Maybe charities can get in to trouble for admiting liability, but sometimes that's no bad thing. If they don't admit mistakes (or worse) and instead simply attempt to cover them up (shooting the messenger in the process) then they continue to mismanage the organisation. That only serves the best interests of incompetent/corrupt employees. Sorry, but holding your hand up and showing that you've learnt your lesson is the only way to go. It's interesting that those who think otherwise are often the same people who snear at the big bad world of business for its supposed inherent dishonesty and cynicisim. Working for a charity doesn't give you an automatic right to occupy the moral high ground.

 Don't shoot the messenger

I think LMC and Catman make an interesting point about how we demand more information and transparency from charities than we do from companies. I agree: we do hold companies and charities to different standards. But that's not a bad thing.

That's because the analogy between charities and companies isn't a partiuclarly good one. Far better, I think, to compare how we treat government compared to how we treat charities. Government, of course, is subject to extremely strict rules which enforce transparency; and the moral basis for these is in the argument that politicians and civil servants are spending our money, and so should account for it in a transparent way.

A similar rationale can be applied to charities' transparency. Of course, charities don't claim to represent us (most of the time) like government does; but they do spend money on our behalf. That being the case, they ought to be able to account for it.

I do, of course, take LMC's point that being transparent can get charities into trouble, especially when issues of liability are involved. I think that's pretty awful - but it shouldn't affect the principled, pro-transparency argument.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

A few random disconnected thoughts...

Catman is right - there is far more onus on charities than business to make their information publically available. Double standards. When you buy, oh, say a car, do you demand to know the breakdown of labour, materials, management costs, proportion that is profit? You can be as honest and as transparent as you like, but it still won't get through to some people that it is *reasonable* for charities to recover all their costs, let alone make a "profit" to ensure that they are keeping responsible reserves or to invest in expansion of their services or to enable them to supply the same service to people who genuinely can't pay. There are still too many people who seem to imagine that it's immoral and greedy of us to expect to be paid for what we do, let alone at a rate that reflects our responsibilities. As it 'appens, if I was rich enough not to work, I would probably do pretty exactly what I am doing now, but as a volunteer. Oh, and with much less typing.

The answer to this continued and frustrating lack of public understanding of course *is* education and transparency. Unfortunately, explanations of this nature for everything that might be questioned by an enquiring mind would make a charity's annual report or fundraising materials as long as War and Peace. Having said that, in this day and age, it should be perfectly possible to make most information available 'somewhere'. On top of that, it's all very well to grumble at charities - but if someone that desperately wants to know the detail behind - for example - the pretty pie chart in the annual report (or similar), then they surely have some responsibility for making some effort to get it - like turning over the page and reading the numbers or clicking on the link. It's incredibly frustrating that donors don't want to pay for supply of information (annual report, details of work in fundraising materials) but still somehow expect it to *exactly* meet their need or desire to know. Well, sorry guys, some of you have to accept that finding out may take as much effort as looking up extra information on the charity's website (yes, I'm being serious - it is very tiresome to be e-mailed with requests for information which is already on the website and is meant to save the administration costs that you so much dislike paying)

Another point: charities may be putting themselves at risk by supplying information. I have somewhat nervously put a 'helpsheet' on our website which has bold disclaimers telling people that it's meant to help them to supply information for our use only, the format is not compliant with legal reporting standards and that no liability will be accepted blah blah blah - and am just waiting for some i^Hd^Hi^H one to tell me that they used our instructions to provide information to someone else, got told off by said 'someone else' and then whines at me that "we told them to do it that way" (cynical, me?).

-----------------------------------------------

... nearly Vlad the Impaler

The RSPCA maybe isn't typical in that I would hope most other charities don't have stakeholders with quite such utterly incompatible views (for and against hunting, for example).

I agree that "showing our workings" is probably the best way to convince those in the middle ground that we've at least given thought to why we're doing the things we are.

Olam Hatorah http://www.torahindex.com

I think that fundraisers should be accountable for his actions and that yes questions should be asked and verified. I don't feel it makes a difference whether  the organization is very small or large in staff size and activities. There are of course, many (most) fundraisers who are honest and do their work for their benefit but mostly to help out the recipients fo their work.

Check out Olam Hatorah to see how honest organizations apply their worthiness as credibility.

Thanks Adam.
Thats at least something I can point to and say 'here's one good set of ideas that charities can look at'.

I daresay there will be some people who see things different but what you've posted works for me. :)

Martin

OK - so here's my answer regarding what we'd like to see from an accountable charity:

1. High levels of transparency. You can't be acccountable to anyone if you're not transparent, so this is a precondition. This means producing a top-notch annual report, and providing information in a more accessible format online.
2. A proper stakeholder-engagement strategy. So this is a bit jargon-tastic, but charities need to listen more both to the people who they're trying to help, and to the people who fund them. If they do this, there's a good chance that the charity will have a better-informed approach to tackling its objectives, and will be less liable to rile its donors. I know I go on about this a lot, but listening is vital.
3. It needs to communicate all of this. Charities tend to push simplistic versions of how they work. Fundraising materials rarely tell the whole truth, and finding clear answers to tough questions can be neigh-on impossible on charity websites. So charities need to realize that they are not perfect, and must understand that people won't necessarily think less of them if they admit their flaws.

So that's my potted idea of what it means to be accountable, though I could bore everyone silly by going on about it for ages. Does this answer your points, Martin and rspcacam? 

Adam, Intelligent Giving

PS - Catman, you're not the only person in the sector who's made a similar point regarding nfpSynergy's motivations for running this sort of research project. Of course, not being one of their customers, I couldn't possibly comment...

Not trying to get at IG.
This is however their website, and they are a sort of captive audience. :)

So what would satisfy them, just so we have at least one starting point from one point of view.

Martin

I struggle with terms like these because they are so subjective. One person may be happy that a charity is trustworthy if they are registered with the charity commission and submit their accounts on time. Another person may have a seriously cynical side and mistrust every single thing they hear unless they actually witness something with their own eyes. Who's level of trust is more appropriate?

Honesty is an trait that we all say we aspire to, but who can say they have never told a lie? I think this harks back to the more traditional view of charity whereby everyone should be a volunteer. Do busineses tell us the truth, the whole truth etc? Anyone who believes that is frankly foolish. Do the public then just expect us to be more honest than people who they have no faith in (polititians and journalists)?

Transparency is in the eye of the beholder. If you look long and hard enough or speak to the right people at the organisation you will likely get the info you require to make a decision.

Cost effectiveness, well it is interesting that NFP Synergy have recently supported a charity to calculate a social return on investment. My cynical side is telling me that we could all be cost effective if we give NFP a call and get Jo in to help us prove it with his new model.

The bit I am missing is how this relates to fundraisers. The information in an annual report is decided by the comms and finance teams, not the fundraising department and is rarely used to access funds.

If you are proposing that charities should be transparent and say " We may use your donation to help child b/dog c, but we may also spend it on paper clips, staples, computers for administrators, HR......." do you really think the public will give?

catman

It's not particularly IG that I'm trying to get at - I'm convinced there is a general feeling out there that charities are unaccountable (google "RSPCA" and "unaccountable" if you want to make your flesh creep).

But what does it mean? The people complaining about the RSPCA mostly have axes to grind of one kind or another, but it would be nice to have some way to be able to say, "no, we are accountable, and here's the proof".

Good point rspcacambridge.

What would satisy IG about accountability? Who to?
Just so the rest of us know what to suggest to charities we have contact with.

Martin

It's all very well wanting charities to be "accountable", but no-one ever seems to want to tell us what would satisfy them that we were accountable - and to whom: beneficiaries, members, the public at large?

The demand for accountability seems to go hand in hand with a general reluctance to participate in charity governance by doing things like attending Annual General Meetings. In some ways I suppose it is a vicious circle - if trust is reduced people are maybe less willing to invest time in an organisation?