July 2012
Following Lord Hodgson’s Review of the Charities Act 2006, Future Fundraising welcome the proposals outlined by the review that call for all Local Authorities to engage with the PFRA (the self-regulatory body for Face to Face fundraising) in order to set up approved Site Management Agreements. We feel this is a positive reinforcement of the PFRA’s existing management of site allocations for F2F.
His review also suggests that Face to Face fundraising should not be banned by Local Authorities, which of course we also welcome where is may assist in opening up currently blocked areas, such as parts of the West Midlands, where at present prospecting is allowed but traditional F2F activity is not condoned.
Lord Hodgson is also calling for the sector to adopt more self-regulation and is citing the PFRA as a good example of this working in practice, with a positive response from Local Authorities that have already engaged with them.
However, he is suggesting that FRSB & IoF drive the formation of a working group/standing committee that would oversee all Public Charitable collections, initially chaired by the Cabinet Office with core membership of Charity Commission, FRSB and IOF, extending to wider membership for others such as the PFRA, the Charity Retail Association, Textile Recycling Association (for clothing donations) and the LGA. This group would be tasked to devise recommendations on regulating all public charitable collections within the next 6 months. He has said PFRA and Face to Face collections should be brought into the licensing regime along with all other charitable collections (i.e. F2F, clothing collections, cash, etc.).
We suggest that our clients celebrate the successes of self-regulation as driven by PFRA (the Review highlights that the LGA reported 74% satisfaction among those authorities that use PFRA to manage site agreements), and the increased levels of transparency and accountability that the PFRA is helping the F2F sector achieve (DARS included!).
We need to caution that the PFRA is not side-lined when the FRSB and the IoF set up this review of how to extend self-regulation across the entire public fundraising spectrum. Future Fundraising advocates the PFRA’s association with the group, at such a point where membership is extended beyond the founding core bodies.
MK 19.07.12
Posted in blog, regular giving, Uncategorized
While it is good that self-regulation is recognized as playing a most significant role, at least for charities working abroad in less ethical environments under little or no scrutiny, more deterrence against bad practice is needed. Overseas aid needs to be used more effectively. If sensible standards are not willingly followed, as may be the case, then the Institute of Fundraising’s Codes of Fundraising Practice standards should be deemed to be admissible as part of the test by which trustees are judged. I refer to Lord Hodgson’s statement that “Charity trustees have a moral responsibility to put the assets and income raised to the best use that is reasonably possible”. (Page 22, Para 3.12 of his report.)
Thanks John for your comment.
Our sense is that the scale of issues around bad practice of F2F fundraisers is likely to stem from general perceptions of this activity, as opposed to the reality of a low ratio of complaints vs. benefits to the charities, which are perhaps not highlighted widely enough. As result the public’s perception is often that charities spend donors money irresponsibly or less than effectively, which is understandable when the public feel a duty of care is required in respect of donations made in good faith.
I would agree that more accountability and transparency on behalf of the Trustees could help improve the common view of how donations are spent by charities; the Charity Commission website is very helpful in this regard: http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/