Fundraising Standards Board: Time for a higher standard than that

This is an Editorial, and intended to present an opinion

This article was first issued 26 Jan 2009

We have just taken a cold sales call from an organisation, to whom we have never indicated an interest, and who got our number from a directory. Worse, it was from a charity asking us for money to "join". In an ideal world, there would be someone to complain to, about this kind of unsolicited approach. But how ironic that the cold call should be from the "Fundraising Standards Board" trying to get more members.

In case the irony is lost I should explain that the Fundraising Standards board is a group of charities who have drawn up a set of rules for fundraising. They are a board to which people unhappy with their members are supposed to complain instead of bothering the charity commission. But they are set up as a charity and their position on cold calling (which is somewhat contraversial) is made rather clear by the fact that they now do it!

Of course, we all wish for higher standards in fundraising in the UK, especially on topics like invading the privacy of potential donors and high fundraising costs. But this particular organisation seems to be a group including some of the biggest and most offensive sources of junk mail in the country, some of whom put some really upsetting TV adverts in front of my (young) children. Now they are trying to put a good gloss on what they do. Not that their members are all bad of course, there are some very reputable names in there as well.

Of the 160,000 charities in the UK some 950 appear to be members of the fundraising standards board. Not a great number but some of the biggest names are there. The range of their membership is clear when you read the "fundraising promise". It is no surprise to find there is more loophole than promise. The first part is a form of damning with faint praise ("ok we won't actually break the law") and then when the meat should start we getting loopholes (no undue pressure, no unjustifiable distress or offence, no unreasonable nuisance or disruption). So what use is such a subjective promise as that? No charity which distresses people thinks the distress they cause is "unjustifiable" otherwise they wouldn't do it, so by definition this stops nobody. The problem is that too many seem to think distress is "justifiable". You might as well write a promise saying "we promise to do everything we would do anyway".

So here is our pledge, use it!

If you want to be held to a higher standard how about this additional pledge:

Our Additional Fundraising Promise:

We Are Respectful

* We try to make the world a better place and not spread misery
* We will not try to make potential donors or the general public feel uncomfortable as a means to persuade them to give
* We will not make cold approaches to donors or the general public in the privacy of their homes
* We will not seek to shock or offend
* We do not actively ask children or beneficiaries to do or say anything that might make them displayed as objects of pity

Any other charity agree?

So, do any of the 99.5% charities who are not members of the fundraising standards board agree with us? Would anyone like to join us and try setting up a gold standard in fundraising? We would love to hear from you.