In my experience, the majority of paid charity fundraisers are people who, while wanting to do something in life which benefits others, do not have the luxury of savings or a private income which would enable them to pay for food, etc. while devoting their time to charities - the majority are paid little more than the minimum wage (in fact, very often the number of hours worked in order to meet targets mean that pay works out as being well below the minimum wage) and tend to live from week-to-week on the money they receive for standing out on high-streets getting abused by complete strangers hour after hour, day after day - there was a time when I worked as a charity fundraiser, and yes of course it hurts *every single time* someone spouts their angry vitriol at you, but ultimately my standing out on cold highstreets has resulted in a net gain to the charities I represented of tens of thousands of pounds a year...knowing what those charities do with the majority of that money, it's more than worth it. The funds generated by street-fundraising have fed, housed, provided water & medicines for people in desperate need who otherwise would not have received these things ... yes it's annoying to have someone on the street bothering you as you make your way home or to your office, but if it was the other way around, and you who had nothing but filthy water to give to your babies & young children, wouldn't it be good to know that a group of people, in some rich Western country were standing around trying to get people to think about giving money to help?

I've set up http://www.tickthisbox.co.uk as an opt-out scheme for people who don't wish to be approached in the street by Direct Debit style Charity Fundraisers who, in my experience don't like to take no for an answer. I made my decision some time ago that I wouldn't be contributing to charity in this way and now I'd just like to be able to walk down the street without having to justify my reasons for not giving money to charity X this week. If you feel similiar or have your own opinions on the matter please feel free to hop on over to make your voice be heard.

Thanks!

Saying that if chuggers really cared they would work for free applies equally to the rest of us charity workers too.
Unfortunately, volunteering only goes so far.
The time and effort a full time employee can be expected to put into a charity can be a lot more than someone who works full time elsewhere and volunteers some of their spare time.

I've no problem with chuggers, never met one yet that doesn't accept a polite 'no thank you'.

Chuggers know what they are signing up for and should be prepared for the abuse that is coming their way. It should be pointed out that "chuggers" are not all guilt-tripping, self-serving individuals but are people just like the rest of us and vary greatly in their morality/true motives.

However, if they really cared about the charities they represent then they would work for free and they might actually know something significant about theie charity. Chuggers need to be converted into stationary collectors who do not approach people and are paid directly by the charities themselves, cutting out the middle-men agencies. The overall impression chuggers give is comparable to that of injury lawyers who prey upon individuals for their own ends. They don't work in teams, they work in packs.

In conclusion (sorry for waffling), not all chuggers are bad (the stereotype) and charities need to deal directly with public, saving six-figure sums given annually to chugger agencies.

I was with you all the way Jerome. Like it or hate it, the disproportionate amount of time wasted gassing about 'chugging' is patently ridiculous. As petty crusades go, the unoffical boycott street fundraising campaign has to be right up there with the metric 'martyrs' Peronally I'd never give to someone in the street, but I'd defend to the death (slight exageration!) your right to ask

However, I would appreciate less of the sanctimonious rhetoric: "I ask you Mr Smith, what is the value you place on a human life?". Come on now, do you honestly sit there worrying about those dying of starvation in Africa whilst you're nursing a pint with your mates on a Friday night (for example). We're not all angels all of the time and raising money for a charity does not make you an inherently better person..... Hell, I should know ;-)   

Don't shoot the messenger

Yes, we target everyone because we don't know who is interested in our charity and who isn't. But for those whom I stop and ask "so have you heard of our charity? do you know what we do?" and they say something a long the lines of "well, yes and I thought about donating but I don't know how I can afford it and I don't know if I could make the commitment", THEN I'll be the 'kick and the push' and explain to them that they can do either by saving a little each day etc etc.

If you really don't want to speak to a chugger you have to say is "No, I don't want to talk to you".

At the end of the day Mr Smith my statistics for my charity are promising.I have raised several thousand pounds for my charity (money which I haven't even seen 1% of)since the beginning of the campaign late last year. and over a over a one year predicted cycle that money equates to tens of thousands and over a ten year cycle, ultimately, in terms of lives saved : hundreds of thousands

Whether you like the practice or not Mr Smith, "chugging" saves lives. Even if I annoy half of the population by asking them for money and only get one of them to say "Yes, go on then, I will support your charity". I will feel satisfied. I ask you Mr Smith, what is the value you place on a human life? is it worth having a comfortable journey home where you are not approached by a f2f fundraiser?

Jerome yes you did say "represent that final kick and push for those who do want to make a change in the world to do so." but you ignore the fact that Chuggers are indiscriminate. While you would be true if Chugger only target those that are even remotely interested and can perhaps be convince, this is not true as everyone is targetted. So i didn't take what you said out of context, this 'kick and push' is aimed at everyone that walks the streets.

The whole point is that those who wish not to engage should not be approached in the street for money. I am a number of others are contacting those councils that have signed SMA's and those that may do to make sure that the general public are protected from chuggers. particularly those that wish not to press ganged in the street. So far the responses are very promising with regards to greatly restricting Chuggers when the new licencing comes into affect soon.

With regards to guilt tripping, thank you for telling me what alot of people already know and confirming this and the authorities will be interested in your comments.

Mike Smith, I think you've taken what I said a little out of context. I clearly declared that chuggers "represent that final kick and push for those who do want to make a change in the world to do so." I don't just convince anyone into signing up. I only try to convince those who say "well I've been thinking about it but I just haven't come round to it". I have morals and for me it is about the quality of a sign up, not just getting my stats up. I would NEVER sign somebody up who didn't believe in my charity or didn't want to.

As for guilt-tripping people, I still maintain my original stance. If people don't donate, sponsor, event-fundraiser or volunteer a single hour of free time to charity. Then yes they should feel guilty because volunteering is free and you are being a selfish person. (I wouldn't be that blunt on the street).

Again, as for the situation with the forms I was told that the cost of each form is so high because for the carbon paper used to make several copies. But soon our charity will be using the electronic devices to register direct-debits so soon the question of "can I take a form, fill it out and send it in the post later" will be no longer be applicable.

If the charity that Jerome works on behalf of is really spending 75p on producing each donation form then they could learn a thing or two about print and design purchasing....I'm sick of the pseudo ethical debate about the supposed rights and wrongs of face to face fundraising, but there's no excuse for throwing money down the drain.

Don't shoot the messenger

I think Jerome has just proove our point very nicely and are you reading this Mick Aldridge? Jerome doesn't wish to guilt trip people but did just that in the same sentence. i think that unfortunately these are the very same tactics that many chuggers use on a daily basis and set a bad example to the name of charity.

Jerome says that chuggers wish to 'kick and push' people into supporting their cause....I think that speaks volumes!!

Being a F2F fundraiser, I have personally witnessed the great goodness "chugging" (I despise that term) does. Many people watch the T.V adverts and hear the radio ads and do nothing about it. We represent that final kick and push for those who do want to make a change in the world to do so.

As for making people feel guilty. I try not to, but if somebody tells me that they neither sponsor, donate or volunteer then I tell them that they should feel guilty. 1 child dies every 3 seconds from a PREVENTABLE illness and you do nothing about it?! Then you should feel guilty.

Finally, to answer Stephen K's question about the forms. We were told that it cost 75p to make each form. If we gave everyone that asked for a form a form the charity would end up losing money. But I would usually direct people who are interested in the charity to the website.

I am coming to this one a bit late but it seems to me that a number of issues have become confused. Of course charities should be able to make face-to-face appeals in the street and whether the individual making the approach is paid directly by the charity or by some other company probably isn't that relevant as long as they are transparent about it. As has been discussed elsewhere on this site in relation to CEO pay, we all accept that even those who work in the charitable sector need to make a living somehow and it is hard and not that well paid work compared to many other jobs.
But what does bother many of us is the tactics used. I find it hard to believe that anyone who has encountered chuggers has not had a few bad experiences. I have several times been lied to about whether the chugger worked directly for the charity and have never had one volunteer the basis on which they were being paid. Also on at least 3 occasions in the past year when I have said I would like to take details of the charity with me to consider later I have been told that is not possible. One reason given is that they have numbered forms that they have to account for and can't hand one out with the bank details of the charity for later payment. Am I the only one who has had that response? And how does that square with some of the comments on this page that all that matters is that the money comes in, however it is achieved?
I am not saying that this behaviour has any real impact on the amount I donate to charity - just that it tends to make me avoid those charities who employ people who use such tactics. It can't help but taint my view of them and make me question how they are run.

Doesn't the survey that IG conducted place very serious questions on the mystery shopping that PFRA is meant to conduct in order to regulate chuggers? Does this mean that their self regulation is not working, or perhaps it means that it is simply covered up to ward off the authorities and deceive them into thinking that PFRA really cares about good practice?

PFRA has been functioning since 2003 and surely they would have recognised bad practices by now and done something about it? PFRA as basically just a political pressure group and not at all interested in self regulation....why? because after 5 years they would have improved things and maybe because they are actually financed by the very people they are meant to police (vested interests). So, it seems fairly obvious that self regulation does not work and cannot work in this case.

PFRA are currently lobbying local authorities with their Site Management Agreements (SMA's) through various town centre mangement groups like ATCM which in turn can influence local authorities. I think its important that these groups and local authorities learn the true colours of PFRA and the bad reputation of chugging. This will indeed happen before the new licencing regime comes into force in the near future.

I do understand that it is bad if a "chuger" breaks the law or doesn't no simple things about a charity. Unfortunatly its a very hard job to do and takes a very specific personality to do it. when i was in colledge i was a chugger and it made me extremly excited by charitable giving.

The problem with what your saying is that most people who wlak down the street are no experts on charity. they usally havent even heard of they charity. unfortunatly more and more nowdays people are upsessed with material things if they get a person to give amazing. their job is to make money and thats what they do and they do it well. many of them could have chose to sell insurence for better money but their not why complain.

 I think the problem doesnt lie with the fundraisers themselves but the companies they work for. If they dont no about the charity its the companies fault for not trainning them properly. and the fact that they are pushy is normally becuz they are trying hard to make money for CHARITY who cares what their motivation is behind it. One of the girls i worked with was brilliant at it and was raising 1000's o pound for chairty everyday and sent her wage back to her mother in bangledesh is that wrong?

They are effectively salespeople.

You can pay them a basic wage, like millions of other people get. And you get them working.
Pay them so much for getting so many signed up, you get them going further to 'close the sale'. Usually a lot more signed up.
But also pressure sales tactics.

So what do people want? A method thats used worldwide for getting the money flowing? Or a method of just getting the odd donor signed up?

"I would be very interested to hear anyone's thoughts on what exactly would make adequate/suitable incentives for F2F fundraisers out on the street?"

There are two questions here. The first is, why the hell do they need an incentive at all? The vast majority of people in this country work hard, do a good job, without having to be rewarded with anything more than their basic salary. For me, it's enough that my manager says, "good job" from time to time, and notices when I've gone out of my way to do something above and beyond the norm. I'm paid a decent salary, and I don't feel that I need any other "incentive" to work hard.

But maybe I'm being naive - maybe most people would be slackers given half a chance, and need the prospect of more money in order to do a good job. In that case, the question has to be what people should receive incentives for. As long as it's based on the number of people signed up, or the value of the Direct Debits acquired each day, we're inevitably going to see the sort of high-pressure sales techniques that IG is complaining about.

Why not give people incentives based on how much knowledge they have of the charity they are working for, how polite they are, how quick they are to let people walk away? They're doing their work very publicly, so it shouldn't be hard for their managers to see any of that.

Hi, I would be very interested to hear anyone's thoughts on what exactly would make adequate/suitable incentives for F2F fundraisers out on the street?
Cheers.

"IG wishes to help the sector improve it conduct in order to survice so why isn't the sector taking a more positive attitude to IG".  Calling fundraisers criminals and calling for a boycott isn't helping anyone to improve.

I don't think we are against the report, as such.  I was very disappointed to see the few instances where charity huggers acted wrongly.  What we' were against was the shoddy 'research', and reporting.

Again, in my own shoddy research, I've found not a single charity hugger to be unpleasant nor break the law.  100% accurate?  I doubt it, but then my story's not so newsworthy

Paul said: It is a short-sighted approach that damages the public's view of teh sector and will therefore lose us all money in the long term.

If you have any evidence that supports these assertions (1: it damages the public's view of the sector and 2: this damage will lead to greater loss in the long term), please cite it soonest...

Thanks

Not one word seems to be mentioned of the new charities bill that will be introduced in 2010 and will become law and empower councils to provide and revoke licences to street chuggers. Please read below and download:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/pabills/200506/charities.htm

The relevant piece that involves the empowerment of local authorities starts at section 58 (page 71 on the PDF doc). The Charities Minister Phil Hope has ensured me that local authorities will have full power to control the issueing and revokation of these permits. I don't know why this discussion is going on in this blog as once the bad practice of chugging continues to shoot itself in the foot, the greater the likelyhood of its extinction as councils start to revoke licences.

This brings me to ask why the sector are against IG and the recent survey that they conducted. Surely if the sector really cares about its existance after the charities bill is introduced, they should welcome any positive criticism and take it onboard and start to improve. IG wishes to help the sector improve it conduct in order to survice so why isn't the sector taking a more positive attitude to IG rather than acting defensively all the time?

We are missing the main point of why chugging is an inherently bad thing for the charity sector.

It is a short-sighted approach that damages the public's view of teh sector and will therefore lose us all money in the long term.

It is hugely irresponsible to only see short term cash as the priority. I work for a large charity and we don't use chugging. I appreciate teh temptation for smaller organsiations, as hand to mouth cash is often the only way they can survive, but charities need to step back from this approach and realise that the sector does not have a divine right to the trust of the public. The more we take this good faith for granted the sooner it will disappear.

On top of this face to face fundraising has a very high drop out rate anyway. People who are press-ganged into signing up on the street are much more likely to drop out long before the requisite time that would make their support financially worthwhile to the organisation.

This report is one that many charities do not want to hear - but that doesn't make it any less true.

Have had five teams on street every day for for two weeks since your article, and yet we've only received about six or seven negative comments about chuggers or your article. And got more donors than usual for this time of year. Some of them signed up because they researched your article.

How many of the people discussing chuggers here have ever stopped in the street and given their bank details out?
I sometimes put change in a tin, but I never give anything else and I dislike being approached. If the answer is no for the majority of readers, then surely it is in the best interest of your favorite charities to approach the public differently?

I work for a charity and have worked with charity shops all of the last year and I am very sympathetic to their need to raise funds and respect them for struggling to do it day after day. I just don't think this is a good way to do it.

Hello again, mikemuses. The reason we haven't given the fundraising agencies the names of the chuggers we've criticized is because we don't want to get them sacked. We don't think chuggers behave badly because they are bad people. We think they behave badly because they've been badly managed and wrongly incentivized. We don't want to let the fundraising agencies off the hook by firing miscreant employees. We want them to reform the processes and systems they use to train their staff. And that's why we're refusing to give out names.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

perhaps the charities, Mike.  Since IG has seen fit not to tell the charities which of their or their agency's staff did what, then they have given up the chance to improve fundraising, instead choosing simply to criticise. Turning something that could have been useful (if flawed) into little more than a publicity stunt.

Mikemuses, I would not consider contacting PFRA as from my previous correspodence with them is on the whole negative, for instance upon making a legitamate complaint, Mick Aldridge himself strongly suggested that we were habitual complainers. PFRA claim to be a relulatory group for F2F fundraising but from our own experience, they are just a political pressure group out to promote F2F to the media and to coerce local councils to allow F2F on their streets.

or after publishing.  But it would have been better to do it immediately.  Did you bother to report the people breaking the code to the PFRA or the charities, or agencies?

Goran, but my charity don't employ them.  I don't defend poor practice, and what this 'research' has shown is that there is still poor practice out there, but boycotting is silly.

What the results actually show is that there are people out there that need to do their jobs better. And we should be ashamed they're not.  But we should make it our mission to get them doing it better.

I've never mentioned this before as I was carrying out my own 'research', and alone, across a few cities, I have almost 50 encounters of chuggers.  20 when I've said "sorry no", and the conversation ended politely there, and 20 or so when I've listened. 

I've had no rudeness, no aggression, no unpleasantness, and once, only once, had to tell a girl that she crossed into 'guilt', when I was leaving, and didn't end the conversation politely,  now I can'r claim my research is perfect - I haven't been able to make notes immediately afterwards, but it's about as reliable as IGs.  perhaps it's where I am that gives different findings, outside London.  perhaps it's the fact that I am generally polite to them or maybe it's beause someone saying 'please could you give money" doesn't strike me as aggressive - I'm a fundraiser myself. 

But here's what gets me the most.

My charity NEEDS these donors, yet all the people who say they'll go home and donate in their own time clearly aren't doing it for us.  What would anyone suggest we do so that I can get the donors without charity hugging?

The only problem I have with the vast majority of chuggers is that, when they are around, they make a nice walk down the high street stressful and hence unpleasant.

For example, when trying to avoid them, they would often jokily say things a'la "I can see you trying to sneak away behind my back" or "Can I tell you a joke?" which usually annoy.

Being an experienced fundraiser myself, once I tried to help one of the chuggers, a lady working in the Leyton tube station. I wanted to point out to her that people couldn't clearly see what charity she represents and was angrily told to "do mine own job, and let others to theirs". The point she made was fair enough, but it left a nasty impression.

My impression is that the only people who defend chuggers are: a/ the agencies that employ them,
b/ charities that use chugging, or
c/ those considering chugging.

For the rest of the world they are a pest, an ugly tool of modern fundraising.