Fundraising sometimes has a bad reputation, but there are a lot of reasons to think that being a fundraiser, or perhaps more likely, managing fundraisers may be a very effective career.
The Institute of Fundraising and the Centre for Interfirm Comparison publish a yearly report called ‘FundRatios’, with statistics on returns on investment, growth and other fundraising statistics.
In their 2010 report they found that for every £1 invested in fundraising charities receive £4.03 in donations. But some forms of fundraising are much more effective; for every £1 invested in asking people to leave the charity a legacy in their will (‘legacy fundraising’) about £25 will be donated to the charity, and some years the figure is much higher.
The exuberant fundraiser on the street who tries to get people to sign up to a monthly direct debit may actually be making a large amount of money for their charity. The average donor they sign up stays with their charity for about 5 years and donates around £8 a month, if their donations qualify for gift aid this can add about an extra 25% too.
Street fundraisers usually average a few ‘sign ups’ per day, maybe between 2 and 4, and the 2010 FundRatios report finds that it costs charities £87 to get one new “committed giver”.
So one street fundraiser who signs up 2 donors who each give £8 a month for 5 years is effectively making about £786 for their charity in one day!
Managing fundraisers
Street fundraising itself might not be an optimal career for effective altruists. Finding new people to fundraise probably isn’t particularly difficult so the marginal benefit of becoming another could be very small. On the other hand it might be more difficult to find people to work for the charity and manage these fundraisers.
Suppose a charity is doing a marketing appeal over the phone, looking for people to donate, and suppose these donations come in almost immediately. If the charity’s only costs are employee salaries then it seems as if they could fundraise and then pay their employees from the money they’ve just made. Because of this they could theoretically employ an almost infinite number of fundraisers.
Perhaps this money could be re-invested in fundraising and the charity can grow more. This could be especially good for charities whose goal it is to raise awareness of an issue.
However suppose a charity is doing door to door fundraising (which can make over £3 for a charity for every £1 invested). The fundraisers might need to be spread out over a large geographical area and it might be necessary to have more people managing these fundraisers, or starting new branches of the charity in different areas as it grows.
Maybe these people could simply be hired and don’t need to be effective altruists, but maybe this wouldn’t work; this might be a good career for effective altruists.
Unfortunately it’s not all good news; if people just switch to your charity from one that would have done the same amount of good with the money then it’s pointless. But if your charity is significantly better than the charities you expect to take money from it makes this less of a concern.
I hope people will look into this more as there are still loads of questions to be answered, at any rate it seems like managing fundraising may be a very ethical career.
NOTES:
I spoke to a representative from the Public Fundraising Regulatory Association who said that after 3 months 25% of donors have stopped giving, at the end of the year another 25% had stopped, and that about 1 or 2% stop giving every month after this.
This seems worrying, and seems to go against everything else I’ve read. Maybe many of the donations increase and the average still equals 5 years. The FundRatios 2010 report says that ‘on average, 12% of existing committed givers increased their contribution during the year compared to just 7% in the previous year. The average increase was £33 a year or just under £3 a month.’ Maybe this explains it.

Comments
Those interested in looking further into this might want to have a look at Ruairi’s Felicifia thread on fundraisingref=”http://felicifia.org/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=595”>http://felicifia.org/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=595</a>), which gathers a lot of qualitative/quantitative research on the subject.
“Because of this they could theoretically employ an almost infinite number of fundraisers.”
It’d be a curious case if virtually any charity could simply hire more fundraisers to increase its funds. I suspect that this varies widely from one charity sector to another. For instance, it seems that the potential donors to certain very effective animal welfare or existential risk charities do not consist of an unlimited, untapped pool. In fact, a relatively large proportion of that pool is probably already mostly tapped into.
What this means is that there will be a point (and perhaps that point is very near) where the optimal strategy for a charity would be to increase the number of its potential donors (i.e. sympathetic income-earners), before hiring more fundraisers to tap into that pool. Of course, with clever messaging, a charity could successfully solicit donations from the general public even if individuals are not entirely gung-ho about the cause. I think in crafting these kinds of appeals, effective fundraisers can make a world of a difference.
Hi Ruairi,
Just a small note. Gift aid on basic rate tax in the UK is 25% of the amount donated. This seems strange, since the basic rate of income tax is 20%, but it breaks down like this:
£100 of income above personal allowance and below higher rate limit (roughly £40k/annum). £20 goes in income tax, so the post tax income (ignoring national insurance, since this can’t be claimed back, but would be £12 in our example) is £80. Let’s say I give all of that money away and claim back the tax in gift aid - the tax collected back would be £20, which is 25% of what I’ve donated.
Hi Eitan, yes I imagine it’s probably harder to get donors for non-human animal charities, I’m reading “change of heart” by Nick Cooney at the moment and he says that in the U.S only 2% of donations go to non-human animal causes. However the people I spoke with who managed fundraisers said that non-human animal charities do very well, although I think they meant charities who care for dogs or cats rather than ones which campaign against factory farming. I bet effective fundraisers can make a huge difference but if we just hire them from outside of our effective-altruist-community-thing then theres a big marginal benefit and a good chance we may as well hire someone to do the work and do something else ourselves :)
Chris, thank you very much for that I’ll edit the post :)
Sorry when I say “theres a big marginal benefit” I really mean “your marginal benefit compared to the person who could do the work instead may be small” !
Hello!
If you'd like to comment then please sign in if you are an 80,000 Hours member, or fill in your name and email below.
Take me back to the blog
Take me to the homepage