« Put your clothes back on! | Main | Photo Friday: Bus Stop @ Old Street, Deaf Chair Now »

Third Sector Funding, National Audit Report

nationalauditoffice.jpgThe National Audit Office has published a report: Public Funding of Large National Charities [PDF], August 2007. This report came about because:

"Large charities are important providers of some public services, but public bodies' funding arrangements are often unnecessarily complex and costly. Public bodies need to work together to bring coherence and consistency to their funding practices, to ensure that charities' valuable work is not hampered by bureaucracy."

And thus seeks to address this issue. Whilst it is not disputed that this is a real issue for the voluntary sector, personally I would like the government to take a more serious look at the role of the third sector.

Many charities in the UK, including deaf ones, rely on public funding as a significant part of their income. For example, contracts for mental health services, care homes, and this could be rolled out to the possible dispensing of hearing aids, etc.

What the government perceives as the role of charities, and possibly charities themselves; I think is a lot different from how we would like them to be. For example, is pushing certain services into the charitable sector an excuse for public services to marginalise us, and not make adjustments. Is such measures against or shying away from the Disability Equality Duty, which requires public bodies to have considerable influence in the wider community. How can it be doing this, if it pushes off services onto charities?

The government obviously somewhat takes this seriously, as there's such a thing as the Office of the Third Sector. This underlines the influence that the voluntary sector has on society, and more to the point the delivery of services.

I would like to see a serious re-examination of its relationship. However, who campaigns for this to happen? Charities and umbrella groups that represent them aren't going to do so, because it won't be in their financial interests. Yet who are they there for? The government perhaps is unlikely to do so, because its not good at delivering services targeted at marginalised groups.

There is little recognition that the voluntary sector does not necessarily represent the best interests of its targeted groups. Their business interests and the interests of its beneficiaries aren't necessarily one of the same, and yet its easy to assume these two are, because of the word 'charity'.

Ask the readers:
What are your opinions on this subject?

See also:
Coming soon: will you be forced to get your hearing aids from the RNID?

Sources and Further Reading:
National Audit Office Press Release
NAO: Home Office Working with the Third Sector, 2005 [PDF]
NAO: Working with the Third Sector Executive Summary, 2005 [PDF]
Implementation of Full Cost Recovery, 2007 [PDF]
NAO Press Release: Implementation of Full Cost Recovery, 2007
NAO: Financial Relations with Third Sector Organisations
Third Sector Commissioning Taskforce
Third Sector Network
Full Cost Recovery

Comments (4)

I thought everyone knew the buck passing to charities to provide services under the guise of 'Users doing it for themselves' was an obviously huge con act ? By so doing you only have to give the occasional hand out to a charity, as averse to setting up a permemant, accountable and effective supportive service, every year charities have to go begging to stand still. It saves the tax payer millions, to fund vital things (like Waging War).

We asked for it, because we didn't want the 'state to provide', but we hadn't a clue or the people to run it. Seems a lot of people still aint seen the writing on the wall from HM government and NHS, which is....GOTCHA !

(I hate to say I told 'em so, but I did !). Charities should not be running any essential support service. Access and basic support is a right, and shouldn't be dependant on hand outs..

Although done as a trackback, I'm aware there's issues, so here's a direct link to my posting that's related to this:


I'm interested to know that this has been commented to only by one other person.

I've similar questions to Ali's of whether it's helpful to us that the third sector can run services that we have a right to as "charitable". Definition of this needs to be looked at and perhaps regulated given all the 21st Century examples Ali has listed.

If you could post more on this, I'll be pleased to read.

Thanks for your comment Ben. Responses like yours is useful, as we get to know what people would like more of. Lack of responses, sometimes I think no-one is interested / I'm wasting my energy posting stuff that people have no interest in ... thus don't post more.

Will try and research this topic more at some point, and do another post on it. However, seems like a bottomless pit. :-/

The problem is, if we don't like what we find ... then what happens? Deaf organisations (subjectively) see success in relation to how many £££s they can manage to churn out in a year. Financial size matters to them. Why would they challenge an ideal that puts a stop to money going into their bank account?

New Here?

Hello! We're UK based, more about GOD.

This page only has one post (posted on August 20, 2007 9:56 AM). For more visit the main page.

Don't miss new content, subscribe to our feed.

  feed.png   Posts Feed
  feed.png   Comments Feed

[Don't know what RSS is? Watch this subtitled video.]

Paying the Host Bill

Creative Commons License

Usually the content of this website is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence, unless specified otherwise.
Powered by
Movable Type 3.33