Are Charities Too Big?
As the sector scales up, are they bringing standards down?
It’s been a bad few months for the charity sector in the UK. Scrap that. It’s been a bad few years. I don’t need to list the ongoing issues here, but, whatever your thoughts on them, the past few months have skewered any perceptions of the sector as a cottage industry. Of course, the shift to more professional standards is no bad thing — charities should be exploring best practice — but I’d argue we’re not defining “best practice” in the best possible way.
A challenging environment
During these scandal-hit years, external factors have made it increasingly difficult for charities to operate. Understanding this is important — not to excuse the failings of the sector — but to provide context as to how and why these issues have developed.
Austerity has placed massive pressure on public finances and services. Domestic charities are under more strain as demand increases for both existing services and new ones. Some have simply over-extended as they try to fill in the holes austerity has left behind, whilst a decade-long pay squeeze has coloured an increasingly tough fundraising environment.
On top of this, the political climate has thrown everyone out of whack. A protectionist atmosphere has diffused through public discourse threatening perceptions of international aid and the Lobbying Act has neutered the voice of the third sector.
In this hostile environment, charities are naturally cagey about their reputations within the public sphere; taking risks becomes harder and brand management moves closer to the centre of organisational strategies.
But when the brand is the focus, what gets pushed out of view?
The pursuit of scale
In an ideal world (according to me — so this is up for debate!), a charity’s priorities should look something like this:
The focus rests primarily on the people you’re helping — the quality and then the amount of work you undertake. This will earn trust and longstanding support (quality) from donors and volunteers, and allow you to grow the supporter base (volume).
However, I’m not sure this model applies to modern charity practices. In reality, I think it looks more like this:
In an insecure environment, charities are reaching for as much money and support as possible — this brings security and is understandable. Charities are also increasing the amount and scope of work they undertake. In some ways, this comes from a good place — an increasing demand for services requires some response, but as I’ve already mentioned, this can lead to over-extension. More work therefore justifies the need for more supporters and for the quality of this support to improve (higher donations, greater retention).
Scale becomes the driving force for an organisation and when limits aren’t set, the quality of the work for beneficiaries is inevitably deprioritised. A cynical way to look at this model is to characterise charities as money-grabbing machines. Certainly, some of the recent coverage has attempted this, but such notions would be a gross misrepresentation. However, there are noticeable trends that represent the downside of this obsession with scale. I’m going to focus on two in particular…
The ‘Londonisation’ of the sector
As charities scale up, they face the obvious challenge of maintaining effective communication throughout the organisation. Quite often a head office is based in London and its culture can differ from satellite operations; investment (in time and money) can flow to central functions, whilst those functions that sit outside of head office suffer from a lack of attention. The obvious result of this is a pay discrepancy between those in head office and those on the outside. Organisations can have lower pay scales for front line services and it’s important to note that these scales can exist irrespective of London Weighting considerations.
Some of this is down to what skills the marketplace values and where these skills sit within an organisation — the higher paid professions tend to sit in the remit of a head office — but this isn’t just about pay. Charity professionals who work outside of the Capital worry that their voices aren’t being heard by the head office. “We’re being too London-centric” is a familiar refrain. And perhaps charities are. Clustering in the Capital may make recruitment easier, but the net-result can often be a cultural disconnect between those providing services for beneficiaries and those servicing the organisation.
This manifests itself in numerous ways: a one-size-fits-all approach that alienates staff, a fetish for celebrity endorsements that jars with the reality of a charity’s work, and siloed ways of working with those in the centre (or the inside) reluctant to break down walls for those in other offices.
The ‘Marketisation’ of the sector
Scaling also means that charities overlap in their work — and co-operation isn’t a given. With so many charities out there, we’ve reached market saturation and fundraising competition is intense. The work of a charity becomes subsumed to how the organisation is sold. Charitable brands are often recognised by the public, but donors don’t necessarily know the precise nature of a charity’s remit. Does this mean charities are being disingenuous about their work? No — but it certainly leaves room for cynical marketing practices. Working in fundraising, there seems to be endless debates with design agencies over which model/shot looks sadder; you’ll talk about providing “instant absolution” for potential donors who watch your heartrending TV ads; and worry about sending out consecutive appeals where completely different diseases may sound just too similar because they begin with ‘M’.
Not only does this infantilise supporters, but it also leads to a codified set of practices and terminologies that jar with the original mission of a charity. You may notice certain charities run small-scale lotteries to fund their work even when their support staff are actively countering gambling addictions! Or disability charities accepting funding from companies whose products are proven to cause disabilities in the first place!
Emergency appeals are particularly problematic. Charities rush to be “first to market” in an implicit recognition that other organisations are competitors. They’ll build models to predict how likely a disaster is to happen in the coming months, run analysis if certain emergencies are “worth” appealing for, and document potential opportunities to “exploit” from launching an emergency appeal. News coverage and Google metrics serve as the driving force here — rather than a charity’s vision. The constant crisis messaging can also overshadow advocacy objectives. For instance, success stories about international aid are crowded out by adverts for Syrian or Rohingya refugees. You cannot ignore these plights, but the incessant messaging only encourages scepticism over the 0.7% aid target.
Possible (and perhaps rather naive) suggestions
- Employ more people outside of London to avoid the groupthink; this is easier said than done, but at least hammer home to employees that the head office isn’t a throne room and that satellite services have a say too.
- End unpaid internships and recruit from more diverse sources — considering those who haven’t gone to university for junior roles.
- Be realistic about the scope of an organisation’s work in the short-term and resist letting fundraising opportunities drive strategy. Setting limits can be a healthy exercise and could discourage a competitor mindset within the sector.
- Use the digital arena in more nuanced ways to raise awareness of issues and foster greater quality of support. Data-harvesting petitions and targeted ads may reap short-term rewards, but can undermine long-term goals if not complimented with more in-depth content. (A great example of deeper content is the NEF podcast which seeks to break down complex economic issues into understandable and engaging discussions.)
Are charities too big?
Not necessarily… the point of this blog isn’t to demonise the sector. I’ve worked and volunteered for a wide range of charities for over 14 years and still believe in what they can achieve, but I hope it’s served to highlight some key problems.
Bear in mind that this is also just one point of view. The quoted words and anecdotes are all taken from my personal experiences. I’m also aware that some of the statements here would be strengthened by named sources and more context. I resisted doing this — as not everyone would be comfortable with it.
These are more complex problems than the Daily Mail would have you believe and the above suggestions may not always be possible or impactful, but at least it’s the start of a conversation. At the moment, I’m not sure some of these questions are even being asked.
