Latest jobs
Jobs of the week
- Head of Corporate & Events Fundraising, Execucare
- £40000 - £45000 per annum, London
- Senior Press Officer, Xchangeteam
- £140 - £160 per day, London
- Education Administrator, Prospectus
- £22,000,
- Head of Institutional Funding, Voluntary Services Overseas (VSO)
- £65,000, London
- Marketing Manager, Flow Caritas
- £30000 - £32000 per annum, London
Famous names
"I'm really looking forward to it - if 'really looking forward' means dreading it"
David Schneider will cycle 70km for the Prostate Cancer Charity
Charities to overhaul face-to-face after damning survey
By Hannah Jordan, Third Sector, 26 November 2008
Charities have pledged to crack down on face-to-face fundraisers who do not follow best practice after evidence of alleged lying, harassment, rudeness and law-breaking was found in a mystery shopping survey.
The six-week study by donor information website Intelligent Giving, published this week, alleged that only four out of 50 chuggers surveyed volunteered a solicitation statement - a legal requirement if a donor is successfully recruited.
One was said to have encouraged a prospective donor to give a false age on a direct debit form and others - two from Great Ormond Street Hospital Children's Charity - were alleged to have blocked the paths of members of the public.
A spokeswoman for the hospital charity said it was looking into the reports. "We take such allegations very seriously," she said. "We receive very few complaints - but when we do, we act upon them immediately."
Volunteering charity WRVS said it would be "looking at its training programme" after one fundraiser was said to be unable to say what the 'W' stood for in the charity's name and two others allegedly implied they were volunteers.
"Clearly they should never describe themselves as WRVS volunteers," said Paul Twocock, head of media and public affairs at the charity. It would ensure such exceptions did not happen again, he said.
The survey said that 15 of the fundraisers, including one from Scope, did not stop their pitches when asked to. The disability charity said it was investigating and would take action.
"We are glad this has been brought to our attention," said Alexandra O'Dwyer, director of communications and marketing at Scope. "This incident is very much an exception to the rule."
You must log in to comment on articles.
All Comments Make a comment
One Small Voice?, 26 November 2008, 09:15
Crikey, we're not starting to take IG seriously now are we?[Report this post]
Michael Hodgson, 26 November 2008, 11:27
despite the obvious flaws in IGs 'research', F2F does need to be done properly. The difficulty is that most of the people encountering F2Fdon't seem to know, or want to know what can be done if F2F is done badly.[Report this post]
Michael Hodgson, 26 November 2008, 11:34
EDIT:Sadly, despite the obvious flaws in IGs 'research'.
However F2F does need to be done properly. The difficulty is that most of the people encountering F2Fdon't seem to know, or want to know what can be done if F2F is done badly
[Report this post]
Mick Aldridge, 28 November 2008, 14:56
I'm getting used to repeating this mantra in various media in connection with various items, but just to underline, no face-to-face user need "crack down" on anything. It's understandable that the various spokespeople quoted, perhaps caught slightly 'on the hop', should have responded slightly defensively, but the clear facts of the matter - setting aside the legal red-herring arising from a woefully incomplete understanding of the law, and just reading from the actual results of the 'survey' undertaken by the alleged effectiveness-comparison website themselves - is that the overwhelming majority of face-to-face interactions are polite, efficient, and effective. Ceratinly it's wise to double-check any alleged failings, but equally it's UNwise to jump to conclusions and assume there are fundamental and irreparable underlying problems; there are not. Every single proper survey undertaken, from FRSB Complaints Audits, through nfpSynergy's CAM and beyond, show conclusively that face-to-face is way off most members of the public's complaints radar. Artificial controversies stirred up by desparate publicity-seekers will always drag the born complainers out of the woodwork, but these moaning minnies are NOT typical. 500,000 generous donors giving up to £25m a year at current values, year on year consistently for a decade, without a blink despite the media storms, is the bottom line - in every sense of the word.[Report this post]
One Small Voice?, 1 December 2008, 09:37
There is nothing "Intelligent" about IG's approach. Personally I feel conned by them.Adam Rothwell led me to believe that they were committed to uncovering the stuff that goes on under the surface and giving the public the insight to make properly informed decisions. His personal stance on face to face fundraising is compromising his objectivity. He clearly doesn't like it. Neither do I as it happens, but that doesn't mean it should be banned or regulated to death.
If you look at the topics currently under discusion on IG's site I'd argue that they don't fulfill and function not already adequately catered for by the mainstream media - bashing "chuggers" is really not cutting edge.
Intelligent Giving is now itself a registered charity competing with the rest of us for public funds. I'd ask all Third Sector readers to make an informed judgement about whether they serve any useful purpose before giving them the time of day, let alone your hard earned money.
[Report this post]