DCH 150 Fruitful
Charity Law Reform in England &
Wales:
Some Comments for the consideration
of the Scrutiny Committee
1. Introduction
2. Summary Arguments
3. Recommendations
4. Conclusion
5. Appendices
6. Footnotes
June 2004
Charity Law Reform
in England & Wales: Some Comments for the consideration of
the Scrutiny Committee
Introduction
1.1 Fruitful
Fundraising is one of the largest 'face-to-face' (F2F) fundraising
agencies in Britain, currently working with over 40 clients throughout
the UK, and with separate operations in the Republic of Ireland.
We have been members of the PFRA since its inception and support
similar self-regulatory initiatives in Scotland and Ireland. Many
of our principal officers are individual members of the Institute
of Fundraising. Broadly we welcome the general thrust of the draft
Charities Bill. We share with the majority of the charity sector
a recognition of the need for far-reaching reform, and welcome
the very great amount of consultation which has gone into the
Bill so far. With regard to the main body of the Bill, we are
generally content to offer our support to the Institute of Fundraising
and NCVO in both their submissions and their concerns.
2. Summary Arguments
We do however retain major reservations
of our own regarding the specific sections of the Bill devoted
to 'fundraising regulation'. These are summarised under five headings
below. Our recommendations going froth from these consideration
are contained in Section 3.
2.1 The drafting of
the Bill is confusing and contains significant anomalies.
In the first instance, significant parts of the Bill that
deal with 'fundraising regulation' only consist of amendments'
to previous sections in the Charities Act 1992. No compelling
argument has been given as to why legislation that was deemed
unworkable 12 years ago1 has since become workable'
with relatively minimal amendment. In other areas significant
new anomalies have been introduced, such as —
a) the ambiguity regarding the 'legal
person' in whom Certificates of Fitness may be vested, with the
Bill clearly including individuals whilst the 'Explanatory Notes'
emphasise "organisations"2
b) the apparent potential exclusion
of charities domiciled in other parts of the UK from engaging
in collection activity in England and Wales3 and
c) the anomalous position of Payroll
Giving and Workplace Direct Debit Recruitment as a result of the
new definition of a 'public place'4
It would be far more desirable,
and far less complicated, to introduce major new legislation such
as this clearly and accessibly in the form of a Consolidation
Act. It is noteworthy that similar anomalies do not seem to have
crept into the parallel proposed charity reform Bills in Scotland
and the Republic of Ireland, which have followed the 'Consolidation'
formula. Lastly, retaining the Bill in its current format, which
is extremely confusing to follow, will inevitably lead to controversial
interpretations; especially as
2.2 lnterpretation of
the eventual Act will rely extremely heavily
on the 'Guidelines' frequently referred to. However -
a) there is no indication of
any thinking as to the
likely content of these Guidelines;
b) there
is no indication of the timescale or methodology for the consultative
process to be entered into to construct the Guidelines, and;
c) there is no firm indication of
the authority the Guidelines will carry i.e. whether they will
be statutory (mandatory) or merely 'advisory'.
All the above represent a particular
cause for concern with regard to the definition and assessment
of "capacity". The 'Explanatory Notes' helpfully give
some clear definitions in this respect, stating: "the level
at which collections would generate a viable return
[is referred to as the capacity of an area"5
applications for access Permits: "would be assessed on the
grounds of capacity only"6
and: "a permit
would be granted if the local authority (LA)
assessed that they had capacity for the collection" 7.
We would strongly
urge that the Guidelines when they appear reiterate these points
with the utmost clarity. On this reading it would appear clear
that considerations of cost-effectiveness will be statutorily
out with the remit of the LAs: "the costs of collection
and the amounts used for charitable purposes are [solely] matters
for the ... charity However, we are deeply concerned that the
impact of these statements appears to be significantly undermined
by the re-emergence at various points elsewhere in the Notes~
to references to fundraising costs being: "a useful tool
for local authorities in helping them to determine the capacity
of their area". This is a contradiction which needs to be
robustly resolved. Our concern on this point gives rise to our
third reservation, which is that —
2.3 The 'duty' on Local
Authorities 'to Promote responsible fundraising' is absent
from the Bill. The establishment of this
duty was frequently referred to in earlier stages of the consultation
process, yet it is no longer apparent in the Bill or 'Explanatory
Notes'11.
Without the protection of this duty, underlining any Guidance
set out elsewhere and building on the Notes referred to above,
there is serious cause for concern that LAs may still choose to
prioritise unsubstantiated fears about alleged 'public nuisance'
over the proven social value of F2F fundraising. We respect and
fully understand the principle that LAs have a 'duty of care'
to protect the interests of their residents, which includes safeguarding
the environment in which they shop, play, and go to work. At the
same time it includes protecting their rights of choice and expression.
The Home Offices own Notes clearly state
that out of 376 licensing authorities in England and Wales only
six reported "receiving complaints" with regard to F2F,
and only five reported "feeling F2F gave rise to public nuisance"12.
Even if these groups do not overlap in any degree then still only
11 licensing authorities in E&W — i.e. fewer than 3%
— felt compelled to report any sort of problems'. In a survey
conducted in 2002 the NCVO could only substantiate 1500 complaints
UK-wide about F2F — this in the same year that over 600,000
people signed Direct Debits with a potential value to charities
of at least £213 mi111on14. In
the most recent relevant research15,
"collecting in the street" came 12th
out of 14 in the public's list of "concerns" about charity
fundraising activities. Twice as many people "object"
to Direct Mail16.
In a study in Austria charities using F2F were found to be more
popular than those that did not17.
The 'controversy' around F2F is a red
herring. Much attention has been given to the outbursts of a minority
of journalists, but far less attention has been afforded the many
positive investigative items applauding F2F which have appeared
in journals ranging from 'The Mirror' to 'The Observer' (attached
as appendices herewith). Most recently 'The Times' was obliged
to print a retraction regarding a hostile — and, ultimately,
negligently researched and factually incorrect —article
it published, following the PFRA's referral of the matter to the
PCC.
F2F is clearly popular and effective;
it is not a major public concern in and of itself. What does concern
the public is fraudulent or "bogus" collections. The
greatest opportunity for fraud lies in the cash collection.
For many reasons, not least because of the significantly greater
potential returns, F2F is always conducted (whether directly by
charities or via Professional Fundraising Organisations under
contract) with high levels of management and control. Charities
undertaking it are readily identifiable and therefore accountable.
Direct Debit instructions are time-delayed and revocable. Cash
'collections' on the other hand are often impulsive, and often
occur at times and places making it difficult to verity their
propriety. Whilst it has been stated that the Bill will "ensure..
.abuses are stamped on ... quickly and firmly"18
it is far from obvious that the Bill as it stands will satisfactorily
achieve this. We firmly support the Institute of Fundraising in
urging that all collections — even "local and short-term"
ones — should require proper Permits19
;however, we do not believe that the solution lies in 'more rules'
per se but rather 'more awareness of the rules' and 'more
enforcement of the rules'. This leads on to our fourth reservation,
which is that —
2.4 The underlying commitment
to increasing "public trust and confidence" is not
supported by any parallel commitment to a programme of
public education. In
setting out the scope of the Committee's enquiry, the question
was put: "Will the Bill improve public confidence in charities
... [and] encourage more giving?"20. We believe
that without addressing the question of public education about
the nature and purpose of charity fundraising, the answer is likely
to remain "no". Even the 'Explanatory Notes' perpetuate
a number of commonly-held misconceptions, not least that small,
impulse donations of cash are among the most important income
streams for charities; whilst paradoxically acknowledging that
these only constitute less than 6.5% of the value of all individual
donations given!21 In fact experienced charity fundraisers
repeatedly affirm that regular gifts over a sustained period of
time — precisely the sort garnered by F2F — are infinitely
more effective.
A similar misunderstanding is perpetuated
with regard to the 'Fundraising Declaration'. We wholeheartedly
agree with both the PFRA and the Institute of Fundraising, who
together state:
"Fundraising is a multi-faceted,
modern profession. Educating the giving public should begin with
the general message that it costs money to raise money ... not
[with] a breakdown of cost ratios22". Furthermore:
"there are many sound reasons why charities subcontract certain
services that are impossible to present in the three minutes that
an individual talks to a fundraiser23";
furthermore "why the requirement to declare public collections
costs when there is no such burden on press, direct marketing
or TV activity? This is disproportionate, inconsistent and prejudicial.24".
Accordingly we support the Institute and the Association in recommending
that the proposed amendment to the declaration25 be
discarded and replaced with: "a straightforward statement
that establishes that an individual is paid by the charity rather
than being a volunteer26"
It must surely be obvious that regulation
without education will leave the public no better off. The public
has a right to understand why fundraising takes place at all,
and what methods are most effective; how to identify potential
fraud; and to whom to apply for clarification, enforcement and
redress. As the Institute has stated: "public confidence
is damaged not by the collecting activities of responsible charities
but by the activities of those outside the sector -. however,
it is often difficult for members of the public.. .to distinguish
legitimate collecting activity from fraudulent ones. Increased
awareness of new, consistent regulations will ensure that this
is no longer the case27". The reforms contained
in this Bill must properly balance regulation with education;
otherwise those that currently evade regulation for the purposes
of fraud will continue to do so, with impunity.
2.5 Our
fifth and final reservation is that there is no realistic
assessment of the substantial costs that may accrue
to charities, particularly those based in or actively
fundraising in London. Our concern applies both to the administrative
burden of applying for Fitness Certificates and Access Permits
in the first place, and also to the unforeseeable impact of administrative
and legal fees arising from potential Court Appeals regarding
witheld Certificates or permits. We are specifically concerned
about the impact on charities' income streams of compulsorily
suspended activity during appeals, and lost or delayed campaigns
as a result of them.
Although it has been stated that these
reforms will: "reduce bureaucracy28" and
"minimise the burdens on local authorities and charities29"
it is far from clear that this will be the case. Unfortunately
this is because the cost estimates contained in the Explanatory
Notes are wildly inaccurate, having been extrapolated from poor
and incomplete data. In the case of application costs, whilst
it is true that the new system will represent a saving in time
and expense for those charities that have previously relied
exclusively on cash collections, the Home Office notes that
only approximately 5% of LAs currently "license" F2F30.
This of course means that in 95% of cases costs, albeit indirect,
are going to accrue to charities seeking to operate in
those areas where LAs are now obliged to regulate F2F formally,
rather than through self-regulatory channels such as PFRA-overseen
Booking Diaries as has been the case to date. In the specific
case of
London, estimates have been based on
the costs to the Metropolitan Police of processing approximately
230 collection licenses a year. But the Met have specifically
stated that they do not view F2F as licensable under the terms
of the 1916 Act, so applications are neither made nor required;
no allowance has been made for this fact in the figures. In fact
The PFRA currently manages 148 delineated Fundraising Sites in
London, the operations of which would translate at a conservative
estimate to around 14,000 Permit Applications London-wide per
annum31.
Similarly, in the case of potential
appeals, the "likely" number — and therefore the
"likely" costs —are based on the artificially
low number of appeals lodged in recent years. As the Home Office
itself admits: "currently ... there is no right of appeal
against a decision to refuse a street collection license32".
The establishment of this right, which is to be welcomed, will
nevertheless surely result in its exercise. Given the comparative
figures for 'licenses' in London alone noted above, the HO estimate
that: "it is unlikely ... that there would be anymore than
15 —25 additional appeals on the basis of capacity per annum~"
is woefully inadequate. The simple fact that the Home Office itself
notes that the 'average costs' of current licensing procedures
range from £4 up to £317 — a differential of over
727O%34
— must indicate the relative efficiency of the authorities
concerned; and the relative likelihood of errors and omissions
inevitably leading to a substantial increase in appeals.
Significant effort must be put into
making the Guidelines as "clear and unambiguous" as
possible to reduce the risk of appeals. Significant resources
must be put into training and familiarisation for licensing officials,
particularly in London. Indeed, in the case of London, special
consideration should be given to the possibility of alternative
London-wide arrangements3~ (possibly via the GLA) or
to a transitional period during which charities' fundraising efforts
are specifically protected while LAs become accustomed to their
new duties.
3. Recommendations
for the urgent consideration of the Committee
3.1 The format of the Bill
We strongly concur with the Institute
of Fundraising in urging that "the final draft of the Charities
Act should be presented as one coherent and consolidated document36.
Specifically, urgent attention needs to be paid to clarifying
the various significant anomalies in the Bill such as clarifying
the appropriate 'legal person' to apply for and hold a Certificates
of Fitness, and addressing the apparent exclusion of Scottish
and Northern Irish domiciled charities from any future fundraising
in England and Wales, among others.
3.2 Guidelines regarding interpretation
We strongly concur with the Institute
of Fundraising that in urging that "guidance, developed through
consultation, should be statutory"37.
Guidelines should emphasise the primacy of "viability"
in assessing capacity, they should be 'scientifically' achieved38,
and they should command widespread agreement39. They
should accurately reflect the enormous social value of F2F, compared
with minimal and declining objections Finally, Guidelines should
be underscored by the inclusion with in the Bill of a proper statutory
duty on LAs "to facilitate responsible fundraising"40.
3.3 Public Education
We strongly urge that an early commitment
is made to resourcing, or at the very least, 'pump-priming', a
programme of public education regarding the role of the charity
sector, and the various methods by which its funds are raised.
This should include explicit reference to professional outsourcing,
sectoral self-regulation, budgetary cost-effectiveness, and the
value of long-term giving. This programme should build on the
precedent of Gift Aid promotion and the 'Giving Campaign' which
this government have already successfully promoted.
3.4 Safeguarding charities' income
streams
Guidelines should proceed from the assumption
of a charity's 'right to fundraise', rather than a LA's 'duty'
to regulate, in such a way as to minimise the potential for appeals.
Special measures, including transitional safeguards, should be
considered for London. Charities' income streams should be safeguarded
throughout the Appeal procedure.
4. In Conclusion
Any comments or queries regarding any
part of this submission may be addressed to the authors, Louise
Cook, Director of Development via louisec@fruitfuI.uk.com
or Mick Aldridge, Head of External Affairs via micka@fruitful.uk.com
Fruitful Fundraising, 73 Collier St.,
London NI 9BE I Tel:
020 7841 0272
5. Apoendices
Appendix 1
— article from 'The
Observer', 3rd march
2003
Appendix 2— article from 'The
Mirror', 5th April 2003
Appendix 3 —
article from 'The Observer', 12th December 2003
Appendix 1
— article from 'The
Observer', 3rd march 2003
Your money -
or their life
Some people run a mile to escape charity
collectors. So what is a chugger's life really like?
Anushka Asthana
Sunday March 9, 2003
The Observer
You may have seen the sort on your local
High Street. Strategically stationed to ensure attempts at evasion
are fruitless, they are usually young, bright-faced and impeccably
polite. They wear bibs. They carry clipboards. They smile a lot.
Many describe them as the most annoying people in Britain.
Last week, after exhaustive training,
I joined the swelling army touting for charity on our streets.
Dubbed 'chuggers', a coinage for charity muggers, our group took
up positions in a London street.
My first attempt at persuading someone
to sign up for a direct debit drew a chilly response.'You're a
bloody pain,' says a man in a suit walking by. 'You've already
asked me seven times.'
The next time was not better, another
man telling me bluntly that he hopes they never find a cure for
cancer. Several more people cross the road to avoid me and one
old lady laughs with pity before shuffling past.
Seen by many as the scourge of shoppers,
chuggers can be uncompromising in their pursuit of a slice of
strangers disposable income, yet provide a rich source of funds
for charities.
I spent two days as a chugger in London
and, whatever the weather, the obligatory smile was etched across
my face. But putting up with the abuse, cold shoulders and irritated
glares proved to be worth it. One man did stop, expressed his
concern and offered to give £12 a month to the cancer research
charity. Then a lady pulled me to the side and told me about her
own fight against the disease.
It's not an easy job: although it may
be for a good cause, chuggers are trained to be as tough as any
other salesperson vying to relieve shoppers of their hard-earned
cash.
The pay for a chugger is a flat rate
(in this case £8 per hour) with no commission, but - crucially
- targets have to be met. Most are employed by fundraising businesses
which have contracts with charities. The income of these businesses
depends on the numbers of people signed up and staff are expected
to raise a minimum amount per day.
In reality this means signing up at
least two people, one for £10 a month and one for £6
a month. If those targets are not met over 'some time', your employment
- we were told ominously - would be reviewed. Other employees,
in the job less than a month, spoke of friends who had already
been politely asked to leave.
One worker told me that on a slow morning
the team manager had come down and screamed at the group. 'This
girl had tears in her eyes,' he said before admitting that it
did the trick: 'In the afternoon we all met our targets.'
Although the targets were made clear,
we were told that under no circumstances were we to guilt-trip
or pressurise anyone into giving. The company's ethos was to offer
people the chance to sign up, to raise awareness and to make money
for a good cause. Training also ensures that employees can give
answers to those who want more information about the cause itself.
For one aftemoon we used role-plays
to learn about the charity. The performances ranged from a mock-up
court case with the charity on trial to an ad hoc version of Blockbusters.
'What CL is a type of cancer that had a 0 per cent survival rate
20 years ago but an 85 per cent one now?'
'That'II be childhood leukaemia, Bob.'
Scrutiny committee Final Submission June04
9
fruitful
Then we were taught how to approach
the public: ask people if they have a minute for the cause, introduce
yourself, tell them the problems facing the charity, the proposed
solutions and then be upfront in asking for money.
We were to start with a request for
£10 or £12 a month and if they were not happy with that
to try for £6. As soon as money is mentioned the collectors
must disclose that they are being paid for what they are doing.
Finally, I was let loose on an unsuspecting
public. My first posting was Baker Street. A mixture of tourists
and businessmen streamed past and for the first couple of hours
it seemed to be going quite well. Lots of people stopped and listened.
Two people did sign up: one woman who had lost her mother to breast
cancer and a young man. It felt good.
But as the day wore on, and it became
darker and colder, the appeal of the job fell Towards 6pm it was
just the people rushing home from work. The mobile phones clutched
to their ears were their way of signalling their lack of interest.
Some broke into a run when they saw me.
My next posting was the suburbs - Blackheath.
I thought people would be in less of a rush and happier to talk
but they weren't. They are so used to seeing chuggers outside
their local train station that those happy to sign up had already
done so - three times.
The same families kept walking past
me and each time were met with my cheery: 'Hi. Could you spare
a minute for cancer research?' I felt ready to go home when one
man shouted: 'You're a bloody pain.'
But, once again it got better. That
aftemoon one man came over to me and cut into my prepared speech
about the charity with: 'Yeah, I believe you, just let me sign
up.' Later in the day two more stopped, one to offer £10
a month and one £15 a month.
Signing up two people a day sounds easy,
but it isn't. Many are offended by fundraisers. I found myself
thanking people who said no because they had been kind enough
to acknowledge my existence. For much of the day I felt like an
inanimate street bollard. If anyone showed pity my spirits lifted.
If they stopped to chat I started to glow. If they signed up I
was ecstatic.
Many people are concerned that the concept
of payment for face-to-face fundraisers is wrong but for the charities
it has become an invaluable source of funds and has led to a greater
number of younger people giving money.
For Shelter, it brings in £3 million
a year - making up 15 per cent of its income - and has been important
in raising awareness. 'Shelter is very misunderstood,' says Liz
Monks, deputy director of fundraising. 'We are not only about
helping people on the street but also helping people to stay in
housing. With face-to-face, people are trained before they go
out so they can tell people about us.'
But for those who do not want to give
money by this method having someone smiling at you and willing
you to stop can simply seem annoying. 'People don't like being
buttonholed on the street. It is seen as aggressive,' says Antony
Robbins, the Charity commission's head of communications. Despite
this the commission has received only eight complaints about chuggers,
none of which has led to a full-scale inquiry.
'Many people find it a pain but if you
don't want to give on the street then don't,' says Robbins, claiming
there has been no evidence at all of fundraisers acting aggressively.
If anything the opposite has been true: 'People verbally or occasionally
physically attack fundraisers. It is very disappointing.'
Appendix 2
— article from 'The Mirror', 5th April
2003
CAN YOU SPARE A MOMENT FOR UNICEF?
By Jane Ridley
THE pincer movement is a favourite tactic
of the street fundraiser. But on this occasion it backfires. Badly.
My colleague James sidles up to our
unsuspecting target and says: "Excuse me, madam," as
she stares impassively ahead, blanking him completely.
"You try," he mouths at me.
A few seconds later, I launch a secondary attack.
"can you spare a moment please?"
I ask the smart businesswoman as she strides further down the
pavement.
Scrutiny committee Final Submission June04
10
fruitful
Big mistake. "Why don't you just
ft"" off," she shrieks, contorting her immaculately
made-up face into an ugly snarl.
James shrugs his shoulders and grins.
But after my two days undercover as a so-called street campaigner,
I can't hold back. "And the same to you," I yell, waving
my clipboard in fury.
But I suppose I got off lightly. James
tells me that one female campaigner was punched in the face. And
he adds that one man told him he would "shove his ~f***ing
clipboard" down his throat.
I've joined the ranks of Britain's most
annoying people - the new pariahs of the high street who persuade
you to make regular donations to charity by direct debit from
your bank account.
There's even a special word for them
- "chuggers". It's short for "charity muggers"
because they "assault" you while you're out shopping.
Dressed in T-shirts or bibs, teams of
chuggers stationed the length and breadth of the UK are paid about
£7.50 an hour -£3.30 above the minimum wage.
Organisations like Shelter, Amnesty
and Scope justify the outlay by claiming face-to-face fundraising
is cost-effective. Last year, 350,000 people set up direct debits
through the scheme.
Like most unsuspecting shoppers who've
fallen prey to these pushy clipboard-wielding pavement pounders,
I've always assumed they must be on huge commissions and that
there just must be something, well, dodgy about the whole operation.
BUT after spending two days working
in their ranks, I quickly realise how wrong I've been. And what
a miserable way it is to make a living.
Before landing the job I have to undergo
a group interview with other would-be charity collectors. The
other candidates are a mixture of unemployed actors, students
and disenchanted shop assistants.
TheVre all in their eariy twenties,
outgoing, fresh-faced and keen. A bit like Jehovah's Witnesses,
but without the Burton suits.
The interview takes place at the trendy
East London offices of Push consultancy, a private fundraising
business which acts as a middleman, employing chuggers for charities.
The industry is controlled by the Public
Fundraising Regulatory Association, a self-monitoring body set
up by 19 firms, including Push. The Charity Commission also keeps
a close eye on their practices.
We sit in a circle and introduce ourselves.
Peter is an out-of-work actor who spotted an advert for the job
in The Stage newspaper. Dan and his mate Jermaine work at a High
Street fashion chain and Sam has been bumming around since leaving
uni last year.
At the interview Push's training officer
Amanda explains that there's no commission for the amount of "sign-ups".
But high-fliers - those able to recruit seven donors a day - can
negotiate a pay rise and earn up to £15 an hour.
The basic fcot soldier is expected to
sign up no fewer than two people a day. James tells me later that
one of his colleagues was under threat of the sack because he
hadn't reached the target.
After a role-playing exercise in which
we have to practise selling a charity, I'm told I've got the job
and I'll be working for Unicef.
Next I have to be trained in the art
of what's called "direct dialogue" fundraising. The
two training sessions take place in a stylish wine bar opposite
Push's offices.
Jacinta, the charismatic training manager,
gives us a rundown of the key techniques. "Maintain eye contact,
smile and be up front about asking for cash," she says. "Don't
bombard the person with too much info about the charity and try
to keep a dialogue going."
And, contrary to what many pedestrians
might think, chuggers are told, above all, never pressurise.
The main objective, of course, is to
get the passer-by to agree to a direct debit. That way, the average
donor will continue to give for seven years, making it the best
way to raise funds.
"But you're also the public face
of the charity," adds Jacinta. "Just talking knowledgeably
about the cause helps raise awareness."
Scrutiny committee Final Submission June04
11
fruitful
I spend three hours learning about Unicef
projects, which include immunising kids woridwide and providing
child-friendly tents in refugee camps.
The current campaign is the humanitarian
crisis in Iraq where one million children are already malnourished
and vulnerable to sickness. A donation of just £25 is enough
to provide high-protein food supplies for 350 of them.
Jacinta hands me my ID badge, my blue
Unicef T-shirt, rain jacket and clipboard and I'm ready for action.
On day one, my team is posted to Wcod
Green, North London. Our leader is James, 36, a Dubliner who's
worked for Push for more than a year. Tall, gangly and with a
ginger goatee beard, he's passionate about Unicef. He also looks
a bit like Jesus.
After a quick reminder of the main rules
- don't pressurise a potential donor and always tell them that
you're being paid to do the job - I'm unleashed on the public.
I start with a simple, "Excuse
me", before moving on to, "Have you got a moment, please?",
"Hello there, madam" and, "Can you spare a moment
for Unicef?"
At best, I'm greeted by pitying smiles.
At worst, I'm ignored completely.
James warns me not to judge a bcok by
its cover. "Don't be too choosy about who you ask,"
he says.
After a while, I begin to feel dizzy.
I must have repeated my mantra 400 times and not one person has
stopped.
One man tells James he hates him. Another
says I'm wasting my time. A group of youths walk past and laugh
in my face. About one in five people say they don't speak English.
The hours drag by with not so much as
a conversation, let alone a sign-up.
Lunch is a quick sandwich sitting on
a nearby green where we're joined by the rest of the team, 20-year-old
Lola and 23-year-old Mark. TheVre both resting actors. And they
haven't managed to get any sign-ups either.
"I hate Wood Green," says
Mark. "Last time I came here, we got nothing. It's jinxed."
But just before aftemoon tea break,
after an amusing conversation with a couple of drunks, I get a
breakthrough. A woman, originally from Congo, stops to ask what
Unicef is doing for children in her country. She's so friendly
I want to give her a hug.
We chat for 15 minutes but she's unemployed
at the moment and, with three kids, can't spare the cash. "But
I will sign up as soon as I get work," she assures me. "I'm
looking for cleaning jobs."
Heartened, I throw myself into the next
round of pitches and my renewed enthusiasm seems to do the trick.
A female student hears me out and, to my utter surprise, agrees
to donate £5 a month. I feel ecstatic for at least an hour.
She tums out to be the only sign-up
of the day and, at 5pm, we cut our losses and leave. "Better
luck tomorrow," says Mark. "We'll be among the beautiful
people of Soho."
Day two and we're stationed in camaby
Street. James warns it will be difficult because the locals are
hardened to our presence.
"charity begins at home,"
shouts one young woman. "Sorry, I'm skint," says a man
swinging a Prada shopping bag. "Why don't you get a proper
job," says another. Then there's a, "Get out of my face."
I notice that people's heads have started
sinking into their necks as soon as they spot me.
AGROUP of busty girls in Ray Bans are
giving out leaflets for Orange mobile phones. Male passers-by
smile at them but scowl at me.
Nevertheless, I manage two sign-ups
- an accountant about to quit the London rat race by moving to
Kenya and an Indian waiter. Both are taken aback by how pleased
I am. Mind you, I'm practically dancing for joy to have finally
got a result.
The woman who tells us to "f~"'
off" brings me crashing back down to earth and, by 5pm, I
have a splitting headache and aching feet.
James records our total number of sign-ups
- four. He smiles weakly. 'There's always tomorrow," he says.
"We're stationed in Epping."
Scrutiny committee Final Submission June04
12
fruitful
But I don't get to meet the good people
of Essex. Instead, I phone Jacinta at Push and tell her that chugging
just isn't for me. She's philosophical. "Don't worry,"
she replies. "It happens all the time."
Coincidentally, the following day I
spot a Unicef fundraising team in my local shopping centre.
"Where do you want me to sign?"
I ask the girl in the dreaded blue T-shirt.
"Thanks so much," she says.
"You're my only sign-up of the day. You've probably saved
my job. You don't know how grateful I am."
I walk away smiling. Ah, but I do.
Appendix 3— article from 'The
Obseryer', 12th
December 2003
When you're mugged in a good cause
Despite bad press, fund-raising in
the street works, says Nick Kettles
Plans announced in the Queen's speech
to control alleged abuses by the new breed of charity muggers,
or 'chuggers', canvassing on the streets for regular donors, seemed
to confirm the view that these fundraisers are nothing more than
an extra urban nuisance.
But despite unfavourable media headlines
about this newest branch of the fundraising industry, complaints
against chuggers ran at just 0.014 per cent of interactions -
just under 1,000 out of about 7 million - in 2002, according to
the Professional Fundraising Regulatory Association (PFRA). The
organisation, which was formally established in 2000 to implement
best practice for face-to-face fundraisers, represents 19 professional
fundraising organisations and 110 charities. But do these people
indignant enough to put pen to paper or pick up the phone represent
the silent majority?
Recent research by charity Monitor reveals
only 6 per cent of British adults choose to sign up to a direct
debit via a paid street or doorstep fundraiser as the first or
even second preference out of 10 methods of charitable giving.
Thirty one per cent placed face-to-face fundraising tenth, and
it was least popular among people over 65. Maybe those who politely
refuse chuggers hide their disdain, or maybe they read the headlines.
The PFRA commissioned some independent
mystery shoppers to assess face-to-face fundraisers against the
PFRA code of Practice. The survey undertook 300 sign-ups to 31
different charities. Of these, 296 encounters were described as
'friendly and courteous', crucially, fundraisers made it clear
they are paid whenever asked and highlighted this issue without
prompting in a further 72 per cent of cases. Under the 1992 charities
act failure to make this declaration is a criminal offence, clearly,
chuggers weren't holding the pen while 690,000 signed on the dotted
line last year. However, three fundraisers tried to 'guilt-trip'
people into signing and six were described as 'pushy' when the
shopper declined to sign.
What are we to make of this? That 1-2
per cent of chuggers are responsible for face-to-face fundraising's
pushy profile? It's quite possible they have informed recent headlines.
The charity commission says, however, that it gets complaints
about all fundraising methods. Face-to-face may be unpopular with
some, but it's a valuable source of revenue for charities, particulariy
from younger givers, who, charities say, have previously been
unreceptive to other methods.
Some say it's played a key role in stopping
the decline in fundraising over the past 20 years. Breakthrough
Breast cancer says street fundraising has been the most successful
way of attracting new regular supporters. The National Deaf children's
Society raises 60 per cent of its income in this way. Age concem
says it is one of the best ways of raising awareness of local
services while attracting committed supporters at low cost.
The remaining challenge is communication.
Lindsey Boswell, chief executive of the Institute of Fundraising,
says:
"charities need to find some way
of explaining to core supporters that face-to-face is an absolutely
essential way of getting regular donations from the under-35s
and so ensuring the future of the charity."
If the public realised that the 690,000
people who signed up last year will be worth almost a quarter
of a billion pounds over the next five years, they might offer
face-to-face fundraisers a friendly smile. And indeed, if they
realise that what the fund-raising agencies get paid amounts to
less than 15 per cent of the total lifetime value of the direct
debit, they might even raise a cheer.
The UK's big charities do not enter
into contractual agreements without checking the small print first.
Some even commit the agency to pay part of the direct debit for
people who renege on their commitment. All the main agencies
Scrutiny committee Final Submission June04
13
fr~itfu I
used by the big charities have signed
up to the oF's code of practice as implemented by the PFRA. Furthermore,
face-to-face fundraising will be covered by law for the first
time in the new Charities Bill. The aims include a requirement
to ensure that chuggers tell potential donors how much of their
money is to be used to pay the hiring costs of the fundraiser
and to stop charities competing on the same patches.
The legislation should free the PFRA
to fulfil its role in the allocation of face-to-face fundraisers
and create a level playing field. Maybe then charities will attempt
new, less obvious locations. Joel Voysey from Amnesty International
says they have successfully used London's theatreland to promote
their work to protect artists and playwrights suffering abuses
in their homelands. The RNLI only targets coastal towns. We might
welcome the British Heart Foundation at major sporting events.
It may be called the voluntary sector,
but fundraising has been a professional business for a long time.
Chuggers are here to stay, providing they can refrain from invading
our all-important private space. That, it seems, is worth more
than their cause.
Scrutiny Committee Final Submission June04
14
fruitful
6. Footnotes
1 The
unimplemented Part Ill of the Charities Act 1992 which S.35-42
of this Bill seek to amend
2 Proposed
new S.65B in CAl 992; 'Explanatory Note' 5.2 line 9. See also
The Institute of Fundraising's Submission
to the Joint Parliamentary Committee
on the Draft Charities Bill: Public Collections Proposals. Summary
of Proposed Changes to the Bill, (loFI) Bullet Point 1, Para 2.2
2
Proposed new S.66D
in CAl 992 clause (5)(b) regarding registered address of the charity
applicant. By definition, Scottish
and Irish charities will not
have an English or Welsh address qualifying them to apply to a
'Lead Authority'
'~ See
loFI referred to above, Bullet
Point 8, Para 8
See 'Explanatory Note'
5.11 [our
emphasis at "viable return"] See 'Explanatory Note'
6.2 [our
emphasis at "only"]
See 'Explanatory Note' 5.4
[our emphasis at "would"]
Whilst it goes without saying that charities
and benevolent organisations already
use 'viable returns' ('return
on
investment' or "Rol") as a
major indicator when assessing the desirability or otherwise of
engaging in a particular fundraising methodology, these matters
are properiy and solely matters of the charity's own individual
professional judgement. This appears to have been recognised in
the explanatory notes which state: "the Govemment do not
believe it is right for local authorities
to scrutinise collection retums"(EN 5.13) [because] "the
costs of collection
and the amounts used for charitable
purposes are matters for the trustees of the charity (ENs 4.4
& 5.14). See 'Explanatory
Note' 6.12 and elsewhere
deleted
11There
is a single reference (EN 5.12) to "a duty to provide fair
access ... to all fit
organisations" which is, in itself, very much to be welcomed,
but which falls far short of the original proposal
See 'Explanatory Note' 2.4.7
13NCVO
14Donor
figures from the PFRA. Value calculation derived by ProfASargeant
at UWE = £Spcm x
5 years. Donation values before addition of potential Gift Aid
supplement (28% = additional
£60m)
'5"Disgusted or Delighted:
what does concern the public about charities?", Joe Saxton
for nfpSynergy, March 2004 16Joe Saxton at the 'Future
Foundation', for the 'Charity Awareness Monitor', October 2001
'Public Opinion GmbH for OIS (Austrian
Institute for Fundraising) and Wirtschaftsuniversit~t Wien, 2000
'~Fiona Mactaggart's Press Statement 27~' May
'9See loFi referred to above,
Bullet Point 2, Para 3.1
20 h
Parilamentary Press Notice 1 of session
2003 —04, l3~ May (
Joint Committee on
Draft Charities Bill Established") 21'Explanatory
Note' 2.4.3
'~PFRA Submission
23loF1,
Para 9.2
PFRA Submission
25S35
amending S.60 CAl 992
2~loF1
Para 9.2
27loF1,
Para 4.1
2~Fiona
Mactaggart's Press Statement ~ May
29
Fiona Mactaggart's Written Ministerial
Statement, 25th
May
'~3'Explanatory
Note' 9.4.2
calculated on the basis of 140 sites
x two visits per week x 52 weeks
3zExplanatory
Note' 9.4.23
a3Explanatory Note' 9.4.27
~'Explanatory Note' 9.1.3
35'Explanatory
Note' 9.4.13
'~"The Institute of Fundraising's
Submission to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Draft Charities
Bill: Reserve Powers for Statutory Regulation and Commercial Participators'
Statement,(loF2) Section 2, Para 2
'~ loFi, Bullet
Point 11
28 loFi, Para 3.2
~ loFI, Para 3.3
40
"Local authorities will therefore
need to... ensure that they provide maximum opportunity for eligible..,
collections",
in 'Public Charitable Collections —
a discussion paper on proposals for a new
local authority licensing scheme', Home Office, March 2003
Scrutiny Committee Final Submission June04
| 
