Save Our Sector; let’s stand up to the media and get our house in order

Save Our Sector; let’s stand up to the media and get our house in order

There's no doubt the last few weeks have been a torrid time for the charity sector. Joe Saxton explores how it happened, why it happened and, more importantly, what we can do about it.

It has been a bewildering few weeks for charities, their CEOs and their fundraisers. We have seen vicious and personal stories in the Daily Mail, an attack on Alzheimer’s Society in the Sun, and another media story predicted soon. Government is opportunistically wading in to propose legislation to rein in something or other. Olive Cooke’s death started all this as the newspapers decided that fundraisers drove her to commit suicide.

Several things have stood out for me in the topsy turvy world we are now in. First of all, NCVO have jumped into the fundraising fray. Before Olive Cooke, they were usually about as interested in fundraising as vegetarians are in a nice bit of meat. Their recent strategy didn’t mention fundraising or self-regulation, nor did their election manifesto. So when Stuart Etherington talked about self-regulation in mid-June, they could clearly spot a bandwagon to jump on. However NCVO’s interest is a good thing. Up until now, fundraising’s self-regulation has been left to fundraisers and its far too important for that. We need the sustained interest in fundraising from all parts of the sector and for nobody to be put off by the unhelpful stance of some to non-fundraisers' involvement.

The second area is how the Institute of Fundraising has turned on a sixpence. For years it has said that its Code of Practice is just fine and self-regulation works well. Now they say a few ‘lay’ people on their standards committee and an independent chair would be good. In the last week, it has welcomed legislation to protect vulnerable donors – yet they have their own Code of Practice which should do just that. Is it just me who is confused by this?

After one Daily Mail headline and a few investigative exposés, defending self-regulation and how the sector works seems to have stopped. I always thought that being driven by tabloid headlines was the government’s job, but it seems the sector wants to get in on the act. You will need to search pretty hard for the sector leaders who will say we need better self-regulation not new legislation.

Let me be clear on my position. We don’t need new laws, and certainly not any that make charities do pointless complaint reporting in their annual reports. We need better self-regulation. The evidence that the public are unhappy with many aspects of 21st century fundraising has been clear for several years, as have the flaws in self-regulation. Two years ago, I wrote an article in Third Sector pointing out that the IoF’s standards committee had no independent voice or viewpoints, let alone any donors. I have long said that the IoF should not control the Code of Practice.

As an aside, I can’t but smile at the irony of a newspaper industry that has fought tooth and nail against statutory regulation, and for self-regulation, saying that the charity sector needs better laws to govern it.

So what should the sector do to get out of the hole it is in?

Stand up to the media attacks. The strategy up until now seems to have been ‘capitulate to newspaper demands and get the story off the front page’. This isn’t working. We need to stand up for the sector, self-regulation and the difference we make. Until we stand up for ourselves, and prove we can defend what we do, the bad stories will keep coming.

Co-ordinate better.  Our response to the media onslaught has been chaotic. It’s not clear what our line is, who the spokespeople are and what the key messages are. Some have suggested that the Understanding Charities Group could perform this role, others have suggested CAF or NCVO. I am not really fussed as long as whoever does the job has the resources, the energy, the courage to be ballsy and is plugged into charities.

Minimise fundraising aggravation. The Olive Cooke story ran and ran, not because it was true, but because people believed from their own experiences that it could be. They empathised with feeling hounded by fundraising. We need to minimise the aggravation. It is extraordinary how long it took the Institute of Fundraising to agree that a ‘no cold calling’ sticker on a doorstep meant charities too. There should be a label pin which means that street fundraisers won’t ask them to give - a wearable version of the Telephone Preference Service. I also think that every donor should be asked annually by the charities they support how often they want to be contacted and what they would or wouldn’t like to hear about.

Diversify fundraising. Part of the reason the fundraising community has run into the problems it has is because it’s like one vast factory fishing fleet, trawling the oceans for ever-diminishing numbers of donors. In an age of austerity, as income from government goes down, charities need to raise more. Fundraising is under pressure. But like the fishing fleets, we now go after the young and the old (and the vulnerable, if the Mail is to be believed). To get out of this rut we need to innovate and diversify fundraising. We need to build new sources of income: lotteries, financial services, online, events and the like.

Make clear how important charities are. From the way that the government and the media treat the sector, it would seem we are worthy but unimportant. We need to make clear again and again the importance of charities as employers, as carers for the vulnerable and the dispossessed, as innovators in medical research, social welfare, health, disability and a million other areas. We may not be too big to fail, but we sure are too important to simply trash and leave in the dirt.

I don’t know what will come next in this torrid period. I do know that until the sector begins to stand up for itself, is proud of we do and how we operate and works hard to make sure our own house is in order, we will be on the defensive. As it stands, the attacks and the trashing of our reputation can only get worse. 

Joe Saxton
We're running a media training day as part of the Understanding Charities Group next month. We want to help charities get better at tackling the difficult issues that the media, donors and even staff often ask. If you're interested, you can download more details here.

Submitted by Richard Spencer (not verified) on 17 Jul 2015

Permalink

Great article thank you - and something I have been on my soap box about - both at DSC Evolve and NCVO Volunteer Fair in the last couple of months.

You say that you are not really fussed who does this - and I think therein lies our main barrier - whose job is it to do this?

At the moment, it is either everybody or nobody or somebody else - and none of these approaches will work.

Then who?

I would like to see William Shawcross stepping up and showing some leadership in the debate.

In the last couple of months, he has been quoted (twice that I found) using a narrative that unhelpfully reinforces the issue being about 'finance and fundraising'. And clearly it is not.

Amongst other things, he said "Public trust in charities has remained high, but the public is scrutinising charities in far greater detail. For the first time our research shows that how a charity spends its money had become the most important factor in driving public trust. This is now more important to people than whether a charity is making a positive difference to the cause they work for."

What does the sector do?

I agree with some of yours above - and I think we need a fundamental, grass-roots review of charity regulation - reframing the debate around impact - and holding ourselves to account for our impact - acknowledging the different role that different types of charities play - and perhaps closing down charities that are ineffective in terms of having impact.

R

Submitted by Richard Neate (not verified) on 17 Jul 2015

Permalink

I agree - good article

Whilst I don't agree with everything you say Joe (is it practical for all charities to contact their supporters once a year to check their communication preferences?) I whole heartedly agree with your comments about the supine response from the main sector bodies.

And yes - the irony of the newspapers is a joy to behold!

Submitted by Tina Antonio (not verified) on 18 Jul 2015

Permalink

Excellent article Joe. I feel strongly about this too. Happy to play a part - perhaps at regional press level when a strategy is defined. We could actually use this positively to improve the ethics and efficiency of the sector. 3 points that occur to me from acting on the ground: (1) media coverage is by non-experts. It's like me writing on efficacy of the large hadron collider. Whilst this doesn't negate the groundswell that the public feel under pressure I would question whether charities are actually responsible for poor Olive's demise. A distracted shop assistant might have the same effect on someone with mental health vulnerabilities and we cannot bar everyone from shops. At the same time the growth of crowd fundraising and other sources of individual income (offsetting organisational funding) suggests a high degree of public support for charities. (2): Charities are not helping themselves. Large charities with big branding/fundraising budgets going for increasingly large revenue streams/reserves without a defensible expenditure strategy increases the competitive pressure on a shrinking fundraising pot completely unnecessarily. Self control is needed. Fundraising for fundraising sake is not actually an ethical thing to do and I agree that in a climate of lowered trust the HOW of charity performance is becoming critical. And quite rightly (3) Local authorities through procurement are exerting pressure from another direction. They require national and regional charity providers going head to head in competitive bids to offer not only efficient solutions (a good pressure, for impact measurements etc) but also added value funded by the charity's own investment. Loss of one component of a service can negate the impact of the remaining charity services and the sustainability of the charity so the pressure is high to conform. Fine, if the government wants to add legislation and the press wants to stir antipathy then let them be clear that the effect will be to further reduce voluntary income and that the flow of responsibility for services onto the charity sector will necessarily have to revert back to government. Again self control is needed. Charities need to cut their cloth accordingly and resist pressure to provide at any cost. It strikes me that a strategy and a coalition code of practice is required coming from both angles (1) charities recognise a public cry for help (‘please control your requests’) by responding with a code of practice regarding decision making in project and programme expansion i.e. partnership, current provision audits, etc and (b) some kind of equivalent of a trade agreement between charities to protect themselves from the power of the local authority contractor/buyers. Perhaps they already exist? I agree 'point' of leadership is key. Steering committee of key voices to identify opportunities and strategies and key influencers to engage perhaps? Tina

Add new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.