12/04/10

By Andrew Holt

The public are more likely to perceive smaller charities as being "friendly" but "amateurish"; and larger ones as being "professional" but "wasteful", according to data out today.

However, smaller charities may just have the edge - from a "loyal hardcore" - when it comes to attracting donors.

Not-for-profit sector consultancy nfpSynergy's Charity Awareness Monitor regularly surveys a representative sample of 1000 16plus year olds throughout mainland Britain every year, asking them a range of charity-related questions: including gauging what impact the size of a charity has on public perceptions and on claimed propensity to donate.

Compared with large charities, small ones are deemed by public to be more volunteer-staffed (77% small v 6% large), more regionally-focused (72% small v 3% large), more friendly (70% small v 20% large), more understanding of the needs of those they help (65% small v 35% large), more volunteer-led (62% small v 1% large) and more trustworthy (55% small v 41% large).

They are also perceived as being more amateurish (45% small v 2% large) - despite 62% of respondents also agreeing that small charities are as effective as large ones.

Compared with small charities, large ones are deemed more likely to have chief executives earning around £100k a year (65% large v 2% small) and to be more professional (62% large v 24% small) and able to deliver public services (47% large v 14% small) - but also to be more wasteful (51% large v 6% small).

The main bulk of the public claims that the size of an organisation - whether in terms of paid staff (57%) or income (40%) - makes "no difference" to its likelihood to donate. Likewise, an organisation's base locality (49%).

However, while there is little overt stated public enthusiasm for donating to large organizations, there is a significant "loyal hardcore" who say they definitely prefer the small or local option - 40% of the public claiming to prefer to donate to a charity with no paid staff, just volunteers; 18% to a charity with an annual income below £10,000; and 23% to a charity working in their nearest town.

nfpSynergy researcher, Rebecca Molyneux, said: "Our new data tells charities how the public perceives them - purely by virtue of their size or locality. This could allow them to play to perceived reputational strengths and address or downplay apparent weaknesses.

"Interestingly, a small, local charity may be especially well-placed to harness the goodwill of a loyal hardcore of donors - like some plucky voluntary David against the larger charitable Goliaths."