28 codes of fundraising practice to be condensed into one
23 May 2012
The Institute of Fundraising is to replace its 28 codes of fundraising practice with a single code and...
Share
Charity Commission expects all charities to join an umbrella body
The Charity Commission will expect all charities to become part of a voluntary sector umbrella body, and has mooted highlighting on the Commission website the memberships that charities hold.
Chair of the Charity Commission Dame Suzi Leather made the announcement at the Commission’s public meeting yesterday, which discussed the theme 'Charities and self-regulation – how far can it go?'
Dame Suzi (pictured) said going forward the Charity Commission was expecting the charity sector to become more self-reliant, with trustees taking more decisions without input from the Commission.
She said that as part of this strategy the Commission would work to increase the profile of umbrella bodies, who could take on the advice role that the Commission currently plays:
“There have been discussions about an umbrella support coalition of sector groups taking on an advice function that feeds off Charity Commission guidance. Then, we could deal with a limited number of umbrellas rather than 180,000 charities.”
She said all charities would be expected to be a member of an umbrella body.
Sam Younger, the Commission's chief executive, added that while the Commission would be unable to give financial support to the umbrella groups, their resource issues would cease to be such a problem if they increased their memberships.
“We could encourage more charities to be members through information on annual returns, or a field when registering with the Charity Commission," he said.
Dame Suzi added: “It won’t happen overnight. But more membership means more income and more profile. In turn, umbrellas could help us ensure that members do accounts on time. This is an important strategic development and I’m proud of it.
“It would be akin to the relationship between the Institute of Fundraising and the Fundraising Standards Board.”
'A virtuous circle'
Alistair McLean, chief executive of the FRSB, said the “cards were in the hands of the Charity Commission” and said it would be welcome for the Commission to encourage the sector to register with the FRSB, calling it a “virtuous circle”.
“Only 50 per cent of large fundraising charities are members with us,” he said.
Greyham Dawes, consultant at Crowe Clark Whitehill suggested that the Charity Commission could publish the tick mark of the FRSB by each charity member on their Commission profile:
“The media would pick it up if a charity lost the mark and bring buy-in from the sector to join and comply with the standards.”
Place a comment
Jamie Ward-Smith
Founder
i-volunteer.org
26 Sep 2011
There are lots of umbrella bodies for charities to join, many provide an excellent service but equally many don't and forcing every charity to have to choose to join one of them and be represented by them wont be popular or indeed appropriate.
The Commission has not mentioned that increasingly many charities and the professionals that run them choose to create their own informal associations through social media and other online fora. From the CEO groups on Linked In, the youth projects on Twitter and Facebook, to the many volunteer managers that use i-volunteer to network with each other, these platforms provide a way for people to exchange ideas, get support and share information quickly and for no cost other than the time it takes to use them.
They should not be overlooked when it comes to encouraging association and membership, and can be highly effective at providing peer support and enabling charities to build their capacity and, where appropriate, representation.
You only have to look at sites like Mumsnet to see how an informal online group can have a huge impact when it comes to lobbying government and getting their voices heard.
Barbara
26 Sep 2011
I'm quite surprised that CC exists at all. In other countries you register your charity either at court registrar (as any other type of social activity including business) and maybe obtain some sort of tax relief to distinguish your organisation of commercial business and public agencies and in case of any trouble either the police, border agency or inland revenue knocks on your door. Whatever doubts you have - you go to a lawyer. Plain and simple. And sooo cost-effective.
Anna Feuchtwang
Chief Executive
EveryChild
26 Sep 2011
This seems like a pragmatic and sensible suggestion. I am chair of Bond, the "umbrella body" for the international development sector. I wasn't forced to join Bond and I know that as a membership body it reflects the needs and inputs of the members that own it and pay for it. The Charitiy Commission was never much good at dealing with each of us individually, and with the thousands of charities that exist in the UK it makes much more sense for charities to act collectively. If smaller charities feel "marginalised" surely they're better off getting together and having a stronger voice.
Stephen Lulsley
Independent Commentator and Consultant
26 Sep 2011
Response to [Anna Feuchtwang]
Anna, BOND is 'An' umbrella body for the international development sector, not 'The'.
With regard to the second part of your statement, I agree with the principle of acting collectively, provided that BOND, or any other organisation, does not become a/the quasi regulator acting on behalf of the Charity Commission. To do so would represent a conflict of interest.
Secondly, collective representation works only if the umbrella organisation were to actually listen to and represent all its members, not just those who are bigger or who hold the purse strings.
Catherine Clark
Head of Communications, Marketing & Development
Royal School of Church Music
26 Sep 2011
Most charities are doing excellent work and are at the limits of expenditure (if not actually in deficit), which they would rather make on charitable purposes than on yet another body digging into our pockets. If the government wants to regulate charities better, then keep the Commission going! And if not, then do the laissez-faire route until... oops!... we show (as with all human-run institutions) that we need to be regulated. So, sorry -- our signing up to NCVO or whatever won't do anything to ensure we are well-managed or well-governed. It's just an expensive, meaningless tick box.
Sir Stuart Ettherington
27 Sep 2011
Response to [Catherine Clark]
I'm sorry that you feel that membership of NCVO is not helpful we provide a range of advice services. For organisations with an income below 10 k these services and discounts are free I don't think you are a member.
If you feel that we could be more helpful to your organisation do email or call me I would be more than happy to visit and discuss this with you,
Stuart
Catherine Clark
Head of Communications, Marketing & Development
Royal School of Church Music
17 Oct 2011
Response to [Sir Stuart ettherington]
Dear Mr Etherington,
We are a £1.5 million organisation but we cannot -- flat out cannot -- afford to join NCVO or any other of these umbrella organisations. I am a personal member of the IoF, and resisted signing the RSCM up to their particular 'stamp of approval' offering to charities a while back.
I don't want your approval: I want your advice, I want to see examples of best practice such as those on the SOFII web site (which is terrific!), and I want to network with colleagues. I've been in the non-profit field for 30 years and want to be able to offer my experience for FREE to my colleagues, for the betterment of the development/fundraising/governance and for philanthropy in general.
There was a good comment in the Third Sector magazine this week from someone else in a medium-size charity who said he constantly has to throw out fliers for conferences and seminars that would be of value to him. Our mutual directors of finance would laugh if we asked for the funds to attend some of these events.
Michael Levitt
Charity trustee
26 Sep 2011
All the comments seem to have a go at the Charity Commission, but its plans are based on the need to operate on funding cut by 1/3 by the Government. If charities value the services of the Commission, they need to tell the government to fund it properly.
Stephen Lulsley
Independent Observer and Consultant
26 Sep 2011
Response to [Michael Levitt]
Tell this government to fund it properly? Please, get real! When does this government, especially George Osborne, ever listen to anything?
There are a myriad of issues across many of our public sector activities from HS2 to the Health Service, where there are, or have been strong representations to government, but where they have not listened.
GA
Trustee
26 Sep 2011
Response to [Stephen Lulsley]
Surely the issue is whether the Charity Commission uses its funding wisely. How about starting with the expenditure on senior managers? Chair (£80-85k), Chief Exec (£125-130k), four Directors (total £350 - 370k) that is well over £0.5m!
That would pay for a lot of enquiries from charities!
perhaps not the response the Commission would want!!!
Stolen
27 Sep 2011
Response to [GA]
Charity begins at home.
John Harvey
24 Sep 2011
I have recently read a Which? conversation about gaps between ombudsmen (http://conversation.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/narrowing-the-ombudsman-gap/) and a legal article on overlaps between them (Lexology)).
Any devolution of regulation to umbrella bodies needs clear arrangements to ensure that consumers are not confused.
A national clearing house perhaps?
Kevin Baughen
Director
Bottom Line ideas
23 Sep 2011
I'm assuming two things:
1 - The Commission will of course be paying the extra membership fees for charities to be members of these groups
2 - The Commission and the bodies themselves will all be taking out broadcast media adverts to explain to donors why charities need to find money to cover unnecessary overheads like this!
Ivory tower #FAIL
GA
Trustee
23 Sep 2011
Perhaps I am missing something but this seems to be purely about helping the Charity Commission so that "we could deal with a limited number of umbrellas rather than 180,000 charities." and so that "umbrella bodies ... could take on the advice role that the Commission currently plays".
I am sorry that as a charity I am just seen as an annoyance and an inconvenience to the Charity Commission - I thought (wrongly) that that they were there for us. The website says that their aim is to provide the best possible regulation of charities to increase [charities'] effectiveness and levels of public confidence in [charities].
I presume that spending on umbrella bodies will no longer be subject to a public benefit test!!
Russell
23 Sep 2011
Will umbrella bodies that are charities be expected to join themselves?
And will there be an umbrella body for those charities that don't fit the criteria of existing umbrella bodies, and maybe even an umbrella body for umbrella bodies?
Stolen
23 Sep 2011
One of the odd things if all charities were actually obliged to join infrastructure bodies could be the democratisation of infrastructure bodies since it is a case of one vote to one member. But bodies such as NCVO and ACEVO will not be having any of that.
So how does the Commission propose to set the joining and annual membership fees?
Sir Stuart Etherington
27 Sep 2011
Response to [Stolen]
Dear Stolen,
You seem to have very strong views about infrastructure organisations.
Your comments regarding NCVO are a little inaccurate.
All members of NCVO have a vote and can use that vote to elect trustees and the chairman. Unlike you we do not hide behind an unrevealed names.
I'm more than happy to discuss this with should you wish to contact me and arrange to meet with me,
Stuart Etherington
Stolen
28 Sep 2011
Response to [Sir Stuart Etherington ]
Dear Stuart
You are correct to draw my attention to a point which I shall now clarify by way of a question re one vote and democracy.
Can NCVO give an independent assessment of the level(s) of democratic participation in the workings of NCVO? Mind you, I need no statement of NCVO's democratic processes in place unless it is by way of context or clarification.
Stolen
Stolen
28 Sep 2011
Response to [Sir Stuart Etherington ]
Shame!
Shame on you for pretending to know nothing of the reasons why people use unrevealed names.
And why do you seek to cast an aspersion on my good name? An apology is in order.
By way of note, I have previously said ... Infrastructure bodies are a logical necessity and not a necessary evil. However, observation over some ten years indicate a overall picture of greed, bad ego, destructive competitive practices, inability to cooperate when necessary among themselves and overpriced products and services.
Sir Stuart Etherington
28 Sep 2011
Response to [Stolen]
I'm afraid I do not understand why people use unrevealed names in the context of open and transparent debate do please contact me should you wish to discuss things further.
Disappointed
Director
small national charity
23 Sep 2011
I echo some of the comments above. As a small national charity we face funding issues already (national but not well known for national funding and not local for local grants) and often miss out on attending conferences of interest because the charitable rates, even where banded, are not realistic for our annual income.
Now we are going to be expected to spend time and money joining an approved umbrella organisation - we already belong to several in our field in the interest of sharing knowledge and information - because the Charity Commission say so! And of course at a minimum there will be more admin and more paperwork to deal with for a small team that's already overstretched.
Yet again the little guys will suffer, many of whom are very dedicated and necessary organisations providing valuable services on shoestring budgets. Frankly I don't know whether to scream or cry - or maybe just throw in the towel because it's just getting too hard to do what we are constituted to do - help people!
Stolen
23 Sep 2011
If best practice expectation or disclosure of membership becomes policy, the Commission as a regulator would be unable to avoid directly regulating and perhaps annually inspecting both the infrastructure body along with the provision of membership benefits.
The Commission would also be required to have in place a stick should need for use arise.
Further as membership will inevitably require membership fees, the level of accountability and transparency required from these infrastructure bodies will be a bone of contention between the membership and trustees/senior management.
And of course the Charity Commission, as a public body, is bound by the compact not to do anything which would or is likley to interfere with the independence of bodies. But from observation we are unlikley to hear anything from Compact Voice on this matter.
Charles
trustee
a small education charity
23 Sep 2011
Why does the Commission think that charity trustees would regard this expenditure as being in the interests of the beneficiaries of the charity?
Paul
National Benevolent Charity
23 Sep 2011
I cannot recall ever asking the Charity Commission for advice. If we do not know the answer in house, we ask our charity solicitor.
John Harvey
24 Sep 2011
Response to [Paul]
Having retired after 40 years in legal practice, I can reveal that Charity Commission published guidance is often the source of advice from lawyers.
CC must save charities vast sums of money in legal fees. Is there any way that they could quantify this?
Sharon Shortland
23 Sep 2011
So all charities, no matter how small, or how much income they have will be made to join umbrella bodies at a cost to them, not the government.
Who will decide what is an acceptable charitable body. Would FRSB be considered an umbrella body? My charity is signed up to the Good Fundraising Code which is free. I bet that would not be considered!
Small charities will again bear the burden.
Andrew Mcculloch
CEO
The Mental Health Foundation
23 Sep 2011
Why oh why can the Commission not concentrate on its core role, after all it has reducing resources, rather than police minor decisions by charities about which umbrella organisations they join which is surely a value for money decision charities can make for themselves.
Stolen
23 Sep 2011
The Charity Commission proposes that if a charity is not a member of one (or more likely several infrastructure bodies), then the charity is tainted. It further proposes to publicise that the Commission considers the charity to be tainted.
Definitely not charity, but just rubbish and more utter rubbish!
NIGEL EDWARD-FEW
CEO
23 Sep 2011
Response to [Stolen]
I am personally, and we are as a charity, members of a couple of umbrella organisations that I/we value.
However, there are already far too many such umbrella bodies each taking their cut from charities' incomes, many of them taking huge membership fees in the process. Furthermore, many I believe have little or no value whatsoever and/or are totally irrelevant or overlapping with each other, and indeed are self-perpetuating, parasitic and dictatorial with an inflated sense of their own importance to our sector.
I want to use our income for the purposes that our donors give it, not to pay fees to endless quangos.
While I would genuinely encourage organisations to think discerningly about the value of joining and ask searching questions of such bodies to which they miught become affiliated, the choice of to which they affiliate should be just that - a choice.
I am horrified at Dame Suzi Leather's statement that “There have been discussions about an umbrella support coalition of sector groups taking on an advice function that feeds off Charity Commission guidance. Then, we could deal with a limited number of umbrellas rather than 180,000 charities.”
and that " ... all charities would be EXPECTED (my capitals)to be a member of an umbrella body."
My concern is that these umbrella bodies themselves could become tools of uncontrolled governance and undue influence. Many of the big charities already have a huge voice in some of these umbrella bodies. Without the Commission taking responsibility and advising them, smaller charities are going to be even more marginalised.
Also,isn't it exactly the role of the Commission to be there for charities, large and small, especially the small?
My plea to the Charity Commission would be to encourage but not to compel or legislate. Of course charities need advice (especially the smaller ones) and regulation, but it should be reasonable and supportive, not heavy-handed and dictatorial.
Stolen
27 Sep 2011
Response to [NIGEL EDWARD-FEW]
Infrastructure bodies are a logical necessity and not a necessary evil.
However, observation over some ten years indicate a overall picture of greed, bad ego, destructive competitive practices among themselves and overpriced products and services.
Related
Whose side is the Charity Commission on?
OSCR moots filing fees and fines for charities
Charities should help fund government lawyers, says QC
Commission website will promote umbrella bodies, says Younger
Charity Commission publishes three-year strategic plan
Charity Commission announces peer review partnership with professional body
Charity Commission says late account filing is akin to drink driving for sector
Charity Commission unveils new management structure
Umbrella bodies critical about taking Charity Commission advice role
Charities should not be strong-armed into joining umbrella bodies
Royal Shakespeare Company collaborates with war veterans charity
23 May 2012
A theatre company run by war veterans charity Stoll has partnered with the Royal Shakespeare Company Open...
Public thinks volunteers more worthy of honours than charity professionals
23 May 2012
New research released by nfpSynergy claims that almost half the British public think that voluntary sector...
Royal Shakespeare Company collaborates with war veterans charity
23 May 2012
A theatre company run by war veterans charity Stoll has partnered with the Royal Shakespeare Company Open...
Risk guide launched for charities going through structural changes
23 May 2012
Charity insurance specialist Ecclesiastical has published a risk guide for charities which are undertaking...
DEC appoints Saleh Saeed as new CEO
23 May 2012
The Disasters Emergency Committee has appointed Saleh Saeed as chief executive to take over when current...
Marie Curie opens national support centre and adds 140 staff
21 May 2012
Marie Curie Cancer Care has officially opened its new national support centre in Pontypool, Wales, creating...
Marketers voice concerns over email conversion rates
21 May 2012
Conversion rates are the biggest concern for nearly half of all email marketers surveyed by the Direct...
Samsung launches Olympics app to fundraise for Kids Company
16 May 2012
Samsung has launched the Hope Relay mobile app to raise money for three charities including Kids Company,...
Featured Jobs
Join the discussion
@CSFinance
Charity Investment Conference 2012
15 Oct 2012
Charity VAT & Tax Conference 2012
15 Oct 2012
Charity Property Conference 2012
15 Oct 2012
Charity IT Conference 2012
19 Nov 2012
Contact us
Civil Society Media Limited
15 Prescott Place
London SW4 6BS
United Kingdom
Tel +44 (0)20 7819 1200
Fax +44 (0)20 7819 1201
info@civilsociety.co.uk
Co. Reg: 2855714
VAT reg no: GB 629 3702 31
Andrea Paltzer
Director
The Earth Education Project
26 Sep 2011
We're a small charity working internationally with a dedicated but small team who are stretched to do everything required by the CC and other government bodies. This is why we signed up for and became members of NCVO, an umbrella body, for free a few months ago. I think they have around 4,000 free member organisations. We get regular email updates on what’s happening which saves us a lot of time looking for relevant information and ensuring we're up to date with the changes. This kind of membership has benefited EEP as not only can we take advantage of the helpdesk when we need advice or are unsure about changes in charity regulations but NCVO helps us get a voice on a national level - they have recently launched on online policy discussion asking members to choose the direction NCVO goes with its policy review so we feel involved in NCVO as well. I also agree that umbrella organisations add to the power of the collective voice especially for smaller charities that otherwise would not have their opinions counted.
[Reply]
Peter Threadkell
Chair of Trustees
All Saints Centre Norwich
30 Sep 2011
Response to [Andrea Paltzer]
We are a small charity (100k turnover). We have a very small staff employed for the task of helping the disadvantaged in our City . What helps us is being a member of Voluntary Norfolk who, for a fee, do our back office - accounting, payroll etc .We joined when our administrator retired. By not replacing him we have saved several thousand pounds annually.
[Reply]