So which is right?

****

Two (adjecent in my reader, as it happens) reports on charities.

Firstly:

Analysis of quarterly Charity Commission statistics by accountant Chris Harris, drawn from charity accounts, says total income during the year rose by £3.2bn to £58.9bn

And secondly:

One in six charities believe they could face closure in the coming year amid public spending cuts and falling donations, according to a new poll.

Either one of these is wrong or else fewer charities are getting hold of the income. No idea which it is - but I have my suspicions.

.....

"MP calls for ban..." Here we go again!

MPs like a good call for a ban - guaranteed to get them a headline! And here's Charlie Elphicke a member of the Public Administration Select Committee (boy does this remind me of Jim Hacker):

Charlie Elphicke, Conservative MP for Dover and Deal and a member of the Public Administration Select Committee, said at a meeting of the committee this morning that face-to-face fundraising was "one of the great infestations of modern life that lashes out at people in the street" and was "toxic to the charity brand".

"If parliament acted to stamp out this abuse and invasion of our personal space, would that be the right thing to do?" 

Well actually, Charlie, that answer to your question is "no". You - by which I mean parliament and MPs - have no responsibility for the "charity brand" (whatever that may mean). Charities are private organisations and their public image is a matter for their trustees and no-one else. More to the point, chugging may be annoying but it is not an invasion of your personal space and a charity fundraiser - usually a student supplementing their income - who "lashed out" at anyone would be quickly charged with assault.

Banning things just because we don't like them or worse, calling for bans just to get a headline, is an appalling attitude. Too many MPs - from every side - seem however to think it OK. It isn't.

....

A brief defence of 'chuggers'

Nearly all of us have the ability and capacity to say "no", to refuse to talk to someone in the street, to shut our door to the caller and to keep personal information to ourselves. "Chuggers" - those swarms of young men and women littering our high streets - are just doing that very basic charity thing. Asking for money.

Yet these people have become the latest target for those fans of bans, controls and restrictions. It seems that insistence and persistence - admirable qualities it seems to me - are to be condemned because too many of us lack the ability to say "no" to a fundraiser.

And here's the reality:

"Fundraisers are hard-working individuals, spending 6 hours if not more on the street getting rejected for most of the day. I have being doing this for a year now and have been spat at more than one, reduced to tears, had things thrown at me and hit once, mostly by grown men. Like a lot of fundraisers I am only 18! We are just human beings trying to raise money for a good cause, we're not all doing it for easy money." 

To tell people they're not welcome, to stop one form of activity on the street because we dislike it, is quite simply wrong.

....

DIY Social Change...

****

As the large charities transform into either fundraising businesses or else sub-contractors to government, the private sector looks at them and decides they don't like what they see:

The respondents - all staff with corporate social responsibility budgets - were asked: "Do you think it would be more effective for businesses to use their core strengths to deliver social change or for them to give donations to charities to deliver social change?"

Fifty said they thought it would be much more effective for businesses to do it themselves and 35 thought this was "somewhat" true. Forty-four said charity donations and businesses could do an equally good job of effecting social change.

And in this survey just five respondents thought charity better able to deliver social change than private business. This doesn't mean that business is less charitable - far from it. But it suggests that business people believe greater social value is gained by doing the good works yourself rather than vicariously through a distant, shinily-branded national charity.

This finding presents a real challenge for fund-raisers - rather than the "dinner-and-quiet-word-from-the-chairman" method that dominated for years, we now have to get inside the strategic objectives of the firm. To ask that business - its employees, its customers, its shareholders - what social change they seek to effect and how the charity can help to make that happen.

...

Why Islington shouldn't ban chuggers

OK so this won’t make me any friends but Islington Council should not be allowed to do this:

The council is consulting lawyers about bringing in a by-law to stop teams of “in your face” street fundraisers who sign up long-term direct debit donors – and work for agencies that take a cut of the payments.

The move would answer the calls of residents who complain of being hassled by the collectors, often nicknamed chuggers or charity muggers.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m no fan of chuggers but I don’t see any reason why the Council should be allowed to stop the practice. Let’s put it simply so those angry residents understand – if chugging didn’t work it wouldn’t happen! That means hundreds of people do engage with the brightly t-shirted youths who earn a commission from signing us up to direct debits.

And it’s an important source of income:

PFRA estimates that donors recruited through F2F make a combined donation around £10 million to charity each month (£120m a year).

We also estimate that about 17-18 per cent of all donors who are currently giving to charities through direct debits or standing orders were recruited through F2F fundraising.

The point of all this is that people have the capacity to say “no” – and if everyone gave that response the chuggers would disappear. But not everyone wants to say no, some people genuinely do want to listen to the charity’s story and end up as firm supporters.

It’s true that the chugger gets paid – would you stand in the street all day accosting passers-by without getting something in return? And, it’s also true that the first year’s payment (on average) goes to the organisation employing the chugger. But the figures don’t lie – face-to-face fundraising is now a very important source of new donors and new supporters. That and it reduces a lot of students' debts!

We shouldn’t be banning it just because a few residents moan to you about it or because, as a self-important “community leader”, you decide you don’t like it. It’s a public space in which people should be allowed to raise funds for charities – I’m guessing Islington Council won’t be banning slightly drunk blokes in Pudsey bear outfits waving plastic buckets or red nose and stocking-clad young women rattling Comic relief tins.

Or maybe they do plan such a ban? It wouldn’t surprise me from a Labour Council.

....

Of course, the musician doesn't have to perform for free...

****

Apparently those wicked charity fundraisers are using "emotional blackmail" to get musicians to perform for free at events (as a former professional fundraiser this is news to me, maybe the world's changed). And the Musicians Union is on the charge at TUC conference:

"It is wrong that many performing artists are expected to work for nothing when they are engaged for charitable and fundraising events," the motion says.


"It is extremely unfair to put professional musicians into a situation where they are emotionally blackmailed into working for no fee and are asked to give their services to a good cause. This is particularly unjust when others associated with the event, such as venue staff, lawyers and caterers, are being paid."

We sought to get a great deal - free if we could - from all our suppliers. Every penny we saved was a penny more for the charity. Maybe instead of moaning, musicians could grow a spine and insist on being paid. You don't have to perform, after all!

....