2013-05-22T07:56:47-04:00 Howard Lake http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=howard-lake Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Howard Lake Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1718765 2012-07-31T11:03:29-04:00 2012-09-30T05:12:04-04:00

Howard Lake http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-lake/ Charity Employees Benevolent Fund is to close through lack of income. The fund, operating since 2009 to provide assistance to current and former charity staff facing financial hardship, will be wound down after it has met its current financial obligations.

The charity sector has, ironically, been a latecomer in establishing a benevolent fund for its employees. The Bankers' Benevolent Fund, recently renamed the Bank Workers' Charity, was founded in 1883, and the Solicitors' Benevolent Association was set up in 1858.

The charity sector has an estimated 650,000 employees. Given the current economic conditions, it is perhaps not surprising that the Fund has seen applications for assistance triple in the past year alone.

Indeed, it has suffered the same fate of many charities, namely an increase in demand for its service at a time when income is failing to keep pace or is actually falling.

In a statement published by the Fund's trustees today, the blame was clearly laid at the door of charities themselves. While the NSPCC, New Philanthropy Capital and Victim Support were publicly thanked for their regular financial support for the Fund, many other charities did not contribute.

CEBF invited charities that employed staff to make regular payments based on the size of their workforce.

Michael Lake, Chairman of the CEBF Advisory Council commented: "I and the members of the Advisory Council believe that the sector has a collective moral responsibility to assist its own people in difficulty and I regret that there has not been a stronger commitment from individual charities to support CEBF in its commendable work."

Why did charities fail to support the Fund in sufficient numbers? Some might have felt that they could not be seen to be diverting money to look after employees facing hardship, especially at a time when many donors were themselves struggling to make donations.

Indeed, that question was posed in 2007: "can you imagine the public's reaction to fundraisers fundraising for fundraisers?"

Yet donors will be aware that charities as responsible employers pay public liability insurance, meet health and safety requirements for their staff and volunteers, and some pay pension contributions.

Perhaps other charities felt that the Fund should be supported primarily by the larger charities. The sector after all is dominated by very small charities, with many of the 160,000 charities in England and Wales having an annual turnover of £10,000 or less, according to the Charity Commission. In contrast, Oxfam raised £385.5m last year, up by £18m on the previous year.

But CEBF was careful to make the Fund appropriate to all charities that employed staff by asking for contributions based solely on the number of staff they employed.

So, the Fund is now closed to new applicants and expects to close in September. Its trustees have made one final bid to any "philanthropic organisation" that could take it on as an operating charity.

The closure of the Charity Employees Benevolent Fund is a poor reflection on the charity sector as a whole. Charity staff are arguably even more likely to face financial difficulties than staff in some other commercial sectors, but their safety net has now gone.

Charity might begin at home, but it has left the building.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1213163 2012-01-19T19:00:00-05:00 2012-03-20T05:12:01-04:00

Howard Lake http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-lake/ The Pirates! In an Adventure With Scientists! has been criticised for its "poor taste" by national leprosy charity LEPRA Health in Action for its depiction of people with leprosy. The charity has launched an online campaign to explain why it matters.

The trailer includes a scene in which the Pirate Captain lands on board a 'leper-boat'. After a brief conversation with a man on the boat, the man's arm falls off.



The film, scheduled for release in March 2012, has "caused great distress for those affected by leprosy and those working in the field to treat and prevent the condition", according to LEPRA, which has been operating since 1924. The scene perpetuates a myth that the charity thought it had been successfully challenging.

The charity has redesigned its website's front page to focus on this campaign, under the headline "Leprosy: Let's fight the prejudice".

The charity points out that "no - limbs don't just fall off. Not even for comic effect." It challenges this and other myths in its Leprosy myth busters section.

It has been busy sharing the word via Twitter, Facebook and with a video response to the trailer from the charity's chief executive Sarah Nancollas:



The campaign has already attracted support from the World Health Organisation, from celebrities and other charities. Victoria Hislop, author of 'The Island', said: "It's all too easy to reinforce the ancient ideas about leprosy and the stigma attached to it and a real pity that the film-makers weren't aware of all the work that has gone in to correcting the misconceptions.

Narsappa, President of the state forum of people affected by leprosy (SLAP), Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India, said: "We join LEPRA India in raising our protest to this film. It will spread a wrong message to the general public about leprosy."

Lepra's president Sir Chris Bonington told the BBC: "It might make you laugh but leprosy stigma not only hurts, it is still forcing people to live a life on the fringes of society.

The charity recognises that it could be accused of lacking a sense of humour, and comments on its Facebook page have been made to that effect. But it argues that a film on global release with this "old joke" in could result in "very real fear, discrimination and exclusion of leprosy affected people."

Aardman, which set up the The Wallace & Gromit Children's Foundation in 2003 to raise funds for children's hospitals and hospices throughout the UK, has responded by saying: "Aardman take matters like this most seriously and is reviewing the situation."]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.910769 2011-07-27T10:45:27-04:00 2011-09-26T05:12:02-04:00

Howard Lake http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-lake/
If they get it wrong charities could face an injunction, be required to pay damages, and face criminal proceedings if there has been a sale of goods, which might well describe the process of fundraising.

Of course, as the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (LOCOG), points out, "The value of the London 2012 brand is vital to the funding of the Games" and efforts need to be made to protect it.

However, if you think that the restrictions are the standard ones about not using the Olympics or Paralympics logo and related trademarks, the mascots, the motto, the Team GB logo, the web address, or not implying in advertising that your fundraising event is part of the Olympics, then you would be wrong. The London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006, which adds to the Olympic Symbol etc. (Protection) Act 1995, goes much further in its restrictions.

According to it, LOCOG has the rights to protect from misuse by 'unauthorised persons' some very generic words, many of which you can imagine fundraisers including in their promotional material. For example, if you use two of the following 'category 1' terms you could be infringing LOCOG's rights: Games, Twenty twelve, 2012, Two Thousand and Twelve.

Or, choose one of those words and add in one from 'category 2' and you could be committing the same offence: gold, silver, bronze, Medals, Summer, Sponsor, London.

So, if your charity was planning on running some 'Summer Games', encouraging supporters to go for 'gold in 2012' in their events, or encouraging companies to become a 'Sponsor in 2012' then you might want to think again.

Charities should be aware that even the phrase 'Summer 2012' should be avoided. This surprising combination was highlighted by charity law specialists Bates, Wells and Braithwaite LLP (BWB), who have today advised a number of charities about the restrictions that they face.

In BWB's view, the rights enjoyed by LOCOG are "extremely broad", adding "many in the legal and marketing sectors believe they go far beyond what is necessary to protect their legitimate interests in the Olympic and Paralympic names and imagery".

Will charities face legal action in the coming year? There is no reason why LOCOG would be more lenient towards charities who appear to them to be cashing in on the valuable Olympic brands. Many charities are also limited companies or undertake trading through a limited company subsidiary so the distinction might not be appreciated by LOCOG's lawyers.

LOCOG is granting some not-for-profit organisations limited rights to use certain of the Games' Marks through its London 2012 Inspire programme, its Get Set Network for schools, and its Cultural Olympiad.

Charities found to infringe LOCOG's rights outside of these networks will therefore be even more likely to be on shaky ground.

LOCOG says that "We know that people will express their excitement in a variety of ways and do not want to stifle their enthusiasm", so aims to "help people understand what they are allowed to do" rather than resort to legal action every time. But of course, it adds: "Formal court proceedings will always be a last resort but, where necessary, LOCOG will take legal action to resolve the matter."

Which words can charities and businesses use? Apparently it is safe to refer to 'an Olympic-size swimming pool', and other 'honest' statements that are not made for promotional purposes.

So don't go for gold in 2012 if you are a charity, unless your lawyers are faster, higher and stronger than those of LOCOG.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.892992 2011-07-08T05:44:46-04:00 2011-09-07T05:12:01-04:00

Howard Lake http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-lake/
This is a very unusual situation: there have been cases where individual charities have found their investment decisions or corporate partnerships questioned, but for the first time over 160,000 charities have to decide whether to accept the same offer of corporate support. And they need to make a very quick decision.

James Murdoch said yesterday: "We will run no commercial advertisements this weekend. Any advertising space in this last edition will be donated to causes and charities that wish to expose their good works to our millions of readers."

Free coverage in what was Britain's highest selling Sunday newspaper? At a time when many charities are facing funding cuts and tough fundraising conditions? Surely that is not such a difficult decision to make?

But should charities rush in where the likes of O2, Vauxhall Motors, Dixons, Sainsburys and Boots have already withdrawn? The Royal British Legion joined them yesterday by severing its links.
"We can't with any conscience campaign alongside News of the World on behalf of Armed Forces families while it stands accused of preying on these same families in the lowest depths of their misery," said a charity's spokesman.

That is the dilemma facing all UK charities: will they accept donated advertising space from a company, some of whose staff have allegedly abused the privacy of the beneficiaries of so many charities?

Charities, and in particular their trustees, do in fact have the right and duty to consider the potential impact of accepting a particular donation. This morning the Institute of Fundraising reminded its members of this, urging them to to consult its or Refusal of Donations Code of Fundraising Practice. This explains that "the decision as to whether a charity ought to accept a donation or not should be grounded in its mission and policy objectives".

So, what will charities do with this unprecedented offer of free national newspaper advertising?

They might reject it, following the lead of the Royal British Legion and Beatbullying, resulting in an array of blank pages of integrity, demonstrating that there is such a notion as tainted money.

Or, to take a more positive approach, they might band together and appeal through a single sector umbrella body for donations to a central charity fund for subsequent equal distribution. However, such a fund does not yet exist. In its absence, perhaps the best alternative would be to promote the Disasters Emergency Committee's newly
launched appeal for East Africa. That would be a good example of collaborative and transparent charity work, although it would of course not benefit the vast majority of UK charities.

So, the most likely result, because the sector is diverse and seldom speaks with one voice, is that the final edition will be full of appeals to its 7 million readers from charities, all of whom strive to make positive change in this world.

While that gives an entirely undeserved fig leaf of respectability to the newspaper in its dying hours, I'll feel some sense of satisfaction that the funds raised will ensure a far more positive legacy than the newspaper or its owners might ever have imagined.
]]>