Thursday, 19 January 2017

Is there a science of charity, and would we want one?

A few months ago Joe Saxton, Driver of Ideas at nfpSynergy, wrote a thought-provoking blog challenging our sector’s enthusiasm for randomised control trials. Joe’s article and the debate started in the comments, were fascinating and deserve a read. But it prompted consideration of the question one step removed – before we look at charities borrowing science’s tools, is it appropriate to compare charitable and scientific worlds?

Randomised control trials are the current highest point of evidence collection in the scientific method, a method whose genesis is hundreds of years old and whose structure is supported by countless examples of error, trial, error, improvement. When scientists operate, their experiments rest not just on the shoulders of giants, but on the backs of a pyramid of giants, trolls, charlatans and visionaries. Science learns from itself, from its mistakes, around the globe and across the centuries.

The scientific method demands that results be replicable, and expects an important experiment will be run by entirely different people time and again. Science has operated for decades within the infrastructure of the academic world, with a host of peer review journals and challenging conventions, allowing distant practitioners to test the validity of claims and build on success. Rivals and successors pore over datasets, read failed experiments and negative results, perfect techniques. The world has far more STEM graduates than experts in charitable operation or social policy research. The sector’s main notable academic journal is that of the Wellcome Trust, Wellcome Open Research. It is excellent, and it is, of course, a science journal.
This is not the only difference. Science and technology are wedded more firmly to economic progress. 

Shareholders, government, hospital directors and the public take note of new drugs, stem cell breakthroughs, rumours of groundbreaking green energy generators. Charity practitioners have nowhere near this level of awareness – not because we are lazy or intellectually inferior, but because we have no such support structure or history of sharing. Too often in the charity sector, it is not just a case of one hand not knowing what the other hand is doing: it is two fingers on the same hand each reaching out to grasp the same object and still failing join up.

In the corporate world, certainly in the boardrooms of pharmaceutical and tech companies, directors are inquisitive and acquisitive. There are aware of all their competitors’ projects, what newcomers try, innovation springing up in far-flung corners, blossoming SMEs. They are not only concerned with keeping their own company afloat but with exploring expansion on the frontier. They have teams of researchers comparing clusters of studies and meta-analyses to scope opportunity. They are supported by both the academic literature and by business media – the Financial Times and rolling TV news. Likewise they have a worldwide network of business schools, economics departments, management courses, decades of theories on effective leadership and proactive governance.

There are of course a great number of collaboration efforts in the charity sector, from the Good Exchange to the concept of “generous leadership”, from joint initiatives between funder organisations and umbrella bodies to local projects in the same town or village. One of Charity Futures’ ambitions is to compile a directory of these, listing free and paid resources on charity academia, leadership and governance training, and emergency support. Hopefully by signposting both collaborations and smaller ventures, even more efficient partnerships can be forged. This could grow in utility by adding neutral reviews and learning aids, so a bewildered new board member could easily find out the different tools available to help her.

The other difference between science and voluntary worlds is simply that a lot of charities do not operate in a manner with quantifiable results. The goal of some is to enable a sport to be played, or to make a group’s life more tolerable, hopefully enjoyable. There are sector activities which suit social science measurements, like helping ex-prisoners reintegrate or educating children, but a host of important charitable activities are little to do with numbers. Has enough thought been devoted to testing an ethical component, are quality-adjusted life years enough?

Trying to get a picture of impact by asking beneficiaries to rate their experiences feels like missing the point, even if methodologies were sound enough that they could be compared across location and type – which they aren’t. Some of the largest management consultancies have been trying for years to set out a standardised system to rate charity effectiveness and each model sinks on its flaws. What the voluntary sector does brilliantly is use hard science evidence in campaigning – against smoking near children for example – and funds investigation of this type. But that does not contribute to a central corpus on how charities themselves campaign.

The question of randomised control trials speaks to the charity bubble’s current focus on, possibly even obsession with, transparency and impact. You get the sense that many charity leaders believe that if we could only display our accounts and give hard numbers on how many people we’re helping, then the public and press would return to treating all charities as angelic.

This is a limp hope. Few people have the time or inclination to check the accounts and annual statements that charities painstakingly polished, even fewer compare different possible donations in such detail. Even if they do, they may not have the statistical grounding to make informed decisions, or may leave with the wrong message, that all the charities they compared spend too much on staffing, premises, IT and training. Certainly the sector should not retreat on transparency, but nor should it slog on under the delusion that once we reach a certain crystal-clear level, the public will fall in love.

Another difference charities may be more happy about. The sector is far less regulated, and while the Charity Commission comes down hard on some charities and may be seen as too bureaucratic, it pales in comparison to pharmaceutical watchdogs. We have nothing that functions like the FDA/MHRA testing and delaying new drugs for years. The Charity Commission does not review every new project, grant or intervention that a charity plans, not even very large experiments. Likewise most donors or funders would not be able to block a charity functioning.

Try as we might we cannot create a ready-made academic milieu for the voluntary sector, with the centuries of history, the international network of journals, the expectation of challenge, refinement and peer review. Multi-institutional multi-national collaborations do not spring up overnight, but after years of relationship building, sharing techniques and ethics, agreeing shared goals. But this is certainly a goal to have in mind: through thought leadership, debate, seminars and working with the university sector across disciplines, we must strive to introduce higher standards of intellectual rigour and collective progress.

This article first appeared in Third Sector magazine, here

Sir Stephen Bubb is Director of Charity Futures. Jonathan Lindsell is the Research & Programme Manager of Charity Futures.


Unknown said...


I was not sure of getting a legit loan lender online But when i could not face my Debt any more, my son was on hospital bed for surgery that involve huge money and i also needed some money to refinance and get a good home then i have to seeks for Assistance from friends and when there was no hope any more i decide to go online to seek a loan and i find VICTORIA LAWSON Trust Loan Firm ( with 2% interest Rate and applied immediately with my details as directed. Within seven Days of my application She wired my loan amount with No hidden charges and i could take care of my son medical bills, Renew my rent bill and pay off my debt. I will advice every loan seeker to contact VICTORIA LAWSON LOAN Company with For easy and safe transaction.

*Full Name:_________



*loan amount:_________

*Loan duration:_________


*Purpose of loan:_________

*Monthly Income:__________


*Next of kin :_________

*Email :_________

nikhil said...

HJ Foundation is a charitable trust run by Mr. Harish Jagtani . And one of the renowned non-profit organizations in South Africa

Arunapriya old age home said...

Useful Information, your blog is sharing unique information....
Thanks for sharing!!!
old age homes in nizampet
old age homes in kphb
old age homes vasantha nagar
old age home shelters in hyderabad

Unknown said...

Great post, thanks for sharing!

Hương Lâm với website chuyên cung cấp máy photocopy toshiba cũ và dòng máy máy photocopy ricoh cũ uy tín, giá rẻ nhất TP.HCM

arwen garza said...

get your ex back with a love spell that works fast.
Dr.Jumba   has helped thousands of women get their Ex boyfriends back using his real effective love Spell. After my boyfriend of one year broke up with me, I could barely speak without crying. I felt blindsided and didn't know what to do. I didn't know if I could get him back and the anxiety was unbearable. I needed him back desperately because I loved him so much. So I contacted this great spell caster for help. He helped me cast a return love spell on him and just within 11 hours my boyfriend came back to me crying and begging for my forgiveness. Dr. Jumba released him to know how much I loved and wanted him. And He also opened his eyes to picture how much love we have shared together. As I am writing this testimony right now I am the happiest woman on earth. I want to recommend this great spell caster to anyone that truly needs an urgent solution to a love break up. Email him at ,  or Call/WhatsApp him:  +19085174108    "I'm so grateful and can say that if you have been broken up with and want to get that person back, Dr.Jumba   is the best! I'll never forget how much he helped me  
  WEBSITE : blog : 

Unknown said...

My name is Mrs Aisha Mohamed, am a Citizen Of Qatar.Have you been looking for a loan?Do you need an urgent personal loan or business loan?contact Dr James Eric Finance Home he help me with a loan of $42,000 some days ago after been scammed of $2,800 from a woman claiming to been a loan lender but i thank God today that i got my loan worth $42,000.Feel free to contact the company for a genuine financial service. Email:( call/whats-App Contact Number +918929509036 Dr James Eric Finance Pvt Ltd

Loan offer .com said...

Do you need a Loan?
Are you looking for Finance?
Are you looking for a Loan to enlarge your business?
I think you have come to the right place.
We offer Loans at low interest rate.
Interested people should please contact us on
For immediate response to your application, Kindly
reply to this emails below only.
Whats app +918256953815
Please, do provide us with the Following information if interested.

1) Full Name:………
2) Gender:………
3) Loan Amount Needed:………
4) Loan Duration:………
5) Country:………
6) Home Address:………
7) Mobile Number:………
8)Monthly Income:…………………
)Which site did you here about us…………………

Thanks and Best Regards.

Unknown said...

Thanks for sharing, nice post! Post really provice useful information!

Hương Lâm chuyên dịch vụ cho thuê máy photocopy màu hoặc bán máy photocopy màu uy tín, giá rẻ tại TP.HCM và giải đáp máy photocopy nào tốt nhất cũng như link download driver toshiba 456 chính xác.

george smith said...

nicely explained the topic "Legal Services" same as you mention about is quite popular these days in the united kingdom, our company provides services for the same kindly visit to know more: Trust Registration Service