I like an analogy that Elizabeth Pisani used in her excellent book, The Wisdom of Whores, about HIV/AIDS and the role of NGOs and the UN (among others) in tackling the epidemic.
She makes the point that NGOs in this field are judged on whether they did what they said they’d do, rather than what difference they made.
That approach, she says, is “a bit like declaring that Ford is going well in the car market because they’ve got factories and floor managers and an advertising campaign, instead of looking at sales figures. Or even checking that they make cars that run.”
In the HIV/AIDS field a parallel is charities reporting on whether they did things like "build a clinic, or train some nurses or give leaflets to 400 out of the nation’s 160,000 drug injectors”, not how many infections they’ve actually prevented.
Although Ford is probably not doing a lot of boasting these days, the author makes a good point and one that charities in all fields should take note of.
I bet Pisani would approve of the new idea by the ImpACT Coalition (the UK body seeking to improve accountability and transparency in the voluntary sector) for a national campaign to promote charities to the general public by being more open and transparent about what they do and how they do it. It might be as simple as answering the five questions posed by ACEVO Chief Executive Stephen Bubb in his Third Sector article here:
1. What is the problem you're trying to solve?
2. What are you doing about it?
3. Have you made any difference to it?
4. How do you know that?
5. And what have you learned?
For us the most important question is number 3. The one which asks whether charities have actually made a difference and an impact with their work. We welcome other people's views on this.
Thursday, 27 August 2009
Monday, 24 August 2009
Reclaiming the concept of public benefit
At the heart of what it means to be a charity in the UK is the concept of ‘public benefit’. It is what sets us apart from other organisations, and it is the other side of the bargain that provides us with the advantages of tax breaks and high levels of public trust.
Public benefit has always been a rather loose concept. This changed after the Charities Act in 2006, which finally made it explicitly a part of what it means to be a charity. Under the definition given by the Charity Commission, charities must have identifiable benefits to the public and it must be clear what these benefits are. Moreover, people in poverty must not be excluded from these benefits.
Over the last two years, this definition has generated many hours of debate.
Perhaps inevitably, this debate has been dominated by lawyers. In particular, there has been a furore surrounding the status of fee-paying independent schools, most of which are charities under UK law but – let’s be honest about it – have drifted away from the spirit of their original aims.
In the squabble, the sense of what public benefit is and why it matters has been lost. The majority of the 170,000 registered charities in the UK, who need not worry about their status, and the hundreds of thousands of people that they help, have been forgotten.
It is time to reclaim the debate on public benefit.
One implication of letting lawyers dominate the discussion has been that it has been too narrowly focused on what we mean by doing good (for example, in the case of independent schools, answering the question of whether providing education that requires the beneficiary to pay a substantial fee can be considered charitable).
Is this enough to ask of charities? Surely there is a second element – being good at what you do – which should also be part of any definition?
The Charity Commission requires charities to report on public benefit in their annual report. Alongside details about what services they are providing and who is benefiting, why shouldn’t this also include an explanation about what differences they have made to people’s lives? If they are to continue to benefit from the privilege of charitable status then why shouldn’t they tell us what they are achieving and what processes they have in place to make sure they are as good as they can be?
To really benefit the public, the debate about public benefit must be opened up to a wider audience. We need to move beyond the distracting legal quarrels and focus on what is really important – making charities work better for their beneficiaries.
Public benefit has always been a rather loose concept. This changed after the Charities Act in 2006, which finally made it explicitly a part of what it means to be a charity. Under the definition given by the Charity Commission, charities must have identifiable benefits to the public and it must be clear what these benefits are. Moreover, people in poverty must not be excluded from these benefits.
Over the last two years, this definition has generated many hours of debate.
Perhaps inevitably, this debate has been dominated by lawyers. In particular, there has been a furore surrounding the status of fee-paying independent schools, most of which are charities under UK law but – let’s be honest about it – have drifted away from the spirit of their original aims.
In the squabble, the sense of what public benefit is and why it matters has been lost. The majority of the 170,000 registered charities in the UK, who need not worry about their status, and the hundreds of thousands of people that they help, have been forgotten.
It is time to reclaim the debate on public benefit.
One implication of letting lawyers dominate the discussion has been that it has been too narrowly focused on what we mean by doing good (for example, in the case of independent schools, answering the question of whether providing education that requires the beneficiary to pay a substantial fee can be considered charitable).
Is this enough to ask of charities? Surely there is a second element – being good at what you do – which should also be part of any definition?
The Charity Commission requires charities to report on public benefit in their annual report. Alongside details about what services they are providing and who is benefiting, why shouldn’t this also include an explanation about what differences they have made to people’s lives? If they are to continue to benefit from the privilege of charitable status then why shouldn’t they tell us what they are achieving and what processes they have in place to make sure they are as good as they can be?
To really benefit the public, the debate about public benefit must be opened up to a wider audience. We need to move beyond the distracting legal quarrels and focus on what is really important – making charities work better for their beneficiaries.
Monday, 17 August 2009
The tricky business of reserves and investments
If the last year has taught us anything about running charities then it is the importance of leaving some money aside for a rainy day. Because over the last year it hasn’t just been raining, it has been pouring.
When NPC looks for well-managed, high-performing charities then, generally speaking, we expect to find some money kept in reserve. Reserves mean organisations can react to setbacks and make the most of unexpected opportunities. They are also good for the blood pressure of CEOs.
Of course money in reserve is not money sitting idle. It is a necessary cost of doing business—like paying for insurance. The costs of not having anything in reserve can far outweigh the costs of having them.
But how much should charities keep in reserve and how should it be invested? The Charity Commission's [the UK regulator of charities] guidance is vague on this, and trustees are free to do as they see fit within the boundaries of a ‘duty of prudence’, which includes ‘avoiding undue risk’.
Among the charities I have analysed, reserves policies vary widely: some have no reserves, some keep just enough cash to wind down the charity should the worst happen, and some have substantial surplus funds and a diverse investment strategy. From NPC’s point of view, the best reserves policies are those that acknowledge major risks, explain future plans, and say clearly why money is kept aside.
However we look at it, setting reserves policies and managing investments is a tricky business. Earlier in the year, I heard a story of a charity that kept its (ample) reserves as cash in the bank. Last summer it submitted a grant application to an endowed foundation, only to be ticked off for poor financial management and told it should invest more wisely (the foundation had a large portfolio that included stocks and shares). The charity refused to take its advice. Then the markets took a dive.
It would be stupid to argue that this charity was a paragon of investment practice, as its fortune was down to ignorance as much as anything else. Even so, I bet there was some element of satisfaction for its trustees, whose decisions were vindicated.
If nothing else, this reminds us how analysing reserves is not a straightforward matter. And for charities, seeking good guidance and advice is a must.
When NPC looks for well-managed, high-performing charities then, generally speaking, we expect to find some money kept in reserve. Reserves mean organisations can react to setbacks and make the most of unexpected opportunities. They are also good for the blood pressure of CEOs.
Of course money in reserve is not money sitting idle. It is a necessary cost of doing business—like paying for insurance. The costs of not having anything in reserve can far outweigh the costs of having them.
But how much should charities keep in reserve and how should it be invested? The Charity Commission's [the UK regulator of charities] guidance is vague on this, and trustees are free to do as they see fit within the boundaries of a ‘duty of prudence’, which includes ‘avoiding undue risk’.
Among the charities I have analysed, reserves policies vary widely: some have no reserves, some keep just enough cash to wind down the charity should the worst happen, and some have substantial surplus funds and a diverse investment strategy. From NPC’s point of view, the best reserves policies are those that acknowledge major risks, explain future plans, and say clearly why money is kept aside.
However we look at it, setting reserves policies and managing investments is a tricky business. Earlier in the year, I heard a story of a charity that kept its (ample) reserves as cash in the bank. Last summer it submitted a grant application to an endowed foundation, only to be ticked off for poor financial management and told it should invest more wisely (the foundation had a large portfolio that included stocks and shares). The charity refused to take its advice. Then the markets took a dive.
It would be stupid to argue that this charity was a paragon of investment practice, as its fortune was down to ignorance as much as anything else. Even so, I bet there was some element of satisfaction for its trustees, whose decisions were vindicated.
If nothing else, this reminds us how analysing reserves is not a straightforward matter. And for charities, seeking good guidance and advice is a must.
Wednesday, 12 August 2009
Scrutiny and analysis – there is no way back
Over the last decade, there has been an upsurge in information and analysis produced on charities and philanthropy. This seems to have happened worldwide – with organisations as far as Midot in Israel and Charity Ratings in Sweden, as well as new and established organisations in the US, such as Guidestar, GiveWell, Charity Navigator and the Center for Effective Philanthropy. NPC is proud to be part of this trend.
Without these organisations the world would be worse off. Together we have succeeded in providing a long-overdue challenge to the received wisdom, encouraging donors to become more discerning, and influencing the way charities are run. Greater scrutiny of good causes is now becoming accepted, and the language of outcomes and impact is commonplace among charities. As the Charity Commission [the UK government body that regulates charities] recently declared ‘organisations providing information about and analysis of charities are an important part of increasing transparency and accountability to the public, and can help make charities more effective’.
But this fledging industry faces its challenges, especially as the global recession bites.
Earlier this week, NPC struck a deal to take over the charity Intelligent Giving. Intelligent Giving runs a website that provided an up-to-date transparency ratings for the biggest 500 UK charities. It uses publicly available data to tell us how open charities are, and how good they are at telling us what they do. It is small but punches above its weight. But despite its valuable work, it struggled to sustain itself.
One thing that this tells us that the ‘market’ in analysis is yet to mature.
And there are worrying signs that this is not an isolated case. In the UK, the Charities Aid Foundation has apparently stopped producing its analysis of the top fundraising charities. In the US, the donor advisory service Geneva Global has dramatically cut its staff since 2007. NPC knows from experience the difficulty of being in this market and producing public knowledge.
We cannot let these setbacks curb the overall momentum and what has been achieved over the last decade. They must be a temporary blip and not part of a trend.
To do this, organisations must widen their base of support until the industry establishes itself and develops a sustainable business model. This isn’t easy and some parts of the world are ahead of others (it is telling that NPC’s two most committed institutional supporters are both foundations outside the UK – the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation in the US and the Bertelsmann Foundation in Germany).
For all those funders that think scrutiny, analysis and criticism is important, now is the time to act. Having started on the pathway to a transparent, self-critical and, let’s hope, better charitable sector, we cannot afford to go back.
Without these organisations the world would be worse off. Together we have succeeded in providing a long-overdue challenge to the received wisdom, encouraging donors to become more discerning, and influencing the way charities are run. Greater scrutiny of good causes is now becoming accepted, and the language of outcomes and impact is commonplace among charities. As the Charity Commission [the UK government body that regulates charities] recently declared ‘organisations providing information about and analysis of charities are an important part of increasing transparency and accountability to the public, and can help make charities more effective’.
But this fledging industry faces its challenges, especially as the global recession bites.
Earlier this week, NPC struck a deal to take over the charity Intelligent Giving. Intelligent Giving runs a website that provided an up-to-date transparency ratings for the biggest 500 UK charities. It uses publicly available data to tell us how open charities are, and how good they are at telling us what they do. It is small but punches above its weight. But despite its valuable work, it struggled to sustain itself.
One thing that this tells us that the ‘market’ in analysis is yet to mature.
And there are worrying signs that this is not an isolated case. In the UK, the Charities Aid Foundation has apparently stopped producing its analysis of the top fundraising charities. In the US, the donor advisory service Geneva Global has dramatically cut its staff since 2007. NPC knows from experience the difficulty of being in this market and producing public knowledge.
We cannot let these setbacks curb the overall momentum and what has been achieved over the last decade. They must be a temporary blip and not part of a trend.
To do this, organisations must widen their base of support until the industry establishes itself and develops a sustainable business model. This isn’t easy and some parts of the world are ahead of others (it is telling that NPC’s two most committed institutional supporters are both foundations outside the UK – the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation in the US and the Bertelsmann Foundation in Germany).
For all those funders that think scrutiny, analysis and criticism is important, now is the time to act. Having started on the pathway to a transparent, self-critical and, let’s hope, better charitable sector, we cannot afford to go back.
Tuesday, 11 August 2009
Risks in the charity sector: Learning lessons from Unicef Germany
At a recent conference in London on charity trusteeship, attendees were asked whether they believed the charity sector was beset with similar problems to those which afflicted banks and caused such problems during the past two years. Sixty percent said yes.
This finding, though unscientific and unrepresentative, suggests a concern with how the sector is governed. That could be interpreted as meaning that charity governance leaves something to be desired, or that regulation is too lax, or both.
The financial crisis has highlighted the problems that can come from poor governance, soft-touch regulation, and systemic risk. The last is one of the revelations from the financial crisis and has so far received no attention in the world of charities. It represents the risk of system-wide problems as opposed to those that affect individual institutions only, and it is far more serious.
A classic formula to prevent bank failures used to be making an organisation 'too big to fail'. Alongside this is now the idea of being 'too connected to fail', a formula that could be applied to Lehman Brothers, AIG and others. Organisations which do not themselves merit help can be so connected that their failure threatens to bring down the whole financial system.
Such systemic risk needs to be understood and analysed within the charitable sector. One such potential risk is around reputational links between charities.
In Germany last year, the local Unicef faced problems when questions were asked about its management practices. An ensuing scandal escalated and involved government ministers right up to the Chancellor, Angela Merkel. The head of Unicef stood down in February 2008, to be followed by the whole board. Almost a quarter of income and 30,000 supporters were lost.
Most striking however was the impact on other charities. A survey by the ratings agency, DZI, shows almost half reported an impact on their work, even though none were implicated.
A lesson from Unicef is that charities' reputations can be connected, whether rationally or not. Whether or not they can be 'too connected to fail'. it is in the interest of all to ensure good governance and high performance. This lesson needs to be fully understood and then acted upon, by regulator and charities alike.
The Charity Commission, the regulator for England and Wales, has a duty to promote public interest and trust in charities. This sits alongside its duty to regulate individual charities. It therefore has a duty to minimise 'systemic risk'. If the Commission thought the same as the conference delegates mentioned above, it might wish to monitor such risk more closely and change its approach to regulation. The implications of this are, as yet, far from clear but they could be far reaching.
Martin Brookes is NPC's Chief Executive
This finding, though unscientific and unrepresentative, suggests a concern with how the sector is governed. That could be interpreted as meaning that charity governance leaves something to be desired, or that regulation is too lax, or both.
The financial crisis has highlighted the problems that can come from poor governance, soft-touch regulation, and systemic risk. The last is one of the revelations from the financial crisis and has so far received no attention in the world of charities. It represents the risk of system-wide problems as opposed to those that affect individual institutions only, and it is far more serious.
A classic formula to prevent bank failures used to be making an organisation 'too big to fail'. Alongside this is now the idea of being 'too connected to fail', a formula that could be applied to Lehman Brothers, AIG and others. Organisations which do not themselves merit help can be so connected that their failure threatens to bring down the whole financial system.
Such systemic risk needs to be understood and analysed within the charitable sector. One such potential risk is around reputational links between charities.
In Germany last year, the local Unicef faced problems when questions were asked about its management practices. An ensuing scandal escalated and involved government ministers right up to the Chancellor, Angela Merkel. The head of Unicef stood down in February 2008, to be followed by the whole board. Almost a quarter of income and 30,000 supporters were lost.
Most striking however was the impact on other charities. A survey by the ratings agency, DZI, shows almost half reported an impact on their work, even though none were implicated.
A lesson from Unicef is that charities' reputations can be connected, whether rationally or not. Whether or not they can be 'too connected to fail'. it is in the interest of all to ensure good governance and high performance. This lesson needs to be fully understood and then acted upon, by regulator and charities alike.
The Charity Commission, the regulator for England and Wales, has a duty to promote public interest and trust in charities. This sits alongside its duty to regulate individual charities. It therefore has a duty to minimise 'systemic risk'. If the Commission thought the same as the conference delegates mentioned above, it might wish to monitor such risk more closely and change its approach to regulation. The implications of this are, as yet, far from clear but they could be far reaching.
Martin Brookes is NPC's Chief Executive
Friday, 7 August 2009
Top philanthropists call for more mergers as their giving goes up
A nice insight into how the the UK's wealthiest givers are responding to the recession on the BBC News website today. It highlights the fact that, rather than cutting back, recent research from Barclay's Wealth suggests that a quarter of rich philantropists have actually increased their giving in the last 18 months.
The article references Radio 4's The World at One programme, which has been speaking to some of the UK's biggest givers about their giving and what they feel needs to change in the charity sector.
Interestingly, two of the philanthropists, John Studzinski (a senior figure at Blackstone, a private equity firm) and Rory Brooks (founder of private equity firm MML Capital) both suggest that charities should be looking more seriously at the possibility of merger and acquisition. Studzinski refers specifically to the high number of homelessness charities and suggests that merger in this sector 'would not be a bad thing.'
This idea - that charities should be more open to the possibility of mergers as a way to increase their effectiveness - is one that NPC has discussed recently in our report 'What place for mergers between charities?'.
The article references Radio 4's The World at One programme, which has been speaking to some of the UK's biggest givers about their giving and what they feel needs to change in the charity sector.
Interestingly, two of the philanthropists, John Studzinski (a senior figure at Blackstone, a private equity firm) and Rory Brooks (founder of private equity firm MML Capital) both suggest that charities should be looking more seriously at the possibility of merger and acquisition. Studzinski refers specifically to the high number of homelessness charities and suggests that merger in this sector 'would not be a bad thing.'
This idea - that charities should be more open to the possibility of mergers as a way to increase their effectiveness - is one that NPC has discussed recently in our report 'What place for mergers between charities?'.
Wednesday, 5 August 2009
When success doesn't breed success
There is a popular show on British television where (often hapless) members of the public pitch ideas to five of the country’s business elite in the hope of securing an investment. Last night, a spin-off programme gave an account of the fortunes of several of the entrepreneurs after the original show. These ranged from the inventor of a hot chilli sauce (now a millionaire) to a manufacturer of a treadmill for dogs (not yet a millionaire).
That some of these investments succeed and some fail is so blindingly obvious – even to a reality TV show audience – that it hardly warranted comment.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of our mind-set when it comes to donations to charities. Most donors seem to be blind to the prospect that charities fail and that, like an investment in a treadmill for dogs, their donation may amount to not very much. Why is this?
We could point to laziness on the part of donors but I think that the non-profit sector itself must carry much of the blame. Charities and grant-makers are guilty of promulgating the myth that they always succeed. Failure is rarely mentioned and annual reports are relentless tales of achievement. (Although it is always refreshing when you come across examples that buck the trend, for example see here.)
Of course it is easy to tell ourselves that we are doing well, to pat ourselves on the back for the triumphs and gloss over the failures. But this flies in the face of our duty to donors and, even more crucially, to the people we exist to help. To solve deep-rooted social problems we need to be honest – so that our successors do not have to repeat the same mistakes, and we can learn how to improve.
As such, the message to charities and grant-makers is to come clean. It is no good existing in a state of denial. As well as highlighting successes we need to know what hasn’t worked. We can all learn from failure.
That some of these investments succeed and some fail is so blindingly obvious – even to a reality TV show audience – that it hardly warranted comment.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of our mind-set when it comes to donations to charities. Most donors seem to be blind to the prospect that charities fail and that, like an investment in a treadmill for dogs, their donation may amount to not very much. Why is this?
We could point to laziness on the part of donors but I think that the non-profit sector itself must carry much of the blame. Charities and grant-makers are guilty of promulgating the myth that they always succeed. Failure is rarely mentioned and annual reports are relentless tales of achievement. (Although it is always refreshing when you come across examples that buck the trend, for example see here.)
Of course it is easy to tell ourselves that we are doing well, to pat ourselves on the back for the triumphs and gloss over the failures. But this flies in the face of our duty to donors and, even more crucially, to the people we exist to help. To solve deep-rooted social problems we need to be honest – so that our successors do not have to repeat the same mistakes, and we can learn how to improve.
As such, the message to charities and grant-makers is to come clean. It is no good existing in a state of denial. As well as highlighting successes we need to know what hasn’t worked. We can all learn from failure.
Tuesday, 4 August 2009
Are we looking for 'high impact' or 'high performance' organisations?
One of the most prolific and interesting bloggers in the philanthropy world, Sean Stannard-Stockton, has written several posts about a fundamental question that we grapple with when analysing charities: are we looking for 'high performing' organisations, or 'high impact' ones? It's generated quite a debate on his site, and is worth a read.
As Sean describes them:
'A high performance nonprofit is a very well run organization. It has outstanding leadership, clear goals, an ethic of monitoring performance and making adjustments as needed, and it is financially healthy.
A high impact nonprofit is one whose efforts have been proven to cause sustainable, positive change. '
He argues that 'high impact' organisations are the holy grail. Nonprofits struggle to understand their impact, and often results cannot be seen for many years. He thinks that funders are missing the point if they just look for good projects (ie, those with results evidence): they need to fund good organisations who can run the projects well.
'Weak organizations that happen to have a great program are not able to deliver the program with fidelity, are not able to scale the program and are not able to adapt to changing conditions.'
At NPC, we agree that high impact charities are rare. We look for high performing organisations that are working to make a difference. These have a strategy aimed at helping their beneficiaries as much as possible. Even if they cannot currently show their impact, they try to collect evidence of the difference they are making. They review their work and what is going on in the wider world often, reviewing the problem they are trying to tackle and how best they should use their resources to have an impact. As my colleague put it, you need to check not only that the rifle is working properly, but whether it's pointing in the right direction. Or indeed, whether it's a rifle that you need at all.
For those interested, we focus our analysis on five areas - one is focused on impact, but the others are mostly about current performance. These are some of the kinds of questions we seek to answer:
Importance: Does it target its work at areas of greatest need? Are its activities meeting this need?
Results: Does it measure its outcomes? How do its outcomes compare to similar organisations? Does it have a 'results-oriented' culture? Does it use this information to inform its strategy?
Leadership: Does it have good governance? Do its chief executive and management team lead the charity well, inspiring the staff to achieve their goals? Is its vision clear and realistic, with measurable targets? Does it work well with the rest of the sector?
Optimisation of resources: Does it have a strong financial base, which is manages efficiently? Does it understand its costs, and can it make a clear case for the need for philanthropic funding? Does it have high quality staff, and does it manage them well?
Ambition: Does it want to improve or grow, either to help more people or to help people better? Is it focused on its mission without being self-centred?
Very very few charities score highly in all five areas.
It's not easy to identify a high performing charity - we spend a lot of time speaking to the chief executive, finance director, other staff, trustees, partners, funders, as well as reading through their accounts, reports, evaluations, strategies, business plans. Our job would be easier if charities understood their outcomes, and built their organisation around achieving and improving them.
Yep, it's a holy grail, but we're trying to help the sector to get there. Get in touch if you want our help.
As Sean describes them:
'A high performance nonprofit is a very well run organization. It has outstanding leadership, clear goals, an ethic of monitoring performance and making adjustments as needed, and it is financially healthy.
A high impact nonprofit is one whose efforts have been proven to cause sustainable, positive change. '
He argues that 'high impact' organisations are the holy grail. Nonprofits struggle to understand their impact, and often results cannot be seen for many years. He thinks that funders are missing the point if they just look for good projects (ie, those with results evidence): they need to fund good organisations who can run the projects well.
'Weak organizations that happen to have a great program are not able to deliver the program with fidelity, are not able to scale the program and are not able to adapt to changing conditions.'
At NPC, we agree that high impact charities are rare. We look for high performing organisations that are working to make a difference. These have a strategy aimed at helping their beneficiaries as much as possible. Even if they cannot currently show their impact, they try to collect evidence of the difference they are making. They review their work and what is going on in the wider world often, reviewing the problem they are trying to tackle and how best they should use their resources to have an impact. As my colleague put it, you need to check not only that the rifle is working properly, but whether it's pointing in the right direction. Or indeed, whether it's a rifle that you need at all.
For those interested, we focus our analysis on five areas - one is focused on impact, but the others are mostly about current performance. These are some of the kinds of questions we seek to answer:
Importance: Does it target its work at areas of greatest need? Are its activities meeting this need?
Results: Does it measure its outcomes? How do its outcomes compare to similar organisations? Does it have a 'results-oriented' culture? Does it use this information to inform its strategy?
Leadership: Does it have good governance? Do its chief executive and management team lead the charity well, inspiring the staff to achieve their goals? Is its vision clear and realistic, with measurable targets? Does it work well with the rest of the sector?
Optimisation of resources: Does it have a strong financial base, which is manages efficiently? Does it understand its costs, and can it make a clear case for the need for philanthropic funding? Does it have high quality staff, and does it manage them well?
Ambition: Does it want to improve or grow, either to help more people or to help people better? Is it focused on its mission without being self-centred?
Very very few charities score highly in all five areas.
It's not easy to identify a high performing charity - we spend a lot of time speaking to the chief executive, finance director, other staff, trustees, partners, funders, as well as reading through their accounts, reports, evaluations, strategies, business plans. Our job would be easier if charities understood their outcomes, and built their organisation around achieving and improving them.
Yep, it's a holy grail, but we're trying to help the sector to get there. Get in touch if you want our help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
