Author: willw

The Factary Screening Revolution

Posted on by NicolaW

In early 2017 Factary took the bold step to revolutionise the way we undertake Wealth Screenings. We launched our new Screening product in December 2017 and now, 16 months later, we have been able to reflect on the highs and lows of this process, and analyse the pros and cons of our new system. We thought we’d share our experiences here as they may prove useful to those who may be thinking of undertaking a Screening now or in the future.

Why did we change our approach to Screening?

To carry out our Screenings we used to hold a dataset of wealthy and philanthropic individuals (including data such as name, address, wealth analysis and data on professional / philanthropic interests for each individual). In 2017, in preparation for GDPR, like most other organisations we undertook full Privacy Impact Assessments (PIAs) on all of our products and services that made use of personal data. The PIA for Screening identified that, as the individuals held on our database were not aware that we were processing their data, and as some of the data would be deemed ‘intrusive’ (e.g. wealth analysis), our Screening posed clear risks to the individuals on the dataset (and, also, to us as an organisation and to our clients).

Ultimately, the PIA showed we had three choices: contact the individuals to ask for consent; attempt to justify the use of data under legitimate interests (and provide privacy notices to all the individuals on th/e dataset), or; stop Screening using this dataset entirely. We did not feel the first two options fully mitigated the risks involved to individuals, to Factary or to our clients, so (with the knowledge of the ICO) we decided to delete our dataset of wealthy and philanthropic individuals and start from scratch with a new Screening method.

Our new method

Full details on our new approach can be obtained by contacting us directly or reading more on Factary Screenings elsewhere on our website, but essentially we now make use of a number of data points to analyse a client dataset and identify those individuals likely to be major gift prospects. These data points include socio and geo-demographic data pertaining to 1.3m UK postcodes, bespoke and anonymised in-house wealth data points compiled from past Factary research, philanthropy data (to identify potential links to grant-makers & charities), and professional / business data (to identify links to top companies). None of this data is classified as personal data. We also make use of some datasets which hold names only, such as data from Factary Phi and some data from published Rich Lists. Alongside this, we make use of client data denoting connection or affinity (such as donation history, membership details, event attendance, ongoing relationships and much more) as our Screening approach doesn’t just focus on identifying the wealthiest amongst a support base but also those prospects likely to be warm to the cause or organisation.

So, does our new approach work?

We admit that this whole process was a bit of a gamble – it was a bit of a scary leap into the unknown and we had no real idea as to whether or not it would work (and we are very thankful to the small number of clients who helped us run pilot Screenings on their data in 2017 to allow us to review the outputs and efficacy of the new approach).

Thankfully, we are happy to report that the new process not only works, but is proving to be even more effective than our old approach. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, we are no longer relying on a static database of well-known individuals. We are now drawing from a variety of in-house datasets which has massively broadened the potential pool from which we can identify prospects and has naturally resulted in an increase in identified major donor potential.

Example output from Factary's new Screening report
Example output from Factary’s new Screening report (showing results by ‘Capacity’)

Secondly, due to the new focus on demographic and occupational analysis we are able to identify wealthy individuals that would have previously been difficult to identify. This expanded focus, which is not reliant on prospects who are likely to be identified from static sources such as Companies House, has shown that we also now have a higher chance of being able to identify the very wealthiest prospects from professional sectors that were hugely underrepresented in our old approach (e.g. prospects with affiliations to investment firms or hedge funds).

Ultimately, this new approach to identifying prospects is more rounded and multi-layered which, when coupled with our bespoke analysis of giving history and affinity data, identifies a much wider range of wealthy and philanthropic individuals who can be prioritised not only by capacity to give but also by warmth/motivation towards the organisation or cause.

Example output from Factary's new Screening report
Example output from Factary’s new Screening report (showing potential philanthropy matches against Factary Phi)

The cons

Of course, as with any process, it’s not fool proof. The new approach has its cons, too. For example, as one of the main drivers of our Screening is postcode data we are very reliant on clean address information in order to achieve successful results. Clients with out of date address data are unlikely to obtain the same results as those with clean data. That said, under GDPR we have found that many organisations have worked hard to ensure the data they hold is clean and accurate, so this is less of an issue than it might have been a few years ago.

Another slight downside is that not all individuals indicated as wealthy at the initial Screening stage can subsequently be identified from manual research in the public domain at the reporting stage, and for some we cannot confirm wealth. This means that a small percentage (around 17%) of identified prospects can ultimately not be included in the final reports. This does, however, highlight that our Screening involves a very careful process whereby an individual researcher reviews the results to ensure only relevant and verified major gift level prospects are included in the eventual pool (from a GDPR perspective this is important due to the process of justifying the type of individual that might ‘reasonably expect’ to be researched).

So, what are the typical results you can expect?

Given the pros and cons listed above, what are the typical results you can expect from the new Screening process?

The overall breakdown of results (by wealth band) so far is shown below. This includes the percentage of prospects we have researched and verified at various wealth levels, after removing those prospects who cannot be identified in the public domain or who are not relevant for a major donor programme.

As can be seen, the results show a spread across levels of estimated wealth, with £1m-£5m being the most predominant (as expected) and then a more or less equal split between those with wealth of £5m-£10m, and those HNWIs at £10m+. As can be seen, our new approach also includes prospects with wealth of £500k-£1m (as, according to research, these prospects would have an annual gift capacity in the region of £5k-£10k, which easily puts them into a major giving category for the majority of our clients).

Unfortunately, it is difficult to use the data we have so far to provide an estimated breakdown of likely major donor potential (by wealth category) that can be identified from a ‘typical’ dataset as, predictably, the results do depend on the type of organisation we are working with, and the quality of the data we receive. For example, for one independent school we identified that 41% of the database had major donor potential (wealth >£1m), but as these types of datasets are likely to have an unusually high percentage of wealthy individuals it is not indicative of potential results more broadly.

However, results from numerous other charities (working in health, international development, arts etc.) so far show that the identification rate for >£1m prospects has been typically 3% – 5%. This is heartening as research undertaken in 2017 by Boston Consulting Group (BCG) showed that approximately 3% of UK households are millionaires. This indicates that our results mirror the wealth demographic in the UK but are also reflective of the fact that our clients typically segment their datasets to send us those prospects who are most likely to ‘reasonably expect’ to be researched (so their segmentations are likely to include a higher percentage of wealthy and philanthropic individuals than their wider datasets as a whole, meaning we may often identify >3% with major gift potential). Alongside this, because we also identify a relatively robust number of prospects at £500k – £1m, the eventual pool of potential prospects is typically quite broad for all of our clients.

These typical results also represent an increase in identified major gift potential when compared to our previous Screening results, which would, on average, identify 2.88% of a donor dataset (as was outlined in our ‘Guide to a Compliant Wealth Screening’ which can be accessed here).

TL;DR? It does work!

Ultimately, what this data has shown us is that our new process does actually work in identifying a broad range of potential major donor prospects for our clients, which is something of a relief for us! To have taken the bold move to stop using our in-house dataset was a daunting prospect for us, but to have found that not only could we continue to provide clients with a GDPR-compliant service to identify major donor prospects, but that it was actually even more effective than our old system has been very exciting. We are not resting on our laurels though – we are constantly reviewing and revising our processes to tighten up results so, hopefully, our Screenings will continue to improve in the coming months. Do please get in touch if you’d like to talk about the average results from your particular sector so you can see what the ROI from a Screening might be when translated into major gift potential for your organisation.

The GDPR bit…

…because what blog post about Screening would be complete without a GDPR section?

There are still a number of organisations in the sector who still ask if wealth screening is legal. The short answer is yes, it is. The longer answer is yes…as long as your organisation has met a number of requirements, which include:

Identify a condition for processing

You need to choose whether to rely on ‘consent‘ or ‘legitimate interests‘ to process data for wealth screening (you may find our previous papers on Legitimate Interest and Prospect Research and Factary’s Guide to a GDPR Compliant Screening useful in this regard).

Analyse your legitimate interests

If relying on legitimate interest (as, for example, 97% of higher education institutions are reported to be doing), the ICO outline that there are three elements to review, which are:

1. Identify a legitimate interest – what are the purposes for processing the data?

  • Your organisation will need to be able to identify and demonstrate the reasons or purpose of undertaking a Screening. For example, you may outline that Screenings are used to identify those individuals from amongst a wider existing supporter base who may be able to offer financial support at a significantly higher level and to prioritise those who should be approached for a major giving programme
  • It may also help to review the results of this academic study which provides evidence to support the use of research as an integral process in fundraising. For example, the paper shows that:
    • 95% of fundraisers state that research enables them to identify relevant prospects
    • 100% state that research is necessary for understanding prospects’ capacity to give
    • 100% state prospect research enables their organisations to prioritise the prospect pool
  • Of course, Screening also ensures that individuals who are not able to support you at a significant level do not receive irrelevant approaches from your organisation, which is another clear purpose of doing it. As evidence for this, the study cited above shows that 82% of fundraisers agree that research processes minimise the chance that inappropriate approaches are made to potential donors.

2. Show that the processing is necessary to achieve the purposes identified

  • The ICO outline that data processing must be necessary and further state that if you can reasonably achieve the same results in a way that does not use personal data, then legitimate interests will not apply. Whilst our Screening does not use personal data we would still be processing the personal data held by your organisation, so this aspect of GDPR still needs to be analysed before a Screening is undertaken.
  • The necessity of Screening can be evidenced by understanding how important major gift fundraising is to the continued success and operation of your organisation, including that major donors not only provide financial support but also contribute in other, less tangible ways, such as bringing expertise, skills and their professional or personal networks to provide support and guidance to non-profits (Eberhardt S & Madden M (2017) Major Donor Giving Research Report. London: NPC).
  • Screening is typically the first step in major gift fundraising as it enables you to identify relevant prospects for a programme in an efficient, cost-effective and accurate way.
  • Other methods for identifying relevant major gift prospects were reviewed in the academic study outlined above, including data mining / segmentation (such as analysing a donor or alumni database to identify those who are making abnormally large or out-of-pattern gifts, or from modelling their dataset to identify individuals with similar characteristic to their major donors), or from sending questionnaires to constituents on a database and asking for details on salary / professional info etc. Results from the study (see page 22 onwards) showed that the vast majority of fundraisers felt that, even if organisations undertake other methods then prospect research processes would still be required in order to, for example, identify sufficient numbers of major gift prospects.
  • Using the type of evidence and arguments outlined above, you can prove that Screening is necessary and that the results from Screenings cannot be achieved by using other methods.

3. Balance the processing against the individual’s interests, rights and freedoms

The ICO state that you must balance your need to undertake processes such as Screening against individuals’ interests. If the individuals would not reasonably expect the processing, or if it would cause unjustified harm, their interests are likely to override your legitimate interests.

  • It is important, therefore, to be able to explain / evidence that activities such as Screening do not have a disproportionate impact on individuals. Our paper on Legitimate Interest and Prospect Research contains an overview of the type of processes to go through, the questions to ask and the evidence that can ultimately be gathered in order to do this (see page 15 onwards).
  • Additionally, we recently conducted a study into privacy notices which can be accessed via our blog. This provided very clear evidence that, when individuals are contacted to be informed that organisations are undertaking Screening (by receiving a privacy notice), very (very) few of them react negatively. For example, as the blog shows, only 0.0000411% of (almost 2.5m) individuals chose to opt out of their data being used in prospect research when given the opportunity. This, as we outline in the blog, “…provides an evidence base that can be used to argue that the balancing exercise carried out by non-profit organisations to review individuals’ interests, rights and freedoms was fairly judged because, if it hadn’t been, then presumably the number of individuals complaining about or opting out of prospect research would be significantly higher”.

4. Transparency:

One of the 7 principles of the GDPR is ‘lawfulness, fairness and transparency’. Some of the processes outlined above will ensure you are meeting the standards of lawfulness and fairness required for this principle, but adhering to ‘transparency’ is vital – particularly when it comes to Screening as a lack of transparency formed the basis of the ICO fines to charities for Screening in 2016.

  • Transparency is achieved through the provision of a clear and concise privacy notice. Plenty has been written about how to write a good privacy notice and what to include but there are now some great examples of privacy notices which include Screening in their scope (see here and here).
  • If you do not provide individuals with a privacy notice your organisation cannot claim that it has upheld the rights of individuals (as required under the GDPR), specifically those such as the right to be informed, the right to restrict processing or the right to object to processing.
  • Incidentally, this principle formed the basis of Factary’s decision to delete our database of wealthy individuals that we used to hold for Screening as our PIA showed that we did not allow individuals to exercise their rights (as they had not received a privacy notice from us outlining the reasons for which we used their personal data).

The four elements described above that need to be reviewed/worked through in order to undertake a compliant Screening may feel slightly onerous, but they are imperative if your organisation wants to move forward with any type of data processing for fundraising.

Further discussion

If you’d like to chat about Screenings, or how to approach undertaking a DPIA or analysing the GDPR requirements around Screening then please do get in touch.

The role of prospect research in major donor fundraising

Posted on by NicolaW

As part of an MA in Philanthropic Studies (undertaken at the Centre for Philanthropy at the University of Kent) I completed a study which aimed to identify the role that prospect research plays in major donor fundraising. The study involved a survey, undertaken in 2018, of major donor fundraisers and prospect researchers working in higher education institutions in the UK. I’m pleased to say that the results of the study are now available to download.

Download report:
The role of prospect research in major donor fundraising

As a quick summary the results of the study cover a number of areas, such as:

  • The activities commonly undertaken by prospect researchers
  • The purposes or reasons for which fundraisers use prospect research
  • How necessary fundraisers feel research is to their work
  • The ways in which prospect research contributes to fundraising
  • Prospect research metrics (i.e. what data is being gathered on the output or impact of prospect research)

In particular, the results can be used by non-profit organisations when analysing the use of personal data for prospect research purposes under the GDPR. Until now, the non-profit sector did not have a reliable evidence base which outlined the purpose or necessity of prospect research, nor which identified if the purposes of prospect research could reasonably be achieved by other methods (which do not use personal data) – all important areas to analyse, particularly for those organisations relying on their Legitimate Interests to process personal data for prospect research. In practical terms, the data and evidence presented in the paper can now be used by any non-profit organisation when completing, for example, a Legitimate Interest Assessment or a Data Privacy Impact Assessment.

Beyond GDPR, the paper highlights that, on the whole, the prospect research community is not particularly good at gathering evidence which illustrates the impact (or the ROI) of prospect research. That said, it does also show that the vast majority of major donor fundraisers are overwhelmingly positive about the ways in which prospect research supports them in their work.

If you think it might be useful for you or your organisation, please do download the paper and (when sufficiently caffeinated) have a read. I’d be more than happy to answer any questions or chat about the data/paper in more detail if you’d like to get in touch.

Nicola Williams

Factary’s Privacy Notice Project

Posted on by NicolaW

For the past few months we have been engaged in a project to understand the reaction of donors, supporters and alumni when they receive a privacy notice from a non-profit organisation or university which is relying on its legitimate interest to process data for prospect research purposes.

We undertook the project because, under GDPR, in order to be able to rely on legitimate interest as a basis to process personal data for prospect research purposes (and therefore not obtain consent), non-profits must ensure they have fulfilled certain criteria – including undertaking a balancing exercise to ensure that the legitimate interests of the organisation do not override individuals’ interests, rights & freedoms and to ensure that the data processing does not have a disproportionate impact on data subjects.

Whilst many non-profits and universities feel they have successfully carried out balancing exercises and provided fair and transparent privacy notices detailing prospect research activities, the decision they have taken to rely on their legitimate interests is not without its risks. The opinion of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) in early 2017 was that “millions of people” would “be upset to discover that charities [would] target them for even more money” by undertaking activities such as prospect research. If it is indeed the case that millions of people would feel this way then it could be argued that prospect research activities do have a disproportionate impact on data subjects.

However, so far the ICO have provided no evidence that “millions of people” would be upset to discover that non-profit organisations undertake prospect research. In fact, in a recent ongoing correspondence in relation to a Freedom of Information request, the ICO state they have “no specific evidence” to support their assertion that donors, supporters or alumni would not reasonably expect non-profits to undertake prospect research, much less that people would be upset about it.

That said, the non-profit sector itself cannot currently provide any empirical evidence that millions of people would not feel this way. The lack of evidence to support some aspects of the decision many non-profits have taken to rely on the legitimate interest condition is something that concerns us at Factary and for this reason we decided to try and understand the reaction of donors, supporters and alumni when they are told about prospect research via a privacy notice.

The project

This project aimed to capture data on the reactions of data subjects when they received a privacy notice containing information about prospect research activities. To do this, a questionnaire was sent only to non-profits which:

  • undertake prospect research activities (such as profiling and screening)
  • have decided to rely on legitimate interests for prospect research purposes
  • have included specific information about prospect research activities in their privacy notice
  • have provided the privacy notice to their constituents (not just made it available on their website)
  • told recipients how they could opt out of their data being used for prospect research and how they could complain about data being used in this way

Results

To date, 17 non-profits organisations (a mixture of charities and universities) have completed the questionnaire.

In total 2,433,901 privacy notices have been provided by the 17 organisations.

Privacy notices (or links to privacy notices) have been provided using the following methods:

  • 1,174,930 sent by email
  • 947,791 sent by post
  • 307,180 sent by SMS
  • 4,000 provided face to face (by one higher education institution at an alumni event)
Graph comparing the methods by which organisations have provided privacy notices to data subjects.

From the 2.4m privacy notices that were provided by the 17 different organisations, we asked:

  • How many recipients contacted the non-profit to opt-out of their data being used for prospect research purposes?
  • How many recipients contacted the non-profit to complain about the use of personal data for prospect research purposes?

The results show:

  • Overall 0.0000411% of recipients complained about prospect research
  • Overall 0.00825% of recipients opted out of prospect research

What do these results mean?

As is shown, the number of individuals complaining about prospect research, or requesting to ‘opt out’ of their data being used in prospect research, is infinitesimal.

This data therefore provides an evidence base that can be used to argue that the balancing exercise carried out by non-profit organisations to review individuals’ interests, rights and freedoms was fairly judged because, if it hadn’t been, then presumably the number of individuals complaining about or opting out of prospect research would be significantly higher.

Whilst we do not necessarily feel the results of the project can be used to argue that people ‘reasonably expect’ to be researched, the data can be used to argue that prospect research activities do not appear to have a disproportionate impact on data subjects. The ICO state that

You should avoid using legitimate interests if you are using personal data in ways … you think some people would object [to] if you explained it to them.

This data shows that the rate of objection is negligible which makes the legitimate interests condition an entirely viable option for non-profits.

Of course, one of the limitations of this data is that it is difficult to know how many individuals have actually read the privacy notices that they were sent in various formats (our research shows that, on average, around 30% of individuals who received privacy notices via email clicked to open the email but we have no way of knowing how many people read the copies that were posted to them or that were given to them face to face). However, we do not believe that this invalidates the results. In fact, given the widespread negative publicity afforded to the use of personal data in fundraising by charities and universities over the past few years in the national press, it would be difficult to state that there is a total lack of awareness amongst donors, supporters and alumni of how personal data is used in fundraising. It could be argued that the open rate indicates that, despite negative press reports about wealth screening and research, people trust their chosen charities and universities to use their data responsibly.

Of course, more can be done to ensure donors, supporters and alumni are engaged in matters of data privacy over and above just sending a privacy notice – for example, many organisations are speaking directly with donors about data privacy matters to make sure individuals have a thorough understanding of what happens with their data and to gauge reasonable expectations. That said, each organisation that completed our questionnaire provided a clear privacy notice to data subjects to enable them to exercise their rights (to be informed, to object the processing, to minimise processing, to access their data etc.) and so they have met the standards of transparency required under the legitimate interests condition, regardless of how many recipients found it necessary to read the privacy notice.

What next?

We would like to continue to add to this evidence base if possible so if your organisation is relying on legitimate interests to process data for prospect research and you would like to share your data on privacy notices, please do contact us at the details below. If we do receive more data on this, we’ll update this blog with fresh results.

We also believe there is more work that can to be done to gather wider evidence to support the justification to rely on legitimate interests for prospect research. This includes gathering and disseminating data on the reasonable expectations of supporters (particularly major donors), the purposes of prospect research, how necessary research is to fundraising and the benefits of doing it. There is more to come from us on some of these issues, so keep an eye on the blog – but if you are engaging in any evidence gathering on these matters we’d love to hear from you!

And, last but not least, we’d like to thank the organisations and higher ed institutions that submitted data to us for this project.

If you have any questions about any of the above (or GDPR or research in general) please do get in touch with Nicola Williams, Research Director, at nicolaw@factary.com.

The road to GDPR for prospect research

Posted on by NicolaW

We recently undertook a survey of prospect research teams in the UK to find out how they are coping with GDPR preparations. We’d like to thank each of the 95 respondents – your answers have given us a real sense of the current situation for the prospect research community as we all work towards May 2018.

We thought it might be useful to share some of the responses as we know that many prospect researchers are struggling with GDPR and it may help to know that you are not alone! That said, it’s not all doom and gloom out there, as the answers to the survey reflect, and there are many positives that we can take from the results.

First, the not-so-good news

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the overwhelming feeling from most of our respondents (77%) is that there is still a lack of clarity around GDPR – specifically around how prospect research can operate in a compliant fashion within the principles of GDPR.

There are also concerns with the practical aspects of GDPR preparation; over 34% of respondents would like more information on undertaking a privacy impact assessment and 38% of respondents are struggling with understanding how to integrate GDPR practices with their CRM system.

Frustratingly, almost 35% of prospect researchers reported that they have not been involved in the GDPR discussions at all in their organisations so they feel they have been unable to provide valuable input to the process.

Some of the other concerns highlighted by our survey are:

  • Misinformation or conflicting advice on GDPR issues is very confusing and unhelpful when it comes to planning
  • The lack of evidence that supports the need for prospect research which can be used to argue the case for continued prospect research with senior leadership
  • The difficulty of understanding and analysing donors’ reasonable expectations
  • The lack of support from leadership within organisations in preparing for GDPR, and the lack of communication between teams on this issue
  • The potential impact of GDPR on smaller organisations is worrying as they may not be able to fully prepare in time for May 2018 due to a lack of resources
  • PECR seems to be a particular concern for many, especially when it comes to consent for channels of communication and how this integrates with GDPR requirements
  • The overwhelming workload and resources required to prepare for GDPR

All that said, it wasn’t all bad news…

Readiness for GDPR

Whilst only 2% of respondents stated that they are ‘completely ready’ for GDPR, the vast majority of respondents, 91%, stated that, for prospect research at least, their organisations are ‘not quite ready, but getting there’. Only 4% of respondents felt that they are ‘not at all’ ready.

Consent or Legitimate Interest?

Most interesting to note from the results was that 54% of respondents stated that their organisation will be relying on legitimate interests as their basis to process data for prospect research purposes.

Only 3% noted that they will be relying on consent as their basis for processing whilst almost 35% of respondents stated their organisations were not yet to make a decision on this.

Privacy Notices

Only 16% of respondents felt that writing privacy notices / policies was an area of concern for their organisations – this is perhaps due in part to the specific guidance that does exist in this area.

Hearteningly, over 63% of organisations have updated their privacy notice to be GDPR compliant. Just over 26% have not yet done this, and 10% of respondents were not sure on the state of their organisation’s privacy notice.

Of the 63% which have updated their notice, over half (58%) have now uploaded this to their website. Only 14% have taken the step to post or email this updated notice to their supporters but this number will inevitably grow at a pace as we work towards May 2018.

Impact on prospect research activity

We also wanted to find out whether researchers have been able to continue providing prospect research services in recent months as the answer to this may help us to understand the likely long-term impact of the ICO fines and GDPR preparation.

The results below show the 5 main areas of prospect research activity and the % of respondents who stated they have either a) stopped doing this activity altogether, b) paused this activity whilst they prepare for GDPR, c) have continued to do this activity or, d) were unable to answer or didn’t do this activity in the first place.

Type of researchStoppedPausedContinuingD/K or N/A
Database (Wealth) Screening31%41%7%21%
Individual research/profiling4%21%68%7%
New prospects identification4%18%69%9%
Due diligence research1%3%78%18%
Network research4%13%57%25%

We have followed up specifically with those individuals who stated they have ‘stopped’ or ‘paused’ Database Screening to obtain more details on these decisions, and we will be able to provide more insight into this at our session with Prospecting for Gold at the RiF Conference on November 6th. For those unable to be at the conference we will follow up with a blog about this shortly afterwards.

For now, it is heartening to see that, aside from Screening, the majority of prospect research activities have continued, although some have fared better than others.

Due diligence in particular seems to have continued, with only 1% of respondents stopping this activity and 3% pausing it. Individual research (i.e. profiling), which was previously undertaken by over 92% of respondents, has stopped or paused in a quarter of organisations as GDPR preparation is undertaken.

Network research was highlighted in the open questions as a particular area of concern, with many unclear how to balance GDPR requirements with the need to identify relevant contacts of key supporters, although of the 50% of respondents who previously undertook this type of research, 86% are continuing to do so, so it is unclear how much this has been affected in reality.

It will be interesting to review the long-term consequences of organisations stopping or pausing these activities as we look in particular at major donor income in 2018 and beyond. Many respondents in the open questions highlighted their concerns that their particular organisations and institutions are losing opportunities to identify and engage potential supporters for fundraising during the process of preparing for GDPR.

The future

Whilst this is a worrying time, there was a view from many respondents that GDPR will ultimately have a positive impact on prospect research…in the end.

This is because despite being, as one respondent put it, “painful”, four of the main benefits highlighted were:

  • GDPR will help to promote prospect research within organisations and institutions (as one respondent put it, “We are no longer a dark art!”)
  • It will make prospect research more efficient and effective
  • The process will educate supporters, donors and the public in how non-profits operate/fundraise, which is a good and positive thing
  • The situation so far has shown researchers to be resilient – working hard and standing up for themselves and the sector

So, the future seems bright but, in the present, if you are one of the many researchers who would like more clarity on specific issues, we know that the IoF are working to produce some specific GDPR guidance for prospect research. We don’t yet know when this will be available, but it will hopefully provide some much needed insight into how we can better prepare for GDPR.

Whilst you wait for that, you may want to download our paper on legitimate interests and prospect research, as it signposts to other useful pieces of guidance and gives a basic overview of the GDPR situation.

If you’d like more details on the survey or would like to chat about prospect research and/or GDPR, please do get in touch with me.

Prospect Research and Legitimate Interests

Posted on by NicolaW

Something quite remarkable happened a few weeks ago. I went to a conference on GDPR (the CASE Regulation and Compliance Conference) and, by the end of the day, I was actually feeling upbeat, hopeful and – even – vaguely excited about the future of prospect research. This was not at all how I was expecting to feel after a GDPR conference, based on the countless other GDPR conferences and events that I have attended over the past 18 months which have mostly left me feeling a mixture of despondency and frustration.

So, why the sudden shift? Well, a few things. Firstly, the brilliant presentations were, for the first time, practical, focusing on what people are working on and achieving as they build towards compliancy for GDPR. To be at a GDPR event which was about positive action in regards to things like privacy notices or data analysis, and not just about all the things we can’t or mustn’t do, felt like progress.

Secondly, there was a real focus on analysing the ‘legitimate interest’ condition for processing data for prospect research. This is a huge step forwards. For too long now ‘legitimate interest’ has been viewed as a second-best option, a condition for processing that non-profits can maybe use, which is kind of OK, but probably just not quite as good or as ‘safe’ as consent. Obviously, this is due in no small part to the Regulator and ICO’s view that non-profits should probably get consent for wealth screening (by which they seem to imply most forms of prospect research). Alongside this, as Adrian Salmon’s recent blogpost highlights, one of the problems of principles’ based regulation is that, whilst it should encourage flexibility, it tends to lead to a “very conservative compliance mind-set”. So, it was great to see the all the relevant conditions for processing being analysed in an informed and practical way at the conference.

And lastly, many Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are actively choosing legitimate interests (after careful analysis) as their condition for processing data for prospect research. This is another good, positive step.

All that said…

There is still confusion and misinformation. In the past two weeks alone I have received a number of emails from researchers who are still asking if wealth screening is illegal or if they need to get consent from all their donors before doing research. I also speak to many organisations that have suspended some or all forms of prospect research whilst they try to work out their next steps. Occasionally, I speak to smaller charities who have no idea that any of this is even happening.

So, despite great advances in the HE sector and with some charities, it is clear that there is still a long way to go for prospect research before we reach May 2018, when GDPR becomes law.

The main aspect which seems to be paralysing many organisations is the question of whether to rely on consent or legitimate interests as the condition for processing for prospect research. Many researchers have been tasked with coming up with a plan for assessing this and making recommendations, which is a tall order. Much has already been written about consent (see, for example, The Fundraising Regulator’s Guidance on Consent) and we thought, therefore, that it might be useful to add some thoughts around legitimate interests, specifically in relation to prospect research.

Please click here to download our paper on this, which is a meander around the topic (you’ll be asked to subcribe to Factary Updates, so you’ll receive other reports and updates like this in the future). We hope the report is useful. Please do come back to us with any questions or comments. Also, remember that we are not data protection lawyers, so don’t make any decisions based solely on the information we provide!

5 Questions to Ask the ICO

Posted on by NicolaW

The Information Commissioner, the Fundraising Regulator and the Charity Commission are due to meet fundraisers in Manchester tomorrow, on Tuesday 21st February, for the Fundraising and Regulatory Compliance Conference. The ICO have produced a conference paper for delegates to read prior to 21st, which can be accessed here.

The paper, amongst other things, sets out the ICO’s view of data protection in relation to Database Screening and, it seems, prospect research – although, whilst it mentions ‘Screening’ specifically, the paper rather ambiguously only refers to other [research] “…activities such as profiling individuals”. We do need to get some clarification on what they mean by this but, from the context, it does appear to refer to researching donors and supporters using public domain sources and/or using information not supplied directly by the data subject (so, prospect research).

The paper initially outlines why an organisation should use a privacy policy to explain how they make use of data. It then explains the ‘legitimate interests’ condition in relation to the DPA. In this sense, the paper is useful in outlining that charities need to be honest and fair in their processing of data. This is something that cannot and should not be argued with. As we have said before (e.g. here and here), all charities must make sure they have robust, fair and easily accessible privacy policies which openly explain how they collect, store, use and process data.

The conference paper outlines situations in which such a policy must be communicated to a supporter, some ways this can be done, and even when it is not necessary / practical to do so. This is all useful and welcome information. We now hope that perhaps the Fundraising Regulator will issue some sample privacy policies at the conference on Tuesday that provide examples of the language that charities can use to comply with fair processing of data for fundraising.

However, the paper then states that it is ‘highly unlikely’ that charities will be able to rely on legitimate interests as a condition to process data for Database Screening – specifically using third party providers or involving any personal data not supplied by the data subject – or for ‘profiling individuals’. Instead these activities will require explicit consent from data subjects. This is because, the ICO states, these activities are a) not ‘compatible’ with processing data collected from a donor at the point of donation and b) not within the ‘reasonable expectations’ of a donor.

Please read the conference paper. Think about how it will affect you and your work and highlight any areas you feel are not clear. The conference on 21st February is a very important event and the questions we ask (and the answers we receive) about this paper are likely to have a long-term effect on fundraising and research. If you are not going to be at the conference on Tuesday, you can pass any questions that you may have about it directly to the ICO (send them to events@ico.org.uk and ask for them to be forwarded to the relevant dept).

Below are 5 of the questions we would like to ask, now that we have read the paper:

  1. The ICO say in its paper for this conference that individuals are “highly unlikely to expect” certain types of data processing. In the ICO’s press release announcing the British Heart Foundation and RSPCA monetary penalties they are quoted as saying “millions of people who give their time and money to benefit good causes will be saddened…” to know that charities would ask them for more money.
    1. Does the ICO have evidence that shows what donors expect?
    2. There is, in fact, strong evidence to support the fact that processing of personal data for research is within the reasonable expectations of many donors; a recent study concluded that 78% of donors said that better research before they are approached by a non-profit is the most significant area of improvement in fundraising in the past 10 years. Therefore, if fair processing is adhered to and prospect research is within the reasonable expectations of donors, then can the ICO confirm that charities can rely on legitimate interests to undertake this type of activity?
    3. Sources
      1. ICO, Fundraising and regulatory compliance, 21st February 2017
      2. ICO investigation reveals how charities have been exploiting supporters, 16th December 2016
      3. Breeze & Lloyd, (2013); Why Rich People Give. London, DSC.
  2. Tesco’s Privacy Policy, which customers using its loyalty card must accept, says: “We may also use personal data from other sources, such as specialist companies that supply information, online media channels (online media channels include websites, social media sites, pay TV providers and any other channels that become available to us), our Retail Partners and public registers (for example, the electoral roll)”. They state that they do this in order to provide a better service and experience to their customers.
    1. If a charity used this same statement in its privacy policy, could charities use the public and private domain sources listed by Tesco in research so as to provide a better service and experience to donors?
    2. If not, why not?
    3. Source: Tesco Privacy and Cookie Policy
  3. The paper for the conference says: “It’s legitimate for you to process personal data in order to properly administer donations received from individuals”. The paper suggests throughout, as highlighted above, that “administering donations” is the only purpose for which a charity would use data collected at the point of donation or at the point a supporter joins a charity database. It suggests, therefore, that fundraising (including the market research necessary for raising funds) is not a compatible purpose for processing donation information.
    1. Is it?
    2. If not, why can, for example, Tesco use transaction information for more than simply administering a transaction (see their privacy policy linked above)?
    3. As charities rely on fundraising to carry out their work, is it not within their legitimate interests to use data collected from supporters for fundraising purposes, providing that fair processing and the rules of PECR, the MPS/TPS/FPS etc. are all adhered to?
  4. Here is a common story: a charity Board member meets an individual at, say, a cocktail party. The Board member comes back to the charity fundraiser with the individual’s name and says “X is interested in what we do. And he is wealthy.” The ICO says in its paper for this conference: “Far more intrusive are activities such as profiling individuals, particularly where this involves getting more information that the individual has not given you, either directly or via third-party companies. In these cases the legitimate interest condition is highly unlikely to apply. So you’d need to seek the consent of individuals before doing such processing.”
    1. The X named by our Board member is not a donor. We have no permissions or opt-ins or opt-outs. Can we look him up on Google or LinkedIn or Companies House without his permission?
  5. The Charity Commission imposes a duty to check on donors and potential donors. The Charity Commission recommends that trustees understand their donors and asks: “Have any public concerns been raised about the donors or their activities?” The Commission suggests that “full use should be made of internet websites” to check on donors. This is directly contrary to the ICO guidance which would not permit the use of public domain information until the donor has signed up to our privacy policy.
    1. Given that we want to research a potential donor before she does this, whose guidance should we follow – that of the ICO or that of the Charity Commission?
    2. Source: Charity Commission for England and Wales, Tool 6: Know Your Donor – Key Questions

These are just some of the questions we feel require clarification from the ICO and we’ll be submitting these prior to the event. We will also be attending the event on Tuesday and we’ll report back on what happened as soon as possible afterwards through this blog.

Please also keep an eye on Factary’s Twitter feed during the day as we will attempt, where possible, to Tweet any significant points or answers to any questions raised during the conference.

FTSE100 Chairmen, Companies and Philanthropy: a new report

Posted on by NicolaW

How much do you know about the leaders of the largest companies in the UK? How are they interconnected? What are their philanthropic interests? And those of their fellow directors or the companies that they lead?

Whilst much information is available in the public domain concerning corporate giving by the FTSE100, limited information is easily available concerning the philanthropic activities of their board directors.

Factary’s new report provides in-depth research into each of the 94 Chairmen – and women – of the FTSE100, including biographical information, key professional and philanthropic interests and details of links to other FTSE100 Chairmen. We also provide a brief overview of each company and their CSR activities, including known major gifts, together with details of a further 189 notable board directors from the 100 companies.

The report highlights that the vast majority of FTSE100 Chairmen are philanthropically active, with over 94% providing money, time and expertise to support a wide variety of causes across the UK and internationally. The most popular causes receiving support are education, arts and heritage but with an average of 2.9 causes supported by each Chairman there is also evidence of support for environment, sport and disability services. There is a notable is difference between the chosen philanthropic interests of individual Chairmen and those of the companies they head up, which are more likely to support health, welfare, children and international development.

The philanthropic interests of the companies and the people behind them are further detailed in an Excel spreadsheet, accompanying the full report, which contains a breakdown of all identified philanthropic interests which can be filtered to focus on specific companies, Chairmen or directors.

The report also shines a light on how the FTSE100 Chairmen interconnect through professional and philanthropic involvements, educational institutions and club memberships. The report shows that 70% of the FTSE100 Chairmen connect directly to at least two other Chairmen, highlighting that there is significant potential for networking and relationship building within this group.

We present this network information in the form of an interactive, online Factary Atom map, access to which is included with the report.

If you are about to launch a major campaign, or just want to see who your key volunteers may know and what their interests are, then this latest report from Factary will be an invaluable resource for major donor and corporate fundraisers or prospect researchers – providing you with detailed and up-to-date information on some of the most high profile and well-connected philanthropists in the UK.

The report is £495, for which you receive:

  • The full 325-page report containing:
    • Full profiles of the 94 current FTSE100 Chairmen (as of January 2017)
    • Brief profiles of companies (including CSR and major gifts)
    • Factary analysis, observations and conclusions
  • Excel spreadsheet to filter for relevant philanthropic interests by Chairman, director or FTSE100 company
  • Online network map to identify how the Chairmen are connected through professional or philanthropic interests, education institutions, club memberships and leisure interests

If you are interested in ordering a copy or would like more information, please email research@factary.com or call 0117 916 6740.

ICO rulings and Database Screenings

Posted on by NicolaW

The ICO fines for BHF and RSPCA that were announced this week have caused understandable concern for prospect researchers and wider fundraising teams across the sector. This blog post is Factary’s initial response to this news.

The ICO has so far issued two statements about the fines levied (these can be seen here and here). The statements outline that the fines are being issued for various infringements of the Data Protection Act through wealth screening, data appending and data sharing. To be clear, this blog post refers only to the situation with wealth screening, or, as we call it, Database Screening. Data appending and data sharing of bulk data are not services we provide at Factary so we won’t comment on the situation with these fines.

The first thing to mention is that we are expecting more comprehensive information about these fines to be issued on Friday 9th December by the ICO. The full penalty notices will be published on the ICO website and Twitter feed along with details of the enforcement action. Until we have reviewed the full documents it will be difficult to respond properly to this situation. That said, since the Daily Mail broke the story (ahead of the ICO announcement) of the fines on Tuesday 6th, we have received many emails from concerned clients, colleagues and friends worrying about the implication of these fines for non-profits and prospect research, so we wanted to issue a response as soon as possible to answer some of the most pressing questions, some of which are…

Can we still carry out Database Screenings?

It seems that one of the main reasons for the fines levied for ‘wealth screenings’, as explained in the information we have seen from the ICO so far, was because “Donors were not informed of these [Screening] practices, and so were unable to consent or object” to them. The lesson here is not that Screening is unlawful from the ICO’s viewpoint, but that non-profits and Screening service providers need to be open and transparent about what they will use personal data for. This is something that we mentioned in our previous blog on data protection.

The problem still remains, of course, that we feel neither the ICO nor the Fundraising Regulator have been too clear on how this information should be presented to supporters or indeed what information is necessary / sufficient. Hopefully they will do more to educate the sector and provide greater clarity. In the meantime we would expect that the vast majority of non-profits have completed and published, or are working on, improved privacy notices that include information about prospect research so that their supporters are fully aware of what their data is used for. The RiF ‘data protection working group’ will be drawing together samples of these, and this is something Factary will be helping with. We’ll post news on this here on the blog, on our Twitter feed and the RiF committee will also post on their Twitter feed, so keep an eye out.

If you’d like to discuss privacy notices or statements please do email me.

What about previous Screenings?

One of the questions many are asking now is, “When I last undertook a Screening, the non-profit I work for did not have a robust privacy policy in place. Is there a chance that we will be fined, too?” The short answer to this is, of course, that it is entirely possible more fines will be issued. The long answer may have to wait until we have received more information from the ICO on the nature of the fines against BHF and RSPCA in relation to Screening; until we know the full extent of the infringement, it will be difficult to understand the full impact.

Either way, there is very little you can do about previous Screenings; you can really only make sure you are fully prepared and compliant for the next.

What can the sector do?

From our point of view, some of the ICO’s latest statements set a tone which portrays Screening (and prospect research more generally) negatively. The ICO statements said, “The millions of people who give their time and money to benefit good causes…will be upset to discover that charities abused their trust to target them for even more money”. This kind of reporting will no doubt result in harmful press articles (aside from the inevitable articles from the Daily Mail which I won’t reference here) such as the BBC and even Third Sector where they have reported negatively that charities are “secretly screening donors” with a “disregard for people’s privacy”.

We feel the general tone used to report on these fines suggests a lack of understanding of what Screening is and why it is used – and, by extension, what prospect research is and what it is for. We should, as a sector, take some responsibility for this as we have not historically been very open in explaining how Screening and prospect research benefits donors and helps to improve their relationships with the causes they support. That said, we can’t shoulder all the blame, as many people I have spoken to have found the ICO’s approach to communication on these issues (and when directly speaking at conferences during 2016) to also be quite negative. For example, many of the emails I have received since Tuesday start with, “One of my trustees has read the Daily Mail article…” or, “Our compliance team has seen the ICO report…”, followed by concerned questions about the legality of Screening / research. This highlights that the negative and sometimes misleading reports that are in the public domain are already having a troubling impact on our abilities to carry out the normal functions of prospect research. We understand the genuine reasons for the ICO’s actions, but it serves no purpose to paint a negative image of the sector, who largely do incredible work for people and society.

This means it is up to us push back on the negativity and educate our supporters, the wider public and even (in some instances) our own colleagues about prospect research. This echoes what was said at the RiF Conference; we need to take ownership of communicating the need, impact and benefits of prospect research through privacy statements, protocol and policies. We need to be positive in our communication and underline the benefits to donors and non-profits of prospect research – and, to highlight the negative consequences of fundraising without prospect research.

What should we do now?

  • Be clear on why prospect research is vital for fundraising in your organisation
  • Educate trustees (and wider colleagues) if necessary on the need and impact of research
  • Ensure privacy notices are robust and include information on Screening and research
  • Share best practice with colleagues from other non-profits on privacy notices
  • Also, note that when including information on Screening in a privacy notice you’ll need to link to the privacy statements of your chosen Screening company to ensure that the company is also compliant with data protection (as examples, Factary’s is here and Prospecting for Gold’s can be found here)

What happens next?

  • Friday 9 December: The penalty notices will be published on the ICO website along with details of the enforcement action. Hopefully this will give us more of an idea of what the scale of the Screening problem is (in comparison to the data appending and sharing), and exactly what the RSPCA and BHF have been fined for
  • The Institute of Fundraising is likely to respond properly to these fines when the full report has been released, keep an eye on their Twitter feed or the feed of Dan Fluskey, IoF Head of Policy and Research, who has been working with RiF on this issue. He wrote a great piece in fundraising.co.uk about this issue yesterday
  • The ICO is organising “an educational event in partnership with the Charity Commission and the Fundraising Regulator” (no date for this has been announced, presumably early 2017), keep an eye on their announcements for more information on this
  • The ICO will also present an in-depth report in regards to charity fundraising practices to Parliament in 2017; based on the negative stance the ICO has taken on fundraising practices, this has the potential to be damaging and as a sector we need to be ready to respond to this

As ever, if anyone has any questions on this please do not hesitate to contact me at nicolaw@factary.com.

We would also like to take this opportunity to thank many of our colleagues and friends from the sector who have contacted us with messages of support in the past 48 hours – we really appreciate it!

Data Protection, Consent and Prospect Research

Posted on by NicolaW

Many of Factary’s clients and colleagues have been in touch with us recently voicing their concerns, frustrations and confusion over recent news regarding the use of personal data in fundraising and prospect research. It’s not surprising that there is confusion; this year has seen a whirlwind of news and opinion from various regulatory bodies, some of it conflicting.

Our clients have asked if we can provide some clarity – this is a tall order right now as the situation is not completely clear and evolving more-or-less by the day, but below we have outlined recent events, the current situation and news on what is happening over the next few months.

The current situation – how did we get here?

As we know, 2015 was a challenging year for fundraising and charities in the UK. Negative press reports regarding certain fundraising practices ultimately resulted in a review of all fundraising and the publication of the Etherington Review in September 2015, which outlined recommendations for the future of fundraising.

Recommendations in the Etherington Review included that a new Fundraising Regulator be established (to set and promote standards for fundraising practice) and a ‘Fundraising Preference Service’ (FPS) be launched. The Fundraising Regulator launched in July 2016 and is in the process of setting up the FPS so that “individuals only get the fundraising communications they want and need”.

Whether or not people feel the FPS is necessary (alongside the MPS, the TPS and PECR), the decision has been made and the Regulator is aiming to launch it sometime in 2017. The official consultation period on the FPS has passed but the proposal papers can be viewed here.

The Etherington Review also worked closely with the ICO in developing the recommendations. It was outlined in the Review that the ICO had not been communicated with sufficiently in the past by either the Institute of Fundraising or the (now defunct) Fundraising Standards Board and that a stronger relationship between the new Regulator and the ICO should be established.

The upshot of this is that the ICO turned its attention to the non-profit sector and began reviewing if and/or how charities were adhering to the Data Protection Act (DPA) and PECR through fundraising practices such as direct marketing, telephone fundraising and electronic communications.

The general issue of consent

The ICO have been in attendance at many fundraising conferences, seminars and events this year, usually alongside representatives from the Regulator. The ICO have outlined their concerns over how well (or otherwise) non-profits have been adhering to the DPA, with a particular focus on the apparent lack of evidence around ‘consent’ for non-profits to use the personal data of their supporters. This is not just about obtaining consent from supporters for non-profits to hold personal data on a database but also about obtaining consent for how the data is then used for marketing, fundraising and, importantly for us, in prospect research.

The issue of gaining consent is simultaneously very clear and also incredibly complex. On the one hand, it is straightforward because there is universal agreement in the sector that supporters and donors should have proper control over their data, be able to communicate preferences to their chosen charities and have those preferences acted upon. The complexity comes with how and to what extent non-profits are expected to communicate with current and future supporters to gain consent for the use of personal data.

With the looming presence of the GDPR, scheduled to come into force in May 2018, the issue of consent becomes even more important (that said, to what extent the current format of the GDPR will be implemented is Brexit-dependent, so even this is unclear).

Current guidance on consent – where can you go for help?

There are several documents detailing regulations and guidance from the ICO in relation to consent and data protection:

Unfortunately, whilst useful, these aren’t hugely specific to the non-profit sector and only go some way towards clarifying the situation.

Helpfully, there are some other places where we can gain more clarity:

  • The Fundraising Regulator will be translating the ICO regulations and issuing some guidance on the consents that charities should obtain, sometime in the autumn/winter of 2016 (so, very soon).
  • In February 2017, the Regulator will also be starting a 3-month consultation period on updates/changes to the Code of Fundraising Practice, which will include reviewing guidance on data protection and consent (this is according to Head of Policy, Gerald Oppenheimer, speaking at the CASE Development Services conference in October 2016). Keep an eye on the Regulator’s website and Twitter feed and try to make sure you are a part of the consultation next year. The Code will potentially have a huge impact on fundraising practice – including prospect research – so try to make sure you and the organisations you work for have a say on the development and changes.
  • The NCVO have produced a report ‘Charities relationships with donors; a vision for a better future’. This report contains sample statements showing how non-profits can obtain consent to use personal data and it will inform the Regulator’s development of guidelines for the Code of Fundraising Practice. It is worth noting that these guidelines conflict with the ICO’s recent statements around how consent for prospect research should be obtained (see below).
  • CASE are also in the process of writing guidelines on consent for education institutions. These will be available on 25th January 2017. These guidelines will contain example privacy policies and sample donor communications, hopefully also including information on prospect research. Whilst the guidelines will inevitably be steered towards alumni databases and communications, they will no doubt be helpful to all non-profits, so they’ll be worth looking out for. Keep an eye on the CASE Twitter feed for more information.

But what does this all mean for prospect research?

All the guidance and regulation noted above is (or probably will be) quite broad, relating to consent for all forms of fundraising/marketing – but the ICO review process has also had some interesting consequences for those of us working in prospect research and, by extension, major donor fundraising.

Throughout the course of 2016, a representative of the ICO has stated at various events that non-profits will not only need to obtain consent to use personal data for fundraising/marketing but also for all forms of prospect research. This could mean that consent will need to be obtained for each part of the research process (e.g. data screening, segmentation, data modelling, appending wealth, profiling etc.). Additionally, the ICO have outlined that this isn’t just about gaining consent to use the personal data given when a supporter, for example, makes a donation, but also for any data pertaining to the person in the public domain; so, in practice, this might mean obtaining consent from individual supporters to access their details on Companies House or other common research sources.

There are clearly numerous concerns with this.

The main problem is that, as this has been a relatively fast moving situation, there is currently very little guidance on how non-profits should go about incorporating prospect research consent into their privacy policies, consent forms or fundraising communications. Nor has then been any clarity on how explicit the consent will need to be. Our view is that it is unworkable to expect supporters to give separate consent to each and every fundraising, marketing and research option that they may be presented with.

Also, on a practical note, in this post on the GDPR, Christian Propper at Graham Pelton Consultants asks two pertinent questions:

  • How can we ask for consent for database screening, profiling and other research techniques in a way that doesn’t unduly worry supporters?
  • How can non-profits future-proof their current consent/privacy statements to encompass research practices they may adopt in the future (but might not yet even know about)?

In short, how can prospect research ensure it is on the right side of regulation whilst also being able to continue contributing to fundraising in all its myriad, wonderful ways? The short answer right now is that, unfortunately, there is no clear guidance on this. All we know is that (as outlined above) the Regulator is working on best practice guidelines on consent which we assume will include consent for prospect research.

There are a few papers/articles that might be helpful to review around this issue;

  • The NCVO report, mentioned above, which can be downloaded here, is useful to read if only from the point of view that the ‘best practice’ sample statements on consent only mention research in passing and certainly not to the extent that the ICO has suggested is necessary, e.g. ‘We may from time to time use your data for profiling, targeting and research purposes so that our communications to you are as appropriate and cost effective as possible’ . It will be interesting to see if this approach is adopted by the Regulator when they bring out their official guidance.
  • The team at the Commission on the Donor Experience are working on a project around ‘giving choices and managing preferences’. Ken Burnett from the Commission wrote this article in which he outlines a practical way to ensure ‘continuous donor choice’. This step-by-step guide could easily be modified to include information on prospect research and is one sensible option for communicating with supporters. The Commission is working with the Regulator so something akin to this approach may be adopted in the guidelines for the Code of Practice.
  • Adrian Beney at More Partnership produced an excellent briefing paper on ‘More Partnership briefing for NCVO on Wealth Screening and Profiling’ earlier this year in response to the initial draft report from the NCVO. The paper puts prospect research into context and questions some of the ICO’s opinions on how data is used in fundraising and the types of consents non-profits should reasonably be expected to ask for. If your role encompasses prospect research this paper would be an excellent reference guide to understanding ICO regulations and prospect research.

So, what should I do now?

Our advice would be, first of all, not to panic about the conflicting news and opinion you may have heard. If you feel there are possibly areas where your organisation needs to improve communications around consent to use personal data then, alongside your day job, you could perhaps:

  • look into the consent options, donor communications, privacy policies and data processes that are in place in your organisation, alongside reviewing the ICO documents for direct marketing and PECR (links above)
  • consider undertaking a ‘privacy impact assessment’ to highlight areas your organisation may falling short on data protection
  • ensure you are a part of the Fundraising Regulator’s consultation process in 2017; the more involved we all are, the more likely that the guidelines will be workable for us
  • attend the Researchers in Fundraising conference in November 2016 – a representative from the ICO is speaking on the topic of data protection and consent
  • support the Researchers in Fundraising ‘data protection working group’, who are working with the ICO and the Fundraising Regulator to ensure prospect research is part of the conversation – keep an eye on the RiF news webpage and Twitter feed for developments on this

Also, keep an eye on Factary’s Twitter feed or let me know if you’d like to join our mailing list to be kept informed of any further news or announcements relating to this topic. We’re keeping a close eye on developments and would be happy to disseminate information.

And finally; remember that prospect research has an enormously positive role to play in fundraising. We need to keep in mind that our work is of tremendous consequence. So, when it comes to drafting future communications / privacy policies with supporters, please keep in mind this excellent Tweet from Adrian Beney at More Partnership wherein he encourages us to, “Tell people what you’re doing. Be honest. And open. And unashamed of what we do to help create a better world.”

If you’d like to discuss any of this in more detail or if you are concerned about consent or data protection, please contact me nicolaw@factary.com.

Five ways to make use of donation data

Posted on by NicolaW

There has been some interest online over the past few months in how prospect researchers can make the best use of ‘donation data’ – i.e. databases, reports and websites that list donations, showing who gave, how much, and to whom.

Recent blogs such as this one from iWave inspired us to carry out a survey amongst our subscribers to Factary Phi to find out for ourselves how and why they are using donation data. Some of their answers were unexpected – we found out that our subscribers are very imaginative when it comes to making use of data on donations in their research. Below we have outlined some of the ways our subscribers have told us they’re making use of the data.

If you use donation data in your research, we hope the innovative approaches of our subscribers prove inspirational to you!

The five ways our subscribers are using Phi data

  1. To understand philanthropic interests to help identify the best prospects

    Overall (and perhaps the least surprising in many ways) was that a whopping 90% of respondents to our survey mentioned that the two ways they mainly use the donation data in Phi were to:

    1. Research existing prospects, e.g.:
      • “Searching by name and checking which causes [prospects] are giving to, to determine philanthropic interests”
      • “Get a sense of causes these donors or prospects support”
      • “Research other charities supported by existing supporters and prospects”
    2. Find new prospects, e.g.:
      • “Identify people supporting competitor charities/similar causes through searching by [recipients] activity type”
      • “To identify new potential prospects giving to a similar cause”
      • “Check who is giving to similar causes [and] check who is giving to particular causes”

    As we know, using research on donation history to find prospects with an affinity to a particular cause has been long proven as an effective strategy for understanding which of your current prospects might prove to be the most likely to donate – and also for finding new potential likely donors. This is because many donors will have a specific interest in a particular cause and will more readily consider donating to organisations operating in a similar field in the future (Breeze & Lloyd, 2013). This type of approach to the research was said to be useful for researching all types of prospects on Phi, including individuals, trusts and companies.

  2. To help researchers shape fundraising strategy

    Interestingly, prospect researchers using Phi told us that researching donation data can be a way that they can help their organisations to plan fundraising strategy. Subscribers noted that the breadth of data on Phi allowed them, together with additional research, to benchmark types of donors to similar organisations or projects, thereby gaining an understanding of the current fundraising market. So, for example, the research might show if individual major donors would be more or less likely to support a particular type of project or campaign than trusts & foundations. Armed with this knowledge, researchers can then advise senior management on the likely avenues for support, thereby shaping the fundraising strategy around the type of donor most likely to give.

    The ability for researchers to ascertain potential levels of giving was another factor mentioned in helping to shape strategy – by using Phi to research donation levels, researchers are able to estimate the potential eventual Ask for current donors and existing / potential prospects. Knowing a prospect’s previous donation levels to different causes is a useful way to gauge their likely or potential future donation to your cause – and arguably more accurate than basing their estimated gift capacity on wealth data alone. This donation information enables researchers to contribute to discussions around fundraising targets for campaigns and projects, potentially putting them in a central role during decision-making around prospect allocation and fundraising strategy development.

    Also, some researchers stated that the data on Phi also helps them identify local recipient organisations (by searching for donations to a particular region or town) to see if there are common funders or funding networks prevalent in that local area, thereby contributing to an understanding of the potential local prospect pool or philanthropic networks to be cultivated. This approach was said to help both national charities with local offices and also regional organisations (such as hospices).

  3. To encourage stronger relationships between fundraisers and researchers

    We thought this was a particularly nice benefit to researching donation data!

    Some of our respondents reported that fundraisers were more willing to take on prospects that a prospect researcher had identified if they could provide information to the fundraiser on the prospects’ previous donations. When these prospects turned out to be decent (and ultimately donated to the cause), the fundraisers were then more open to working with the researcher’s suggestions in the future, thereby creating a better working relationship.

    Respondents also noted that even where information on specific gift amounts was omitted from the donation search, simply identifying that the prospect is philanthropic was sometimes enough to encourage fundraisers to act on their suggestions.

  4. To understand how donors give

    Turns out, knowing how donors give is almost as important to researchers as knowing how much they give.

    Subscribers reported that having donation data which covers a broad range of types of giving is incredibly useful. Being able to see prospects giving via their charitable trust, their company and as an individual gives a quick overview of the prospects’ philanthropic portfolio. Using this information, researchers can then advise on approach strategies – e.g. whether to approach a prospect as an individual major donor or via their charitable trust for a specific project.

    Breeze & Lloyd (2013) reported that whilst 73% of rich donors give via their charitable trust, 49% also give one off donations, 28% give via standing order/direct debit and 22% are planning to give via their will. This breadth of giving is reflected in Phi, with donations showing donors giving via multiple channels, making the data useful for trust fundraisers, corporate fundraisers and major donor or individual giving teams. Being able to contribute to so many areas of fundraising can make a prospect researcher an invaluable and valued part of the wider team.

    One subscriber also mentioned that the inclusion of political donations on Phi was especially useful as, because they were new to prospect research when they first started using Phi, they wouldn’t have thought of political donations as a source for prospect information. Also, US research in 2015 by DonorSearch reported that individuals who gave >$2.5k in political donations were 15 times more likely to give to a charitable organisation than those who hadn’t (whether this is also true of political donors in the UK is unclear, however).

  5. To improve the perception of researchers in their own organisations

    Perhaps our favourite benefit of all!

    As stated above, relationships with fundraisers have been known to improve through using donation data as a research tool, but subscribers further noted ways in which making use of donation data in different ways can highlight the enormous contribution prospect research makes to a team. Some examples are:

    • Prospect researchers use the data to increase their knowledge of the prospect pool and to prioritise long lists of prospects by previous giving – this is invaluable information when discussing cultivation strategies and allocating prospects to fundraisers.
    • Data on giving history enables researchers to boost numbers of new prospects, which can bring research into a more central role when moving through a campaign, for example.
    • Research into philanthropic interests had highlighted where prospects had made large gifts to other organisations that had strong links to their own Trustees or Chairman. Noting these links and connections was hugely important in devising an approach strategy for the prospect and wouldn’t have happened about without the research into philanthropic affiliations and donation history.

One more thing…

Perhaps the best outcome of all, for everyone involved, is to know that some of our subscribers have stated that research into prospects’ donation history ultimately helps lead to new gifts for their organisations. Which is, after all, what it’s all about!

We hope this proves useful for you in your own research.

And, finally…thanks to all of the subscribers to Factary Phi who took part in our survey!