CLA WORKING PARTY INSTITUTE OF FUNDRAISING CODES OF PRACTICE
The Charity Law Association welcomes the Institute of Fundraising’s Codes of Practice relating to (1) Committed Giving in the Workplace and (2) Best Practice for Fundraising Contracts.
We are sure this is a timely contribution to the operation and effectiveness of charities in the light of the Charities Bill 2004.
Members of the CLA’s working party were:
Michael King (Chair) Stone King
Jonathan Burchfield Nabarro NathansonAlexandra Lawton Withers LLP
Alison Maclennan 11 Old Square
Jane Whitfield Stone King
Comments on “Committed Giving in the Workplace”
General Comments
1.1 The tone of this Code tends to put the emphasis onto employers and it was suggested that it would not pass the “senior partner test” because of the level of demand expected of the employer. Maybe there needs to be a “fool’s guide” or “executive summary” – busy managers (let alone senior partners) are unlikely to read all of the Code!
1.2 It was also felt that the Code as a whole was not very user friendly and that it will need simplifying to be maximum use for managers who are thinking of setting up such schemes. We can see fundraisers and managers of firms already committed to payroll giving reading the Code – and, we hope, using it – but we doubt whether managers of smaller businesses will have the knowledge to read and understand it. The Institute must consider who is its target audience.
1.3 It would help the flow of the document greatly if those paragraphs which contain a mixture of statements containing the words “must”, “ought” and “should” are re-grouped in order so that those with “must” all appear first, followed by all those with “ought” and then all those with “should”.
1.4 We liked the website links (are there any more?) and the glossary which will be helpful to all readers.
Paragraph 2.3
The second bullet point would read better if it started with, “a fundraising agreement should be set up ….”.
Paragraph 3.2
In light of comments under clause 4.1, there should be inserted here a negative expectation on the part of employers that the administrative burdens on them should not be too great.
Paragraph 4.1
This is an example of a demand on an employer, particularly with the use of the word “should”. It could be softened by using wording such as “should be asked to consider whether they can”.
Paragraph 4.3.4
There is no bullet point here that deals with the method by which the fundraiser’s remuneration is to be determined, as required by s.60 Charities Act 1992. If it is not dealt with elsewhere, it ought to be explained in this paragraph.
1st Paragraph 4.4 – Best Practice for Processing Agencies
It may be helpful to include a hyperlink in the first bullet point to the relevant statutory instrument (http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2003/20031745.htm).
2nd Paragraph 4.4 – Best Administrative Practice
(a) Should this be paragraph 4.5? If so, subsequent paragraphs will need renumbering as well as any cross-references to subsequent paragraphs.
(b) The word “will” in the first line of the second bullet point should be deleted.
(c) The fifth bullet point ought to read, “All pledge forms, except employer's own forms....”
(d) The seventh and eighth bullet points are hard to understand for a lay person and would benefit from some further description to help the reader.
(e) The third sub-bullet point of the ninth bullet point should have a comma rather than a full stop before the word “Unless” in the second line.
Comments on “Best Practice for Fundraising Contracts and Relationships
between VCOs, PFOs, Consultants and Agencies”
Page 4:
Penultimate paragraph: “but 90% of a contract is practical working relationship rather than law”. Perhaps it would be better to say “a major part of any contract is practical working relationship” as we do not think readers should be encouraged to forget about legal requirements, particularly Part II of the Charities Act 1992.
The final paragraph sounds like an introduction and would be better placed as the second paragraph on page 3. If it is so moved, however, the “It” at the beginning of the current second paragraph on page 3 will need to be defined.
Page 5
(a) 2.1.1 would read better if all the commas were removed except for the one after the word “case” in the first line.
(b) Should the heading of 2.1.2 have the word “itself” at the end?
(c) The tone of 2.1.3 is quite strong and may run the risk of sounding patronising to charities.
Page 6
The second bullet point is difficult to read as a paragraph and would be better divided into sub-bullets.
Page 8
The final bullet point of 2.7.1 says that the Institute of Fundraising provides an advice helpline, but explains neither who the helpline is for nor on what it provides advice. This may well already be known to the target audience?
Page 9
2.7.4 states that the Contract should include legal requirements (first bullet point). This presumes that the target audience will know what the legal requirements are but, if not, it might be helpful to include some examples.
Page 10
(a) The third bullet point of 2.7.5 gives the Client an option to terminate the Contract before a variation takes effect but not the Provider. This may well be a standard provision, but elsewhere in the Code it talks about the Provider being able to terminate the Contract.
(b) The final bullet point of 2.7.5 says that Clients and Providers ought to be familiar with guidance on different payment methods and fundraising cost to benefit ratios. It would be helpful to have hyperlinks here to the relative website pages for both the Institute of Fundraising and the Charity Commission.
Page 11
It is not clear what “maximising income” means at the beginning of the third paragraph of 2.9. It might be helpful to expand that, possibly giving examples, depending on the target audience.
Page 12
Again, it would be useful to have hyperlinks in 3.4 to the websites of the organisations mentioned.
Page 14
Simply for consistency (cf fourth paragraph on page 3) the final paragraph of 4.1 should read, “A Professional Fundraiser commits a criminal offence if it/he/she fails to comply with any of these provisions and the trustees of a Client may be in breach of their duty of care.”.
Page 15
It would be helpful to have a hyperlink in the second bullet point of 4.3.2 to the Institute’s code on data protection.
Page 16
(a) The first sentence of 4.3.7 would read better if the word “either” in the second line was moved to after “because of”.
(b) It may be helpful to have a hyperlink to HM Customs & Excise in 4.3.8, although it is a rather more tenuous link to the material.
(c) A hyperlink to the Scottish charity law code in the second paragraph of 4.3.9 would be useful here.
Page 17
Again, depending on the technical knowledge of the target audience, it may be helpful to make it explicit in the final bullet point of 5.1 that fundraising in itself is not a charitable activity?
Page 21
(a) The words “set-out” in 5.1 should not be hyphenated.
(b) The meaning of 5.3 is confused by inappropriately placed commas. This clause should read, “All expenses which the Provider is entitled to claim under this Agreement in addition to, or as part of, payments for the services, shall be payable only against receipts, or other written evidence that they were properly incurred, as reasonably required by the Client.”.
Page 22
The inclusion of the calculation of interest on overdue payments in clause 7 does not sit comfortably with the rest of that section, ie it does not seem to follow on logically from record keeping. Perhaps it could go as a new clause 6 on its own?
Schedules to the Contract
The number of Schedules seemed slightly excessive and it may be more helpful to have some of the information in the Contract itself, or it may be simply a matter of taste.
Generally
There are typing inconsistencies in the Code (rather than the actual Contract) in that bullet point paragraphs sometimes have full stops at the end of them and sometimes do not. It should be one or the other throughout.
