Contact Us

Please use the form on the right to send us a short message. 

19 Station Road
Wellingborough, England, NN29 7EH
United Kingdom

+44 7802 957938

Consultancy services for the charity and not for profit sector.  Strategy Development, fundraising, governance, collaborations and partnerships.

In the Fundraising Regulator working?

Blog

Stay up to date with developments in the sector and our latest thinking on issues affecting charities and social enterprises.

In the Fundraising Regulator working?

Julian Lomas

It is 5 years since the tragic suicide of Olive Cooke, an event which sparked major reform in the regulation of charity fundraising but which, by the then Minister’s own admission, wasn’t really about charity fundraising at all. Perhaps the most significant reform that resulted was the formation of the Fundraising Regulator, a new self-regulation body to investigate complaints about charity fundraising.

In February 2020 the Fundraising Regulator published its latest complaints report, which provides some interesting insights into trends in what bothers the public about charity fundraising.

In 2018/19 the regulator received almost 750 complaints itself and the charities that pay the levy to fund the regulator reported receiving just over 20,500 complaints (a slight reduction on the previous year). The headlines the regulator draws from the report are:

  • 737 complaints resulted in 82 investigations and 49 of these found breaches in the Code of Fundraising Practice.

  • Key themes apparent from the complaints are concerns about safeguarding vulnerable people, use of misleading information in fundraising and failure to observe “no charity bags” signs in clothing collections.

  • Door-to-door fundraising and outdoor events are the methods most complained about and there have been significant falls in complaints about clothing collections, online advertising and email fundraising .

Digging a little deeper into the report it is also possible to see significant falls in complaints around unaddressed direct mail, telephone fundraising and other forms of intrusive, unsolicited fundraising that came under so much scrutiny in 2015-16. This is likely to be, in part, because many charities have simply stopped using these methods because they have become discredited and even toxic.

It does appear, therefore, that the regulator is having an effect, particularly in areas that were of most concern when it was set up. However, the growth in complaints in other areas of fundraising such as outdoor events, private site fundraising and, while the level of complaints is now falling, clothing collections, suggests that it is taking longer than anticipated to change the culture of fundraisers (and those who manage them). As the sector cleans up its act in one arena, concerns emerge in others and the persistence of safeguarding vulnerable people as a subject in complaints is worrying; there appear still to be lessons to learn.

Of course, we are reading between the lines of the report a little here and there are risks in generalising from data that is, in the end, dominated by larger charities. The report shows that the subjects of two-thirds of the regulator’s investigations were “levy paying” charities; those spending over £100,000 a year on fundraising, i.e. larger charities. Of course, this means that up to a third of investigations are into smaller charities. Moreover all the data on complaints received by charities themselves comes from levy-paying charities.

Therefore, while there may still be some truth in the view prevalent in 2015-16 that the sector is being damaged by the fundraising misbehaviour of larger charities, and that smaller charities are not to blame, this is not entirely true. It may simply be the case that more people are contacted by (and therefore complain about) larger charities and/or that only these charities can afford the kinds of mass fundraising practices that attract complaints. However, the growth in complaints about fundraising methods often employed by smaller charities, such as events, social activities and prizes draws, suggests there is no room for complacency on the part of smaller charities.

As we said above, care must be taken to generalise too much from a between the lines reading of a factual report about complaints and investigations, but it does seem that the Fundraising Regulator is having an impact on improving fundraising practice, although pervasive culture change is still a little way off. Equally there is no room for complacency in any charity, big or small.

If you’d like to chat about your charity’s fundraising practice or anything else related to fundraising please contact us at julian@almondtreeconsulting.co.uk to arrange free initial telephone discussion.