Share

PFRA not invited to Institute summit on future of face-to-face

PFRA not invited to Institute summit on future of face-to-face
News

PFRA not invited to Institute summit on future of face-to-face

Fundraising | Celina Ribeiro | 10 Jul 2012

The Institute of Fundraising is to host a summit about face-to-face fundraising as a technique, but has not invited or consulted the organisation tasked with regulating face-to-face.

The IoF yesterday announced that in light of media exposure of face-to-face fundraisers failing to meet standards it will hold a summit on the issue on 23 July. The Public Fundraising Regulatory Association, set up to regulate and enforce standards in face-to-face fundraising, has thus far not been invited to attend and was not involved in the summit’s planning.

The summit will look at how face-to-face is faring for charities, how charities feel about it and whether there needs to be any changes to the regulatory regime, or how the benefits of the technique is communicated to the public and decision-makers, to ensure its long-term health.

Peter Lewis, chief executive of the Institute, said the recent media coverage “has led to a wider debate about the value of face-to-face fundraising as a technique at all".

He said: “Now would seem a good time to take a step back, review the public’s experience of face-to-face fundraising, it’s financial importance to the sector and whether there are steps that we should be taking as the sector, or as the Institute, to ensure high standards are complied with and the public’s trust and confidence is maintained.”

Catherine Pusey, interim chief executive of the PFRA, confirmed that her organisation had not been involved in the planning of the event. “It hasn’t been done in a collaborative manner,” she said. “We are in conversation with the IoF and hope that we will be invited.”

Pusey defended the role and track record of the PFRA in monitoring and maintaining standards in face-to-face fundraising. “The PFRA was set up by charity members of the IoF to maintain and sustain public trust in face-to-face fundraising. Of our members the significant majority are charities that use face-to-face fundraising and we have a good track record of regulation. So to hold a summit with charities represented but without the PFRA seems to us to be likely to deliver an incomplete picture,” she said.

“We would be prepared to send a representative and the Institute is aware of that.”

The Institute’s Lewis told civilsociety.co.uk it is important to host the discussions among charities alone so as to allow full and frank discussions about the present state and future of face-to-face.

“It’s a first step in a process. It’s just us getting our members together to talk about it first and giving them some absolutely free space to do that,” he said. “To a certain extent the PFRA are a regulator, and when we discussed it with a few people they said they would prefer to have it just the charity fundraising directors to have a totally free and frank discussion. I’m sure at a later stage we will take it forward involving the PFRA and the FRSB.”

Lewis said that if the charity attendees agree, the PFRA and FRSB may be invited as observers to the summit.

Recent controversies

Face-to-face fundraising has, in recent years, typically inspired more column inches than other fundraising techniques, with recent scandals involving a Daily Telegraph expose about face-to-face training and behaviour which was in breach of the code of conduct, and another story which broke in recent weeks about fundraisers misleading donors about which charity they support.

At the PFRA’s own annual general meeting last month, head of standards and allocations Nick Henry admitted that the organisation has witnessed a drop in street fundraising standards over the past three years.

Earlier this year the PFRA delayed the implementation of a system of monetary fines for breaches of the code of practice on face-to-face fundraising on both the street and doorstep in order to accommodate the Institute’s plan to consolidate all its codes of practice into one. 

Comments

[Cancel] | Reply to:

Close »

Community Standards

The civilsociety.co.uk community and comments board is intended as a platform for informed and civilised debate.

We hope to encourage a broad range of views, however, there are standards that we expect commentators to uphold. We reserve the right to delete or amend any comments that do not adhere to these standards.

We welcome:

  • Robust but respectful debate
  • Strongly held opinions
  • Intelligent relevant discussion
  • The sharing of relevant experiences
  • New participants

We will not publish:

  • Rude, threatening, offensive, obscene or abusive language, or links to such material
  • Links to commercial organisations or spam postings. The comments board is not an advertising platform
  • The posting of contact details for yourself or others
  • Comments intended for malicious purpose or mindless abuse
  • Comments purporting to be from another person or organisation under false pretences
  • Gratuitous criticism, commentary or self-promotion
  • Any material which breaches copyright or privacy laws, or could be considered libellous
  • The use of the comments board for the pursuit or extension of personal disputes

Be aware:

  • Views expressed on the comments board are left at users’ discretion and are in no way views held or supported by Civil Society Media
  • Comments left by others may not be accurate, do not rely on them as fact
  • You may be misunderstood - sarcasm and humour can easily be taken out of context, try to be clear

Please:

  • Enjoy the opportunity to express your opinion and respect the right of others to express theirs
  • Confine your remarks to issues rather than personalities

Together we can keep our community a polite, respectful and intelligent platform for discussion.

Free eNews

Nandy demands PM inquiry into Big Society Network grants

24 Jul 2014

Lisa Nandy, the shadow minister for civil society, has written to David Cameron demanding an inquiry into...

Nesta: ‘We were not forced to fund Big Society Network’

24 Jul 2014

Nesta has denied a claim by a former board member that it was “forced” to provide start-up funding...

Barnardo's launches retail gift aid appeal

23 Jul 2014

Barnardo’s has launched an appeal to raise awareness of retail gift aid and the extra £6.5m that could...

Nandy demands PM inquiry into Big Society Network grants

24 Jul 2014

Lisa Nandy, the shadow minister for civil society, has written to David Cameron demanding an inquiry into...

Workfare charities set to be named after Tribunal rules against DWP

23 Jul 2014

Charities that are involved in the workfare programme run by the Department for Work and Pensions look...

Dove Trust charities will be paid a third of what they are owed

23 Jul 2014

The charities and good causes owed money by the Dove Trust, owner of the suspended fundraising website...

Greenpeace video removed from YouTube following copyright claim

14 Jul 2014

A campaign video by Greenpeace against Lego’s relationship with Shell has been subject to a copyright...

Oxfam advert removed after appearing before extremist videos

10 Jul 2014

Oxfam has removed one of its adverts from YouTube after it was shown on channels showing content from...

Data protection proposals 'potentially catastrophic' for fundraising

8 Jul 2014

EU data protection proposals could have a “potentially catastrophic” impact on charity fundraising,...

Join the discussion

Twitter button

@CSFundraising