Charity Commission - Delivering Effective Regulation for the Sector and the Public

8/13/2019 Charity Commission - Delivering Effective Regulation for the Sector and the Public

1/35

Third ExternalStakeholder Survey

Charity Commission

Delivering effectiveregulation for the sector

and the public

APRIL 2009DHA COMMUNICATIONS


2/35

Page 1

Acknowledgements

The authors of the report would like to thank contributors to the research who have given upvaluable time to conduct interviews. Particular thanks are due to Mark Rowe and Chris McShaneat the Commission who ensured access to research and information and provided guidance tothe project.

The research was led by Daniel Harris, Managing Director, DHA Communications.Further research and analysis was conducted by DHA researchers Jon Flinn, Melissa Milnerand Jim Minton.Additional support came from Jackie Humphreys, DHA Office Manager.

Daniel Harris, Managing Director, DHA CommunicationsApril 2009


3/35

Page 2

Contents

1 Summary of findings Page 32 Introduction and methodology Page 6

3 Effective, modern regulator Page 8

4 Strategic regulator Page 10

5 Delivering quality services Page 13

6 Working in partnership Page 15

7 Compliance Page 17

8 Information and communication Page 19

9 Concluding points Page 22

10 The way forward Page 23

11 Statistics Page 24

Appendices

Appendix 1: List of interviewees Page 27Appendix 2: Survey questionnaire Page 29


4/35

Page 3

Effective, modern regulator

The Charity Commission is almost universally seen as an effective regulator that has madegreat strides to modernise in recent years

What is widely praised is the Commissions professionalism and focus The Commission is now seen as more adept at managing emerging issues such as public

benefit, high-profile compliance cases and other challenges that face the sector

However, many of those surveyed predict serious resource contraints, which may have implicationsfor the Commissions future ability to deliver and implement its obligations as stipulated bythe Charities Act 2006

Strategic regulator

The Charity Commission is seen as more politically astute, engaging better with Whitehalland Westminster and respected for its ability to engage and take a clear stance on key issues.This is a significant improvement on previous surveys when the Commission was seen asstruggling to operate effectively in the political environment

The vast majority of respondents say that the Commission has handled the issue of publicbenefit and other legal provisions in the Charities Act 2006 extremely well. Consultationhas been broad and inclusive, and guidance has been clear

Particular praise is made of the operational leadership of the Commission. Its Chief Executive isuniversally seen as very able, whilst the Chair and senior management team are also praised

Summary of findings

1


5/35

Page 4

Delivering quality services

Overall, the developments in the services the Charity Commission provides are viewed verypositively. In particular, the website including the Online Register are both well-used andhighly rated

The Online Register of charities has improved transparency and accountability of charities andis a welcome development though some people warn that information on the site must bekept up-to-date to have integrity

The forums now run by the Commission were praised such as the Advisory Group on Faith.Many felt these are useful for providing a more bespoke approach for particular sub-sectorswithin the charity sector

Despite new groups and forums having been formed, some sub sectors within the charitysector feel that the Commission does not do enough to understand their issues and needs andwould like to see the Commission engaging directly with them

There remain concerns about the quality and consistency of advice and support delivered bysome more junior staff, as well as the loss of continuity through a perceived high level ofstaff turnover

Working in partnership

Most respondents say that the Charity Commission should continue to develop its partnershipworking to bring additional expertise to the sector

Many felt that the Commission could do even more to point charities in the direction of otherorganisations who might be better placed to advise them on certain areas for examplethrough its website

There was a feeling amongst many that, despite the existence of a partnership strategy, theCommission has no clear plan for partnership working and that it must be strategic indetermining who it works with why, and communicate this


6/35

Page 5

Compliance

It is widely welcomed that there are now fewer formal inquiries opened into charities.This should be an option of last resort, say respondents, and it indicates a new approach toregulation that the Charity Commission is more proportionate and risk-based

There is frustration at the slow progress of the Charity Tribunal; and a persistent misconceptionthat it is the Commissions responsibility to get this up and running Most respondents are pleased with the way the Commission has handled high profile

compliance cases, and believe it has been perceived publicly as acting in an appropriate manner

Information and communication

A key strength of the Charity Commission is its information and communication, evidencedin opinions of its website, published materials and external image in particular

Respondents want the Commission to build on the success of its website and do even morewith it; keeping track of the latest innovations and using the site to discuss, alert, and signpost

The distinction between should and must in Commission guidance is better, with manyrespondents highlighting the clarity of guidance as a key improvement. However, a sizeableproportion of respondents want the distinction made even clearer

Many respondents would like to see the Commission continue to invest in its use of information,mining the information it has and using it to inform the public about the changing nature ofcharity to keep the sector ahead of the game

Respondents like the focus on best practice behaviour, such as publicationsincluding CharitiesBack on Track. Most want to see more work to highlight best practices for charities


7/35

Page 6

This stakeholder survey was conducted between December 2008 and March 2009. The survey soughtto test external views of the Charity Commission in the light of the journey it has taken to become amore modern and effective regulator for charities in England and Wales over the last four years.

This is the third stakeholder survey conducted since 2005. Following the appointmentof Andrew Hindas Chief Executive in 2004, the Commission undertook a major strategic review of its role and function.

The first stakeholder survey conductedin 2005helped to inform this review, with subsequent surveysdesigned to test the progress and direction of the Commission. This latest survey comes after theCharities Act 2006 came into law, and follows the publication of the Commissionsnew StrategicPlan (20082011).

The survey interviewed 66 people from across the charity sector, in Whitehall and Westminster,umbrella bodies, the charity sector media, and those who provide guidance and specialist servicesto the sector.

The survey tested perceptions against a range of topics including the Commissions strategicdirection, its services, working in partnership with others, its compliance workand its communications.The current survey retains a core of questions and research areas that were used in the previousexternal stakeholder survey in 2006, and in the first survey four years ago. There is also a proportionof interviewees who took part in the last survey, and a number who took part in 2005. This enables thereportauthors to directly measure progress and to see whether and how the views of individualsabout the Commission are changing over time.

In any survey where opinion is being tested some respondents will have very personal experiences andscore the Commission very high or very low. Whilst extremes of opinion are no less valid, at the end ofthis report we have included median as well asmean scores to show the average of opinion that moreaccurately reflects the majority rankings.

The survey was conducted under Chatham House rules. A full list of participants is included as anappendix to this report.

Introduction and methodology

2


8/35

Page 7

Gender breakdown of respondents

Male 41

Female 25

New / repeat respondents

Took part previously 24

New interviewees 42

Charity / others

Charity 41

Other 25

36%

64%

62%

38%

62%

38%


9/35

Page 8

How effective is the Charity Commission as the regulator for thecharities of England and Wales?

(On a scale of 110, with 1 being very poor and 10 being excellent)

New respondents: 6.6Previous respondents: 6.9

10

Today

2 years ago

4 years ago

6.7

6

4.1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


3


10/35

Page 9

Communication is covered in a later section, but it is notedunder the effectiveness section that the Commissionswork in this area has had a significant and positive impacton external impressions. The Commission has put effortinto understanding the context for charities both in theirsub sectors and the wider policy issues and, with someexceptions, this is viewed very positively.

This overall positive impression of the Commission mustbe tempered by a note of caution. There is still a widelyheld view that the positive changes in the Commission

have not yet permeated to all levels. Staff handling dayto day issues can still come across as bureaucratic and,at worst,they can be seen as inconsistent in the advicethey give.

Overall, the Commission is more trusted both inside andoutside the sector due largely to its clear, mature, robustattitude. This, aligned with some well received new services,a principles-based approach and evidence-led interventionshas brought greater respect for the Commission.

Within the survey, there were a small number of very

negative views expressed at the effectiveness of theCommission. These views are largely the result of badexperiences or difference of opinion where an organisationhad come into conflict with the Commission over aninvestigation, over public benefit or a specific complaint.Equally, where people were extremely positive about theCommission, it was often because there were excellentrelationships with people at the very top of the organisation.

It is worth noting however that some respondents stressedthat most of the charities do not have the luxury of a way-in to senior level Commission staff. A number raised thepoint that the vast majority of charities regulated by the

Commission are small, and access its generic services.For these charities, bespoke information is highly valued,suggesting that the Commission should seek to maintaina personal touch even when it is providing generic andhelpline advice.


The essential message from this external stakeholdersurvey is; The Commission is very much on the right track,keep doing what you are doing, and do more of it.

It is hard to think of a public organisation morechanged and more effective as a resultof thosechanges in the last few years.

The Charity Commission is almost universally seen asan effective regulator that has made great strides tomodernise in recent years. What is widely praised is the

Commissions professionalism and focus, with manyrespondents saying that it is much better at listeningand responding and that it operates more astutely ina changing, challenging environment.

In the last five years the Commission has madehuge efforts to modernise and is doing well.

Amongst the main key strengths that respondentsnoted was the fact that the Commission has a muchlighter touch with the majority of charities. Behind thispoint was the fact that it does not use its regulatory

powers as a blunt instrument as it once did. There is a lessbureaucratic,more personal approach. The Commissionnow seeks to support charities where it can, providinginformation and engaging in dialogue with the sectorand other stakeholders, say respondents.

The Commission is more professional, targeted,accessible and informative than it was a coupleof years ago.

However, there are some stakeholders who continue toquestion the Commissions ambition of being a championfor the sector even though the new Strategic Plan makes

no mention of this. Yet many feel that promoting thepublics interest in charity which is a key aim of theCommission is indeed its correct role. It is charitiesthemselves, say some, who should engage in individualpromotion.

It was noted that there was a much stronger sense fromrespondents to this survey, compared to two years ago,that the Commission is successfully balancing its regulatoryand advisory roles. Previously there had been what manysaw as a tension between being both a regulator andadvisor to the sector. It seems that this has now been

largely resolved.


11/35

10

Today

2 years ago

6.9

7

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Page 10

Can you rate whether you believe the Charity Commissions strategicdirection is on the right track?


Strategic regulator

4



12/35

Page 11

Strategic regulator

The Charity Commission is seen as an organisation thathas developed a clear strategy and ensured its operationsand services are aligned to deliver those strategic objectives.

The fact that the average score is slightly lower than for theprevious survey could be explained by the fact that manyview the Commission as having had its breakthroughmoment in terms of strategy two years ago. It is encouragingthat those who had previously taken part in the survey ratethe Commission on average higher than last time (7.2/10).

This suggests that the Commission has made explicit theguiding principles on which it bases its actions and isseen to be delivering strategic regulation.

There is a strong view across all stakeholder groups thatthe Commission has made progress towards deliveringrisk-based regulation. Whilst there will always be debatesabout where that risk is to be found, most recognise thatthe Commission is using the potential damage to thepublics view of charity as the basis for action.

Previous surveys suggested that the Commission came

under pressure to change its position according to politicaland governmental pressures. It is clear from this survey thatrespondents now see the Commission as more independent,asserting itself better and setting out its agenda.

The Commission is doing well to promoteaccountability, with the Chief Executive leadingfrom the front

Accountability of charities to the public is another areawhere the Commission is seen to have made progress.There was a sense from previous surveys that this was anarea that the Commission stated as a key objective butsometimes failed to put into practice. However, in thissurvey, respondents noted the work the Commission hasdone to ensure charities file their accounts on time, throughthe website and the simplification of annual returns.In particular, the Online Register of charities is a verywelcome development.

The implementation of the Charities Act 2006 has beenan area where, in the view of many respondents, theCommission has proved its credentials to the sector andto Whitehall. Overall, the Commission has produced goodguidance and has represented itself externally extremelywell. However, there is frustration that the new CharityTribunal has not yet delivered and there is concern aroundthe opaque recruitment process for Tribunal members.Whilst this is not the responsibility of the Commission, therewas a strong perception (albeit inaccurate) amongst those

interviewed that it is theCommission who are responsiblefor deliveringit. This is clearly an issue the Commissionneeds to clarify to key stakeholders.

Many say that the Act puts significantly more obligationson the Commission and that given the resource constraints,some areas may suffer. Some respondents felt that theCommission could have made its case more powerfullyduring the subsequent spending round, given theobligations it was required to fulfil under the Act.

The Charities Act made a lot of demands on the

Commission and they should have been bolderin asking for more resources to deliver.

Respondents have welcomed the Commissions workon public benefit. Most feel that it is absolutely right thatcharities should demonstrate what they bring to thecommunity or society in which they operate. It is alsoseen as an important line in the sand that will providethe Commission with the evidence to deal with anyhistorical anomalies.

There has been significant public debate around certainorganisations, including the Charitable IndependentSchools sector, which has placed significant attention onthe Commissions approach to this issue. Public benefitcan be politically contentious and many say that theCommission has navigated these waters well, thoughmany others believe there are troubles ahead when decisionson Charitable Independent Schools in particular have tobe made. (see Page 12 Focus on Public Benefit)


13/35

The public benefit guidance has been received well,though some said it was slow to be published. Some inthe legal profession question the manner in which theCommission has interpreted some legal aspects of publicbenefit as defined in the Act.

Some also noted a difference between senior level staffat the Commission and those at case officer level. It wasfelt by some, that there is a core group at the top of theCommission who are very much in touch with sectorchange with a clear strategy for delivery on issues suchas campaigning and policy. Some working at a slightlylower level are seen as sometimes being out of touchwith the Commissions own thinking on these areas.Although this was no means a universal view, and eventhose who raise it as an issue admitted to their experiencebeing patchy, it was nevertheless a point made by anumber of respondents. Some recommended that theCommission looks closely at how strategic objectives andstrategic thinking is permeated through the organisation.This would help ensure people at all levels of theorganisation are imbued with the Commissions strategyand can readily apply policy.

Page 12

Focus onPublic BenefitMost respondents acknowledgethat public benefit is a contentiousissue and a difficult one for theCharity Commission to deal with.However, around 7/10 whocommented on this issue feel thatthe Commission has handled thedebate well. In particular, manypoint to the high quality ofguidance and thoroughness of theconsultation process. Most thinkthe Commissions guidance onpublic benefit is clear and that it has

done its best to be even-handed.

Others commented that it wasuseful to have the public benefitdebate and that by giving a goodimpression during the debate, theCommission has done much toimprove public confidence incharities and the external perceptionof the Commission.

A number of respondents in thelegal profession questioned theCommissions interpretation ofsome legal aspects of public benefit

as defined by the Charities Act 2006.

Some argue that the Commissionhas extended its remit to coveractivities rather than the purpose oforganisations in the definition ofpublic benefit.

Others who criticised theCommissions handling of publicbenefit were less specific one saidthat it was handled a bit messilyat the beginning whilst anotherremarked that they didnt havethe biggest impact in the world.

Many respondents warned that thepublic benefit issue will continue tobe a major area of debate, and onethat the Commission will have tobe prepared for. Some believe thatwhichever way the independentschools issue develops, theCommission will receive criticism.It is therefore important, say somerespondents, that the Commissionhas a clear strategy, is robust in itsapproach and communicateseffectively.

Strategic regulator

A theoretical point, raised by a number of respondentsis that the Commission should have different approachesto organisations depending on their structure and purpuse.Some organisations almost exclusively deliver publicservices whereas others exist simply to manage legaciesand funds. They do not engage directly with the publicand some therefore thought that the same issues ofaccountability do not apply for example some feel theOnline register is less important for those charities who donot have a public face they ask whether it is possible toregulate and cater for these organisations in the same way.

There are very different issues for, say, trustsand foundations than for other registeredorganisations. They do not have the same reasonto be open, and therefore accountable, asmost charities.

The leadership of the Commission is widely praised.Andrew Hind in particular is universally respected forhaving transformed the organisation. Even whereorganisations have had disagreements with the Commission,Andrews approach is seen to have been open and inclusive.

Similarly, the Chair and senior team have a very high

reputation with the vast majority of those interviewed.In the Chairs case it is for her keen understanding of theneeds of such a diverse sector and for presenting aprofessional public face. The senior team are praised fortheir expertise, though some worry about loss of capacitywhen people move on.

However, the new expanded Board has made almostno external impression. Though some people questionwhether this is necessary given that their role is governanceof the Commission itself, some very powerfully say thatthe new Board is anything but diverse as it includes no

representation from the small and medium sized charitieswhich make up the majority of the sector.


14/35

Page 13

10

Today

2 years ago

4 years ago

7.1

6.4

5

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

How would you rate the quality of the Commissions service delivery?



5



15/35

Page 14


quality of advice; a number say it is too generic and forothers the speed at which advice is given is too slow. Anumber of respondents would like to see the Commissioninvesting much more in its analytical capacity as well asits generic advice services.

Respondents from smaller organisations who had directlyexperienced the Charity Commission Direct service andwere frequent users of the Online Register, praised theirefficiency. However, they did stress that Charity Commission

Direct in particular could be improved by ensuring thatspecific people are allocated to cases, and this is followedthrough should there be any further queries.

Occasionally advice was noted as being inconsistent,leading to some charities paying lawyers to interpretissues or being confused as to their next course of action.However,at a higher level the Commissions technicalexpertise is seen as first class, particularly the legal support.

The forums now run by the Commission were praised such as the Advisory Group on Faith. Many felt these areuseful for providing a more bespoke approach for particularsub-sectors within the charity sector. The Large CharitiesDivision is also seen as an important vehicle through whichto focus the Commissions activities, with large charitiesnoting a much higher quality of engagement with theCommission in recent years.

In previous surveys, many respondents felt there was atension between Commission advice that says what charitiesMUST do as opposed to what they SHOULD do. Thedistinction between the fulfilment of legal obligations andgood charity practice has now become clearer for many,though some still say this work could go further still with

colour-coded documents and more work on spreading bestpractice across the sector. Some respondents were aware ofan improved focus on the distribution and developmentof arange of advice materials including advice on governance.

The Essential Trustee is a good example of howthe should and must coding works well.

Overall, the developments in the services the CharityCommission provides are viewed very positively.

The Online Register is arguably the single most welcomedevelopment. Most respondents use it regularly and valuehighly the quality of information available. The majorityalso feel that it plays an important role in promptingcharities to file their accounts on time, thus helping topromote greater transparency and accountability. However,some did comment that they would be interested to know

if there is statistical evidence that the register has deliveredan improvement in account filing times.

A number of people say that the Commission is slow inupdating the Register, with some highlighting difficultiesfor example, when charities have merged and the Registerdoes not reflect this. Other interviewees pointed toincidents where charities are recorded as not having filedtheir accounts when they have done so. It is worth notingthat given the majority of those interviewed had seniorroles within organisations, much of this evidence wasanecdotal. However, for the Online Register to maintainconfidence and continue to be valued, it needs to beentirely accurate and up to date.

Theres not always consistency in advice given sometimes two charities asking the same questionare given different advice, and sometimes the samecharity is given conflicting advice by differentCommission staff.

Another minor criticism made by several respondents wasthe sensitivity of the search facility (both on the OnlineRegister and the website more generally). Users are requiredto be very specific when making a search, for example the

exact names of charities/publications, including correctcapitalisation must be used. It would be beneficial if theCommission installed a more intelligent search systemto overcome this problem.

Where people are aware of it, Charity Commission Direct isbroadly welcomed. For some accessing the Commissionsadvice services at a lower level, there is a criticism of the


16/35

Page 15

10

Today

2 years ago

4 years ago

6.5

6

5

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

How would you rate the quality of the way in which the CharityCommission works in partnership with other organisations?


N.B. in 2004 and 2006, this question was phrased: How would you rate the Charity

Commission in terms of the quality of its engagement?


6



17/35

Page 16


The Charity Commission is far more open to partnershipworking and is beginning to use the strength of the sectorto signpost and access expertise to help charities improve.The Commissions approach to partnerships reflects abroader change in mindset that is less insular and protectiveof territory, say a large number of respondents.

The Commission engages well with partnerorganisations and makes a huge effort to do so.

Secondments have worked well and have enabled the

Commission to learn from the sector and to build allianceswith different organisations. Those involved in secondmentssay they are useful both for the Commission to gethands-on experience within the sector and for the charityto have better points of contact within the Commission.

However, a number of people believe that there is still ahigh turnover in staff at the Commission and this can makeit difficult for charities to form the relationships they value.

Across the sector, the Commission has created new forumsfor discussion and debate around some of the key policyand legislative developments. There are regarded as very

positive. There are however sub-groups of the charitysector who want to see their needs and issues addressed.Those working in international development, for example,feel that the Commission does not sufficiently understandthe high risk environment within which they operate andthat the Commission needs to engage with the Departmentfor International Development, their parent department.Those involved with charitable trusts made a similar point.

The Commission doesnt seem to have a strategyfor engaging with others theres always scope formore partnerships.

On its wider relationships some respondents feel that thereare still significant boundaryissues both with other charityregulators in particular with the Office of the ScottishCharity Regulator establishedin 2005 which effectivelycreated two sets of regulation for charities who operatein both Scotland; England and Wales. Others pointed tothe need for synergy with other regulators that come intocontact with charitable organisations. Several respondentssuggested that the Commission mightwork more closelywith other regulators who touch on the charity sector for example the new Tenant Services Authority and HerMajestys Revenue and Customs. Some in particular

would like to see the Commission alerting otherregulators when it becomes aware of issues of sharedconcern and vice versa.

Our work does not stop at Hadrians wall but sometimes the Charity Commission seemsto think it does. They have to sort out theirrelationships with other regulators.

Umbrella bodies in particular notice conflicting directives,whereas charities see an administrative burden where morethan one regulator is involved. Respondents ask if a betterpartnership cannot be built in order to channel issues towhere they are most appropriate. This goes some way toexplaining why previous survey respondents rated the

Commission slightly lower (6.3/10) compared to newrespondents (6.5/10).

There is a sense amongst those following the Commissionsprogress in this area that there is no clear plan of action forpartnership working although where it does occur, itis effective.

Some respondents warn that the Commission needs tobe extremely clear of the objective of the partnerships itforms as there are clearly instances when it is not appropriateto work with others and partnerships might threaten theCommissions independence and authority. Some warned

that working in partnership will not necessarily relieveresource pressures and that effective partnershipworking needs considerable initial investment.

This is despite the existence of a partnership strategy. Thisleads to the assumption that the criteria for the Commissionspartnership working are not sufficiently promoted.

Seminars held by the Commission are notpublicised enough and therefore a narrow setof people attend.

Overall, however, the Commission needs to increase anddevelop its partnership working both to cement itsguidance role and to be in a position to respond to thechanging demands and context in the charity sector.When asked what form these partnerships should take,there were numerous suggestions including:

Joint seminars Joint training courses Joint research

Many felt that the Commission could do more with itswebsite to signpost charities to other organisations that

might be better placed to advise charities in certain areas.


18/35

Page 17

10

Today

2 years ago

4 years ago

6.6

5.5

5

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

What impression do you have of the Commissions approach to ensuringcharities comply with the law?


Compliance

7



19/35

Page 18

Compliance

that they were not in breach of charity law. This sort ofexample-setting regulation can be very effective, say some.

Indeed most respondents were pleased with the way theCommission has handled high profile compliance cases,and believe it has been perceived publicly in the rightway; as a regulator in control and making a clearintervention to preserve confidence in the sector.However, the majority of respondents were keen to seethe Commission speak out more forcefully when there

are clear examples of wrong-doing and abuse.

A number of respondents, as in previous surveys, alsoexpressed concerns at the apparent lack of powers that theCommission has at its disposal. Some expressed frustrationthat the Commission cannot forcibly close down anorganisation when there is evidence of serious abuse.

The Commission needs to have more teeth we need to hear more when the Commission istaking action.

The role of the Online Register and timely accounting hasalso been a powerful example of example-setting activitythat has improved compliance.

There are mixed views over the ending of review visits.Roughly half of those who expressed an opinion say thatthey served little purpose and were seen as exercises tocatch charities out. But a similar number say that it isuseful for charities to have the Commission to look attheir operation and discuss issues with them where ithelps them improve. The Commission may wish to lookat developing peer review or accredited reviews toencourage improvement.

It is widely welcomed that there are now fewer formalinquiries opened into charities. This should be an optionof last resort, say respondents, and it indicates a newapproach to regulation that the Charity Commission ismore proportionate and risk-based.

As in previous surveys, almost all respondents say thatthe Commission needs to be seen to take the strongestpossible action where there are instances of seriouswrongdoing. Some also expressed a desire to know the

Commissions criteria for opening inquiries.

For all the new focus on a risk-based approach,the Commission must not lose sight of the fact thatwhen there is wrong doing, they should come downon charities like a ton of bricks

Some respondents say that, whilst they agree that beingrisk-based is correct, there are literally thousands oforganisations that are not known to the Commission.Because they are not registered, the Commission hasvirtually no way of reaching them and managing thisrisk. Respondents have suggested a public amnesty forunregistered organisations. Others suggest a charitytelephone hotline for the public to notify of wrongdoingor charities operating without registration.

The Commission has handled the high profilecomplex cases well; it is more robust than it usedto be and its tone is right when it intervenes.

Certain investigations have taken a while to be resolved,though this is not always seen as a negative point. The caseof the Smith Institute, for example, happened over aperiod of months but many think this was important as

it allowed other think tanks to follow the case and ensure


20/35

Page 19

10

Today

2 years ago

4 years ago

7.2

7.3

5.5

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

How would you rate the quality of information and communicationfrom the Commission over the last year or so?



8



21/35

As the chart below shows, 61% of respondents ratedthe Charity Commission 8/10 or above on informationand communications making it one of the main areaswhere the Commission is seen to have made the greatestimprovement since the last external stakeholder survey.

The mean figure as indicated in the graph (see previouspage) is marginally lower than the previous survey, whenit might have been expected to be higher. However, whenindividual responses are analysed, it becomes clear thatthe mean is lowered by a minority of very low marks.

Page 20


3%

41%

2/10

3%

3%

17%

5%

5%3%

17%

3%

4/10

5/10

6/10

6.5/10

7/10

7.5/10

8/10

8.5/10

9/10


22/35


23/35

Page 22

This short section summarises views expressed at the end of the survey when respondents wereasked their overall impressions and to describe the Charity Commission.

When asked to describe the way in which the Commission has changed over the last two years,responses were overwhelmingly positive. Words such as: approachable, open,responsive,professional, dynamic, modern and focused were frequently used with

many others regarding the Commission as more supportive, pro-active and trying harderthan before.

Respondents were particularly impressed with the professional external image that they feel theCommission is now portraying with many saying this has been a significant improvement fromtwo years ago.

Much of the positive external opinion of the Commission is due to its improved public-facing role.Many see the function of effective regulation as building public trust. The Commission now usesinformation and advice, partnerships and its analysis to support its regulatory function. Peopleagree that this is the role of a modern regulator, though some warn that it must always ensurethat it invests in compliance as this is ultimately how the organisation is judged.

There were few objections to the Commissions stated values as outlined in the Strategic Plan.Some respondents raised the point that meeting those values would be a challenge.

Interviewees expressed differing views on the nature of information that the Commission provides.Some called for information to be more bespoke i.e. materials and guidance that specifically relateto different groups within the sector. It was also felt by many that the information the Commissionoffers on its advice line could be delivered with a more personalised. This would require theCommission to mine information and continue to build expertise on these different areas. However,for others it is the general information the Commission provides which is most crucial; many wantto see more effective sign posting of generic information on the Commissions website. Whilst there

may be conflict between these two views, just as the Commission has come a long way in reconcilingits dual role as a regulator and advisor, now this potential tension must be directly addressed.

For those who had completed previous surveys for the Commission, the majority felt their viewshad been listened to and there was a significant level of positive change. This is demonstrated by theconsistently higher average marks given by previous respondents in each section of the survey.

Concluding points

9

The Commission used to be like a plodding donkey.

Now its much more like a racing car


24/35

Page 23

Respondents overwhelmingly pointed to resource constraints as a major issue for the CharityCommission which could threaten its ability to deliver the obligations of the Charities Act 2006and continue its improvement as it goes forward. However, the Commission is now seen as muchmore proactive, pre-empting issues and showing where it makes a difference. This, say many, iswhere it needs to invest if resources are stretched.

Some respondents put the role of the Commission in the broader financial context, saying thatthe Commission will need to enforce mergers and close down organisations in the months ahead.They also question whether cash-rich charities should be allowed to have such large reserves andstill seek money from the public and other funds, especially in this economic climate. Some want

to see firm action in this area.When asked what other regulators the Commission could learn from, a number were mentioned:OFCOM for its ability to keep ahead of issues facing the communications industry, the HealthcareCommission (now called the Care Quality Commission) for its effective use of information as atool for regulation, the Pensions Regulator for its excellent communication with pension fundtrustees and the Audit Commission for the respect and gravitas it holds within its sector and itspower to intervene. However, for many the Commission itself provides an effective model thatothers could follow; particularly its website and the ability to balance its regulatory andadvisory roles.

The destination people see for the Commission is an 8.5 organisation in the next three years,indicating that there is still room for improvement. However, against funding reductions and inthe current financial climate people accept that this is an extremely challenging target for anyorganisation. For some, this will mean the Commission must prioritise its actions and make itclear to the sector, and more widely, exactly what it is setting out to deliver. For others, theCommission must be more adept at future-thinking;anticipating challenges and pre-empting theirimpact on the sector. Almost all want more analysis and use of information to drive regulation.

Overall, people want the Commission to continue to change in the current direction. They wantit to become even more open and accessible, with a human face. They want it to become moreknowledgeable about the sector and about the conditions and issues that affect charities. Theywant it to punish wrongdoers with the utmost severity. They want to see more example-settingso that organisations can change before they are told to.

The way forward

10

In the old days people deposited money in banks and some bought shares.Then financial products and services became ever more complex and the regulatorcouldnt keep up with the changes. This should be a warning to the Charity Commissionas the sector adapts and changes in the decades to come.


25/35

Page 24

Effective,modern

regulator

Strategicregulator

Qualityservices

Partnerships

Compliance

InfoandComms

4 years ago

CATEGORY

AVERAG

ESCORE

2 years ago

Today

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Charity Commission progress at a glance

Statistics

11


26/35

Page 25

Effective,modern

regulator

Strategicregulator

Qualityservices

New interviewee

CATEGORY

AVERAG

ESCORE

Completed survey previously

Partnerships

Compliance

InfoandComms

Overall0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Average scores by category

New interviewees vs previous respondents


27/35

Page 26

Effective,modern

regulator

Strategicregulator

Qualityservices

Mean

CATEGORY

AVERAG

ESCORE

Median

Partnerships

Compliance

InfoandComms

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Overall

Rating the Charity Commission

Average scores from 2008 / 09 survey


28/35

Page 27

Appendix 1List of interviewees

Haroun Atallah, Finance Director *Camila Batmanghelidjh, CEODon Bawtree, Head of National Charity Unit *

Jodi Berg *

Lynne Berry, OBE CEOLord Richard Best OBE *Lindsay Boswell, CEO *Katherine Bryant, Governance OfficerMatthew Burgess, Deputy CEOVictoria Burnett, Company SecretaryRodney Buse, Chairman *Nick Capaldi, CEOEnrico Carpanini, Legal Services Officer *Deborah Clarke, Village Hall Information Officer *Stephen Cook, Editor *Dorothy Dalton, EditorStephen Dunmore, Chair *Stuart Etherington, CEO *Brenda Feldman, Company Secretary

Jenny Field, Principle Grants Officer/Monitoring & EvaluationPesh Framjee, Partner *David French, CEOBarbara Frost, CEO *Ray Goodfellow, Solictor *Stephen Hammersley, CEOLisa Harker, Co-DirectorDr Caroline Harper,OBE, CEO

Chris Harris, Chair *Keith Hickey, CEO *Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots CBEDame Elisabeth Hoodless CEO DBE *Peter Horner, Policy & Communications officerRuth Jarratt, Director of Policy DevelopmentHarpal Kumar, CEOLinda Laurence *Andrew LennardTom Levitt, MP *Tim Livesey, Secretary for Public AffairsStephen Lloyd, Senior Partner *Dr John Low, CBE, CEO *Tris Lumley, Head of Strategy

Islamic Relief WorldwideKids CompanyBDO Stoy HaywardOffice of The Independent Complaints Reviewer

WRVSGroup Chair, Hanover Housing AssociationInstitute of FundraisingGroundwork UKIndependent Schools CouncilScopeCharity Trustee Networks

Arts Council WalesWelsh Council for Voluntary Action

ACREThird SectorGovernance MagazineBBC Charity Appeals Advisory CommitteeNCVO

Jewish CareCity Bridge TrustHorwath Clark WhitehillPolice Dependants TrustWater AidRSPCACommunity Foundation NetworkIPPRSightsavers

Charities Panel CIPFACharity Finance Director's Group

CSVNAVCARoyal Opera HouseCancer Research UKConsultant

Accounting Standards Board

Archbishop of Canterburys OfficeBates Wells and Braithwaite

ACEVO & Charities Aid FoundationNew Philanthropy Capital


29/35

Page 28

Jules Mason, Head of Governance SupportBharat Mehta, CEOKeith Moore, Head of CharitiesDr Daleep Mukarji,OBE, DirectorCharles Nall, Director of Corporate ServicesAlan OConnor, Project DirectorGerald Oppenheim, Director of Policyand Partnership *Alison Paines, ChairmanDaniel Phelan, Publisher *Anne-Marie Piper, PartnerBaroness Jill Pitkeathley OBE, Chair *Francesca Quint, BarristerAnthony de Ritter, DirectorCarol Rudge, Head of Not for Profit Group

Joe Saxton, FounderOwen Sharpe, Deputy CEOStephen Slack, Head of Legal OfficeHelen Stephenson, Deputy Director

John Stewart, Company Secretary

Monsignor Andrew Summersgill, General SecretaryClare Tickell, CEO

Julia Unwin,OBE, CEOProfessor Jean WarburtonAnnette Wiles, Policy & Research ManagerBen Wittenberg, Director of Policy and Research

*Indicates participant took part in the previous stakeholder surveys

British Red CrossCity Parochial FoundationHMRC charities divisionChristian AidChildrens Society

Accounting Standards BoardBig Lottery Trust

Charity Law AssociationCharity Finance MagazineFarrers & Co.OTS Third Sector Advisory BoardRadcliffe Chambers

Almshouses AssociationGrant ThorntonNFP SynergyVictim SupportChurches Main CommitteeOffice of the Third SectorWellcome Trust

Catholic Bishops ConferenceAction for ChildrenJoseph Rowntree FoundationUniversity of Liverpool, Charity Law UnitNational Confederation of Parent Teacher AssociationsDirectory of Social Change


30/35

Page 29

Appendix 2Questionnaire

Charity Commission: Third External Stakeholder Survey

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

SECTION 1: Setting the Scene

Introduction and purpose of the survey. Helping to shape the strategic direction and service

delivery of the Commission. This is an independent survey. Responses will be anonymous and

interviewees will receive a copy of the finished survey.

Brief description of the Commissions journey since 2005 and key themes represented in the

new Strategic Plan (2008 to 2011) (separate document to be circulated). Key issues:

Since 2005 the Commission has strengthened its engagement with the sector and made

significant inroads in understanding the context in which charities operate to better inform

strategic decision making;

the Commission has improved the way it works by recognising the distinction between

honest mistakes and serious issues of abuse and by dealing with them differently;

steps have been taken to work in partnership with umbrella bodies to disseminate goodpractice thereby increasing the Commissions reach and impact; and

the Commission responds better by acting more quickly and adopting a proportionate,

risk based and evidence led approach to issues.

What is the nature of your dealings with the Charity Commission? How much contact have

you had with them during the last 12 months?


31/35

Page 30

SECTION 2: An Effective, Modern Regulator

1. Firstly, Id be grateful if could comment on what you think are the key strengths of the Charity

Commission and how effective it is as a proportionate and risk based regulator?

2. The context and environment for charities has been changing over the last three years. What

is your view of the way the Commission now engages with emerging issues and manages

this changing context compared to three years ago?

3. In 2004 / 05, the Charity Commission published its strategic plan; Charity Working at the

Heart of Society which said: Our objective is to create a modern regulator focusing on the

needs of charities and the public. It has recently published its new Strategic Plan for 2008

to 2011 that builds on this work and puts the focus on better understanding the context

in which charities operate and the need for transparency and accountability for the public.

To what extent do you think they are achieving this objective?

4. Looking ahead to 2011, what would you say the Charity Commission needs to do to

continue to modernise and be effective?

5. How effective is the Charity Commission as the regulator for the charities of England and Wales?

Please score from 10 (excellent) to 1 (very poor).

SECTION 3: A Strategic Regulator

1. The Charity Commission has enlarged its board, improved its diversity and separated the roleof the Chair and Chief Executive. To what extent do you think this has helped the leadership,

governance and strategic direction of the Commission?

2. A key commitment the Commission has made over the last three years is to promote the

public interest in charity. As the independent regulator, the Commission is neither part of the

Government or the charity sector. It has a responsibility to promote public confidence in the

concept of charitable endeavour in society. Do you think the Commission is living up to your

expectations in this regard?

3. In its new Strategic Plan (2008 to 2011), the Commission set out the new statutory outcomes

and objectives it was given under the Charities Act. These include:

To promote the effective use of charitable resources

To promote compliance by charity trustees with their legal obligations

To enhance the accountability of charities to donors, beneficiaries and the general public.

How effective is the Commission in meeting these statutory objectives?

4. Following the Charities Act 2006, there has been a lot of debate and interest about public

benefit and the previous stakeholder survey suggested the Commission needed to focus on

clarifying this for the sector. How would you say the Commission has managed the issue of

public benefit through its consultation and published guidance?

5. On a scale of 10 (excellent) to 1 (very poor) can you rate whether you believe the Charity

Commissions strategic direction is on the right track?


32/35

Page 31

SECTION 4: The Commission delivering quality services

1. Over the last two years what, if any, changes have you noticed in the ways the Commissioncarries out its duties and services? How do you view these changes (Positively or negatively)

and what is the reason for this answer?

Charity Commission Direct (telephone, web and email advice and information service)

Changes to its web site

The new online Register of charities

Distinguishing for charities between what they SHOULD and MUST do and the

Commissions commitment to using clear language in publications and correspondence,

including the Stop Think Write initiative.

Leaflets on issues such as political campaigning, the role of trustees and on public service delivery Fewer formal investigations.

2. In recent years the Commission has significantly improved the timeliness of its services to

charities, responding more quickly to issues that affect charities. Have you noticed this and

has this in your view had an impact on service quality?

3. Is the range of services available sufficient to meet the needs of the sector? If not, what more

should be done?

4. Are you satisfied with the technical level of expertise provided by the Commission?

5. On a scale of 10 (excellent) to 1 (very poor) could you rate your current view of the quality

of the Commissions service delivery (of which you are aware)? And could say how you would

have rated it two years ago?

SECTION 5: The Commission working in partnership

With a large sector to regulate and a reduction in funding of 5% in real terms over the next three

years, the Commission is working with umbrella organisations, increasing its reach, in order to

disseminate good practice and drive up quality standards. These include research and reports,

seminars and specific projects.

1. What is your view of the way the Commission engages with other organisations, such as

umbrella bodies, to develop thinking and support improvement?

2. How should the Commission develop its partnerships, for example with other regulators,

trade bodies and agencies, to disseminate knowledge? How else could the Commission

improve the performance of the sector and on what issues?

3. On a scale of 10 (excellent) to 1 (very poor) could you rate the quality of the way in which the

Charity Commission works in partnership with a) partner organisations, b) government and c)

charities themselves? Using the same scale, where would you have put the Commission twoyears ago?


33/35

Page 32

SECTION 6: Commissions Compliance Work

Last year the Commission introduced a new risk and proportionality framework for its compliance

work. This outlines a range of compliance issues and explains the Commissions approach in suchmatters. A clear distinction has been made between how it will deal with honest mistakes and its

interventions where there is evidence of serious wrong going. The Commission has enhanced its

proactive monitoring activity and additional resources have been allocated to its compliance function.

It has also published, Charities Back on Track, that sets out the themes and lessons arising from

its compliance work during 2007/08. As a result of these developments the Commission is

undertaking many fewer inquiries while increasing charity transparency and accountability.

1. Are you aware of the way in which the Commissions approach has changed in relation to

ensuring charities comply with the law and could you comment on this development?

What do you think of these changes?2. The Commission has been involved in some high-profile and complex cases recently, and

the results of our involvement published. How do you think the Commission is dealing with

difficult and complex compliance issues?

3. Another important part of the compliance agenda is to increase the number of charities

filing their annual accounts on time. One recent development has been the online Register

which highlights the fact that charity accounts are overdue. What do you think of this

development?

4. On a scale of 10 (excellent) to 1 (very poor) could you say what impression you have of theCommissions approach to ensuring charities comply with the law? Using the same scale,

where would you have put the Commission two years ago?

SECTION 7: Information and Communication

Since the last stakeholder survey, the Charity Commission has invested in modernising and

improving its information and communications both in hard copy and on its web site.

1. How successful do you think the Commission has been in becoming more outward-facing

and proactive in its communication in recent years?

2. Are you aware of any improvements or changes to the information and communication

from the Commission? If so, could you comment briefly on how you view these changes?

Charity Commission web site and Charity Commission News

The development of its corporate identity

Distinguishing for charities between what they SHOULD and MUST do and the

Commissions commitment to using clear language in publications and correspondence,

including the Stop Think Write initiative.

3. Is the information provided by the Commission useful, relevant and accessible to the sector?

4. On a scale of 10 (excellent) to 1 (very poor) how would you rate the quality of information

and communication from the Commission over the last year or so? Using the same scale,

how would you have rated them two years ago?


34/35

Page 33

SECTION 8: Summary

1. Taking your thoughts overall, what adjectives or words would you think of to describe the way

the Charity Commission has changed in the last two years?

2. The Commissions new Strategic Plan says that the Commission wants to be seen as effective,

expert, fair, independent, innovative and responsive. Is this the right list of values or should they change?

3. Are there organisations such as other regulators or government bodies from which the Commission

could learn and what approaches or practices could it learn from them?

4. Overall, if the Charity Commission continues to improve what changes can you envisage over

the next three years?

5. Are there any other issues, points or concerns you have that have not come up in our discussion?6. Taking all your responses into account how would you rate the Commission as a regulator on a

scale of 10 (excellent) to 1 (very poor)? In the next 12 months what would a reasonable destination

be for the Commission on that scale?

What do you think the Commission needs to do to get there?

Do you think the Commission has listened to your views?


35/35

Southbank House, Black Prince Road, London, SE1 7SJTelephone: (020) 7793 4035Email: [email protected]

Daniel HarrisEmail: [email protected]

Charity Commission - Delivering Effective Regulation for the Sector and the Public

Documents

Transcript of Charity Commission - Delivering Effective Regulation for the Sector and the Public