DLF: Yet another source of independent advice compromised?

At the end of last year, I wrote here about the shocking number of DLCs that had quietly changed their function from provision of independent advice about aids to mobility and daily living, to selling products themselves. The article had a great response, just a fraction of which was added in the form of comments on the blog. Many people working within the organisations phoned or e-mailed to agree with my concerns, but were too afraid of the consequences to make their comments publicly. I also received a number of calls from managers of DLCs who had moved over to selling, justifying their reasons - but again, nobody ready to do so in public.

Although the DLF (Disabled Living Foundation) did not send a reply to my request for information about their activities, it does state very clearly on their website that they don't sell any products, so that seemed unambiguous.

But perhaps I was being naive in adding them to the side of the angels, so to speak. While it is true that the organisation does not sell products, what they do sell is high value sponsorship packages, or advertisements, which enable suppliers with the biggest promotional budgets to ensure that their products are advantageously represented alongside the impartial advice.

The suppliers who support the DLF in this way are all excellent companies with fine products - but there are other good businesses out there, with equally useful products, which are perhaps not so easy to find on the DLF site because, not surprisingly, the commercial sponsors' products seem to be listed first. Times are hard for everybody, and you can understand the DLF giving preference to the businesses that support them, but they really can't claim to provide impartial information when for example, all the variable height profiling beds featured by the side of that advice come from one supplier. Add to the impression given by the website the fact that DLF Factsheets (independent downloadable advice on buying equipment) also carry advertisements from a single supplier of the equipment described, and the notion of impartiality takes a very heavy hit.

Do please let me know what you think: I believe that the most important people here are the individuals who need specialist equipment and depend on organisations which they trust to provide information and guidance in an impartial way. As soon as the lines are blurred between commercial operations and those which claim to be non-commercial, it is the clients who lose out.

That the products promoted are good products is not the point: people are being led to believe that these are the best, or possibly even the only, option, when this is not necessarily the case.

Add your comments here - you can post anonymously, if you prefer, but please don't waste this opportunity to have your thoughts heard.

DLCs - Impartial Advisers or Mobility Retailers?

It is now 10 years that the Independent Living website has been here, providing impartial information for carers and disabled or elderly individuals looking for equipment and services to help them manage more independently.

Perhaps not surprisingly, site visitors have sometimes confused us with the local organisations which are generally known as an Independent Living Centre or Disabled Living Centre. Given the similarity of the names, it is an understandable mistake, and to be honest, considering ourselves all to be in the same business of providing information without strings, we have not chafed at the confusion, and have often directed enquirers to their nearest DLC, as the place where they could try out a range of equipment without any commercial pressure.

Sadly, this fundamental fact about ILCs or DLCs is not a fact.

Depending on which centre you visit, you may indeed find that you can view a range of equipment, and perhaps try it out, or you may find that you are in a mobility retailer.

Without any apparent debate, it seems that a number of DLCs have turned themselves into shops. I find this difficult to understand on a number of levels. First, and most significantly, the entire raison d'être for an independent advice centre is to provide independent advice. As soon as the people giving the advice are also selling products, it is no longer independent. Individuals visiting a DLC are doing so almost always because they don't know the options available, and they should be able to expect a fair overview of the market, rather than a nudge towards whichever products the centre manager has for sale, regardless of their suitability.

However well-intentioned the staff at a centre where products are sold, they cannot possibly be fulfilling the brief to give impartial advice: they may well say that there is no pressure on people to buy, and that if the visitor is not happy with what they have for sale, they refer them to other stockists, but that is not the point. Inevitably, a person who is not familiar with mobility aids will be swayed by the selection that has already been made by the expert they are consulting. It may not even occur to them to ask about other possibilities.

My second concern is that Independent Living Centres often have charitable status - they are certainly all grouped under an umbrella organisation, Assist UK, which is a charity. I have written here before about charities that muddy the waters between themselves and commercial operators - Is Charity Just Another Big Business? - and I fear that this may be another example of enterprises that should be at one remove from commercial activities, getting involved regardless.

Having sought feedback across the network, the responses I have received underline the confusion. They range from what I would have thought defined an ILC:

"... in general all centres offer impartial advice so don't retail, all centres have a good range of equipment for people to try and most employ an occupational therapist." Swindon ILC

and "We do not sell anything, but our clients are given advice about how to proceed and also given information about manufacturers and retailers." The William Merritt Disabled Living Centre (Leeds)

To "a range of daily living and mobility aids for people to 'try and buy'....We are currently in the process of expanding our service, so much more will be available in the coming months." Inspire Community Trust, Kent

and "We do have some products in stock to sell, if not we are usually able to get them in with in 2 days." Disability Equipment Bradford

A look at the Disabled Living Foundation (the London DLC) website makes it absolutely clear that they don't sell any products, yet I understand that Manchester, one of the largest in the country, is well advanced with plans to integrate a retail and online shopping facility into their advice centre.

My researches suggest that perhaps twice as many don't sell as do; it is certainly not yet universal, and indeed there seems to be concern in some more traditional centres at the idea of getting involved in sales.

Surely this debate should have been conducted in an open fashion, rather than allowing commercialisation to creep up on what were centres of excellent, impartial advice, in a backdoor way. If you went to your local Citizens Advice Bureau, and they offered to sell you the services of a debt consolidation company, how would you feel? Would you still trust them to give you the best advice without commercial consideration, or would it seem that they had lost their special, trustworthy status?

There are many people working in this field who don't want Independent Living Centres turned into mobility shops - there are plenty of those around already. Despite the steps that have already been taken along this path, it isn't too late at least to ask the question, and challenge all those people involved to let us know why the ethos of DLCs has been changed in this way.

Do please add your comments to the discussion - just click the comment button, and if you prefer to remain anonymous, you can!

Charities shouldn't need to pay huge salaries

Everybody seems to be looking over their shoulder at everybody else's pay packet at the moment, and I've been inspired to join in, having read about the number of charity bosses being paid large six-figure salaries. The trade union Unite, which represents 60,000 people working in the not-for-profit sector, has highlighted examples such as Age Concern, Anchor Trust and Riverside Housing Group, where the chief executive's salary is more than the £197,000 earned annually by the Prime Minister.

They are concerned that over-generous remuneration is corrupting the ethos of the charity sector. The justification from apologists for those in receipt of these big salaries is that you need to pay a lot to somebody who is running a complex business, and that they could in any case earn even more in other areas.

Which appears to me to contain an inherent contradiction. If money really is the only motivator, as they seem to be suggesting, then everybody will no doubt rush off to become a big cheese in finance, where obscenely big pay packets are still de rigueur, in spite of the desperate necessity for taxpayer support just a few months ago. In reality, though, most people evaluate their employment on a range of measures, one of the most important of which (once you are fortunate enough to be earning enough to cover your outgoings) is the amount of satisfaction gained from doing the job. Being privileged to work at something where what you do really makes a difference to other people's lives should weigh considerably more than knowing that you are at the top of the premiership when it comes to earning power. 

So I don't think charities need to beguile potential chief execs with huge pay packets - they are actually offering something much more important, or should be, if they are true to the charitable purposes for which they were first established. On the other hand, if charities really have become just another big business as I suggested in an earlier blog posting, and are more focused on commercial activities than philanthropy, then perhaps they will need to offer pay packets like big businesses, competing for the services of people who do only measure their success in terms of money. Because they will have lost their unique appeal, and that will be a loss for all of us.

Charities still exploiting their position unfairly

I am publishing this on behalf of a well-respected manufacturer who wants to remain anonymous.

"I thought you may be interested to learn about a letter I received a couple of days ago. An independent charitable organisation has approached us requesting we consider them to become a retailer of our products - no shocks there then, this practice now appears to be becoming very common.

The real shock to me was that they are hoping for big lottery funding at the end of September this year to allow them to set up a full retail outlet for mobility products!! Not only that but in the meantime they have requested that we provide them with an account on a sale or return basis!!

You can't blame them for trying I suppose, but somehow I just can't get my head around the fact that they not only expect us to fund the business venture through charitable donations (lottery funding etc) but they also want the goods they stock for free!!

Furthermore, what about our existing retail partners who are loyal to our products and with whom we have developed a quality business relationship - do they expect us to ignore them?

I am a great believer in competition, I think it engenders a healthy environment for development and improvement but - and it is a big but - there needs to be consistency and a fair, level playing field.

For all the reasons you have previously reported, charitable organisations have the upper hand over non-charitable business, and as a manufacturer we are deeply concerned at the emergence of these so called charity retailers as it puts us and our retail partners in a very difficult position.

Taking this situation to its ultimate conclusion, perhaps all businesses should simply register as charitable organisations? Either that or we could potentially see the slow decline of the business community as we currently know it."

I've written about the commercial activities of charities before, and although I have some sympathy for organisations that are doing good work, and hurting in the current financial climate, I don't see why good, caring businesses - which are probably even more affected by the credit crunch - should be disadvantaged in this way.

What do you think?

Is charity just another big business?

"Some big charities are more commercial than many traditional businesses, and are exploiting their charitable status as an unfair competitive advantage."

It is a bold statement - and reflects what an increasing number of smaller businesses are saying in private, if not in public. Casting aspersions on organisations such as Help the Aged, Red Cross, the RNID and RNIB, which are generally held in such high regard, is risky; not least because adverse comments are likely to be misinterpreted as an attack on the charities themselves, when in fact it is their trading activities that are causing the rumbles of concern.

This website provides information about products and services to help with living independently. Although what we do may be considered a valuable social service, we are not a charity, but are funded by subscriptions from reputable suppliers. Over the last few years, we have become increasingly aware of powerfully marketed product ranges emanating from charities such as those mentioned above.

There is a growing trend for charities to become involved in business. The government encourages this, having recognised the valuable contribution that can be made to delivery of social and healthcare services by not-for-profit organisations. The "third sector" is flourishing, with more than 55,000 social enterprises across the UK investing most of their profits in socially beneficial activities, rather than turning them to the benefit of shareholders or business owners. Charities who seek grants are advised that they are more likely to be successful if they set up a trading arm: grant-making trusts regard those with a business generating income as a safer bet than charities which rely on more traditional methods of raising money.

So charities are definitely part of the business environment, and they are not going away. It is perhaps not surprising that the leviathans of the sector have decided to exploit their brand recognition to market products to the public. These brands have been built up through decades of charitable work. Consumers may well be more inclined to buy from Help the Aged or British Red Cross because they know the name in a philanthropic context. Their purchase also becomes a charitable donation; nobody feels that they are doing good to anyone but themselves when they buy a hearing aid or a stairlift - but if it comes from the RNID or Help the Aged? And in some respects, their activities have been beneficial: for example, their concern to protect their brand gives them a powerful interest in ensuring that the products and services provided in their name are of the highest quality.

But there is so much confusion about what is charity and what is business that I don't find it at all surprising that many business people are suspicious of and threatened by the charities' commercial activities. Charities enjoy exemption from corporation tax, some VAT exemptions, and rates relief of at least 80 percent. Whilst the trading arms and any independent companies which run their businesses for them do not, the lines between the different areas are often very blurred. For example, from personal experience, charities expect (fruitlessly) to receive at no charge a subscriber page on Independent Living for which the companies they are competing with have paid the full price. They don't say: "We are the trading arm of charity x, so of course we understand that we should be treated like any other business." Rather, they tend towards: "We are a charity, so you should be donating your services to us." Or they request a link as a charitable organisation, but then direct that link towards their online shop. If they are not honest about what they are doing, how can they expect their customers or their competitors to understand what is going on? Charity shops selling new goods are already a powerful presence on the high street, undermining many small retail enterprises with a combination of big business-style purchasing power and charity-style tax breaks. 'Charity muggers' who ambush you with a hard sell designed to persuade you to commit to a regular donation are probably paid workers, rather than the volunteers they often claim to be.

The overwhelming advantage enjoyed by charities is their name and reputation. A traditional company selling goods in our market, however well-run and ethical it may be, will always be on the back foot when competing with them. But as they become ever-more closely aligned with the world of business, they should not be surprised if their carefully nurtured brands lose some of their lustre through the association.

Disabled Workers' Co-operative

You may well have come across the Disabled Workers' Co-operative during the last couple of years: project manager, Neil Wood-Gaiger, has been tireless in raising awareness of their work as widely as possible.

The charity was set up with lottery funding as a forum for disabled people to advertise their skills and for employers to find qualified and motivated applicants for their vacancies.

There has been considerable debate recently - both here and elsewhere - about the rights and wrongs of positive discrimination. There is absolutely no doubt though, that many disabled people find it extremely difficult to get a job, and a service such as the Disabled Workers' Co-operative, which provides an opportunity for workers and employers to make contact, must be a useful addition to the employment market.

I have just heard from Neil that the project is in a financial crisis. Since their funding contract ended at the beginning of the year, they have kept going on their small reserves and the goodwill of the people involved - a situation that couldn't last for very long. Although they hope to obtain some European funding next year, this is not certain, and in any case they are facing financial difficulties right now.

If you feel able to help with a financial contribution, I know that it will be much appreciated and well spent. It seems a real shame that all the hard work and hopes of the last few years should go to waste.

This is a link to their website www.disabledworkers.org.uk where you can read more about their work and how to help.

If you currently have a job available, advertising it here is a great way of demonstrating your commitment to equality of opportunities. If you are disabled and would like to be more fully occupied, you can list your skills in an arena where potential clients or employers can readily find you. There are opportunities for voluntary work too, if earning is not a prerequisite.