News

Nine out of ten chuggers ignore disclosure law, says Intelligent Giving

Fundraising | Tania Mason | 3 Dec 2008

Just four of the 50 face-to-face fundraisers ‘mystery shopped' by researchers from Intelligent Giving over the last six weeks followed the law in providing unprompted information about being paid to do their job, its director has claimed.

Adam Rothwell said that the four fundraisers, all from agency Dialogue Direct, volunteered the information that they or their agency were paid, and offered an approximate figure, as the recent Charities Act states they must. A further six admitted they were paid but failed to give an amount.

Of the remaining 80 per cent, three fundraisers (6 per cent) said they were unpaid volunteers, despite evidence to the contrary. One avoided the researcher's questions and gave no information, and the rest (72 per cent) said they were paid but only after the researcher asked them.

Rothwell said his researchers did not sign up to donate to any of the charities, and he accepted that fundraisers are only required to disclose that they are paid once the donor has agreed to donate, though before they sign the form. But he said his researchers gave the fundraisers "every opportunity" to make the disclosure .

"We pushed our conversations as far as we could, right up to them getting the forms out," Rothwell said. "But I suppose people might say they were going to make the disclosure in the last half-second before handing the researcher the pen."

Research ‘flawed'

Mick Aldridge, chief executive of the Public Fundraising Regulatory Association (pictured right), said that was the fatal flaw in the research. "Yes, fundraisers have to give the legal disclosure before the donor signs, but only after they agree to become a donor. If Intelligent Giving's researchers never got to the stage of agreeing to sign, then the fundraiser wasn't required to say anything about payment."

He said the allegation that over 90 per cent of fundraisers disobey the law on payment disclosure was "ridiculous".

"We are aware they are not all perfect and that sometimes some of them omit the disclosure, but it's certainly not 90 per cent of them. Our own research shows it's more like 10 to 15 per cent, which is still important, but it's a small problem."

High politeness scores

Other findings in the study were that 46 of the 50 scored 80 per cent or higher for politeness, but four also got high marks on the harassment scale. Two fundraisers tried to obstruct the researchers when they attempted to walk away.

Nearly a quarter of fundraisers did not have good knowledge about the charity they represented - one did not know what the W stood for in WRVS - and eight misled the prospect.

One fundraiser was recruiting over-29s only and tried to get the researcher to lie about her date of birth on the direct debit form.

Chuggers recruiting chuggers

And the most unexpected outcome, according to Rothwell, was that six of the fundraisers tried to recruit the researchers as new fundraisers for their agencies. "One researcher actually had to remind a fundraiser to tell her about the organisation," he said.

Rothwell concluded: "Although agencies and the PFRA like to say that face-to-face offers a good way for charities to explain their work and engage with supporters, our survey shows this to be fiction. Chuggers are placed under enormous pressure to raise cash - and as a result, their ethics suffer.

"The majority of chuggers we spoke to flouted the Institute's code, many of them obstructed us or failed to terminate conversations on request, and a minority flat-out lied about their work."

Quality runs at 85-90 per cent, says PFRA

According to Aldridge, the PFRA's own regular research shows that quality of fundraising runs at an average of around 85 to 90 per cent across all indicators. The research, carried out by independent agency Mystery Shopping Ltd, sees 12 to 15 fundraisers sampled each month, those these volumes are to increase in the new year.

"Courtesy and product knowledge is always high, but sometimes the technical stuff does get overlooked, and we have to have a quiet word with the agency concerned," said Aldridge. "But fundraisers deliberately misleading the donor is as rare as hen's teeth."

Tweet

Directory: Intelligent Giving | The Public Fundraising Regulatory Association (PFRA) | WRVS
Who's Who: Adam Rothwell | Tania Mason | Mick Aldridge