Charities exist to try to do good. That's what they're all about and although there are might be a few bad apples most of us don't doubt their motivations or suspect that they are 'on the make'. However on the 26th September I am speaking at the Charity Commission's Annual Public Meeting responding to the question 'Do charities deserve the public trust they enjoy?' Whilst the first instinct of most of us would be a very simple 'yes' answer, I feel that these days this requires a little more thought.
Is 'aiming' to do good enough? Should donors just hand over their money and go 'there you are, do your best' and leave it at that? Or should charities be expected to demonstrate that the money they receive does indeed achieve their stated aims and, just as importantly, does so in a cost effective way?
Given the tough economic climate of the last few years, I suspect that a growing number of people would echo the latter of those questions: as donors and supporters of charities we want to have some assurance that our donations are being used to help as many beneficiaries as possible. This is less about exactly what proportion of a donation goes straight to the beneficiary, and more about what impact the charities' activities are having overall. To do this charities need to get better at measuring their impact, using a set of practices such as surveying their beneficiaries and understanding their contribution to any change, in order to establish what difference their work makes.
Next month NPC is unveiling the findings of the first representative study of impact measurement amongst UK charities. It will show that an unprecedented number of organisations are measuring their results and trying to demonstrate their outcomes. There are lots of different drivers behind this increase, from funding to leadership but it is great to see many charities taking seriously the need to show their worth. But we have a long way to go as a significant minority of charities still do no impact measurement at all and lots that do some don't yet do it very thoroughly.
Some people may feel uncomfortable with charities spending money on evaluating impact, seeing it as a diversion of funds away from the charity's core purpose. But it is vital that charities get better at measuring results, and it should matter to the public too especially as charities and social enterprises start taking on more mainstream services (sometimes working with private providers such as Serco). We need to know whether or not they are delivering value for our money.
Many charities are also wary of impact measurement, even if they are already doing it. I don't blame them--evaluation, particularly when done at the request of funders, is often a slow and painful process with different funders asking for different sets of output and outcomes. But we need to persevere in this field. There is excellent work going on to make impact reporting easier, such as that being carried out by the Inspiring Impact programme. And while I certainly don't think the Charity Commission, with its new Chair William Shawcross, needs to compel such practices they could definitely do more to encourage organisations to get with the evaluation programme.
We all know that times are hard for charities at the moment, as income sources are drying up at the same time as demand for their services is increasing. Funders often have less money to play with and have already started to be more discerning with who they support. Trust in charities is moving from being 'nice' to 'necessary', as faith in an organisation's ability to achieve its goals becomes a key factor in whether or not it can secure funds. So in answer to the original question, I believe that yes, charities do deserve the public's trust. But they will need to work for this trust, and now, more than ever, not take it for granted.