Intelligent Giving criticises 'ignorant' face to face fundraisers
Charity-advisory website Intelligent Giving claims that many of the face-to-face fundraisers (or "chuggers" as it refers to them on its blog) that its researchers met in a mystery shopper exercise in central London are failing to adhere to the relevant legislation and professional codes of practice.
After the six-week research in October and November, the website concludes "never give to street fundraisers", and advises the public to make donations via a charity's website.
Intelligent Giving surveyed 50 face-to-face fundraisers. As explained in its methodology, it tested them to see how far they complied with the Charities Acts 1992 and 2006, the Institute of Fundraising's Face-to-Face Activity Code of Practice and the code of conduct of the Professional Fundraising Regulatory Association.
On the requirement for face-to-face fundraisers to state that they are being paid, how much and on what basis (whether it is commission), Intelligent Giving's researchers found that "only four of our fifty fundraisers gave this satisfactory 'solicitation statement' without being asked."
Furthermore, the researchers concluded that "chuggers don't always know much about the charities they represent", contrasting this with the usually well-informed approach of in-house fundraisers, and that they can be rude: "fifteen of our fundraisers would not leave our researchers alone when asked."
In a blog post entitled Ignorant chuggers risk damaging all charities, Intelligent Giving's Director Adam Rothwell commented: "It's a disgrace to the fundraising profession that some of them were prepared to lie about their earnings in an attempt to get our researchers to stump up a donation. And the level of general compliance with professional standards was distressingly low."
However, the survey's publication has caused debate and concern amongst fundraisers on online communities such as Facebook. As Robert Booth in The Guardian noted, "In 2006 a quarter of Shelter's income came from street fundraisers and 75% of Greenpeace's new members were recruited this way between 2000 and 2003". Public criticism of the method based on a survey sample of 50 could have serious results for some charities if the public were to lose confidence in this method of giving.
Mick Aldridge, chief executive of the Public Fundraising Regulatory Association, the self-regulatory body for face-to-face fundraising by charities and professional fundraising organisations, described the survey's publication as "grossly irresponsible".
- Email this page
- 7135 reads
Keep up to date
Advertisement
Latest advertorials
UK Fundraising Social Links
Your UK Fundraising
UK Fundraising - improving the effectiveness of charity and non-profit fundraisers
Comments
F2F debate on Ian MacQuillin's blog
The debate about Intelligent Giving's research and its interpretation and effects has now moved on to Ian MacQuillin's blog on UK Fundraising:
www.fundraising.co.uk/node/176916
Howard Lake @howardlake www.fundraising.co.uk
Three charities respond to Intelligent Giving criticisms
Adam Rothwell reports in Chuggers: the response from the charity sector that three charities have responded to his report's criticism:
"...WRVS has said that it will look again at how it trains its chuggers. Scope has likewise said it will try to stop such incidents happening again. And Great Ormond Street Hospital has said it will investigate our complaints".
Rothwell concludes: "I think that’s a pretty good result".
Howard Lake @howardlake www.fundraising.co.uk
Guardian polls on boycotting F2F fundraisers
The Guardian has now launched a poll asking "Will you boycott chuggers?"
"Charity watchdog Intelligent Giving urges the public to boycott chuggers, saying almost all are breaking the law. But street fundraisers raise more than £20m a year. Do you avoid them?"
Currently the results are 69% for "Yes. Chug off" and 31% for "No. They're doing a valuable job".
I've just voted. You can too.
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/poll/2008/nov/24/charitablegiving-volun...
Howard Lake @howardlake www.fundraising.co.uk
Poll win for face-to-face - just!
The poll has now closed with 50.8% of respondents saying that they would not boycott face-to-face fundraisers, and 49.2% saying they would.
Right. Look forward to the Guardian's next poll inviting the public to boycott fundraising by charities that use direct marketing ("don't invade my letterbox"), raffles ("not another one"), prospect research ("too intrusive/how come the charity can find out so much about me?"), events ("I'm too busy to come"), legacies ("how dare you remind me about my death"), telephone ("stop calling me in the evenings"), trading ("stop spending charity money on producing t-shirts")...
What? You can find lots of people who don't like a particular method of fundraising? I think I worked that out in my first week as a professional fundraiser.
I know. If face-to-face is so very wrong, let's see how many of the 49.2% would refuse charity services funded by face-to-face income. Hospice care, mental health counselling, debt advice, cancer research and treatment?
No? Thought not.
Howard Lake @howardlake www.fundraising.co.uk
Intelligent Giving critcisms of face-to-face
Dear Howard - some readers may be interested in the content of this standard 'blog response' I have also composed:
As the Chief Exec of the PFRA I feel constrained to make a few corrective points regarding this report and others published elsewhere in a similar (mis-informed) vein.
Firstly, it’s a considerable pity Robert Booth of the Guardian’ chose not to use any of the material he garnered from me in our 20 minute conversation; it’s also a pity that Adam Rothwell simply doesn’t understand the law (let alone the basic mechanics of charity fundraising). For the record, and contrary to what has been published here and in several outlets, at least with regard to the ‘disclosure’ that a fundraiser may or not be paid is concerned, no law was broken and no Code of Conduct was ignored in any of the interactions Adam’s so-called ‘mystery shoppers’ undertook. The revised government Guidance on what and how to ‘disclose’ is still yet to be published, but the most recent draft states quite clearly that (paragraph 2.8.1) although “a solicitation statement must accompany each solicitation made by a professional fund-raiser... [ this ] … means it must be made … prior to the donation being given” and (paragraph 2.8.2) “There is generally no statutory requirement as to the form the statement must take”. Contrary to what Adam asserts, this is not a ‘new’ requirement, but a restating of the law as it has stood since 1992, since which time it has always been understood that a disclosure need not be given unless and until a donor agrees to sign the DD mandate. As by his own admission none of Adam’s little helpers actually committed to give, none of them were even legally entitled to a disclsoure; there is ‘no case to answer’.
Above and beyond that, it is important to note that Adam cannot even interpret his own results properly. According to his own website, the vast majority of fundraisers were polite, efficient, well-informed and effective – so the problem is? He claims 30% of them were “too pushy” but frankly that it is a matter of opinion – one man’s “pushy” is another man’s “enthusiastic”; and anyway, it’s fewer than a third i.e. a mild concern, but not a big issue.
He claims that face-to-face is “too expensive” – but fails to comprehend (and certainly fails to admit) that all fundraising – mail, telephones, adverts – costs money, that all charities which use face-to-face do so because their Trustees can demonstrate (as they are required by the Charity Commission to do by law) that it is cost-effective and an appropriate use of funds, and that it enables upwards of 250,000 people a year make an informed choice to give to around £25m to a deserving cause; people who, by and large, do not respond to other traditional communications like mail or advertising. One human speaking passionatley to another conevys more information than a 1000 web-pages.
And that is the crux of what this is all about. Intelligent Giving only has any point if it can drag viewers to its site to view it’s measly 500 or so charity comparisons (out of 200,000 registered charities – it blithely ignores those that aren’t big name traffic pullers). Because it’s research is so poor and its opinions so ludicrous the only alternative is to stir up controversies – usually where none exist – in the hope of some free coverage; which is precisely what has happened here. Face to face fundraisers brave all weathers and all sorts of public opinion to do an essential job professionally – raising at least £100m from at least 2m new donors over the last 8 years. Money that would otherwise not have been raised. Homeless people who would not have been fed, depressed people who would not have been counselled, disabled people who would not have been given opportunities – people who Adam would rather see suffer than admit that his own prejudices are unfounded; that actually face-to-face works, that most people aren’t that bothered by it, and that by and large people trust charities to do their jobs well without needing advice from self-appointed so-called “watchdogs”.
Interview with Adam Rothwell
UK Fundraising met up with Adam Rothwell at yesterday evening's nfptweetup in London's Soho to ask him about his research. I asked him:
* why did he undertake the research?
* what did he find?
* did he expect such results?
* if the results were so damaging, why did he go public? Should he have presented the findings first to charities and their agencies?
* given that face-to-face continues to generate large sums of regular income for charities, was he acting responsibly in asking the public to stop giving in this way? Especially given that the survey sample consisted of just 50 fundraisers?
* others have described Intelligent Giving as a charity watchdog. Does he see it has having that role?
* what can charities and their agencies do better?
* does the public *really* care about face to face giving? There are outspoken critics but the public continues to give.
The interview was conducted in a pub (the venue for the evening event), so apologies for the background noise and activity.
Howard Lake @howardlake www.fundraising.co.uk
PFRA responds
Mick Aldridge of the Public Fundraising Regulatory Association yesterday issued the following response to Intelligent Giving's research and its coverage in The Guardian.
The PFRA is deeply disappointed that the Guardian has seen fit to place such a negative spin on the otherwise intriguing “research” re face-to-face fundraising (F2F) promulgated by Adam Rothwell and Intelligent Giving.
The accusations contained in this article are the result of a fundamental, deliberate, and malicious misunderstanding of the law and best practice, which perhaps reflect Adam’s equally fundamental – and irrational – prejudice against face-to-face fundraising; a medium, which, it must be remembered, has recruited at least 2m new donors, pledging at least £100m to dozens of charities and good causes over the last 11 years, from otherwise unresponsive and unengaged demographics.
For the record, the key phrase is “the amount of remuneration must be revealed before a donor has authorised [ our emphasis ] an agreement to donate”. Crucially, “authorised” in this context means being asked to sign, and it is the established practice of all PFRA members that the donor’s attention is drawn to the legal disclosure before they are invited to sign the DD mandate. That this is acceptable in law has been established in correspondence with the Charity Commission going back to at least 2004, and in the ‘example disclosures’ quoted in the new Solicitation Statement Guidance shortly to be published by the Office of the Third Sector, to which the PFRA, as part of the drafting committee, has been privy. IG have admitted that none of the interactions conducted were taken to conclusion i.e. no-one “agreed” to donate, therefore in none of the interactions was the ‘donor’ legally entitled to a Disclosure; therefore this aspect of the “research” and the conclusions that flow from it are utterly groundless.
Politeness (1 = low / 5 = high)
Ave (Mean) 4.72
Ave (Mode) 5
“Aggression” (1 = low / 5 = high)
Ave (Mean) 1.78
Ave (Mode) 1
Visible Branding (%age)
Ave (Mean) 98
“Disrepute” (%age)
Ave (Mean) 10
“Polite Termination” (%age)
Ave (Mean) 70
All of which would suggest that almost universally face-to-face fundraisers are polite, non-threatening, clearly-visible and more often than not willing to terminate an interaction without incident. Not at all what was reported in the article. While there is obviously a concern that an alleged 10% of interactions “bring the charity into disrepute”, and an alleged 30% of interactions are terminated ‘non-politely’, which would suggest there is some work to do, the criteria in each case are obviously entirely subjective and open to personal interpretation – and do not, overall, chime with the consistently more positive findings from our own Mystery Shopping which we have conducted every month for the past 3 years.
The fact is that Adam cannot even interpret his own research results properly, such is the extent of his personal prejudice against face-to-face. Adam is the epitome of power without responsibility, someone who has appointed himself a moral crusader so he can try and second-guess not only the entire charity sector but also both the Government and the Charity Commission (which, it should be remembered, sit on the PFRA’s Board of Management and advise on our development and monitoring of practice). Intelligent Giving is not a “watchdog”, it is a vehicle for an opinionated individual to whom far too many give far too much credence. People are entitled to ask if threatening to undermine the fundraising viability of several of Britain’s most valued charities is a valid ‘purpose’ for a newly-registered charity which Intelligent Giving purports to be. If Adam were to have his way, ten of millions of Pounds would not reach charities which need and deserve public support, and ten of thousands of donors would be denied choice and empowerment in offering that support to causes which they cherish. Real people would suffer. That would be a tragedy, a scandal, and a disgrace.
Mick Aldridge
Chief Executive
Unit 11 Europoint
5-11 Lavington Street
London SE1 0NZ
t: 020 7401 8452
f: 020 7928 2925
www.pfra.org.uk
Howard Lake @howardlake www.fundraising.co.uk
Post new comment