The Public Fundraising Regulatory Association is to stop promoting and defending face-to-face as a fundraising method, leaving charities themselves to stand up for the technique.
Instead the PFRA will focus much more tightly on its core regulatory role and intends to change its governing documents to allow it to pay an external, independent chair.
The self-regulatory body believes that face-to-face is now fully proven as an effective technique and it is time for charities themselves to take over the role as its advocate.
This in turn will enable the regulator to take a more independent standpoint which will help it win the trust of other stakeholders and ensure the long-term sustainability of the fundraising technique.
Implementation of Charities Act 2006
In a speech to the PFRA’s annual general meeting last week, acting chair Mike Naidu (pictured) told members that the impending review of the Charities Act 2006 would present big challenges for the face-to-face community, particularly to ensure that the new licensing model contained in the Act is seen through.
But in order to create the best conditions for this to occur, he said, the PFRA needed to make sure it is not perceived as always taking the side of its members whenever there is conflict between them and other stakeholders, such as local authorities.
“We are not going to get what we want regarding the Charities Act if those with the power to grant this to us do not trust us to be able to deliver it,” Naidu said. “And they won’t trust us if all they think we are going to do is fight on behalf of our members to get as much space as possible with as many chuggers as possible on as many days of the week as possible.”
'Not a trade association'
He stressed that the PFRA was not a trade association lobbying to “maximise the business interests of its members” but a regulator, with a remit to ensure that its members’ business interests are exercised “responsibly and sustainably”.
Members needed to understand that in future, this “increased level of professionalism” might mean that they may not get the volumes they want from site agreements with local authorities and that “when there is a media attack on face-to-face fundraising, we won’t always be able to leap to your defence”.
Charities themselves must rise to that particular challenge, he said. “The case for ‘selling’ face-to-face is made. It works and everyone in the charity sector knows it works. The PFRA does not need to argue that now on your behalf and we are going to step back from that. The continued case for face-to-face needs to be made by you, the charities using it. We need to fight for your right to carry on doing face-to-face in the future.”
Governance review
To this end, the PFRA is launching a governance review of its articles of association to bring them into line with the Companies Act 2006 and to allow it to pay an honorarium to a chair. Naidu said appointing an external, independent chair would confer added credibility when negotiating with gatekeepers and parliamentarians.
“When we are sitting down with the Office for Civil Society to facilitate the long-term access for street face-to-face that everyone in this room wants, we will have much more credibility if the person leading the negotiations is not working for one of the organisations that stands to gain most from these negotiations,” he said.
The changes will be put to members to vote on at an extraordinary general meeting on 1 September.
