# Self Regulation: Time for a Review? - Link: https://fundraising.co.uk/2009/11/03/self-regulation-time-review/ - Published: 2009-11-03T14:51:56+00:00 - Author: Howard Lake It was interesting to read last week how the Institute of Fundraising was now taking action against charities that it believes contravene its codes of professional practice and in particular the code covering best practice in DM. Their intention to apply a little friendly pressure before reporting these organisations to the FRSB has to be applauded.   My concern now lies with what happens next – if they should fail to comply the FRSB has few powers to control the activities of non-members and will be left to work behind the scenes to push for a change of heart. I wish them every success and so should we all. If they fail to control errant fundraising the government may yet intervene to impose greater regulation on the sector and that could be disastrous. I have seen first-hand in the United States the chaos that results when politicians and bureaucrats who don’t understand the profession feel compelled to legislate. ## Advertisement   In my view we must now do all that we can to avoid this scenario – including – should it prove necessary – reviewing the way that the FRSB is constituted and funded. I would personally prefer a scenario where fundraising is controlled in the same way as other forms of marketing communication. We need to give our regulator power over all fundraising conducted in this country and the powers to take action against offenders if and when an organization refuses to change tack.   Why not adopt an approach identical to that of the Advertising Standards Authority?   We might fund our system of self-regulation by having the Treasury take a tiny slice off the top of Giftaid and using this to properly fund the scheme. It need only be a miniscule percentage that in reality would cost organizations no more than they are paying now – but which would create a much firmer funding base as literally every organisation would then be compelled to contribute.   In this scenario the FRSB could be constituted to consider complaints about any form of fundraising from any UK charity. Errant fundraising practice could be investigated and offenders (should a complaint proceed to an adjudication) could be named in an annual report. Anyone failing to comply with an adjudication could be referred to the Secretary of State under the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations( 1988) who in extreme cases could issue an injunction to prevent repetition. In the wider world of advertising that power is VERY rarely used and I can’t believe it would EVER be needed in the context of fundraising, but the very fact that this avenue were to exist would create a powerful incentive to take our Codes of Fundraising Practice as seriously as they deserve.   * **[Can the art of storytelling help charity communications?](https://fundraising.co.uk/2009/11/03/can-art-storytelling-help-charity-communications/)**( 3 November 2009) * **[DEC's Haiti earthquake appeal reaches £42 million](https://fundraising.co.uk/2010/01/24/dec039s-haiti-earthquake-appeal-reaches-42-million/)**( 24 January 2010) * **[Co-operation or competition?](https://fundraising.co.uk/2010/01/26/cooperation-or-competition/)**( 26 January 2010) ## Comments ### By: Rarry Revan - Link: https://fundraising.co.uk/2009/11/03/self-regulation-time-review/#comment-3801 - Published: 2009-11-04T00:10:53+00:00 In a way I suppose it is, but the boundaries of acceptability get blurred when the word “charity” gets involved. Individual perception of guilt and nuisance can vary widely. An all encompassing complaints procedure could take years to agree to the point of it being effective. The FRSB is there in name but has yet to make its mark in the public psyche. Its omnipotence amongst charities is years away. Whilst statutary review of the charities act could start in 2011, I can’t see the powers that be going there when key parts have yet to become active. Seems to me that we have reached a stalemate, with bad practice continuing in the name of good. There are only a few key villians in this story, profiteering from naive charities while the majority of fundraising done is legit. I think the strings need to be janked not pulled. rarry ### By: ianclark - Link: https://fundraising.co.uk/2009/11/03/self-regulation-time-review/#comment-3802 - Published: 2009-11-04T11:49:45+00:00 Adrian, excellent post. I like the idea of the FRSB being funded by a small levy on Gift Aid, and I would add Payroll Giving to widen the base. Though I do note that the majority of smaller charities do not use GA or PG. But at least medium to larger charities would be forced to set a good example. You have discussed the specific case of DM fundraising, and suggested the FRSB uses the CMAR as an enforcement mechanism. But there are many other kinds of fundraising techniques than advertising (eg events, legacies, collections), so there needs to be a more general compliance mechanism. I suggest that the FRSB should report any continued breaches to the Charity Commission, the long-standing regulator for the sector, who already have powers to change flagrant charity misbehaviour (eg stop all fundraising, appoint new managers, remove trustees). If necessary they can use other relevant mechanisms like CMAR. Ian C ### By: Rarry Revan - Link: https://fundraising.co.uk/2009/11/03/self-regulation-time-review/#comment-3803 - Published: 2009-11-05T00:51:00+00:00 If the Charity Commission were to wield their regulatory power over fundraising would we need the FRSB? Surely the IoF, the originators of the codes of practice could set up a complaints hotline. As Ian rightly points out, funding regulation through gift aid would be as unequal as the current system. I understand that there are assets of closed charities languishing in bank vaults. More than seed corn funding I imagine. The holy grail of self regulation seems harder to achieve than some thought, but the FRSB needs to work because the sector can’t rely on getting a second chance from the state. Time for some leadership. rarry.