Joint Committee on the Draft Charities Bill Written Evidence


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


 
previous page contents next page

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 20 August 2004