No, we ain’t in crisis!

The Chair of the Charity Commission said in a speech this week that the sector is in ‘crisis’. 

This is very disappointing. I would expect the charity regulator to rise above the noise of the tabloids, and make the public case for charities’ work. Their speeches should extol the importance of charities and the vital contribution we make. They should be telling people what they are doing to help us with the work we do.

Firm regulation is a part of the Charity Commission’s and its chair’s job. But just as important is their job to speak out for and support the organisations they regulate. At the very least, they should be leading the public debate, not following the lead set by lurid coverage in the press.

I certainly don’t think it is the Chair of the Charity Commission’s job to court national controversy for the sector he is mandated to support.

Yes, charities should be reviewing our fundraising practices. We are doing so right now, as is the Fundraising Standards Board. Yes, we should highlight the importance of charities’ work being done professionally. But to call the recent news reports “a crisis for the charity sector which is testing the strength and capacity of self-regulation”? That is not true. And it merely makes another lurid headline.

In another part of the speech, the Chair Mr Shawcross talked about the possibility of the Charity Commission charging charities to be regulated. I am not certain that a compulsory charge is really in the best interests of a free and fair society, especially when there are questions about the quality of that regulator’s contribution to the national debate. Even beyond this, I remain sceptical. In a recent ACEVO survey, 75% of our membership were against charging for regulation.

His speech also talked about the Commission’s continued provision of support and advice to charities, arguing that this function is continuing to be provided despite budget cuts and the Commission focusing more and more of its resources purely on ‘hard’ enforcement. Still, this isn’t enough to win the argument on paying to be regulated, if charities do not get many services in return.

The Charity Commission does have a huge task. Staff are obviously overburdened. The Chair is right to be concerned about the Commission's total reliance on government funding. But then why make work for yourself? The Commission appear determined to do a wasteful and unnecessary review of CC9, the guidance on charity campaigning, simply for declarative purposes it seems. By far the most likely outcome of such a review would be to curtail our duties to campaign on behalf of our beneficiaries. They claim this is about regulating social media, but given the difficulty of ‘regulating’ that it seems to me better to approach it through separate, short guidance that outlines good practice used by leading charities.

Charities depend on the public’s trust. I'm afraid I don't trust the current leadership not to want to undermine campaigning. Specially if they continue to be led by political and media fashions. I hope they will prove me wrong. But interventions like the those of the Chair in this now-infamous speech will certainly not help.

Adam Boulton looks at the charity sky, and a visit to Manchester

Adam Boulton, the ace political commentator for Sky TV, came to speak at one of our ACEVO leadership lunches. These are one of the secret treasures of ACEVO: a good lunch, top class speakers and splendid food and wine to aid mental digestion. And Adam did not disappoint. 

We were lunching in the aftermath of ‘Brooksgate' - where our Minister has quickly learnt how strongly our sector defends its independence. Adam had some wise words about our positioning as charities. He said that what the media want from charities is an independent voice and to hear our expertise. They are keen for facts to back up or to make a story. For the media it is our independence that matters, and so being seen to be aligned with a party, or what may appear as 'too party political,’ will be a problem. 

Of course the boundaries here are blurred. If you campaign on poverty is that seen as aligning yourself too much with the left? And if we point to the injustice created by the bedroom tax is that seen as party political? It can be difficult for charity leaders who want to put across hard and often blunt messages. Increasingly, some seem to assume that being ‘political’ means you’re necessarily taking partisan sides - something which is never the case. Charities speak for our beneficiaries and our missions - never for political parties.

Campaigning is part and parcel of our ‘knitting'. Though I have to say this is a very odd analogy, and for that we do not have Brooks to blame - but rather one of the Charity Commissioners who clearly, unlike Brooks, does not like campaigning and gave a very unwise interview in Third Sector making this silly analogy. My mother, who is a great knitter (her knitted swimming trunks for me when I was a boy were a marvel), would thoroughly object to the analogy as she is a great believer in charity campaigning.  

I had to miss the farewell party for Hurd in Waterloo as I was speaking on the ‘Prometheus’ course for third sector leaders at the Manchester Business School. It was a great session. I talked about the complexities of leadership in challenging times, and the dilemmas we face when we want to grow our delivery role but maintain our independence  and our voice. There is much more public scrutiny of charities and we need to do better in talking about our impact. And we need to balance the need to be professional and passionate about our cause. 

I encouraged the good folk of the sector to take heart; we represent a truly great sector that historically has bound together our democracy and provided social cohesion as well as delivering services that citizens and communities need. The voice of civil society remains crucial to strong public debate and to better law making and policy development. We should not be afraid of the need to campaign hard and to be heard, but there is a skill in doing this, in knowing the balance between speaking out and talking behind closed doors. Courage, mon brave, as someone once said. 

Charities speak for their beneficiaries, never for political parties.

A recent story in the Times, and picked up by the Daily Mail, highlights the attempts by the Charity Commission to make us declare spend on political campaigning.

It has been roundly criticised across the sector and I trust the Commission will now drop these proposals. We would be very happy to discuss with the Commission how we , as a sector,  can make our accounting more transparent and work with them on the trend towards impact reporting which demonstrates to the public the impact of their donations.

It's impact that matters , not the sterile reporting of where money is spent. This is where we can tell the story of what we do with the money we receive , whether from government contracts or from the public or corporate donors. We should have a common position with the regulator on how we tell that story – but unfortunately we have got divisive proposals that add more red tape at best and at worst make us suspicious that the real purpose of the Commission is ideological not regulatory.

When prominent members of the Commission are publicly quoted criticising our essential role in campaigning then it is hardly surprising we suspect the intentions of these proposals. Let’s hope that the many submissions that have been made to them will bear fruit and a rethink in how we do this.

Meanwhile let me reproduce the letter I wrote to the Times yesterday which makes our case concisely.

Sir, Stephen Pollard (Aug 26) suggests that charities’ campaigning is partisan, and that they are not transparent. For centuries charities have spoken out against injustice and suffering. In law, charities have a duty to work to alleviate the problems they tackle, and to try to prevent them arising at all. Charity law reflects this by allowing them to speak out on “political” issues in line with their mission.

The Charity Commission recently proposed requiring charities to declare how much they spend on “political campaigning”. A drive toward greater transparency is good for charities and good for society — and most if not all are working to be highly transparent.

However, the attempt to separate “political” campaigning from their other work is at best illogical. At worst, it panders to an infantilised debate that gives the false impression that campaigning is an optional extra to a charity’s work with beneficiaries.

Charity campaigning may be political but this does not make it partisan. Those in power are entitled to object to what is said, but not to charities’ right to say it. Charities speak for their beneficiaries, never for political parties.

The commission’s proposals must be seen in the context of the government’s Lobbying Act and of other attacks on civil society’s right to speak truth to power. It is no surprise that charity leaders speak out in defence of their beneficiaries. We should be glad of it. Society and our democracy would certainly be poorer if charities were muzzled.

Sir Stephen Bubb

Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations

Islamic Charities. Support them, don't wreck them.

It’s the start of the Holy month of Ramadan and this is the key time for Muslim charities to fundraise. Yesterday I met the CEOs of Islamic Relief and Muslim Aid, the 2 biggest Islamic charities in the UK, together with the head of the Muslim Charities Forum. The issues they raised disturbed me.

This is the time when Muslims obey the injunctions of the Koran to give.

"O you who believe, you shall give to charity from the good things you earnt and from what we have produced for you from the earth."

Indeed there is a more formal injunction on a Muslim to pay what is termed as "obligatory charity" in the Koran, know as the zakat. Although the exact amount is not defined in the Koran, the Muslim practice is to give 2.5% of income. 

It’s exactly like the idea of the Government's giving pledge but set at a higher level; not 1% but 2.5%. An example to us all.

The Islamic charitable tradition is a noble one, and around the Islamic world one sees ancient institutions of learning and healing, refuges for the poor and disposed.

One of the greatest of the mosques of Istanbul is the Suleymaniye, the foundation of Suleyman the Magnificent. This has a hospital, primary school, madrasa, a medical college and public kitchens serving food for the poor, which  surround the Mosque.

Similarly one of my favourite smaller mosques in Istanbul, the Rustem Pasha (the interior is covered with fabulous Iznik tiles), has a small stone pillar; on which believers are commanded to leave gifts of food and clothes for the poor, which must be left anonymously.

Of course the current media debate hardly dwells on this tradition. We must not forget the Muslim community in the UK now numbers 3 million.

They are a settled and valuable part of community life in many parts of our country.

They came to talk about their real fears on the recent actions by the Charity Commission, happening against the background of a worsening of community cohesion for Muslims who feel under threat from the rhetoric of some  politicians and parts of the media.

Of course the Commission must be able to examine and deal with complaints; it’s their role to do so. And in the turbulent world we live in, we are aware of terrorist threats from many parts of the globe. But if that raises perceptions of a bias then that is in itself a problem. A perception is neither true or false - it's a perception, but damage can be done to charitable giving through bad perceptions.

So let's recall that noble Islamic  tradition of charitable giving and support it . The Koran makes clear the duty of all believers to support the poor, particularly during Ramadan.

How worrying therefore that the Charity Commission announces publicly that it has launched a Statutory Inquiry into Muslim Aid. An Inquiry launched after they themselves had informed the Commission of 2 instances of problems. This has had a devastating effect on their potential for fundraising now. Before even the results of the Inquiry are known, they are now under a cloud of suspicion. This also has ramifications for their day-to-day business in making charitable payments around the world. How ironic that against the background of the most terrible suffering of the civilian population in Syria, it has become so difficult for Muslim charities to provide humanitarian aid. 

But the problem goes wider than this. I'm told by my colleagues there is a perception that the Charity Commission are targeting Muslim charities in a disproportionate way. It certainly appears that way. It is an issue I will now be taking up with the Commission.

I know from my council experience in Brixton that if a community builds up a perception that they are unfairly targeted and discriminated against, this in itself can lead to alienation which then drives people away from civic participation. And worse.

As my colleagues pointed out, they have been working hard to develop a sense of civic duty and community cohesion in the Muslim community. It would be perverse if the actions of the Commission were seen to undermine that.