# Oxfam’s agency placed “undue pressure” on public to donate, says FRSB report

- Link: https://fundraising.co.uk/2015/12/18/oxfams-agency-placed-undue-pressure-on-public-to-donate-says-frsb-report/
- Published: 2015-12-18T10:50:21+00:00
- Author: Howard Lake

**A fundraising campaign carried out by telephone fundraising agency Listen Ltd 
applied “undue pressure” on the public to donate, according to the results of an
investigation by the Fundraising Standards Board (FRSB).**

The FRSB has judged that the actions breached the Fundraising Code of Practice.

The “two step” campaign for Oxfam involved an initial approach on the street asking
passers-by to donate via SMS. This activity was delivered by face-to-face fundraising
agency, The Street Academy. Those who donated were then contacted via telephone 
by one of Listen’s fundraisers, asking campaign donors to confirm whether they wished
to Gift Aid their donation (and boost its value at no extra cost to the donor) and
also whether they wished to convert it to a regular gift.

## Advertisement

## The Mail on Sunday’s claims

The results of the investigation have been published today in [three separate reports](https://fundraising.co.uk/2015/12/18/oxfams-agency-placed-undue-pressure-on-public-to-donate-says-frsb-report/www.frsb.org.uk/frsb-investigation-on-oxfam-listen-ltd).
The investigation follows [allegations in The Mail on Sunday on 7 June 2015](https://www.fundraising.co.uk/2015/06/08/oxfam-and-frsb-to-investigate-mail-on-sundays-claims-of-high-pressure-fundraising-techniques/)
under the headline ‘Oxfam Targets Donors Aged 98’. It concluded with an adjudication
by the FRSB’s Board in November 2015.

The FRSB found no evidence that the charity or two agencies expressly targeted elderly
supporters. It described the newspaper’s headline therefore as ‘misleading’ and ‘
untrue’.

Andrew Hind, Chair of the Fundraising Standards Board, said:

> “When investigating allegations of poor fundraising practice, we have a responsibility
> to identify those areas where criticism of charities is unfounded, as well as 
> to identify any wrongdoing and ensure remedial action takes place. So it is important
> to be clear that we found no evidence to substantiate The Mail on Sunday`s assertion
> that Oxfam was targeting elderly supporters in this campaign”.

## Code of Fundraising Practice breached

The FRSB judged that the campaign had breached several clauses of the UK’s Code 
of Fundraising Practice.

• It ruled that Listen had taken an ‘inflexible’ approach, requiring its fundraisers
always to ask for funds three times per call and refusing to take people off its
contact list unless they used one of three specific phrases.

• It found that one fundraiser working for The Street Academy had failed to deliver
the required solicitation statement that indicated that she was paid and employed
by a third party. She also did not make it clear how the supporter’s contact details
would be used in the future.

• It concluded that Oxfam had not managed the campaign consistently enough with 
the result that sufficient checks were not carried out to ensure ongoing compliance
by the telephone fundraising agency. Not had it ensured that the required clear 
opt out message had been included in SMS text responses to donations.

The FRSB did accept that Oxfam did have reasonable procedures in place to monitor
Listen’s activities and the campaign’s telephone fundraising scripts were compliant
with fundraising standards.

## Specific breaches

The [FRSB’s three reports](https://fundraising.co.uk/2015/12/18/oxfams-agency-placed-undue-pressure-on-public-to-donate-says-frsb-report/www.frsb.org.uk/frsb-investigation-on-oxfam-listen-ltd)
listed the following breaches of the Code of Fundraising Practice.

**Oxfam** breached:

• Code section 4.2(b) by failing to make sufficient efforts to check and ensure 
the ongoing compliance of third parties with the Code and their legal requirements.

• Code section 9.6.2(e) by not including a clear option to opt out from future contact
in an SMS text message to campaign donors.

• Code section L14.7(d) by not allowing sufficient time between securing a text 
donation on the street and the subsequent follow up telephone call, meaning that
those who may have chosen to opt out from calls would not have been excluded from
Listen’s contact list.

**Listen** breached:

• Code section 1.3.1(b) by exerting ‘undue pressure’ on supporters with their policy
to ‘…always ask three times’ for a donation on a telephone call.

• Code section L14.7(d) Listen by restricting donors’ direct marketing opt out requests
to one of three specific phrases.

**The Street Academy** breached:

• Code section L10.1(b) by failing to deliver the required solicitation statement.

• Code section L14.7(c) by providing a misleading response when failing to confirm
that a follow up call would be made asking for a regular gift.

Andrew Hind commented:

> “We are concerned that this campaign was non-compliant in several areas and that
> some fault lay with each of the three organisations involved. All fundraising 
> activity, whether in-house or delivered by third parties, must be closely monitored
> to ensure it meets both legal and industry standards.
> “If it is evident that a supporter does not wish to donate or even that they cannot
> do so at that time, to keep asking places undue pressure on them. For the sake
> of the critical work of the sector and the needs of its beneficiaries, all fundraisers
> must listen carefully to the views of the public. Only by doing so will charities
> succeed in building trust in fundraising over the long term and engaging the public
> more fully in their work.”

 

## Further action

Oxfam, Listen and The Street Academy have taken remedial actions to address the 
Board’s rulings:

• Oxfam is reviewing its use of data protection statements and opt outs in all marketing
communications as well as enhanced induction procedures for new fundraising staff;

• Listen has taken disciplinary action against a fundraising trainer and is reviewing
the company’s policy on managing conversations with vulnerable people

• The Street Academy is undertaking refresher training for fundraisers.

The regulator called for further actions, including:

• The ability for Listen’s fundraisers to use their discretion and terminate a call
without the requirement to ask for a donation three times;

• Oxfam to consider the feasibility of embedding its own staff members into the 
agencies concerned during all or part of a fundraising campaign to provide an additional
level of scrutiny.

The FRSB has also written to the Institute of Fundraising, asking it to review Code
clause 8.3.1, which currently states that fundraisers can ask no more than three
times for a donation during the course of one call. The FRSB’s view is that a third
ask, when a donor has already said no twice, can constitute undue pressure.

This case has also been referred to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) 
to assess whether there has been any breach of the Data Protection Act.

 

## Oxfam implementing 15 improvements

Mark Goldring, Oxfam GB Chief Executive, responded to the FRSB’s adjudicating, saying:

> “We are pleased that the FRSB has cleared us of the most serious accusation made
> by the Mail on Sunday. We have always been clear that their headline claim that
> we targeted elderly or vulnerable people in our fundraising is, as the FRSB has
> found, not only misleading but completely untrue.
> “Nevertheless, we recognise that the Mail on Sunday highlighted practices that
> did not meet the high standards we expect of those fundraising on our behalf and
> that were not picked up by our own monitoring systems. That is why we quickly 
> halted work with Listen Ltd and have already acted voluntarily to strengthen our
> monitoring of fundraising agencies.
> “Our supporters are the lifeblood of our organisation and we apologise once again
> for failing to ensure this fundraising campaign met the high standards people 
> quite rightly expect of us. We hope the public are reassured by the fact that,
> on our own initiative, we have already implemented 15 improvements set out by 
> the FRSB – including those to ensure that we meet both the relevant regulations
> and good practice standards on opt outs. We will of course consider how we can
> strengthen our monitoring further in light of this report.”

 

## Listen implemented all FRSB recommendations

A Listen spokesman welcomed the FRSB’s report, in particular with regard to the 
newspaper’s claims that it targeted elderly and vulnerable people. The spokesman
said:

> “The FRSB investigation was launched following an article by the Mail on Sunday,
> which incorrectly stated Listen specifically targeted elderly and vulnerable people.
> In its adjudication report, the regulator concluded the paper’s headline featured
> a quote that:
> “…had not been stated by any Listen staff member during the course of the paper’s
> investigation and was therefore misleading and untrue.”
> “We are pleased the FRSB dismissed the allegation that we had breached the ‘respectful
> principle’, and that it acknowledges that Listen “has a robust policy in place
> for managing conversations with vulnerable people.” The FRSB adds it was ‘encouraged’
> by the immediate remedial action taken by Listen as soon as the newspaper’s article
> appeared.
> “We moved quickly to address any evidence of practice that fell below our normal
> high standards and our proactivity has meant that all of the subsequent recommendations
> made by the FRSB have been in place for several months now”.