Institute of Fundraising responds to Buse Commission
Howard Lake | 17 November 2003 | News
The Institute of Fundraising has launched its outline response to the Buse Commission on the self-regulation of charity fundraising.
In its response, the Institute argues that the voluntary sector needs “a simple but structured approach to self-regulation that builds on the work of the Institute in setting best practice standards over the last 20 years.”
The Buse Commission grew out of the Government’s response to the Strategy Unit’s consultation document ‘Private Action, Public Benefit’, published in 2002. The Government’s response, entitled ‘Charities and Not-for-profits: A modern legal framework’, suggested that more formal self-regulation was the next step for the sector, with powers given to the Home Secretary to introduce statutory regulation if self-regulation fails to work.
Advertisement
The Institute of Fundraising says that it does not accept that, as yet, there is a clear downturn in public confidence affecting the sector. Yet it acknowledges that a ‘wait and see’ approach is dangerous if public confidence is to be maintained or enhanced. Simply gauging public confidence in terms of voluntary income, the Institute believes that the sector is unlikely to notice adverse changes quickly enough to take corrective action in time to stem a decrease in income. Therefore, argues the Institute, “if there are steps we can take now to maintain or even increase confidence in the sector, and the cost and burden of such a scheme are balanced by the benefit, then we have a duty to take such measures.”
As a result, the Institute asked Rodney Buse to conduct an independent inquiry into possible models of self-regulation. He will report in early 2004.
The Institute’s preferred model is for two separate bodies to oversee self-regulation in the sector. One body would set standards and engage with fundraising organisations through membership. The other would act as a reactive arbitrator of complaints about fundraising practices. The Institute puts itself forward for the former role, with the latter being handled by a new independent body. The Institute adds that the complaints body should be independent of the fundraising community in order to have the confidence of a complainant and have access to expert opinion from a panel of fundraising professionals.
The Institute’s model follows standards set down by The Office for Fair Trading (OFT) which oversees self-regulatory schemes in other sectors.
The Institute lays claim to this role by citing its track record in publishing codes of fundraising practice which have been voluntarily signed up to by fundraising organisations.
The Institute acknowledges that there would need to be “a clear, well-defined and close relationship between the self-regulatory structure and the regulators, the Charity Commission and bodies in Scotland and Northern Ireland.” Quite rightly, a donor should not be expected to know where regulation stops and self-regulation starts.
The Institute of Fundraising would expect the Government to fund the initial marketing of the new scheme together with ongoing costs of the complaints body.
The Institute suggests the creation of a mark or symbol which would communicate to the public that the organisation has signed up to best practices, in the way that reputable travel agencies display the ABTA sign.
About Howard Lake
Howard Lake is consultant editor of UK Fundraising. He founded the site in 1994 and successfully sold it in 2022. As director of Giving X Ltd he is exploring growing giving on a massive scale.
He is the founder of Fundraising Camp and co-founder of GoodJobs.