Managing the fallout when a fundraising outcome encounters problems
A Hertfordshire couple who lost their son to cancer are now entangled in a complex legal battle to retrieve funds originally raised for him from Gold Geese cancer charity so they can be used for their seriously ill daughter. Both complicated and tragic, the case has cast a harsh light on the importance for charities to move with care and caution when managing similar disputes.
Ultimately, in cases like this, charities should combine effective governance with a considered reputation management approach. Addressing one without the other will not suffice and could land charities in hot water when it comes to future campaigns, donor engagement, and the involvement of key stakeholders.
This fundraising campaign was first launched to raise money for the couple’s son and was to be used to cover his treatment in the US, along with memorable experiences for the family to share. However, Covid restrictions meant he was never able to travel, and he tragically passed away in 2020 before the funds were able to be spent.
After learning that their daughter born three years later is also terminally ill, albeit instead with a genetic disease, the parents are pursuing legal action against the charity, which insists it is unable to release the funds as doing so would not align with its core purpose: helping children who are suffering from cancer.
Legal constraints
While a flurry of media coverage was quick to generate negative sentiment against Gold Geese, this naturally didn’t acknowledge much of the legal constraints at play, which ultimately made it unable to simply release the donations on request.
For cases such as these, it’s easy for the public to build an unfavourable perception of the charity involved, which may seem to be deliberately isolating the parents – without an understanding of the intricacies of how a charity operates. Releasing funds outside their intended purpose could amount to a breach of trust, with the charity, along with its trustees, potentially facing liabilities.
All charities are bound by legal obligations which determine how they raise, handle and distribute funds. With this in mind, it’s interesting to see that this case was unable to be resolved prior to court proceedings through simple mediation between Gold Geese and the parents. This failure to reach a conclusion in itself raises questions as to how clearly policies were communicated prior to and during the fundraising process.
To prevent similar fallout, charities must have clear internal policies in place and make use of the vast guidance available to them when establishing and updating these. The Charity Commission’s guidance on fundraising, for example, is a solid starting point for charities looking to implement robust policies on donations and campaigns. It highlights six core principles to address when fundraising; these include to plan effectively, follow recognised standards, and to be open and accountable.
Better prepared
Prioritising these principles throughout the entire fundraising process and building them into internal policies will allow charities to be better prepared to handle unanticipated outcomes, such as when donations aren’t able to be used as planned. Similarly, the UK’s Fundraising Regulator offers a range of guidance, reflecting the Charity Commission’s advice to follow recognised standards, along with having an official Code of Fundraising Practice which outlines recommended practice for charities to adhere to.
Charities must communicate their established policies clearly and manage the expectations of any external parties involved in fundraising. Any internal policies could be rendered useless if not properly communicated.
In the case involving Gold Geese, better communication could have taken place with the parents from the outset, potentially preventing the dispute from reaching this level of court proceedings. Similar cases, which involve a family experiencing a personal loss, are highly sensitive and require a considered and cautious approach. These conversations around internal policies on donations, while difficult, remain necessary, and will pave the way for a much smoother road as fundraising commences.
Any highly publicised and unfortunate case poses a serious reputational risk to the charity involved, which is why future planning in the form of clear policies and communication is a crucial first step. But even with this covered, charities mustn’t become lax in managing the dispute. Many charities wrongly assume that, because they have clear legal obligations to reference, they can simply sit back as the dispute unfolds. This, however, could be detrimental to public perception and even the continuation of the charity’s work, regardless of the outcome of legal proceedings.
Official statements
Managing public reputation when a dispute arises requires a three-fold approach. First, it’s important to be clear about policies and legal obligations in official statements from the outset. Just as it is vital to clarify these to fundraising partners, families and donors, it’s just as essential to make these clear in public communication. For example, if the charity can only work with children who have a particular illness, such as cancer in this case, it’s important to be open and honest about this to the public.
When issuing public statements, it’s also important for charities to remain sensitive, as well as clear. When approaching the parents in this case, Gold Geese should have focused on conveying their stance as remaining fully considerate of the family and their grief, regardless of the ongoing legal dispute.
Secondly, charities must aim to remain transparent with the public, and be proactive in taking back control of the narrative via regular statements. Without this, a dispute can quickly spiral and potentially impact a charity’s perception amongst future donors and stakeholders.
Transparency involves letting the public know that steps are being taken to explore an alternative use of the funds, if they are unable to be used for the original purpose. At this crucial point, some charities become frozen, assuming that they can hide behind a singular public statement littered with legal terms and little sympathy for those affected. However, an open, consistent and humanised approach to all public communication is the best way forward.
Practical solution
Underpinning this, as the third vital component in managing reputation, is being genuinely willing to deliver a practical solution and take proactive steps to reach it. Any public statements must be accompanied by robust action which is seen as legitimate. If the charity is genuinely unable to release the funds, what is the alternative? For example, the charity might investigate alternative routes to use the donations which commemorate the child’s legacy, engaging with donors when doing so.
In light of the Gold Geese case, charities should recognise the major roles that effective governance and reputation management play in both preventing and handling fundraising disputes. It’s reasonable to assume that if these areas were thoroughly addressed, this case would not have escalated nearly so far.
