# When two's a crowd

- Link: https://fundraising.co.uk/2009/02/12/when-two039s-crowd/
- Published: 2009-02-12T22:07:21+00:00
- Author: Howard Lake

And frankly, three would be a disaster.

 

I’m talking about the decision of the [Practical Fundraising Association](http://practicalfundraising.com)
to launch a rival good practice scheme to the [Fundraising Standards Board](https://www.fundraising.co.uk/www.frsb.org.uk).
Apparently it’s GOOD FUNDRAISING CODE (their shouting not mine) was launched on 
12th February in response to demand because “many causes cannot afford the fees 
other codes charge”. Though membership of the PFA itself does cost – more than the
lowest bands charged by the FRSB.

## Advertisement

 

Whatever the merits or otherwise of this venture there are two fundamental problems:

 

First, the PFA as it openly states is a trade body. It is an agency and effectively
a consultancy with a vested interest. Such a body cannot in any way be deemed to
be independent and for the sake of its own credibility, the fundraising sector cannot
have a non independent body running a scheme that promotes good practice.

 

Secondly, the sector needs to have one authoritative voice on good practice to which
everyone is signed up. It’s not a particularly good example in the current climate
but the FSA was born out of a mish mash of rival and confusing trade bodies all 
purporting to self regulate different parts of the financial services industry. 
The public didn’t know which was the real mccoy and which to have confidence in.
This forced the government to act. Nothing is more likely to spur the government
into action than the fundraising sector generating myriad schemes all purporting
to provide confidence for the giving public.

 

The sector needs one self regulatory body and one set of codes. And for any small
organisation tempted by PFA’s offer, go look again at what membership of the [Fundraising Standards Board](https://www.fundraising.co.uk/www.frsb.org.uk)
costs and offers. And if the PFA or its parent, Company Solutions, really wanted
to be helpful, it could consider sponsoring the fee for small organisations. Or 
is making the government-backed self-regulatory scheme work not really the point?

 

 * **[Charities Bill explained in less than 4 mins](https://fundraising.co.uk/2009/02/20/charities-bill-explained-less-4-mins/)**(
   20 February 2009)
 * **[Cancer charities consider merger](https://fundraising.co.uk/2009/03/03/charities-consider-merger/)**(
   3 March 2009)
 * **[Charity legislation becomes law](https://fundraising.co.uk/2009/03/04/charity-legislation-becomes-law/)**(
   4 March 2009)

## Comments

### By: kevin baughen

- Link: https://fundraising.co.uk/2009/02/12/when-two039s-crowd/#comment-3543
- Published: 2009-02-17T10:46:58+00:00

I think the FSA is a great example to illustrate the point that multiple voices
and an amalgamation of too many philosophies is a poor way to provide consistently
high standards – good choice!

 There’s plenty of evidence around just now…

 Secondly, having worked for years in the financial sector in a previous life, regulatory
compliance was a pain in the proverbial. The only way to avoid it arriving in the
fundraising sector is for us to collectively buy-in to a consistent voluntary code.
Practitioners influence the content and it is self-policed to a great extent (as
per FRSB).  I’m not a particular fan of the FRSB but this version is already established
so let’s work on improving that.

 Having multiple versions is just begging for our nanny state to jump in with regulation
at the first whiff of financial irregularity!

 Kevin Baughen is the founder of Bottom Line Ideas [http://www.bottomlineideas.com](http://www.bottomlineideas.com),
and a volunteer Speaker for Cancer Research UK