DCH 283 ACTION ON DISABILITY AND DEVELOPMENT
DRAFT CHARITIES BILL: Public Collections
- SUBMISSION
ACTION ON DISABILITY AND DEVELOPMENT [ADD]
ADD works in Africa and Asia, supporting the self-help
initiatives of disabled people's groups who strive for basic human
rights and equal opportunities. We have 9 years experience of
running an in-house doorstep fundraising programme acquiring regular,
tax-efficient donations.
We welcome the majority of the proposals set out
in the Bill. In this submission we are focussing specifically
on issues relating to face to face fundraising, where we do have
some concerns. Other areas of the bill are covered by our previous
submission in 2002, which is attached for your information. The
points we are commenting on are:
1. Lead Authority
2. Notification Periods for collections house to
house
3. Declaration of remuneration
4. Guidance
5. Regular Giving
6. Appeals via Magistrates Court
Lead Authority
1.1 We absolutely
agree that decisions about the 'fitness' of an organisation should
be separated from those about capacity. We do not however believe
that taking this stance justifies establishing a Lead Authority
system, nor do we believe this to be the most effective way forward.
We are in favour of a Central Authority system, which would similarly
have the effect of reducing burden to charities, but would in
addition reduce the burden to Local Authorities. It could be made
up of LGA representatives and would offer much greater focus and
expertise. Fiona Mactaggart in her statement writes that the "lead
authority proposals in the consultation paper were not widely
supported". This is not countered by an explanation of why
the Committee has decided to go ahead with them anyway.
1.2 We believe a Lead
Authority system would present Local Authorities with major challenges,
in preparing to receive and assess applications, making the appropriate
staff and resources available to deal with applications either
immediately or potentially in the future, and ensuring applications
are processed within the time allocated. London Authorities,
who have the least experience to date in relation to licensing,
will receive the highest proportion of applications, whilst other
Authorities will receive none. We are concerned about the potential
impact on us, the charities, and fundraising staff, should for
example our fundraising programme be delayed due to management
issues regarding applications.
1.3 A Lead Authority
system would assumedly be paid for through council tax, again
giving a disproportionate burden to the London public, compared
for example with Frome, the small town in Somerset where ADD is
based. A Central Authority however would be paid for nationally.
Notification periods for collections house
to house
2.1 'Promoters' organising
direct debit house to house collections would be required to notify
a Local Authority at least 1 month before a collection begins
in their area. We do not understand why a Local Authority would
need 1 month's notice. The Explanatory Notes clearly state that
"organisations would then notify local authorities of the
dates and locations of the collections but local authorities would
not undertake an assessment as to capacity" (Chapter 3, 9.4.2).
Assumedly then a Local Authority would need simply to log the
details and check that the organisation has a valid Certificate
of Fitness. Therefore a few days should be sufficient.
2.2 We propose 1 week
as a reasonable notification period, and refer you to the current
notification scheme run by PFRA where operators give a few days
notice of where they are fundraising. Where capacity issues arise
they are negotiated voluntarily and successfully, although in
reality they rarely come up.
2.3 Any more than
1 week would cause us severe restrictions. We do not employ hundreds
of fundraisers whom we can move around between areas to balance
with where we have and have not given notification. We have just
5 or 6 fundraisers nation-wide working at any one time. They work
in areas local to them. Fundraising on the doorstep for most is
not a career therefore we would not be able to retain potential
starters who had to wait at least 1 month after being recruited
before being able to start work in a local area. This is the position
of a significant number of face to face operators.
2.4 Our small team
of fundraisers has afforded ADD significant financial growth.
Our investment began with a very small-scale in-house operation,
which would never have got off the ground had such a restriction
been in place at the time.
Declaration of remuneration
3.1 Where a member of
the public requests information on the remuneration of the fundraiser,
or indeed any other costs or financial information attached to
ADD, we always supply it. This could be improved in terms of the
level of detailed information a fundraiser can provide to a potential
donor immediately. However we do not feel it is appropriate to
automatically disclose specific figures of remuneration. It is
not relevant to each person, and therefore could serve to make
people unnecessarily suspicious about why it is being pressed
upon them. Our fundraisers visit potential donors several times
before the latter come to a decision about giving. People may
ask a range of detailed questions; information such as the bill
aims at is rarely asked for.
3.2 We do feel it is important
to distinguish between paid fundraisers and volunteers and support
the current position where a declaration to that effect is made
either verbally or in writing (or both) before the potential donor
signs the gift form.
3.3 Charities are not
required to make such a specific declaration in other areas of
their work. We feel it is inappropriate to single out face to
face fundraising when charities outsource services in many other
ways. We have not seen any concrete evidence that supports the
idea that members of the public automatically want a declaration
on remuneration. We do know that people still have misguided views
about the costs incurred to charities on all levels. The important
point here is to advocate a general sense of transparency across
the sector, in particular educating the general public about charity
'life' -that it costs money to run charities and it costs money
to raise funds.
4 GUIDANCE
4.1 We note that the
Committee is yet to decide whether or not to make the Guidance
statutory. We believe the overall legislation can only be truly
clear, unambiguous and effective if the Guidance is statutory.
The situation we cope with now where, for example legislation
is interpreted in differing ways by different Local Authorities
who act accordingly, must be avoided.
4.2 Furthermore the
term 'Guidance' is itself misleading. We propose a distinction
between 'Statutory Explanatory Notes' and Guidance, the latter
dealing with issues of Good Practise.
4.3 Good Practise
requirements and recommendations are already put to the sector
by Institute of Fundraising and PFRA (Public Fundraising Regulatory
Association). Issues of Good Practise within the Bill should be
included within their remit. The Local Government Association
should provide the same to its members.
Regular Giving
5.1 Regular giving takes
several forms, for example, Direct Debit, Standing Order,
Credit Card, Regular Cheque Payment. The Bill refers to regular
giving only as Direct Debit, which we (amongst others) are not
set up to administer. We choose the process of Standing Order
on ethical principle, with donors in mind. We ask that an all-encompassing
term be used, for example 'regular donation' or 'regular payment',
to ensure that we, as well as others, can continue to exercise
choice on behalf of our supporters. This would also ensure against
a potential loophole where those using Standing Order considered
themselves outside the licensing scheme.
6 APPEALS VIA MAGISTRATES COURT
6.1 We are baffled by
this idea and wonder whether it has been considered how small
charities like ADD could ever afford such a process. For some
the Appeal fees would be more than the yearly income gained from
a face to face campaign.
6.2 We urge the Committee
to reconsider where Appeals should be heard. The Buse Commission
is set to propose an independent Complaints Board, we propose
that Appeals be brought here. If self-regulation is robust enough
to handle complaints, it should equally be able to deal with Appeals.
Annex
Strategy Unit/Home Office,
Charities Project
Admiralty Arch
The Mall
London SW 1A 2WH
18-12-02
The Strategy Unit Review, "Private
Action, Public Benefit"
Action on Disability and Development, ADD's Response
ADD welcomes the review and the recognition
by government of the important role that the sector plays in
society.
We also welcome the recommendations for reform
and would encourage that these are tabled with parliament as soon
as possible. Framing and implementation of these reforms needs
to be taken forward in consultation with the sector and the various
network bodies e.g. NCVO and ACEVO etc. Clearly there is a need
for a new charity law that better reflects the nature of the sector's
work and enables this work to flourish.
We welcome the report's emphasis on demonstrating
that our aims are being met through emphasis on outcomes and more
holistic reporting methods including bench-marking between similar
organisations.
Public confidence in the sector is important
and we should be striving to provide the right information to
ensure trust in our work.
Name - Not "Charity"
We would welcome a change away from using
the word "charity" that is seen by many as based on
an outdated model and approach. For organizations such as ADD
who are working internationally and who are pursuing a rights-based
approach to our work, being called a registered "charity"
can cause confusion.
Voluntary sector also gives a message
that our work is carried out by volunteers which in many cases
it is not. Social enterprise is not relevant for organizations
who are not providing services or generating returns from trading.
We would recommend using the community
or not for profit sector or civil society.
Public Benefit
ADD welcomes the new purposes for not for profit
activity in the public benefit and in particular the addition
of "prevention" of poverty and the promotion of human
rights.
Campaigning
We welcome the recommendations regarding this.
ADD supports disabled people's organizations in Africa and Asia
to campaign for their rights and inclusion in society. Campaigning
groups seek enabling and enforcing legislation as this is vital
step if discrimination and marginalisation is to be overcome.
One of the roles of civil society in a democratic
system is to hold governments accountable and advocacy and campaigning
is a way of ensuring that the public's interests are heard.
Trading
We can see the advantages in being able to
trade without establishing a trading company and welcome this.
However it will be important for the new regulator to provide
advice to organizations about this to ensure a failed business
initiative does not effect the public benefit work of the organization.
NEW LEGAL FORM
The introduction of a new form of incorporation
will hopefully reduce administration by providing a single registration.
Allowing an organization to be registered once to receive benefits
associated with public interest status while at the same time
protecting trustees and staff form personal liability is welcomed.
The name Charitable Incorporated Organization
needs changing - perhaps Not For Profit Incorporated Organisation.
Accountability and provision of information
ADD welcomes the review's recommendations in
these areas. We recognise the need for public accountability
as well as the importance of providing useful information relating
to the achievements and long term outcomes and impact of an organisation's
work.
We also agree that this information should
be based on shared good practice and "bench marking"
between like orgnaisations rather than league tables. Given the
wide scope of activities carried out in the sector, league tables
across all would be meaningless and confusing.
Standard Information Return
A Standard Information Return (SIR) should
be a useful management tool for organizations themselves as well
as providing better information to the public.
Greater emphasis on outcomes is welcomed -
however this will be an area that many organizations will need
help in. There is a danger of going down the "measurement"
route and forgetting that judgments and trust are also needed.
However it important that public confidence
in the sector is maintained and if SORP and the audited accounts
of charities are not seen by the public as helpful this needs
to be looked into. The sector is already embracing a wide range
of quality and evaluation models for management (and external
purposes) to help us learn how better to achieve our objectives
efficiently, effectively and economically.
The use of an auditor to check the SIR and
make quality assessments is likely to be beyond the current role
of external auditors.
APPORTIONING COSTS AND EXPENDITURE
As the recent publication from ACEVO "
Funding Our Future II " outlines it is important for the
sector to be clear about our costs, to ensure these are proportional
- based on bench marking against our colleagues and competitors
and to apportion these cost appropriately. This is vital for the
health of the sector to ensure that the infrastructure of organizations
is being invested in and that outcomes are being realised.
Measuring and improving performance
The international development organizations
have been working on the issue of better demonstration of impact
and sustainable change for many years. Measuring long term impact
is much more difficult than measuring outputs as long term change
may well be contributed to by an organization's work but may well
not be directly attributable.
However it is important that organizations
can demonstrate achievement of their aims while not getting caught
up in processes which consume more energy than they deliver in
terms of improved performance.
Review of the Charity Commission
A new act, new definitions, new terminology
and new approaches to delivering public interest objectives will
no doubt require a review and renaming of the commission.
ADD has found the commission a useful source
of information and advice as well as being the regulator and hope
that both functions can still be provided as is suggested in the
recommendation for advice on mergers.
Fundraising
Regulation to maintain public confidence and
promote good practice in the sector is important. Where possible
existing codes of good practice and structures such as those provided
by the Institute of Fundraisers and the Public Fundraising Regulatory
body, PFRA, should be built on as much work has already gone into
this.
Governance and trusteeship
Good governance and effective recruitment and
induction of trustees is essential to the effective operation
of organisations, and steps to encourage diversity on boards and
an equal opportunities approach to selection and training are
welcomed.
Paying trustees to carry out professional services
is an issue that may be difficult for organizations to manage
and the review comments on the conflict of interest that could
result. Furthermore in the case of a grievance by either party
the conflict of a trustee being employer and employee may be very
damaging.
VAT-Exemption
The review does not mention the issue of VAT.
This is of major concern to the sector and needs re-visiting.
Good luck with the next stage and here's to
seeing an enabling framework in place that promotes the work of
the community sector.
Happy Christmas !
Barbara Frost
Chief Executive
Action on Disability and Development
| 
