FRSB upholds ‘tenacious’ complaint against Save the Children for unintentionally misleading public

first_imgFRSB upholds ‘tenacious’ complaint against Save the Children for unintentionally misleading public Tagged with: Fundraising Standards Board Law / policy Save the Children About Howard Lake Howard Lake is a digital fundraising entrepreneur. Publisher of UK Fundraising, the world’s first web resource for professional fundraisers, since 1994. Trainer and consultant in digital fundraising. Founder of Fundraising Camp and co-founder of GoodJobs.org.uk. Researching massive growth in giving.  25 total views,  1 views today AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis Howard Lake | 28 October 2014 | Newscenter_img However, the charity received a complaint that the statement was misleading, since any new clinic could not be built before Zinnah’s new baby was born.According to the FRSB, Save the Children accepted that the appeal “contained inconsistencies”, but did not agree that it was misleading. But after further correspondence from the complainant, the charity agreed to mail supporters of the campaign clarifying that Zinnah had not given birth in a Save the Children Clinic.The wording on the appeals webpage was also changed to:“Help us build clinics so women like Zinnah don’t suffer this frightening experience.”Breach of code, but not deliberateAlthough the charity launched and internal review of its processes in the wake of the complaint, the complainant remained concerned, according to the FRSB, that it was “not being transparent as to the reasons why the appeal had contained misleading content and why the charity would not share the report from the internal review”.The case was then escalated to the FRSB, which found that Save the Children had breached section 5.2 clause h of the IoF’s Code of Fundraising Practice:“Fundraising communications OUGHT NOT to mislead, or be clearly likely to mislead, by inaccuracy, ambiguity, exaggeration, omission or otherwise.”However, the FRSB concluded that there was “no evidence” that the charity had deliberately breached the code, which was most likely due to “insufficient attention to detail” in the approval process.The FRSB also commended Save the Children for the steps that the charity had taken since acting on the complaint to improve procedures, including refresher training courses for its staff on the code, tightening up its copywriting sign off processes, and recruiting a new member of staff to oversee risk and compliance.Colin Lloyd, Chair of the Fundraising Standards Board, said:“The case has demonstrated to the FRSB Board not only the importance of code compliance but also the operation of an effective and robust complaint handling process for charities.“While we welcome the significant steps that the charity has taken not only to rectify matters, but to improve their ongoing process, we also recognise the key role and tenacity of the complainant in bringing the issue to the attention of the charity and in working with the FRSB.” The Fundraising Standards Board has upheld a ‘tenacious’ complaint against Save the Children for including misleading information in a direct mail and web appeal.However, FRSB says it does not believe the charity set out to deliberately mislead the public and highlights the “tenacity” of the complainant in pursuing the case.Complaint over accuracy of timingThe charity’s Liberia Capital Appeal sought donations to fund new clinics for expectant mothers. The appeal materials focused on Zinnah – a woman who had previously given birth by the side of the road.The appeal asked people to:“Help us build a clinic within reach, and save her baby’s life.” Advertisement AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThislast_img read more