Identity crisis?
What's in a name? Geraldine Peacock thought the word 'charity' should be got rid of...
...‘not for profit’ hasn’t really caught on and it would seem that the term ‘third sector’ is something the sector is merely living with in the absence of anything else for now, despite the best efforts of NCVO with ‘civil society’.
How ‘charitable’ does an organisation need to be for it to be regarded as a ‘charity’ and by whom and for whose benefit? What matters is what something is, not what it is called, and it is the sector’s identity along with its framework that seems to be in a state of flux. Amnesty International, one of the largest international campaigning organisations, chose not to be a charity but remains a limited company. Demonstrating the tangible impact of influencing business leaders isn’t easy, but charities must not stop trying because of some out of date perception of what they are supposed to be about.
Early last month in The Times Jill Kirby accused charities of ‘shameless political campaigning’ and criticised them for holding the government to account. Coming from the Centre for Policy Studies, a highly respected think tank, one can only hope that this is not a reflection of public (and future donor) opinion generally.
As Colette Marshall of Save the Children put it in her letter to the newspaper two days later, ‘If a charity is limited to helping the needy and keeping its mouth shut, far fewer children will be helped’. Campaigning is hardly an area that goes unregulated by the Charity Commission, as Andrew Hind’s letter in the same section made clear.
The Treasury Select Committee’s recommendation that charities that lost out to failed Icelandic banks should be compensated on a one-off basis is testament to the campaigning effectiveness of the umbrella groups involved (see page 5 of this issue). But the evidence that there was little ‘financial guidance available’ appeared to have been a deciding factor. While the guidance in CC14 Investment of Charitable Funds leaves no room for confusion about responsibility, it is important to remember that this bail-out - if it goes ahead - is unlikely to be repeated.
What is clear is that somebody needs to come up with a more prescriptive and detailed framework without creating compliance chaos. Whether this is an update of the Trustee Act 2000, or specific guidance from the Financial Services Authority or the Charity Commission is not the point – broad principles are just not enough.
The balance between light touch regulation that works for the smallest community groups as well as the very large charities (however cleverly thresholds are used) remains the Charity Commission’s challenge. Too little, it is deemed ineffective, too much, the administrative burden overwhelms.
With the sector facing unprecedented change and opportunity, this is no time for an identity crisis.
Author: Clarissa Dann
Clarissa Dann was the editor of Caritas as well as an HR and management online service,he People Bulletin until July 2011.
She is now the editor of the specialist trade finance magazine, Trade and Forfaiting Review which can be viewed at www.tfreview.com but does write on charity finance and investment from time to time.
Clarissa has a background in legal and professional publishing, as well as business journalism and holds an MBA from
There are no comments on this article. Be the first to comment.