News

Delivering a new message?

Finance | Ian Allsop | 18 Mar 2007

You might have thought that we had heard all there was to be heard on charities and public service delivery, but the last few weeks have seen no shortage of column inches devoted to the topic.

But have we learned anything we didn't know before? First of all Civitas, the think tank that claims people "should be given the opportunity to form their own opinions, not simply fed a point of view", published its controversial report, which fed its point of view that charities whose income is over reliant on statutory funding should not be allowed to be charities.

Aside from all the logistical hassle involved with its proposals, the arguments around whether taking the state's shilling compromises an organisation's ability to campaign, are old hat. There are many examples of charities demonstrating that the two are not mutually exclusive.

The Directory of Social Change has once again waded into the debate with concerns about the disproportionate influence over government policy of the largest 2 per cent of voluntary sector organisations. It recommends the government should review the way it consults the voluntary sector to produce more regular and representative feedback.

It also wants a clear definition of public service delivery, and says more research is needed into how this impacts on perceptions of the voluntary sector. Meanwhile, the Charity Commission's new research highlights the perennial problems around shorttermism of funding and full cost recovery. Again, all of the above are reasonable considerations that need to be addressed but are nothing new.

This leads to the conclusion that while there is a lot of noise being made, the debate is only going over the same old ground. It is worrying that the sector seems to have come so far in its relationship with government and yet at the same time has made little progress on the areas of concern.

These barriers clearly need to be surmounted if the partnership between government and the sector is to be fruitful. But the real worry is that government might come to the conclusion there is no real evidence that the voluntary sector automatically adds value over public or private sector delivery. Where will that leave charities in the scramble for contracts? And what contingency plans are they making?

Pay the piper

The Charity Commission has come a long way in the last few years under the shrewd stewardship of Andrew Hind. A focus on efficiency and more intelligent regulation has meant that despite operating on what has been a flat budget of around £30 million, it has been able to significantly up its game in carrying out both its regulatory and advisory duties. So you could be forgiven for thinking that having spent four years coaxing the Charities Act through Parliament, and heralding the most significant changes in charity law for 400 years, the government would at least provide the resources that the Commission will need to implement its many provisions.

But apparently not. The Commission is struggling to convince the Treasury that it is worthy of extra funding during its discussions as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review. This in turn has led to fears that parts of the Act will never be implemented, particularly the new regulations around public charitable collections. In reality, it is more likely that pressure to implement the Act will mean other Commission services would have to be dropped.

Obviously, the Treasury has to consider many voices, each shouting their need for extra cash. However, it does seem strange that a government that has not been shy to allocate hundreds of millions of pounds to set up capacity-building mechanisms from scratch, cannot find a relatively small sum to enhance the regulator's existing infrastructure. To maintain public trust and confidence in charities, the Commission needs a little more of each to be shown to it by the government.

Tweet

Directory: Charity Commission | Directory of Social Change (DSC)
Who's Who: Andrew Hind