1. OUTLINE OF HOW THE BENCHMARKING REPORTS WERE PRODUCED
The reports are based on data collected during the FRSB 2013 Annual Complaints Return
programme. The analysis was carried out by specialist data analyst Metametrics using
statistical software SPSS.
2. FUNDRAISING METHODS SELECTED FOR REPORTS
First, we selected nine methods of fundraising to be reported on: telephone, direct mail
(addressed), direct mail (unaddressed), email, SMS, doorstep, street, private site and clothing
collections.
3. MEMBERS SELECTED FOR THE REPORT
We then generated individual reports for members who carried out one or more of the nine
selected methods and with a voluntary income greater than £100,000.
Based on this selection process, complaint rates for 540 members were analysed.
These 540 members reported 42,213 complaints in total for the nine selected methods. These
42,213 complaints make up 87% of the 48,432 complaints reported by all members and for all
fundraising methods.
Members were divided into major, large and medium sized, based on their annual voluntary
income1
4. REPORTS
Two reports have been produced.
4.1 Report 1 – Individual member report
The individual member report provides a summary of complaints, volume and complaint
rates for a member’s fundraising. It also shows which “quartile” a member’s complaint rate
falls into compared to members who have carried out the same method of fundraising.
4.2 Report 2 – All members report by fundraising type
This report summarises complaints and complaint rates for each of the nine fundraising types.
The individual fundraising types can be located in the drop down box beneath the FRSB tick
logo in the top right hand corner. The report should be used in conjunction with the individual
member report to give insight into how members’ complaint rates compare.
There are four tables included in Report 2 – the “All Members” report.
1
Fundraising income figures based on information held at the time of Annual Complaints Return 2013 data
collection.
4.2.1






4.2.2






Members reporting complaints [yes/no]
Broken down by size and for all members in analysis.
No. of members
Number reporting one or more complaints for each method
Number reporting one or more complaints for method expressed as a percentage.
Number reporting no complaints for each method
Number reporting no complaints for each method expressed as a percentage
Complaint rates
Broken down by size and for all members in analysis.
No. of members
Mean
Lower q (lower quartile)
Median
Upper q (upper quartile)
4.2.3
Number to generate one complaint (based on complaint rate)
Shows the number to generate one complaint






4.2.4
Broken down by size and for all members in analysis.
No. of members
Mean
Lower q (lower quartile)
Median
Upper q (upper quartile)
Number of complaints
Broken down by size and for all members in analysis.
 No. of members
 Sum
 Mean
 Lower q (lower quartile)
 Median
 Upper q (upper quartile)
5
DEFINITIONS
5.1
Complaint rate
The number of complaints expressed as percentage of volume.
5.2
Number to generate one complaint
The volume of activity to give rise to one complaint calculated by dividing the complaint
rate into 1.
5.3
Quartiles and Median range
There are multiple ways to calculate quartiles and many definitions of a quartile. Therefore,
for future reference the definition of methods used in the benchmarking reports are detailed
below.
5.3.1
Lower quartile
The lower quartile (Q1) designates the lowest 25% of the observations.
5.3.2
Median
The median (Q2) is the midpoint of the data set. Half of the values in a data set are less than
or equal to the median and half are greater than or equal to it.
5.3.3
Upper quartile
The upper quartile is any observation that fits in the top 25% of observations.
5.3.4
Mean
The mean for a group is the sample mean (the average) calculated using the observations in
that group.