Why the toad leaves the hole: the charity transparency paradox

We hear an awful lot about “transparency” in the charity sector whether we are discussing the future or considering how to avoid scandals. Transparency is brought up whether you’re talking about pay, governance, technology, recruitment, switch to digital, fundraising and everything in between. It is in the news again after Which? supported future AGM votes on transparency-enhancing governance measures and the Charity Commission publicised advice on salary declarations.  But frankly it is often little more than a mantra.

There is a general presumption that goes like this:

If charities are more transparent, then the public will pay attention, they will see which charities are good and which are bad, and accordingly support the best ones and shut off the worst. This will allow the sector to flourish, and will ensure charities cannot stumble into crises, indefensible spending, PR disasters or toxic leadership decisions.

This logic may be neat but doesn’t reflect the real world. I don't buy it. To obtain the benefits above more than transparency is needed.

Transparency in our sector means that the public, or very small section of concerned citizens any rate, get to see “how the sausage is made”.

The problem is: most of them don’t know how a good sausage should be made, so will often judge perfectly good sausages harshly. The problem is compounded by the fact that some widely known purveyors of delicious pork meat actively misdirect the public as to appropriate banger composition.

Transparency for its own sake, say, publishing minutes of all subcommittee meetings or tables of salaries can be an empty exercise. And who on earth is interested in minutes? A list of salaries in misleading unless it is taken in context. A good charity, one that is delivering excellent service or research but is straining at the edge of its resources, could easily be judged as a chaotic failure that needs intervention or closure. A mature medium-size charity that is ticking along and spending a sensible sum on a review of its board and paying for one-off strategy training for senior team to stay relevant and socially useful, could look wasteful, complacent, and self justifying.

The current craze for publicising salaries tells you little about how the charity is run. Frankly a charity with a CEO on near the average wage, say £30k, might get approving nods in the Daily Mail but could be useless at delivery to beneficiaries.

As the saying goes, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. If charities are much more transparent, but the public and media don’t know what they’re looking for, the wrong organisations could be hounded and the wrong ones wreathed in laurels. To borrow a concept from the private sector (something charities are constantly encouraged to do) the crusade for greater transparency is an attempt to create a “market” with “perfect knowledge”. We all become cleaver-wielding butchers.

The logic above then assumes the public will have the perfect rationality to act appropriately. However, we know people  don’t act in a perfect rational manner, hence the whole field of behavioural economics. In any case, the would-be charity judges would not have perfect knowledge because they do not know what makes a good charity.

Indeed, most of us in the sector don’t claim to know exactly what makes a good charity. This is why we have the debate about how to quantify and compare impact.

There is excellent research and considerable resource funnelled towards answering this question. Until this has been broadly resolved, until our sector can present a more or less united front agreeing how our good can be measured, then the transparency crusade will be over-reaching.

Of course charities should not regress in their openness or attempts to explain themselves to the public: if any charity has an urge to cover something up, it probably should be revealed. Transparency lets us catch the outright frauds, incompetents and crooks – at least those unable to obscure their maleficence behind legal justification or accounting contortion.

Current norms should let the media do their job of highlighting the rot, but perhaps also invite them to attack the healthy. At the moment, overexposure and transparency for transparency’s sake, when there is no good benchmark for judgement, means the sector risks opening itself to critique from those who may have little idea about how a charity should be run. Indeed the nonsense on the salary front is revealed when you get members of the public saying they are surprised that charity CEOs are paid at all!

Analysis from the website Giving Evidence shows that there has been and continues to be a strong bias towards old established charities gathering more confidence and funds than newcomers, even though the last 20 years have shown an explosion in all forms of datasharing. Perhaps this means that the oldies are just the best, but I’d guess it implies the public just doesn’t scrutinise the information in the manner market theory suggests.

If we want the information revolution to really help sort the hog from the swine, our transparency efforts must be twinned with bold, clear public information on what to look for.

So perhaps the Charity Commission should address the need for better communication of the job of charities and the great work they do than their current guidance on charity salaries. Frankly we have seen a little too much of the finger wagging of the Commission and too little of the promotion of the great work we do. I get a little tired of the negative publicity that is often engendered by the Commission when we would all like them to understand you promote trust in charity not just by finger wagging but by solid hard work in promoting our worth to the media and general public. Let's have some transparency about just how many lives are saved by our work in the refugee camps or amongst the homeless and the destitute. A transparency agenda driven by the likes of the Daily Mail is not one to which I wish to subscribe.

Guest blog: who studies charities seriously?

This blog was written by Harry Brooks, who was on work experience with us this week.

Research is one of the most important aspects of the third sector, often relegated behind more glamorous aspects like fundraising and big donations from philanthropists etc. I’ve spent the last week delving deeper into this key field, and what goes on outside of the UK.

My initial impression of the academic research scene was the difficulty in getting any information, truly like getting blood from a stone. The lack of a centralised list of institutes and centres presented the main challenge, especially when approaching non-English speaking universities.

There were however some very useful resources that provided a foot in the door. From there it became obvious that the Anglosphere is still the dominant research area, from the UK to the USA, and a reasonable number of contributions from both Canada and Australia. The general feel from this was that as countries with very close links to the UK their third sectors, and subsequently their research, is also similar in content and scope.

The USA deviates from this slightly as it has a less regulated sector, in terms of charity foundation and tax breaks. However their sheer number of institutes makes up for this. When compared to their Anglosphere counterparts, continental European higher education establishments with third sector research seem few and far between.

The main two institutes that I found in continental Europe were however, large, and in the case of the WU (Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien-Vienna University of Business and Economics) rather prestigious. Their research is quite wide in scope, from Czech NPOs (non profit Organisations) in Masaryk, and Austrian organisations at WU to general management to the accessibility of data about the third sector.

As we move further afield towards Asia, there is a clear absence of academic rather than corporate research centres. China seems to be trying to buck the trend by partnering with universities and established philanthropists like Bill Gates in order to try to achieve parity. I came across an institute based in Karachi however, with a feature that I found rarely in my search and prevented any further insight - limited access to research. For the Karachi institution there were no examples of papers that did not require a registered paid account, so I was forced to move on

Even amongst the corporate centres in Asia, the focus on philanthropy was clear and perhaps highlights the meteoric rise in numbers of high earners in this area, particularly China and India. However, as has been seen in recent disasters, this growth has somewhat applied to charity too, with more and more people able to see the positive effects it can have. Religion is also very closely linked with at least some charity in almost all places but China. Despite this China is not devoid entirely, instead mainly populated by foreign entities like UNICEF and the Rotary Club.

Beyond the three continents above there are a very limited number of research locations, especially in Africa, although this may be due to prioritising research in other subjects, seen as more traditional.

I think that while it always pays to be cautious, the concerns of many that charity research has reached somewhat critical levels are thankfully a bit pessimistic, and that across the Anglosphere, and to an extent the rest of Europe and China, the only way is up.

Harry Brooks

History of Charity lecture, New College, Oxford, 3 July 2017

My lecture is available to download here!

Politics and our Third Sector

I was delighted when I saw that Baroness Dianne Hayter had been elected as the Deputy Leader of the Labour Lords. Dianne, when she was Director of Alcohol Concern, was one of the founders of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations (Acevo), some 30 years ago. She has been a passionate advocate of our sector in the Lords since her 2010 elevation.

She joins Baroness Smith of Basildon, the Leader of Labour in the Lords. Angela was the Third Sector Minister in the Brown Government and she knows the importance and value of the sector in driving change. She and Dianne are powerful advocates for us.

But what of the Government benches?

It's interesting that two such prominent sector stalwarts are in such positions. It contrasts with the decline in interest in charities by recent governments. The position of Third Sector Minister, a post set up in the Cabinet Office by Tony Blair in 2006, at the heart of the executive, and given to then-rising star Ed Miliband, has been repeatedly downgraded. Angela and Ed were Minsters of State. Now we have an Under-Secretary in the Culture, Media & Sport Department, where the current post-holder is also responsible for sport, a busy and respectable portfolio in itself.

Charity is so far down the pecking order it hardly matters in Whitehall. And let's face it, you would be hard-pressed to find mentions of charity in recent party manifestos.

To be fair, this decline in interest is matched by the pusillanimous behaviour of many charities, which now appear to find it hard to say “BOO!” to a goose , let alone anyone in government. These days unless you flex a muscle you will be walked over. I may not like the DUP but they know what they want and bully their way to getting it.

This is degrading and stupid. What we have seen with the tragedy at Grenfell Tower is how impotent the state can be, but how powerful charities and civil society are.

Increasingly third sector work in social care, in hospitals, in disability roles, in rehabilitation and employment, and in education, charities and social enterprises play a major role. More than a third of all mental health services are provided by charity.

We know that public services are under strain. We know that state provision often neglects the consumer or beneficiary. We know that often the third sector has the answer to better and more cost effective service. Look at care for the elderly: a third of beds in hospital are occupied by the frail elderly.  Many of them could be better cared for at home or in community provision. That is cheaper and better.

I'm giving a lecture at New College, Oxford on Monday on the history of British charity. We have a proud and noble tradition. I will speak of our record in public service delivery, our campaigning and advocacy that have achieved so much social reform. Sadly it appears that for some this record is hardly worth a thought.

The government is wilfully neglecting the role charities can play. It's time the current administration woke up to the power and potential of our sector.

Sir Stephen Bubb

Tweaking Governance Incentives

Societies’ need for the work of charities is complex. It is affected by the social and political systems, the economy, population growth, government policy, private sector’s social responsibility, and climate & environment, to name a few. 

Charitable endeavour is likewise affected by need itself, as well as levels of donations, professionalism, governance, public opinion, government policy & relations, voluntarism, and philanthropy. 

There are lively debates in the third sector on fundraising practices, on the use of Randomised Control Trials, the best ways to demonstrate impact, and the nature and practice of individual altruism.  There has also been some focus on governance itself, as displayed in the House of Lords Select Committee on Charities’ recent report: Stronger Charities for a Stronger Society.

Rather than propose a big shock-and-awe intervention in governance, this blog is an attempt to think through the incentives and disincentives that affect those engaged in it. There is no silver bullet for fixing charity governance, no easy-to-follow formula. A board can have a diverse set of talented people who meet at appropriate intervals with adequate information – they can look  perfect on paper – and still fail the charity they are meant to steward. Likewise a board that by description sounds chaotic can, with devotion and passion, steer a charity to robust growth. As we know from experience, governance is both about good process and strong dynamics in the organisation. 

We know that weak governance can cause serious problems for charities, and that boards which just keep a charity ticking along, without effectively challenging and stimulating the executive team, fail in their duty to help their charge be the best it can be for beneficiaries. We also know that if the relationship between a Chair and a CEO is bad then this will affect delivery and effectiveness. 

One way to think about this is to go back to basics, at least so far as management studies and behavioural economics would say: what are the incentives and disincentives for people becoming trustees and doing their duty as well as possible? 

Once we’ve established those, we can look at suggesting tweaks to the system to minimise the deterrents and boost the encouraging factors.

The list below is far from exhaustive and we’d welcome more suggestions. The list does not assign weight to each factor, so more items in a column doesn’t mean we think that column is overall more compelling. The factors certainly don’t all apply to all boards equally, or at all.

Incentives

-         Belief in charity’s purpose, goals and work

-         Interpersonal reasons (favour for friend/family)

-         Warm glow/ advancement of spiritual enlightenment/ faith 

-         Enjoyment of the trustee role

-         Social status/acclaim

-         Social expectation (those of high standing; religious obligation)

-         Career advancement (looks good on CV; builds experience; contacts & prestige)

-         Good relationship between board and senior team

Disincentives

-         Time commitment (including holiday days taken up, evenings reading, fundraising events; opportunity cost over leisure or earning)

-         Weight of responsibility and tough board choices (even if you vote against)

-         Pecuniary liability if things go wrong

-         Legal and regulatory scrutiny (and related stress)

-         Risk of media and moral hazard, community distrust

-         Costs of travel, sundry expenses

-         Learning strain (trusteeship training or self-education) or feeling out of depth

-         Boredom/diverts from passion of frontline volunteering

-         Competition from other non executive posts that offer remuneration

This prompts a few simple ideas to minimise the latter column. They would not revolutionise charity governance by any stretch, but taken together, could increase diversity, attendance, enthusiasm and confidence.

A. Volunteer days in law

If the state made employers offer 3-4 days, or even half-days, as paid leave specifically for volunteering this would free up countless individuals who would like to join boards but cannot justify taking so much time off. The third sector often discusses the personal growth benefits to serving on a board – these could be useful to the trustee’s main employer too, so volunteer time should not be seen simply as holiday, but as a form of constructive training. 
The flip side would be: hold all board meetings outside work/study hours. This presents travel problems but is often the easiest solution…

B. Normalise travel costs being paid by the charity

The cost of travelling to and from board meetings is a barrier to entry for some potential trustees. Charities are already encouraged to expand their capacity for holding meetings using digital communications technology, but this too presents affordability challenges (laptop, microphone, broadband line). Charities that can should consider normalising the cost of travel (and other similar expenses) to and from board meetings – many already do.

C. Recruiting and paying trustees

As discussed by New Philanthropy Capital, it may be appropriate to consider paying trustees in more cases than we currently see. Recruitment should also be open (at least on the charity’s website and social media if not through an HR firm) to avoid any accusation of bubble-headedness or cronyism. Payment need not be shockingly high or comparable to a salary, but could compensate those who really can’t give up working time, however much they’d like.  This is often a constraint for having proper beneficiary/service user representation on a board and should be considered deeply as a matter of diversity – only with genuine diversity rather than tokenism can a board fulfil its proper function of testing and challenging the executive. Modest payment also allows a charity to demand adequate time from its board to take appropriate reading and training/development steps if available.

Some argue that this changes the dynamic of what volunteering is about, what board service means. Is this really a problem? Are we willing to accept less-than-optimal governance for the sake of a vague Victorian sense that voluntarism is inherently noble, to the detriment of those unable to work for free?

Of course there are myriad other suggestions that would affect governance, and hopefully have a knock-on effect in charities’ impact – reform and support for and from the Commission; a public better educated in the realities of fundraising and charity action; better training and resources for boards of all stripes – but these are fuzzy, indistinct. The improvements suggested above are simple, and B & C can be done by charities tomorrow, without any long legislative process. Idea A can be supported by individual employers tomorrow, again, if the private sector sees what it can do to help (and to promote its employees’ responsibility and skills). The ideas explored here could apply equally to social enterprise directors, small charity boards or global research foundations.

Sir Stephen Bubb

The fantasy of a well-supported charity: Spontaneous Combustion Support

Imagine a fictional charity, Spontaneous Combustion Support (SCS). This charity, as the name implies, provides advice, preventative care services, and post combustion family counselling, for sufferers of the grave affliction. The most visible work it does is sending volunteers and medical professionals to identify suspected sufferers displaying early symptoms (wisps of smoke escaping from the nostrils, high fever, insatiable desire for curry) and chill their cores, then monitor their ongoing progress.

SCS operates along typical charity lines. Its workforce and volunteer pool are highly motivated, well intentioned, and generally good at what they do. The charity is always struggling for funds and often has to dip into reserves to keep delivering its vital services. Its IT systems are nearly a decade old and often freeze, while the scanners that their volunteers used to identify especially hot individuals in public places tend to break down or identify those puffing tobacco.

The charity has a couple of good researchers but their efforts to develop better cures and diagnosis tools are limited by the need for them to also act as coordinators for SCS personnel on the ground. The company’s logistics a poor: emergency teams often scramble to rescue those who are either already piles of ash, or perfectly healthy but standing near radiators. Staff salaries are below those of the public sector and completely out of sight of comparable private sector positions.

The charity has no budget to train its senior leaders, to help its board bond and learn to support and challenge the executives appropriately, nor does it have nonrestricted money for raising funds. Its efforts to alert people to the dangers and early warning signs of spontaneous combustion are limited to free social media platforms and simple infographics on its website. In some areas the NHS welcomes its help, in others the reception is frosty.

In short it is a worthy charity providing an important service, surviving but not thriving.

One day tragedy strikes. The daughter of a prominent businessman taking a refreshing walk along the Thames is healthy one moment then seen with smoke billowing from her ears the next. When the affliction hits she is a mere 20 minutes from a trained SCS volunteer who could help. However, the public is not aware either of the disease or of the charity’s ability to cure it. She is first ignored, assumed to be a poor example of performance art, then finally an ambulance is called, but it takes her to a general hospital without dampening and chilling facilities. By the time a staff nurse alerts SCS, Alicia Postlethwaite is alight. A charity volunteer team exerts themselves to put out the blaze but is too late.

Alicia’s father, once recovered from his grief, decides to hold a fundraiser for SCS with the vow that nobody else should perish from such a preventable disease. Mr Postlethwaite consequently holds The Businesspeople’s Big Bucks for Back Office Bash, inviting all of his besuited friends for a glitzy four course meal and auction of pledges. His associates and colleagues are well aware of the importance of supply chain, upstream facilitation, quality logistics and coordination, and proactive governance. They see an opportunity not only to help SCS and make something good of Mr Postlethwaite’s grief, but to provide a new model for the charity sector. This fundraiser is unique: not a penny raised is ringfenced for the front line. The businesspeople compete in largesse to support all aspects of the SCS engine room.

The charity is turned around in a matter of months. It becomes the Google/Twitter/John Lewis of the charity world, with fantastic facilities, state of the art technology, trendsetting best practice project management. A chief executive is brought in from a FTSE 100 outsourcing conglomerate. SCS offers fun diversions for staff, great pay and CV potential, training and development budgets. The best of the best compete to work there - even if not all are strictly motivated by altruism or charitable feeling. Its comms are efficient, frontline staff are sent where they need to go when they need to be there, research is joined up and coordinates with other charities and the private sector & universities.

Writers from the FT and Economist run articles on SCS’ innovative restructuring. Management finds it can collaborate with local spontaneous combustion charities such as Cornwall Against Combustion and Burnley Burn-Not, combining its medical expertise with their greater knowledge and links with chronic sufferers. The public learn how to spot the first signs of the disease and know who to call. Soon spontaneous combustion is little more than a myth used to scare naughty children.

In summary, far more SC sufferers are treated and saved than would have been if Mr Postlethwaite had demanded that all the money he raised be spent on paramedics and body-fridges.

The question is: would this be bad? From the description above Spontaneous Combustion Support no longer sounds much like a charity – it sounds like a typical private sector company that happens to run on donations. 

Is that a problem? It is very much meeting its charitable purposes after all.

More to the point, why is the story above so unbelievable? Fictional disease aside, it does not seem unrealistic that those many in society who understand the importance of back-office and business process should be motivated to donate to charities in a sophisticated manner.

They should frankly be annoyed by calls for every penny to go on the front line, for overheads to be minimised, for accounting acrobatics or actual austerity to create misleading ratios between giving and direct charitable effect spending. It is understandable that many in the public view charities with suspicion, but given the sector’s progress in transparency and accounting openness, why is there no support among those whose own businesses are run with proper infrastructure, for the voluntary sector to have the same bedrock?

JL

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.

What would the National Trustees body do?

The national survey of trustees conducted by the Charity Futures programme, Third Sector, and nfpSynergy indicated strong support for a new national trustees body. It follows that we should consider what such a body should actually do. It should have clear aims and a distinct role not already covered by NCVO, ACEVO, or the Association of Chairs. NCVO already has a governance department, and ACEVO ran a governance review service: there is also the Governance Hub, which produces the Code of Good Governance, which includes input from a whole host of bodies.

Many sector commentators already complain that there are too many infrastructure bodies. Only with a very defined purpose, funding structure, and place in the conversation would a trustees body enjoy wides support. It is not jumping the gun to hypothesise what role such a body should take. Fully 25% of our respondents thought that “a national body supporting trustees” would be “very useful”, while another 36% thought it would be “useful”.

The question did not imagine what that support might consist of. Different respondents likely interpreted it in different ways, projecting their own ideas about infrastructure support onto the question. Such a body could do any number of things, and the questions we had posed just prior to the one concerning trustees bodies probably affected what respondents were thinking: they included online training, better general training, trustee handbooks, and a trustee e-newsletter or group. There was most supports, 82% positive responses, to the generic idea of “Better training for trustees”, which doesn’t get us far.

How would such training be delivered? Seminars, workshops, awaydays, off-line courses? Would we have online video lecture series, mentorship programs, a grand centre delivering cutting-edge governance literature? How much extra time are trustees willing to devote to self-improvement? Would it be useful to have more governance appraisal services, provided at an affordable rate? Would funders and philanthropists have a more contributory role? Can charity boards learn from the composition and practices of the private and public sectors? If such a body did spring into being, how would it communicate with the public what it was trying to do, and assess whether it bolstered third sector leadership?

All of the ideas above feel worthwhile but uninspiring. A few hours of tuition or a quickly forgotten best practice document won’t have the impact we want. We need a body that is seen, unlike the Charity Commission, as a mentor, not a monitor. Perhaps there are many more innovations to come, or perhaps a carefully crafted mixture of the options above is the best that can be done.

The weighty challenge of governance demands joined-up big thinking. Marginal improvements and small scale initiatives on their own won’t be enough. They need to be set in this wider context, or small-fry thinking might become a habit. It would be a disaster if the mentality that can only justify minor interventions seeps into how foundations fund capacity. So the answer may well lie outside the sector and certainly may be about big philanthropy.

Trustee concerns reflect our sector’s broader problem themes. There remains a tendency to think too narrowly, e.g. contemplating governance simply as a question of trustees and processes, failing to recognise that it is as much to do with values and cultures – about how organisations are governed. That governing covers executive and staff behaviour, not just board meetings. Governance geeks, who just focus on the minutiae of process, are not only wrong; they are dangerous. They risk driving out the passionate spirit which (alongside professionalism) should be the sector’s hallmark. 

These are all issues that will need to be mulled over, indeed considered in great detail, before anyone dives ahead. But this work can be really valuable if we arrive at the right answer, or even as an answer that is mostly right. If we improve whole sector governance by a small margin in back-office, unsexy ways, this would translate into an imperceptible rise in quality of our whole sector’s operations. Intervening upstream to avert another Kids Company, pre-empt an Age UK or resolve a Terence Higgins Trust situation before it became an emergency: that would be a great boon to the sector. More, helping each board that had been merely muddling along, keeping their charity afloat, to really strive and explore how to deliver the very best: that is worth spending time to work out.

This is why, without any doubt, Charity Futures is now shaping up to be more than a two year journey - Woodford Investment and I are in this longer term. But perhaps our most important contribution – at least in the early years - will be to encourage others to join us in asking these questions and looking for answers. We will become clearer with time, and this gives us our best chance of delivering something meaningful.

Surveying the landscape: how do trustees feel?

For all the talk about charity leadership and governance, we actually know very little about what board volunteers think, what their training and backgrounds are, how they experience their roles. Past attempts to reinforce the quality of those guiding our sector have, in effect, been crafted half-blind. No wonder they have not always had the hoped-for impact.

That is why, with nfpSynergy and Third Sector magazine, Charity Futures has run the first comprehensive national trustees survey. We’ve been asking board members how confident they are in their own groups’ skills, what challenges they face, what support they receive and what are the best new ideas for support they’ll actually use.  By using social media, Third Sector’s readership and ACEVO’s member list, we’ve achieved a good snapshot of charities large and small, wealthy and modest, old and new.

Our results – together with choice commentary from yours truly - will be out next Wednesday. The survey promises to push the charity leadership conversation forwards and help us beef up the back office.

And on 22 November, we are holding a seminar with a range of sector experts on governance to help us digest these results and look at next steps. This is all part of our efforts to discuss widely with people and organisations to get their views on what an initiative in governance might look like and how it might work (and indeed who might fund it!) 

Speaking truth to power, part II

As I have blogged just recently, it is often said that one of the core duties of a charity is "to speak truth to power". It’s a phrase that originated with the Quakers in the 18^th century. The charge that they were given to speak was threefold:

• To those who hold high places in our national life and bear the terrible responsibility of making decisions for war or peace,
• To the  people who are the final reservoir of power in this country and whose values and expectations set the limits for those who exercise authority,
• To the idea of Power itself, and its impact on life.

There is an obvious link between the work of the Church and faith groups, and the work of charities in acting as the moral conscience of the country and a thorn in the side of the powerful on behalf of the poor and disenfranchised.

Of course this sometimes means we are both attacked by Governments and politicians who argue we have no business playing politics. Former Archbishop Williams has talked of the "illiteracy" of many politicians about our role and this is but an example of that. If Christ turfed the money changers from the Temple, would the Churches not be failing in their duty if they did not point to the gap between the wealthiest in our society and the poorest? Is that not true for charities?

It is sometimes argued that charities should "stick to the knitting". In other words we should run soup kitchens or food banks for the poor but keep our mouths shut about the causes of poverty. Fortunately neither the Church nor charities will cease from these essential roles; both delivering services to vulnerable people and the most damaged communities and holding those in power to account. 

Cardinal Nichols' trenchant criticism of the effects on communities of welfare changes is a powerful example of the role Church leaders can play and one to be applauded. The work of churches of all denominations and other faiths is also a great example of community cohesion. Our Muslim communities have a strong and abiding charitable tradition that mirrors that of the Christian tradition. So the example being set by Archbishop Longley and other faith groups in Birmingham offering the Muslim community solidarity is another example of the role Churches can play in fostering stronger communities.

Historically the link between faith and charity is strong and continues to be binding. Charitable giving is one of the core duties of a Christian. From early times the Church has encouraged and supported charities. Indeed many of the earliest charities were run directly by the Church. One of ACEVO’s members, the CEO of St. John's Hospital in Bath, is running an institution set up by the monks and which, as they say, "through centuries of change (…) has remained true to its purpose. Founded in the 12^th century it is still providing comfort in old age for those in need." Pope Innocent III in 1215 gave a letter of authorisation for the collection of alms, writing, "with works of great mercy and for the sake of things eternal so sow on earth what we should gather in heaven, The Lord returning it with increased fruit."

Many of our great national charities have their roots deep in the founding impetus of the Church; the children’s charities: Barnado’s, the Children’s Society and Action for Children are cases in point. One of the earliest hospices in the country, St Joseph’s in Hackney, was founded by the Sisters of the Poor. The work of the great international NGOs such as Caritas, Cafod and Christian Aid is sustained by the faithful and not simply through giving but through active support for their campaigning role; to mention just one example of that, "Make Poverty History".
So, at a time when the gap between the rich and the poor remains so large, we need a renewed sense of purpose between the Churches and charities in our common goal of giving voice to the voiceless. Similarly faith groups and charities continue their work in providing care and welfare services for those in need. Our role is growing as the State draws back from provision. Often this is because of an increasing understanding of the role of citizen and community focused charities, but also because the deep funding cuts demanded by austerity have eaten significantly into the safety net of our welfare state. That role will continue to grow and with it the much greater responsibilities that entailed. And as Archbishop Longley reminded ACEVO members in his speech to us, poverty encompasses so much more than just worldly goods. As he said, "poverty includes isolation, loneliness, fear in one's environment, being deprived of opportunities and lacking a voice". So we have that common purpose in delivering basic support and care as well as speaking out.

When the translators of the King James Bible were examining the Latin texts for the famous injunction of 1 Corinthians 13.13, there was much debate on the term "caritas". Modern translations use "love" but the King James scholars stuck to charity. Just a few years before they were deliberating, there was also debate on the role of charities which led to the great 1601 Statute of Elizabeth on Charitable Uses. I like to think they eschewed the use of "love" for charity as it is in charitable actions and approaches that we demonstrate the love we must have for one another and for God.
"And there abideth faith, hope, charity; these three, but the greatest of these is charity"

Speaking truth to power - or whispering?

Our sector is supposed to pride itself on its ability to "speak truth to power" but frankly at the moment you would be hard pressed to see many examples of it.

I was proud to be part of the marvellous coalition of organisations that fought the Lobbying Act and made such a change to it. We also worked closely with our colleagues to fight the nonsense of the contract gagging clauses that still lurk around Rob Wilson's in tray. But the reality is that the real threat to the sector is our own self-censorship. 

In the big debates of the moment you would need to look hard to find the charity leaders’ voice. On Brexit for example we took a craven line in the referendum debate and now are failing to effectively challenge the rise of xenophobia and hate crime. There are honourable exceptions of course, and the organisations promoting the cause of migrants and refugees is a great one, but by and large we have failed to come together to promote the tolerance and inclusivity that our sector espouses. Where for example was the voice of the sector denouncing the appalling "foreigner employees" speech of Amber Rudd? 

Then we come to the horrendous crisis in our health and social care system. This strikes at the heart of where our sector has traditionally been active. Many, many third sector bodies are prominent in service delivery and advocacy. What is happening with the care of the frail elderly in hospitals around the country is scandalous. I have seen this at first hand with my father who has just spent over two months in hospital, where I have seen the strains on the system. 

Chris Hopson, who speaks for NHS providers, has been a great example of someone prepared to tell the truth publicly about the crisis. On Monday we had Jeremy Hunt on the radio denying there is a problem and insisting that the planned cuts – so-called efficiency savings – will go ahead. This is disastrous, and anyone who knows what is happening in A&E or in the care system realises the need for more resources. 

But where are the sector leaders in the media pointing out the crisis we face? Demanding action? There is a curious silence when we need a voice. Sometimes leaders think you work behind the scenes to get action and don't use the media. This is a wrong approach. 

The media is an essential ally and a great negotiating tool. The media is not a nasty thing you wheel out when all else has failed. Politicians respond when they feel there is public pressure and concern.  Thinking you can make change through discussion and meetings alone can be a flawed approach. A judicious use of media to give voice to genuine concern, to articulate what beneficiaries are experiencing and to demand action, is part of the process of getting action. Hopson has brilliantly shown how this is done by exploiting media on behalf of his NHS provider members whilst engaging seriously with them on solutions. Politicians and ministers, and therefore officials, respond when there is a crisis and you are there both demanding action publicly, and there to offer a solution. But they also need to fear you. A charity leader uses media to extract change because people trust us and listen to us and that is something many politicians don't have.
But there is a second and perhaps more fundamental reason why we need the media.  A charity is not there simply to deliver a service or act as an agent of the State.  Our beneficiaries want someone to champion them and articulate their concerns and demand change. They want to hear that. They want to see it.  We are not simply there to work behind the scenes, necessary though that is as well, but to speak truth to power in a way that reassures our beneficiaries that we are on the case. 

I'm afraid Theresa May is deeply unengaged in the current crisis and will not until she starts hearing us on Today or the front page of the Mail or top of the news. The NHS didn't do the pilots in A&E two years ago simply because I presented Government with a neat paper. They did it because they feared the damage a winter crisis could do. We have failed to capitalise on that. Never fall for the trap governments set when they tell you won't get anywhere if you go to the press. That secures compliance, not action. 

I'm reflecting what I am seeing in the media and also on 15 years of working with politicians and getting results. When the Blair government wanted to make a major policy impact on charities, Number 10 was able to ignore many sector leaders. Those that were consulted – myself included – were those whose public backing was vital to success, and whose public opposition in the press could have been a serious thorn in the side. A charity leader needs to be in a position where they are too dangerous to ignore, and they can provide answers to sort major problems.

Bob Kerslake, former chief of the Home Civil Service, was quoted in Civil Society last week, pointing to the power of the sector and to remember we are more powerful than politicians. He sums up my position brilliantly:

"You have to stand apart and have an independent voice, and in my experience in government they respect those who stand up and challenge even if they don’t like it. The worst thing you can be seen to do is cower in front of government because, eventually, they will get you.”

Charity leadership and existential crisis

It’s no fun to think about the apocalypse, and even less fun to think about slow-moving threats to our civilisations. Countering both is nevertheless a key task, one that cannot forever be put off until tomorrow. It may sound a grand claim, but charities are absolutely at the forefront of unearthing and delivering solutions to these macro-scale events. For this reason, their leadership really needs to be the same calibre, their governance the same quality, as other sectors boast.

Take the old age crisis. In a few decades the ballooning size of the over-70 population will have changed the landscape of the state, with Britain, America, Japan and Germany especially affected. Pensions will not go far enough to cover the elderly’s living costs, let alone inflated health bills. To hope to maintain the standard of life to which Western citizens are accustomed, there need to be structural changes in the tax, welfare, community and health sectors. Public policy gurus are flummoxed.

Charity is already at the vanguard of innovation and best practice in the different aspects of responding to this challenge. Local or national, charities are exploring innovations promoting better care, whether that be social or residential. Charities provide important services for the elderly – medical help, mobility assistance, backing to personal independence, and a supportive community. They coordinate volunteers to aid those in trouble, help fight loneliness, and just bring a bit of human warmth.

Taking a wider view, our largest charities are crucial drivers of medical research and technological advancement, whether that be treatments, live-extension innovations or palliative breakthroughs. Charity funding is behind possible solutions to protracted problems including stem cells, genome mapping and nanotechnology.

There are further existential threats that come from antibiotics losing effectiveness. Scientists hope to find new powerful antibiotics in unexplored areas of the world such as rainforests, where biodiversity is robust: third sector activism and funding protects these areas, aids exploration, and seeks to conserve nature. A linked issue is food shortage: if pollinators like bees, bats and insects suffer catastrophic population decline through climate change, or global warming affects water and soil quality, human crops would fail. Conservation efforts to protect wildlife ecosystems and vulnerable areas across the world help stave off this possibility.

Society can also be imperilled by intercommunity violence, civil strife or terror. Work to help neighbours and those of different faiths and ethnicities live happily and cooperate is a central task of many UK charities.  Some of our most active voluntary bodies strive to help refugees and migrants fit in through language assistance, cultural integration and neighbourliness. This important work forms part of the bedrock for our cohesive British landscape.

It’s clear then that charities play imperative roles in acting to counter each of these major hazards, and lobbying states to take effective action against them, and leading the way in researching best practice. This underlines the need for excellent governance across the board. Voluntary sector leaders and those responsible for charities are not minor players, but chain links in society’s armour.

 We need them to be the best they can be.

Our ancient charities

One of the oldest charities in the country is Sherburn House in County Durham.  It was founded in 1181 by a wise and forward thinking Bishop Pudsey of Durham; he also gave them lands that still generate income for this great charity today. It consists of a care home, almshouses and other facilities, as well as a grants programme for the county. It even has its own Act of Parliament under Elizabeth I, passed in 1585 (which came about as a result of some past fraud, nothing new there then!) 

I visited recently and had a great day meeting with the CEO Pauline Bishop and key members of staff, as well as looking around the site and meeting with the trustees. It was fascinating to see the old chapel, still functioning as an integral part of the charity, and they even have their own chaplain (a woman, so they may be ancient but they are up to date theologically). There is an old plaque in the chapel marking the tomb of a former chaplain who, the plaque proclaims, preached to King Edward VI. They even have their own cemetery and a lovely woodland surrounds the site. I was shown the Elizabethan chalice and flagons and patten from the 18^th century, which are part of the treasures of the charity.

The trustees are considering how to update their governance arrangements and they very well understood the need for good governance in the light of all the recent publicity. They have their own history of problems and misdemeanours in the past and are clear they wish to be a model of good practice so, for example they are looking at the number of trustees they have, currently 16, terms of office, and the knotty issue of trustees who are nominated by other organisations and therefore may not always feel their responsibility lies with the charity rather than the nominating body.  I've come across this issue before and whilst the legal position is clear, i.e. you must put the charity interest above that of your nominating body, this is often not the reality.

We often forget that our country has a magnificent and proud history of charity, dating back to at least the 7^th century. Many of our old charities have their origins in the Church but have reformed and moved with the times, but are still serving their beneficiaries in the way that Bishop Pudsey envisaged some 900 years ago. 

We should celebrate our great history. At some stage in my life I intend to write a history of charity. There is nothing around since the 60s accounts written by Harvard professors. We need a proper history. I'm collecting the material gradually and have even spent a month in archives in the Bodleian in Oxford and at Lambeth Palace. It's a project for my retirement, though that is years off I'm afraid. 

Governance in Norfolk!

Happisburgh is a stunningly beautiful village on the coast in north Norfolk. But woe betide you if you pronounce it as it is spelt because it is of course "hawsbro". Though I rather like "Happisburgh" pronounced as you would think. It sounds rather New England like...

Anyway I spent 3 days there recently staying with old friends Denise and Stephen Burke, old stalwarts of our sector. Indeed Stephen used to be one of my bosses as an ACEVO trustee (I use the term in a rather loose sense!).

So we mixed business with pleasure and spent some time visiting charities and social enterprises in north Norfolk. First up was Age Concern Norfolk, a well-established and prominent charity. We had a really interesting discussion on governance issues with a good CEO, Hilary McDonald, who clearly gets the need for strong governance in the charity world. 

Then onto the Benjamin Foundation in Norwich where the new CEO Tony Ing has been in post for a year since he took over from a founder CEO. Although that brings its own challenges it was great to see the charity willing to confront and explore the next steps in their journey. It was interesting to explore some of the issues around "founder syndrome". As I know from my time at ACEVO, this has sometimes led to very problematic governance. The drive and determination of a founder in the early stages of creation and innovation need to give way to a more steady state professional style operation and it's a challenge to make the transition carefully. Good luck Tony. It's a great charity and doing impressive work with the homeless in Norwich and Norfolk.

A contrast was meeting the CEO of a social enterprise in the community transport world. Matt Townsend, a CEO who relocated from the inner city London world of social housing to run North Norfolk Community Transport, brings a wealth of talent and experience to this new challenge of trying to provide an effective rural community transport system. They’re lucky to have such a strong and impressive CEO.

And finally on to a learning disability charity where I met the founder and current CEO Helen Dalton-Hare. She rather made the point that not all founders are a problem as she was buzzing with energy and commitment. She runs About With Friends, which she set up because she saw that many people with learning disability had no social life or many connections with the community. And she provides support and training for employment in an area where there is such huge discrimination and ignorance about learning disability. I bought jam! Provision for learning disability in Norfolk is pretty poor and she was rightly rather leery about the so called "transforming care" agenda. We all need the pioneers and advocates of the third sector who see a need and are determined to tackle it.

Overall I think these visits bolstered my belief that what the sector needs is an authoritative source of advice and support on governance. So my work in "Charity Futures" is important. I got a strong feeling of interest and curiosity about what I'm up to. There was strong agreement this we need to "sort governance" in our sector. But it is also clear to me that this is such a big canvas there is no point in jumping in with solutions at this stage. So my journey of discovery will continue. Interesting that the picture on governance in our sector is not significantly different in a largely rural area from what we see in London or nationally.

And finally I can recommend Happisburgh. Come and see the wonderful lighthouse. And the looming church and the pub where Conan Doyle wrote one of his Sherlock books....

Perhaps the biggest lesson overall from the visits was that people generally find it difficult to know where to go for advice and support on governance. Once upon a time the Charity Commission had more resources to provide that support. They don't now and in any case have whittled their emphasis to regulation, not advice. That has left a gap. So where do people go for advice on a scheme of appraisal or induction? Authoritative advice on what is good practice?

Stephen Bubb

Sharia compliant governance

Since my appearance at the "Living Islam Festival" in Lincoln I've been thinking and discussing how we develop stronger governance in our Muslim charity world. The UK has some very great Muslim charities and the fact is that the Muslim community is the most generous of our communities in terms of its giving. During Ramadan over £100m is raised for charity. They put their Christian compatriots to shame in how they support charity. This is something we should celebrate. But we don't.  Instead, especially since Brexit, we have seen a rise in intolerance and hate crime.

However that is not to say there are no problems. It is clear that the Muslim charity world has grown exponentially but its governance has not. We can see the same problems of founder syndrome that beset other charities. Many of the boards of trustees are too large and often too old. But there is appetite for change, and we need to support and encourage that change.  One of my criticisms of the Charity Commission is not that it is not doing its regulatory job, but that there is a perception of fierce and disproportionate regulation when what we need is more support and encouragement. We need to work together to change that perception.

Since my Lincoln visit I have been speaking to various Muslim leaders and charities. In particular, I have accepted the role of one of the patrons of the Muslim Charity Forum, a great organisation that is working to develop leadership, and I met their leaders recently to talk about how we can develop their umbrella role in the sector.

The Cambridge Muslim College is a particular treasure. I went to see the Dean and Academic Director over August. It was one of those meetings where you get a flash of the blindingly obvious. If we are to make inroads into governance reform and development in the Muslim charity world, we need to develop what we can describe as Sharia compliant codes of governance.

There is nothing in our current Code of Good Governance that is inimical to Islamic teaching, indeed the underpinning ethics of the code are found in the tenets of Islam. However the code is expressed in the language of the Anglo Saxon world of management-speak. It is however easily translated into the language and teachings of the Koran. Indeed the development of Islamic charities has close parallels with the teaching of the Christian faith.  One of the 5 pillars of Islamic faith is charity or giving, just as in the Bible we are taught that giving is essential to the Christian life.

And this applies also to the development of leadership and management training; again the texts here are so often driven by an Anglo Saxon, usually American approach, when we could root the learning in the traditions of the Islamic world.

So there is work to do.  But we must be clear: if we are to encourage our Muslim communities to play a full life in civil society, an approach based on tolerance and respect is needed. Unfortunately we have a government-driven approach based on counter terrorism and legislation which undermines efforts to support our 3m strong Muslim community.

So now my task is to work with colleagues to see how we can develop this "Sharia compliant" approach. Of course it may raise eyebrows... I remember the speech of the former Archbishop of Canterbury when he talked of Sharia but then again we do need this debate. 

The delayed success of the ice bucket challenge

In August 2014 Twitter feeds, Facebook walls, and television screens were filled with celebrities and ordinary people dousing themselves with buckets of icy water. The viral trend had been started in America to raise money and awareness for Amytrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS, also known as Lou Gherig’s Disease and Motor Neurone Disease). Millions of people participated in the challenge, which raised over $220 million in America and much more elsewhere.

However, the charity sector was not unanimous in celebrating the challenge as an example of modern fundraising and campaigning success. Many commented that the challenge was a fad, was failing to produce sustained interest in disease research, was making people feel good about themselves for relatively little effort (“slacktivism”, “clicktivism”), or was cannibalising donations, diverting gifts that would have been given anyway from more deserving causes to ALS.

There were other critiques: that this was a callous waste of water, that ALS was a disease of minor importance when several African countries were experiencing an Ebola epidemic of historic proportions, and simply that people were sharing the videos and taking the challenge without donating money or educating themselves. These can now be addressed in turn.

The boost in funding has now delivered intermediate results. The American ALS Association received 13 times more contributions than in a normal year and distributed them among six research projects. Work by Project MinE, which involved 80 researchers in 11 countries mapping the genomes of over 15,000 people, has identified a new gene which contributes to the disease, NEK1. This discovery is a step towards better treatments and a possible cure. Barbara Newhouse, the American ALS CEO, told the New Yorker “We’re seeing research that’s really moving the needle not just on the causes of the disease but also on treatments and therapies.”

This shows there are tangible results from people’s donations. The level of fundraising success was a story in itself, but the positive consequences arising from spending that money has public relations value for the whole charity sector two years later, confirming in donors’ minds the validity of contributing to charities that focus on research rather than services or direct giving. Project MinE received under one tenth of the funds raised, meaning other breakthroughs could arise from other scientific work.

Other criticisms are contradictory. The fact that there was an Ebola outbreak in 2014 simply means that more should have been done, and should be done, to encourage support for tropical disease charities. It is an invalid argument to suppose that just because it is sad one cause is being ignored, other causes too should be.

According to Giving USA, donations in the US rose almost 6% in 2014, which implies there was no cannibalism effect. At a rough estimate, about $12 was raised per video uploaded, suggesting that for every individual who made a video but failed to donate, there were many more who contributed. The English language version of Wikipedia saw views on its ALS page leap 18 times higher than normal, with similar increases in Spanish and German versions. It would be churlish to deny that the challenge raised awareness and understanding of the disease.

In awareness terms, the ice bucket challenge was also a success in starting the very conversation of which this blog is a part. Major newspapers and websites featured countless think pieces and debates on the relative impact of different charities, on what individuals’ strategies for giving ought to be, and how social media could or should be used by charities in the future. It is wrong to disparage the campaign for its primary focus on celebrity and fun — without this focus, there probably would have been no story at all, and no conversation. Moreover, the challenge engaged under 30s, the demographic that the third sector typically struggles to enthuse for volunteering or donation.

We can see reflections of the success in recent attempts to capture the enthusiasm of the 2014 craze. This year, mental health advocates in America and Britain are consciously trying to recreate the ice bucket challenge with the “22 push-up challenge” campaign, which has three admirable aims. First, to raise awareness that’s 22 military veterans take their own lives each day, second, to raise funding for mental health support, and third, to promote public fitness in a participatory, mutually supportive manner. It has already delivered stories in the Sun, Daily Telegraph, Daily Mirror and the BBC.

While it may not have been perfect, the ice bucket challenge shows the potential of social media for fundraising in an engaging way. It does not appear to have had the negative effects or attributes that critics feared, and indeed has begun to deliver results.