Just
as in the big bad world of business, corporate buzzwords are
sinking into the psyche of the charity sector. Though perhaps
the most prolific, ‘best practice’ is the least
ridiculed of these terms, and striving for it has become a
fundamental part of charity management.
Meeting best practice standards is nevertheless a complicated
thing, with a torrent of advice and guidance material coming
out of the sector’s regulators and representative bodies
on a monthly basis. Has the appetite for this guidance finally
been satiated? Research carried out by nfpSynergy on behalf
of People & Planet and the Sheila McKechnie Foundation
seems to suggest so. When the Charity Commission rewrote its
guidance on campaigning (CC9), only half (52 per cent) of
charities were aware that it had been altered and 80 per cent
admitted that the new guidance would make little or no difference
to they way they work.
The volume of advisory material from both the Commission and
other organisations, including the national hubs of expertise,
has led to confusion over what charities should do to meet
best practice, and what they absolutely must do to comply
with charity law. A recent report from the Centre for Policy
Research said this had become such a problem that the Charity
Commission should be stripped of its advisory role, concentrating
solely on regulating the sector and helping charities fulfil
their legal obligations.
Richard Davidson, director of policy and public affairs at
Cancer Research UK, agrees that charities are overwhelmed
with advice, and it is becoming a problem. “In terms
of bureaucracy in general, there is an awful lot that’s
thrown at charities and sometimes I think the difficulty is
working out what’s law and what’s legislation,
and what’s just purely advice,” he says. “There
is some confusion and that’s particularly true for smaller
charities that don’t have the resources.”
Davidson’s key concern is that genuinely valuable information
for charities “gets lost in the scrum”, and organisations
fail to meet their potential because of the clamour around
best practice guidance. But a solution is difficult to find.
“It’s difficult because any kind of traffic light
system or any kind of kite mark for the type of information
is introducing another level of guidance,” Davidson
warns. “It’s important not to go down that route.”
Some indication of the level of the information –
whether it is essential or just recommended practice –
does need to be provided, but it must be clear. Mick Aldridge,
chief executive of the Public Fundraising Regulatory Association,
fears a swamping of the sector in guidance and advice will
turn charities off signing up to optional standards, such
as membership of the Fundraising Standards Board and the
PFRA accreditation scheme.
“There is a lot of white noise out there about regulation,”
he says. “I can see that it’s going to be a
challenge for some people to say ‘we’ve got
a limited budget, what’s going to be best for my reputation?’”
Top
Another worry is that the sheer amount of accreditation
options will create a turf war between organisations such
as the FSB and the PFRA, with charities choosing one to
associate themselves with and disregarding others in an
attempt to streamline the guidance they receive and follow.
“It’s unfortunately a possibility,” Aldridge
concedes. “I’m anxious that if people are experiencing
that confusion that they talk to us about it. There is always
an argument for some form of constitution, but the problem
with that is it might just spawn another quango coordinating
all the other ones.”
Aldridge prefers the idea of targeted best practice, which
in an ideal world would supply charities with only the information
they need, rather than bombard them with every new piece
of advice produced for non-profit organisations. The PFRA
already attempts to do this by asking its members for vital
information about their perceived deficiencies annually,
and then plugging these information gaps.
Finding the best way to reach charities and making guidance
relevant to them is the key hurdle for promoters of best
practice to overcome. NCVO’s senior policy officer
Linda Pratten says its role is to ensure the advice is there
should a charity need it; not all charities want to take
best practice advice. “What we aim to do is help the
sector – they have the right to decide what’s
best for their organisation,” Pratten says. “If
it doesn’t suit what they want to do and how they
want to do it then there’s no reason why they should
change.”
But Pratten is also an advocate of a slimmed down Charity
Commission, stripped of its advisory role and concentrating
on enforcing regulation. “The Charity Commission needs
to be clear that that’s its function. Some of the
best practice they put out can be particularly confusing
for smaller organisations who think it’s coming from
the regulator so they must do it,” she warns. “Charities
should feel comfortable going to ask about what they have
to do. That’s what [the Commission] should focus its
energies on.”
The Better Regulation Taskforce, which reported last year,
also called for clarification of the Commission’s
role, but the government has yet to respond to its recommendations.
Sue Ryder Care believes this is indicative of another problem
with advice and guidance within the sector. Dan Beety, public
affairs manager for the organisation, says that though charities
may be quick to learn lessons about best practice from their
regulator and one another, the government is failing to
listen to charities.
“While the volume of guidance and information isn’t
really an issue for us, there is another related area that
is causing us growing concern,” Beety says. He warns
that over the past few years a pile of documents from government
and voluntary organisations has grown up detailing the changes
that need to be made to support the work of the charity
sector, but nothing is done.
“It’s frustrating that we should have such a
broad consensus on what needs to happen and yet there is
still a gulf between the government’s national position,
which supports full cost recovery and genuine partnership
working, and the actions on the ground of some of the Primary
Care Trusts and social services,” Beety says.
Even the Commission is aware of this problem. Head of regulatory
policy Caroline Cooke said it was the role of the voluntary
sector to articulate their concerns, both about the lack
of commitment to government policies such as full cost recovery,
and the volume of advice being thrown onto the desks of
charity managers.
But she dismissed calls for a leaner regulator, saying advice
is a “critical part” of its role. “That’s
an old chestnut that comes up time and time again from some
quarters,” Cooke says. “Actually, there is a
large part of the sector that says it finds our advice and
our guidance extremely helpful.”
She says the Commission has changed the way is presents
its guidance – making clear what is regulation and
what is guidance, distinguishing “between the musts
and the shoulds” and this change has had positive
feedback.
“If charities are feeling overwhelmed then of course
it’s a concern,” she admits. But while this
may be an issue for some, she says: “I’m not
sure it’s a problem for the sector. It would be surprising
if there weren’t some people saying that, given the
size and complexity of the sector”.
If there is a fight over who should provide support and
guidance for charities, taking on the Commission will not
be an easy battle. “Of course there is going to be
a plethora of guidance,” Cooke confirms. “If
it wasn’t there [charities would lack support]. It’s
a critical part of our role.”
Top
|
