In recent weeks, newspapers have been full of confusion about the new 'public benefit' rules for charities. For example, The Daily Mail claims that:

 “For the first time, this law put the burden on charities to show they were delivering the 'public benefit' they had previously been assumed to embody.”

Not exactly. Most charities have long been required to demonstrate public benefit (although some which were previously exempt now no longer are, such as schools and churches) And, although some details still need to be hammered out, that seems fair enough to me. After all, charities are granted many millions of pounds in tax breaks every year. The least taxpayers could expect in return is for charities to show whether and how they pursue charitable goals.

Even charities seem to be confused about the new rules. In recent months, we've found 'public benefit statements' cropping up in charities' annual reports. These are typically one or two sentences of convoluted jargon:

  "In accordance with Charity Commission general guidance on public benefit, the trustees confirm that the impact of our work on beneficiaries is a key criterion when deciding what activities to undertake."

(Action Aid Report 2007)

Such statements are useless. They are not required by the new rules, and are not endorsed by the Charity Commission regulatory body (we checked). More importantly, they cannot replace a detailed account of what the charity has actually been doing for the public benefit, something charities are required to provide.

But there's good news: the vast majority of the top 500 charities we study do provide some account of what they have been doing for the public benefit. However, many need to provide much more detail. For example, only 40% compare their objectives and achievements for the year, and far fewer (27%) set numerical targets. More transparency about public benefit please!

I hope that charities take advantage of the recent interest in public benefit to show in more detail how they really benefit the public. In the meantime, let's get rid of these legalistic statements. They are a waste of ink, and no replacement for true transparency.

Login or register to comment