1,400 years of charity history• King’s school, Canterbury 597 AD• Order of St John 11th century• Statute of Elizabeth 1601•Charity Commission established 1853• The Victorian philanthropists – NSPCC 1884• Oxfam 1948• The hospice movement 1967
The charity world in 1987No SorpNo consistency in financial reportingNo transparencyNo reserves policiesNo risk frameworksNo audit committeesNo concept of governanceNo impact reports/public benefit statementsNo career path in the sector
What a difference CFG made• Sorp: 1988, 1995, 2000, 2005• Members’ helpline 1991 (Pesh Framjee)• Charity MSc 1992 (Prof. Paul Palmer)• Charities Act 1993• First CEO 1994• 10th anniversary 1997, with HRH Princess Anne• Charity risk management survey, 2002• 1,000 members in 2004• The role of the Charity FD; Managing in a downturn; Pensions maze; 2008
25-year theme – Rise of the donor as consumer, or not?• The great paradox of charity reporting: The regulator pushed for greater transparency; the ASB pushed for greater disclosure; the best charities were committed to more effective reporting – But, as far as the average charity donor was concerned, ‘heart still ruled head’.
Despite more transparency, inertia largely prevails – does it matter?Over the last 25 years:• Just 15 of the biggest companies have remained in the FTSE 50 throughout. Only 40% of top 50 companies in 1985 remain in FTSE 350 today.• By contrast 28 of the top 50 charities in 1985 remain in the top 50, and 90% remain in the Charity Finance 350 Index
Little change among top 50 charities• National Trust; Nuffield Health; Oxfam; Salvation Army; Barnardo’s; Save the Children; Scope; RNLI; Action for Children; NSPCC; British Red Cross – all in top 20 in 1985 and still there today.• Imperial Cancer Research Fund (9th in 1985) and Cancer Research Campaign (13th) merged to form CRUK (now 2nd). Age UK merger.• A few start ups: CIFF; Gatsby Foundation; Woodard Corporation; Charity Projects.
Future trends?Pension liabilities – temporary blip or threat to long-term survival of some of our biggest brand names?Public service delivery – improving the quality of services for users, or nothing more than for-profit ‘bid candy’, leading to the emergence of a ‘fourth sector’?
Future trends?• New ‘charitable’ ventures – will social enterprise, CICs, CIOs, Academies, etc breath new life into civil society, or blur the boundaries so much that the public will no longer know what a charity stands for?• Governance – will the long-established governance model be under threat as the new ventures above push for payment of trustees and executives on the board?
Future trends?• Mergers – is all the talk borne of a spirit of true collaboration, or will it prove to be instinctive Darwinism where only the biggest and strongest survive?• Social finance – the solution to all our funding problems, or the start of unprecedented gearing in the sector which will leave charities in hock to commercial lenders?
Whatever happens in the next 25 years, we must retain public trust in the distinctive brand of charity 2005 Mean Score: 6.3 2008 Mean Score: 6.6 23% (replicated in 2010) 22% 22% 2005 18% 20% 2008 19% 11% 10% 8% 6% 5% 3% 3% 3% 5% 1% 4% 1% 2% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Don’t trust Trust themthem at all Source: Ipsos MORI completely
Sector behaviour the public want to see• Always focused on the charity’s values• Transparent and accountable• Independent, non-political• Brave and innovative• Collaborative, not competitive• Providing VFM, and delivering public benefit• Building public trust and confidence