Carrot and stick
21 May 2012
Community isn't led by government, so why wait for it to tell you what to do, protests Robert Ashton....
Does the charity sector need quite so many bodies representing and regulating its activities? Paul Amadi thinks not.
During my five years as a trustee of the Institute of Fundraising, the latter two as chairman, a regular item on the board agenda was our relationship with other sector bodies.
Typically (and appropriately), the debate would be about how we could work collaboratively with our colleagues at the Public Fundraising Regulatory Association, the Fundraising Standards Board and others. But when I look back on these debates now, particularly from the perspective of a director of fundraising with a squeezed budget and an expectation of utmost efficiency in our use of our supporters’ money, I wonder whether it’s not now time for the sector to start asking itself some overdue questions about whether our regulatory framework is still fit for purpose.
This year the NSPCC will pay subscriptions to the IoF, the FRSB, pay a charge per donor to the PFRA and technically, as we have a small number of shops, we should be members of the Charity Retail Association. In total, we’ll pay out close to £100,000 of our supporters’ money to the organisations above and I’m sure other large charities face similar bills.
Surely the time has come to ask: is this sustainable, is this is right and how would donors feel about this if they knew? Is it not time we had a grown-up and transparent debate about whether this is working for everybody outside of these organisations?
Should there not be a dialogue about whether the PFRA and the Charity Retail Association should and could merge with the Institute of Fundraising? Undeniably each body has a job to do but could it be done more efficiently in a merged body?
The same question could be applied to the FRSB, whose self-regulatory function could arguably be recreated by the IoF. On cost grounds alone there are compelling reasons to explore this as an option. In 2009, according to it’s annual report, only 19 of all the complaints received by the FRSB were dealt with at an official level, and of those none went to board adjudication. Which, given the annual running costs of the FRSB are approximately £570,000, means each complaint resolved by FRSB officers and the charities themselves and not adjudicated at board-level costs about £30,000.
Of course self-regulation must continue but the IoF’s Standards Board has developed a set of highly-respected and vital codes of fundraising practice which in due course will lead to higher standards and greater conformity to the very best practice.
Self-regulation absolutely depends upon voluntary, co-operative effort by IoF members without whom the
codes would not be created. Those standards highlighted in the codes need not rely for their maintenance on a bureaucracy whose purpose is to sit in adjudication when those odes are breached. I cannot believe that our sector cannot find a group of expert individuals who would sit on a small but perfectly-formed independent panel and adjudicate on appeals for free.
After all, given past experience, they would not have to meet very often.
To be clear, while advocating debate around merger and reform, I do so mindful that some of the activities of the individual organisations above will need to continue. But sharing back-room functions – let alone savings on buildings and numerous chief executives and support staff – will result in cost savings. Ought not one subscription for one organisation be the order of the day?
And while posing these questions, there’s an even more fundamental issue to address: One day, I wonder whether Acevo, CFDG and the IoF could eventually form an Institute for all those that work in charities. Could Charities Aid Foundation re-merge with NCVO giving the latter powerful independent resources and therefore be better able to represent us all?
Maybe one day, maybe not yet.
Still, our leaders should certainly be thinking about the future landscape of our wonderful sector.
Paul Amadi is director of fundraising at the NSPCC and a trustee of the Institute of Fundraising. He is writing in a personal capacity.
Hugh C Mccaw FInstF
Founder
R Fundraising
2 Dec 2011
As usual Paul articulates a position which is well thought through and informed by experience. It is a position many of us have discussed over the years, clearly agree with, but not communicated as comprehensively and with such clarity. Well done Paul and thank you.
Sarah Sandon
Head of Fundraising
Progressio
16 Aug 2011
I agree with Paul Amadi. It is costly to have so many memberships to subscribe to. No one intended a series of job creation schemes that the sector should fund, did they?
Anon
9 Jun 2011
What a breath of fresh air.
Agree! But £100,000 a year sounds like a lot. Is this really true?? As an NSPCC donor I'd hate to think my money goes to the Institute of Fundraising, much less the PFRA!
21 May 2012
Community isn't led by government, so why wait for it to tell you what to do, protests Robert Ashton....
21 May 2012
How do you solve a problem like a pension deficit? David McHattie tackles the issue.
15 May 2012
David Davison mounts his soapbox to call for pensions reform.
24 May 2012
Charities, like businesses should be held to account over their environmental standards, says Katy Wing.
21 May 2012
Community isn't led by government, so why wait for it to tell you what to do, protests Robert Ashton....
17 May 2012
Men may have ruled the political panel, but women packed the punches from the audience in the Civil Society...
15 Oct 2012
15 Oct 2012
15 Oct 2012
19 Nov 2012
Angie Willems
Trustee
Coventry Cat Group
14 Jan 2012
Absolutely! Too much comes between the donation and the charity. The big boys may be able to afford huge bungs due to economies of scales but certainly us poor cousins surviving on £20K a year (with luck!) cannot even register with any of these fundraising groups. I'm sure the people who do donate to us would love it if I told them we would only a pennies of their £10 donations.
What a shame charity has become such big business.
[Reply]