Charity Investment Conference 2012
15 Oct 2012
John Tate asks whether the latest NCVO funding boost from the Big Lottery Fund will be spent wisely.
Charity Finance reports today that the NCVO is to receive a £750,000 grant from the Big Lottery Fund to help it demonstrate how it and other infrastructure bodies benefit the sector. Back in 2004 the government provided funding for a number of hubs, several of which were led by the NCVO. The objective was to provide a framework for collaboration. But it didn’t work well. An independent report by David Carrington commissioned by the ACU (a government body) on the ICT hub commented:
"The Consortium’s ability to implement its strategy and to meet the ACU special condition about “constructive dialogue with relevant groups or organisations to ensure a broad-based approach” was undermined by ......the past ‘history’ of some other organisations involved in ICT development in the voluntary and community sector with one of the Consortium’s members, NCVO. The level of mistrust about and antagonism towards NCVO expressed by some of the people involved with CITRA and by some other organisations with which the Consortium tried to engage was so intense and pervasive that it prevented some of them from ever accepting the reality of the Consortium as a genuinely functioning and equal collaboration (whether or not such mistrust was well founded is immaterial – it was clearly deeply felt)." Full report here.
Move forward to 2006 and the Third Sector Leadership Centre opened with more funding for and backing for NCVO and Acevo. Guess what – in 2009 it was reported in the press that the project had proved a disaster and that further funding was being withdrawn. According to Capacitybuilders: "The business plan did not focus on the Capacitybuilders priority of 'supporting the supporters'. Its market analysis was weak, its revenue proposals 'quite ambitious', its plans for sustainability were open to question and support from partners was not demonstrated."
Will the latest funding allocated to NCVO be better spent? The same people are at the helm of NCVO as in 2004 and 2006. Past evidence is not good.
Andy
16 Jun 2009
I don't think that transparency as such will make a difference to the way that charities are run.
People will of course be able to take a look at the internal workings but that on its own will not change anything. There also has to be a mechanism whereby people can feed back to the charity their opinion on what they see. No amount of transparency will force people to take action, there must be a channel for them to do so. At the moment such channels do not exist and I'll bet the charity bosses are very glad of that.
The RNID is an organisation notorious for ignoring its members and enjoying pretty low esteem amongst Deaf people. This is because the RNID is and always has been VERY POOR at communicating with its members. Considering that deafness is a communication difficulty, you'd expect quite the opposite, that the RNID would be a paragon of Deaf communication standards. In fact that is not the case and in my opinion they have fallen down on the most basic level. This is reflected in the fact that only about 15% of the RNID's 38,000 members is actually Deaf!
Hayward Ollerton
8 Jun 2009
It's not what you do, it's the reason why you do it and the trustees assessment of its impact on the operation! Lists of figures do not tell the whole story.
John Tate
5 Jun 2009
Hi Stuart
I have been most impressed by the speed of your response to my blog. Keen to get feedback on my last posting so hope to hear from you soon on this.
In addition in my post 4. above I asked you if you were up for disclosing your detailed expense claims for say the last 2 years and your list of corporate activities/entertainment you have participated in? I see you have disclosed your total expenses - how about giving a detailed breakdown - and your list of corporate events etc as requested above? Using your language I 'Think we need to know' this.
Stuart Etherington
4 Jun 2009
Dear John
Thanks for this.
Think we need to know the value of the company when you sold it.
Interested to see you had a major involvement in CITRA which lost out to the ICT hub.
For the record my average annual expenses are £111k including all hospitality and overseas travel. They are aproved by my Chair and examined annually by my Treasurer.
Stuart
Stuart Etherington
4 Jun 2009
Sorry John that should read 11k!
Given the need for transparency Im proposing to our Audit Committee that the senior management and trustee expenses should be posted online. This is a matter for the Governance of NCVO to consider but I favour it
Stuart
John Tate
4 Jun 2009
Well Stuart – what a great question!
I am definitely up for answering this but it is a bit tricky to quantify exactly. Also to provide some transparency I need to give you a fair amount of detail...
However here goes:
1. I formed Tate Bramald Ltd in 1989 and sold it in 2002. I put my house on the line to get it started and say in the first 5 years of the business drew a salary for significantly less than I was getting in my previous job as an FD. So let me estimate this cost me £100k at today’s value over the five years – plus the risk of failure. I would allocate 20% of this ‘cost’ to the charity work we did. i.e. £20k
2. In the next 8 years I am afraid I do not have an exact record of what I got paid/took as dividends but guess it was around £100k per annum at today’s value. In the last few years of the company before I sold it I was earning more than this but on average this seems about right. Charities accounted for c. 20% of the company’s revenue – so let’s assume that 20% of this was allocatable to the charity sector. i.e. £160k.
3. I am afraid I cannot disclose what I sold my company for and my exact shareholding at the time of sale (I have an NDA in place on this). However as an indication I’d put a value of £300k on what I got out of the sale being attributable to the charity value of the business. So adding this all up over 13 years – years one-five minus £20k, years six to 13 plus £160k and on sale = £300k. Total £440k. An average of £34k per annum.
4. I then joined the board of Opus Systems who bought my company as a non-exec director. My role was wider than just Tate Bramald and I’d allocate c. £4,000 of what I got paid over the c. 2 years I was in the role to the money related to the charity sector.
5. I also did a small amount of consultancy work direct with Charity between c. 2002 and 2006. I estimate I billed c. £20,000 for this work over the period.
6. Between 2002-2006 I spent a significant amount of time on voluntary Charity Work including a lot of time on CFDG (at one stage I was working 3 days per week for them supporting an IT project), Citra (!), and was a trustee of a couple of charities. I estimate that this took on average 2-3 days a week of my time. All this work was unpaid. with the exception of I think one CFDG trip to Manchester (where the tickets were bought for me by CFDG) and one trip with Citra up North (where a fellow director purchased and reclaimed the cost of the trip direct from CITRA) I did not submit any expenses for this work. If I take my lower estimate of 2 days a week of voluntary work this equates to c. 500 days of my time.
7. I was a non executive director of Plaza Publishing for c. 2 years and earned some money from this. I am not sure if this counts as earning money from charities so I exclude these figures from my sums for the moment. 8. Since 2006 I have done almost no chargeable work for charities and in the last 18 months, none at all. I am earning money solely in the commercial sector. I have done a small amount of paid lecturing to charity students and get less than £1,000 per annum for this. I have reduced the amount of time I have spent on voluntary work in the last 6 months but estimate since 2006 I have spent 1 day per week on voluntary work. i.e. c. 120 days
So the grand total:
Tate Bramald 13 years £440k
2002 – present £20,000 plus say £3,000 for lecturing = £23,000
20 years total £463k. An average of £23,150 per annum.
Since 2002 I have ‘given back’ c. 620 days via voluntary work. As a consultant I could have earned some decent money if I had not given this time to charities. Probably could have got £1,000 per day typical ratio – 2 days selling and 3 days work. So 3/5 620 x £1,000 = £372k forgone income.
So that is the story. If you would like to get some external validation of these figures I’d be happy to give up a day of my time to work with an independent third party to provide some validation of these figures. Please be aware that some of the above numbers are a bit rough and ready but my guess is that the final figures if prepared more thoroughly will be about right. I appreciate that there are a lot of assumptions in the figures, but hope you feel I have taken a reasonable view of the above. Happy to answer any specific question if I can.
Now your turn. In the public interest will you disclose your detailed expense claims for say the last 2 years and your list of corporate activities/entertainment you have participated in?
John Tate
4 Jun 2009
Stuart
Thank you for your prompt response. My comments are as follows:
1. I look forward to feedback on whether you will publish expenses as per your posting.
2. Regarding my disclosure of my personal financial information I’d be keen to get your thoughts on the following in terms of my income generated from work in the sector.
• Do you feel charities should be treated fundamentally differently from commercial organisations by suppliers?
• Are you happy with the principle that people develop viable/profitable business streams out of servicing the needs of charities?
• How do you feel about the NCVO's - and other charities' - relationship with corporate sponsors and the money they make out of charities?
• Finally – I have shared my estimated income information with you. What do you think of the numbers? Do you think I have taken an unfair amount out of the sector? Or does what I have done on the basis of the figures provided seem ok?
3. Regarding disclosing information on the sale price of my company I am liable to break my NDA (non disclosure agreement) with the buyer if I do this. However I have taken initial legal advice and would be happy to share the information with a third party under an NDA and publish the third party opinion on whether the £300k I have allocated to the ‘profit’ on the element of my charity business value in the sale is fair. If you would like to progress this I suggest you give me the name of a couple of well-known accountants who would be happy to do this and we can agree one to use. I’d hope a phone call and some exchange of emails would suffice to get them to express an opinion (if we can find an accountant who will do a ‘quick and simple’ job on this).
Lucy Smith
3 Jun 2009
We run a very small charity in Northants(thomassfund.org.uk) delivering music therapy to children withh life limiting conditions and I am appalled at how much money is wasted in national charities. We are totally volunteer led and pay only for the therapists sessions and her travelling costs.
Admin is kept to its lowest limit. Of course if we expand we will need to employ people to help but will certainly not be sending them to training sessions on 1st class travel like so many I hear do.
John Tate
3 Jun 2009
Thanks for your comment. Sounds like your organisation does some great work. I did have a view expressed to me by a very inspiring chief exec of a chariy that once an organisation gets beyond a certain size (50-60 employees?) it is almost always not that well run. I am not sure if I agree with this view - but have certainly seen £m's of pounds wasted by some national charities.
15 Oct 2012
15 Oct 2012
15 Oct 2012
19 Nov 2012

Attending our one day courses is a highly effective way of ensuring new and existing trustees fully understand their role, responsibilities and liabilities.
Tim
17 Jun 2009
As a humble charity beneficiary and member of the public, I would like to endorse Lucy and Andy's points. At the moment, charities seem to think that it's up to them what they are accountable for and how they should be accountable. That's just silly because it defeats the point.
[Reply]