Icon: more information from Intelligent giving
   

How we calculate transparency

THIS PAGE EXPLAINS the nuts and bolts of our profiling process. Click for each section or scroll down to read the whole page.

A transparent piggy bank
 
 
>
  The details
 
>
  Quality control
 
>
  Why annual reports?
 
>
  The history
 
 
 
 
 


      The details
These are the specific criteria we use to reach our "Quality of reporting" score. The list starts with the criteria which our scoring system ranks as most important and ends with the least.
  1. Clear explanation of benefit of year’s activities to users
    The charity must justify how its activities benefit its users and/or the general public.
  2. Clear description of achievements for the year
    The charity must clearly cover all three of the following: What the charity has done; where it has done it; how effective it was
  3. Stated purpose easy to find in annual report/review
    It must be easy to find out the charity's aims
  4. The activities match the stated purpose
    The charity must have spent its money in a way compatible with the stated purpose
  5. Accounts delivered to Charity Commission on time
    Accounts must reach the Commission within ten months of the financial year-end.
  6. Clear explanation of grant-making policies*
    If the charity makes grants, it must be clear how it decides who receives them.
  7. Explanation of the charity’s policy on reserves*
    Must give target cash levels and/or the period of the charity’s operation that such levels of reserves would cover.
  8. Comment on financial health
    The charity must give a concise and unambiguous statement of the its financial position.
  9. Disclosure of trustee remuneration
    Must have a clear statement that trustees received no remuneration and reveal whether trustees have received any payment or reimbursement for travel expenses, etc.
  10. Disclosure of relationships with other parties
    Must reveal any organization with which the charity has had significant dealings and the nature of the relationship
  11. Clear disclosure of future expenditure plans
    Must provide specific plans and general figures of how the charity plans to spend its cash.
  12. Clear explanation of this year’s risks and risk management
    Must be a clear statement of the risks faced this year. A general statement which could be repeated every year is not sufficient.
  13. Staff numbers, roles and salaries
    Must disclose how many people work in each area of the charity, and the CEO's salary (this can be within a range).
  14. Comment on major sources of income/expenditure
    Must provide precise figures and a commentary on major sources of expenditure and income this year.
  15. Explanation of the charity’s investment policy*
    Must disclose what the charity's approach to investments is, and also which type of investments it has (e.g. shares).
  16. Comment on performance of investments*
    Must reveal whether performance has been in line (or not) with what was expected.
  17. Clear description of plans for at least two years
    Relatively high-level plans are acceptable here. However, they must be for at least two years' duration.
  18. Comment on achievement of reserves and action to be taken*
    Broadly, it must state what the charity is going to do to bring its level of reserves into line with the target (see point 7).
  19. Comment on the contribution of volunteers*
    Must give a picture of the rough value and activities of volunteers, excluding fundraising volunteers (e.g. challenge-event participants).
  20. Disclosure of economic value of volunteers*
    Could be either in terms of time spent working for the charity, or the estimated financial value of their time.
  21. Clear comment on property assets*
    The charity must outline what property it owns in simple terms and place a value on it.
  22. FAQ on website covering donors' concerns
    This information must be in FAQ format and must cover the charity's financial side (e.g. 'we spend 10 per cent of our expenditure on admin').
  23. Clear explanation of what done to achieve stated purpose
    Must state how the charity goes about meeting its aims
  24. Clear explanation of how achievements compare to plans
    Has the charity done what it planned to do this year? Must be able to be able to compare plans with achievements. 
  25. Stated purpose clear & digestible to average reader
    From this it must be obvious what the charity does; and the stated purpose should make sense and not be confusing.
  26. Targets and indicators against which success measured
    Must provide evidence that performance-targets have been set and disclosure of whether these targets have been met. Must use figures.
  27. List of trustees at year end and who served in year
    A list of trustees indicating who was appointed and who resigned during the year.
  28. Clear explanation of how trustees are appointed
    It must be unambiguous who appoints the trustees. Information on recruitment practices is not sufficient.
  29. Clear disclosure of future income streams
    Needs estimated figures which give an idea of how the charity as a whole will be funded in future.
  30. Accounts late this year?
    Were this year's accounts at the Charity Commission within ten months of the year-end?
  31. Website contains latest annual report
    This must be an annual report which contains the full audited accounts.
  32. Explanation of any funds in deficit*
    This refers to unrestricted funds. If they are in deficit, it must reveal why, and how the charity plans to rectify the situation.
  33. Comment on fundraising effectiveness
    Must be an unambiguous statement of how successfully the charity raised funds. Statements such as 'it was a record-breaking year' are not sufficient.
  34. Trustees' Report is easily understandable
    There must be no sense of cover-up or glaring omission, and it must be written in clear English.
  35. Adequate explanation of unusual income/expenditure*
    Unusual income’ covers unexpected legacies; large fundraising events; an similar. An ‘adequate explanation’ discloses what these unusual income sources are.
  36. Information about existing subsidiary companies*
    Are there any and what do they do?
  37. Accounts late at least once in previous three years?
    Accounts are late if they have been received by the Charity Commission more than ten months after the end of the financial year.
  38. The stated purpose focusses on outcomes, not output
    An outcome covers the impact of the charity’s work and its effect on beneficiaries. An output focuses merely on what the charity does.
  39. Annual report is easy to find on the website
    'Easy to find' includes checking the site map (if applicable) and using the site-search.
  40. Clear description of organisational structure
    This must be a description of the operational structure of the charity. Information on trustee committees and the roles of the trustees on its own is not sufficient.
  41. Fundraising and income-generating graphs or ratios
    These must include information relating to key financial indicators (especially the percentage of charitable expenditure). These can be presented in graph or chart format but ratios and percentages will suffice.
  42. Disclosure of performance on income targets
    Figures are preferred but a statement such as ‘we have exceeded our income targets’ will suffice.
  43. Disclosure of problems
    A description of operational problems experienced by the charity, or a clear statement that there were none.
* = where appropriate, otherwise top score given

Quality control
The quality of our charity profiles is of the utmost importance. We ensure that quality with the following process:
  • Each of our researchers undergoes over a week's training before being allowed to write any profiles.
  • Our profiles are always written with regard to our 26-page Charity Review Input System (ChRIS) Guide (version 5.7).
  • The Lead Researcher, Marijke Vermaak, performs spot checks on a random sample of new profiles.
  • All profiles which show a significant change in their scores on the previous year are double-checked.
  • The overview paragraph attached to each profile is always triple-checked. A first draft is written by a researcher; this is then subedited and (if necessary) re-written by the Features Editor (Adam Rothwell); this in turn is checked by the Lead Researcher; and it is checked once again by Peter Heywood, a company director.
  • Every month, all researchers meet to discuss each of the 43 criteria in turn, in order to ensure that they are understood properly. Where necessary, the ChRIS Guide is clarified to prevent such misunderstandings arising again.
  • Every six months, the Features Editor and Lead Researcher meet to discuss each of the 43 criteria in detail, with the aim of producing a clearer version of the ChRIS Guide.

Why our obsession with annual reports?
We are often asked why we put so much stress on annual reports rather than web sites, since the latter are written for the public. The answer is simple:

Websites are not useful tools to compare charities. Each is very different, created for different purposes (some to help beneficiaries rather than to inform donors, for example), there's no statutory guidance on what should be in them or what they are for, and they can cost a lot of money to build and maintain. So if we compared by website we'd penalise charities that don't understand, or can't afford to create, or don't need, a research-friendly web site.

The annual report meanwhile is the legal document that all charities ought to know how to write. It's the only document they have to produce by law and the only one which has comprehensive guidance on what it should contain. It has certain types of information that no other kind of publication will carry. For example, the top salary, who the trustees are, the risks facing the charity - generally information that organisations don't willingly disclose. It's the only place where the nuts and bolts of the organisation should be described.

It has been suggested that we also look at charities' annual reviews. Well, we do, where they exist and when they are referred to in the annual report. But very few charities actually produce them and, again, there's no guidance on what they should contain.
     
      The history
The timeline describing the circumstances in which we arrived at the criteria.

July 2004 to July 2005:
David Pitchford starts part-time research on charity evaluation techniques and services, learning from meetings with
  • The Institute of Philanthropy
  • New Economics Foundation
  • New Philanthropy Capital
  • Charities Evaluation Services
  • GuideStar
  • The Funding Network
  • Charities Aid Foundation
  • The Home Office
  • Charity Navigator (US)
  • Lord Joel Joffe
  • The Young Foundation
  • Third Sector magazine
2005
August - Given free office space at the Young Foundation offices
October - Meets Peter Heywood who agrees to fund the project
November - David Pitchford starts work full-time
December - Volunteers start work

2006
January - Three paid members of staff join
February - Online questionnaire attracts over 200 responses from members of the public
March - Online questionnaire attracts over 150 responses from charity workers
April - Quality of Reporting criteria finalised
August - 540 charity profiles completed
October - User testing
November - Launch on time and budget!