The charity sector gives the appearance of being opposed to the new Fundraising Regulator, and that this will cause problems for it in the future, says Leon Ward.

Without wishing to sound sorry for myself, it’s been a difficult and confusing twelve months for charity trustees. We have received bashings from all sides about our duties: to ensure a charity doesn’t fail; to keep our chief executives under control; and ultimately, to secure the financial viability/sustainability of our organisations.

All of which is right and is, of course, our actual job. However, fundraising has been front and centre for some time now, and I have been wondering how my fellow trustees across the land are responding to what is happening.

The announcement of a new fundraising regulator, outlined in the Etherington Review, has caused something of a backlash among the charity sector's self-appointed guardians. The chief executive of RNIB has refused to contribute to any start up costs - and has received the backing of several of her peers  - while Scottish charities have rejected the proposal to create a new regulator altogether.

So lots of supposedly credible figures in the sector seem to be saying that a regulator is the wrong way to go. Personally, I’m really not sure it is up to any chief executive to pontificate on this matter in isolation. If the board is accountable, then they should also be part of the decision?

The proposed regulator is to replace the three bodies who currently have joint responsibility for regulating fundraising: the Institute of Fundraising, the Fundraising Standards Board and the Public Fundraising Association – who all currently support the sector in ‘self regulation’.

Candidly, it seems clear we need a much stronger regulator: to monitor and intervene on unethical, or at the very least, questionable fundraising practices; to intervene when charities over-step the mark; to provide guidance to trustees on the ethics of fundraising; and ultimately, to be the body to whom trustees may refer any breach they think has happened. And what seems eminently logical to me, I suspect is also true of the public.

The latter point is crucial, because as a sector, we are seemingly at odds with the public, and it’s about time we admitted such and faced up to it.  A recent YouGov survey found that the majority of adults in the UK believe the charity sector has not taken accusations of aggressive fundraising seriously. Personally, I disagree with the accusation. I think the sector did take this seriously but has been weak and overly defensive in its response.

In effect, I believe that the sector’s overall response appears ‘anti-regulator’ and makes it look like charities have something to hide. Or that they are adopting the cynical posture that ‘once this media attention has all passed, it will be business as usual’. That clearly cannot and must not be allowed to be the case.

Boards lack capacity to monitor fundraising

A second, related point. I think that there is a serious gap between what is expected of trustees and the reality of how trustee boards work. Many organisations get their yearly business done in four quarterly meetings, each about two hours long.

Sure, some might have an annual strategy day as well. And, most also have sub-committees that focus on very specific issues, but personally (and I sit/have sat on a number of boards), I’ve never observed fundraising as being one of those issues. Perhaps it’s time to change the status quo and see fundraising practice as a standing agenda item, or the additional focus of a specific sub committee.

I’d also add that trustees that specialise in fundraising are usually quite hard to come by and there is the added argument that if we are to attract other people to become trustees, then surely, having a regulator to help keep an eye on all of this and support ‘generalists’ is useful? I am sure we can achieve that with absolving trustees of their ultimate responsibility.

It seems likely, however, that the level of scrutiny expected from boards cannot be accomplished with the time available to them.

What about the regulator's board?

A third point. As we now are going down the route of creating an independent regulator, it’s ironic that I find that actually, I already have a problem with who has been appointed to the board. Its independence of the sector is weak. All of the appointments bar one (the ex-CEO of the Gambling Commission) are people ‘of the sector’.  I think that is extremely dangerous, short-sighted and poor practice.  

My suggestion (and surely this is not rocket science) would be to include lay appointments of people who won’t come to the table, pre-equipped or pre-programmed with charity excuses or explanations as to ‘why our sector is different’. Lay board members are often the best people to litmus test what we are doing, will not think and talk in ‘charity-speak, and are often the best people to raise red flags of issues that might irritate/anger the public. And in any case, this is how the most effective regulators in others sectors operate.

And finally...

All of these issues lead to same conclusion. We have to try harder. A sector that is prone to being ‘holier than thou’ and preaching about ethics, values and morals to others should surely be adopting best practice regarding its own governance and regulation. 

Then, perhaps, we might stand a chance of recovering at last some of that lost credibility and respect in the eyes of the public.