Thanks for the thoughtful contributions - great stuff.

Four points: LMC, we are using the definitions of accountability and transparency (the latter is a subset of accountability) from the practical, applied work done by the One World Trust. We'll be building on what they've done over the coming year.

Regarding Little Chef's mostly valid comments, it's somewhat harsh to say we've failed after only four months into our work. We're in this for the long haul and we're learning, and changing tack accordingly, as we go. See what you think in 2009.

And SimonK - absolutely, we are a niche site and we always will be. I think it's fair to estimate (from CAF stats) that around three per cent of the population really think about their giving. That's around two million people, so not far off the circulation of The Sun. Still worth providing a service to that many people though, don't you think? And, Google notwithstanding, they'll find us eventually.

And as for the value of transparency as a criterion. It's worth substantially more than the main objective reason why people support a charity: a big marketing budget.

This post has been brought to you by the letters T and J and the numbers 4 and 0*.

Transparency: defined by
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/transparency as follows:

Noun 1. transparency - permitting the free passage of electromagnetic radiation
2. transparency - the quality of being clear and transparent
3. transparency - picture consisting of a positive photograph or drawing on a transparent base; viewed with a projector

Eh? Boys and girls, we have some Jargon here. To me, transparent means "you can see through it". But then I'm simple. Of course we all know what it means in a voluntary sector context... don't we? Well, explain it then. No, I can't either - not really - it just means, er, being transparent and open innit?

Anyway, I checked 13 jargon busters before I got bored (Google keywords: voluntary sector jargon buster), including the NCVO one. None of them defined transparency.

So orf I went to the Charity Commission website for the official word (search keyword: transparency). Still no definition. No, really. Only together with accountability: http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/publications/rs8annexs.asp#2

"Transparency and Accountability: For the purposes of this report we interpret transparency and accountability as providing relevant and reliable information to stakeholders in a timely manner that is free from bias, comparable, understandable and focused on stakeholders’ legitimate needs. This means that the information provided is capable of being understood by users with a reasonable knowledge of business, economic activities and accounting and a willingness to study the information with reasonable diligence." (My bold.)

Hmmmm. Back to Google: keywords: definition transparency charity. Lots and lots of transparent charities out there, Apparently. But no definitions of what transparency means, just what they are going to do to achieve it (how does that work again?)

Let's try the Ultimate Solution Provider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparency_(humanities) (NB - lots of definitions, this was the most relevant)

Transparency, as used in the humanities, implies openness, communication, and accountability. It is a metaphorical extension of the meaning used in the physical sciences: a "transparent" object is one that can be seen through.

When liberal democracies, like USA or Norway, are developing their democracy one step further, transparency is introduced as a means of holding public officials accountable and fighting corruption. When government meetings are open to the press and the public, when budgets and financial statements may be reviewed by anyone, when laws, rules and decisions are open to discussion, they are seen as transparent and there is less opportunity for the authorities to abuse the system in their own interest.

Transparency cannot exist as a purely one-way communication though. If the media and the public knows everything that happens in all authorities and county administrations there will be a lot of questions, protests and suggestions coming from media and the public. People who are interested in a certain issue will try to influence the decisions. Transparency creates an everyday participation in the political processes by media and the public. (contd. p94)

Now THAT makes sense. But still not 100% relevant ... hmmmm... Back to basics: www.transparency.org

No definition of transparency provided. Really.

CW has a point. A charity's annual report might be utterly transparent about the fact that the charity is awful. But I can't see it somehow. Especially since an awful charity would not be accountable in any meaningful way, or communicating effectively - and the consensus appears to be that transparency and accountability are inseperable. Illogical, but nevertheless. So rather than, er, messing about with what the smiley actually means, perhaps IG could have a bash at a sensible definition of transparency? - and CW's suggestion of making this part of the profile template for charities (so it's "in your face" without having to click anywhere else) is a good one.

Query: is it really possible for something to be transparent to someone with ZERO effort on their part - they have to take in information by some means for transparency to be possible. It's how you define a "reasonable" level of effort to obtain that information that's the relevant question here I think - e.g. how much time spent listening/reading/researching/wishing there were more pictures in this annual report/looking up long hard words in the dictionary, etc.

(CW: we haven't had an argument for ages - must be several days - so the next one is bound to be good - any ideas on topic? Let's make it interesting for our readers :D)

*in the interests of transparency: T is for transparency, J is for jargon, 4 for the number of links, zero for the number of definitions and a partridge in a pear tree. Anyone would think it was Friday.

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

... nearly Vlad the Impaler

I agree with LMC and SimonK for the most part on this - but I also have some sympathy with Little Chef's blunter (and more pessimistic) views. 

Though people coming to this site are almost certainly more inquisitive than most donors - not the sort, in other words, to fall for the starving-African-on-the-television-style fundraising campaign - I imagine that even the majority of these more informed types won't have a full understanding of what the 'quality of reporting' score means.  Of course, as LMC suggests, transparency is a good thing - and most people I think understand this.  But I also think most people would be forgiven for thinking that a transparent charity is the same as a good charity, according to IG's criteria.

In short, the privileging of the 'reporting' smiley by IG makes transparency seem - potentially - like the be-all and end-all of charity assessment, when even Adam (above) admits it's not.  I think IG should do more to point this out - not just on its blog, but on the profile pages too. 

[QUOTE=Little Chef] It can't argue on the one hand that the meaning of its headline ranking measure is subtle and sophisticated, and on the other that it's easily comprehensible (and useful) for the average donor.  [/quote]

Hmm, I don't think it does argue that. In my understanding, IG claims that the measurement criteria are subtle and sophisticated (as linked in Adam's original article), with an easily comprehensible output - i.e. the smiley.

As far as deptforder's original Q is concerned: the accompanying blurb, sorry, I mean carefully written and incisive commentary for each charity often makes reference to any Good or Not-So-Good specifics. Also, at the end of the CW&IC on each charity, IG do say "Don't take our word for it, here's their website [and other useful links which I can't remember right now and am too lazy to check].

I think transparency of reporting is a good measure. After all, I doubt whether the few bad eggs in the basket would be transparent about "wasting" money or overall lack of positive results. And efficiency is subjective. I'd rather donate cash to a charity that effectively helps 100 people than one that proudly claims to have had 2000 people through its doors - and on a lower budget too - but is strangely silent about the impact of its work on those people (whose lives haven't changed for the better in any way at all, actually, in fact they are even more cynical about the 'use' of charity now). Oh, and don't forget donor priorities - frankly, I don't care how efficient some charities are, they *still* won't get my money because my personal opinion is that living things are more important than a random ancient building at the backside of nowhere or opera or theatre performances to keep rich people entertained.

[QUOTE=Little Chef] The average donor will come to the site, see what the IG profile says, and then go off and give (or not) to the charity in question based on that information. [/quote]

So what? The donor still has a choice whether to "take IG's word for it" or not. IG gives the charities the opportunity to respond on the commentary.

The whole point of IG and other organisations that "measure" charity effectiveness is to encourage charities to raise their game, as well as to encourage donors to, well, give intelligently. Since you don't actually state your problem with the "average donor will look no further" scenario L.Chef, I am guessing that you are querying the validity of the criteria and/or IG's ability to apply them. Either you trust IG's assessments, or you don't. The choice is always there. Has IG really had an impact on CiN's fundraising? I don't know (but will do my damnedest to find out :still non-existent devil smiley:). But it will be *very* interesting to see IG's comments on CiN's next annual report - will CiN have changed its reporting? (NB - is there an intention to make 'history' for previous years available? - hope so.)

For those of us who work in charities - don't you ever get frustrated when people give to causes because of sad pictures or great advertising? - rather than to your organisation, which is of course the most deserving? (until you change jobs, anyway :deadpan:) Agree with SimonK that "average donors" probably won't be visiting IG in high numbers. Yet. But wouldn't it be nice to think that the profile of the "average donor" is more questioning/objective?

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

... nearly Vlad the Impaler

"to appreciate fully the significance of the healine smiley takes some effort. The average donor probably can't be bothered to unravel the layers of meaning behind it, and will almost certainly just think that it indicates whether the charity is any good."

Frankly, I think that "the average donor" (if such a creature exists) won't bother to come to Intelligent Giving at all. At the moment, if someone makes the effort to come to a site like this, they'll probably be doing so prepared to invest a little time in working out what it all means. That's because this is still at the moment a very niche and specialist site.

However, were IG to become more successful - and, for example, to move up in Google searches - then you might get more average donors coming here. At that point, it might be more important to be "easily comprehensible" rather than "subtle and sophisticated". But that's a long way off yet - and will continue to be for some time, given that you're outside the first 500 google search results for most charity names (even for Children in Need, where there was all that fuss, you're only about the 450th result).

The smileys - and particularly the headline smiley - are misleading. The average donor will come to the site, see what the IG profile says, and then go off and give (or not) to the charity in question based on that information. This is presumably what IG hopes - because if donors don't do this, then IG has failed in its mission, which is to help people 'give happily and with confidence.' 

But as the above blog comment shows, to appreciate fully the significance of the healine smiley takes some effort. The average donor probably can't be bothered to unravel the layers of meaning behind it, and will almost certainly just think that it indicates whether the charity is any good.  Indeed, to think otherwise after seeing the simplistic way in which IG presents this data would be perverse.

IG cannot have its cake and eat it. It can't argue on the one hand that the meaning of its headline ranking measure is subtle and sophisticated, and on the other that it's easily comprehensible (and useful) for the average donor.  

This all makes sense, but what I would like to know is, why is it your 'headline' smiley? What most people want to know is things like how much of the money gets there and how efficient they are. How did you come to those other three smilies too?