Lessons from the Fundraising Standards Board
The Fundraising Standards Board (FRSB) has found itself being roundly criticized for its first adjudication on a complaint. Third Sector used its weekly editorial to condemn the FRSB's decision; and I have written elsewhere about how the judgement brings the FRSB into disrepute.
The decision is as simple as it is perverse. The FRSB ruled that Cancer Research UK was within its rights to send a donor thirteen pens over a period of two years; it stated that such behaviour was consistent with the "high standards" that its members are supposed to show. I argue on the Intelligent Giving Blog why I think this is the wrong decision - but on a deeper level it also shows up the problems organizations face when they fail to act accountably.
The FRSB, I contend, is able to make such ill-judged decisions because it lacks proper engagement with its stakeholders. Last year, it commissioned research on donors' attitudes to unsolicited gifts; and this research showed that over 90 per cent of donors dislike receiving them. This implies that charities which send such gifts generally do so against donors' wishes; and this in turn means that the receipt of such gifts easily causes annoyance.
However, it is my view that the organizational culture of the FRSB blinded it to this. Its board of directors - which is ultimately responsible for the FRSB's decisions - is made up almost exclusively of direct-mail professionals, charity trustees, ex-charity workers and people otherwise involved in third-sector enterprises. There is an abject lack of engagement with the public whose wishes they are supposed to represent.
This unrepresentative make-up goes a long way, I suspect, to explaining why the FRSB made the wrong decision; and this in turn illustrates why accountability to a key stakeholder group - intended beneficiaries - is vitally important.
The decision is as simple as it is perverse. The FRSB ruled that Cancer Research UK was within its rights to send a donor thirteen pens over a period of two years; it stated that such behaviour was consistent with the "high standards" that its members are supposed to show. I argue on the Intelligent Giving Blog why I think this is the wrong decision - but on a deeper level it also shows up the problems organizations face when they fail to act accountably.
The FRSB, I contend, is able to make such ill-judged decisions because it lacks proper engagement with its stakeholders. Last year, it commissioned research on donors' attitudes to unsolicited gifts; and this research showed that over 90 per cent of donors dislike receiving them. This implies that charities which send such gifts generally do so against donors' wishes; and this in turn means that the receipt of such gifts easily causes annoyance.
However, it is my view that the organizational culture of the FRSB blinded it to this. Its board of directors - which is ultimately responsible for the FRSB's decisions - is made up almost exclusively of direct-mail professionals, charity trustees, ex-charity workers and people otherwise involved in third-sector enterprises. There is an abject lack of engagement with the public whose wishes they are supposed to represent.
This unrepresentative make-up goes a long way, I suspect, to explaining why the FRSB made the wrong decision; and this in turn illustrates why accountability to a key stakeholder group - intended beneficiaries - is vitally important.
Add a Comment
About Intelligent Giving's Accountability Log
Adam Rothwell
created this social network on Ning.
© 2008 Created by Adam Rothwell on Ning. Create your own social network
You need to be a member of Intelligent Giving's Accountability Log to add comments!
Join this network