Share

Paul Amadi suggests PFRA and FRSB should merge back into the Institute

Paul Amadi suggests PFRA and FRSB should merge back into the Institute
News

Paul Amadi suggests PFRA and FRSB should merge back into the Institute 6

Fundraising | Celina Ribeiro | 3 Jun 2011

Paul Amadi, director of fundraising at the NSPCC, has suggested that the number of regulatory and representative bodies in the charity sector is cumbersome and not cost-effective, and called for the sector bodies to consider merging.

Writing in a personal capacity in , published today on CivilSociety.co.uk, the former chair of the Institute of Fundraising says that charities can spend a large amount of donors' money on membership fees and levies to the Fundraising Standards Board, PFRA, the Institute and other sector bodies, and asks 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”.

The NSPCC, says Amadi, pays nearly £100,000 a year to various sector bodies – money which donors would probably prefer to be spent on the cause.

He suggests that the PFRA and FRSB, both of which were originally housed in the Institute of Fundraising, might serve charities more efficiently if they re-merged with the Institute, sharing, as a start, back-room functions and the like. Amadi says that given the low number of complaints which reach board level adjudication at the FRSB, the complaint adjudication function could be held by the Institute and conducted by volunteers.

Amadi goes further, suggesting that perhaps in future the Institute, CFDG and Acevo should consider merging into one organisation representing the whole gamut of the sector.

Simon Morrison, director of marketing and communications at the Institute, said that the organisation would not respond to the individual comments of a member.

“We continue to support the whole concept of self-regulation for the industry. It’s the best way forward,” he said.

Asked whether the Institute was looking into the prospect of re-merging, Morrison said. “That’s not something that’s even on our radar.”

Colin Lloyd, chairman of the FRSB, said that while Amadi “asks some valid questions”, the current situation serves the sector best.

“Self-regulation is and must continue to be a robust, independent scheme that does not just garner expertise from within the sector, but also considers the public’s views.  The FRSB’s real strength is its independence from the sector. It is headed up by an independent board, made up of both charity and lay representatives,” said Lloyd.
 
“It is by no means unique to the fundraising profession, that compliance with best practice standards is monitored by an entirely independent body to that which sets codes of practice. This independence and transparency is a critical factor in helping build public trust and confidence in charities across the sector.”

In Amadi’s piece he estimates in 2009 the FRSB cost-per-complaint handled by officers was around £30,000. The FRSB has responded that its fees are low and fair. “It is not helpful and far too simplistic to quote cost per complaint,” said Lloyd. “ The FRSB fee structure is on a sliding scale from as little as £30 per member to a maximum of £5,000 for the very largest charities. Our average audited fee is less than £330 per annum. This is a fee level that provides good value for money and is not excessive for giving public trust and confidence in giving.”

PFRA chair Michael Naidu said that Amadi is right to be questioning value for money and whether things might be done more efficiently.

"However, the political, legal and logistical landscape of face-to-face fundraising has changed radically since the PFRA separated from the IoF in 2003. I think Paul might be surprised by the complexity of the work we currently do in liaising with local councils to ensure sustainable fundraising access for charities and policing best practice standards,” said Naidu.

"On a point of governance, PFRA has 130 charity and agency members and each of those would need to vote on and approve any change to our constitution, such as merging with another sector body."

Eugence
7 Jun 2011

This is typical arrogance coming from the Institute of Fundraising. Are they really doing THAT great a job of what they're tasked with already that they should take on more responsibilities?

Nick Aldridge
7 Jun 2011

This makes a great deal of sense. The underlying structures must be very similar, and a merger would save members significant time and money by streamlining operations and membership schemes, allowing more money to go to the causes intended.

My only doubt is over the IoF, which "won't respond to the individual comments of a member" and doesn't have these issues "even on our radar". Why on earth not?

Rarry Revan
Ranter
Rantingrules
3 Jun 2011

I don't think that the FRSB or the PFRA should be part of the IoF. But then I don't think the Institute ever gave a rationale for why they sent them off to be seperate in the first place. Maybe if we understood that we could understand why Paul thinks it would be a good idea to have them back.

I worry about just having the Institute encompassing every area of the fundraising sector. With a fairly unaccoutable democratic structure we would never really know why certain decisions were made. Sounds like a receipe for a dictaorship. Do you think one of the candidates for the CEO role flew over first class from Libya?

Much love,

Rarry

Jonathan Sillett
3 Jun 2011

FRSB should remain independent - IoF is a friend to fundraisers whereas the FRSB needs to be a respectful policeman.

I can't see why the IoF, CFDG and Acevo shouldnt merge though

Ed
3 Jun 2011

Not only would merging these bodies produce cost savings for charities, it would also be simpler for donors and the general public; making charities appear more open and transparent.

Of course each existing body is highly specialised, but those specialisms can be maintained departmentally under the same roof quite easily.

Apart from self-interest, there is no reason to maintain the confusing status quo.

Nigel Edward-Few
Chief Executive
3 Jun 2011

I agree totally with Paul Amadi. There are indeed far too many para-charity organisations supposedly supporting the sector that consume vast amounts of public donations. I believe it is quite wrong to use such an undue amount of donor giving to be a member of so many such organisations.

I am a member of just two - ACEVO and the IOF - and that is sufficient; I get all that I need from them,personally and corporately. I see no point whatsoever in being a member of anything else. Indeed since taking up my current role, I have pulled out of several such organisations andsaved the charity money as a consequence.

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.

emailalert

Gift Aid Small Donations Scheme 'too complex to have real impact'

25 May 2012

The Gift Aid Small Donations Scheme is welcome, but will only be effective if it is made less complex...

Tribunal upholds Commission's merger decision but orders changes

24 May 2012

The Charity Tribunal has upheld the Charity Commission’s decision to allow two independent schools in...

Tender is issued for £200m National Citizen Service contracts

24 May 2012

The Department for Education has issued an invitation to tender for delivery of the National Citizen Service...

Tribunal upholds Commission's merger decision but orders changes

24 May 2012

The Charity Tribunal has upheld the Charity Commission’s decision to allow two independent schools in...

BIS consultation on volunteer-led events criticised

24 May 2012

A consultation launched by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has been criticised for...

Missing People plans to use Twitter to find child runaways

24 May 2012

Missing People is hoping to track down missing children using Twitter.

Charities in Twitter storm over balloon releases

24 May 2012

Charities are being urged to abandon balloon releases in a Twitter a campaign.

Missing People plans to use Twitter to find child runaways

24 May 2012

Missing People is hoping to track down missing children using Twitter.

Marie Curie opens national support centre and adds 140 staff

21 May 2012

Marie Curie Cancer Care has officially opened its new national support centre in Pontypool, Wales, creating...

Join the discussion

Twitter button

@CSFundraising