CSDA REPORT 2016

1

Chartered Institute ofManagement Accountants

Exploratory
Studies on
Fundraising
Practices
Based on Institutions of a Public Character (IPCs)
in the Health, Social and Welfare Sectors

Isabel Sim Usha Menon Alfred Loh Hoe Siu Loon
A Project by the Centre for Social Development Asia | November 2016

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF BOX STORIES									ivLIST OF FIGURES											ivLIST OF QUOTATIONS 									ivLIST OF TABLES												vFOREWORD BY CHARTERED INSTITUTE OFMANAGEMENT ACCOUNTANTS (CIMA)						viFOREWORD BY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WORK, FACULTY OF
ARTS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES, NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE

viii

REPORT HIGHLIGHTS									xiINTRODUCTION											1SECTION 1. CHARITY LANDSCAPE AND FUNDRAISING IN SINGAPORE
1. Singapore’s Charity Landscape							4
		1.1 Charities in Singapore							4
		1.2 Institutions of a Public Character (IPCs) in Singapore		7		
1.3 Regulations and Code of Governance Governing						Charities in Singapore 							132. Fundraising in Singapore								16
		2.1 Donation, Fundraising Activities and Sponsorship			as Main Sources of Income for Charities				16		
2.2 Media Analysis on Fundraising in Singapore				18
SECTION 2. DISCLOSURE OF FUNDRAISING PRACTICES				
1. Research Objective									262. Regulatory Framework for Fundraising in Singapore				27

3. Research Sample and Methodology							29© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

4. Research Results											29
		4.1 Findings on Fundraising Manpower 					
30		4.2 Findings on Fundraising Methods 					
33		4.3 Findings on Donor Acknowledgement					
37		4.4 Findings on Disclosure of Fundraising Efficiency Ratio		
40		
5. Discussions, Limitations and Future Research					
41		5.1 Discussions									41
		5.2 Limitations									42
		5.3 Future Research								43SECTION 3. FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION ON FUNDRAISING			
1. Research Objective									462. Research Sample and Methodology							47
		2.1 Research Sample								47
		2.2 Focus Group Method							48
		2.3 Data Collection, Coding and Analysis					503. Research Results											51
		3.1 Fundraising Manpower							53
		3.2 Fundraising Methods							55
		3.3 Donor Engagement							56
		3.4 Fundraising Accountability, Compliance and Disclosure		58		
3.5 Fundraising Challenges							604. Discussions, Limitations and Future Research					
63		4.1 Discussions									63
		4.2 Limitations									65
		4.3 Future Research								65CONCLUSION												69BIBLIOGRAPHY												71ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS									80ABOUT THE AUTHORS									83ABOUT THE REPORT											85

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

iv CSDA REPORT 2016

LIST OF BOX STORIESBox Story 1: 			Box Story 2: 			Box Story 3: 			
				
Box Story 4:			

Donations and Tax Deductions - the Lead Up to SG50
Eight Mechanisms that Drive Charitable Giving
Community Chest, a Nonprofit Fundraising Organisation for 		
Singapore’s Social Service Sector
Online Giving Portal - Giving.sg

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
Figure 4:
Figure 5:		
Figure 6:

Number of Registered Charities and IPCs in Singapore from2008 to 2015
Distribution of Charities by Income Size in 2014
(Based on Annual Receipts)
Tax Deductible Donations (TDD) by Source - Trend 2006 to 2015
Fundraising Proceeds from Community Chest - Trend from FY2005 to
FY2014
Popular Special Events Organised by IPCs in the Health, Socialand Welfare Sectors (FY2012 to FY2014)
Overview of Focus Group Discussions on IPCs’ Fundraising Operations

LIST OF QUOTATIONS
Quotation 1: 		
Quotation 2:		Quotation 3:		

Quotes on Fundraising Manpower
Quotes on Donor Engagement
Quotes on Fundraising Challenges© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 2016v

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1:
Table 2:
Table 3:
Table 4:
Table 5aTable 5b:
Table 6a:Table 6b:
Table 7a:Table 7b:
Table 8:
Table 9:
Table 10:
Table 11:
Table 12:
Table 13:
Table 14:
Table 15:
Table 16:
Table 17:

Breakdown of Total Annual Receipts and Donations Received by Sector in
FY2014
Estimated Breakdown of Registered Charities, IPCs and IPCs’ Tax
Deductible Donations Received by Sector in 2014
Some Key Legislations and Voluntary Disclosure Guidelines for Charities in
Singapore
Breakdown of Sources of Income of IPCs in Health Sector (FY2011 toFY2013)Fundraising Manpower as Disclosed in Annual Reports and Financial
Statements (IPCs in Health Sector)
Fundraising Manpower as Disclosed in Annual Reports and Financial
Statements (IPCs in Social and Welfare Sector)
Fundraising Methods as Disclosed in Annual Reports and Financial
Statements (IPCs in Health Sector)
Fundraising Methods as Disclosed in Annual Reports and Financial
Statements (IPCs in Social and Welfare Sector)
Donor Acknowledgement as Disclosed in Annual Reports and Financial
Statements (IPCs in Health Sector)
Donor Acknowledgement as Disclosed in Annual Reports and Financial
Statements (IPCs in Social and Welfare Sector)
Fundraising Efficiency Ratio as Disclosed in Annual Reports and Financial
Statements (IPCs in Health, Social and Welfare Sectors)
Poor Disclosure of Information on Fundraising Practices (FY2014)
Distribution of Sample into Small, Medium and Large Charities
Classification for the Five Focus Groups
Breakdown of Focus Group Participants
Discussion Points raised by Focus Groups A to E on Fundraising Manpower
Discussion Points raised by Focus Groups A to E on Fundraising Methods
Discussion Points raised by Focus Groups A to E on Donor Engagement
Discussion Points raised by Focus Groups A to E on Fundraising
Accountability, Compliance & Disclosure
Discussion Points raised by Focus Groups A to E on Fundraising Challenges© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

vi CSDACSDAREPORTREPORT2016
2016
vi

FOREWORD BY
CHARTEREDINSTITUTE OFMANAGEMENTACCOUNTANTS(CIMA)

potential in terms of providing a global
professional qualification in management
accounting and in so doing, help people andbusinesses to succeed. CSDA’s noble researchon the social service sector is clearly aligned toour aspirations.
CSDA’s current research on fundraising practices
will be useful for formulating better policies
and improving fundraising opportunities in
Singapore. Coupled with good disclosure
practices in financial management, donors
will have the comfort of transparency andaccountability that the funds are well managed
for the benefit of the beneficiaries.

We commend the team at CSDA for their efforts
in the research and the successful release of
Following the research in 2015 on the financial this report.
characteristics of Institutions of a Public
Character (IPCs), we are delighted that this year
the CSDA ream has extended their research into
the philanthropic landscape and fundraising
practices of Health, Social and Welfare IPCs in
Singapore. The CIMA Centre of Excellence South
East Asia is pleased to sponsor this research.
It is our collective responsibility that the lessfortunate and marginalised group is takencare of for the greater good of society so thathuman potential is developed to the fullest
and the nation can prosper as a whole. CIMAis committed to the development of human

Dr Noel Tagoe FCMA, CGMA
Executive Vice President, Academics
Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA)© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 2016

vii

CIMA has formed a joint venture with theAmerican Institute of CPAs (AICPA) to establish
the Chartered Global Management Accountant(CGMA) designation. CGMA is the global quality
standard that further elevates the professionof management accounting. The designation
The Chartered Institute of Management recognises the most talented and committed
Accountants (CIMA), founded in 1919, is management accountants with the discipline
the world’s leading and largest professional and skill to drive strong business performance.
body of management accountants, with over
229,000 members and students operating in CIMA is proud to be the first professional
176 countries, working at the heart of business. accounting body to offer a truly global product
CIMA members and students work in industry, in the fast-moving area of Islamic Finance.
commerce, the public sector and not-for-profit CIMA also offers a Global Business Services
qualification, in conjunction with The Hackettorganisations.
Group, the first and only global professional
CIMA works closely with employers and sponsors qualification in the shared services andleading-edge research, constantly updating outsourcing arena.
its qualification, professional experience
requirements and continuing professional For more information about CIMA, please visit
development to ensure it remains the www.cimaglobal.com.
employers’ choice when recruiting financiallytrained business leaders. Professionalism and Follow us on Twitter at
ethics are at the core of CIMA’s activities with www.twitter.com/CIMA_News.
every member and student bound by robust
standards so that integrity, expertise and vision
are brought together.

ABOUT CIMA

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

viii CSDA REPORT 2016

FOREWORD BY
DEPARTMENT OFSOCIAL WORK,FACULTY OF ARTSAND SOCIALSCIENCES,NATIONAL
UNIVERSITY OF
SINGAPORE

The Centre for Social Development Asia
(CSDA) established under the domain of The
Department of Social Work, Faculty of Arts
and Social Sciences, National University ofSingapore is committed to producing innovativeand pioneering research. We are therefore
very pleased to support CSDA’s research on
Singapore’s social service sector and would liketo extend our heartfelt appreciation to all who
have enabled its publication.
Charities in the Health, Social and Welfare
sectors play a vital role in serving the needs ofmarginalised or disadvantaged groups. They
perform an essential public service. Their work iscomplicated by the ever-evolving financial andsocial landscape. Hence, the ability of charities toraise funds in order to continue their good work
is a vital area of inquiry. This report provides two
exploratory studies on fundraising in Singapore.
It highlights how fundraising is carried out in
Singapore, the key persons or groups involved,
the fundraising regulatory frameworks, as wellas the fundraising compliance and disclosure
requirements.
Our congratulations to the team on the releaseof this report. We look forward to future researchand publications.

Associate Professor Esther, C. L. GohHead, Department of Social Work
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences,
National University of Singapore© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 2016

ix

ABOUT DEPARTMENTOF SOCIAL WORK
Social Work as a subject in the University first started in 1952, when it offered thefirst professional social work qualification in Singapore – the two-year Diploma in
Social Studies of the Department of Social Work, at the then Singapore University.
Since then, the department has evolved with the changing times, circumstancesand requirements of the country into its present form.
The department’s vision is to be a leading educational and research institution
within the international social work community, providing a distinctive Asian
perspective in social work and social development. Its mission is:
1. To produce and develop competent social work graduates who can contributeto the well-being of society by• Promoting the social functioning of people within the environment fromthe perspectives of the individual, family and community;• Enabling the development of human potential to the fullest;• Providing effective social work leadership;• Undertaking research and creating awareness and understanding of social
issues and social change
2. To lead in the development and promotion of regional social work education,practice and research in collaboration with Asian and other international
partners.
For more information about the Department of Social Work, please visit
http://www.fas.nus.edu.sg/swk/.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

x CSDA REPORT 2016

This page is intentionally left blank.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

REPORT HIGHLIGHTSCSDA REPORT 2016

xi

SINGAPORE’S CHARITY LANDSCAPE
MAIN SOURCES OF INCOMEa
Donations refers to gifts to charities (includingIPCs) such as donations in cash and donations inkind; in other words, they are voluntary gifts.
Fundraising Income refers to the income
generated by activities to raise funds for the
charities, including IPCs. The activities involve anelement of exchange, with the charities receiving
income in return for providing goods or services.
Sponsorship Income refers to the “value of
in-kind support received and which are used infund-raising exercise”. In short, they refer to gifts
made to an IPC in exchange for either marketingor advertising opportunities for the sponsor.

Number of Registered Charities
Increasing over the years from 1,944 in 2008 to 2,217 in 2015b
Charities with Annual Receipts less than SGD 250,000
50.1% of the registered charities, including IPCs, were relatively
small with annual receipts of less than SGD 250,000c

KEY REGULATIONS FOR CHARITIES
Some Key
Legislations
Charities Act
Charities (Institutionsof a Public Character)
Regulations (2007)
Charities (Accounts
and Annual Reports)
Regulations (2011)
Charities (Fund RaisingAppeals for Local andForeign Charitable
Purposes) Regulations(2012)

Fundraising
Requirements
Maintenance ofaccounting record for aminimum of 5 years
Disclosure of information
after fundraising in theirfinancial statements
Duty to donors toprovide accurate
information and toensure accountability

FEATURING BOX STORIESBox Story 1:
Donations and Tax
Deductions

Box Story 2:
Charitable Giving

The Government
introduced tax deductible
donations to foster better
charitable giving. Coupledwith the Care & Share grantby Community Chest,
donations have been
increasing.

The eight mechanisms thatdrive charitable giving are:
Awareness of Needs,
Solicitation, Costs &Benefits, Altruism,
Reputation, Psychological
Benefits, Values, andEfficacy.

Box Story 3:
Community Chest

Box Story 4:
Giving.sg

Seven Sectorsd(1) Arts and Heritage, (2) Community, (3) Education, (4) Health,(5) Religious and Others, (6) Social and Welfare, and (7) Sports
Health, Social and Welfare Sectors
48.2% of the total IPCs are from the Health, Social andWelfare sectorse
Tax-Deductible Donations
Tax deductible donations have increased by more than 24% to
SGD 1.4 billion in 2015fCorporate and Individual Donors
About two-thirds of the tax deductible donations are corporate
contributions, while one-third is by individual donorsg
Role of Government
Besides the role of the regulator, the Government also supports
the charity sector by 1) providing grants to charities 2) granting
tax relief to donors for qualifying donations to IPCs
Notes:
a. The definitions are extracted from the ‘Accounting Glossary for Charities and IPCs’ on theCharity Portal. Please refer to https://www.charities.gov.sg/Documents/Accounting_Glossary.pdf.
b. The data are obtained from Chart 1, Page 12, Commissioner of Charities Annual Report 2015.
c. The data are obtained from Chart 2, Page 13, Commissioner of Charities Annual Report 2015.
d. The data are obtained from Table 1, Page 12, Commissioner of Charities Annual Report 2015.
e. The data are obtained from Chart 9, Page 19, Commissioner of Charities Annual Report 2015.
f. The data are obtained from Chart 10, Page 19, Commissioner of Charities Annual Report 2015.
g. The data are obtained from Chart 12, Page 20, Commissioner of Charities Annual Report 2015.

Giving.sg

Community Chest is thelargest fundraising body in
Singapore. It has
collaborated with andsupported over 80 different
charities each year.

Giving.sg , an online giving
portal, makes giving moreaccessible and lowericost offundraising. It was launchedby National Volunteer andPhilanthropy Centre (NVPC)
in 2015.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

xii CSDA REPORT 2016

REPORT HIGHLIGHTSQUANTITATIVE RESEARCH STUDYSAMPLE SIZE OF 126 IPCs
• The COC Office provided the listof charities with active IPC status in
FY2012, FY2013 and FY2014.
• A list of 283 charities in the Health,Social and Welfare sectors, with
IPC status for the three financial
years were identified.

• A search for publicly available
annual reports and financial
statements of these 283 IPCs was
conducted, using the charities’ official
websites and the Charity Portal.

• Out of the 130 IPCs shortlisted forthe sample, 3 IPCs were removed asthey do not have consistent
12-month accounting data for eachof the three financial years.

• Of these 283 IPCs, 130 of them havepublicly available annual reports andfinancial statements, from FY2012 toFY2014.

• To avoid the possibility of skewed
findings, a very large healthfoundation was also removed. Thus,
leaving a final sample of 126 IPCs in
the Health, Social and Welfare
sectors.

STAGE 3STAGE 2STAGE 1

FINDINGS
Fundraising
Manpower• Volunteers, including
fundraising committee
members played a majorrole in the charities’
fundraising operations.
• Only some IPCs had
full-time fundraising staff.
• The use of third party
fundraising agency was not
a common practice.

Fundraising
Methods

Sample is limited to
126 IPCs in Health, Socialand Welfare sectors• Special Events remained themost common fundraising
methods used by charities.

The findings may not explain
the fundraising practices ofsmaller charities, or charities
without IPC status, orcharities in other sectors.

• Flag Day remained a popular
fundraising method.
• Personal Appeals, Direct
Mailers, and Regular Giving
Programmes were notcommonly utilised by IPCs.
• Online donation is gaining
popularity.

Disclosure Of
Fundraising
Efficiency Ratio

Donor
Acknowledgement• It is common practice forcharities to acknowledge theindividuals and corporations
for their donations andsponsorship in charities’annual reports.

LIMITATIONS• Most IPCs do not report theirfundraising efficiency ratio in
their annual reports andfinancial statements.

Findings are limitedby the availability of
public information andquality of disclosure by IPCs
The lack of disclosure inannual reports and financial
statements by the IPCs
resulted in poor quality ofdata collected, thereby
affecting the overall findings.

FUTURE RESEARCH
Survey Research on
Fundraising Manpowerand Methods
Future research involving survey
method on charities’ fundraising
manpower and methods may yield
better insights.

Fundraising Practices
for Other Groups of Charities

Research on
Online Fundraising

What are the different constraints faced bydifferent groups of charities in their fundraising
operations? Does IPCs’ ability to issue
tax-deductible receipt, affect donor behavior
and the charities’ fundraising practices?

Who donate through online platforms?
How can charities reach out to thesegroup of donors? What are the risks ofonline fundraising? Can small charities
benefit from online fundraising, if so, how?

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 2016

REPORT HIGHLIGHTSxiii

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH STUDY
Focus
Group A

34 PARTICIPANTS

Small and Medium IPCs
in Health Sector

Focus
Group B

Large IPCs
in Health Sector

Classification by Sector• Health Sector• Social and Welfare Sector

Large IPCs in
Social and Welfare
SectorClassification by Total Operating Expenditure (TOE) Size
• Small: TOE < SGD 1M• Large: TOE > SGD 5M• Medium: SGD 1M < TOE < SGD 5M• Small and Medium: TOE < SGD 5M

Who Fundraisefor IPCs

How doIPCs fundraise?

How do IPCs
carry out donor
engagement?

Fundraising
Manpower

Fundraising
Methods

Donor
Engagement

Volunteers (including
Board members andFundraising Committee)

Current
Fundraising Norms

Donor Relations

Fundraising Professionals

Focus
Group D

Small IPCs in
Social and Welfare
SectorMedium IPCs in
Social and Welfare
Sector

FINDINGS

FutureFundraising Trends

Focus
Group C

Focus
Group E

Donor Databases

What are the
IPCs’ fundraisingaccountability,
compliance anddisclosure practices?

What are themain fundraisingchallenges that
IPCs face?

Fundraising
Accountability
Complianceand Disclosure

Fundraising
Challenges

Accountability
to Donors

Public’s Perceptionof Charities

Tax Deduction for
Donors and Sponsors

Increase Expectation
and Involvement by
Corporate donor

Donor Appreciation
Fundraising Complianceand Disclosure

Third Party Fundraisers

LIMITATIONS
Sample iscontingent upon
the voluntary
acceptance fromthe participants

The IPCs that accepted theinvitations to the focus group
discussions, may have better
track record at fundraisingthan those who rejected.

Participants’
Discussions
may be biased

Focus group participants’
responses may be influenced
by the social settings. This isdue to selective memory,
telescoping, attribution andexaggeration.

Competitive
Fundraising Enviroment

Lack of Comprehensive
Fundraising Strategy

FUTURE RESEARCH

Lack of trained
Fundraising Staff

Role of Board Members
in Fundraising

Charities need to knowwhat donors care about

What is the role of Board
members and/or committee
members for fundraising? How
to select the right persons, andhow to motivate them?

What do donors want? Whatmatters to donors? What doesit mean for donors to besatisfied? Are the donors
committed to future giving?

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

1 CSDA REPORT 2016

INTRODUCTION
This report is an outcome of a three-year collaboration between the Chartered Institute ofManagement Accountants (CIMA) and the Centre for Social Development Asia (CSDA) at the
Department of Social Work, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, National University of Singapore.
The first report was an exploratory study on the financial characteristics of Institutions of a
Public Character1 (IPCs) in the Social Service Sector. This second report seeks to provide an
overview of the charity landscape and fundraising in Singapore.
As documented in the first report, donation and fundraising activities remain the mostimportant sources of income for charities. Despite the importance of donation and fundraisingincome for charities, there is little research on the topic in Singapore. Hence, this report aims
to provide some insight on the fundraising practices of IPCs. Two exploratory research studies
on the fundraising practices of IPCs in Health, Social and Welfare sectors in Singapore werecarried out. The IPCs in the Health, Social and Welfare sectors were specifically chosen as theyplay an important role in delivering health and social services to the poor, vulnerable and thedisadvantaged.2
The first exploratory study is a quantitative research carried out using archival research method.
It examines the annual reports and financial statements of 126 IPCs in the Health, Social andWelfare sectors, over three financial years (FY2012, FY2013 and FY2014). This will provide
insights on the disclosure of fundraising practices of IPCs in Singapore.
The second exploratory study is a qualitative research using focus group method. IPCs’ board
members and senior management who are involved in fundraising for their charities were
engaged. They were invited to share their experiences, insights and perspectives on fundraisingfor charities. Participants from 34 IPCs from the Health, Social and Welfare sectors took part infive focus group discussions.
Besides documenting the results of these two studies, the report also provides an overview of
the charity landscape and fundraising in Singapore. Four box stories covering various aspectsof fundraising are included in this overview. The four box stories are: (1) Donations and Tax
Deductions – the lead up to SG50; (2) Eight Mechanisms that Drive Charitable Giving; (3)Community Chest, a Nonprofit Fundraising Organisation for Singapore’s Social Service Sector;and (4) Online Giving Portal – Giving.sg.

1
2

IPCs are able to issue tax deductible receipts to donors for qualifying donations (Charity Portal, 2016b).
With the ageing population in Singapore, services by the IPCs in these two sectors are expected to be in greater 		demand. The number of citizens aged 65 and above doubled from 220,000 in 2000 to 440,000 today, and is expected
to increase to 900,000 by 2030 (Ng, 2015).

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 20162

The report is structured as follows:• Section 1
Charity Landscape and Fundraising in Singapore• Section 2
Disclosure of Fundraising Practices• Section 3
Focus Group Discussions on Fundraising
Although the research studies on fundraising practices are largely exploratory, they could
serve as a starting point for stakeholders to come together for further dialogue. A better
understanding of fundraising practices, as well as on fundraising compliance and disclosure
issues, will contribute towards developing and strengthening the charity sector.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

33 CSDA REPORT 2016

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 2016

4

Section 1.

CHARITY LANDSCAPE AND FUNDRAISINGIN SINGAPORE
This section covers the following topics:
1.

Singapore’s Charity Landscape
1.1
Charities in Singapore
1.2 Institutions of a Public Character (IPCs) in Singapore
1.3 Regulations Governing Charities in Singapore

2.

Fundraising in Singapore
2.1 Donation, Fundraising Activities and Sponsorship as Main Sources of Income for		Charities
2.2

Media Analysis on Fundraising in Singapore

1. SINGAPORE’S CHARITY LANDSCAPE
1.1 Charities in Singapore

Charities in Singapore play a crucial role in serving the needy in society, with the Government
emphasising on “self-reliance and mutual support”3, rather than an over-reliance on government
welfare. Under the Many Helping Hands (MHH) approach, the Government encourages communityled initiatives and a community-based framework where government bodies, enablers, grantmakers,
donors, volunteers and voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs), provide social assistance to thepoor, vulnerable and disadvantaged (Sim, Ghoh, Loh & Chiu, 2015).
Charities are required by law to apply for charity registration with the Office of Commissionerof Charities (COC). They are classified into seven broad sectors, namely - (1) Arts and Heritage,(2) Community, (3) Education, (4) Health, (5) Religious and Others4, (6) Social and Welfare, and(7) Sports. All registered charities, including IPCs, enjoy income and property tax exemption onpremises used exclusively for charitable purposes. The charitable purposes (Commissioner ofCharities, 2016) include:
•
•
•
•
3

4

the relief of poverty;
the advancement of education;
the advancement of religion; andother purposes beneficial to the community.

Excerpt from 2015 National Day Rally Speech: http://www.pmo.gov.sg/mediacentre/prime-minister-lee-hsien-loongnational-day-rally-2015-speech-english
Charities under ‘Others’ sector includes charities set up for animal welfare, environment conservation and youth
development (Commissioner of Charities, 2016).

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

5 CSDA REPORT 2016

Figure 1: Number of Registered Charities and IPCs in Singapore (2008 to 2015)
No. of Organisations
No. of Organisations

2,500
2,000

1,973

1,944

2,028

2,093

2,130

2,142

2,217

2,180

1,500
2,217
2,500
2,180
2,130
2,142
2,093
2,028
1,973
1,000
1,944
612
633
599
2,000 504
542
568
580
532
500
1,500
0
1,000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014612 2015
633
599
542
568
580
532
504
Years
500
No. of Registered Charities, including IPCs
No. of IPCs
0
Notes:
2008
2009
2010from 201120122013 of2014
For the number of charities,
the figures
are obtained
Chart 1, Page
12, Commissioner
Charities 2015
Annual Report 2015.
For the number of IPCs, the figures are obtained from Chart 8, Page
18,
CommissionerofCharities
AnnualReport 2015.
Years
No. of Registered Charities, including IPCs
No. of IPCs
With reference to Figure 1, the number of registered charities, including IPCs, has increased over
the years from 1,944 in 2008 to 2,217 in 2015. Correspondingly, registered charities with IPC
status also increased from 504 in 2008 to 633 in 2015 (Commissioner of Charities, 2016).
60.0%
50.1%

% of Charities% of Charities

Figure 50.0%
2: Distribution of Charities by Income Size in 2014 (Based on Annual Receipts)
40.0%
60.0%
30.0%

50.0%
20.0%
40.0%
10.0%
30.0%
0.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%

50.1%

19.7%
10.1%

<$250K

9.0%

4.2%

6.9%

19.7%
$250K
$500K
$1mil
$5mil >$10mil
to $500K
to
$1mil
to
$5mil
to
$10mil
10.1%
9.0%

6.9%

4.2%
Distribution of Charities by Annual Receipts(in SGD)<$250K

$250K
$500K
$1mil
$5mil >$10mil
to $500K to $1mil to $5mil to $10mil

Distribution of Charities by Annual Receipts (in SGD)

Notes:
Figures are obtained from Chart 2, Page 13, Commissioner of Charities Annual Report 2015.

The COC Office classifies charities into six categories based on their annual receipts (which included
donations, government grants, fees and charges for services rendered). Figure 2 shows that 50.1
per cent of the registered charities including IPCs are relatively small, with annual receipts of lessthan SGD 250,000. Large charities with annual receipts of more than SGD 10 million account for
only 6.9 per cent of the total (Commissioner of Charities, 2016).
© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 2016

6

Table 1: Breakdown of Total Annual Receipts and Donations received by Charity Sector
in FY2014
tss
pts
eip
eipt
cei
ceip
Rece
Re
Rec
uaall Receipts
ual
nu
nua
nn
An
Ann
Annu
all Annual
tal
ota
Total
T
To
Tot
n))
on)
ion
lion
llio
illio
Million)
Mi
Mil
Mill
M
D Milli
SGD
(S
(SG
(SG
4 (SGD
14
014
201
Y2
Y20
FY2
FY2014in FFY
in

Tot
Total
T
To
ottal
ota
taall DonD
Do
Donationsonona
naatio
nat
ati
tio
ion
on
ons
nss Rec
Re
R
Received
ece
cei
eiv
ive
veed
ved
d
in FFYinFY2
FY2014
Y2
Y20
201
014
14
4 (SG
(SGD
(S
(SG
SGD
D Milli
Mi
Mil
Mill
M
Million)
illio
llio
lion
ion
on)
n))

Arts and Heritage$883.00$75.70Community$77.50$24.90

Education$8,794.50$345.90

Health$921.70$276.70

Religious and Others$2,071.90$1,344.90

Social and Welfare$1,693.20$424.80

Sports$137.70$31.50

Total$14,579.50$2,524.40

Sector
S
Se
Sec
eccto
ect
to
tor
orr

Notes:For the total annual receipt in FY2014, the data is obtained from Chart 3, Page 14, Commissioner of Charities Annual Report2015. For the total donation received in FY2014, the data is obtained from Chart 7, Page 17, Commissioner of Charities
Deductible
No.theNoNo.
ofof annual
Re
R
RegRegistered
egi
egis
gist
ste
ter
ere
red
ed
d submitted
No.
N
No
o.
.o
of
f IP
IPC
IIPCs
PC
PCs
Css for financial Tax
Annual Report 2015. Figures are compiled based on
returnsbycharities
years ending in
Sector
S
Se
eccto
ect
cttor
to
orr
Received by
Donations
Charities
C
Ch
Cha
ha
har
ari
rit
itie
tie
ies
ess inideductible
n2
20
2014
0114
014
4 donations.in
in
20
201
2
2014
0114
014
4the data may depict a different
2015, and the data covers both tax deductible andnon-tax
Hence,Mil)(S(
4 (SGD
14
IPCs in 2014
trend from the tax deductible donations data due to different reporting periods and data coverage. Charities and IPCs underthe ‘Others’ sector include
charities
set up for animal welfare,
124 environment conservation
67 and youth development.
Arts and
Heritage$55.20Community

88

71$27.10

The Government continues to support charities by providing grants. Some examples of grants
119
43
Education include:$307.70
provided by the Government
Health131

78$229.00• Increased funding of SGD 10 million a year for VWOs running social services and programmes(MinistryReligiousof SocialandandFamily Development,2012);
1,290
94
Others$64.80• SGD 250 Social
millionandinWelfarematching grants in 364
2014 (subsequently increasedby an additional SGD
220$402.10250 million in 2015) to support the ‘Care & Share Movement’ (Community Chest, 2015).
This contribution
had the effect of encouraging
more members39of the public to come forward$6.40
64Sportswith donations (National Council of Social Service, 2015); and
Total

2,180

612

$1,092.30• ‘Our Singapore Fund’ of up to SGD 25 million announced in April 2016 by the Ministry of
Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY). The fund provides grants of SGD 50,000 to charities,
which have projects that build national identity and help the underprivileged (Goy, 2016a).

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

7 CSDA REPORT 2016

1.2 Institutions of a Public Character (IPCs) in Singapore
The government plays an important role in the development of charities in Singapore by granting
tax relief to donors for qualifying donations to IPCs. A charity can apply for IPC status, whichallows it to issue tax deductible receipts to donors5, if it is dedicated to serving the needs ofthe community in Singapore as a whole and not be confined to sectional interests or groups of
persons based on race, belief or religion. As of 31 December 2015, there are 633 approved IPCs,
with charities from the Social and Welfare sector constituting the largest group (Commissioner ofCharities, 2016).
Since 2009, tax deductible donations to IPCs have been steadily increasing. In 2014, IPCs received
SGD 1,092.3 million in tax deductible donations, up from SGD 969.7 million in 2013. The Social andWelfare sector received the most donations, about SGD 402.1 million of tax deductible donations,followed closely by the Education and Health sectors (Commissioner of Charities, 2015). Between
2006 and 2014, corporate donors contribute about two-thirds of the tax deductible donations,while the balance is by individual donors.
In 2015, the total amount of tax deductible donations received by the IPCs increased by morethan 24 per cent to SGD 1,361.0 million, up from SGD 1,092.3 million received in 2014. This
increase was spurred by the increase in tax deduction for qualifying donations from 250 per centto 300 per cent to encourage the spirit of philanthropy and charitable giving. Contributions to theSocial and Welfare, Education and Health sectors accounted for 80 per cent of these donations(Commissioner of Charities, 2016).
For the breakdown of registered charities, IPCs and their tax deductible donations received by
sector in 2014, refer to Table 2.

Under the Income Tax Act, outright cash donations, donations of shares by individual donors, donations of computers(including hardware, software, accessories and peripherals) by corporate, artefacts donations, donations under the
Public 		Art Tax Incentive Scheme, and land and building donations will qualify for tax deduction.
5© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

Sports$137.70$31.50

Total$14,579.50$2,524.40

CSDA REPORT 20168

Table 2: Breakdown of Registered Charites, IPCs and IPCs’ Tax Deductible Donations
Received by Charity Sector in 2014
Tax Deductible
Donations Received by
Mil)
(S
(
4 (SGD
14
IPCs in 2014

Sector
S
Se
eccto
ect
cttor
to
orr

No.
N
No
o. of
of Re
R
Reg
Registered
egi
egis
gist
ste
ter
ere
red
ed
d
Charities
C
Ch
Cha
haari
har
rit
itie
tie
ies
ess in
in 2
20
2014
0114
014
4

No.
N
No
o.. o
off IP
IPC
IIPCs
PC
PCs
Css
in 2
in
20
201
2014
0114
014
4

Arts and Heritage

124

67

$55.20Community

88

71$27.10

Education

119

43$307.70

Health131

78$229.00

Religious and Others

1,290

94

$64.80Social and Welfare

364

220

$402.10Sports

64

39

$6.40

Total

2,180

612

$1,092.30

Notes:
Table 2 is an estimated comparison based on data available. For the number of registered charities in 2014, the data is
obtained from Table 1, Page 13, Commissioner of Charities Annual Report 2014. It includes the number of IPCs and thefigure is net of charities deregistered in that year. For the tax deductible donations received by IPCs in 2014, the data is
obtained from Chart 11, Page 21, Commissioner of Charities Annual Report 2014. There are no IPCs under the Religious
sector. Charities and IPCs under ‘Others’ sector include charities set up for animal welfare, environment conservation andyouth development.

A case study on the effect of tax deductions on donations to IPC is presented in Box Story 1.
Understanding donors’ motivation on charitable giving could be crucial to a successful fundraisingstrategy. Box Story 2 presents a summary of the findings by Bekkers and Wiepking (2010) on the
motivation for charitable giving, based on their literature review of more than 500 articles.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

9 CSDA REPORT 2016

Box Story 1: Donations and Tax Deduction – the Lead Up to SG50
Before 2002, the tax deduction given for donations is of the amount equivalent to the cash
donations (Tee, 2002). To foster better giving and charitable behaviour in Singaporeans, aswell as to encourage charities to increase their fundraising efforts (Tan, 2003), there has beenchanges in the policies - with the introduction of a double tax deduction in 2002 (Tee, 2002),
and to 2.5 times deduction in 2009 (Tan, 2009).
Since then, tax deductible donations saw a significant uptrend, reaching an unprecedented
amount of SGD 1,092 million in 2014 (Commissioner of Charities, 2016), though it should
be noted that the uptrend could also be a result of other factors, such as increase in incomes,change in tax rates and increase in the number of eligible charities. In the 2015 Budget speech,
the then Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam extended the 2.5 times deduction till
2018, as the tax incentives have helped boost both individual and corporate donations over
the years (Ministry of Finance, 2015).

Figure 3: Tax Deductible Donations (TDD) by Source – Trend 2006 to 2015

Millions (SGD)

1500

1361.061

1250
1031.2
031.2

1000

820.4
20.

750
500
250
0

535.0
5.0
35
51
51.0
184.0
184.0
8

565.5
65.5
254.9

686.8
86 8

686 9
686.9

475 6
475.6

447 2
447.2

211 2
211.2

239 7
239.7

776.1
507 1
507.1
507
269 0
269.0

896.4
604.6
291 8
291.8

1092.31092
969.77
969

701 5
701.5

644 4
644.4

329 7
329.7

325 3
325.3

911 5
911.5
726
726.3
726.
63
366.0

449 5
449.5

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Years
Total TDD

Corporate Sources

Individual Sources

Note:
Figures are obtained from Chart 12, Page 20, Commissioner of Charities Annual Report 2015.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 201610

In the same speech, Mr Shanmugaratnam further enhanced the tax deductions to 300 per
cent for donations made in Singapore’s Jubilee year as part of SG50 celebrations (Ministry of
Finance, 2015). This resulted in a stark increase in tax deductible donations of 24 per cent in2015 (from SGD 1.1 billion in 2014 to SGD 1.4 billion in 2015). This continued the uptrend oftax deductible donations observed over the last ten years.
Press releases regarding the rise of tax deductible donations (specifically articles published by
the Straits Times) also attributed the increase to the Care & Share @ SG50 Movement. The‘Care & Share @ SG50 Movement’ or ‘Care & Share’ is a national fundraising and volunteerism
movement led by Community Chest for the social service sector to bring Singapore together
to show care and concern for the needy and recognise the contributions made by social
service organisations (Community Chest, 2014). Donations made to the social service
organisations during this movement were matched dollar-for-dollar (Goy, 2015). As such,the effect of governmental grants and initiatives on philanthropic giving has been observed in
the increase of tax deductible donations because of the Care & Share grant and the increasein tax deductions.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

11 CSDA REPORT 2016

Box Story 2: Eight Mechanisms that Drive Charitable Giving
Research on the determinants of charitable giving has been carried out through a systematic
literature review of more than 500 articles by Bekkers and Wiepking (2010). According to
Bekkers and Wiepking, research on philanthropy appears in journals from different disciplines
including marketing, economics, social psychology, biological psychology, neurology and brain
sciences, sociology, political science, anthropology, biology, and evolutionary psychology.
Bekkers and Wiepking examined the literature from different disciplines and structured theirliterature review on the central question of why people want to donate money to charitableorganisations. They identified eight mechanisms as the most important forces that drive
charitable giving: (1) awareness of need; (2) solicitation; (3) costs and benefits; (4) altruism;(5) reputation; (6) psychological benefits; (7) values; and (8) efficacy. A summary of theirresearch is presented below.
1. AWARENESS OF NEEDS• Donors are connected to certain causes when they are aware of these needs (Bekkers &Wiepking, 2010).
• Donors who were, or know of victims of certain situations are more likely to donate
to causes that address them, even more so if a relative is currently affected (Small &Simonsohn, 2006; Bekkers, 2008; Burgoyne, Young, & Walker, 2005).
• Increased media attention and promotion by charities increase awareness (Bekkers &Wiepking, 2010; Simon, 1997).
2. SOLICITATION
How charities seek donors greatly affects the contribution level (Bekkers & Wiepking,2010):• Charities who more actively seek out donors often receive more donations (Bekkers,
2005a; Lee & Farrell, 2003; Schlegelmilch, Love, & Diamantopoulos, 1997; Simmons &Emanuele, 2004; Tiehen, 2001; Wiepking & Maas, 2009).
• However, if donors are overwhelmed with requests for contribution, they tend to donate
less (Van Diepen, Donkers, & Franses, 2009; Wiepking, 2008b).
3. COSTS & BENEFITS
The requested amount per donation also impacts whether benefactors choose to
donate:• As donation costs decrease, giving increases (Bekkers, 2005b; Eckel & Grossman, 2003,
2004; Karlan & List, 2006). However, if the donor deems the cost excessive, they will
not donate, or donate less (Doob & McLaughlin, 1989).

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 201612

4. ALTRUISM
The concern over the organisations’ output from donations impacts a benefactor’s
contribution (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2010):• Purely altruistic donors (in the economic sense) would actually donate less if they know
others contributed more, thus resulting in a ‘crowding out’ effect (Bekkers & Wiepking,2010).
• Altruistic motives are thus mostly “impure” (Andreoni, 1989, 1990; Kingma, 1989), andare dominated by private benefits and selective incentives (Olson, 1965).
5. REPUTATION• Reputation is the social impact the donor experiences from giving (Bekkers & Wiepking,2010).
• People who donate are thought more highly of by their peers (Muehleman, Bruker, &Ingram, 1976; Wiepking, 2008a).
• Those who do not donate experience the opposite effect especially when the donations
are announced publicly (Alpizar, Carlsson & Johansson-Stenman, 2007; Barclay, 2004;
Bateson, Nettle, & Roberts, 2006; Bereczkei, Birkas, & Kerekes, 2007; Harris, Benson,& Hall, 1975; Hoffman, McCabe, & Smith, 1996; Long, 1976; Satow, 1975; Soetevent,2005).
• Because of this, people tend to donate more when their donation receives publicrecognition (Andreoni & Petrie, 2004).
6. PSYCHOLOGICAL BENEFITS• When donors give, they improve their self- image, and become happier (Bekkers &Wiepking, 2010).
• Giving makes donors happy, as it can alleviate guilt and improve self-image, or simply
because givers know, they have helped others (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2010; Basil, Ridgway,& Basil, 2006).
• Giving is also motivated by adherence to self- image; those who hold themselves to ahigh moral responsibility donate to maintain it (Carlsmith & Gross, 1969; Freedman,
Wallington, & Bless, 1967; Konecki, 1972; Regan, Williams, & Sparling, 1972).
7. VALUES
Donors will contribute according to their own ideals (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2010):• Those who recognise the importance of the areas charities address are more likely todonate, so as to fulfil their responsibility towards global improvement (Wiepking, 2010).
• Perceived similarities between charity and donor ideals increase the probability of giving(Bennett, 2003).

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

13 CSDA REPORT 2016

8. EFFICACY
Benefactors are more willing to give if they know the impact of their donations:• Informing donors of the results brought about by their contributions can increase
donations (Jackson & Matthews, 1995; Parsons, 2003, 2007).
• When people see others donate, they have more confidence in the intention of theorganisation, and are thus more likely to donate (Bryan & Test, 1967; Lincoln, 1977;
Reingen, 1982).
Note:
The information is summarised from ‘A Literature Review of Empirical Studies of Philanthropy: Eight Mechanism that
Drive Charitable Giving’ (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2010).

1.3 Regulations and Code of Governance Governing Charities in Singapore
Charities are accountable to the public and their stakeholders. Good governance is an importantcriterion for the public and stakeholders to make an informed decision whether to donate or
volunteer their services to a charity.
IPCs in the social service sector are dependent on external sources of funds (such as donations,fundraising income and government grants) to sustain financially. Income from donations andfundraising remain the most important source of income, with government grants being the next
most important source of funding (Sim, Ghoh, Loh, & Chiu, 2015).
Fundraising guidelines stipulate the classification of the income received from public into donations,fundraising income, and sponsorship income. As there are tax deduction implications for each of
the items, it is therefore important for charities, including IPCs, to accurately report the incomesreceived from the different sources. However, some may find complying with the guidelines achallenge. The following definitions, extracted from the ‘Accounting Glossary for Charities and
IPCs’ on the Charity Portal6, may offer some guidance:• Donations refers to gifts to charities or approved IPCs (that) comprise donations in cash
and donations in kind; in other words, they are voluntary gifts. These gifts can take several
forms, including cash donations, donations of shares, or artefact donations among others.
Donations cannot contain the element of exchange in any form. In other words, the donor
does not receive any benefit in return for his or her donation. Under the Charities AccountingStandards (CAS), donations are subsumed under the Voluntary Income earned by an IPC. Tax
deductible donations are donations to IPCs which qualify for tax deduction under Section
37(3)(b) to 37(3)(f) of the Income Tax Act.
6

For the ‘Accounting Glossary for Charities and IPCs’, refer to https://www.charities.gov.sg/Documents/Accounting_
Glossary.pdf© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 201614

• Fundraising income refers to the income generated by activities to raise funds for the Charities/
IPCs … (of which these activities) involve an element of exchange, with the Charities/IPCs
receiving income in return for providing goods or services”. For instance, at a fundraising event
such as a concert, the exchange that occurs between the giver and the IPCs is the exchange ofgift for the enjoyment of the concert. As such, such gifts cannot be defined as donations. Under
the CAS, Fundraising Income is subsumed under Income from Charitable Activities.
• Sponsorship refers to the “value of in-kind support received and which are used in fundraising exercise”. In short, they refer to gifts made to an IPC in exchange for either marketingor advertising opportunities for the sponsor. For instance, a sponsor may choose to gift a sumof money to fund a particular event run by an IPC. In return, the IPC would be required toadvertise the company at the event, for instance displaying the company’s logo. Under theCAS, sponsorship income is subsumed under Income from Charitable Activities.
In addition, charities in Singapore are expected to follow certain regulations stipulated by theCharities Act with regards to the accountability of their fundraising practices. Under the Charities
Act, it is mandatory for charities, including IPCs, to submit their annual reports, including statementof accounts to the COC Office.
To encourage charities to adopt principles and best practices in key areas of governance andmanagement, the Charity Council introduced the ‘Code of Governance for Charities and Institutionsof Public Character (IPCs)’ (hereafter, the Code) in 2007 (subsequently revised in 2011) (Charity
Portal, 2016b). The Code encourages a charity to make available to its members and donors annual
reports that include information regarding its programmes, activities, financials, board members andexecutive management available to its members and donors. Should the charity not be able tocomply, the charity would need to provide its justification.
The Charity Council developed and launched the Charity Transparency Framework (CTF) in July
2015. It is a scorecard for the purpose of charities’ self-assessment. It aims to help charities enhancetheir disclosure and governance practices, and serves as a public education tool by highlighting key
areas of disclosure that will aid in informed giving.
To aid the public in making informed choices as to which charity they desire to support, the COC
Office has published the annual reports and financial statements of all charities for online viewing via
the Charity Portal (www.charities.gov.sg). The Governance Evaluation Checklists (GECs) of charities
to which the Code applies are also published.
Some key legislations and voluntary disclosure guidelines for charities in Singapore are presented inTable 3.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

15 CSDA REPORT 2016

Table 3: Some Key Legislations and Voluntary Disclosure Guidelines for Charities in
SingaporeSome Key Legislations
Regulations

Descriptions

Charities Act (Chapter 37)(first introduced in 1995)

Parent act to regulate all
charities in Singapore.

Charities (Institutions of a Public
Character) Regulations (2007)

Subsidiary legislation to provide
specific guidelines for a more
specific group of charities, whichis the IPCs.

Charities (Accounts and Annual
Reports) Regulations (2011)

Subsidiary legislation to provide
specific guidelines regarding thereporting aspect of all charities.

Charities (Fund Raising Appeals
for Local and Foreign Charitable
Purposes) Regulations (2012)

Subsidiary legislation to provide
specific guidelines regarding thefundraising matters of all charities.

Voluntary Disclosure Guidelines
Guidelines

Descriptions

Code of Governancefor Charities and IPCs
(first introduced in 2007, latest
revision in 2011)

Provides principles andpractices of governance andmanagement for charities
and IPCs.

Charity Transparency
Framework (CTF)(introduced in July 2015)

Charity transparency scorecard
to help charities enhance theirdisclosure and governancepractices. The inaugural Charity
Transparency Awards was held in
September 2016.

Notes:For more information on legislations, refer to the Charity Portal: https://www.charities.gov.sg/manage-your-charity/Pages/
Legislation%20Governing%20Charity_IPC.aspx© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 2016

16

2. FUNDRAISING IN SINGAPORE

2.1 Donation, Fundraising Activities and Sponsorship as Main Sources ofIncome for Charities
Sim, Ghoh, Loh, and Chiu (2015) found that income from donation and fundraising activities remain
the most important sources of income for IPCs in the social service sector. Table 4 provides a summaryof their findings, based on 202 IPCs in the sector, from FY2011 to FY2013. It shows that the charities’
income is derived from three main sources, namely (1) Income from Donation, Fundraising Activities
and Sponsorship, (2) Income from Government and Other Grants, (3) Other Income - comprisingincome derived from Programme, Social Enterprise and Investment. The smaller charities7 received
56.6 per cent of their income from donation, fundraising activities and sponsorship whereas the larger
charities8 are more dependent on income from government and other grants, which constitutes 43.1
per cent. Given that the charities are dependent on external income generated through donation,
fundraising activities and sponsorship, it is therefore vital for charities to develop and strengthen
their fundraising capability.

78

In this case, the small charities refer to IPCs of total operating expenditure (TOE) size of less than SGD 250,000.
In this case, the large charities refer to IPCs of total operating expenditure (TOE) size of more than SGD 10 million.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

17 CSDA REPORT 2016

Table 4: Breakdown of Sources of Income for IPCs in the Social Service Sector (FY2011
to FY2013)
IIPC’sIP
PC
C’’ss SSiz
C’s
Size
ize
ze
e aass mmemeameasured
eaasu
eas
su
sur
urred
ure
ed
d
by TotbyTo
TTotal
ota
tal
all O
Op
Ope
Operating
pe
per
era
rat
rati
atin
tin
ting
ng
g
EExpenditure
Ex
Exp
xpe
pe
pen
en
end
nd
ndi
dit
ditu
itu
tur
ure
re
e (TO
((T
(TOE)
TO
TOE
OE)
E))

More than
SGD 10 million

From SGD 5 million
to 10 million

From SGD 1 million
to 5 million

From SGD 500,000
to 1 million

From SGD 250,000
to 500,000

Less than
SGD 250,000

IIncome
In
ncco
nco
om
me fro
me
fr
ffrom
ro
om
m
IIncome
In
ncco
nco
om
me fro
me
fr
ffrom
ro
om
m
Donation,
D
Do
Don
on
ona
nat
ati
tio
ion
on
on,
n,,
Government
G
Go
Gov
ovve
ove
ver
ern
rn
nm
ment
me
en
ntt
FFundraising
Fu
Fun
und
nd
ndr
dra
rais
ais
aisi
isin
sin
ing
ng
g
aand
an
nd
dO
Ot
Oth
Other
th
he
err
aand
an
nd
d
Grants
G
Gr
Gra
ran
an
ant
nts
tss
SSponsorship
Sp
Spo
po
pon
on
ons
nssor
nso
so
ors
orsh
rsh
sh
ship
hip
ip
p

Year
Y
Ye
Yea
eaarr
ear

No.
N
No
o.. ofof IIP
IPCs
PC
Cssin Samin
Sa
SSample
am
mp
mpl
ple
le
e
((n=202)
(n
(n=
n=
n=2
=2
=20
20
202
02
02)
2))

FY2011

26

24.4%

41.3%

34.3%

FY2012

27

23.2%

42.4%

34.4%

FY2013

30

23.0%

45.6%

31.5%

3-year Average

-

23.5%

43.1%

33.4%

FY2011

23

35.6%

33.8%

30.6%

FY2012

28

37.7%

35.7%

26.6%

FY2013

28

31.5%

40.9%

27.7%

3-year Average

-

34.9%

36.8%

28.3%

FY2011

82

30.3%

37.5%

32.1%

FY2012

80

34.7%

39.7%

25.7%

FY2013

84

30.6%

44.6%

24.8%

3-year Average

-

31.9%

40.6%

27.5%

FY2011

30

49.3%

25.5%

25.2%

FY2012

32

52.5%

27.8%

19.7%

FY2013

30

44.9%

35.6%

19.5%

3-year Average

-

48.9%

29.6%

21.4%

FY2011

25

54.2%

30.7%

15.1%

FY2012

21

53.4%

30.9%

15.7%

FY2013

17

57.3%

12.1%

30.6%

3-year Average

-

55.0%

24.6%

20.5%

FY2011

16

43.6%

49.1%

7.3%

FY2012

14

61.1%

26.1%

12.8%

FY2013

13

65.2%

19.9%

14.9%

3-year Average

-

56.6%

31.7%

11.7%

Other
O
Ot
Oth
the
he
her
err
Inc
IIncomes
In
nccom
nco
co
om
me
mes
ess

Notes:The data is obtained from ‘The Social Service Sector in Singapore: An Exploratory on the Financial Characteristics ofInstitutions of a Public Character (IPCs) in the Social Service Sector’ (Sim, Ghoh, Loh & Chiu, 2015). ‘Other Income’includes income from programmes, social enterprise and investment.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 201618

2.2 Media Analysis on Fundraising in Singapore
The media provides very little coverage about fundraising activities of charities, with coverage
often limited to Community Chest. Given this lack of information, the report will look atCommunity Chest to obtain some background on the fundraising practices, and the challenges
it may face. Following that, a limited media analysis, covering news articles from 2013 to 2016,is then briefly presented.
Community Chest has served as a nonprofit fundraising organisation to Singapore’s social service
sector for more than three decades. It is the largest fundraising body in Singapore. Some insights
on Community Chest’s fundraising operations are presented in Box Story 3.

Box Story 3: Community Chest, a Nonprofit Fundraising Organisation 					
for Singapore’s Social Service Sector
Background
For more than three decades, the Community Chest played a vital role in the community byacting as the central coordinating mechanism for fundraising and volunteering. It collaborates
with and supports over 80 different charities each year across five social causes - adults
with disabilities, dignified ageing, families in need, children with special needs and youths at
risk, and people with mental health issues. With its operation and fundraising costs mostly
covered by Tote Board and Singapore Pools, 100 per cent of donations raised go towards
helping the charities to support the less fortunate.
As a result of the Care & Share Movement during SG50, donations from 1st December 2013
to 31st March 2016 were matched dollar-for-dollar by the government, leading to a record
year of growth. The matched amount goes towards building the capabilities and capacities ofthe social service sector and supporting social services to meet rising needs.

Community Chest’s Fundraising Track Record
Figure 4 is a breakdown of the financial outcomes per year across the last decade. It shows astable, even upward trend in total funds raised.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

19 CSDA REPORT 2016

Figure 4: Fundraising Proceeds from Community Chest – Trend from FY2005 to
FY2014

Million (SGD)

100.0

78.2

80.0
60.0
40.0

45.0 47.0

52.0 50.8 52.6

55.3

55.7

64.6

53.7

20.0
0.0

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Financial Year (FY)

Notes:
Data collated from National Council of Social Service (NCSS) Annual Reports FY2005 to FY2014. Fundraising proceedsfrom Community Chest had a record year of growth in FY2014.This may be a result of the Care & Share movement

During an interview with CSDA, Ms Ng Ling Ling, Managing Director of Community Chest
shared that “the why” is the starting point. She explained that for Community Chest, allfundraising efforts begin with articulating the charitable causes to be supported.

Community Chest’s Fundraising Approach
Fundraising in Community Chest is anchored on three key factors - accountability, innovation
and renewal. According to Ms Ng, their fundraising approach is in a form of public outreach,telling donors a story in a simple and succinct way, and developing a relationship of trustwith donors. She highlighted that today’s donors want to be informed. To be accountable,
Community Chest engaged in personalised donor communication to facilitate informed
giving. She emphasised that it is important for Community Chest to stay relevant, byinnovating and harnessing the latest technology such as online fundraising. Special Events
remain an important fundraising method in Community Chest. However, this fundraising
approach needs constant updating to generate public interests through creative events.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 201620

Collaborating with Corporations
According to Ms Ng, the future points towards greater collaboration with the corporate sector.
As part of the Care & Share Movement, the Government agreed to match donations towards
Community Chest’s SHARE programme, a monthly giving programme. This is for a periodof three years from 1 April 2016 onwards, and up to SGD 15 million. The donations received
will go towards current needs as well as underserved and unmet areas. The Government’s
matching grants will boost corporations’ corporate social responsibilities (CSR) efforts, andthe charities will benefit from this.
Notes:The background information is extracted from Community Chest FY2014 Impact Report: http://www.comchest.
org.sg/comchest/Portals/0/Resources/Impact%20Reports/Impact%20Report%2014_FA_1509.pdf. The information
regarding the SHARE programme is obtained from: http://www.comchest.org.sg/comchest/SHAREasOne/AboutUs/
tabid/1187/Default.aspx. Care & Share @ SG50 Movement is a national fundraising and volunteerism movement led
by Community Chest for the social service sector to bring our nation together to show care and concern for the needy
and recognise the contributions made by social service organisations (Community Chest, 2014).

The following section is based on the media analysis covering websites and newspaper articles from2013 to 2016. The limited findings are classified into two broad areas, namely common fundraising
methods used and challenges faced by charities in Singapore. They are briefly presented below.

Common Fundraising Methods used by Charities in Singapore
Based on media analysis, Special Events, Corporate Partnerships and Sponsorships, and Online
Donations appear to be the most common fundraising methods used by charities in Singapore.
• Special Events
Choi, Menon and Ross (2013) found that most charities in Singapore focused on Special
Events as their main fundraising activity. Mass events such as Charity Walkathons and niche
events, such as Gala Dinners and Charity Golf Tournaments are seen as the most visible andviable platforms. Some examples are cited below:• In 2013, The Hospice Sunflower Ball raised over SGD 1.1 million (“Bringing sunshine tomore lives”, 2013).
• The 2014 President’s Star Charity show raised over SGD 6.3 million (Cheong, 2014).
• In 2014, Singapore Airlines raised SGD 2.5 million for Community Chest through a
Charity Gala Dinner and Charity Run (AsiaOne, 2014).
• The 2015 Marina Bay Sands Charity Festival raised over SGD 5.4 million for charity(Kok, 2015).

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

21 CSDA REPORT 2016

• Corporate Partnerships and Sponsorships
		
As part of the corporate social responsibility (CSR) mandate, many companies are coming
forward to work together with charities to help the poor, vulnerable and disadvantaged.
This has led to a greater interaction between the corporate world and the charity sector(Tay, 2015). An example of charities’ Corporate Partnerships and Sponsorships is the Makea-Wish Foundation collaborating with more than thirty restaurants such that the proceedsfrom selected dishes would go to charity (Mendoza, 2013). Charities may combine different
methods to maximize fundraising effort. For example, Singapore’s Children Society garneredsome SGD 3.2 million through two fundraising initiatives - 1000 Enterprises programme,
which encouraged firms to make annual donations, and 1000 Philanthropists programme
where individuals pledged annual contributions of SGD 1,000 (“Singapore Children’s Societyraises record S$3.2 million”, 2015).
• Online Donations
		
Online Donation is gaining traction, given the advancement in technology. In 2013, Choi,
Menon and Ross found little evidence of online activities by charities. However, this haschanged in recent years, as Giving.sg, GoFundME, and GIVEasia have become the main online
platforms for collecting and coordinating funds raised through the Internet in Singapore. The
numbers of charities registered on Giving.sg has doubled from 200 to 399 in 2010 (Cheng,2016). In 2014, SGD 13 million was collected by the online donation portal, SG Gives9(“Singaporeans more likely to donate at year-end: NVPC”, 2015). Singapore-based charity
crowd funding platform GIVEasia saw the number of local charities it serves surged ten-foldto more than 250 in 2016.
A case study on the online giving portal, Giving.sg, is presented in Box Story 4.

9

SG Gives has combined with SG Cares to form Giving.sg.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 2016

22

Box Story 4: Online Giving Portal - Giving.sg
Background
Launched by National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre (NVPC) in 2015, Giving.sg is an
online aggregator that aims to make giving more accessible by cutting down paperwork on theadministrative processes. The following highlights its potential in empowering Singaporeansto participate in a giving culture.

Knowing where the audience is
Cheque-book philanthropy used to be a common sight in the local philanthropic scene.
However, as new donors turn to strategic giving and Internet transactions, charities requirea portal to cater to an audience that is used to speed and technology. Giving.sg fills in the
gap by allowing users to sign up, volunteer and donate all on a single online platform. By
extending their presence into the cyber world, it is easier for Giving.sg to connect with theaudience rather than relying on traditional offline methods.

Information availability
While many organisations provide information on their own online platforms, theinformation explosion on the Internet can get overwhelming for potential donors. Giving.
sg resolves this challenge by providing giving opportunities from at least 400 nonprofits
on one platform with an easy-to-use interface. From the three main pages related tovolunteering, donating and campaigning, there are search functions that can be further
refined to single out specific causes, skills and locations. The convenience of accessing
and sieving information reduces unnecessary information overload and better matchescharities with the right donors and volunteers.

Accountability
By signing up an account with Giving.sg, a user is able to track his or her donation andvolunteering records. Additionally, Giving.sg is extremely transparent about donation process- it is clearly stated on the website that banks would receive 1.5 per cent of all donations,while Giving.sg receives zero service fee. Such transparency increases the accountability of
Giving.sg, and thus improves public confidence in charity work processes.
Note:
Information extracted from Giving.sg website: https://www.giving.sg/© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

23 CSDA REPORT 2016

Fundraising Challenges Faced by Charities in Singapore
Donors’ Preferences and Biases
It is a challenge for charities to raise funds for their overheads. Donors want all their donations to
go directly to the beneficiaries but this is unrealistic. Donations that go towards administrative
overheads or fundraising efforts are just as critical as those directed exclusively towards beneficiaries(Low, 2014). The lack of donations and funding for administrative overheads or fundraising efforts
can be a vicious cycle for charities. This vicious cycle starts with donors’ unrealistic expectationsof charities’ operational expenses, and results in charities skimping on their overheads (Gregory &Howard, 2009).
Some charities faced more challenges in fundraising than others. This is because donors havepreferences and biases in terms of the social causes they would like to support. Social causes,
revolving around migrant workers, ex-offenders, and AIDS patients, are often marginalised infavour of causes that centre around health, the elderly, and the disabled (Lian, 2013).

Online Fundraising for Charities
It is becoming essential for charities to maintain an online presence. Furthermore, online fundraisingfor charities is gaining popularity. The existence of an online charity profile is insufficient to makeonline fundraising a success. For any online fundraising campaign to gain traction, efforts have to
be made to connect with its target audience and sustain any momentum generated (Cheng, 2016).
Menon (2010) conducted a study on the uptake of newer methods for fundraising throughInformation and Communications Technologies (ICTs) by charities in Singapore. Results showedthat charities’ main barrier to the adoption of ICTs was due to the lack of tech-savvy manpower.
Additional constraints included high infrastructural costs and security concerns surrounding theuse of ICTs.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 201624

This page is intentionally left blank.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

25 CSDACSDAREPORT
2016
25
REPORT2016© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 2016

26

Section 2.

DISCLOSURE OF FUNDRAISING
PRACTICESThis section covers the following topics:
1. Research Objective
2. Regulatory Framework for Fundraising in Singapore
3. Research Sample and Methodology
4. Research Results
4.1 Findings on Fundraising Manpower
4.2 Findings on Fundraising Methods
4.3 Findings on Donor Acknowledgement
4.4 Findings on Disclosure of Fundraising Efficiency Ratio
5. Discussions, Limitations and Future Research
5.1 Discussions
5.2 Limitations
5.3 Future Research

1. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
There is little research on fundraising for charities in Singapore. This exploratory
research study aims to provide a snapshot of fundraising practices of charities in
Singapore, specifically in four areas: (1) Fundraising Manpower; (2) Fundraising
Methods; (3) Donor Acknowledgement; and (4) Disclosure of Fundraising
Efficiency Ratio. The objective is to collate information presented in the individual
charities’ annual reports and financial statements, to provide an overview on
fundraising landscape in Singapore. The study involves the examination ofannual reports and financial statements of 126 IPCs in the Health, Social andWelfare sectors. Following the earlier study by Sim, Ghoh, Loh and Chiu (2015),
a baseline of three financial years (FY2012, FY2013 and FY2014) was selected tofacilitate data collection and analysis. The regulatory framework for fundraisingin Singapore will be presented in the next section. It provides the background tounderstanding charities’ disclosure of their fundraising practices in their annual
reports and financial statements.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

27 CSDA REPORT 2016

2. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR FUNDRAISING IN SINGAPORE
To understand Singapore’s fundraising regulatory framework, the following sections cover therole of the Office of the Commissioner of Charities (COC), key fundraising legislations, fundraising
efficiency ratio, guidelines on fundraising practices in the Code of Governance (2011) and theCharity Portal.
Charities rely largely on donations and grants from individuals, government entities and otherorganisations to carry out their charitable activities. They are expected to utilise their fundingin an accountable manner while maximising benefits to their beneficiaries. Good governance isimportant, as it helps charities to be more effective, transparent and accountable to the public
and their stakeholders.
To help develop a well-governed and thriving charity sector with strong public support in Singapore,
the COC Office was set up on 1 July 2006. The COC Office aims to promote good governanceand best practices amongst charities and Institutions of a Public Character (IPCs); and ensure
regulatory relevance and compliance; and be a proactive charity advisory.
The COC Office has key legislations pertaining to fundraising such as the Charities Act, Charities(Fund-Raising Appeals for Local and Foreign Charitable Purposes) Regulations 2012, as well as
Charities (Institutions of a Public Character) Regulations. Within the regulations, some of the key
requirements encompassed are (1) Duty to maintain accounting records; (2) Requirements relating
to financial statements and audits of charities; and (3) Duty to donors.
The two key legislations, namely the Charities (Fund-Raising Appeals for Local and Foreign
Charitable Purposes) Regulations 2012 and Charities (Institutions of a Public Character)
Regulations, require charities, including IPCs, to adhere to the 30/70 fundraising rule. This rule
specifies that the total fund-raising expenses of a charity or IPC in a financial year shall not exceed
30 per cent of the total receipts from fundraising and sponsorships for that financial year. The
law also requires auditors to certify in the auditor’s report of the financial statements whether
the charity or IPC has complied with the requirements. Hence, charities and IPCs are encouraged,
as a practice of good governance and transparency, to disclose their fundraising efficiency ratio
in their annual reports and financial statements.
The fundraising efficiency ratio is the ratio of the total fund-raising expenses of a charity or IPC to
its total receipts from fundraising and sponsorships. It is computed as follows:( ER +S+S )× 100% ≤ 30%
where E refers to the total expenses relating to fund-raising for the financial year, including(a) direct and material indirect expenses of any kind; and(b) payments made to commercial fund-raisers engaged by the charity, but excluding, in a case		 of the sale of goods by or on behalf of the charity for fund-raising (and not trading), the cost		 of the goods sold;© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 201628

R refers to –(a) in a case of the sale of goods by or on behalf of the charity for fund-raising (and not trading),		 the total receipts from such sale (after deducting only the cost of the goods sold); and(b) the total gross receipts from any other fund-raising for that financial year; andS refers to –(a) the total amount of sponsorships in cash received by the charity relating to fund-raising for		 that financial year that is conditioned upon the provision of direct or indirect commercial
		 benefit to the sponsors; and(b) [Only applicable to IPCs] the total cost or value of sponsored property, goods and services
		 for which tax deduction receipts are issued relating to fund-raising for that financial year.
In 2007, the Code of Governance for Charities and IPCs10 (“The Code”) was introduced, toencourage registered charities and IPCs to adopt best practices in nine key areas of governance andmanagement11 . It was refined in 2011 to provide greater clarity and relevance to the charity sectorin Singapore. While the Code is not mandatory, the Board of a charity (which is largely responsible
for putting in place the principles and practices of good governance in the organisation) would
have to provide explanation for non-compliance.
Fundraising practices is one of the nine areas of guidance outlined in the Code. The generalprinciple of fundraising practices as outlined in the Code states that: “The charity should ensurethat its fundraising activities are transparent and ethical. It should account to its donors on
what, how and when the funds would be used. The charity should also be prudent in engaging
third party fundraisers12.”
The Code has different set of guidelines for charities, depending on their size and activity, with IPCs
being held to a higher standard, in terms of regulatory compliance and governance. This is because
IPCs are able to issue tax deductible receipts for qualifying donations to donors (Charity Portal,
2016b). In general, charities including IPCs are required to: (1) Submit and disclose a GovernanceEvaluation Checklist (GEC)13 on the Charity Portal; and (2) Explain the reasons for non-complianceand the steps they plan to take to comply, or explain why if it decides not to comply.

10

11

12

13

The following are extracted from the Code of Governance for Charities and IPCs. For other key areas and best practices,
refer to https://www.charities.gov.sg/manage-your-charity/Day-to-Day-Operations-of-Charity-IPC/Pages/Code%20
of%20Governance%20for%20Charities%20and%20IPCs.aspx
The nine key areas are: (1) Board Governance; (2) Conflict of Interest; (3) Strategic Planning; (4) Programme 		Management; (5) Human Resource Management; (6) Financial Management and Controls; (7) Fundraising Practices; (8)Disclosure and Transparency; and (9) Public Image.
Third Party Fundraiser refers to any person or organisation that solicits or procures money or property for the benefitof a charity or IPC. It excludes service providers who are paid a fixed fee in return for services rendered in the fundraising
event, such as event companies (Charity Portal, 2016b).
For more information regarding the GEC, refer to https://www.charities.gov.sg/manage-your-charity/Annual%20
Submission/Pages/Governance%20Evaluation%20Checklist.aspx© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

29 CSDA REPORT 2016

The COC Office maintains the Charity Portal, a one-stop website for stakeholders in the charity
sector. Charities are required to submit their annual reports and financial statements to the Charity
Portal. Through the portal, the public can access information regarding these charities, such as theorganization profile, financial information, annual report and code compliance,14 to help in theirdecision on which charity to support. The Charity Portal is a useful resource for members of the
public, who donate and volunteer their services to charities. They are able to access information
about charities to make an informed decision on which charity to support.

3. RESEARCH SAMPLE AND METHODOLOGY
A sample of 126 IPCs, made up of 26 IPCs from the Health sector and 100 IPCs from the Social andWelfare sector was used for both quantitative and qualitative analysis. The sample was derived
from a three-stage process, as follows:Stage 1: The COC Office provided the list of charities with active IPC status. A list of 283
charities in the Health, Social and Welfare sectors, with IPC status for three financial years
between FY2012 and FY2014 was identified.
Stage 2: Only IPCs with publicly available annual reports and financial statements for thethree financial years were selected for the sample. This was done by searching on the charities’
official websites and the Charity Portal. A list of 130 IPCs were shortlisted.
Stage 3: Of the 130 IPCs, three were removed as they did not have consistent 12-monthaccounting data for each of the three financial years (making their financial statements notcomparable to other IPCs). To avoid the possibility of the findings being skewed, another IPC,a large health foundation, was also removed. Thus, the final sample is 126 IPCs.
A coding manual was developed to facilitate data collection in four areas: (1) Fundraising Manpower;(2) Fundraising Methods; (3) Donor Acknowledgement; and (4) Disclosure of Fundraising Efficiency
Ratio. Assessment on the quality of fundraising information is not included in the scope of this study.

4. RESEARCH RESULTS
The results for the research study are presented in this section. The findings were based on thedisclosure of fundraising information provided by 26 IPCs in the Health sector and 100 IPCs in theSocial and Welfare sector in their annual reports and financial statements from FY2012 to FY2014.
The four sections are disclosure of fundraising manpower, disclosure of fundraising methods,
disclosure of donor acknowledgement, and disclosure of fundraising efficiency ratio. For ease ofreference, results will be presented alongside with summary tables.
14

In 2014, charities’ financial statements are made publicly available on the Charity Portal. And in December 2015, the
COC Office also made available the annual reports and Governance Evaluation Checklists for public viewing on the
portal (Office of the Commissioner of Charities, 2016).

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 201630

4.1 Findings on Fundraising Manpower
The results indicated that charities’ fundraising activities were carried out by a combination offundraising committee, volunteers, full-time fundraising staff and third party fundraising agency15.
An overview on the fundraising manpower used, as disclosed in IPCs’ annual reports and financial
statements, is presented as below. The figures presented below are based on a three-year average
from FY2012 to FY2014.
1. Fundraising Committee• Of the 26 Health IPCs, 20 disclosed that they have a fundraising committee.
• Of the 100 Social and Welfare IPCs, 39 disclosed that they have a fundraising committee.
2. Volunteer Involvement in Charities Fundraising Activities• Of the 26 Health IPCs, 11 disclosed that volunteers are involved in the charities’
fundraising activities.
• Of the 100 Social and Welfare IPCs, 60 disclosed that volunteers are involved in the
charities’ fundraising activities.
3. Full-time Fundraising Staff• Of the 26 Health IPCs, 11 disclosed that they have full-time fundraising staff.
• Of the 100 Social and Welfare IPCs, 31 disclosed that they have full-time fundraising staff.
4.Third Party Fundraising Agency• Of the 26 Health IPCs, 5 disclosed that they use a third party fundraising agency.
• Of the 100 Social and Welfare IPCs, 2 disclosed that they use a third party fundraising
agency.
In summary, the findings suggested that: (1) volunteers, including fundraising committee members,
played a major role in the charities’ fundraising operations; (2) only some IPCs had full-time fundraising
staff; and (3) use of third party fundraising agency was not a common practice.
For a detailed breakdown on the fundraising manpower disclosed in annual reports and financial
statements from FY2012 to FY2014, refer to Table 5a (for Health IPCs) and Table 5b (for Social andWelfare IPCs).

15

Third Party Fundraising Agency refers to any person or organisation that solicits or procures money or property forthe benefit of a charity or IPC. It excludes service providers who are paid a fixed fee in return for services rendered in
the fundraising event, such as event companies. Source: Code of Governance for Charities and Institutions of a Public
Character (2011)© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

31 CSDA REPORT 2016

Table 5a: Fundraising Manpower as Disclosed in Annual Reports and Financial
Statements (IPCs in Health Sector)

Year

IPC
IIPC’sIP
PC
C’s’ss Siz
Si
S
Size
ize
zee aass mmemeameasured
eaasu
eas
assu
urred
ure
reed
d
by T
by
To
Total
Tot
ota
otal
tal
all O
Op
Ope
Operating
per
pera
era
erat
rat
ati
atin
ting
ing
ng
g
Expenditure
E
Ex
Exp
xpe
pen
end
ndi
ndit
ditu
itur
tur
ure
ree (T(TO((TOE)
TO
TOE
OE)
E))

No.
N
No
o.. o
off IP
IIPCs
PC
Css
Volunteer
V
Vo
Vol
olu
lun
un
unt
nttee
nte
eeerr
eer
Presence ofFFull-time
Fu
Ful
ull
ullll-t
l-t
-ti
tim
im
mee
in TOE
in
T
TO
OE
E
IInvolvement
In
Inv
nvvol
nvo
vo
olv
lve
veem
vem
meent
men
en
ntt
Fundraising
FFundraising
Fu
Fun
und
ndr
dra
drai
rais
ais
aisi
isin
sin
ing
ng
g
ccategory
ca
cat
ate
teg
eg
ego
go
gor
ory
ry
y
in
n Fun
Fu
FFundraising
und
ndr
ndra
dra
drai
rais
ais
aisi
isin
sin
ing
ng
g
Committee
Staff
S
St
Sta
taf
ta
aff
fff
((n=26)
(n
(n=
n=2
=2
=26
26
26)
6))
Activities
A
Ac
Act
cttiv
ctiv
ivi
vit
iti
tie
ies
ess

Use ofThird Party
Fundraising
AgencyNumbers reported refers to number of IPCs

FY2012FY2013

FY2014>SGD 10 million

6

4

2

4

1

SGD 5 million-10 million

6

5

4

4

2

SGD 1 million-5 million

11

6

3

2

1

SGD 500,000-1 million

0

0

0

0

0

SGD 250,000-500,000

3

2

1

0

0

<SGD 250,000

0

0

0

0

0

Total

26

10

10

4

>SGD 10 million

7

6

3

5

3

SGD 5 million-10 million

6

6

4

4

2

SGD 1 million-5 million

10

6

5

3

1

SGD 500,000-1 million

0

0

0

0

0

SGD 250,000-500,000

2

2

1

1

0

<SGD 250,000

1

0

0

0

0

Total

26

20

13

13

6

>SGD 10 million

7

6

3

5

2

SGD 5 million-10 million

8

7

5

3

2

SGD 1 million-5 million

8

5

2

1

1

SGD 500,000-1 million

1

1

0

0

0

SGD 250,000-500,000

1

1

1

0

0

<SGD 250,000

1

0

0

0

0

Total

26

20

11

9

5

Notes:
TOE refers to Total Operating Expenditure. The IPCs can be categorized based on TOE size, ranging from SGD 0 - 250k, SGD
250k - 500k, SGD 500k - 1m, SGD 1m - 5m, SGD 5m - 10m, and SGD 10m and above (Sim, Ghoh, Loh & Chiu, 2015). Third
Party Fundraising Agency refers to any person or organisation that solicits or procures money or property for the benefit ofa charity or IPC. It excludes service providers who are paid a fixed fee in return for services rendered in the fundraising event,such as event companies (Charity Portal, 2016a).

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 201632

Table 5b: Fundraising Manpower as Disclosed in Annual Reports and Financial
Statements (IPCs in Social and Welfare Sector)

Year

IPC
IIPC’sIP
PC
C’s’ss Siz
Si
S
Size
ize
zee asas mmemeameasured
eaasu
eas
assu
urred
ure
reed
d
by Tota
by
To
Tot
T
Total
ota
otal
tal
all OpeOp
O
Operating
per
pera
era
erat
rat
ati
atin
ting
ing
ng
g
Expenditure
E
Ex
Exp
xpe
pen
end
ndi
ndit
ditu
itur
tur
ure
ree ((T
(TO
(TOE)
TO
TOE
OE)
E))

No.
N
No
o.. of
of IP
IIPCs
PC
Css
Volunteer
V
Vo
Vol
olu
lun
un
unt
nte
tee
eeerr
eer
Presence ofFFull-time
Fu
Ful
ull
ullll-t
l-t
-ti
tim
im
mee
in TO
in
T
TOE
OE
E
IInvolvement
In
Inv
nvvol
nvo
vo
olv
lve
veem
vem
meent
men
en
ntt
Fundraising
FFundraising
Fu
Fun
und
ndr
dra
drai
rais
ais
aisi
isin
sin
ing
ng
g
ccategory
ca
cat
ate
teg
eg
ego
go
gor
ory
ry
y
in
n FFu
Fun
Fundraising
und
nd
ndr
ndra
dra
rai
rais
ais
aisi
isin
sin
ing
ng
g
Committee
Staff
S
St
Sta
taf
ta
aff
fff
((n=100)
(n
(n=
n=1
=10
100
00)
0))
Activities
A
Ac
Act
cttiv
ctiv
ivi
vit
iti
tie
ies
ess

Use ofThird Party
Fundraising
AgencyNumbers reported refers to number of IPCs

FY2012FY2013

FY2014>SGD 10 million

13

6

6

6

0

SGD 5 million-10 million

8

4

6

2

0

SGD 1 million-5 million

42

13

29

9

1

SGD 500,000-1 million

18

6

13

6

0

SGD 250,000-500,000

12

2

5

1

0

<SGD 250,000

7

0

2

0

0

Total

100

61

24

1

>SGD 10 million

15

9

5

9

0

SGD 5 million-10 million

9

3

5

1

0

SGD 1 million-5 million

42

19

31

15

1

SGD 500,000-1 million

19

8

10

8

0

SGD 250,000-500,000

9

2

6

1

0

<SGD 250,000

6

0

1

0

0

Total

100

41

58

34

1

>SGD 10 million

13

6

5

6

0

SGD 5 million-10 million

12

4

7

3

0

SGD 1 million-5 million

45

26

36

17

2

SGD 500,000-1 million

18

8

9

7

1

SGD 250,000-500,000

8

1

4

1

0

<SGD 250,000

4

0

0

0

0

Total

100

45

61

34

3

Notes:
TOE refers to Total Operating Expenditure. The IPCs can be categorized based on TOE size, ranging from SGD 0 - 250k, SGD
250k - 500k, SGD 500k - 1m, SGD 1m - 5m, SGD 5m - 10m, and SGD 10m and above (Sim, Ghoh, Loh & Chiu, 2015). Third
Party Fundraising Agency refers to any person or organisation that solicits or procures money or property for the benefit ofa charity or IPC. It excludes service providers who are paid a fixed fee in return for services rendered in the fundraising event,such as event companies (Charity Portal, 2016a).

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

33 CSDA REPORT 2016

4.2 Findings on Fundraising Methods
The results indicated that charities carried out fundraising operations using a combination offundraising methods, namely Special Events, Flag Day, Personal Appeals, Direct Mailers, Regular
Giving Programmes and Online Donations. An overview on the fundraising methods used, as
disclosed in IPCs’ annual reports and financial statements, is presented as below. The figures
presented below are based on a three-year average from FY2012 to FY2014.
1. Special Events• Of the 26 Health IPCs, 21 disclosed that they hold Special Events.
• Of the 100 Social and Welfare IPCs, 56 disclosed that they hold Special Events.
2. Flag Day• Of the 26 Health IPCs, 6 disclosed that they organized Flag Day as a fundraising activity.
• Of the 100 Social and Welfare IPCs, 18 disclosed that they organized Flag Day as afundraising activity.
3. Personal Appeals• Of the 26 Health IPCs, 6 disclosed that they carried out Personal Appeals.
• Of the 100 Social and Welfare IPCs, 9 disclosed that they carried out Personal Appeals.
4. Direct Mailers• Of the 26 Health IPCs, 4 disclosed that they used Direct Mailers.
• Of the 100 Social and Welfare IPCs, 12 disclosed that they used Direct Mailers.
5. Regular Giving Programmes• Of the 26 Health IPCs, 5 disclosed that they have Regular Giving Programmes.
• Of the 100 Social and Welfare IPCs, 12 disclosed that they have Regular Giving
Programmes.
6. Online Donations• Of the 26 Health IPCs, 5 disclosed that they received Online Donations through theirwebsites.
• Of the 100 Social and Welfare IPCs, 13 disclosed that they received Online Donations
through their websites.
Firstly, the findings suggested that Special Events remained the most common fundraising
methods used by charities. These Special Events include Charity Dinner, Charity Run, Charity Golf
and Charity Walkathon. See Figure 5 for the breakdown of the popular special events organised by
IPCs as disclosed in their annual reports and financial statements.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 201634

Figure 5: Popular Special Events Organised by IPCs in the Health, Social and Welfare
Sectors (FY2012 to FY2014)

No. of IPCs

25
20

20
15

12

10
5
0

16

15
8

7
5

2

0
Charity
Dinner5

Charity
Golf

6

13
11

10
7

4 4

2

CharityWalkathon

1

IPCs in Health Sector (n=26)

3 4

3CharityRun

8

8Charity
DinnerCharity
Golf

CharityWalkathon

CharityRun

IPCs in Social and Welfare Sector (n=100)

Types of Special Events
FY2012FY2013

FY2014

Secondly, the results suggested that Flag Day remained a popular fundraising method. Thirdly,
Personal Appeals, Direct Mailers, and Regular Giving Programmes were not commonly utilised
by IPCs. Lastly, it seemed that online donation is gaining popularity, given the increasing number
reported over the three years period.
For detailed breakdown on the fundraising methods used by IPCs as disclosed in annual reports
and financial statements from FY2012 to FY2014, refer to Table 6a (for Health IPCs) and Table 6b(for Social and Welfare IPCs).

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

35 CSDA REPORT 2016

Table 6a: Fundraising Methods as Disclosed in Annual Reports and Financial
Statements (IPCs in Health Sector)
Year
Y
Ye
Yea
eaarr
ear

IPC
IIPC’s
IP
PC
PC’
C’s
’ss Siz
Si
S
Size
ize
ze as
measured
m
me
mea
eas
asu
sured by
Total
T
To
Tot
Tota
ota
otal
tal
al Operatin
Operating
ting
ing
ng
g
Expenditure
E
Ex
Exp
xpe
pendituree (T
(TO
(TOE)
TO
TOE

No.
N
No
o. of
of IP
IIPCs
PC
PCs
Css
in TOE
inT
TO
OE
E
Fundraisingccategory
ca
cat
ate
teg
eg
ego
go
gor
ory
Events((n=26)
(n
(n=
n=
n=2
=26))

FFlag
Fl
Fla
lag
ag
gD
Daay
Day

Per
Personal
P
Pe
ers
rso
so
son
on
ona
naall
nal
Appeals
A
Ap
App
ppe
peeal
pea
eaals

Dire
Direct
D
Di
Dir
reect
rec
ecctt
Mailers
M
Ma
Mai
ail
aile
ile
ler
ers
rss

Regular
R
Re
Reg
egu
gu
gul
ula
ular
lar
ar
Online
O
On
Onl
nli
nlin
lin
ine
nee
Giving
G
Giv
Givi
ivin
vin
ving
ng
g
Don
Donations
D
Do
on
ona
naati
nat
attio
io
ons
Programmes
P
Pr
Pro
rog
og
ogr
gra
ram
am essammes

Numbers reported refers to number of IPCs

FY2012FY2013

FY2014>SGD 10 million
SGD 5 million-10 million
SGD 1 million-5 million
SGD 500,000-1 million
SGD 250,000-500,000

6

4

1

2

0

2

0

6

5

2

1

2

1

1

11

8

1

2

2

1

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

3

1

1

0

0

0

<SGD 250,000

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Total

26

20

5

6

4

4

5

>SGD 10 million
SGD 5 million-10 million
SGD 1 million-5 million
SGD 500,000-1 million
SGD 250,000-500,000

7

6

1

2

0

2

0

6

6

2

1

2

1

1

10

5

2

2

2

1

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

1

1

0

0

0

0

<SGD 250,000

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

Total

26

6

6

4

4

5

>SGD 10 million
SGD 5 million-10 million

7

6

3

2

0

3

0

8

8

2

2

2

2

2

8

6

0

1

2

1

4

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

26

23

7

6

4

6

6

SGD 1 million-5 million
SGD 500,000-1 million
SGD 250,000-500,000<SGD 250,000
Total

Notes:
TOE refers to Total Operating Expenditure. The IPCs can be categorized based on TOE size, ranging from SGD 0 - 250k, SGD
250k - 500k, SGD 500k - 1m, SGD 1m - 5m, SGD 5m - 10m, and SGD 10m and above (Sim, Ghoh, Loh & Chiu, 2015).

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 201636

Table 6b: Fundraising Methods as Disclosed in Annual Reports and Financial
Statements (IPCs in Social and Welfare Sector)
Year
Y
Ye
Yea
eaarr
ear

IPC
IIPC’s
IP
PC
PC’
C’s
’ss Siz
Si
S
Size
ize
ze as
measured
m
me
mea
eas
asu
sured by
Total
T
To
Tot
Tota
ota
otal
tal
al Operatin
Operating
ting
ing
ng
g
Expenditure
E
Ex
Exp
xpe
pendituree (T
(TO
(TOE)
TO
TOE

No.
N
No
o. o
off IP
IIPCs
PC
PCs
Css
in T
in
TOE
TO
OE
E
Fundraisingccategory
ca
cat
ate
teg
eg
ego
go
gor
ory
Events((n=100)
(n
(n=
n=
n=1
=10 )
=100)

FFlag
Fl
Fla
lag
ag
g Day
Da
Day

Per
Personal
P
Pe
ers
rso
so
son
on
ona
naall
nal
Appeals
A
Ap
App
ppe
peeal
pea
eaals

Dire
Direct
D
Di
Dir
reect
rec
ecctt
Mailers
M
Ma
Mai
ail
aile
ile
ler
ers
rss

Regular
R
Re
Reg
egu
gu
gul
ula
ular
lar
ar
Online
O
On
Onl
nli
nlin
lin
ine
nee
Giving
G
Giv
Givi
ivin
vin
ving
ng
g
Don
Donations
D
Do
on
ona
naati
nat
attio
io
ons
Programmes
P
Pr
Pro
rog
og
ogr
gra
ram
am essammes

Numbers reported refers to number of IPCs

FY2012FY2013

FY2014>SGD 10 million
SGD 5 million-10 million
SGD 1 million-5 million
SGD 500,000-1 million
SGD 250,000-500,000

13

8

4

1

3

3

0

8

7

1

1

1

3

1

42

22

7

5

1

4

5

18

8

2

0

1

1

1

12

8

2

0

0

0

0

<SGD 250,000

7

3

1

1

1

0

1

Total

100

56

17

8

7

11

8

>SGD 10 million
SGD 5 million-10 million
SGD 1 million-5 million
SGD 500,000-1 million
SGD 250,000-500,000

15

11

4

1

3

5

1

9

5

1

1

1

2

0

42

21

8

5

7

5

6

19

9

2

1

1

0

2

9

4

2

0

0

0

0

<SGD 250,000

6

2

1

1

1

0

1

Total

100

18

9

13

12

10

>SGD 10 million

13

10

4

3

3

5

2

12

7

2

1

0

2

0

45

30

9

5

9

5

13

18

8

2

1

1

0

2

8

4

1

0

0

0

1

<SGD 250,000

4

1

1

1

2

0

2

Total

100

60

19

11

15

12

20

SGD 5 million-10 million
SGD 1 million-5 million
SGD 500,000-1 million
SGD 250,000-500,000

Notes:
TOE refers to Total Operating Expenditure. The IPCs can be categorized based on TOE size, ranging from SGD 0 - 250k, SGD
250k - 500k, SGD 500k - 1m, SGD 1m - 5m, SGD 5m - 10m, and SGD 10m and above (Sim, Ghoh, Loh & Chiu, 2015).

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

37 CSDA REPORT 2016

4.3 Findings on Donor Acknowledgement
The results indicated that charities provided information about individual donors, corporate
donors, corporate sponsorship and corporations that adopted their charities (i.e. corporate
adoption in short) in their annual report. An overview of donor information, as disclosed in IPCs’
annual reports and financial statements, is presented as below. The figures presented below werebased on a three-year average from FY2012 to FY2014.
1. Individual Donors• Of the 26 Health IPCs, 14 acknowledged the individuals who donated to their charities.
• Of the 100 Social and Welfare IPCs, 56 acknowledged the individuals who donated totheir charities.
2. Corporate Donors• Of the 26 Health IPCs, 12 acknowledged the corporations who donated to their charities.
• Of the 100 Social and Welfare IPCs, 60 acknowledged the corporations who donated totheir charities.
3. Corporate Sponsorship• Of the 26 Health IPCs, 10 acknowledged the corporations who provided sponsorships
to their charities.
• Of the 100 Social and Welfare IPCs, 27 acknowledged the corporations who provided
sponsorships to their charities.
4. Corporate Adoption• Of the 26 Health IPCs, 5 acknowledged the corporations who adopted their charities.
• Of the 100 Social and Welfare IPCs, 10 acknowledged the corporations who adopted
their charities.
In summary, the findings suggested that it is a common practice for charities to acknowledge theindividuals and corporations for their donations and sponsorship in charities’ annual reports. For adetailed breakdown on the donor acknowledgement, as disclosed in annual reports and financial
statements from FY2012 to FY2014, refer to Table 7a (for Health IPCs) and Table 7b (for Socialand Welfare IPCs).

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 201638

Table 7a: Donor Acknowledgement as Disclosed in Annual Reports and Financial
Statements (IPCs in Health Sector)

Year

IIPC’sIP
PC
C’’ss Siz
C’s
Si
S
Size
ize
zee asas mmemeasured
eaasu
eas
assur
su
ure
red
ed
d
by Tot
by
To
T
Total
ota
tal
all OpeOp
O
Operating
peera
per
rat
rati
atin
ting
ing
ng
g
Expenditure
E
Ex
Exp
xp
xpe
pen
end
nd
ndit
dit
ditu
itu
tur
ture
ure
ree ((T
(TO
(TOE)
TO
TOE
OE
OE)
E))

No. of IPCs
in TOE
category(n=26)

Types Of Acknowledgement
Individual
DonorsCorporate
DonorsCorporate
Sponsorship

Corporate
Adoption

Numbers reported refers to number of IPCs

FY2012FY2013

FY2014>SGD 10 million

6

2

1

2

1

SGD 5 million-10 million

6

4

4

2

1

SGD 1 million-5 million

11

6

5

3

2

SGD 500,000-1 million

0

0

0

0

0

SGD 250,000-500,000

3

2

2

1

1

<SGD 250,000

0

0

0

0

0

Total

26

12

8

5

>SGD 10 million

7

2

1

3

3

SGD 5 million-10 million

6

5

5

3

0

SGD 1 million-5 million

10

5

4

4

3

SGD 500,000-1 million

0

0

0

0

0

SGD 250,000-500,000

2

2

2

2

1

<SGD 250,000

1

0

0

0

0

Total

26

14

12

12

7

>SGD 10 million

7

3

2

3

1

SGD 5 million-10 million

8

5

5

4

0

SGD 1 million-5 million

8

4

4

5

1

SGD 500,000-1 million

1

1

1

0

1

SGD 250,000-500,000

1

1

1

0

0

<SGD 250,000

1

0

0

0

0

Total

26

14

13

12

3

Notes:
TOE refers to Total Operating Expenditure. The IPCs can be categorized based on TOE size, ranging from SGD 0 - 250k,
SGD 250k - 500k, SGD 500k - 1m, SGD 1m - 5m, SGD 5m - 10m, and SGD 10m and above (Sim, Ghoh, Loh & Chiu,
2015). Corporate sponsorship is where corporations pay for some of the costs that charities incurred during their operations.
Corporate adoption refers to corporations adopting the charities.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

39 CSDA REPORT 2016

Table 7b : Donor Acknowledgement as Disclosed in Annual Reports and Financial
Statements (IPCs in Social and Welfare Sector)

Year

IPC
IIPC’sIP
PC
C’s’ss SSizSize
ize
zee aass mmemeasured
eaasu
assur
su
ure
red
ed
d
by TotbyTo
TTotalotaotaltal
all OpeOp
O
Operating
peera
per
rat
ati
atin
tin
ing
ng
g
EExpenditure
Ex
Exp
xp
xpe
peend
pen
en
nd
ndi
dit
ditu
itu
tur
ture
ure
ree (TO(T((TOE)
TO
TOE
OE)
E))

No. of IPCs
in TOE
category(n=100)Types Of Acknowledgement
Individual
DonorsCorporate
DonorsCorporate
Sponsorship

Corporate
Adoption

Numbers reported refers to number of IPCs

FY2012FY2013

FY2014>SGD 10 million

13

9

10

4

3

SGD 5 million-10 million

8

4

4

5

2

SGD 1 million-5 million

42

29

30

11

3

SGD 500,000-1 million

18

8

7

7

1

SGD 250,000-500,000

12

2

3

2

3

<SGD 250,000

7

5

4

2

0

Total

100

58

31

12

>SGD 10 million

15

9

11

2

3

SGD 5 million-10 million

9

4

5

4

1

SGD 1 million-5 million

42

28

29

8

2

SGD 500,000-1 million

19

10

9

7

3

SGD 250,000-500,000

9

2

3

3

0

<SGD 250,000

6

3

4

1

0

Total

100

56

61

25

9

>SGD 10 million

13

8

10

1

2

SGD 5 million-10 million

12

7

7

5

1

SGD 1 million-5 million

45

27

30

11

2

SGD 500,000-1 million

28

8

8

5

2

SGD 250,000-500,000

8

3

4

2

0

<SGD 250,000

4

2

2

0

0

Total

100

55

61

24

7

Notes:
TOE refers to Total Operating Expenditure. The IPCs can be categorized based on TOE size, ranging from SGD 0 - 250k,
SGD 250k - 500k, SGD 500k - 1m, SGD 1m - 5m, SGD 5m - 10m, and SGD 10m and above (Sim, Ghoh, Loh & Chiu,
2015). Corporate sponsorship is where corporations pay for some of the costs that charities incurred during their operations.
Corporate adoption refers to corporations adopting the charities.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 201640

4.4 Findings on Disclosure of Fundraising Efficiency Ratio
The charities’ disclosure of their fundraising efficiency ratio, as reported in IPCs’ annual reports
and financial statements, is presented here. The figures presented below were based on a threeyear average, from FY2012 to FY2014. Only 4 out of the 26 Health IPCs, and 5 out of 100 Socialand Welfare IPCs, reported their fundraising efficiency ratio.
For a detailed breakdown of IPCs with fundraising efficiency ratio disclosed in annual reports andfinancial statements from FY2012 to FY2014, refer to Table 8 (for Health, Social and Welfare
IPCs).

Table 8: Fundraising Efficiency Ratio as Disclosed in Annual Reports and Financial
Statements (IPCs in Health, Social and Welfare Sectors)
Health Sector IPCs
Year
Y
Ye
eaarr

IPC
IIPC’sIP
PC
C’s’ss Siz
Si
S
Size
ize
zee asas mmemeameasured
eaasu
eas
assu
urred
ure
reed
d
by Tota
by
To
Tot
T
Total
ota
otal
tal
all OpeOp
O
Operating
per
pera
era
erat
rat
ati
atin
ting
ing
ng
g
Expenditure
E
Ex
Exp
xpe
pen
end
ndi
ndit
ditu
itur
tur
ure
ree ((T
(TO
(TOE)
TO
TOE
OE)
E))

No. of IPCs
in Sample(n=26)

Fundraising
Efficiency
Ratio Disclosed

Social and Welfare Sector IPCs
No. of IPCs
in Sample(n=100)Fundraising
Efficiency
Ratio Disclosed

Numbers reported refers to number of IPCs

FY2012FY2013

FY2014>SGD 10 million

6

1

13

2

SGD 5 million-10 million

6

2

8

1

SGD 1 million-5 million

11

0

42

1

SGD 500,000-1 million

0

0

18

0

SGD 250,000-500,000

3

1

12

0

<SGD 250,000

0

0

7

0

Total

26

4

100

4

>SGD 10 million

7

1

15

2

SGD 5 million-10 million

6

2

9

1

SGD 1 million-5 million

10

0

42

1

SGD 500,000-1 million

0

0

19

0

SGD 250,000-500,000

2

0

9

0

<SGD 250,000

1

1

6

0

Total

26

4

100

4

>SGD 10 million
SGD 5 million-10 million

7
8

1
2

13
12

3
1

SGD 1 million-5 million
SGD 500,000-1 million

8
1

0
0

45
18

1
2

SGD 250,000-500,000

1

0

8

0

<SGD 250,000

1

1

4

0

Total

26

4

100

7

Notes:
TOE refers to Total Operating Expenditure. The IPCs can be categorized based on TOE size, ranging from SGD 0 - 250k, SGD 250k
- 500k, SGD 500k - 1m, SGD 1m - 5m, SGD 5m - 10m, and SGD 10m and above (Sim, Ghoh, Loh & Chiu, 2015). The fundraising
efficiency ratio is the ratio of the total fundraising expenses of a charity or IPC to its total receipts from fundraising and sponsorships.
For more information regarding the fundraising efficiency ratio, refer to Charities (Fund-Raising Appeals for Local and Foreign
Charitable Purposes) Regulations 2012. This is commonly known as the 30/70 fundraising rule.
© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

41 CSDA REPORT 2016

5. DISCUSSIONS, LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
5.1 Discussions

Limited Disclosure of Fundraising Practices
This exploratory research study aims to collate information about the Singapore’s charities’
fundraising practices by examining individual IPCs’ annual reports and financial statements.
In general, both 26 IPCs in the Health sector and 100 IPCs in the Social and Welfare sector provided
limited disclosure on their fundraising manpower, methods and donor acknowledgement in theirannual reports and financial statements. The poor disclosure pattern was consistent throughout
the three financial years (FY2012, FY2013 and FY2014). For more information, see the disclosuretable tabulated in the Table 9 below. Given the lack of disclosure, the results presented may notnecessarily reflect the actual fundraising practices.

Table 9: Poor Disclosure of Information on Fundraising Practices (FY2014)
Disc
Disclosure
D
Dis
isc
scl
sclo
clo
los
osu
sur
ure
ree ofof FunFu
FFundraising
und
ndr
dra
rais
aisi
isin
sin
sing
ing
ng
g Pra
P
Pr
Practices
rac
act
acti
ctic
tic
tice
ices
ces
ess inin 12612126
6 IIPC
IP
IPCs
PC
PCs
Css ffro
fr
from
rom
om
m
Health,
H
He
Hea
eal
ealt
alt
alth
lth
th,
h,, SoSoc
SSocial
oci
ocia
cia
cial
ial
all andanandd WelfWe
Wel
W
Welfare
elfa
lfar
fare
are
ree S
Se
Sec
Sectors
ect
ecto
cto
ctor
tors
ors
rss (FY((F(FY2014
FY2
Y20
201
014
14
4 only
on
onl
o
only)
nly
nly)
ly)
y))

IPCs in Health
Sector (n=26)

IPCs in Social andWelfare Sector (n=100)

Have Fundraising Committee

20

45

Volunteers are involved in fundraising

11

61

Have full-time fundraising staff

934

Used Third Party Fundraising Agency

5

3

Fundraising Events

23

60

Flag Day

7

19

Personal Appeals

611

Direct Mailers

415

Regular Giving Programmes

612

Online Donations

6

20

Individual Donors

14

55

Corporate Donors

13

61

Corporate Sponsorship10

24

Corporate Adoption

37Disclosure of Fundraising Manpower

Disclosure of Fundraising Methods

Disclosure of Donor Acknowledgement

Notes:
Third Party Fundraising Agency refers to any person or organisation that solicits or procures money or property for the benefit ofa charity or IPC. It excludes service providers who are paid a fixed fee in return for services rendered in the fundraising event, suchas event companies (Charity Portal, 2016a). Corporate sponsorship is where corporations pay for some of the costs that charities
incurred during their operations. Corporate adoption refers to corporations adopting the charities.
© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 201642

Limited Disclosure of Fundraising Efficiency Ratio
Fundraising efficiency ratio could be useful information to donor and the public. Voluntary disclosureof charities’ fundraising efficiency ratio in their annual reports and/or financial statements should
be encouraged, as it reflects the charities’ commitment to be more effective, transparent andaccountable to their stakeholders. However, the disclosure of this item was very limited. Only
four IPCs in the Health sector (15 per cent) and seven IPCs in the Social and Welfare sector (7 percent) provided voluntary disclosure of their fundraising efficiency ratio.

5.2 Limitations
Sample is limited to 126 IPCs in Health and Social & Welfare Sectors
This study was based on a sample of 126 IPCs in Health, Social and Welfare sectors from FY2012 toFY2014. It represented only a small segment of IPCs of the whole charity sector. The findings werereflective of this group of charities over this period. It may not explain the fundraising practices ofsmaller charities, charities without IPC status, or charities in other sectors.

Findings are Limited by the Availability of Public Information
and Quality of Disclosure by IPCs
The sample size for the research was dependent on the availability of public information provided
by IPCs. In this case, there was a constraint in the sample as only 126 IPCs had complete data forthe three-year period (FY2012 to FY2014).
The Code, which provides guidance on good governance and transparency, is not mandatory.
Disclosure of information is up to the discretion of the board and senior management of the IPCs.
Given the lack of disclosure in the annual reports and financial statements, the quality of the datacollected could be poor, thereby affecting the overall findings.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

43 CSDA REPORT 2016

5.3 Future Research
Survey Research on Fundraising Manpower and Methods
The exploratory study provided a snapshot of the fundraising landscape of charities in Singapore
and could serve as a good starting point for future research on charities’ fundraising practices.
Future research involving survey method on charities’ fundraising manpower and methods may
yield better insights.

Fundraising Practices for Other Groups of Charities
Registered charities in Singapore are categorised by sector, size as defined by annual receipts, and
IPC status. Besides charities in the Health, Social and Welfare sectors, there are other registeredcharities in the Arts and Heritage, Community, Education, Sports, Religious and Others sectors.
The bulk of the registered charities are relatively small in size (50.1 per cent) with annual receipts
below SGD 250,000. Moreover, there are only 28.5 per cent (633 out of 2,217) of the registeredcharities have IPCs status (Commissioner of Charities, 2016).
Future research could be directed at fundraising practices for other groups of charities. It would
be useful if there were research studies that look into fundraising issues and practices for charities
without IPC status, the different charity sectors and charity sizes. Possible research questions
may include: What are the different constraints faced by different groups of charities in theirfundraising operations? Does IPC’s ability to issue tax deductible receipt affect donor behaviour
and the charities’ fundraising practices?

Research on Online Fundraising
Online donation as a fundraising method was observed to be gaining popularity. More researchon online giving is needed. Possible research questions may include: Who donates through online
platforms? How can charities reach out to this group of donors? What are the risks of online
fundraising? Can small charities benefit from online fundraising, if so, how?

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 2016

44

This page is intentionally left blank.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

45 CSDA REPORT 2016

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 2016

46

Section 3.

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION
ON FUNDRAISING
This section covers the following topics:
1. Research Objective
2. Research Sample and Methodology
2.1 Research Sample
2.2 Focus Group Method
2.3 Data Collection, Coding and Analysis
3. Research Results
3.1 Fundraising Manpower
3.2 Fundraising Methods
3.3 Donor Engagement
3.4 Fundraising Accountability, Compliance and Disclosure
3.5 Fundraising Challenges
4. Discussions, Limitations and Future Research
4.1 Discussions
4.2 Limitations
4.3 Future Research

1. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
The research objective of this qualitative study is to find out IPCs’ fundraising
practices in terms of fundraising manpower, fundraising methods, donor engagement,
fundraising compliance and disclosure, and fundraising challenges. Five focus group
discussions were carried out with participants from 34 IPCs from the Health, Socialand Welfare sectors, following approval from the NUS Institutional Review Board(NUS-IRB Reference: A-16-102) for the research proposal. These participants are IPCs’
board members and senior management involved in fundraising for their charities.
They shared their experiences, insights and perspectives on fundraising for charities
during the discussions. The focus group study complements the quantitative study on
disclosure relating to charities’ fundraising practices.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

47 CSDA REPORT 2016

2. RESEARCH SAMPLE AND METHODOLOGY
2.1 Research Sample
The sample for this focus group discussion was drawn from the 126 IPCs used in the quantitative
research study comprising of 26 from the Health sector and 100 from the Social and Welfare
sector. For the purposes of the focus group study, the 126 IPCs were classified, based on their total
operating expenditures (TOE)16, as follows:• Small IPCs are those with TOE size of below SGD 1 million;• Medium IPCs are those with TOE size of between SGD 1 million and SGD 5 million; and• Large IPCs are those with TOE size of above SGD 5 million
Table 10 shows the distribution of the sample by sector across TOE size.

Table 10: Distribution of Sample into Small, Medium and Large Charities
Health IPCs (n=26)
Size by TOE
E /Number off IP
IPC
IPCs
PC
PCs
Cs

Social and Welfare IPCs (n=100)

FY2012FY2013

FY2014FY2012FY2013

FY2014

Small (TOE Size smaller
than SGD 1 million)

3

3

3

37

34

30

Medium (TOE Size from
SGD 1 million to 5 million)

11

10

8

42

42

45

Large (TOE Size larger
than SGD 5 million)

12

13

15

21

24

25

Notes:
TOE refers to Total Operating Expenditure. The IPCs can be categorized based on TOE size, ranging from SGD 0 - 250k, SGD
250k - 500k, SGD 500k - 1m, SGD 1m - 5m, SGD 5m - 10m, and SGD 10m and above (Sim, Ghoh, Loh & Chiu, 2015).

The five focus groups were formed based on their sector and TOEs size distribution, as shown in
Table 11. For the Social and Welfare sector, three groups were formed, one to represent each size
categories. However, as there are only 26 IPCs in the Health sector, it was feasible to have only
two focus groups. One to represent the small and medium IPCs in the Health sector (TOE size of
below SGD 5 million), and the other to represent the large IPCs in the Health sector (TOE size ofabove SGD 5 million).

This study adopts the same classification of IPCs based on their annual TOE sizes as the earlier study, ‘The Social
Service Sector in Singapore: An Exploratory Study on the Financial Characteristics of Institutions of a Public Character(IPCs) in the Social Service Sector’ (Sim, Ghoh, Loh & Chiu, 2015). The 126 IPCs has been categorised by TOE sizes in
Singapore Dollars (SGD), “0 – 250k”, “250k – 500k”, “500k – 1m”, “1m – 5m”, “5m – 10m” and “>10m”.
16© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 2016

48

Table 11: Classification of the Five Focus Groups

Size by TOE

SectorGroup Name

Small and Medium

HealthFocus Group A

Large

HealthFocus Group B

Small

Social and Welfare

Focus Group C

MediumSocial and Welfare

Focus Group D

LargeSocial and Welfare

Focus Group E

Notes:‘Small’ refers to TOE < SGD 1 million. ‘Medium’ refers to SGD 1 million < TOE < SGD 5 million . ‘Large’ refers to TOE >SGD 5 million. ‘Small and Medium’ refers to TOE < SGD 5 million.

2.2 Focus Group Method
Focus Group Participants
A total of 34 participants took part in the focus group discussions. Table 12 gives a breakdownof the participants’ designations in their organisations. All participants are involved in fundraising
operations. This maintained a degree of participant homogeneity and ensured that the participants
were equipped with active, meaningful, and encompassing insights which in turn facilitatedmeaningful discussion in the focus group proper (Elliot & Associates, 2005; Krueger & Casey,
2002; Powell & Single, 1996).

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

49 CSDA REPORT 2016

Table 12: Breakdown of Focus Group ParticipantsType of IPCs
PCs
Css

No.
N
No
o.. ofo
SSample
Sa
Sam
am
mp
mpl
ple Sizezee Foc
FFocusFoocu
cus
uss Group
G uppParticipantPPaPar
art ant
articipan
anntt

Participant’s Designation
ED/CEO/Managers

Chairpersonof Fundraising
Committee

Fundraising
Staff

Others

Focus Group A(Health; Small and Medium)

11

6

5

0

1

0

Focus Group B(Health; Large)

15

7

5

0

2

0

Focus Group C(Social and Welfare; Small)

30

6

3

3

0

0

Focus Group D(Social and Welfare; Medium)

45

9

7

0

0

2

Focus Group E(Social Welfare; Large)

25

6

6

0

0

0

Total

126

34

26

3

3

2

Notes:‘ED’ refers to Executive Director. ‘CEO’ refers to Chief Executive Officer. ‘Others’ refers to other designations include being aTeam Leader or Executive. For Focus Group A, which is made up of small and medium IPCs from the Health sector (TOE size
below SGD 5 million), six out of the 11 IPCs in the sample signed up for the focus group. Five senior management staff and
one fundraising staff participated in the focus group discussion. For Focus Group B, which is made up of large IPCs from the
Health sector (TOE size above SGD 5 million), seven out of the 15 IPCs in the sample signed up for the focus group. Five senior
management staff and two fundraising staff participated in the focus group discussion. For Focus Group C, which is made up
of small IPCs from the Social and Welfare sector (TOE size below SGD 1 million), six out of the 30 IPCs in the sample signed up
for the focus group. Three senior management staff and three chairpersons of fundraising committee participated in the focus
group discussion. For Focus Group D, which is made up of medium IPCs from the Social and Welfare sector (TOE size between
SGD 1 million and SGD 5 million), nine out of the 45 IPCs in the sample signed up for the focus group. Seven senior management
staff and two centre administrators participated in the focus group discussion. For Focus Group E, which is made up of large IPCs
from the Social and Welfare sector (TOE size above SGD 5 million), six out of the 25 IPCs in the sample signed up for the focus
group. Six senior management staff participated in the focus group discussion.

Conducting the Focus Groups
The five focus group discussions were held over three days, with a maximum of two groups perday. The venue for the discussions was at the Bone Marrow Donor Programme (BNDP) at Novena
Specialist Centre, a convenient central location with easy access by public transport.
The sitting arrangements for participants and moderators are also important consideration when
conducting focus group discussions. For this study, participants were seated around the table ina rectangular fashion. Nameplate (which shows the name of the participant and the respectiveIPC) was used for identification. This table setting provided a basis for building greater rapport
amongst the participants. It also provided a sense of security for the more reserved membersin the group, and helped to establish personal space for participants to feel more comfortable(Stewart & Shamdasani, 2014).

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 2016

50

The moderator, situated at the front of the room, was primarily responsible for the facilitation ofopen and uninhibited dialogue among the participants (Powell & Single, 1996). The moderator is aveteran fundraiser in the charity sector with vast experience in conducting focus group discussions.
This lends legitimacy to the study and facilitated the lively discussions for all five groups. The
focus group was semi-structured. The moderator had the autonomy to facilitate the discussions,using only a list of questions to prompt the participants.
Five note takers were present during the discussions to observe and take notes. Observations wereboth verbal and nonverbal, including but not limited to gestures, tone, consensus, themes, andidentification information (Stewart & Shamdasani, 2014). To minimise disturbance, they wereseated at non-intrusive locations around the room (Krueger & Casey, 2002).
The maximum duration of each focus group was limited at 90 minutes, with a 10-minuterefreshment break in the middle. The break served as an opportunity for the moderator to get
to know the participants better, especially the more reserved members in the group, to elicit
better discussion in the second half of the discussion. In the event that the focus group discussions
exceeded the maximum duration of 90 minutes, the moderator sought the participants’ consent
before continuing.

2.3 Data Collection, Coding and Analysis
Data Collection
The focus group study involved three stages:
Stage 1: Pilot Test
Four IPCs from the Social and Welfare sector across the three TOE size categories wereinvolved in the pilot test. Information gathered from the session was subsequently used to
improve the questionnaire. The session also provided useful tips for the moderator when
conducting the main focus group discussions.
Stage 2: Questionnaires
Questionnaires were sent to the 34 participants two weeks before the focus group meetings,
to prepare them for the focus group discussions. The questionnaires cover various aspectof IPCs’ fundraising operation such as fundraising manpower, fundraising methods, donor
engagement, fundraising compliance and disclosure, and fundraising challenges. Data fromthe questionnaires were tabulated and presented to the participants during the discussions
for further dialogue.
Stage 3: Focus Group Discussions
Five focus group discussions were conducted. Notes were scripted and the content coded
for analysis.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

51 CSDA REPORT 2016

Data Coding and Analysis
Note-based analysis was applied (Onwuegbuzie, Dickinson, Leech & Zoran, 2009). The notetakers recorded discussions from the groups and the notes were used for analysis. The transcribed
notes captured the essence of the discussions, which included consensus, proxemics, chronemic,kinesics and paralinguistic information (Onwuegbuzie, Dickinson, Leech & Zoran, 2009). The notes
were captured in a systematic way; a hierarchical classification was applied. Each focus groups
had their own sets of notes recorded. Within each of these focus groups’ notes, the recordingof notes were classified according to the questions asked by the moderator under a particulartheme, and further divided into each individual’s response in temporal-sequential order (Elliot &Associates, 2005). Using the framework of exploratory focus group discussion (Fern, 2001), thenotes recorded provided insights on some of the needs, expectations and challenges faced by the
IPCs in the fundraising process.
A mixed-method content analysis was used for this qualitative research study. It is a combinationof constant comparison analysis and classical content analysis to examine the transcripts(Onwuegbuzie, Dickinson, Leech & Zoran, 2009). The constant comparison analysis used inthis study comprised of three stages. They are open coding, axial coding and selective coding(Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The information analysed from constant comparison coding is mixed
with the information from classical content analysis, and the results obtained are presented in
the next section.

3. RESEARCH RESULTS
This section presents the findings of the focus group discussions. An overview of the findings isfirst presented (see Figure 6), followed by findings on fundraising manpower, fundraising methods,
donor engagement, fundraising compliance and disclosure, and fundraising challenges. Summary
tables for major issues raised during the discussions, as well as quotations from the participants
where available, are also presented for reference.
These findings are based on the participants’ sharing during the focus group discussions. Hopefully,
it can serve as a reference for stakeholders, to encourage further dialogue on fundraising mattersto benefit charities. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the authors.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 2016

52

Figure 6: IPCs’ Fundraising Operations - Overview of Focus Group Discussions
What are the
IPCs’ fundraisingaccountability,
compliance anddisclosure practices?

How do IPCs
fundraise?

How do IPCs
carry out donor
engagement?

3.1
Fundraising
Manpower

3.2
Fundraising
Methods

3.3
Donor
Engagement

3.4
Fundraising
Accountability
Compliance andDisclosure

3.5
Fundraising
Challenges

Volunteers(including Board
members andFundraisingcommittee)

Current
Fundraising Norms

Donor Relations

Accountability
to Donors

Public’s Perceptionof Charities

Donor Databases

Tax Deduction
for Donors andSponsors

Increase
Expectation andInvolvement by
Corporate Donors

FutureFundraising Trends
Fundraising
Professionals

Third Party
Fundraisers

Donor
Appreciation

Fundraising
Compliance andDisclosure

Notes:

This figure provides the overview of issues covered during the fice focus group
discussions. There were 34 participants from Focus Group A to E, who shared theirexperences, insights and perspectives on funraising for charities.
The five focus groups represent different charities group and they are explained below:
•
•
•
•
•

What are themain fundraisingchallenges that
IPCs face?

Who fundraisefor IPCs?

Competitive
Fundraising
Enviroment

Lack ofComprehensive
Fundraising
StrategyLack of Trained
Fundraising Staff

Focus Group A represents small and medium IPCs from the Health sector ( TOE
size below SGD 5 million).
Focus Group B represents large IPCs from the Health sector (TOE size above SGD
5 million).
Focus Group C represents small IPCs from the Social & Welfare sector (TOE size
below SGD 1 million).
Focus Group D represents medium IPCs from the Social & Welfare sector (TOEsize between SGD 1 million and SGD 5 million).
Focus Group E represents large IPCs from the Social & Welfare sector (TOE size
above SGD 5 million).

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

53 CSDA REPORT 2016

3.1 Fundraising Manpower
From the focus group discussions, it was found that the fundraising operations of IPCs in
Health, Social and Welfare sectors are run by: (1) volunteers (including board members andfundraising committees), (2) fundraising professionals (full-time or part-time staff), and (3)third party fundraisers.
The participants also shared the following about fundraising manpower:• Fundraising can be a labour intensive activity. Charities often lack the manpower tocarry out fundraising operations. They depend on volunteers to carry out most of theirfundraising activities.
• Volunteers are mobilised largely for the running of special events and flag day. However,the volunteers are not trained staff members. They have other commitments, and may lackexperience and expertise to carry out fundraising activities.
• Participants expressed that it is important for the Board members to play an active rolein fundraising. Board members and members of the fundraising committees bring alongfundraising expertise and social networks. They provide the donor contacts, and assist inplanning and implementation of fundraising activities.
• Many charities cannot afford to have a dedicated fundraising staff. Even if they have dedicatedfundraising staff, their work scope will include more than just fundraising. It included otheradministrative work, volunteer management and public awareness of the charitable cause.
• There is a lack of professional fundraisers in the industry. The existing fundraising staff in
the industry may not have professional training or certification. Furthermore, there are highturnover rates for fundraising staff.
• IPCs rarely outsource their fundraising operations to third party fundraisers. They areconcerned that the third party fundraisers may tarnish their charities’ reputation with overthe-top methods. Other reason includes poor terms and conditions offered by third party
fundraisers.
Some issues on fundraising manpower, raised by the different groups, are presented in Table 13
and the participants’ quotes are presented in Quotation 1.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 2016

54

Table 13: Discussion Points raised by Focus Groups A to E on Fundraising Manpower
Fundraising Manpower
Focus
Group A

Discussion Points Raised

Small andMediumHealth IPCs

Focus
Group B
Large
HealthIPCs

Focus
Group C

Small
Social andWelfare IPCs

Focus
Group D

Focus
Group E

MediumLargeSocial andSocial andWelfare IPCs Welfare IPCs

Volunteers
Youth volunteers lack training, experience and expertise
Board’s Role in Fundraising
The Board plays a crucial role in fundraising
Fundraising Committee
Forming fundraising committees
Dedicated Fundraising Staff
Recruiting fundraising staff
Lack of experienced fundraising staff

Note:
The tick ( ✔ ) denoted that the particular discussion point was brought up by the respective focus groups. It meant that theissue was relevant to the specific group.

Quotation 1: Quotes on Fundraising Manpower

On fundraising manpower…
“Fundraising is crucial to
all charities and VWOs,
but it’s not being taken
seriously. Honestly, it’s
not really being taught
nor is it something that’s
really being looked into.
Hence, we always have ashortage of professional
fundraisers in the market.”
Chia Boon Khiang,
Singapore Children’s Society“It’s not simply about
having a fundraisingcommittee, more
importantly it’s about
who is on that committee.”Freddie Low,
Morningstar Community
Service“We have quite an increasing
number of individuals andcorporations coming forward
to say that they want toraise funds or host an eventfor us. In a way, this could
be considered third-party
fundraising, but on a morecommunity level.”
Albert Ching,
Singapore Cancer Society

Note:
Focus group participants have given their consents and permissions to publish their names, organisations, and quotes in the report.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

55 CSDA REPORT 2016

3.2 Fundraising Methods
Participants from both the sectors shared that Special Events and Flag Day are currently popular
fundraising methods, and Online Fundraising will be the future norm. Details about their discussions
on fundraising methods are as follows:• Special Events are popular but they may not be effective as they are costly to host andrequire extensive manpower. On the other hand, Special Events such as niche and mass
Special Events can help to raise awareness of the charities and their charitable causes.
• Some charities are more successful than others in raising funds through signature or nicheSpecial Events, such as Gala Dinners and Golf Tournaments. For example, AWARE’s ALAMAK!
Awards and Children’s Cancer Foundation’s Hair for Hope. There seems to be a saturation ofniche events with too many special events by different charities, resulting in donor fatigue.
• Another popular fundraising activity is mass events such as Walkathons and Marathons.
They may not be cost effective as they require extensive planning and involve complicatedlogistics.
• Flag Day are still heavily utilised. Observations about Flag Day: (1) More Flag Day organisedby charities in the Health sector than those in the Social and Welfare sector; (2) More dollar
notes collected, compared to coins; (3) Better collections during festive seasons; and (4)More donations collected in the heartlands, compared to Central Business District (CBD)
areas.
• Many believe that Flag Day are outdated and losing effectiveness. However, charities continue
to organise Flag Day because they believe it is a good outreach platform.
• Some participants highlighted that Legacy Giving17 can be a potential source of income forcharities. However, it is not a common fundraising method in Singapore. One participantsuggested that the charities should come together to develop a system of Legacy Giving fordonors.
• Charities are utilising the Internet to raise awareness of their charities and charitable causes,
through emails, online portals, online newsletters, social media and websites. They areembracing online fundraising methods, such as Online Donation and Crowdsourcing.
• Participants observed that: (1) Donors are more tech-savvy; (2) Online fundraising operates
at minimal cost and requires less logistics; (3) Although Online Donation may not a major
source of income, it is a passive side income; and (4) Larger IPCs seem more ready to embrace
online fundraising methods, while smaller IPCs lack the resources.
17“A legacy gift is a planned future donation to a charity, given through a will or other form of designation.” (Casey House
Foundation, 2016)© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 201656

Some issues on fundraising methods, raised by Focus Groups A to E are presented in Table 14.

Table 14: Discussion Points raised by Focus Groups A to E on Fundraising Methods
Fundraising Methods
Discussion Points Raised

Focus
Group A

Small andMediumHealth IPCs

Focus
Group B
Large
HealthIPCs

Focus
Group C

Small
Social andWelfare IPCs

Focus
Group D

Focus
Group E

MediumLargeSocial andSocial andWelfare IPCs Welfare IPCs

Corporate Donations
IPCs are dependent on corporate donations
Specific Fundraising Methods
Decreasing use of Direct Mailers
Flag Day is regarded as ineffective
IPCs organise special niche events
Legacy Giving as a potential fundraising source
Engagement of Third Party fundraisers
Online fundraising is regarded as effective
Fundraising Trends
A rise in donations in 2015 due to SG50

Note:
The tick ( ✔ ) denoted that the particular discussion point was brought up by the respective focus groups. It meant that theissue was relevant to the specific group.

3.3 Donor Engagement
Donor engagement is an important part of the charities’ fundraising operations. Charities
normally engage their donors in more than one way. They provide donors with updates and show
their appreciations. The participants shared their experiences and insights on donor relations,management of donor databases, and donor appreciation. Details are presented as below:• Different charities manage donor relations differently. The larger and more established IPCs
indicated that they do not need to spend extra effort to educate their donors about theircharities. Instead, they are concerned about maintaining their charities’ images, given the
recent charity scandals. On the other hand, smaller IPCs struggle to raise public awarenessof their charities. They put priority in building personal relationships, especially with high net
worth individuals (HNWI) and corporations.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

57 CSDA REPORT 2016

• To serve and attract donors, charities need to understand donors’ motivation, i.e. what drives
the donors’ decisions to support the charities. Not all IPCs keep donors’ records or maintain
donor databases. Some use customer relationship management (CRM) software to maintaintheir donor databases. However, these IPCs faced many challenges as they lack the resourcesand expertise to manage the system. Only a couple of IPCs track donor attrition rate.
• The most common method of donor appreciation is the acknowledgement of donors in the
charities’ annual reports. However, some donors may wish to remain anonymous and IPCs
will need to respect their decisions. Other common methods of donor appreciation include:(1) Regular thank-you - through cards, emails and social media; (2) Opportunity for donors tointeract with beneficiaries where appropriate; (3) Invitations to charities’ events or functions;(4) Presentation awards or tokens of appreciation to donors; and (5) Donor appreciation events.
Some issues on donor engagement, raised by the different groups, are presented in Table 15 andthe participants’ quotes are presented in Quotation 2.

Table 15: Discussion Points raised by Focus Groups A to E on Donor Engagement
Donor Engagement
Discussion Points Raised

Focus
Group A

Small andMediumHealth IPCs

Focus
Group B
Large
HealthIPCs

Focus
Group C

Small
Social andWelfare IPCs

Focus
Group D

Focus
Group E

MediumLargeSocial andSocial andWelfare IPCs Welfare IPCs

Donor Relations
Charities’ reputation is an important factor that
influence donors’ decision to donate
Importance of staff-donor relationships
Donor Database Management
IPCs using CRM software
IPCs keen in using CRM software
CRM software must be user-friendly
Donor Appreciation
A range of donor engagement methods used
Personalised engagement methods for different
group of donors

Note:
The tick ( ✔ ) denoted that the particular discussion point was brought up by the respective focus groups. It meant that theissue was relevant to the specific group.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 201658

Quotation 2: Quotes on Donor Engagement

On donor engagement…
“Staff, time, andresources are needed toeffectively carry out donor
engagement. You also needa very robust database to
manage your data.”
Albert Ching,
Singapore Cancer Society“The buzzword is’personalise’: different
donors like to be engaged
in different ways. As acharity, we also practise
customer service. This
helps us better understandthe different types ofdonors and what they like.”“From the past few years,
we found that donors
donate more with increased
donor engagement. This
includes visits to the home,
spending time with thebeneficiaries…it’s mutually
beneficial.”
Jeffrey Yang,
Lion’s Community Service
Foundation (Lions Home for
the Elderly)

Chia Boon Khiang,
Singapore Children’s Society

Note:
Focus group participants have given their consents and permissions to publish their names, organisations, and quotes in the report.

3.4 Fundraising Accountability, Compliance and Disclosure
Accountability is crucial in developing public trust in the charity sector (Sloan, 2008). Charities
are accountable to donors for the donation, fundraising income and sponsorship income received.
They need to comply with the mandatory disclosure requirements and meet voluntary disclosure
guidelines set for charities (see Table 3 in Section 1 for details). For those involved in fundraising
operations, they need to fulfil the requirements set out in the Charities (Fund-Raising Appeals for
Local and Foreign Charitable Purposes) Regulations 2012.
During the discussions, the participants also shared about their charities’ experiences on
accountability to donors, issues on tax deduction for donors and sponsors, and fundraisingcompliance and disclosure, as follows:• In general, IPCs show accountability by providing updates of the IPCs’ operations through: (1)Annual reports; (2) Newsletters; (3) Social media; and (4) Websites.
• There is general agreement amongst the IPCs that donors want to know how their contributions
have help the beneficiaries. Some donors even request for reports. However, the measuring
and reporting of social impacts is difficult.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

59 CSDA REPORT 2016

• Many participants expressed that they encountered difficulties in explaining about tax
deductible donations to the donors and sponsors, in particular, in relation to the differences
between donations, proceeds from fundraising activities, sponsorship and donation in-kind.
For example, if an IPC organises a fundraising event, such as a Gala Dinner, the price of theticket normally comprises of two components - the cost of the event and a donation. Donors
can only be given tax exemption for their donation component of the Gala Dinner. This isbecause donation cannot contain any element of exchange in any form.
• Many explained the difficulties they often faced in classifying incomes received fromdonations, fundraising activities, and sponsorships. For example, after a successful fundraising
event, a charity may continue to receive funds from individuals or corporations because of
the publicity received. The charities are often unsure whether to classify such receipts as
donations or as fundraising income.
• Participants also expressed the importance of the fundraising expenses18 guideline (commonly
known as 30/70 Rule). It helps fundraisers to stay vigilant in keeping their fundraising expenses
below 30 per cent, so that at least 70 per cent of the funds raised go to the beneficiaries.
• The cost of compliance has been increasing, given the mandatory disclosure requirements
and voluntary disclosure guidelines that IPCs are required to fulfil. IPCs expressed that they
have to pay higher audit costs. They often do not have trained personnel who understands
charities’ compliance and disclosure requirements set by the regulators.
• Most participants expressed difficulties using the Charity Portal for annual submission of
their Governance Evaluation Checklist (GEC), annual reports and statements of account as
part of compliance requirements. The portal’s sluggish processing and loading speed is themain concern.

18

Charities (Fund-Raising Appeals for Local and Foreign Charitable Purposes) Regulations 2012 states that the total fundraising expenses of a charity for the financial year ending on or after 1st April 2008, and for every subsequent financial
year, shall not exceed 30% of the total receipts from fundraising and sponsorships for that financial year

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 201660

Some issues on fundraising accountability, compliance and disclosure, raised by the focus groups
are presented in Table 16.

Table 16: Discussion Points raised by Focus Groups A to E on Fundraising Accountability,
Compliance and Disclosure
Fundraising Accountability, Compliance and Disclosure
Discussion Points Raised

Focus
Group A

Focus
Group B

Focus
Group C

Focus
Group D

Focus
Group E

Small &
MediumHealth IPCs

Large
HealthIPCs

Small
Social &Welfare IPCs

MediumSocial &Welfare IPCs

Large
Social &Welfare IPCs

Auditors, Income Classification & Tax Deduction, and Reserves Policy
Incomes from donation, fundraising activities andsponsorship are not always mutually exclusive, making
categorization difficult.
IPCs perceived that there are grey areas intax deductibility.
For greater clarity, there should be more detailed
guidelines for reserves policy.
IPCs are supportive on disclosing their reserves policyin their annual reports
IPCs faced challenges when they change auditors.
This is because different auditors have differentmethods
and approach to audit the financial statements.
Fundraising Legislation
Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS), NCSS
and Charity Portal provide helpful information andassistance to charities on fundraising issues
Fundraising Compliance and Disclosure
Need to upgrade Charity Portal, so compliance can be
more efficient and less time consuming

Note:
The tick ( ✔ )denoted that the particular discussion point was brought up by the respective focus groups. It meant that theissue was relevant to the specific group.

3.5 Fundraising Challenges
Fundraising challenges is the last theme for the focus group discussions. Participants from all five
focus groups shared extensively about the challenges they face in their day-to-day operations.
These challenges in fundraising operations can be broadly classified into five areas: (1) Public’s
perception of charities, (2) Increase expectations and involvement by corporate donors, (3)Competitive fundraising environment, (4) Lack of comprehensive fundraising strategy; and (5)Lacked of trained fundraising staff. The details of the discussion are as follows:© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

61 CSDA REPORT 2016

• Some participants highlighted that there is a lack of public awareness and understanding
about charities and their charitable causes. Some members of the public perceived thatcharities are self-sufficient and do not need donations, as they receive government funding.
This makes fundraising a challenge.
• All participants observed an increase in corporate donors’ involvement. These corporations
are becoming more strategic in their involvement in the charity sector, to increase theircorporate visibility. Corporations also encourage their staff to be involved in the corporations’fundraising and volunteering efforts. Increasingly, corporations want charities to track,
measure and inform them about the social impact of their involvements.
• Corporate adoption of charities is gaining popularity. The charity sector welcomes thecorporate involvement; however, there is competition amongst IPCs for corporate adoption.
Many charities expressed that they are learning to manage the expectations of these corporate
donors. However, not all IPCs have connections to these corporate donors, and many may
not have the resources to manage their expectations.
• The participants expressed that the charities’ fundraising environment is competitive, andthe fundraisers compete for donors’ dollars. They explained that donors prefer to give tocharities serving children, elderly and needy families19. Hence, it is more difficult for charities
serving other charitable causes to raise funds.
• Participants agreed that fundraising collaboration amongst charities is good as it can generate
greater public interest. It also facilitates the transfer of expertise and knowledge between
charities. However, other participants expressed that collaboration between charities can bechallenging, as there may be conflict of interest between charities.
• Participants explained that charities generally do not have a comprehensive fundraising strategy.
Many regard fundraising as organising of special events. However, fundraising involves morethan just organising special events. It includes public education, soliciting for new donors andvolunteers, planning and coordinating new fundraising events etc. Some participants expressedthat their charities are over reliant on existing fundraising methods and donors, and are notdoing enough to try new fundraising methods or approach new donors.
• All participants expressed that there is a need for trained fundraising staff. Professional
fundraising certification will be beneficial for the charity sector. They agreed that there is aneed to recruit tech savvy staff, as online fundraising is becoming a norm.

19This is validated by NVPC’s Corporate Giving Survey 2015, where the top three causes supported by the companies
were children (44 per cent), the elderly (40 per cent) and needy families (34 per cent) in 2014 (Goy, 2016c).

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 201662

Some issues on fundraising challenges, raised by the groups are presented in Table 17 and theparticipant’s quotes are presented in Quotation 3.

Table 17: Discussion Points raised by Focus Groups A to E on Fundraising Challenges
Fundraising Challenges
Discussion Points Raised

Focus
Group A

Focus
Group B

Focus
Group C

Focus
Group D

Focus
Group E

Small andMediumHealth IPCs

Large
HealthIPCs

Small
Social andWelfare IPCs

MediumSocial andWelfare IPCs

Large
Social andWelfare IPCs

Public’s Perception of Charities
Charity’s Image – Dissemination of charities’
information through mainstream media
The sector should work on educating and raisingpublic awareness so that public fundraising canbe more effective.
Increase Expectations and Involvement by Corporate Donors
Securing corporate donations is becoming increasingly
challenging since they are becoming more discerning.
In making donation decisions, corporations are
increasingly concerned with IPCs’ outcomes
Impact factor – donors are keen to know how
they have helped beneficiaries
Competitive Fundraising Environment
Competition amongst charities for public donations
Costs of Fundraising are rising
Encourage collaboration between IPCs to allow the
sharing of knowledge, experience and resources
Lack of Trained Fundraising Staff
Fundraising should not be limited to fundraising staff.
The entire organisation, from beneficiaries to board
members, to volunteers should be involved.
Tech savvy staff should be hired to reach out toonline donors

Note:
The tick ( ✔ ) denoted that the particular discussion point was brought up by the respective focus groups. It meant that theissue was relevant to the specific group.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

63 CSDA REPORT 2016

Quotation 3: Quotes on Fundraising Challenges

On fundraising challenges…
My opinion is that
corporations are
becoming more discerningas they look at the returnof investment for their
donations.”
Freddie Low,
Morningstar Community
Service“There is an over-relianceon ‘Hair for Hope’
as a key fundraisingprogramme. If that fails,
it can become a risk.”
Neo Lay Tin,
Children’s Cancer Foundation“The philanthropic
nature of foundations
has changed. Many of thefoundations now seem to
be moving towards morestrategic giving, and havevery specific directions on
how the foundation should
be donating, and about
KPIs.”
Freddie Low,
Morningstar Community
Services

Notes:
Focus group participants have given their consents and permissions to publish their names, organisations, and quotes in the report.

4. DISCUSSIONS, LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
4.1 Discussions

The focus group discussions covered the experiences, insights and opinions of fundraising
representatives from the small, medium and large IPCs in the Health and Social and Welfare
sectors. They covered topics on fundraising manpower, fundraising methods, donor engagement,
fundraising compliance and disclosure, and the fundraising challenges they face. A summary of
key issues for the charity sector’s consideration is presented below.

Charity Sector as a Whole
Based on the focus group discussions, it seems that there is a need for public education about
Singapore’s charities and their role in serving the needy in society. Specifically, the public needs
to understand about Singapore’s Many Helping Hands (MHH) approach, which encourages
community-led initiatives, rather than an over-reliance on government welfare. It is important
for the public to understand that the charities need funding from numerous sources, including
public donation, corporate donation, government grants, and income from fundraising activities,
to sustain themselves. The public education campaign may make it easier for charities when they
approach the public for donations.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 201664

The participants also noted that the fundraising environment is becoming more competitive andthe cost of fundraising is increasing. Hence, public education about charities and the emphasis for
public support is crucial. Hopefully, the public education campaign can encourage the public tocontinue their support for charities, so that the charities can continue doing good work.

Improving the Professional Standards of the Fundraising Industry
The fundraising industry is growing. There is a need for more professional fundraising management
and staff. Charities can no longer depend solely on special events to raise funds. They need todevelop fundraising strategy, work with corporate donors, manage donor relations, and be able
to fundraise online. To do so, they need to have professionally trained fundraising staff. Many ofthe participants are supportive of the idea of specialised training and certification for fundraisers.

Fundraising Compliance and Disclosure for the Charity Sector
A comprehensive framework for fundraising compliance and disclosure is in place (see Table 3
in Section 1 for details). Participants provided positive feedback that they are able to find useful
information from the Charity Portal (a website for charities under the COC Office), IRAS’s andNCSS’s websites. When they face difficulties on fundraising issues, they are able to get help fromtheir sector administrators.
However, most participants expressed difficulties using the Charity Portal for annual submissionof their annual reports, statement of accounts and Governance Evaluation Checklists (GECs) as
part of compliance requirements. This should be a priority area for improvement.
Lastly, participants explained that they do not have trained personnel who understand charities’compliance and disclosure requirements set by the regulators. Hence, training on fundraisingcompliance and disclosure for charities’ staff should be continued and emphasised.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

65 CSDA REPORT 2016

4.2 Limitations
The qualitative focus groups research complements the quantitative research presented in Section
2 of this report. The focus group discussions by the IPCs’ senior management and professional
fundraisers provide insights on how fundraising are carried out by charities in Singapore. The
research sample is based on only 126 charities in the Health, Social and Welfare sectors with
IPC statuses from FY2012 to FY2014. Hence, the findings may not be representative of charities,
whether from these two sectors or the charity sector as a whole.
Further, there are inherent limitations in the focus group research methods. Firstly, the sample iscontingent upon the voluntary acceptance from the participants. There is possibly a fundamental
difference between IPCs that consent to participating in the study and those that reject or ignore
the invitations (Stewart, Shamdasani & Rook, 2007). For example, the IPCs that accepted theinvitation to the focus group discussions may have better track record at fundraising than those
who rejected. This could skew the qualitative results.
Secondly, the participants’ discussions may be biased, due to selective memory, telescoping,
attribution and exaggeration (“Limitations of the Study”, 2016). The participants’ responses may
be also influenced by the social settings, as there is an inclination for one to self-censor certain
opinions in order to be socially accepted (Smithson, 2000). In this case, the focus group participants
may avoid mentioning negative aspects of their IPCs’ fundraising operations.

4.3 Future Research
The focus group discussions provided some background in understanding the fundraising operationsof charities in Singapore. This is the first step. More research on fundraising in Singapore should be
carried out. Two specific areas for future research are: (1) The role of Board members in fundraising;and (2) What do donors want?
From the focus group discussions, it is clear that charities are dependent on their Board members
and/or fundraising committee members for fundraising. In order for charities to sustain themselves,
it is important for charities to understand the proper role of the Board in fundraising, how to selectthe right Board member and/or committee member for fundraising, and how to motivate them.
Additionally, Charities need to know what donors care about. What matters to donors? What doesit mean for donors to be satisfied? Are the donors committed to future giving? Understanding the
behaviour of donors should be the charities’ priority.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 2016

66

This page is intentionally left blank.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

67 CSDA REPORT 2016

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 2016

68

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA
REPORT2016
REPORT2016
69 CSDACONCLUSION
In Singapore, charities in the Health, Social and Welfare sectors play a crucial rolein providing essential services for the poor, vulnerable and disadvantaged. They are
dependent on government grants, private donations and fundraising activities tosustain their charitable operations. Income from donation and fundraising activities
remains one of the most important sources of income.
Based on the COC Annual Report 2015, there has been an upward trend of tax deductible
donations over the last ten years, reaching SGD 1.4 billion in 2015. However, there islimited literature on fundraising in Singapore. With this in mind, the report aims to fill
the existing gap by: (1) providing an overview of Singapore’s charity and fundraisinglandscape; (2) reporting results from a quantitative study on IPCs in the Health, Socialand Welfare sectors on their disclosure of fundraising practices; and (3) reporting resultsfrom a qualitative study on IPCs in the Health, Social and Welfare sectors on theirfundraising manpower, fundraising methods, donor engagement, fundraising disclosureand compliance, and fundraising challenges.
The quantitative research study was based on the annual reports and financial
statements of 126 IPCs from the Health, Social and Welfare sectors from FY2012 toFY2014. The findings are summarised below:• The findings on fundraising manpower suggest that: (1) volunteers, including
fundraising committee members, play a major role in the charities’ fundraising
operations; (2) only some IPCs have full-time fundraising staff; and (3) the use ofthird party fundraising agency is not a common practice.
• The findings on fundraising methods suggest that: (1) Special Events is the mostpopular fundraising method used by charities; (2) Flag Day is still a popular
fundraising method; (3) Personal Appeals, Direct Mailers, and Regular Giving
Programmes are not commonly utilised by IPCs; and (4) Online Donation is gaining
popularity.
• The findings on donor acknowledgement suggest that it is common practice forcharities to acknowledge both individuals and corporations for their donations
and sponsorship in the charities’ annual reports.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 201670

• The findings on disclosure of fundraising efficiency ratio suggest that most IPCs do notreport the ratio in their annual reports and financial statements.
The qualitative research study was based on five focus group discussions, comprising of 34
IPCs from the Health, Social and Welfare sectors. The participants presented their insights on
fundraising manpower, fundraising methods, donor engagement, and funding compliance anddisclosure. Specifically, the participants presented some of their charities’ fundraising challenges.
They include:• The public’s lack of awareness and understanding about charities and their charitablecauses.
• Competitive fundraising environment with increasing costs of fundraising.
• Charities lack of comprehensive fundraising strategy.
• The need for trained fundraising staff for the charity sector.
Discussions and limitations for each of the two exploratory studies were also covered in thereport. While both studies are largely exploratory, they provide some information about thefundraising practices of Singapore’s charities. Hopefully, this report can be a useful reference
for all stakeholders.
In conclusion, future research on fundraising could include: (1) survey research on fundraising
manpower and fundraising methods; (2) fundraising practices of charities in othersectors; (3)research on online fundraising; (4) role of volunteers and board members in fundraising forcharities; and (5) what motivate donors in Singapore?

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

71 CSDA REPORT 2016

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alpizar, F., Carlsson, F., & Johansson-Stenman, O. (2007). Anonymity, Reciprocity andConformity: Evidence from Voluntary Contributions to a Natural Park in Costa Rica.
Journal of Public Economics, 92 (5-6), 1047-1060.
Andreoni, J. (1989). Giving with Impure Altruism: Applications to Charity and Ricardian
Equivalence. Journal of Political Economy, 97(6), 1447-1458.
Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of WarmGlow Giving. Economic Journal, 100(401), 464-477.
Andreoni, J., & Petrie, R. (2004). Public Goods Experiments without Confidentiality: A Glimpse
into Fund-raising. Journal of Public Economics, 88(7-8), 1605-1623.
AsiaOne. (2014, November 2). SIA raises $2.5m for Community Chest. AsiaOne. Retrieved
from http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/sia-raises-25m-community-chest
Barclay, P. (2004). Trustworthiness and Competitive Altruism can also solve the “Tragedy of
the Commons”. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(4), 209-220.
Basil, D. Z., Ridgway, N. M., & Basil, M. D. (2006). Guilt Appeals: The Mediating Effect ofResponsibility. Psychology & Marketing, 23(12), 1035-1054.
Bateson, M., Nettle, D., & Roberts, G. (2006). Cues of being Watched Enhance Cooperation
in a Real World Setting. Biology Letters, 2, 412-414.
Bekkers, R. (2005a). It’s not all in the Ask. Effects and Effectiveness of Recruitment Strategies
used by Non-Profits in the Netherlands. Paper presented at the 34rd Annual ARNOVA
Conference, Washington, DC.
Bekkers, R. (2005b). When and Why Matches are more Effective Subsidies than Rebates.
Paper presented at the 34th Arnova Annual Conference, Washington, DC.
Bekkers, R. (2008). Straight from the Heart. In S. Chambré & M. Goldner (Eds.), Advancesin Medical Sociology, Volume 10: Patients, Consumers and Civil Society: US andInternational perspectives (pp. 197-221). Bingley: Emerald Group.
Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2010). A Literature Review of Empirical Studies of Philanthropy:
Eight Mechanisms That Drive Charitable Giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 40(5),924-973
Bennett, R. (2003). Factors underlying the inclination to donate to particular types of charity.
International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 8(1), 12-29.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 2016

72

Bereczkei, T., Birkas, B., & Kerekes, Z. (2007). Public Charity Offer as a Proximate Factor
of Evolved Reputation-Building Strategy: An Experimental Analysis of a Real-Life
Situation. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(4), 277-284.
Bringing sunshine to more lives. (2013, August 24). The Business Times. Retrieved from http://
www.gnosis.com.sg/asia-philanthropy/singapore/bringing-sunshine-to-more-lives/
Bryan, J. H., & Test, M. A. (1967). Models and Helping: Naturalistic Studies in aiding Behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6(4), 400-407.
Burgoyne, C. B., Young, B., & Walker, C. M. (2005). Deciding to give to Charity: A Focus Group
Study in the context of the Household Economy. Journal of Community & AppliedSocial Psychology, 15(5), 383-405.
Carlsmith, J. M., & Gross, A. E. (1969). Some Effects of Guilt on Compliance. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 11(3), 232-239.
Casey House Foundation. (2016). What is a legacy gift? Retrieved from http://www.
caseyhouse.com/what-is-a-legacy-gift/
Charity Council. (2016). Opening Address By Minister For Culture, Community and Youth,
Grace Fu at the Charity Transparency and Governance Awards, Wednesday, 28 Sep 2016,
7.50pm at Sheraton Towers Singapore. Retrieved from https://www.charitycouncil.org.
sg/~/media/CharityCouncil/Documents/Speeches/Speech%20by%20Minister%20
CCY%20at%20Charity%20Transparency%20and%20Governance%20Awards%20
2016%20delivered.ashx
Charity Portal. (2016a). Code of Governance for Charities and IPCs. Retrieved from https://www.charities.gov.sg/manage-your-charity/Day-to-Day-Operations-of-Charity-IPC/
Pages/Code%20of%20Governance%20for%20Charities%20and%20IPCs.aspx© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

73 CSDA REPORT 2016

Charity Portal. (2016b). Legislations Governing Charities and IPCs. Retrieved from https://www.charities.gov.sg/manage-your-charity/Pages/Legislation%20Governing%20
Charity_IPC.aspx
Cheng, K. (2016, April 6). The Big Read: Need funding? Ask the crowd and you may well receive.
TODAY. Retrieved from http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/need-funding-askcrowd-and-you-may-well-receive
Cheong, K. (2014, November 3). President’s Star Charity show raises $6.32 million for those
who need help. The Straits Times. Retrieved from http://www.straitstimes.com/
singapore/presidents-star-charity-show-raises-632-million-for-those-who-needhelp
Choi, Y., Menon, U., & Ross, B. (2013). Asia. In P. Cagney, & B. Ross, Global Fundraising:
How the World is changing the Rules of Philanthropy (pp. 239-265). Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Commissioner of Charities. (2015). Commissioner of Charities Annual Report for the year
ended 31 December 2014. Retrieved from https://www.charities.gov.sg/Documents/
Commissioner%20of%20Charities%20Annual%20Report%202014_Published.pdf
Commissioner of Charities. (2016). Commissioner of Charities Annual Report for the year
ended 31 December 2015. Retrieved from https://www.charities.gov.sg/Publications/
Documents/COC%20Annual%20Report%202015.pdf
Community Chest. (2014). Media Release: Care & Share Movement to receive $250 million
support from Government. Retrieved from http://www.comchest.org.sg/careandshare/
media/Media%20release%20for%20PM%20announcement%20on%20Care%20
and%20Share%20Movement.pdf
Community Chest. (2015). Media Release: Strong Community Response Spurs Government
Support of another $250 million for the Care & Share Movement. Retrieved fromhttp://www.comchest.org.sg/careandshare/media/230115%20-%20Update%20
on%20the%20Care%20and%20Share%20Movement%20and%20SG%20Care%20
and%20Share%20Day%20(final).pdf
Doob, A. N., & McLaughlin, D. S. (1989). Ask and You Shall be Given: Request Size andDonations to a Good Cause. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19(12), 1049-1056.
Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2003). Rebates Versus Matching: Does How We Subsidize
Charitable Contributions Matter? Journal of Public Economics, 87(3), 681-701.
Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2004). Giving to Secular Causes by the Religious andNonreligious: An Experimental Test of the Responsiveness of Giving to Subsidies.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(2), 271-289.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 201674

Elliot & Associates. (2005). Guidelines for conducting a Focus Group. Retrieved from https://
assessment.trinity.duke.edu/documents/How_to_Conduct_a_Focus_Group.pdf
Fern, E. (2001). Advanced Focus Group Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Freedman, J. L., Wallington, S. A., & Bless, E. (1967). Compliance without Pressure: The Effectof Guilt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7(2), 117-124.
Gregory, A. G., & Howard, D. (2009). The Nonprofit Starvation Cycle. Stanford Social
Innovation Review. Retrieved form https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_nonprofit_
starvation_cycle
Goy, P. (2015, July 16). More opening up their purses for charity; Rise attributed to people
being spurred by government grants matching donations. The Straits Times. Retrieved
from
http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/more-opening-up-their-purses-forcharity
Goy, P. (2016a, April 16). Do good and get rewarded with grants of up to $50,000. The Straits
Times. Retrieved from http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/do-good-and-getrewarded-with-grants-of-up-to-50000
Goy, P. (2016b, June 2). Survey finds lack of diversity and regularity in corporate giving in
Singapore. The Straits Times. Retrieved from http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/survey-finds-lack-of-diversity-and-regularity-in-corporate-giving-in-singapore
Goy, P. (2016c, June 3). Most firms give to charity but many on ad hoc basis. The Straits
Times. Retrieved from http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/most-firms-give-tocharity-but-many-on-ad-hoc-basis
Harris, M. B., Benson, S. M., & Hall, C. L. (1975). The Effects of Confession on Altruism. Journalof Social Psychology, 96, 187-192.
Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., & Smith, V. L. (1996). Social Distance and Other-Regarding Behavior
in Dictator Games. American Economic Review, 86(3), 653-660.
Jackson, N. C., & Mathews, R. M. (1995). Using Public Feedback to Increase Contributions toa Multipurpose Senior Center. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28(4), 449-455.
Karlan, D., & List, J. A. (2006). Does price matter in charitable giving? Evidence from alargescale natural field experiment. Working paper, Yale University.
Kingma, B. (1989). An accurate measurement of the crowd-out effect, income effect and priceeffect for charitable contributions. Journal of Political Economy, 97(5), 1197-1207.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

75 CSDA REPORT 2016

Kok, X. H. (2015, August 13). MBS raises $5.4 million for charity over 10 days. The Straits Times.
Retrieved from http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/mbs-raises-54-million-forcharity-over-10-days
Konečki, V. J. (1972). Some effects of guilt on compliance. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 23(1), 30-32.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2002). Designing and conducting focus group interviews. Social
Analysis, Selected Tools and Techniques, 4-23.
Lee, B. A., & Farrell, C. R. (2003). Buddy, can you spare a dime? Homelessness, panhandling,
and the public. Urban Affairs Review, 38(3), 299-324.
Lian, G.C. (2013, September 17). The pitfalls of donor bias. The Straits Times. Retrieved fromhttp://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/the-pitfalls-of-donor-bias
Lincoln, A. J. (1977). Effects of the sex of the model and donor on donating to Amsterdam
organ grinders. Journal of Social Psychology, 103(1), 33-37.
Long, S. H. (1976). Social pressure and contributions to health charities. Public Choice, 28,
55-66.
Low, P. (2014, May 30). The need for better-informed donors. TODAY. Retrieved from http://
www.todayonline.com/singapore/need-better-informed-donors
Mendoza, D. (2013, September 28). Make-A-Wish Foundation Singapore’s S$100,000 wish.
TODAY. Retrieved from http://www.todayonline.com/lifestyle/food/make-wishfoundation-singapores-s100000-wish
Menon, U. (2010). Domain Study on the Use of ICT by VWOs in Singapore. Retrieved fromhttp://ushamenonasia.com/media/Web2.0.pdf
Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth. (2016). Partnering Singaporeans in NationBuilding & Good Governance. Retrieved from https://www.gov.sg/microsites/
cos2016/governance/mccy
Ministry of Finance. (2015). Budget Speech - Building Our Future, Strengthening Social
Security.
Retrievedfrom
http://www.singaporebudget.gov.sg/budget_2015/
BudgetSpeech.aspx
Ministry of Social and Family Development. (2012). Manpower Development Initiatives toStrengthen the Social Service Sector [Press releases]. Retrieved from https://app.msf.
gov.sg/Press-Room/Manpower-Development-Initiatives-to-Strengthen
Muehleman, J., Bruker, C., & Ingram, C. (1976). The Generosity Shift. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 34, 344-351.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 201676

National Council of Social Service. (2006). NCSS Annual Report FY2005. Retrieved fromhttp://www.comchest.org.sg/comchest/NewsResources/Resources/AnnualReports/
tabid/1122/Default.aspx
National Council of Social Service. (2007). NCSS Annual Report FY2006. Retrieved fromhttp://www.comchest.org.sg/comchest/NewsResources/Resources/AnnualReports/
tabid/1122/Default.aspx
National Council of Social Service. (2008). NCSS Annual Report FY2007. Retrieved fromhttp://www.comchest.org.sg/comchest/NewsResources/Resources/AnnualReports/
tabid/1122/Default.aspx
National Council of Social Service. (2009). Review Renew, NCSS Annual Report FY2008.
Retrieved from http://www.comchest.org.sg/comchest/NewsResources/Resources/
AnnualReports/tabid/1122/Default.aspx
National Council of Social Service. (2010). Make Possible, NCSS Annual Report FY2009.
Retrieved from http://www.comchest.org.sg/comchest/NewsResources/Resources/
AnnualReports/tabid/1122/Default.aspx
National Council of Social Service. (2011). Improve Lives, NCSS Annual Report FY2010.
Retrieved from http://www.comchest.org.sg/comchest/NewsResources/Resources/
AnnualReports/tabid/1122/Default.aspx
National Council of Social Service. (2012). Innovating Social Services, NCSS Annual
Report FY2011. Retrieved from https://www.ncss.gov.sg/PressRoom/Publications.
aspx?category=1115
National Council of Social Service. (2013). Future Ready Social Services, NCSS Annual
Report FY2012. Retrieved from https://www.ncss.gov.sg/Press-Room/Publications.
aspx?category=1115
National Council of Social Service. (2014). Anticipate Evolve Impact, NCSS Annual
Report FY2013. Retrieved from https://www.ncss.gov.sg/Press-Room/Publications.
aspx?category=1115
National Council of Social Service. (2015). Stronger Together: Enriching lives throughpartnerships, NCSS Annual Report FY2014. Retrieved from https://www.ncss.gov.sg/
Press-Room/Publications.aspx?category=1115
Ng, K. (2015, July 1). Singapore feeling impact of rapidly ageing population. TODAY. Retrieved
from
http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/singapore-feeling-impact-rapidlyageing-population© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

77 CSDA REPORT 2016

Office of the Commissioner of Charities. (2016). Media Release: Tax-Deductible Donations
Hit $1.4 Billion in SG50 Year as Charities Continue to Focus on Good Governance andTransparency. Retrieved from https://www.charities.gov.sg/Publications/Documents/
Media%20Release%20-%20COC%20AR%202015.pdf
Olson, M. (1965). The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Dickinson, W. B., Leech, N. L., & Zoran, A. G. (2009). A Qualitative
Framework for Collecting and Analyzing Data in Focus Group Research. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(3), 1-21.
Organizing Academic Research Papers: Limitations of the Study. Sacred Heart University
Library. Retrieved from http://library.sacredheart.edu/c.php?g=29803&p=185934
Parsons, L. M. (2003). Is accounting information from non-profit organisations useful todonors? A review of charitable giving and value-relevance. Journal of Accounting
Literature, 22, 104-129.
Parsons, L. M. (2007). The impact of financial information and voluntary disclosures oncontributions to not-for-profit organisations. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 19,
179-196.
Powell, R. A., & Single, H. M. (1996). Focus groups. International Journal for Quality in HealthCare, 8(5), 499-504.
Regan, D. T., Williams, M., & Sparling, S. (1972). Voluntary Expiation of Guilt: A Field
Experiment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24(1), 42-45.
Reingen, P. H. (1982). Test of a list procedure for inducing compliance with a request to
donate money. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 110-118.
Satow, K. L. (1975). Social approval and helping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
11, 501-509.
Schlegelmilch, B. B., Love, A., & Diamantopoulos, A. (1997). Responses to different charity
appeals: the impact of donor characteristics on the amount of donations. European
Journal of Marketing, 31(8), 548-560.
Sim, I., Ghoh, C., Loh, A., & Chiu, M. (2015). The Social Service Sector in Singapore: An
Exploratory Study on the Financial Characteristics of Institutions of a Public Character(IPCs) in the Social Service Sector. Retrieved from http://www.fas.nus.edu.sg/swk/
csda/Social%20Service%20Sector_CSDA.pdf
Simmons, W. O., & Emanuele, R. (2004). Does government spending crowd out donations oftime and money? Public Finance Review, 32(5), 498-511.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 2016

78

Simon, A. F. (1997). Television news and international earthquake relief. Journal ofCommunication, 47(3), 82-93.
Singapore Children’s Society raises record S$3.2 million. (2015, March 11). Channel NewsAsia.
Retrieved from http://sgvolunteer.com/2015/03/singapore-childrens-society-raisesrecord-s3-2-million/
Singaporeans more likely to donate at year-end: NVPC. (2015, February 5). TODAY. Retrieved
from
http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/singaporeans-more-likely-donateyear-end-nvpc
Sloan, M. F. (2008). The effects of Nonprofit accountability ratings on donor behavior.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(2), 220-236.
Small, D. A., & Simonsohn, U. (2006). Friends of victims: Personal experience and prosocial
behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 532-542.
Smithson, J. (2000). Using and analysing focus groups: Limitations and possibilities.
International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 3:2, 103-119,
Soetevent, A. R. (2005). Anonymity in giving in a natural context—A field experiment in 30
churches. Journal of Public Economics, 89(11-12), 2301-2323.
Stewart, D. W., Shamdasani, P. N., & Rook, D. W. (2007). Focus groups: Theory and practice.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (2014). Focus groups: Theory and practice (Third Edition).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures fordeveloping grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Tan, T. (2003, December 24). Donations up despite hard times; Singaporeans gave $382
million last year – up from $242 million in 1998. Individuals gave a third of the amount.
The Straits Times. Retrieved from LexisNexis Academic database.
Tan, T. (2009, January 23). More tax sweeteners for those who give to charity. The Straits
Times. Retrieved from LexisNexis Academic database.
Tay, K. (2015, April 18). Corporate needed in non-profit space. The Business Times. Retrieved
from http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/companies-markets/corporates-needed-innon-profit-space
Tee, H. C. (2002, October 30). Heritage donors to get bigger tax breaks. The Straits Times.
Retrieved from LexisNexis Academic database.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

79 CSDA REPORT 2016

Tiehen, L. (2001). Tax policy and charitable contributions of money. National Tax Journal,
54(4), 707-723.
Van Diepen, M., Donkers, B., & Franses, P. H. (2009). Does irritation induced by charitabledirect mailings reduce donations? International Journal of Research in Marketing,26(3), 180-188.
Wiepking, P. (2008a). For the love of mankind. A sociological study on charitable giving.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Philanthropic Studies, VU University
Amsterdam: Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Wiepking, P. (2008b). Picturing generosity: National campaigns for charitable causes in the
Netherlands. For the love of mankind. A sociological study on charitable giving (pp.
73-94). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Philanthropic Studies, VU
University Amsterdam: Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Wiepking, P. (2010). Giving to particular charitable organisations: Do materialists support
local organisations and do democrats donate to animal protection? Social Science
Research. Prepublished June 18, 2010.
Wiepking, P., & Maas, I. (2009, June). Resources that make you generous: Effects of humanand social resources on charitable giving. Social Forces, 87(4), 1973-1996.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 201680

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CSDA gratefully acknowledges the contributionsof the Resource Committee Members,
Reviewers, and CSDA Staff.

RESOURCE COMMITTEECHAIRPERSONREVIEWERSRESOURCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Department of Social Work, Faculty of Arts
and Social Sciences, National University ofSingapore
A/P Esther Goh
Dr. Sushilan Vasoo

Centre for Social Development Asia (CSDA)
Dr. Isabel Sim

Ministry of Social and Family Development
Ms. Ang Bee Lian

Charity Council
Mr. Gerard Ee

CSDA STAFF

Centre for Social Development Asia (CSDA)
A/P Corinne Ghoh

Ministry of Culture, Community and YouthMs. Sim Hui Ting
Ms. Kelly Teo

Ms. Joanne Liang Mingzhu
Ms. Tan Shi Hui
Mr. Vincent Yang

Ministry of Health
Ms. Poh Lay Chin
Ministry of Social and Family Development
Mr. Cheng Tai Chin
Mr. Barry Ryan ShahNational Volunteer and Philanthropy
CentreMs. Choy Yee Mun
National Council of Social Service
Ms. Lorraine Chue
NUS Business School
A/P Alfred Loh© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

81 CSDA REPORT 2016

Department of Sociology, Faculty of Arts
and Social Sciences, National University ofSingapore
Ms. Persa Labeeba Chowdhury
Ms. Choy Yun Zhen
Ms. Lim Swee Yee
Ms. Claribel Low Sin Yee
CSDA gratefully acknowledges the contributions Ms. Ng Li Yinof multi-disciplinary interns from the National Mr. Quinten Jad Roslen Wei Rong
University of Singapore.
Mr. Tan Chongsheng Micah
Ms. Joy Wang Xin Yuan
Mr. Rick Yang Qingbin

INTERNS

Department of Communications and New
Media, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences,
National University of Singapore
Ms. Neo Yee Win
Ms. Ng Hong Wen
Department of English Language andLiterature, Faculty of Arts and Social
Sciences, National University of Singapore
Ms. Wong Jin Yi
Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Arts
and Social Sciences, National University ofSingapore
Mr. Sebastian Ang Cheng Hui
Department of Political Science, Facultyof Arts and Social Sciences, National
University of Singapore
Ms. Charmaine Phua Li Jie
Department of Psychology, Faculty of Arts
and Social Sciences, National University ofSingapore
Mr. Leuar Kok Hon
Mr. Ng Ching Siang
Ms. Sakshi Dovedy
Mr. Teo King Hwee

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

Department of Statistics and Applied
Probability, Faculty of Science, National
University of Singapore
Mr. Gregory Ang Tai Xiang
Ms. Dong Wei
Ms. Fang Qianyao
Mr. Liu Chenxi
Mr. Alvin Ng Jin Hui
Mr. Ong Qin Li
Ms. Sim Hui Ping
Ms. Toh Yan Ling
Mr. Yuen Jing ShengCSDA REPORT 2016

82

PARTICIPANTS AND VENUEFOR FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONSCSDA gratefully acknowledges the contributions of organisations and participants
who took part in the pilot test and the focus group discussions. They are:
• The National Youth Council for providing the venue for the pilot test and theBone Marrow Donor Programme for providing the venue for the five focus
group discussions.
• The four organisations’ participants who took part in the focus group pilot
test at National Youth Council. The 34 participants who took part in the five
focus group discussions. Four focus group participants who graciously gave
their consents and permissions to publish their names, organisations, andquotes in the report.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

83 CSDA REPORT 2016

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dr. Isabel Sim

Ms. Usha Menon

Dr. Isabel Sim is Senior Research
Fellow, Department of Social Work,
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences,
National University of Singapore aswell as Director (Projects), Centre forSocial Development (Asia). She served
as Head of Corporate Governance
Practice, Centre for Governance,
Institutions and Organisations (CGIO)
and Senior Lecturer, Department ofStrategy and Policy, NUS Business
School from 2012 to 2014. She
obtained her PhD from The Universityof Western Australia.

Ms. Usha Menon is the Executive
Chairman of Usha Menon Management
Consultancy (Asia), an international
training and consultancy service
working exclusively with social-impact
organisations. She has been an active
global participant in the nonprofit sector
over the past 28 years and hence brings
a wealth of multi-country experience,
insight, and expertise on governance,
management and fundraising. Usha hashelped numerous NPOs to expand theirfundraising capabilities in-country andacross borders.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 2016

84

Dr. Alfred Loh
Dr. Alfred Loh (FCA, Singapore; FCPA,
Australia) is Associate Professor at
the Department of Accounting, NUS
Business School. He served as the Head,
Department of Accounting from 2007
to 2012. He obtained his PhD from The
University of Western Australia.

Dr. Hoe Siu Loon
Dr. Hoe Siu Loon is a Member at theInstitute of Systems Science, National
University of Singapore. He is a former
Research Fellow and Tutor on the
adjunct faculty of The University ofWestern Australia Business School andcurrently serves on the editorial boardsof several international journals. Prior
to joining academia, he has held various
managerial roles in the industry. He
obtained his PhD from The Universityof Western Australia.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

85 CSDA REPORT 2016

About CSDAABOUT THIS REPORTThis report is an outcome of a three-year
collaboration between the Chartered Instituteof Management Accountants (CIMA) and theCentre for Social Development Asia (CSDA)
at the Department of Social Work, Faculty ofArts and Social Sciences, National Universityof Singapore.

The Centre for Social Development Asia (CSDA)
was launched in July 2007 by then Minister for
Finance Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam. It is
under the purview of the Department of Social
Work, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences,
National University of Singapore. The Centre
was established in collaboration with theCentre for Social Development, George Warren
Brown School of Social Work, Washington
University in St Louis. The primary missionof CSDA is applied research and knowledge
building to inform policies and programmes insocial development, with a focus on Asia.

Disclaimer
The information contained in this publication
is provided for general purposes only andpublished in good faith for the benefit ofcharities in Singapore. Whilst every effort has
been made to ensure that the informationis accurate at the time of publication, thepublishers wish to highlight that the content isfor general guidance only and does not aim tobe comprehensive or exhaustive. The publisher
accepts no responsibility for any loss, which
may arise from information contained within
the publication. This report does not necessarilyreflect the views of the management or
members of CIMA and NUS.

It seeks to examine the fundraising practices of
Health, Social and Welfare IPCs in Singapore.
It covers Singapore’s charity and fundraisinglandscape, a quantitative research on thedisclosure of fundraising practices and aqualitative research on fundraising manpower,
fundraising methods, donor engagement,
fundraising disclosure and compliance, andfundraising challenges. The findings of thequantitative research are based on 126 IPCs
from FY2012 to FY2014, while the findings ofthe qualitative research are based on 34 IPCs,
obtained from five focus groups. Discussions,limitations and future research for each of the
Published and All Rights Reserved by
two exploratory studies are also covered.
Department of Social Work, Faculty of Arts
The report aims to uncover the key fundraising and Social Sciences, National University ofchallenges faced by charities. Hopefully, it can Singapore, 2016. No part of this publication
serve as a resource for the various stakeholders may be reproduced, in any format, without
prior written permission. Please contact Centre
in the nonprofit sector.
for Social Development Asia (CSDA) for details.

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

CSDA REPORT 2016

86

NOTES

© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.

87 CSDA REPORT 2016

Chartered Institute ofManagement Accountants (CIMA)
50 Raffles Place, Level 30,
Singapore Land Tower
Singapore 048623
T. (65) 6824 8252
F. (65) 6632 3600
E. singapore@cimaglobal.com

Centre for Social Development
Asia (CSDA)
Department of Social Work
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
National University of Singapore
AS3 Level 4, 3 Arts Link
Singapore 117570
T. (65) 6516 3812
F. (65) 6778 1213
E. swksec@nus.edu.sg© Copyright 2016 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved.