Fundraising: time for some really tough questions

Imagine this headline: a 22% increase in online sales in one year. Now imagine you are a journalist, interviewing the chief executive of the organisation that has just delivered these results. What question would you ask? How about: ‘How has this affected your high street sales?’ (They have increased). Or maybe: ‘How have you achieved this growth?’

So, on the morning this news was announced (13 November 2017), what question did BBC Radio 4’s Today interviewer ask Oxfam GB’s Chief Executive, Mark Goldring? After an initial lead about whether we have “reached peak charity shopping in the UK” he seized the opportunity to renew the media war on fundraising: “People just hate being subject to an avalanche of pleas from charities: why don’t you stop it altogether?”

That a journalist on the BBC’s flagship morning news radio programme could ask this question says far more about editorial standards than fundraising standards. Those of us who watch or take part in BBC Children in Need 2017 this weekend might reflect on the hypocrisy of an organisation that asks us to donate to its campaign whilst questioning Oxfam’s right to do the same.

Meanwhile, over at the Telegraph, another inflammatory front page headline: “Charities dodge begging ban” (11 November 2017), followed by the usual inflammatory content: “Charities are circumventing a ban on begging letters to elderly people … targeting vulnerable people … bombarded … regulator admitted it is powerless to stop charities … begging for money”

On the subject of ‘begging for money’, hours before that story went to print, the Telegraph launched its Christmas charity appeal 2017, with the heart-warming line that “your donations, small or large, have proved a lifeline to our chosen charities and are a source of great pride to this newspaper.”

Charity fundraising, you might conclude, is acceptable only when it creates virtue signalling opportunities for media owners.

The charity sector has lived through more than two years of unprecedented challenge and change. There is absolutely no question that some fundraising practices were unreasonable, unethical and even unlawful: it is right that these practices were challenged and stopped. Despite all this change, however, news about fundraising is still a springboard for questioning its very existence, and lawful fundraising practices have to be defended against charges of exploitation.

It is time to turn the page. For too long now, every media interview with a charity feels like an apology or defence plea.  Yes, fundraising must be “responsible, respectful and reasonable”, as Mark Goldring said in his interview. Yes, fundraisers need new ways of engaging with the people who support our causes. Of course we must develop meaningful relationships with our supporters. And we must explain how we use their donations to fund the causes they care about. But we must also assert our right to fundraise.

The total amount donated to charity in 2016 was an estimated £9.7 Billion[1]. In a recent survey[2], 81% of donors did so having been asked, rather than spontaneously, and of these 30% would not have donated at all.

So how will the Treasury plug the funding gap if fundraising becomes unsustainable? Who will fund the cancer research? Who will respond to humanitarian emergencies? Who will provide care to enable terminally ill people to die in their own homes? Who will pick up the phone to answer the call from someone in crisis?

If we as a sector are to stand up for those in need, we must first advocate more forcefully for ourselves. It is time to stop apologising. And when we are asked tough questions, it is time that we ask tough questions in return.

---

[1] The Charities Aid Foundation, CAF UK Giving 2017, April 2017

[2] Institute of Fundraising / YouGov, Insights into charity fundraising, May 2017

What's the point of a regulator?

An article in Third Sector magazine - http://bit.ly/2wAqnoj - suggested that the Information Commissioner bears some responsibility for the fundraising sector's focus on consent - and lack of focus on legitimate interest - as a lawful basis for processing.

Many readers agreed, with the exception of some data protection professionals, who suggested that the fault lies with the fundraising community’s failure to listen to advice that didn’t suit their purposes.

So does the regulator have any responsibility for advising practitioners? Absolutely. Here’s why:

1.      Data protection regulations are complex. They need to be interpreted, so that practitioners understand the practical implications. That's why data protection consultants have a business. Not all charities can afford to hire professionals to help them make sense of the rules, so a regulator who promotes compliance rather than just enforcing it is welcome.

2.      Charities have in the past been led by authorities to understand that a more lenient interpretation of the regulations would be applied to their activities. There’s no doubt that this no longer is the case. Nonetheless, it’s in everyone’s interests for the regulator to help organisations to interpret, understand and apply the regulations in the current environment.

3.      The ICO’s blog provides guidance to “bust some of the myths that have developed around the General Data Protection Regulation” - http://bit.ly/2i7Bwat. If the regulator has no responsibility to explain, why has she done so? And given that she has done so, the question of why it has taken so long is still valid. Had guidance been published earlier, there would be no need to bust myths now.

4.      The Third Sector article did not suggest that the regulator was solely responsible, just that she is partly at fault. Ultimately, organisations themselves are responsible for complying with the law. This responsibility, and the responsibility of regulators to inform, advise and support them, are not mutually exclusive.

It would be uncharitable to suggest that the only people who don't think the regulator has a responsibility to explain are those who make their living from explaining. I don't question the motivation for their point of view, but the sector is confused and beleaguered. To suggest that the responsibility for that rests solely with fundraisers and not at all with the regulator is even more uncharitable.

A dream job or a chance of life?

In a moment of barely-disguised conceit, Tristram Hunt described his decision to resign as an MP as “a wonderful moment for the Victoria and Albert Museum”. Not such a wonderful moment for those of his constituents who, less than two years ago, thought they had an agreement with Mr Hunt: that they would give him their vote, and he would represent them for five years.

And not such a wonderful moment for the taxpayer, given that, according to Cabinet Office reports, the average cost of a Parliamentary by-election in England and Wales is more than £230,000. Since the last general election there have been five parliamentary by-elections that were brought about by resignations (rather than the death of an MP): two because of policy differences, two in order to take up alternative elected positions and one because David Cameron decided that if he couldn’t captain the ship he would abandon it. The resignation of Jamie Reed as MP for Copeland, to take up a job at Sellafield, and Tristram Hunt’s “dream job” at the V&A, take the bill for by-elections caused by resignations to around £1.6 million. The mayoral elections in Greater Manchester and Liverpool are almost certain to add to this number.

As any football fan will tell you, if a manager leaves a club before the end of his contract, the club will demand compensation, either from him or from his new employer. Morally at least, MPs who promised to represent their constituents for five years and who choose not to see out their term have breached their contract with the electorate.

Back in the real world of what politicians patronisingly describe as ‘ordinary people’, a petition and fundraising campaign introduced me to the story of Sasha, a young mother whose leukaemia has relapsed after a stem cell transplant. According to the charity Anthony Nolan, around 20 people a year need a second transplant for blood cancer or a blood disorder that has relapsed following an initial stem cell transplant. Such transplants have been deemed unaffordable by NHS England, despite the fact that a 2015 study suggested a one in three chance of these patients surviving for five years. Sasha must now raise the money to fund private treatment, to have that chance. The cost of a stem cell transplant procedure to the NHS? Between £50,000 and 120,000. So if the average cost is around £85,000, the annual cost for 20 ‘unaffordable’ transplants is around £1.7million.

If our shared society cannot afford £1.7 million to save six lives a year, how can we afford £1.6 million so that seven MPs can move to their ‘dream job’?

Can someone please explain that to me? Much more importantly, can someone explain it to Sasha?