AN INTRIGUING article popped up in Third Sector Online last week. It said that charity finance directors had decided to be more accountable.

That’s pretty exciting news. The fact that charities too often ignore their beneficiaries’ and donors’ views – in other words, act unaccountably – is one of the biggest problems in the charity world. It’s also something we have a hang-up about: we think that, if charities report honestly on their work, then their beneficiaries and donors will better be able to hold them to account.

So it was excellent to see charity finance directors devoting their annual conference to this topic. But I was puzzled to read the National Council for Voluntary Organizations’ response to this hoopla. Here’s what Stuart Etherington, the NCVO’s boss, had to say about the importance of accountability.

“Donors are reluctant to see their money go on procedures,” he said. “Charities often have to guarantee that a high enough percentage of donors' money goes to the beneficiaries. “This means there isn’t a lot of money for internal procedures. Maybe we need to show our donors that we need to spend this money, and that spending it now will allow us to do a better job in the long run.”

I’m still struggling to understand what this means. I agree – of course – with Stuart’s argument that charities need to educate donors about the necessity of admin costs. But what’s that got to do with being accountable? Accountability, I thought, was all about listening and learning. But Stuart seems more concerned with telling donors what’s what than listening to their concerns.

Was Stuart quoted out of context? Or is he trying to carve out his own definition of accountable behaviour?

If it's the latter, then that's certainly creative. But is it really necessary?

Login or register to comment