Specialist Work Programme providers should get more funding for new services, say MPs
21 May 2013
The Department for Work and Pensions should use some of the money it has saved on outcome payments in...
Sorry for interrupting, but there is something we need to tell you...
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.
If you wish to restrict or block web browser cookies which are set on your device then you can do this through your browser settings, the Help function within your browser will tell you how.
Charities that took part in the ICAEW’s pilot peer review programme have requested that the Charity Commission change its ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to guidance and instead tailor its guidance to different sizes and types of charities.
Nick Brooks (pictured), chair of the Charity and Voluntary Sector Group at the ICAEW, who also led the review panel, said that “many charities commented on the need for proportionality of guidance in relation to the size of charity”.
He said: “The volume of information is large and the smaller charities wanted to focus on key areas relative to their size as opposed to the complete panoply of requirements.”
The comments were drawn from 25 charities with income of less than £5m, who volunteered to have their financial controls scrutinised by accountants who are members of ICAEW (the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales). The accountants volunteered their time too.
As well as identifying trends and themes, reviewers rated the charities’ performance in five areas of governance: strategy and planning; risk awareness and management; internal financial controls; fraud and financial abuse management, and information and communications.
The aggregated results indicated that 42 per cent of participants were strong in these areas; 46 per cent had some gaps and 12 per cent had significant gaps.
They were best at strategy and planning and information and communications, but fell short at managing fraud and financial abuse. In this area just 28 per cent had strong controls, and a large majority had no or very limited anti-money-laundering policies. Few had Bribery Act policies and few had policies around fraud and the reporting of fraud.
Risk awareness and management also scored low – just 32 per cent had strong controls.
Brooks added that funding was a real concern highlighted by charities in all income bands. Yet, “there was very little comment from the charities on merger, collaborations or shared services, although the reviewers felt that this should be the way forward for many charities with funding issues”.
He also pinpointed the difficulties that charities can have attracting new trustees, and particularly those with the skills to understand financial reports.
“On a number of occasions there were comments about the lack or poor communication between the trustees and the senior management team and the reviewers generally believed that there was a tendency for charities to underfund the finance function of their charities both in terms of resources and people both at the board and the senior management level.”
The Charity Commission said it was currently compiling a response to the ICAEW report, “which will cover our approach to ensuring small charities continue to have access to our online resources”. It hopes to publish this in the autumn.
The regulator also said it is already working with sector umbrella bodies, such as Charity Finance Group and the Small Charities Coalition, to develop more user-friendly guidance on various topics.
However, it seems to have retreated from a commitment made at the launch of the ICAEW project a year ago, to lead the expansion of the work into a broader peer review scheme once the pilot was complete.
In April this year the regulator launched another, similar project with the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators to help new charities improve their governance, and it confirmed to civilsociety.co.uk that it is also in discussions with other bodies about developing further such projects.
A spokeswoman said: “In the long term, we hope that the sector itself will take more of a lead in devising and implementing review initiatives. We will always take an interest in the findings of such reviews, which we hope will inform our regulatory approach, but this does not necessarily imply that we need to be closely involved in the development of all review projects.”
21 May 2013
The Department for Work and Pensions should use some of the money it has saved on outcome payments in...
21 May 2013
The Charity Commission has reissued an alert for charities about the risks of entering tenancy agreements...
21 May 2013
The Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Justice plan to develop a tool which will help charities and social...
22 May 2013
The trustees of the Jimmy Savile Charitable Trust are not donating any funds to the National Association...
22 May 2013
Charities’ membership or non-membership of the Fundraising Standards Board could be included on the...
22 May 2013
Ellie Gray has resigned as director of fundraising at Mencap after four years in the post.
22 May 2013
Google has shortlisted ten UK charities which stand the chance of winning £500,000 as part of its Global...
20 May 2013
Your CivilSociety rounds-up the most read stories from the previous week.
17 May 2013
The voluntary sector should create a “data manifesto” that identifies who holds data about the sector...

Attending our one day courses is a highly effective way of ensuring new and existing trustees fully understand their role, responsibilities and liabilities.
29 Oct 2013
29 Oct 2013
29 Oct 2013
27 Nov 2013
Graham Willmington
Director Operations & Services
Community Matters
6 Sep 2012
warm welcome for this report and the finding that guidance should be tailored to different sizes and types of charities. Community Matters has alwsy held to the belief that our members - mainly multi-purpose community organisations providing support and services in local neighbourhoods, need advice support and toolkits in a digestible form using langauge relevant to their needs. **content removed for breach of community standards - advertising**
[Reply]
Graham Willmington
Director of Operations and Services
Community Matters
11 Sep 2012
Response to [Graham Willmington]
a complaint: my comment was no more "advertising" than the article on which I was attempting to comment. your edit has removed my point and rendered the comment meaningless. I was trying to state that the simple fact that we already do what the report is calling for.
it would have been better if you had returned the message to me with your comments to enable me to consider a redraft.
Your "community standards" are not visible on the site so it is diffcult to know they exist and what they say.
[Reply]
Niki May Young
Website editor
12 Sep 2012
Response to [Graham Willmington]
Hi Graham,
Thank you for your comments. While I appreciate your frustration at having the link to your services removed, it clearly states in our community standards, which are visible in this very comments box where it says "* Please read our community standards" below the verification box, that the board is not to be used for the purpose of advertising and that such content would be removed. Your comment is promotional and posted to encourage people to use your services which are available only by paying and therefore the link was removed. Your comment received the same treatment as any other that breaches our community standards. The above article is of genuine news interest and is relating to the Charity Commission guidance which is free for all.
[Reply]