New on our blog
Email this page
Adam Rothwell
- Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Charities like to claim that just being a charity makes them special. That’s always struck me as nonsense. A ‘charity’ is, after all, just one of many legal forms that a do-gooding organization can take. The fact that the world’s poshest school happens to be a charity is, perhaps, enough to show just how weird and legalistic the concept of ‘a charity’ is. But none of this has stopped some charity bigwigs from claiming that there’s something inherently special about their sort of organization. “The idea that there is broadly no difference at all between these various groups or organizations ... is stuff and nonsense,” says Stuart Etherington, boss of umbrella-group the NCVO.
But an interesting development seems to have undermined Stuart’s argument. Last week, the House of Commons’ Public Administration Select Committee came to the conclusion that, when they delivered public services under contract from government, charities (and other voluntary organizations) weren’t particularly special. There is “no compelling evidence,” it says, that charities “provide public services in distinctive ways.”
Reading charities’ reactions to this conclusion, I was surprised by how unconvincing they were. Jeremy Swain, boss of homelessness charity Thames Reach, suggested that the evidence-base used by the Committee wasn’t strong enough. That’s a bit vague. Victor Adebowale, boss of the drugs-charity Turning Point, cryptically remarked, “There is compelling evidence to back up claims that the sector is delivering. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and we've got some good dishes.” Which reads to me like so much waffle. Where is this “compelling evidence?” Why didn’t the Select Committee find it?
But the fact that charity bosses aren’t able to come up with a compelling case for charities’ specialness is actually good news. Not all charities are equal: some are inspiringly brilliant; some are dreadful and depressing. If charities lose their collective aura, then the poor performers will suffer – and the good causes will flourish. And who could possibly disagree with that?
“There is compelling evidence to back up claims that the sector is delivering. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and we've got some good dishes.”
Thanks for providing us all with a good laugh Adam! Did Mr Adebowale ever collaborate with Mssrs Coogan and Ianucci?
Don't shoot the messenger
It happens to be my favourite place to stand and I'm not budging, so perhaps we need a bigger one.
Seriously though, you're right, That's the absolute minimum. The only reason that I didn't expand the list further was because I could feel my blood pressure rising!
Don't shoot the messenger
Ginster, I agree with you.
What you have listed is the MINIMUM charities should have - but sadly some seem to ignore.
In my experience, investing in staff and trustees seems to be some sort of daft idea that doesn't get consideration.
Off my soapbox now.
But what's tiring about working in the sector is that so many of my colleagues think that working in a charity automatically gives them the moral high ground.
It does not and should not expempt you from:
- Personal reponsibility to deliver results
- Accountability for how you spend your money
- Putting the interests of the organisation that employs you before your own prejudices
- Legal obligations such as compliance with employment law
A charity does not automatically do a better/ more 'human' job simply by virtue of it's legal constitution. Nor should it fail to invest in proper management and governance simply because it ploughs any 'profit' made back into service delivery. The only thing that's distinctive about a charity is the business model it operates (and there's room for debate there),
Don't shoot the messenger
Ah yes, the good old fashioned select committee.
A group of people who I have known to get completely the wrong end of the stick and treat that as fact.
Was this the same select committee by any chance that was under the impression that the child support agency cost £18 million a year to run a few years back (despite staffing costs being higher than that)? The same committee that asked why Emmaus was concentrating resources on one particular area (turned out just to be their first site)?
Don't treat the select committee as intelligent people who get their facts right and you'll go far.
I suspect the truth about charities in general, and the ones I know well in particular, is that they can do things well because of their links to end users.
Any organisation can do that - just government departments tend not to.
Post new comment
Recent comments
2 days 17 hours ago
2 days 18 hours ago
3 days 7 hours ago
3 days 12 hours ago
3 days 13 hours ago
3 days 14 hours ago
3 days 15 hours ago
3 days 17 hours ago
4 days 4 hours ago
5 days 18 hours ago