Presentation on theme: "Fundraising What Lies Ahead Stephen Lee Henley Management College Stephen Lee Henley Management College."— Presentation transcript:
Fundraising What Lies Ahead Stephen Lee Henley Management College Stephen Lee Henley Management College
Contradiction Abounds! Declines in trust, confidence and actual giving performance upon which demands for more stringent, wide-ranging and effective fundraising regulations are called (PIU Cabinet Office Report 2002 page 5, Buse 2003 page 14) Not reflected in empirical research, nor in examination of the compounded annual growth figures in voluntary income (Sargeant & Lee 2002, Saxton 2002, Moffat 2003, CAF 2000, NCVO/CAF/NOP 2003).
Contradiction Abounds! All parties engaged in the policy making process are faced with - a growing and accelerating incidence of purported and reported fundraising abuse. - more intrusive and highly commercialised unsolicited fundraising practice - growing reported incidence of public nuisance associated with these fundraising practices; - a rise in public concern as to the relative cost inefficiency of high volume fundraising campaigns, - a concomitant decline in public trust, confidence and actual levels of support for the non-profit sector (PIU Cabinet Office Report, The Regulation of Fundraising, 2002, Pages 4- 9).
Contradiction Abounds! Static incidence of actual abuse. (Charity Commission Annual Reports 1998-2002/03, PFRA 2003). Public/donor attitudes to fundraising cost effectiveness are at best confused and ambivalent. They do not accord with the actual levels of fundraising efficiency already achieved on a consistent basis. (Sargeant & Kaehler 1998, Sargeant 2000)
Contradiction Abounds! same sources and methods of fundraising most cited as promoting nuisance, abuse, inefficiency, malpractice and public disengagement with fundraising practice continue to be the fundraising activities that deliver the highest levels of voluntary public participation in the fundraising process. (PFRA 2003, NCVO/CAF/NOP 2003, Collings 2003, )
Why Regulate Fundraising Practice? Charitable donations enjoy substantial tax exemptions Potential for breach of trust To assure equity of access to the market place To restrict access to the market place equitably – nuisance, privacy, etc.
Why Regulate Fundraising Practice? To assure organisational bone fides are protected To ensure that cash collections are secure Because the sums raised are material in nature To promote public confidence in giving to charitable endeavour
And…In the Current Context The variety of fundraising methods has increased The volume of appeal literature has mushroomed New technology has increased the type and the number of organisations fundraising Cost effectiveness has declined
And…In the Current Context Greater Competition among Charities Issues of probity and Intrusiveness Low levels of confidence in relation to giving behaviour Individual giving is slowing, corporate giving has declined
Current Provision – Key Issues Fundraising is not a charitable object Most regulation is therefore indirect Most regulation focuses on fundraising methods rather than the process of fundraising Fundraising is only a peripheral policy concern in the construction of regulation
Consequent Deficiencies in Regulation There are confused barriers to entry and no effective access limitations The role of charity law and the Charity Commission is limited There are multiple regulators Regulators and Enforcement Agencies are removed
Consequent Deficiencies in Regulation Marginalisation means enforcement is often a low policy priority Regulation is factionalised/non- cohesive/contradictory. Enforcement often seen as expensive Enforcement practice does not equate with public concern
Current Regulation can be Characterised as… Out of date Out of step with practitioner practice Confused and contradictory Not equitable Non enforced and non-enforceable Not effective The system itself promotes lack of confidence
So…What About Self-Regulation? Limited in Scope –Whose interest is promoted Limited in Sanctions –Members Only –Cannot prevent exclusion from the market Limited Resources Opportunity for Ossification
The Current Regulation of Fundraising Practice Direct Indirect ProcessMethod Charity Act 1993 Charity Act 1992 Part II Data Protection Act 1998 House to House Collections Act 1939 Street (Factories & Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1916 Lotteries & Amusements Act 1976 National Lottery Etc. Act 1994 Charity Act Part III 1992 SORP II Food Safety Act 1992 Control of Misleading Advertisements Regs 1988 Telephone Preference Regs. 1997 Privacy & Electronic Communications Regs 2003 ETC.
And…Self Regulation Direct Indirect ProcessMethod IOF Code of Conduct Ass. Fundraising Consultants EU Consult CASE Europe IOF Codes of Practice Charity Shops Group PFRA ASA, CAP Code of Practice DMA Code of Practice MPS, FPS, TPS. IOF Codes of Practice
Integrated Regulation? “A new clearer statutory basis for the regulation of all public collections is needed. This new system should preserve local authority control over the public nuisance aspects of fundraising (such as too many fundraisers working on the street) and set basic requirements for the conduct of collections. On top of this, self regulation, as outlined below, will serve to encourage and promote good practice.” PIU Cabinet Office Report, 2002, Page 65.
Public Collections Proposals Expands the scope of activity regulated Limits the actors Does not address the major failing –Administration –Enforcement Not workable in current design
The Buse Commission –No effective practitioner input –Not universal –No ultimate sanctions Home Office Consultation –Explicitly no mention of self regulation (page 9)
Buse Commission Just another public consumer watchdog body? Under-funded Funding not secure – sustainable Voluntary No real grasp of the scope of activity to be caught within it’s remit.
Towards a Different Model Enabling Primary Legislation& Regulations Charity Fundraising Standards Board Charity Fundraising Standards Authority Charity Fundraising Standards Board of Finance IOF, NCVO, CAF etc. Committee of Fundraising Practice Charity Commission, IOF Contracted Rights to regulate and enforce LA’s etc. Trade Codes of Practice Liaison with other Regulators Core Funding Trade Bodies Public Relations, Research and Education
Guiding Principles Transparent Accountable Non-Duplication Inclusive Consistent Proportionate Removed from the market place
Benefits Conjoins ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ power Creates a unitary source of regulation and enforcement Flexible – not dependent for operations on primary legislation Inclusive with respect to fundraising activity Sufficient and self financing