FRSB Complaints Report. An overview of charity fundraising complaints from 2014

Transcription

1 FRSB Complaints Report An overview of charity fundraising complaints from 214 Published July 215

2 2

3 contents About the FRSB pg 4 Foreword pg 5 Key Findings & Recommendations pg 6 Sector Viewpoints pg 12 Charity Profile pg 14 Use of Fundraising Methods pg 14 Fundraising Volume pg 17 Complaints by Income Band pg 21 Complaints by Cause pg 23 Complaint Analysis pg 26 Direct Marketing: Direct Mail, Telephone, & SMS Fundraising pg 33 Public Collections: Doorstep, Street, Private Site, Clothing Collections & Cash pg 42 Events: Outdoor Events & Social Activities pg 5 Gaming: Raffles, Lotteries & Other Prize Draws pg 51 Advertising: TV, Radio, Outdoor, Press, Inserts & Online pg 52 Other Fundraising: Trust, Corporate, Major Donor & Volunteer Fundraising pg 53 The FRSB Complaints Process pg 54 Stage One Complaints pg 55 Escalated Complaints pg 57 Appendices pg 59 3

4 About the FRSB The Fundraising Standards Board (FRSB) is the regulator of charity fundraising in the UK, working to ensure that fundraising is always legal, open, honest, respectful and accountable. We deliver the UK s self-regulatory scheme for charity fundraising, regulating fundraising practice against industry standards; the Institute of Fundraising s Code of Fundraising Practice; monitoring complaints about charity fundraising and working to resolve any public concerns. Our members make a public commitment to maintain best practice, adhering to the four key principles set out in the Code and the FRSB s Fundraising Promise. FRSB members are required to; - Abide by the Institute of Fundraising s Code of Fundraising Practice - Record all complaints, completing an Annual Complaints Return - Have a complaints procedure, which abides by the FRSB three stage process (see page 54) - Use the FRSB s tick logo on all fundraising materials - Clearly display their Fundraising Promise Over 1,8 charities and fundraising suppliers are signed up to the FRSB, accounting for over 5% of all voluntary income raised nationally. These organisations display the FRSB s tick logo on fundraising materials and appeals, encouraging the UK public to give with confidence. THE FUNDRAISING PROMISE FRSB members make a public commitment that their fundraising will always be conducted to a high standard and that they will be accountable to their supporters. The key principles of the Fundraising Promise are: Legal, Open, Honest & Respectful Working in Partnership The FRSB works with the Institute of Fundraising and the Public Fundraising Regulatory Association (PFRA) to ensure the delivery of a robust self-regulatory system for charity fundraising in the UK. This work is supported by regulatory partners which include the Charity Commission England and Wales, the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland and the Office of the Scottish Charity regulator (OSCR), the Direct Marketing Association and the Information Commissioner s Office. 4

5 foreword By Colin Lloyd, Chair of the Fundraising Standards Board The 215 FRSB Complaints Report* is issued at a defining time for UK fundraising. In recent weeks and following the tragic death of volunteer fundraiser Olive Cooke, the importance of listening to and learning from public feedback has never been more evident. Charities have faced public scrutiny with donors, the media, members of parliament from both houses together with the Prime Minister asking questions as to whether fundraisers are over-stepping the mark, making too many requests particularly of the elderly and vulnerable, and they are demanding change. The FRSB has been investigating the matter and, having published an interim report and recommendations for change in June, the investigation continues. One of the greatest strengths of the self-regulatory model for fundraising is that new rules and guidance can be incorporated quickly to reflect any issues highlighted by public feedback and changing fundraising practices. The Institute of Fundraising s Standards Committee has already confirmed that it will introduce new measures on the back of our interim recommendations and has committed to review all relevant areas of the Code and guidance, together with data sharing, buying and selling practices, in light of concerns raised. While we continue to address public concerns and to challenge fundraising standards where appropriate, the onus also lies with every charity to actively engage with and garner feedback from supporters about their own fundraising programmes. We recognise the immense challenges facing charities as they deal with continued Government cuts and growing demand for services; there is an urgent need for funds. However, to protect and preserve the sector, there is also an urgent need to ensure that public concerns can be voiced and complaints addressed. This report presents fundraising activity and complaint data from a record 1,338 charities (an 11% increase on those charities reporting to us last year). Our members reported 52,389 complaints from 214, which is an increase of 3,957 complaints on those reported in 213. Almost half of that annual increase is attributed to newly and the remaining increase (2,56) is down to a small number of charities with highly active fundraising programmes. The FRSB is addressing the cause of those increases with the respective organisations and will continue to work with the Institute of Fundraising to ensure relevant complaint trends are reflected within future development of fundraising standards. Listening to donors and the wider public and taking on their views is critical if we are to protect and grow public trust and confidence in charities. Self-regulation of fundraising is designed to create the right balance between the interests of the donor and beneficiaries in order to engender trust and confidence in giving. We are committed to ensuring that this balance is maintained, while building and growing FRSB membership. Listening to donors and the wider public and taking on their views is critical if we are to protect and grow public trust and confidence in charities. Colin Lloyd, Chair of the Fundraising Standards Board *The data used in this report is an analysis of all complaints received by FRSB member charities from January to December 214 5

6 Key Findings This year, 1,338 charities (91% of eligible FRSB charities) completed a complaint return for fundraising in 214. Key findings of this year s report include: Fig 1: Fundraising Complaints for 214 Fundraising Method Complaints Volume Avg. Complaint Rate*** Addressed direct mail 16,52 194,831, Telephone fundraising 8,56 18,564, Doorstep face-to-face 7,618 42,61, Charities Report 52,389 Complaints About Fundraising 52,389 fundraising complaints were reported by 1,338 charities on the back of over 2 billion donor contacts 1. This is an increase of 3,957 complaints on those reported in 213, with almost half of that increase (48%) recorded by charities that reported to the FRSB for the first time in 214. Within the context of fundraising activity carried out, complaint rates remain low, with an average of 39 complaints reported per organisation. 1 Donor contacts is the total number of times that people are asked to give as reported by FRSB charities. For some methods of fundraising (e.g. raffles, outdoor events and private site fundraising), the number of asks cannot always be recorded and alternative measures are used (such as ticket sales, event participants and donation sign-ups). Direct Marketing and Public Collections Account for 86% Of Complaints Advertising is the fundraising method that has the biggest reach (19.1 billion people in 214), but prompts just 2% of complaints. Of the remaining one billion donor contacts, direct marketing (mailings, telephone calls, s and SMS messages) and public collections (Direct Debit, cash, prospect and clothing / household collections) are together responsible for almost nine in ten (89%) asks and 86% of all fundraising complaints. Complaints about Direct Mail Have Fallen Although addressed mail remains top of the complaint table (with 16,52 complaints), the amount of mail and related complaints have fallen since 213. Addressed and unaddressed mail have seen the biggest absolute annual decreases in complaints of all fundraising methods (-446 and -536 respectively). Despite this, complaints about both addressed and unaddressed mail and the volume of asks remain significant with a collective total of 17,244 complaints and 375 million mail packs issued in 214. Fundraising mail now accounts for one third of all complaints (down from 38% in 213). 6 Clothing collections 6, ,78, fundraising 2, ,133,45.91 Outdoor events* 2,293 1,567, Raffles* 1,428 33,972, Private site face-to-face* 1,123 1,38, Lotteries* 1,34 75,718, Street face-to-face** ,472,62.52 Television advertising 733 1,128,7,416.1 Unaddressed direct mail ,55,91.6 Volunteer-led fundraising* , SMS fundraising 421 8,61,897.1 Online advertising 342 4,26,557,4.4 Social activities* 37 1,3, Corporate fundraising , Cash collections* , Major Donor fundraising , Other prize draws* 14 2,248, Press inserts ,517,753.2 Prospect face-to-face* , Outdoor advertising 39 2,346,592, Trusts/Foundations , Radio advertising ,52,388. Press advertising 24 1,523,11, Totals 52,389 2,119,766,252 * Volume for all fundraising is measured by number of approaches, except for these starred methods ** The volume measure for street fundraising sign-ups is multiplied by 18 (source: Public Fundraising Regulatory Association) to approximate the number of solicitations made ***The average complaint rate was reached by calculating the complaint rate for each charity by method and then determining the mean figure of those values.

7 Fig 2: Complaints by fundraising type Biggest Absolute Rise in Clothing Collections Complaints The biggest absolute annual increase in complaints is seen in clothing/ household collections (+1,275), although it is noted that this is largely due to poor performance by one charity. The main reason for complaint is charities failing to collect filled bags. Increase in Activity and Complaints While charities have reduced their fundraising mailings, activity has increased by 41% and complaints by 37%. After clothing collections, fundraising has seen the next biggest absolute rise in complaints (+675), with 6% of the increase attributed to newly. Private Site Fundraising Drives Increase in Complaints about Face-to-Face Methods FRSB charities report a 32% increase in public collections activity during 214 and a 19% increase in related complaints. Of all face-to-face fundraising collections (Direct Debit), it is complaints about private site activity (collections in shopping centres, train stations etc) that have risen most notably (+611), increasing by 119% over the year to become the 8th top method for complaint (up from 11th in 213), followed by doorstep fundraising (+577). Direct marketing (Mailings, telephone, , SMS) Public collections (Direct debits, cash, prospect, clothes/household collections) No. Complaints % Complaints 28,243 54% 16,868 32% Small.5% Increase in Telephone Complaints Despite a 29% increase in calls made, complaints about telephone fundraising rose by just.5% to 8,56. The most common objection is a general dislike of the method, but it is noted that concerns about the frequency of calls have increased from from 12% in 213 to 18% in Stage 3 Adjudications The vast majority of fundraising complaints continue to be resolved by the charities concerned. 17 complaints were escalated to stage 2 of the FRSB s complaints process for resolution and six of those were referred to FRSB s independent board for adjudication. Events (Outdoor, challenge, social activities) 2,6 5% Gaming (Raffles, lotteries, other prize draws) 2,566 5% Advertising (TV, radio, press, outdoor, inserts, online) 1,251 2% Other fundraising (Trusts, corporate, major donor, volunteer) 861 2% Total specified 52,389-7

8 Fig 3: Use of fundraising type vs proportion of charities reporting complaints 8 % charities carrying out fundraising % charities using type that report complaints Percentages (%) Direct marketing Gaming Public Events collections Advertising Other fundraising Fundraising Types 8

9 Fig 4: Complaints and volume of fundraising methods Base: 1,68 s 213 Base: 1,23 s 214 Base: 1,338 s Complaints Volume Complaints Volume Complaints Volume Addressed direct mail 12, ,866,27 16,966 21,4,512 16,52 194,831,83 Telephone 6,379 11,55,22 8,19 14,389,18 8,56 18,564,97 Doorstep face-to-face 5,555 43,617,913 7,41 44,346,54 7,618 42,61,955 Clothing collections 1,91 148,81,675 5,699 82,18,839 6, ,78,643 fundraising 1, ,478,598 1,847 29,959,43 2, ,133,45 Outdoor events* 1,24 1,559,87 1,919 1,561,46 2,293 1,567,283 Raffles* ,785, ,521,771 1,428 33,972,196 Private site face-to-face* , ,688 1,123 1,38,714 Lotteries* ,598, ,998,52 1,34 75,718,619 Street face-to-face** 82 29,984, ,36, ,472,62 Television advertising 29 4,555,41, ,28,441, ,128,7,416 Unaddressed direct mail ,383,124 1,26 242,94, ,55,91 Volunteer led fundraising* , , ,791 SMS fundraising 26 1,381, ,778, ,61,897 Online fundraising 84 2,578,443, ,961,549, ,26,557,4 Social activities* , , ,3,587 Corporate fundraising , , ,615 Cash collections* 19 79, , ,754 Major donor , , ,353 Other prize draws 39 1,959, ,469, ,248,558 Press inserts ,736, ,751, ,517,753 Prospect face-to-face* , , ,525 Outdoor advertising 71 2,766,231, ,442,13, ,346,592,994 Trusts/Foundations 9 1, , ,25 Radio advertising 9 817,655, ,16, ,52,388 Press advertising 13 1,534,338, ,643,865, ,523,11,716 Total 33,744 13,23,22,974 48,432 19,978,59,483 52,389 2,119,766,252 *Volume for all fundraising is measured by solicitations except for these starred methods **The volume measure for street fundraising sign-ups is multiplied by 18 (source: Public Fundraising Regulatory Association) to approximate the number of solicitations made 9

10 Recommendations This year s FRSB Complaints Report is consistent with previous years reports; namely that complaints remain a low proportion of fundraising activity, but that there are some areas of fundraising which attract higher levels of complaints than others and warrant close monitoring. Analysing complaints from 214 alone, the report does not address those concerns raised in recent months and specifically following the death of Olive Cooke, but it does identify some commonality in terms of concerns raised. Complaints around the frequency of fundraising asks and a dislike of some fundraising methods have been noted, underlining the importance for the public to be able to easily opt out of unwanted approaches and to adjust their contact preferences. Across all forms of fundraising, the FRSB urges practitioners to encourage public feedback, to log any concerns comprehensively and to incorporate those views into future fundraising planning. The fundraising landscape is changing, with charities sending out fewer mail packs, but increasing their use of and SMS. Charities are delivering more asks across all public collection channels, with the exception of doorstep fundraising. We report on growth in the volume of asks with some caution, acknowledging that frequency of asks is in itself a common cause for complaint, as highlighted in the FRSB s recent interim report of its investigation into charity fundraising practices. On the whole, complaints tend to mirror changes in the volume of fundraising activity, and this means that complaints about many of the newer and growing fundraising techniques are on the rise. However, there are some notable exceptions such as raffles, where complaints have spiked, despite a fall in the number of raffles held. At an organisational level, the large majority of complaints are driven by a relatively small number of major charities. The FRSB is working with those organisations to identify and address any problem areas through its member audit and benchmarking programme. Many of these charities reach out to millions of supporters throughout the year and, while it is therefore more likely that they incur complaints, it also holds true they have a greater responsibility to maintain the highest standards and build public trust and confidence. Charities continue to resolve the overwhelming majority of complaints themselves, with the FRSB on hand to address any elevated concerns at the request of either the complainant or charity. The FRSB recommends that all practitioners consider the most common areas and issues for complaint and review their approach to fundraising in light of this feedback. Many organisations are yet to report a single complaint about their fundraising, but by reviewing common issues, they can prevent potential future complaints from occurring. 1

11 Further analysis has been undertaken of the top four fundraising methods for complaint. The FRSB encourages all practitioners to carefully consider these findings when planning future campaigns and will channel these findings to the Institute of Fundraising s Standards Committee for consideration when developing fundraising standards: Direct Mail With poorly addressed communications as the lead cause for complaint, charities must take greater care in addressing communications accurately to minimise complaints. Regular review and cleansing of donor data is essential to improve accuracy going forward, minimising complaints and improving the efficiency and effectiveness of future mailings. Half of the charities that provided details about the cause for complaint indicated that they have received complaints about the frequency of their mailings. Public scrutiny around the volume of fundraising requests has escalated during 215 as we prepare this report, highlighting the need for every charity to review their mail schedule and along with the timing of other fundraising communications. Doorstep Fundraising Charities reported a 4% reduction in the number of households visited from 213 to 214 and an 8% increase in complaints, with fundraiser behaviour remaining the lead cause for complaint. By its nature, doorstep fundraising is often perceived as a very personal approach and fundraisers must be sensitive to what the public might feel is appropriate in terms of behaviour. The timing of household visits now supersedes a general dislike of the method as the second most common concern for doorstep fundraising, accounting for almost one in five complaints (up from 12% in 213). Practitioners are encouraged to review the timing of their approaches. Telephone Calls Of all fundraising methods, the telephone has the greatest propensity for complaint, typically requiring around 74 asks to generate a complaint. Charities must carefully consider the nature of any complaints received and ensure that donors contact preferences are being met. From 213 to 214, there was a small decline in complaints about the tone or content of the call (although it remains the second top area) and a general dislike of the method is now the primary reason for complaint. The public must be given a clear opportunity to opt out of telephone fundraising calls. Practitioners must also take great care to ensure that any calling script is appropriate and sensitively delivered, without pressurising the public to give. Almost one third of charities (31%) that provided reasons for complaints about telephone fundraising reported complaints about the frequency of calls, which now amount to 18% of telephone complaints (up from 12% in 213). This, coupled with charities reporting an additional 4.1 million calls in 214, underlines the importance for all practitioners to carefully consider the number of calls made. Clothing Collections FRSB charities provided details for only 37% of complaints raised around clothing collections. It is essential that every charity adequately logs complaint information so that they can deal with all issues appropriately and seek to improve practices in the future. As in 213, the majority (64%) of complaints were about bags not being collected at the scheduled day/time. When the public goes out of its way to prepare goods for collection, it is vital that the collection is fulfilled as planned. Charities and agencies must review their collection programme to ensure that diarised collections will be fulfilled. Charities attributed 535 complaints to the legitimacy of clothing collections in 214. We urge charities to take care that collection materials are clear; that they include the charity registration number, the FRSB tick logo, a landline contact number and further information about how the proceeds will be allocated. 11

12 Sector Viewpoints A Word from the Institute of Fundraising The provision of a strong selfregulatory scheme for fundraising is reliant upon the development of comprehensive industry standards. It is the Institute of Fundraising that sets the standards for charity fundraising in the UK; the Code of Fundraising Practice. Peter Lewis, Chief Executive of the Institute of Fundraising, comments on the importance of reflecting public feedback within the development of fundraising standards. Over the last few years charities, both large and small, have seen demand for their services increase. Politicians and policy-makers alike want charities to do more, and organisations themselves of course are determined to work as best they can in achieving their charitable objectives. It is clear that the only way charities can do more in serving their beneficiaries and furthering their causes is by developing properly sustainable and diverse income streams - driven and centred on better fundraising. Developing and maintaining the high levels of public trust and confidence in charities, and the way they fundraise, is fundamental to the success of charities being able to play a bigger role and meet that increasing levels of need. And we at the Institute of Fundraising (IoF) understand that we have a vital role to play in contributing to this: through our training, development and qualifications programmes, as well as through our central role in self-regulation of fundraising through setting the Code of Fundraising Practice. We expect every fundraiser in the UK to comply with the standards and rules it sets. We have been working hard this year to develop the Code of Fundraising Practice further in response to the insight and feedback from both fundraisers themselves as well as the views from the public gained through the FRSB. In December last year, the IoF strengthened the Code to introduce a new standard for those fundraising with people in vulnerable circumstances, alongside an extensive piece of guidance relating to treating all donors fairly and enabling them to make informed decisions about supporting good causes. We have also introduced a new rule into the Code which makes it clear that door to door fundraisers must not knock on doors with a no cold calling sticker, a change introduced after a thorough review to consider how to balance the need of fundraisers to ask the public for donations while respecting the wishes and preferences of individuals. At the same time we are working even more closely with our key partners, the FRSB and the Public Fundraising Regulatory Association (PFRA), to ensure not just that we maintain and develop a robust set of standards, through the Code of Fundraising Practice, but that we also have in place an effective compliance and complaints system, so that together we provide more effective fundraising self-regulation. In that context this report provides a helpful overview of complaints about fundraising as a whole which our Standards Committee will review in due course. The picture it paints overall shows that the number and proportion of complaints received about fundraising remains very low compared to the billions of donor interactions each year. But this does not mean the sector can be complacent; fundraisers will always work hard to minimise complaints as they reach members of the public and establish relationships which link individuals with the causes they care about. At the same time, the IoF, working with the PFRA and FRSB, has to be alert to respond appropriately to any challenges that arise for the fundraising sector, and it is vital we continually review our Code of Practice to make sure we have the right rules in place. The tragic case of Olive Cooke is a reminder of just how important this work is. I look forward to continuing to work ever more closely and productively with the FRSB and PFRA as we all strive to ensure the highest standards of fundraising that our members need to succeed. The Institute of Fundraising is the professional body for fundraising professionals and fundraising organisations in the UK. Peter Lewis Chief Executive institute-of-fundraising.org.uk 12

13 Sector Viewpoints Comment from the Public Fundraising Regulatory Association With responsibility for compliance of face-to-face fundraising on the doorstep (door-to-door) and street, Chief Executive, Peter Hills-Jones, speaks out about the changing landscape of face-to-face fundraising. The Public Fundraising Regulatory Association welcomes this year s complaint report. As the report makes clear, face-to-face has proved to be a remarkably resilient form of fundraising. While charities continue to come up with exciting new fundraising ideas, for example the use of contactless technology, no other method is so cost effective at delivering such high volume. Indeed, until recently, demand has outstripped supply. 28% of respondents to the PFRA s latest member survey told us that they would be highly likely to use door-to-door if the capacity to deliver it was available, and this year s increase in activity can be attributed to the emergence of a number of new suppliers in the market who are meeting this demand. The clarity of this FRSB report helps us to see the complaints data in the context of the overall level of fundraising activity reported for each method. For example, the welcome 11% increase in FRSB members submitting complaints should be borne in mind when looking at the increase in complaints for both street and doorto-door fundraising. As the FRSB itself makes clear, almost half (48%) of this increase can be attributed to newly. Nevertheless, we wish to closely examine the underlying causes for any increase in complaints, particularly for door-to-door. The PFRA is making the biggest investment in studying door-todoor compliance in ten years. Through data mapping we are identifying the most visited areas, increasing our knowledge of what is happening on the ground. Robust data will help us target areas for improvement and a joint task force with the FRSB and IoF will decide on further action. The large increase in complaints about private site fundraising is clearly a matter for concern, although the 119% increase in complaints should be seen in the context of an 86% increase in volume. Nonetheless, while the PFRA does not currently regulate this form of fundraising, we are forming a task group with our members to examine the issues. We will work closely with our partners at both the IoF and FRSB to ensure there is a coordinated approach to drive up standards. The PFRA is committed to the highest standards in face-to-face fundraising. Among other measures, we are investing in an interactive e-learning programme, to educate fundraisers in the importance of rule compliance. In this, as in other areas, we will work in close partnership with, and draw on the expertise of, the FRSB. The Public Fundraising Regulatory Association (PFRA) is the membership body for door-to-door and street fundraising, providing compliance services primarily through Site Management Agreements with local authorities. Peter hill-jones Chief Executive 13 pfra.org.uk

14 Charity Profile Use of Fundraising Methods The FRSB Complaints Report 215 is based on information submitted by 1,338 charities (91% of all eligible FRSB members), raising over 5.1 billion in voluntary income in % of charities that completed a return carried out some form of fundraising during 214, and 59% reported no complaints. No. of FRSB Charities % Of Eligible % Of Those Completing Return Charities eligible to complete return 1, Charities that completed return 1,338 91% 1% Charities that fundraised in 214 1,246-93% Charities reporting no complaints % Trust fundraising is the most widely used technique and is used by 63% of all charities (a 3% decrease compared to 66% reported in 213), but the volume of asks is comparatively low. In contrast, just 6% of charities use TV advertising, reaching over 1.1 billion people (down from 1.3 billion in 213). Prospect and street fundraising are least commonly used, with 2% and 4% of charities reporting activity in those areas respectively. Fig 6: Top 1 fundraising methods by % of charities using them Fundraising Method % Using Method Trusts/Foundations 63% Outdoor events 5% Corporate fundraising 47% Volunteer-led fundraising 46% Addressed direct mail 45% Social activities 42% Cash collections 4% fundraising 39% Fig 5: Charities submitting by voluntary income Major donor fundraising 35% Raffles 31% Major > 1M (6.2%) Large 1M - 1M (26.8%) Medium 1, - 1M (35.5%) Small 1, - 1, (2.3%) Micro < 1, (11.2%) 14

15 Fig 7: Proportion of charities within each income band making use of fundraising types Major > 1M (6.2%) Large 1M - 1M (26.8%) Medium 1, - 1M (35.5%) Small 1, - 1, (2.3%) Micro < 1, (11.2%) % of Charities 4 2 Direct marketing Public collections Events Gaming Advertising Other Fundraising types Organisation Size Direct Marketing Public Collections Events Gaming Advertising Other Major (> 1M) 98% 89% 92% 69% 89% 98% Large ( 1M- 1M) 86% 63% 77% 55% 58% 92% Medium ( 1,- 1M) 52% 47% 69% 37% 35% 83% Small ( 1,- 1,) 19% 28% 36% 21% 11% 45% Micro (< 1,) 14% 19% 22% 13% 13% 29% 15

16 International charities have the highest usage of direct marketing at 76%, followed by environmental charities. Armed forces and health have the highest usage of public collections (62% and 61% respectively). They also have highest usage of gaming (54% and 55% respectively) and events (81% and 78% respectively). Armed forces charities also have the highest usage of advertising at 54%, followed by international. Health and environmental charities show the highest usage of other methods (e.g. major donor, volunteer, corporate and trusts), both at 84%. Fig 8: Proportion of charities making use of fundraising types by cause 1 Proportion of charities (%) Animals International Health Human/Public services Environment Armed Forces Education Arts, Culture & Humanities Direct marketing Public collections Events Gaming Advertising Other Other Fundraising types 16

17 Fundraising Volume Over the past year, there has been an 11% increase in the number of charities reporting to the FRSB and a.7% increase in fundraising activity reported. Organisations submitting an Annual Complaints Return with the FRSB 213 1, ,338 % Change 11% Total fundraising volume Billion Fig 9: Fundraising type by volume Billion Direct Marketing 679,636,743 Public Collections 22,672,211 Events 2,597,87 Gaming 111,939,373 Advertising 19,13,972,271 Other 947,784 % Change.7% Advertising continues to dominate the total fundraising landscape in the context of volume, with FRSB charities reporting a total advertising reach of around 19.1 billion. Online advertising has seen the biggest absolute year-on-year growth in volume (+245 million), and has also seen the biggest percentage point increase in the number of charities using it (up 2.3%). Radio advertising has also seen large gains (+148 million). The biggest absolute year-on-year volume drop was in TV and press advertising (-152 million and -121 million respectively). Although advertising far exceeds all other activities in terms of volume, it is only used by a small number of charities. 17

18 Fig 1: 213 vs 214 % change in fundraising volume Major donor Corporate fundraising Private site face-to-face* Social activities* Other prize draws Clothing collections SMS fundraising fundraising Lotteries* Radio advertising Telephone fundraising Street face-to-face** Prospect face-to-face* Cash collections* Press inserts Online fundraising Outdoor events* Television advertising Addressed direct mail Outdoor advertising Doorstep face-to-face Press advertising Volunteer led fundraising* Unaddressed direct mail Raffles* Trusts/Foundations % Change year-on-year * Volume for all fundraising is measured by number of approaches, except for these starred methods ** The volume measure for street fundraising sign-ups is multiplied by 18 (source: Public Fundraising Regulatory Association) to approximate the number of solicitations made 18

19 Beyond advertising, the remaining one billion fundraising approaches were made predominantly via direct marketing and public collections. Since 213, charities report a small 3.4% volume growth in direct marketing and a notable 32% increase in public collections activity. After an increase in direct mail activity in 213, charities subsequently reduced the number of mailings with a total 375 million mail items issued in 214 (down from 44 million in 213). Addressed direct mail is now less widely used than it was in 213 (45% are now using it vs 47% in 213) and just 6% of charities use unaddressed mail. The volume of trust and foundation fundraising has fallen closer to 212 levels after a spike in 213. It remains the most widely used method by FRSB charities, with 63% of charities using it (down from 66% in 213). Charities continue to use a variety of fundraising methods to generate income for their respective causes. The more traditional fundraising methods are still the most widespread, but growth is noted in the volume of , major donor and corporate fundraising, private site and street face-to-face, and social activities. 19

20 Major charities carry out 85% of all fundraising activity by volume, and large charities carry out 14%. Together, medium, small and micro charities carry out less than 1% of all fundraising activity by volume. While major charities carry out the bulk of all direct marketing, advertising, public collections, gaming and events, the large and mediumsized organisations carry out over half of other fundraising types (trust, corporate, major donor and volunteer-led). Health charities have the biggest volume share of public collections, gaming, events and other types of fundraising, while animal charities have the biggest share of advertising volume. Human/public services organisations have carried out the most direct marketing. Fig 12: Fundraising volume share by cause 1 Fig 11: Fundraising volume share by organisation size 8 % Fundraising volume % Fundraising volume Direct marketing Public collections Events Gaming Advertising Other Fundraising types Direct marketing Public collections Major > 1M (6.2%) Large 1M - 1M (26.8%) Medium 1, - 1M (35.5%) Small 1, - 1, (2.3%) Micro < 1, (11.2%) Events Gaming Advertising Other Fundraising types Animals International Health Human / Public services Environment Armed Forces Education Arts, Culture & Humanities Other 2

21 Complaints by income band Almost half (46%) of all complaints reported to the FRSB were generated by just 2% of charities that undertake a high volume of charity fundraising. The nation s largest charities incur the majority of complaints for all fundraising types. On average, major charities report 5 complaints each, while small and micro organisations report less than one. 1 8 Fig 13: Proportion of organisations within each income band that report complaints Major > 1M (6.2%) Large 1M - 1M (26.8%) Medium 1, - 1M (35.5%) Small 1, - 1, (2.3%) % Charities Micro < 1, (11.2%) Direct marketing Public collections Events Gaming Advertising Other Fundraising types 21

22 Fig 14: Total number of complaints by organisation size Direct Marketing Public Collections Events Gaming Advertising Other Total Major (> 1M) 21,786 14,13 2,371 1,463 1, ,58 Large ( 1M- 1M) 5,729 2, , ,71 Medium ( 1,- 1M) ,117 Small ( 1,- 1,) Micro (< 1,) Total Direct marketing 28,243 Public collections 16,868 Advertising Events 2,6 Gaming 2,566 1,251 Other 861 % Complaints Fig 15: Share of complaints by organisation size Major Large Medium Small Micro Total 52,389 2 Direct marketing Public collections Events Gaming Advertising Other Fundraising types 22

23 Complaints by cause Fig 16: Charities submitting by cause Health (34%) Human / Public services (14%) International (1%) Animals (6.3%) Education (5.9%) % of charities submitting by cause Environment (3.3%) Arts, Culture & Humanities (3.%) Armed Forces (1.9%) Other (21.2%) Health charities have the largest share of gaming, events, public collections and other (major donor/corporate/ trusts/volunteer) fundraising complaints. They make up just over a third of all organisations submitting. Together with international charities, they have joint largest share of advertising complaints, while international charities have the highest volume share of direct marketing complaints. 23

24 Fig 17: Proportion of charities by cause reporting complaints Animals International 6 Health Human / Public Services Environment 5 Armed Forces Education 4 Arts, Culture & Humanities Other % Charities Direct marketing Public collections Events Gaming Advertising Other Fundraising types Fig 18: Total number of complaints by cause Direct Marketing Public Collections Events Gaming Advertising Other Total Animals 3,396 1, ,938 International 7,324 1, ,511 Health 6,783 6,93 1, ,192 Human/Public services 2,255 5, ,569 Environment 1, ,713 Armed forces 2, ,698 Education Arts, Culture & Humanities Other 4,567 1, ,56 24

25 Fig 19: Share of complaints by cause % Complaints 4 2 Direct marketing Public collections Events Gaming Advertising Other Fundraising types Animals International Health Human / Public Services Environment Armed forces Education Arts, Culture & Humanities Other 25

26 Complaint Analysis With a slight increase in the amount of fundraising activity being carried out in 214 and more organisations reporting to the FRSB, a rise in complaints has been reported across the majority of fundraising techniques, excluding addressed and unaddressed direct mail, online and outdoor advertising, press inserts and trusts/foundations. However, at an overall level, there has been a modest fall in the average number of complaints per reporting charity (from 4.3 in 213 to 39.2 in 214). Some forms of fundraising have a greater propensity for incurring complaints than others. Direct marketing is responsible for 54% of all complaints generated (down from 59% in 213), with public collections incurring a further 32%. More widely used forms of fundraising such as events and trust fundraising (amongst others), generate far fewer concerns. Advertising also tends to yield a relatively low number of complaints as a proportion of the total volume. Fig 2: Complaints by fundraising types Fundraising Type No. Complaints Fundraising Volume % Charities Using Method % Charities Reporting Complaints Direct marketing 28, ,636,743 53% 5% Public collections 16,868 22,672,211 47% 2% Events 2,6 2,597,87 61% 16% Gaming 2, ,939,373 38% 22% Advertising 1,251 19,13,972,271 37% 15% Other fundraising ,784 73% 13% Total No. complaints 52,389 Fundraising volume 2,119,766,252 26

27 Overall, the number of complaints has increased by 8% since 213 to 52,389 in 214, up from 48,432 in ,91 complaints were logged by newly, accounting for 48% of the annual increase. A large majority of the increase in complaints relate to clothing collections, which have seen the largest absolute increase in complaints year-on-year (+1,275 or a 22% increase on last year). Unaddressed direct mail has seen the biggest absolute drop in complaints yearon-year (-536), followed by addressed direct mail (-446), with charities reducing the number of mailings. Complaints related to , private site and doorstep face-to-face activity have risen, up by 675, 611 and 577 respectively. Radio advertising has seen the biggest proportionate increase, with complaints more than quadrupling, but it is noted that this stems from a very low figure of 6 in 213. Fig 21: Asks required to generate one complaint by fundraising method No. asks to generate one complaint Telephone fundraising 74 Doorstep face-to-face 1,34 Typically, in excess of 1, approaches are required before a member of the public makes a complaint, with the exception of telephone fundraising. Trusts/Foundations 1,439 Major Donor fundraising 1,623 Clothing collections 1,656 Addressed direct mail 2,985 SMS fundraising 1, fundraising 1,989 Street face-to-face 19,231 Unaddressed direct mail 166,667 This table shows only the fundraising methods where the volume measure is an ask or comparative measure. The typical number of asks/solicitations to generate one complaint was calculated by taking the inverse of the complaint rate for each fundraising type i.e. 1/the complaint rate. 27

28 Doorstep face-to-face continues to have the highest proportion of charities who use it reporting complaints (79%, the same as last year), followed by telephone fundraising with almost two thirds (64%) of charities reporting complaints. Ten methods have seen a rise and ten methods have seen a fall in the percentage of charities recording complaints versus 213. Fig 22: % charities using fundraising method that report complaints 213 vs Doorstep face-to-face Telephone fundraising Street face-to-face Addressed direct mail Private site face-to-face Television advertising Unaddressed direct mail SMS fundraising Lotteries Clothing collections fundraising Outdoor events Raffles Prospect face-to-face Volunteer led fundraising Online fundraising Press inserts Cash collections Outdoor advertising Social activities Other prize draws Corporate fundraising Major donor Radio advertising Press advertising Trusts/Foundations % of complaints 28

29 Year-on-year performance of fundraising methods With a growing baseline of, the annual change in complaint levels (213 to 214) is compared with changes in the volume of fundraising asks. Fundraising methods with the most improved performance were: Press inserts Social activites Unadressed direct mail 34%Complaints 28%Complaints 43%Complaints 16%Fundraising volume 76%Fundraising volume 26%Fundraising volume Telephone fundraising Corporate fundraising.5%complaints 5%Complaints 29%Fundraising volume 9%Fundraising volume 29

30 44%TV advertising 1% there was a 44% increase in complaints against a 1% decrease in fundraising volume 2 Fundraising methods with the poorest year-on-year performance were: 1 Raffles 44% there was a 44% increase in complaints against a 27% decrease in fundraising volume 3 Volunteer-led fundraising there was a 12% increase in complaints against a 2% drop in volume 12% 27% 2% 4 5 Outdoor events 19% there was a 19% increase in complaints and no change in volume Private site face-to-face 119% there was a 119% increase in complaints compared to 86% increase in volume 86% 3

31 Fig 23: 213 vs 214 % change in fundraising volume and complaints Method Ranking Best to Worst) % Variation in Volume % Variation in Complaints No. Complaints Press inserts 1 +16% -34% 87 Social activities* 2 +76% +28% 37 Unaddressed direct mail 3-26% -43% 724 Telephone fundraising 4 +29% % 8,56 Corporate fundraising 5 +9% +5% 239 Clothing collections 6 +52% +22% 6,974 Lotteries* 7 +35% +18% 1,34 Major donor % +98% 17 Street face-to-face** 9 +29% +17% 865 Online fundraising 1 +6% -1% 342 Prospect face-to-face* % +2% 72 fundraising % +37% 2,522 SMS fundraising % +47% 421 Other prize draws % +53% 14 Addressed direct mail 15-3% -3% 16,52 Cash collections* % +29% 216 Doorstep face-to-face 17-4% +8% 7,618 Private site face-to-face* % +119% 1,123 Outdoor events* 19 % +19% 2,293 Volunteer led fundraising* 2-2% +12% 488 Television advertising 21-1% +44% 733 Raffles* 22-27% +44% 1,428 *Volume for all fundraising is measured by solicitations except for these starred methods **The volume measure for street fundraising sign ups is multiplied by 18 (source: Public Fundraising Regulatory Association) to approximate the number of solicitations made N.B. excludes methods with under 5 complaints 31

32 Fig 24: 213 vs 214 % change in fundraising volume and complaints No. complaints Press Inserts 87 Social Activities* 37 Unaddressed direct mail Telephone fundraising Corporate fundraising Clothing collections Lotteries* Major donor Street face-to-face** Online fundraising Prospect face-to-face* fundraising SMS fundraising Other prize draws Addressed direct mail Cash collections* Doorstep face-to-face Private site face-to-face* Outdoor events* Volunteer led fundraising* Television advertising Raffles* 724 8, ,974 1, , , ,618 1,123 2, , % of complaints % Variation in volume % Variation in complaints *Volume for all fundraising is measured by solicitations except for these starred methods **The volume measure for street fundraising sign ups is multiplied by 18 (source: Public Fundraising Regulatory Association) to approximate the number of solicitations made N.B. excludes methods with under 5 complaints 32

33 Direct Marketing: Direct Mail, Telephone, & SMS Fundraising More than half (53%) of charities use direct marketing channels with 5% of those reporting complaints. Just over six in ten (61%) of direct marketing complaints are prompted by mailings, and 29% come from telephone fundraising. Addressed direct mail continues to top the list of complaints, yielding 32% of all fundraising complaints and twice as many complaints as any other method. 15% of complaints are prompted by approaches delivered over the telephone. has seen the most significant year-on-year increase in complaints, while unaddressed direct mail has had the biggest drop. Fig 25: Complaints for each direct marketing method, Total complaints Method 212 Base: 1,68 No. Complaints 213 Base: 1, Base: 1,338 5 Addressed direct mail 12,474 16,966 16,52 Telephone fundraising 6,379 8,19 8,56 fundraising 1,887 1,847 2,522 Addressed direct mail Telephone fundraising fundraising Unaddressed direct mail SMS fundraising Unaddressed direct mail 747 1, SMS fundraising Fundraising methods 33

34 DIRECT MAIL: SPECIAL FOCUS Direct mail is one of four special focus areas of this report, where additional detail is given about the issues that underlie fundraising complaints. Two categories of direct mail fundraising are covered in this report; addressed mailings (where the item of mail is addressed to a specific individual) and unaddressed (also known as door drops). Here we report on the volume of mail items sent and complaints received. Complaints from both addressed and unaddressed mail totalled 17,244 in 214, a 5% drop from 18,226 in 213, while the volume of mailing fell by 16%. 1,313 complaints about direct mail came from newly in 214. Addressed & Unaddressed mail 213 Base: 1, Base: 1,338 % increase Total direct mail complaints 18,226 17,244-5% Total direct mail volume 444,341, ,336,894-16% % of all complaints 38% 33% - The proportion of complaints prompted by direct mail continues to fall and is currently at 33%, down from 38% in 213 and 39% in 212. The large majority (96%) of all direct mail complaints is from addressed mailings. More than four in ten charities (45%) use addressed mail to fundraise (down from 47% in 213) and around half of those (49%) report complaints (down from 52% in 213). There was a 26% drop in the number of unaddressed mailings recorded in 214 and these were generated by just 6% of the charities reporting to the FRSB. Just over a third (34%) of those charities reported complaints (up from 21% in 213), but the total complaint level fell by 43% from 1,26 to 724. Three charities were responsible for a third of all addressed mail complaints and just one charity reported half of all complaints about unaddressed mailings. 34

35 Addressed Mail 212 Base: 1, Base: 1, Base: 1,338 Total volume 165,866,27 21,4, ,831,83 Fig 26: Addressed mail volume and complaints, Total complaints 12,474 16,966 16,52 Proportion of charities using method 35% 47% 45% 2 25 Proportion of charities 64% 52% 49% reporting complaints % of all complaints 37% 35% 32% 15 2 Of the 16,52 addressed mail complaints reported to the FRSB, charities were able to provide explanatory details about 83% of those (13,742). Poorly addressed communications and frequency of appeals are the two most common concerns, prompting 45% of addressed mail complaints. 47% and 5% respectively of all charities reporting complaints reported these reasons as a cause of complaint. The third most common reason for complaint was tone of appeal, generating 13% of addressed mail complaints and mentioned by 4% of charities reporting complaints from the method. Total complaints Total volume (millions) Cause for Complaint, Addressed Mail No. Complaints No. Charities Reporting Complaints % Charities Fundraising by Addressed Direct Mail that Report Complaints % of Complaints Poorly addressed 3, % 25% communication Frequency of appeals 2, % 2% Tone of appeal 1, % 13% Data protection 1, % 12% Enclosures in appeal 1, % 11% Dislike of method % 7% Mailed to deceased % 4% Campaign fulfilment % 2% Factual accuracy of %.7% appeal Images used in appeal %.3% Other % 5% Total 13, % % charities using method % charities using method that report complaints % of all complaints 12,474 35% 64% 37% 16,966 47% 52% 35% 16,52 45% 49% 32% 35