sector that supporters and donors should have proper control over their data, be able to communicate preferences to their chosen charities and have those preferences acted upon. The complexity comes with how and to what extent non-profits are expected to communicate with current and future supporters to gain consent for the use of personal data.

With the looming presence of the GDPR, scheduled to come into force in May 2018, the issue of consent becomes even more important (that said, to what extent the current format of the GDPR will be implemented is Brexit-dependent, so even this is unclear).

Current guidance on consent – where can you go for help?

There are several documents detailing regulations and guidance from the ICO in relation to consent and data protection:

Unfortunately, whilst useful, these aren’t hugely specific to the non-profit sector and only go some way towards clarifying the situation.

Helpfully, there are some other places where we can gain more clarity:

  • The Fundraising Regulator will be translating the ICO regulations and issuing some guidance on the consents that charities should obtain, sometime in the autumn/winter of 2016 (so, very soon).
  • In February 2017, the Regulator will also be starting a 3-month consultation period on updates/changes to the Code of Fundraising Practice, which will include reviewing guidance on data protection and consent (this is according to Head of Policy, Gerald Oppenheimer, speaking at the CASE Development Services conference in October 2016). Keep an eye on the Regulator’s website and Twitter feed and try to make sure you are a part of the consultation next year. The Code will potentially have a huge impact on fundraising practice – including prospect research – so try to make sure you and the organisations you work for have a say on the development and changes.
  • The NCVO have produced a report ‘Charities relationships with donors; a vision for a better future’. This report contains sample statements showing how non-profits can obtain consent to use personal data and it will inform the Regulator’s development of guidelines for the Code of Fundraising Practice. It is worth noting that these guidelines conflict with the ICO’s recent statements around how consent for prospect research should be obtained (see below).
  • CASE are also in the process of writing guidelines on consent for education institutions. These will be available on 25th January 2017. These guidelines will contain example privacy policies and sample donor communications, hopefully also including information on prospect research. Whilst the guidelines will inevitably be steered towards alumni databases and communications, they will no doubt be helpful to all non-profits, so they’ll be worth looking out for. Keep an eye on the CASE Twitter feed for more information.

But what does this all mean for prospect research?

All the guidance and regulation noted above is (or probably will be) quite broad, relating to consent for all forms of fundraising/marketing – but the ICO review process has also had some interesting consequences for those of us working in prospect research and, by extension, major donor fundraising.

Throughout the course of 2016, a representative of the ICO has stated at various events that non-profits will not only need to obtain consent to use personal data for fundraising/marketing but also for all forms of prospect research. This could mean that consent will need to be obtained for each part of the research process (e.g. data screening, segmentation, data modelling, appending wealth, profiling etc.). Additionally, the ICO have outlined that this isn’t just about gaining consent to use the personal data given when a supporter, for example, makes a donation, but also for any data pertaining to the person in the public domain; so, in practice, this might mean obtaining consent from individual supporters to access their details on Companies House or other common research sources.

There are clearly numerous concerns with this.

The main problem is that, as this has been a relatively fast moving situation, there is currently very little guidance on how non-profits should go about incorporating prospect research consent into their privacy policies, consent forms or fundraising communications. Nor has then been any clarity on how explicit the consent will need to be. Our view is that it is unworkable to expect supporters to give separate consent to each and every fundraising, marketing and research option that they may be presented with.

Also, on a practical note, in this post on the GDPR, Christian Propper at Graham Pelton Consultants asks two pertinent questions:

  • How can we ask for consent for database screening, profiling and other research techniques in a way that doesn’t unduly worry supporters?
  • How can non-profits future-proof their current consent/privacy statements to encompass research practices they may adopt in the future (but might not yet even know about)?

In short, how can prospect research ensure it is on the right side of regulation whilst also being able to continue contributing to fundraising in all its myriad, wonderful ways? The short answer right now is that, unfortunately, there is no clear guidance on this. All we know is that (as outlined above) the Regulator is working on best practice guidelines on consent which we assume will include consent for prospect research.

There are a few papers/articles that might be helpful to review around this issue;

  • The NCVO report, mentioned above, which can be downloaded here, is useful to read if only from the point of view that the ‘best practice’ sample statements on consent only mention research in passing and certainly not to the extent that the ICO has suggested is necessary, e.g. ‘We may from time to time use your data for profiling, targeting and research purposes so that our communications to you are as appropriate and cost effective as possible’ . It will be interesting to see if this approach is adopted by the Regulator when they bring out their official guidance.
  • The team at the Commission on the Donor Experience are working on a project around ‘giving choices and managing preferences’. Ken Burnett from the Commission wrote this article in which he outlines a practical way to ensure ‘continuous donor choice’. This step-by-step guide could easily be modified to include information on prospect research and is one sensible option for communicating with supporters. The Commission is working with the Regulator so something akin to this approach may be adopted in the guidelines for the Code of Practice.
  • Adrian Beney at More Partnership produced an excellent briefing paper on ‘More Partnership briefing for NCVO on Wealth Screening and Profiling’ earlier this year in response to the initial draft report from the NCVO. The paper puts prospect research into context and questions some of the ICO’s opinions on how data is used in fundraising and the types of consents non-profits should reasonably be expected to ask for. If your role encompasses prospect research this paper would be an excellent reference guide to understanding ICO regulations and prospect research.

So, what should I do now?

Our advice would be, first of all, not to panic about the conflicting news and opinion you may have heard. If you feel there are possibly areas where your organisation needs to improve communications around consent to use personal data then, alongside your day job, you could perhaps:

  • look into the consent options, donor communications, privacy policies and data processes that are in place in your organisation, alongside reviewing the ICO documents for direct marketing and PECR (links above)
  • consider undertaking a ‘privacy impact assessment’ to highlight areas your organisation may falling short on data protection
  • ensure you are a part of the Fundraising Regulator’s consultation process in 2017; the more involved we all are, the more likely that the guidelines will be workable for us
  • attend the Researchers in Fundraising conference in November 2016 – a representative from the ICO is speaking on the topic of data protection and consent
  • support the Researchers in Fundraising ‘data protection working group’, who are working with the ICO and the Fundraising Regulator to ensure prospect research is part of the conversation – keep an eye on the RiF news webpage and Twitter feed for developments on this

Also, keep an eye on Factary’s Twitter feed or let me know if you’d like to join our mailing list to be kept informed of any further news or announcements relating to this topic. We’re keeping a close eye on developments and would be happy to disseminate information.

And finally; remember that prospect research has an enormously positive role to play in fundraising. We need to keep in mind that our work is of tremendous consequence. So, when it comes to drafting future communications / privacy policies with supporters, please keep in mind this excellent Tweet from Adrian Beney at More Partnership wherein he encourages us to, “Tell people what you’re doing. Be honest. And open. And unashamed of what we do to help create a better world.”

If you’d like to discuss any of this in more detail or if you are concerned about consent or data protection, please contact me nicolaw@factary.com.

Trust Women

Why so few women in UK foundations?

We’ve analysed all of the newly created grant-making trusts (foundations) registered in England and Wales since 2005 – a data set of 2,312 new grant-makers. Our findings are in a new Factary report, ‘Trust Women’, available for download here.

Key Findings:

  • Boards are not balanced – on average there is just one woman per board across all of these trusts.
  • Almost one third (29.7%) had all-men boards when they were registered.
  • Just one trust in five has women in the majority on boards.
  • And we found some evidence that trusts with women in the majority were poorer at start-up than those with men-majority boards.

Our report is based on Factary’s New Trust Update dataset (http://factary.com/what-we-do/new-trust-update/ ).

To find out more about this data, contact research@factary.com

Download ‘Trust Women’ here.

The £6.8 billion Recipe for Philanthropy

There is a kitchen theme in this year’s Foundations of Wealth, published today, with Gordon Ramsay featured alongside the owner of the UK’s largest franchise for Domino’s Pizzas, and a kitchenware manufacturer.

They are three amongst 42 wealthy philanthropists who have set up a grant-making trust during 2014, all of them profiled in depth in our freshly-prepared report.

New trusts appear to be boys’ toys. 93% of the wealthy founders whom we profile are men, with just 7% women. That is the same ratio as in 2013, and slightly more male than in 2012. It reflects the gender imbalance in great wealth in the UK with around 10% of the Sunday Times Rich List being women, and a hard-to-explain gender imbalance in structured philanthropy. As “Untapped Potential” reported in 2011, just 4.8% of European foundation grant monies go to women and girls (see Shah, Seema, Lawrence T McGill, and Karen Weisblatt. Untapped Potential: European Foundation Funding for Women and Girls. New York: Foundation Center, 2011.) Factary is currently engaged in a study of philanthropy amongst women of wealth to try to find out why.

As in previous reports, the founders of UK grant-making trusts are economically active – more than two thirds (69%) are under 65 – a similar percentage to 2013 and a slightly younger profile than 2012, when 53% were under 65.

Their’s is new money – more than three quarters are self-made millionaires – with wealth principally from financial services, retail, manufacture and property. The total wealth represented by the 42 we have profiled in depth is over £6.8 billion – reflecting the increasing concentration of wealth in the UK.

The founders are distinctly international, with four people of Indian descent and three others with non-UK nationality, as well as founders who have lived and worked abroad. The UK is not the easiest country in the world in which to create a charitable foundation (it is arguably easier in the Netherlands, for example) but the combination of a wealth management industry that is growing and gearing up for philanthropy, a broadly stable economic climate and people – philanthropists – who want to make their giving more effective has led to a boom in the establishment of trusts. Last year we reported on 214 newly created grant-making trusts in our monthly New Trust Update report.

Could you build a partnership with these new trusts and foundations? Our report tells you about the founding philanthropists, about their philanthropy they set up their foundation, and about the new foundation’s interests. Health, welfare, education and training are the big subjects, and we’ve identified clusters of interests linking health and arts, education and welfare. We have researched an in-depth profile of each of these leading philanthropists, and here you will find biographic information that will help you build a link with the trust, or the founder.

Philanthropy is alive and well in the UK amongst people of wealth. These good 42 at least are willing to share their wealth with the rest of society.

Factary Director Martine Godefroid workshop at 9th AFF Conference

Martine Godefroid, Managing Director of Factary Europe, will be giving a workshop with Mélina Mercier, Director-General of the Fondation de l’UPMC, at the 9th Fundraising Conference of the L’Association Française des Fundraisers.

bandeau_ESR_2014_sm

Événement phare du secteur de l’enseignement supérieur et de la recherche, cette conférence vous permet, une fois par an, d’être au cœur des enjeux du fundraising, de rencontrer un grand nombre de professionnels du secteur et de monter en expertise sur tous les sujets qui font votre quotidien. Quel que soit votre niveau, quelle que soit la taille de votre structure, vous pouvez être de la partie!

L’innovation, la créativité et le renouveau sont au cœur de vos métiers; ils seront également au centre de la 9ème édition de la conférence et des sessions qui y seront dispensées. Inspirez-vous des intervenants internationaux qui seront à l’honneur cette année et puisez des idées applicables dans votre structure! C’est un moment unique pour prendre la température du secteur, motiver vos équipes… et vous-même! Vous pourrez partager vos bonnes pratiques, vos succès mais aussi vos craintes et échanger avec vos pairs tout au long de la formation.

The Newest Philanthropists

Thirty of the UK’s newest philanthropists are featured in a report published today by Factary.

The report is focused on the Ultra High Net Worth Individuals (UHNWIs) and High Net Worth Individuals (HNWIs) who have founded grant-making trusts and foundations during 2013.

We profile 30 of the richest people in the country who have created grant-making bodies, and analyse their wealth, philanthropic interests and biographical information to create a picture of the UK newest philanthropists. With a combined estimated wealth of £5.7 billion, these individuals represent a significant source of funding for UK non-profit organisations in the years to come.

The report includes:

  • Detailed profiles of thirty new philanthropists
  • Updated information on their trusts and foundations
  • Note that, with one exception, none of these trusts is listed in any other directory of grant-making trusts
  • Our analysis of the biographic, philanthropic and financial data on these philanthropists
  • Networking Index to identify the links between philanthropists, companies and the new trusts.

HOW TO ORDER
To order the report email Nicola Williams, nicolaw@factary.com

The report is priced at £135. New or existing subscribers to Factary Phi or Factary’s New Trust Update get a discounted price of £95.

From Bookmaking to Billionaires
Included in the report is a scion of a billionaire family, a Duchess, a Viscount and two Knights of the Realm. There are eight representatives from the financial services industry including two hedge fund managers and four investment bankers, along with philanthropists with other sources of wealth including landownership, art galleries, bookmaking and football.

London, and International
There is a strong geographic concentration on London and the Home Counties but also a continuing international flavour to the new philanthropists in the UK with seven of the thirty UHNWIs and HNWIs having nationalities other than British, and global connections identified to a wide range of countries including Zambia, South Africa, Italy, Nigeria and St Vincent and the Grenadines.

Oxbridge
There is a strong Oxbridge connection – a third of these new philanthropists went to either Oxford or Cambridge, with over 25% going to Oxford. Other UK universities attended include the University of Bristol, the London School of Economics, Leeds University and the University of Birmingham. Three of the people featured also went to the same public school; Charterhouse.

UK Philanthropy, Goes on Growing
During 2013 Factary’s New Trust Update reported on a total of 217 newly-registered grant-making trusts and foundations in the UK. This report shows that people of significant wealth are continuing to create foundations and grant-making trusts to support philanthropic organisations in the UK and abroad, creating a positive picture of philanthropy in the UK.

Venture Philanthropy in the UK Shows Similar Characteristics
The findings in this new report reflect the new philanthropists that we identified in our 2013 report on The Venture Philanthropists. In that report we found that 39% of UK venture philanthropists come from the financial services industry. We also found many people of wealth – £38 billion in combined personal assets.

Research:
This report was researched and edited by Will Whitefield, Senior Researcher at Factary. It is published as a special supplement to Factary’s New Trust Update.

The Venture Philanthropists: our ‘very comprehensive’ report

At this week’s European Venture Philanthropy Association (http://evpa.eu.com/) conference, a senior UK venture philanthropist described our latest report, The Venture Philanthropists, as “very comprehensive.”

The focus of the report is the 254 board members and patrons who lead the UK venture philanthropy sector. We include biographies of each, and a handy networking index to identify who is linked to which fund. Many are people of wealth; we identify £38 billion in personal wealth.

Contents page 1

The 177-page report includes:

  • A clear explanation of venture philanthropy
  • A brief history of VP
  • Detailed analysis of trends in this fast-growing sector
  • Detailed profiles of the 22 venture philanthropy funds active in the UK
  • Biographies of the 254 board members and advisers who lead VP funds
  • More than 150 organisations and projects that have benefited from venture philanthropy
  • A who’s who in VP index linking people to companies and charitable trusts and foundations

The Venture Philanthropists is available at:

  • Non-profits: £250 per copy
  • For-profits: £300 per copy
  • Subscribers to Factary’s New Trust Update or Factary Phi, or those taking out a subscription with the report: £150 per copy.

To order a copy of the report contact Nicola Williams at Factary, nicolaw@factary.com or call Factary on +44 117 916 6740.

Who's who in VP
Who’s who in VP
Impetus-PEF
Impetus-PEF
Impetus-PEF people
Impetus-PEF biographies

Venture Philanthropy: A Great Growth Story

We have just completed an in-depth study of the UK’s venture philanthropy sector – and it is all about growth.

Two years ago we reported that there were 11 venture philanthropy organisations in the UK, giving (or investing, or lending) a total of £52 million.

This year we have identified 22 organisations active in VP in the UK – double the 2011 number – with assets of £2.8 billion and income, at £274 million, up 171% on two years ago. The fastest growth area of all is in grants, loans and investments, up 221% on two years ago.

The report – The Venture Philanthropists – focuses on the 254 board members and patrons in the UK VP sector, including brief biographies of each. We include a Networking index that shows the links between VP supporters, companies and trusts or foundations. The report gives detailed information on each of the 22 venture philanthropy funds active in the UK.

The 177-page report includes information on more than 150 charities and projects that have benefited from venture philanthropy.

The Venture Philanthropists is available now:

  • Non-profits £250 per copy
  • For-profits £300 per copy
  • Subscribers to Factary’s New Trust Update, or those taking out a subscription with the report, £150 per copy.

To order your copy contact Nicola Williams at Factary, nicolaw@factary.com or call us on +44 117 916 6740.

Training Researchers and Fundraisers from Barcelona to Boston

This week there are two significant training events for Factary. Today, Tuesday 8th October, Factary’s Chris Carnie is helping to launch the new Postgraduate Certificate in Fundraising at the University of Barcelona.

 

Launch of the Postgraduate Cert in Fundraising, University Barcelona

 

The course runs over an academic year (November to June) and covers the skills and techniques required to be a fundraiser, with a focus on practical tasks and actions. We’ve got a range of great speakers and trainers taking part, from NGOs, cultural and arts organisations, campaigning organisations, the health and foundation sectors. Find out more, and register, here.

And on Thursday, Will Whitefield and Chris Carnie are giving a webinar with APRA on prospect research in the UK.An Island of Information is aimed at researchers and fundraisers outside the UK who want to understand the market here. Find out more, and register, here.

How the Elite Connect

A new report by Factary shows how the elite connect in Britain.

We’ve looked at how people link up – how they know each other – because it’s so central to fundraising. We used data from Factary Atom, our connections research and mapping service.

We show why it is important to research business AND charity connections and highlight the role of the London Clubs (we name the most connected). We include statistics that show the relative connectedness of alumni from UK and US universities, and discuss the relevance of hobbies and interests in making connections.

The report, “My Friends… How the Elite Connect in Britain”, is available free for download here: How the Elite Connect