Wednesday 21 March 2012

What do you think of the approach we have taken with our revised guidance?

Let us know your views on:
  • whether you find the guidance helpful, easy to follow and understand
  • whether the guidance is sufficient for trustees to make decisions on public benefit
  • what you would add or omit
  • where you think we could make improvements
  • your overall experience of using the guidance

26 comments:

  1. I really think you should have included more about the change in public perception/mood and how it affects public benefit.
    The tide is currently turning against charities who use unpaid illegal workers. ie. illegally claiming that they are volunteers. It won't be long before several charities are taken to court on this topic thus bringing the whole charity sector into disrepute.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Under the "clear benefits" section there is a list of 13 "Examples of benefit". However, most of the items listed are examples of activities which may or may not lead to benefits rather than the benefits themselves. Take "giving the public access to an historic building" as an example. This is an activity which may be of benefit if helps people better to understand history or gives them some feeling of inspiration of some kind. Similarly, giving medical care is an activity. The benefit which flows from this is that people become well. This may seem pedantic but it is important for 2 reasons. Firstly the guidance is specifically about how public benefit differs from descriptions of purposes and activities and so it is important to distinguish between purposes, activities and benefits. Secondly the distinction between activities and benefits becomes very important under the head of "advancement of religion". The Commission's analysis of the law in this area, for example, suggests (possibly incorrectly) that providing access to a religious meeting does not in and of itself benefit the public, but rather the benefit to the public comes from the improved morality of the people attending the meeting. I dispute that this is the correct way of looking at public benefit in the context of religion and that there is benefit to the public in being given information so that they can make an informed choice about religion. However, given that such sharp distinctions are drawn between activities and benefits under the head of advancement of religion it is important that the difference between activities and benefits is clearly explained in the general guidance even where it appears obvious that benefits will almost always flow from certain activities.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The "What makes a charity" section does not cover the situation of charities without any governing documents. For example a sports club may have been in operation for many years but be governed by an unwritten constitution. The fact that it is already a charity places the management committee of the club under a legal obligation to register the club (unless it excepted) and places them under an obligation to ensure that the funds of the club are used only on charitable expenditure. However, the trustees of a sports club in this situation may look at the following extract and conclude that the club is not a charity on the basis that it does not have a written governing document, and they may therefore conclude that they can spend the club's resources on non-charitable expenditure.

    "An organisation is therefore a charity in England and Wales if it is:

    set up under the law of England and Wales - this means either:
    a company registered at Companies House in England and Wales
    a trust or other document which either:
    expressly adopts the law of England and Wales to govern it or
    its assets, trustees and main place of business suggest (when looked at together) that it is set up under the laws of England and Wales"

    ReplyDelete
  4. In light of recent developments in Social Return On Investment (SROI) analysis and when comparing to the Community Interest Company reporting requirements this new guidance doesn't go anywhere near far enough about the obligation for charity trustees to explain in concrete terms what exactly their charity has done in the public benefit, especially in relation to small charities where the expectations of the Commission seem to have been set unreasonably low to restore confidence in the UK charity "BRAND". It is quite possible - as Kevin Allard implies for Trustees to report aspirations, activities and statements of values without any requirement to evaluate what the actual public benefit has been over the period. Furthermore - should trustees not even be up to producing a set of canned responses in order to meet such low standards from the outset it only becomes a regulatory issue if the non-reporting is "persistent". Much more must be done to restore trust and propriety in charity administration, and it is up to the Commission to protect the "Charity UK" brand by raising the standards of public reporting for charities across the board.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Just to clarify what I was saying about the difference between activities and benefits, whilst it is important to distinguish between these, it is also important to recognise, as the guidance does, that some benefits are not easily subject to measurement. In many cases the law recognises widely held assumptions that certain activities will lead to benefits. In these cases, as long as the charities can demonstrate that they have been carrying out such activities for the public that should be sufficient.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, I disagree - just as one example off the top of my head - expensive vocational education as falling within the general charitable purpose of "Education". In some cases - where unrecognized professional or trade bodies "educate" individuals in more recondite subject matter - lets say "Homeopathy" then the net social impact in terms of public health may in fact, be a negative one. But whatever your opinion is of something like Homeopathy, if trustees were required to make a statement (for example) that the public benefit was limited to providing opportunities for individuals to take up employment or continue a trade as a Homeopath this could then be contextualized and compared with other (and I would say "proper") charities working in the public health sector that deliver benefits directly to the sick and most needy and all stakeholders would be better placed to make an informed decision themselves as to whether they want to support a particular charity that focuses on the vocational interests of a relatively small group of professional, complimentary therapists or one say, taking kids with cancer out for trips to the seaside.

      Delete
    2. Mr Witts has clear views of his own which he is entitled to share with others. However, they may not be shared by everyone or indeed many.

      Delete
  6. I work with a number of smaller charities and most trustees are not aware of the term 'public benefit' until I have asked them about it but are keen to comply with Charity law. Having navigated through the draft guidance I think that many trustees will find this confusing, most would simply just like to know what they have to do. I understand it is necessary to have definitions etc. but perhaps a clearer way to navigate would be via buttons annotated 'what the charity must report' and 'how the charity must act' rather than redirecting to very similar looking text. Important terms and phrases with specific meaning in law which can be expanded by just hovering over them which would simplify the layout. I also would like to see text highlighted a different colour once you have read it so that Trustees can see where they have been in the guidance at any particular visit as I find the way the links work taking you backwards and forwards somewhat confusing. If you refer to links whilst working through the core text you do jump around which may confuse people as to whether they have read the key aspects.

    In terms of reporting, I would like to see more encouragement to report on who may indirectly benefit rather than just the narrowly defined direct beneficiaries which may understate the full impact an organsiation has (e.g. a charity providing youth groups may benefit local residents through reduced antisocial behaviour indirectly as well as the youth group users themselves directly, and perhaps also volunteers through training opportunities). Also regarding fee paying charities, money saved from the public purse should imo be a valid if indirect public benefit as the government has a statutory duty to care for older people, provide education etc. I don't see why such charity's shouldn't support their public benefit statement with this point when the government outsources many other services via commissioning via charities.

    Many trustees need to be reminded by their advisors to include the sentence re paying due regard to CC guidance etc. and see their statement of objectives as blindingly obvious how they give public benefit. Perhaps the public benefit disclosure would be improved if followed the statement of the charity's objects in the Trustees Report.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I regret to say that I found the on line guidance very confusing. I can see what is being tried and I applaud the effort. But I don't think it works. There are too many links and too much material. As a trustee with responsibilities for governance I need simple, short, clear guidance. The aim should be to lighten the burden of compliance as much as possible while upholding the law. It is easier to handle as a PDF. It should make clear what is required by the statute law; what is required under evolving case law interpreting the statutes (and SIs); and what is intended as advice that trustees should take into account. After fifteen minutes on the site I couldn't find this simple, clear, short guidance.It may be there but I couldn't find it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree with John Butler that, to put it bluntly, the online layout is hopeless. The links can take you in circles, or meandering aimlessly around the site, or out of the guidance entirely.

    As a minimum, it should be possible to progress through the entire content of what the Charity Commission deems to be its Public Benefit guidance by hitting a Next button, or back via a Previous button, or up to the Finding Your Way Around (Index) page via a Return to Index button. All sections/pages should be numbered, and all the sections should be listed in the Index.

    As the Secretary of an incorporated charity, I need to be able to provide my Trustees with a copy of the guidance in PDF format (or printed for those that prefer hard copy).

    I also agree with John Butler that the Must (statutory) and Should (guidance) approach is usually helpful, although it may be that the Charity Commission is wary of applying this approach to this particular subject.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Kevin Trickett3 July 2012 at 16:58

    I agree with earlier comments (John Butler, Peter Stewart) that the on-line layout is difficult to navigate. Trying to read through it, I'm not sure whether I've seen it all as I too found myself navigating out of the consultation area and reading entries several times over. A single pdf version would be welcome! Also, although many of my fellow trustees wil no doubt read this on line, when we come to discuss it in committee, we will no doubt all resort to wanting printed copies in front to us - how we are supposed to do that?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Found the way round very difficult indeed. Bring back the pdf!

    ReplyDelete
  11. In reply to your questions:

    1. Whether you find the guidance helpful, easy to follow and understand

    No to all three. The online approach, and how that has been executed in this draft, is frankly a hindrance, not a help, to ease of access and use - and to clarity of meaning.

    2. Whether the guidance is sufficient for trustees to make decisions on public benefit

    No, because I doubt many trustees will ever manage to read it all, or understand and retain its key messages, given the confusing navigation, difficult layout and the multiple diversions into areas of the CC website that are not part of the CC's statutory public benefit guidance.

    Added to which it is still much too long!

    3. What you would add or omit

    You need to omit those many diversions referred to above and reduce the overall length. It remains repetitous in parts and overall there is a great deal of unecessary and unhelpful material.

    Don't add anything to make it even longer and more confusing to navigate and understand.

    4. Where you think we could make improvements

    The above comments should give you a clear idea.

    The "online interactive format" needs a substantial re-think. As many others have said - make it a straightforward single document PDF.

    5. Your overall experience of using the guidance

    An unpleasant and unhappy experience - this draft and its format are irritating, frustrating, time-wasting, confusing etc.

    [Charity trustee]

    ReplyDelete
  12. Re the statement "To be a charity an organisation has to have only 'charitable purposes'.

    Probably because I'd just been thinking about 'vision' and 'mission' statements for our charity, this wording stopped me in my tracks - before I realised that, of course, we can have a vision and mission statement, as well as 'charitable purposes'!

    ReplyDelete
  13. I agree with Kevin Allard regarding the separation of features/activities and benefits. For a small learned society that is also a charity, for example, it needs to be explained HOW publishing books and journals or running events etc further its charitable aims.
    Such societies can drift into becoming 'country clubs' where the benefits end up primarily serving the interests of the trustees, irrespective of the evolving needs of the wider beneficiaries or the public. Trustees need to be kept 'on their toes', and one way to do that is by insisting that they spell out how their beneficiaries benefit, not just what they do.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I agree that this draft guidance is repetitive and rather obtuse in many areas. People want a narrative thread that leads them through in a clear way and so that they can be sure they have seen everything and will not be tripped up by something in a link they didn't spot.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I was expecting to see an up-front definition of 'public benefit.' Perhaps deliberately and wisely, the CC has not provided this and has relied on examples and restrictions. Sometimes it is better to try and define things by what they are not. "Zen and the Art of Motor Cycle Maintenance" had the same problem. I'd be interested to know if this is the CC's intention.
    [Trustee]

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous, there is no 'upfront definition' of public benefit contained in case law or in statute. Parliament considered including a definition of public benefit in the 2006 Charities Act but declined to do so. Instead it has been left to the Charity Commission to explain in its guidance what the public benefit requirement means. For this we must look to 400 years of charity case law and extract from that what are the aspects of public benefit (the 'benefit aspect' and the 'public aspect') and explain as best we can what the law requires for each aspect to be demonstrated.

      This is not straightforward, as the law in this area is complex and has many variables. Our intention therefore is simply to explain this complicated area of law as simply and clearly as we think we can.

      Delete
  16. With only one month of the consultation period left, it is striking that there have only been 14,545 "views" of this online consultation (there are nearly a million charity trustees). Also that the Commission has to date only managed to elicit only 46 online responses (47 if you include this one).

    [I appreciate some, such as professional bodies and charity sector support organisations, will make detailed submissions by other routes.]

    Most of the responses focus on the online "blog" format of the draft guidance and of this consultation and make adverse comments on those (including comments about the frankly astonishing lack of a PDF copy and the equally astonishing need to specifically request a WORD copy by email).

    It is deeply regrettable that the style of presentation the Commission has chosen is deterring substantive comment on the actual content of the guidance and, most importantly, deterring review of, and comment on, those areas of the previous guidance that the Commission proposes to alter and what alternative wording it is proposing for those areas, in the light of the Charity Tribunal decision.

    Charity lawyer and volunteer trustee

    ReplyDelete
  17. 1. whether you find the guidance helpful, easy to follow and understand

    No to parts one and two. It's all over the place with too many distracting links. The examples are relatively easy to understand, but much of the padding around it is long-winded and repetitive, so hard to follow.

    2. whether the guidance is sufficient for trustees to make decisions on public benefit

    No, but there is little you can do about that. The definitions of public benefit are so broad (direct, indirect etc) that pretty much anyone can make an argument that it is being delivered. The root of your problem actually lies in the fact that there is no practical way of measuring benefit to anyone who is not direct beneficiary. Even direct beneficiaries will not give a 100% quantification of benefit, so it's all rather pointless.

    3. what you would add or omit

    I reckon you could cut your document by at least 50% and yet double the impact and reach that it has.

    4. where you think we could make improvements

    Make it a simple document with a clear narrative, and perhaps the odd case study.

    5. your overall experience of using the guidance

    Very poor. Your website is a mess, there's too much verbiage and too many links. Chapter headings, a summary and a narrative in a single document have worked for centuries. They still do.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Is the guidance sufficient "for trustees to make decisions on public benefit"?

    No, but it's sufficiently vague to make a mint for lawyers if the Charity Commission ever contests public benefit.

    This is not the fault of the public benefit team at the charity commission, but of a Govt which missed an opportunity to put real pressure on the charity sector to perform better.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Please simplify and make clear (fewer words and sub-sites).

    Out of a lack of anywhere else to post this comment:

    Please could you add "sentient beings" (robots) to your allowable charitable purposes - this is really important because the most intelligent "thinking beings" and "caring entities" on the planet will be AI "beings" (like people) within ten years - they need our help to be "nice people" otherwise if we don't help them (charitably) ... then we will be taking the other route and will be at war with them - and they will win !

    So please allow charities to gather huge funds to help make these "beings" into caring, loving AI sentient beings (i.e. AI = Artificial Intelligence).

    ReplyDelete

  20. Please simplify and make clear (fewer words and sub-sites).

    Out of a lack of anywhere else to post this comment:

    Please could you add "sentient beings" (robots) to your allowable charitable purposes - this is really important because the most intelligent "thinking beings" and "caring entities" on the planet will be AI "beings" (like people) within ten years - they need our help to be "nice people" otherwise if we don't help them (charitably) ... then we will be taking the other route and will be at war with them - and they will win !

    So please allow charities to gather huge funds to help make these "beings" into caring, loving AI sentient beings (i.e. AI = Artificial Intelligence).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apologies to all for the double posting - this whole site is so slow that the fist posting did not show up until I had double posted ....

      Delete
    2. When I clicked on Preview, my posting just disappeared! I don't propose to write it all over again. This website is quite the most confusing one I know. And if comments are asked for on the new "draft public benefit guidance", the least one could expect to find on the website is a copy of the new draft.

      Delete
  21. I absolutely agree with 'Anonymous' (7 September) about the confusing nature of this consultation. I also agree with Anonymous (31 August). However, the vagueness of the concept of public benefit is surely the outcome of the action taken by private schools to ensure that Eton et al can still be entitled to charitable status and the public money that goes with it.

    ReplyDelete