FRSB INVESTIGATION INTO TAG CAMPAIGNS FUNDRAISING ON BEHALF OF MARIE CURIE

Transcription

1 FRSB INVESTIGATION INTO TAG CAMPAIGNS FUNDRAISING ON BEHALF OF MARIE CURIE [] 2012 Fundraising Standards Board 61 London Fruit Exchange Brushfield Street London E1 6EP t e. w. Registered in England & Wales. Company limited by guarantee. Community Interest Company No Registered Office 61 London Fruit Exchange, Brushfield Street, London, E1 6EP

2 FRSB INVESTIGATION INTO TAG CAMPAIGNS FUNDRAISING ON BEHALF OF MARIE CURIE 1. INTRODUCTION The Fundraising Standards Board (FRSB) initiated an investigation into the fundraising practices of Tag Campaigns (Tag) on 26 th June 2012 after being presented with evidence by The Sunday Telegraph indicating misconduct and substandard fundraising. The editorial team consulted the FRSB in preparation for publishing an exposé into the fundraising practices of the agency on 24 th June The Sunday Telegraph report called into question the fundraising practices of Tag when working on behalf of Marie Curie Cancer Care (Marie Curie). Tag is an agency specialising in a method of fundraising known as PSMS (Premium Short Message Service) which involves asking the public to make a one-off text donation (which goes directly to the charity) with the view to them being called subsequently and asked to make a regular contribution. A reporter from The Sunday Telegraph spent 12 days working undercover at Tag and, during that time, witnessed a series of apparent breaches of the Institute of Fundraising s (IoF) Face-to-Face Activity Code of Fundraising Practice. The FRSB investigation took into account information and evidence supplied by Tag, The Sunday Telegraph, Marie Curie, other charities that had commissioned Tag for similar fundraising campaigns and the Professional Fundraising Regulatory Association (PFRA). The FRSB Board met on 2 nd October 2012 to consider the evidence and assess the allegations of misconduct in the context of both the IoF Codes and the FRSB Fundraising Promise. The Institute of Fundraising Codes of Practice were replaced by one overarching Code of Practice on the 13 th of November For the purposes of this investigation, the FRSB Board took into consideration the IoF Codes that were prevailing at the time the allegations against Tag were first made. 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The FRSB Board s assessment of the case was driven by consideration of the IoF s Face to Face Activity Code of Fundraising Practice. Additional observations were noted during the investigation carried out by the FRSB, but these were contextual matters and did not form part of the FRSB s assessment of whether or not Code breaches had occurred. Based on the evidence presented, the FRSB Board was unanimous in its conclusions: 2.1. Tag Campaigns breached the IoF Face to Face Activity Code in a number of key areas (see section 3), which risked the reputation and brand image of FRSB member charity, Marie Curie. Based on the evidence available, the Board felt it was likely that the code breaches it identified were not only due to the actions of a few individual fundraisers, but the consequence of significant failures at Tag. Although Tag was commended for co-operating with the investigation and for putting in place a number of changes to its recruitment, training and induction programmes, concerns were raised that evidence provided by The Sunday Telegraph varied materially from evidence subsequently provided by Tag. This raised questions over the credibility of evidence provided

3 by Tag in its submission to the FRSB Board. Furthermore, the FRSB Board considered the fact that Tag had implemented specific changes as an indication that there were failings at the company prior to the publication of The Sunday Telegraph article. The FRSB Board recommended that Tag agrees to a 12 month monitoring programme so as to enable the FRSB to assess the company s adherence to the remedial steps that had been put in place since the publication of The Sunday Telegraph article; this will include input from the PFRA. The FRSB reserves the right to terminate the monitoring programme in the event of continued non compliance. Should Tag apply for FRSB membership, their application will be considered taking into account their full cooperation with this investigation and a satisfactory outcome of the monitoring programme The solicitation statement (a declaration of the costs and target amount to be raised during the campaign) was not compliant, the requirement to make such a disclosure was not made clear to Tag fundraisers during training and Tag fundraisers when fundraising on the street did not deliver the statement. The FRSB is referring this breach of charity law to the Charity Commission Marie Curie should have more closely monitored the fundraising campaign delivered by Tag. Charities, as well as the agencies they work with, share responsibility for ensuring that campaigns are compliant with the rules and regulations surrounding face to face fundraising. The FRSB Board commended Marie Curie for the comprehensive audit it carried out in reaction to the allegations made by The Sunday Telegraph and has been encouraged by the proactive remedial steps the charity has taken to ensure more substantial involvement with monitoring the compliance aspect of its work with third party agencies moving forward. A number of sector wide recommendations were put forward by the FRSB Board which are outlined in Section 5.0 of this report. 3. BOARD ASSESSMENT: IOF FACE-TO-FACE ACTIVITY CODE The FRSB Board reviewed Tag s fundraising against the criteria of the Institute of Fundraising s Faceto-Face Activity Code and determined whether Tag had or had not met these requirements, as outlined in points 3.1 to Code Section 4.0: Conduct of Fundraisers/Agents Fundraising organisations OUGHT: To undertake face-to-face activity in a manner that neither the fundraising organisation nor the provider is brought into disrepute; To never deliberately confuse, mislead or obstruct the public. FRSB Board Decision (Code Breach): The FRSB Board concluded that Tag had breached this aspect of the Face to Face Activity Code after considering the footage filmed by The Sunday Telegraph of Tag fundraisers working on streets throughout the UK. It was clear from that evidence that the conduct of some Tag fundraisers had the potential to cause reputational risk to Marie Curie.

4 The FRSB Board considered all of the video evidence filmed by The Sunday Telegraph which included footage of a Tag fundraiser stating on film that they enjoyed confusing businessmen by telling them that they had dropped something and a Team Leader following an elderly lady down the street even though she had clearly indicated that she did not wish to engage with them. The FRSB Board acknowledged the fact that Tag had taken disciplinary action against those members of staff who had been captured on camera encouraging and displaying poor fundraising practice. However, it also felt that continued monitoring of Tag would be beneficial so as to ensure that the steps taken by the company to improve its training and compliance procedures would lead to the necessary change and compliance with best practice in the long term Code Section 5.2: Recruitment and Payment of Fundraisers/Agents The project manager of the activity OUGHT to ensure that the agents /fundraisers recruitment process identifies potential recruits with a criminal record indicating unsuitability subject to Data Protection regulations and Human Rights legislation. FRSB Board Decision (Code Breach): The FRSB Board agreed that the two fundraiser recruitment agencies used by Tag appear to have appropriate systems in place to ensure that the fundraisers they employ on behalf of the company are appropriately vetted. However, The Board concluded that Tag was in breach of this part of the Code prior to The Sunday Telegraph exposé because it did not carry out background checks on every fundraiser it recruited directly; only spot checks. That said, the Board acknowledged that Tag had since committed to carrying out checks on all direct recruits in future. The project manager of the activity SHOULD ensure, where paid, all fundraisers/agents are contracted with appropriate contracts in place. FRSB Board Decision (No Code Breach): The FRSB Board concluded that Tag s current approach with regard to employee contracts is compliant with British employment law which gives employers a maximum of eight weeks to issue a contract....professional Fundraisers as officers, employees and trustees of a charitable institution MUST comply with certain transparency requirements set out in the Charities Act They MUST make a statement specifying the institution for which they are raising funds; the method by which their remuneration is determined and the notifiable amount of that remuneration (the remuneration of the professional fundraising organisation); and if they are paid employees. Such a statement MUST be made at the time of the solicitation and so, in practice, before a donor has authorised an agreement to donate. FRSB Board Decision (Code Breach): The Sunday Telegraph s video footage of Tag s training session affirmed that trainees were not informed of the legal requirement to make a financial disclosure (solicitation statement) to potential donors.

5 The footage filmed by The Sunday Telegraph showed Tag fundraisers practicing pitch work in pairs which lasted for approximately 30 minutes; none of the practice pitches included the disclosure and the two members of Tag training staff who supervised the session did not point this out to anyone. The undercover reporter was also interviewed during the course of the investigation and confirmed that they were not made aware of the disclosure on the back of their ID badge at any point during their induction training. A Tag Team Leader had been captured on film delivering a full fundraising ask during which the disclosure signed off by Marie Curie and Tag was not used. Furthermore, additional evidence was provided by another reporter from The Sunday Telegraph who had also been approached by a fundraiser working on behalf of Tag and recorded the conversation on their phone. The fundraiser did not mention that they were paid and failed to deliver the solicitation statement. Independent legal advice sought by the FRSB during the investigation confirmed that the solicitation statement in use at the time of the exposé was not compliant because it was not clear that the cost of the fundraising campaign was borne by the charity and did not set out the method by which those costs had been calculated. Whilst the FRSB Board acknowledged that Tag had since confirmed that the solicitation statement has now been corrected, it concluded the solicitation statement drafted and agreed for the campaign was not compliant. The FRSB Board directed that the Charity Commission are informed of this breach. 3.3 Code Section 5.3: General Training & Professionalism Fundraising organisations OUGHT NOT to undertake face-to-face activity without a prior, structured training and briefing programme for all fundraisers/agents. FRSB Board Decision (No Code Breach): The FRSB Board concluded that Tag had not breached this aspect of the Code because the training materials provided by the company in its submission appeared to meet the basic requirements. That said, the Board felt that the footage filmed by The Sunday Telegraph indicated the delivery of that training was inadequate and did not accurately mirror the content of the training documentation enclosed in Tag s submission. The FRSB Board accepted that Tag appeared to have improved its training programme since The Sunday Telegraph exposé but that closer monitoring was needed to ensure that such changes were having a tangible impact. 3.4 Code Section 5.3.1: Basic Training Fundraising organisations OUGHT to ensure that all fundraisers/agents are properly trained before engaging in any personal approaches. Basic training needs to specify how to make approaches that comply with the law. FRSB Board Decision (Code Breach): The FRSB Board concluded that footage filmed by The Sunday Telegraph indicated insufficient time was spent on helping trainees develop compliant pitches

6 before they went on the streets. Whilst trainees were required to practice pitch work, this largely took place in groups where little attention was paid to individual pitches and, as stated previously, trainees were not informed of the importance of making the financial disclosure. The FRSB Board therefore concluded that Tag had breached this part of the Code. Training OUGHT to be provided in person by an authorised and suitable appointee and OUGHT to include involvement from the fundraising organisation. FRSB Board Decision (No Code Breach): Based on the evidence put before it, the FRSB Board concluded that there had been no breach of this aspect of the Code. Evidence submitted by both Tag and Marie Curie supported the fact that Tag had been briefed on the charity s work and the training delivered by Tag as captured on film by The Sunday Telegraph appeared to fully reflect what Marie Curie had asked for. In addition, Marie Curie personally delivered a training session to Tag fundraisers, Team Leaders and Fundraising Managers prior to the campaign going live. As a minimum, basic training OUGHT to include (amongst others) an immediate agreement to terminate the approach in a polite manner at any stage during the approach when asked to do so. FRSB Board Decision (No Code Breach): Footage filmed by The Sunday Telegraph s showed a Tag trainer advising trainees not to overstep the mark and that asking someone to stop more than twice would be excessive. Considering this point in the context of the Face to Face Activity Code, best practice and the fundraising method in question the FRSB Board concluded that Tag had not breached this section of the Code. However, the FRSB Board felt that the training delivered on Tag s premises did not adequately translate into Tag fundraiser conduct on the street as evidenced by Tag Team Leaders following people down the street and encouraging fundraisers to be more harassive [sic]. It was therefore concluded that better controls needed to be in place at Tag to ensure that the standards promoted during training were being consistently delivered on the street. 4. BOARD ASSESSMENT: SUPPLEMENTARY ISSUES In addition to the IoF s Face to Face Activity Code, the FRSB Board considered the following key issues within its investigation: 4.1. Training materials submitted by Tag in response to the investigation differed materially from documentation given by Tag to The Sunday Telegraph reporter which the paper subsequently shared with the FRSB. This raised concerns about the credibility of Tag s submission to the FRSB Board During the course of the investigation, the FRSB was provided with evidence from the PFRA, that Tag had committed a significantly higher than average number of Site Management Agreement breaches compared to its competitors over the 10 month period preceding the publication of The Sunday Telegraph article; in the FRSB s view, the evidence demonstrated that adherence

7 to key regulation was not consistently met by the company. It is however important to note that the issue of Site Management Agreement breaches committed by Tag was a matter of context in the investigation and had no bearing on the findings reached by the FRSB Board regarding breach of the Code The Board was concerned that, despite evidence to the contrary, Tag repeatedly denied any failure or wrongdoing during the course of the investigation. 5. BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS As is standard practice for all FRSB investigations, the FRSB Board makes a number of sector-wide recommendations in its concluding remarks. These recommendations arose as a direct consequence of considering the investigation into Tag Campaigns. 5.1 Tag is not a member of the FRSB, however it fundraises on behalf of FRSB member organisations who have made a commitment to comply with the IoF Codes and FRSB Fundraising Promise; this includes Marie Curie. Section 1.0 of the IoF s Face to Face Activity Code currently suggests that fundraising organisations should become members of the FRSB but does not make this a requirement. The FRSB Board therefore recommended that this requirement in the Code as it currently stands be altered from a SHOULD to an OUGHT meaning that it becomes a requirement for organisations engaged in fundraising to join the FRSB. It was agreed that such an amendment would help to promote greater commitment to self regulation in the long term which would, in turn, improve the standard of fundraising delivered across the sector. 5.2 In the interests of providing greater clarity for the sector, the FRSB Board recommended that in Section 5.2 of its current Face to Face Activity Code, the IoF outlines the precise processes faceto-face fundraising agencies ought to put in place in order to identify potential criminal records of recruits as the guidance in the current Code is ambiguous. 5.3 A general observation was made that agencies may want to consider cost-effective ways of issuing a conditions of employment style document for fundraisers when they first start working for them in the interests of transparency and accountability. The Board recommended that the applicable part of Section 5.2 of the IoF s Face to Face Activity Code concerning fundraiser contracts should be changed from a SHOULD to an OUGHT requirement. In addition, the Board requested that the current Code be amended to make it clear that it is a legal requirement for employment contracts to be issued within 8 weeks. 5.4 The FRSB Board recommended that charities need to take more responsibility for the conduct of the fundraising agencies they work with and ensure that fundraising carried out in their name is delivered in a compliant way. This should include ensuring that contracts signed with agencies are fit for purpose and that all parties are familiar with both the IoF Codes of Practice and the PFRA Code of Conduct prior to the campaign going live. 5.5 Face-to-face fundraising remains a vital and valuable source of income for the sector and high standards must be maintained at all times. However, it is important to remember that those returns need to be considered in the context of reputational risk if income generation is placed above the quality of fundraising that is delivered. It is now for the sector (with guidance from

8 IoF, PFRA and FRSB) to determine how these challenges can be resolved in a way that is both cost-effective and deliverable. Performance of fundraisers and fundraising campaigns must be measured appropriately against realistic targets that do not compromise the quality of fundraising. With this in mind, it is recommended that the PFRA consults its membership on alternative incentive models that encourage fundraisers to not only secure donations but recognise the importance of maintaining standards. 5.6 Since the FRSB initiated its investigation, significant improvements in terms of monitoring face to face fundraising have already been implemented by the PFRA which are yielding positive results. Mystery shopping and performance monitoring programmes, conducted by charities and suppliers alike should reflect public concerns about the method, perhaps incorporating questions such as was the fundraiser respectful and did the fundraiser create any undue pressure to give? The FRSB Board recommended that organisations involved in face to face fundraising should demonstrate greater adherence to the revised PFRA Mystery Shopping model. 5.7 The FRSB Board recommended specific changes within section 1 and 5.2 of the IoF s Face-to- Face Activity Code (refer to section 3 of this report). PSMS fundraising incorporates three different methods of fundraising; namely face to face, telephone and SMS fundraising. These methods currently sit under three separate Codes. Because Tag s model of PSMS fundraising is becoming more widely used by the sector, the FRSB Board felt that more clarification on and consolidation of face-to-face, telephone and SMS fundraising was necessary in the Institute s Codes of Fundraising Practice and encouraged the FRSB and IoF to discuss the feasibility of such a proposal upon completion of this investigation. 5.8 The FRSB Board recommended that the PFRA should consider ways in which it can share any concerns it may have about particular face to face agencies with its charity members without compromising confidentiality. In addition, the Board recommended that the FRSB and the PFRA work more closely together in future to ensure best practice standards are being met and to strengthen public trust and confidence. This would include collaboration on auditing and monitoring programmes, regular reporting and communication to the sector about key issues relating to this form of fundraising. Any evidence of poor performance must be investigated and the relevant bodies alerted. It is recommended that a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is developed between the PFRA and FRSB to identify the relevant processes that need to be implemented, including the facility for the PFRA to refer such agencies to the FRSB for investigation. A preliminary meeting has been set up between both organisations to discuss the next steps upon completion of this investigation.