Last month saw the launch of the Fundraising Standards Board – the new “self-regulatory” body for fundraising in the UK. It comes with a groovy logo (a blue tick with “FSB”) which charities can use to reassure people donating money that they are nice fluffy types.
From their website:
…we will handle public complaints about how our members … raise money as well as offering the public a “mark of reassurance” to look for when giving to charities in the future…
…membership is voluntary… and [involves agreeing to] a strict set of codes and a Fundraising Promise committing them to treat the public with respect, fairness, honesty and clarity in all their money raising activities…. [and] an independent, robust and transparent complaints process…
[This is] an independent body you can go to if you are unhappy about how a charity raises money.
I guess this was a long time coming. The Charity Commission report “Cause for Complaint?” published last May included a survey of how many charities had a complaints procedure – which led to a bunch of reports (such as this in The Guardian and others, and various blogs like this one) that too many charities don’t have any formal way to know if their clients are unhappy with their service.
A worrying 80% of charities without procedures said they didn’t need one.
Perhaps more concerningly:
The survey highlighted how small and medium-sized charities are misunderstanding how complaints should be handled, with 77 per cent incorrectly believing the Charity Commission had responsibility for resolving disputes.
This concern that charities are not effectively handling their own complaints (and in most cases assumed that the Charity Commission would do it for them!) has led to the creation of this new body.
How effective it will be is under some discussion. Some, like the guys at intelligentgiving are disappointed that joining the Board is a voluntary step, that policing the standards will be left to members of the public, using standards written in fairly obscure language. I think they make a good point – it is easy to see this as a half-measure to ease the concerns (and the Government pressure it led to) about a lack of regulation in the sector.
That said, it is a start. Presumably the complaints procedures they have developed are examples of best practice, and provide a quick and simple way to identify a charity which has taken the time to put a considered Complaints Procedure in place. It also saves time for smaller charities to start with an off-the-shelf procedure.
And there are many who would argue that a formal complaints procedure is not appropriate for all charities.
A spokesperson for the National Council for Voluntary Organisations says the route is not right for all organisations, and there are other ways for a charity to prove its transparency. It’s up to our individual members to have or not have a complaints procedure. Every charity is different and they have different needs, and their users have different needs, a spokesperson says. A complaints procedure is one of the ways to be open and accountable, but it’s only what happens when things go wrong. So we would encourage our members to put in place measures to engage with their users at every step of their operation.
This point was made more colourfully by blogger “The Ranger” who:
… openly criticised the Commission, arguing that a small charity with the sole aim of conserving the local population of dormice would not find a formal complaints process beneficial. “Why should it expend resources handling complaints from people who think it should be conserving squirrels?”
Given concerns like these, perhaps a voluntary scheme is a sensible way to begin.
Incidentally, Solent Youth Action does have a Complaints Procedure which all volunteers and partner organisations are made aware of. It’s not on the web yet, but we are working on a new website and having all of our policies and procedures is one of the things that we are planning on including.
Do we also need to join the FSB to provide an opportunity for complaints to be raised with an external independent person? I’m not sure – but it’s something that I guess we need to discuss.