Latest jobs
- Registered Homes Manager – The Tager Centre
- £28,441 - £35,494 per annum
- Deputy Homes Manager – The Tager Centre
- £26,879 to £29,108 per annum
- Regional Income Generation Manager
- Circa £30K
- Management Accountant
- £36000-£37000
- Product Development Manager
- £45000-£45000
- Head Of Financial Operations
- £57000-£61000
- Fundraising and PR Officer
- Up to £17,000 DOE
- Donor Development Officer
- Up to £23,000 DOE
- Community Fundraiser
- Up to £21,000 DOE
- Major Donor Development Officer
- to £28500
Famous names
"Three times as many women could survive if ovarian cancer was diagnosed at the earliest stage"
Gaby Roslin backs the Unzipped project by Target Ovarian Cancer
Intelligent Giving sparks chugging row with 'irresponsible' survey
By Helen Barrett and Hannah Jordan, Third Sector Online, 24 November 2008
Donor information website Intelligent Giving has been accused of irresponsibility and being "on a crusade to discredit face-to-face fundraising" this morning, after it urged the public to boycott chuggers.
The site made the call after it published a survey of 50 London chuggers that found almost all broke charity law by failing to disclose that they are paid, and how much. The Charities Act requires them to do so.
According to Intelligent Giving, the chuggers it encountered also claimed to be volunteers when they were in fact paid. They also encouraged donors to lie on their direct debit forms and broke the Institute of Fundraising's code of practice on Face-toFace Activity by refusing to back off when asked to do so by the public.
But Mick Aldridge, chief executive of the Public Fundraising Regulatory Association, said: "This is grossly irresponsible.
"What Intelligent Giving is saying is ‘we want charities to suffer to the tune of £25m a year because we don't like face-to-face fundraising'. It is the height of hypocrisy and the height of irresponsibility. Frankly, I am disgusted."
Aldridge said the research was flawed because Intelligent Giving's researchers failed to complete the agreement to donate, at which point the requirement in the Charities Act for a disclosure statement would kick in.
Adam Rothwell, director of Intelligent Giving, said: "Although our researchers didn't sign up to donate, they did get to the stage where a donation form had been produced.
"Many chuggers got out a statement and said ‘this is really boring, but I have to show it to you anyway', then put it away before we had a chance to read it.
"Across the board, we encountered ignorance and downright lies. This is the public face of the sector, which is rude and obstructive and is doing an awful lot of damage."
You must log in to comment on articles.
All Comments Make a comment
David Pearce, 24 November 2008, 11:47
I think there is genuine concern from the public about "chugging" and a proper debate on it would be welcomed by the sector.As would establishing some best practice guidelines for use of disclosure statements, something that is really lacking (IOF take note). I think Rothwell is right that there is ignorance on this issue, however the research methods are not robust enough to start making accusations of lying and seem like a cynical attempt to grab more column inches
Having said that I think Aldridge’s response- so full of righteous indignation- contributes little to the debate either.
[Report this post]
Trevor Clift, 24 November 2008, 12:12
It's worrying that Mr Aldridge implies that the ends justify the means. This is dubious moral ground. Charitable giving must be honest and sincere.[Report this post]
One Small Voice?, 24 November 2008, 12:25
I really don't agree that there's any need for the IoF to churn out more guidelines. It's already perfectly clear how face to face fundraisers are expected to operate. Let's just enforce the code of practice that we already have.[Report this post]
David Burrows, 24 November 2008, 14:29
I think Adam Rothwell's words are rather sensationalist and do not appear to be borne out by his own research. The phrase 'across the board, we encountered ignorance and downright lies' make a good sound-bite but is a poor reflection of findings that also included positive comments like 'great and friendly', 'very gentle and committed', 'didn't try to make me feel guilty' and 'did everything right'. The research does make good points about problems with the way face to face is being done but labeling all face to face fundraisers as ignorant, lying, rude and obstructive isn't accurate or helpful. I think 'Intelligent Giving' should also mean 'fair and balanced' in its public statements.[Report this post]
Mick Aldridge, 24 November 2008, 16:20
I ought to point out that I have been slightly under-quoted in this piece, in so far as I did not at any point condone failing to disclose, I merely pointed out that the true incidence of non-disclosure - which does occasinally occur - is miniscule compared with the sensationalist interpretations which have been placed on IG's "research". The fact remains that as none of IG's interactions went the course to conclusion, none of his agents were legally entitled to a disclosure, so no laws or Codes have been broken. Some fundraisiers did give 'up-front' disclosures but that is their particular agency's operating method; the other fundraisers he engaged with were however NOT in the wrong to follow a different methodology. The PFRA has been closely involved in the drafting of the new Disclosure Guidance shortly to be issued by the OTS and I can assure Adam our interpretation is legally correct, whatever he may think. Whilst it is perfectly reasonable for there to be a debate about whether and how far 'best practice' ought to extend beyond a legal minimum, that debate should be informed and balanced and parties should not be bullied into having it on the strenght of one commntators say-so. Which is why, in the circumstances I believe that I am perfectly entitled to be indignant - a so-called "watchdog" ought to be in firmer control of its facts, and not twist and spin its own research findings to suit the personal and irrational prejudices of the man who happens to be fronting it at the moment.[Report this post]
dave neenhan, 9 February 2010, 12:39
@ Mick Aldridge
Whoa! You know as well as everyone else reading these comments that the general public are fed up with being cynically targeted by paid chugging gangs and what's really ' irresponsible' in all this is that the overpaid executives of the larger corporate charities who so rely on confrontational chugging are now adopting the same arrogant attitudes towards the public as the bankers have rather than very publicly reigning in their own salaries , luxury HQ spending and perks in a genuine effort to set an example and reach out to people in the localities they operate in to get more of us onside.
People aren't simply annoyed with the chuggers , they're annoyed with the pyschotic corporate thinking behind them , thinking like your overly legalistic excuses for the abuses IG uncovered , because that psychotic corporate mindset is anything but charitable.
Your attitude does not inspire people to give Mick.
[Report this post]
Tim , 9 February 2010, 13:34
[Report this post]