Memorandum from Gloucestershire Wildlife
Trust (DCH 292)
Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust is a member of
the PFRA (Public Fundraising Regulatory Association). We consider
that the PFRA is best able to represent our views on the possible
impact of the Bill on direct dialogue fundraising. We refer the
committee to the PFRA written response on these issues.
As background for the committee to show how
important this method of fundraising is to the sector we are able
to share with you in confidence our plans to recruit 4,400 new
supporters using street fundraising (direct dialogue) in 2004-05.
We are relying on our street recruited supporters to donate £492,600
in 2004-05 to fund our vital work which equates to 46% of our
total anticipated unrestricted income for this financial year.
Over the last four years the number of members
recruited in this manner has increased by 150% from around 4,000
members in the year 2000 to just over 10,000 as at 30 June 2004.
This has enabled us to significantly invest in new projects and
new resources in order to expand our wildlife conservation work
in Gloucestershire.
Two additional aspects which we would like to
raise as they appear to be outside the scope of the PFRA is that
of fundraising on private land (but in the public domain) and
door to door "collections". Gloucestershire Wildlife
Trust successfully uses both approaches as its main method of
direct dialogue "street" fundraising, signing up supporters
(using paid fundraisers) to direct debit mandates but not taking
any money or offers in kind.
On private land, it is not clear if or whether
the landowner (say a supermarket or visitor attraction) or the
charity would have to apply for a licence for site fundraising.
It doesn't appear that collecting on private sites has had much
consultation with site owners which we feel is crucial.
With door to door approaches, how does this
relate to the definition of "door to door collections"
when fundraisers are not collecting either money or goods but
merely signing up members? Often the visit to a residence is multiple
(repeat calls) and a relationship developed with the residents
before a sign up is achieved—so it is important that a capacity
licence is not required as is proposed in the draft Act.
On a general note, we support the need to minimise
fraud and misrepresentation of charities. However we are concerned
that any excessive administrative requirements will adversely
affect our ability to recruit supporters at current levels either
by us having to put in more time to manage this (higher costs
and less income for charitable purposes) or through venue owners
declining to let charities operate on their premises.
July 2004
| 
