Why demands for greater accountability and stronger governance should be challenged

Very good advice from Helmut Anheier who calls on not-for-profits to resist and lobby against demands  by legislators, politicians, academic think tanks and corporate leaders for greater not- for- profit accountability.

This is a critical issue here in Australia where Governments of all political persuasions and corporate and business leaders demand greater not- for- profit accountability and exhort the sector to "rise to the accountability challenge".

Of course their demand for greater not- for- profit accountability is wholly incompatible with their commitment to reduce accountability and regulation of politicians and political parties, and corporations and business.

Anheier argues (here) that the continual focus on accountability and governance produces undermines the reasons why not- for- profits exist.

Charity leaders must lobby against ever greater accountability requirements, delegates were told at Acevo’s annual conference today.

Speaking at the event in London today, Helmut Anheier, professor of sociology and dean at the Hertie School of Governance in Berlin, said he was concerned about the growing expectation for the voluntary sector to become more accountable.

"Why I’m concerned is that continual emphasis on good governance and accountability will ultimately put non-profits on the defensive, making it very difficult for them to meet these expectations, unless we take a proactive solution and steps in that direction," he said.

Anheier, who was Centennial Professor at the London School of Economics between 2001 and 2009, said the debate about the need for charities to be more accountable stretched back almost 20 years, but was now getting louder.

"It is the ‘audit society’, general institutionalisation, the suggestion that more and more mechanisms are needed to reassure us that things are okay," he said. "This is merged with ideas of good governance, which are now the prime directives for voluntary organisations."

He said that putting emphasis on accountability undermined the reasons non-profit organisations exist.

Innovation in accountability should be encouraged in the charity sector, he said. He advocated demonstrating the academic Jonathan Koppell’s "five dimensions of accountability": transparency, legitimacy, controllability, responsibility and responsiveness.

"It should be acknowledged that full accountability is beyond what non-profits can and should do," said Anheier. "New forms of self-regulation and smart reporting should be encouraged.

"Lobby against new directives for ever great accountability requirements – let’s not overdo it."

We are Spartacus: The power of social justice campaigning

Here's hoping that the release of the second Spartacus Report  in the UK proves to be as significant as the first Spartacus Report (released in January 2012) which generated a huge groundswell of opposition to the Cameron Government's welfare reform package for people with disabilities, and resulted in Parliamentary defeats for the Cameron Government (the website of the We are Spartacus Campaign is here)

The second Spartacus Report released this week is described as a People's Report and analyses the failures of the Government’s Work Capability Assessment and the Employment & Support Allowance system for people with disabilities.

It  includes the experiences of more than 70 people who have been wrongly assessed, humiliated, badly treated and forced to go to  a tribunal to secure the benefits to which they are entitled under by law. The report highlights press reports of some people who have died after being found fit for work or whose suicide has been linked, at least in part, to a process which is considered abusive, demeaning and not fit for purpose. 

The first Spartacus Report was a social policy and social justice landmark. It demonstrated the power of an authentic grassroots campaign organized and run by people most directly affected by welfare reform. Rather than attempt to work "inside and with Government and political parties" the campaign directly resisted and challenged Government policy.

The first Spartacus report was written and researched by a group of people with disabilities as part of a grassroots campaign to challenge and reverse a key social policy reform. The  report and campaign grew out of the online support networks that sprung up as people’s right to much needed DLA was removed by the government. 

The campaign used a wide variety of tactics – with a particular focus on social media campaign and direct action – to shift the debate on disability benefits. One significant feature of the Spartacus campaign was the organic nature of its development from a social support network to a formal political campaign. 

The first Spartacus Report showed the Cameron Government's lies and evasions and its misleading of the public over plans to reform the Disability Living Allowance (DLA) being paid to people with disabilities and replace it with a Personal Independence Payment (PIP). The Report showed that the change would result in significant cuts in benefits and reduction in allowances.

The Spartacus Report exposed the Cameron Government's lies and evasions on the reform and showed that:

• There was overwhelming opposition among people with disabilities and disability groups to the reform
• The Government ignored the majority of consultation feedback it received  and concealed the huge amount of opposition to the reforms
• The Government used inaccurate figures to exaggerate the rise in DLA claimants in order to justify its policy
• The Government broke its own guidelines about consulting with people with disabilities
• The Government ignored advice that the policy breached legislation including the Equality Act, the Human Rights Act and the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities.

Rick Cohen on the need for the Not For Profit sector to be more involved in political issues

Rick Cohen is one of the best writers and commentators on the US not for profit sector.  His regular Cohen Report can be read on the website of the Non Profit Quarterly.

He has written this excellent piece on the implications of the US elections for the not for profit sector.  There is much in here for the Australian not for profit sector to consider.

One of Cohen's key points is that the not for profit sector needs to be much more engaged in the political debates and issues of the day, whether it is climate change, economic policy, political corruption or corporate power.

Cohen argues that the nonprofit sector can and should be the bridge through which the political parties start speaking to—rather than sidestepping—the critical issues of the day.

Cohen writes:

In a way, the gig is up. It’s no longer sufficient for the nonprofit sector to sidestep critical societal issues of race, campaign finance, climate change, and the fiscal cliff for fear that in speaking out on them they will alienate arenas of political support they need to cultivate and protect. It’s equally no longer tolerable for our nation’s political leaders to be allowed the leeway to feed the nation bromides without coming to grips with the real issues at hand. And it is untenable for the leaders in Washington and in the state capitals to continue down a path of intransigence and obstructionism that makes the nation appear virtually ungovernable. The nonprofit sector has a concrete role to play in telling politicians to get their acts together, to start speaking to the real issues of the day, and to act as if being elected to government means having to engage in the process of governing.

UK not for profit leader warns against adopting private sector models

Deborah Allcock Tyler who is the CEO of the UK based Directory of Social Change is a regular vsitor to Australia and always has important and insightful things to say about the Not-for profit sector

Last time she was in Australia she slammed the idea that Not for profits should be more business like arguing that it is offensive how much is written about how NFPs need to be run better and behave more like the business world.

Debra Allcock Tyler addresses the 2010 Think Innovation Summi

Allcock Tyler argues that the constant comparison between practices in the business and Not for Profit sectors is ironic, as it was the failure of corporate governance and banks that plunged the world into a recession.

Allcock Tyler has recently visited Australia again as a guest of the Victorian Department of Communities to speak about the experience of the big society and its impact in the UK, social finance and the role of the voluntary sector in social change.

One of her messages (one that I and many others have been arguing for years) needs to be stated over and over-  private-sector models are not the solution to deeply entrenched, long-term social problems and complex human and community needs.

Allcock Tyler is a strong critic of competitive tendering and contractual approaches arguing that the move to competitive tendering for government contracts creates a view of NFPs as just another delivery vehicle for social services. It creates a system where NFPs are forced to behave more ruthlessly like businesses, in a competitive manner.

 Allcock Tyler argues that competitive tendering creates a psychological shift about who the client is – with a contract the client is whoever is paying, instead of the grant system, where a NFP determines a solution to a problem and takes it to government for funding. It also this means the big organisations get bigger, and the medium and small organisations are left behind.

Allcock Tyler has warned the Australian not- for- profit sector of the dangers of adopting untested and in many cases failed market- based policies, including social finance, social enterprise and payment by results, which are increasingly popular here in Australia among Governments and which are fiercely promoted by academic think tanks like the Centre for Social Impact and the growing number of corporate funded  and business oriented NFP advocacy groups.

Allcock Tyler writes here:

It was a great trip, even though I came away worried that the Australians are following the UK's lead in government engagement with the voluntary sector - which, let's face it, is not going well. I did point out that they really shouldn't follow our example because we're buggering it up badly (they're Aussies - they like a spade to be called a spade, and an expletive to emphasise the point always goes down well).

You won't be surprised to hear that I was particularly scathing about social impact bonds and payment by results. One rather important sort of chap then asked me how I explained the success of the "Peterborough experiment". I was flummoxed. I'd never heard of it and said that if it was that successful people would have been shouting about it loudly.

Amazingly, on my first day back in the UK I was listening to Today when said 'experiment' was referred to by Chris Grayling, the Secretary of State for Justice. The absolute shocker was his statement that the payment-by-results model used in the social impact bond being pioneered at Peterborough prison was hugely successful - although he hadn't yet had the report with the evidence to back up that assertion. It seems the government is so confident this market-based, capital-intensive model is right that it doesn't need the evidence to prove it.

What really riled me was the bare-faced hypocrisy of this. We in the sector are constantly exhorted to provide evidence of need and success in order to get funding - but the government is allowed to get away with rolling out a controversial, highly contested model of funding the sector without providing evidence. How hypocritical is that? Well, it won't work. Private-sector models are not the solution to deeply entrenched, long-term social problems.

Not for profit aged care provider Baptistcare protests Federal Government funding cuts

Always pleasing to see large Not- for- profit organizations like Baptistcare willing to make a stand  and protest against Government policy that disadvantages the people they serve.

This report describes a protest by staff at Baptistcare's Rockingham aged care facility against Federal Government funding decisions in aged care that are resulting in $500 million being cut from aged care funding.

Baptistcare is extending the protest to 13 of its residential aged care facilities and three disability and community care sites from today, in protest at the Federal government's decision

The organisation has taken the step of launching the visual protest, which includes a call to action via social media, to raise greater public awareness of the government's 1 July adjustments to the Aged Care Funding Instrument (ACFI).


The protest is part of  a larger campaign being run by not- for- profit aged care providers through Aged and Community Services WA  which represents not-for-profit aged care providers which care for 100,000 of the state's most frail and vulnerable citizens.

Flags emblazoned with “Government Neglects Aged Care” flew outside the Gracehaven facility protesting reduced federal funds for aged-care organisations to deliver clinical care services to its residents.

Baptistcare CEO Lucy Morris said the Government had made it almost impossible for not-for-profit residential care providers, like Baptistcare, to provide appropriate care for the elderly and vulnerable.

“Through its adjustment of the assessment tool used to fund high-care services, the Government has stripped money from the services needed to care for older, sicker residents, who have more complex health needs and need higher levels of care,” Dr Morris said.

But Mental Health and Ageing Minister Mark Butler said subsidies would not be reduced and they would continue to grow by 2.7 per cent a year above indexation, per resident over the next five years.

He said early data for providers’ care funding claims made in July showed average subsidies increased from $133.96 per resident per day in June to $134.83 in July.

“Leading Aged Services Australia (LASA) and Aged and Community Services Australia (ACSA) have claimed funding will be cut by hundreds of millions of dollars in 2012 and beyond,” Mr Butler said.

“These claims are clearly untrue, as these early figures show. The Government’s aged care package will increase funding for residential care. This year’s subsidies will be $310 million more than last year.”

ACSA WA chief Stephen Kobelke said WA’s not-for-profit aged care sector had struggled for years to survive in one of the world’s most expensive cities.

“There has been unprecedented stagnation in the provision of aged-care services in WA, to the point that 3368 bed licences have now not been taken up since 2007,” he said.

He said ACSWA figures showed some aged-care providers would face cuts of over $14,000 per resident.

Citizen action in Perth this weekend

A busy weekend of activity coming up for WA's citizen led sector and WA civil society groups with a number of important rallies and events in Perth this weekend worthy of support. I will be speaking at one of them.

Rally against Unconventional Gas Fracking  at 1pm this Saturday October 13th in Fremantle is part of a National Week of Action against unconventional gas fracking as called by the Lock the Gate Alliance. Here in WA the unconventional gas threat has grown more serious with full scale shale and tight gas fields planned for the Mid West and the Kimberley. Speakers include: Greens MP Alison Xamon, Jamie Hanson from Conservaion Council of WA, Greg Glazov from Doctors for the Environment, Marcus Atkinson from Nuclear Free Future, Fremantle Mayor Brad Pettitt and also a member of No Fracking WAy.

The Global Noise Street Festival to be held in the Perth Cultural Centre from 6pm to 9pm this Saturday October 13th forms part of the Occupy Perth celebrations and the Global Occupy movement.

The annual Reclaim the Streets March will commence at 2pm on Saturday 13th October from the Perth Cultural Centre.

Welcome Refugees is a protest against mandatory detention and Australia's offshore asylum seeker processing regimes organized by the Refugee Rights Action Network (RRAN) WA. The event will take place at 1pm this Sunday October 14th at the Wesley Church corner  on the Corner of Hay and William Streets in the Perth CBD.

Regulator of the Australian not-for-profit sector is in doubt

Excellent and timely piece here by El Gibbs in New Matilda on the Federal Government's  plan to set up an Australian Charities and Not-for-Profit (NFP) Commission to improve regulation of the not-for-profit sector.

The Federal Government's legislation to set up up the Australian Charities and Not-for Profit Commission to  manage all aspects of NFP governance and require annual financial reporting by organisations across the country went through the House of Representatives last week and is due to come before the Senate in the next sitting of Parliament.

The relevant bills have been through an extensive consultation process, including a formal review by a Senate Committee. The Greens, who hold the balance of power in the Senate, support the legislation in broad terms, but intend to move amendments in the Senate and may block the legislation if their amendments are not adopted.

The Opposition Liberal National Parties currently oppose the creation of the Commission. and provided over 30 speakers against the Bill when it came before the House of Representatives last week.

As El points out the main industry bodies representing the not- for- profit sector in Australia have been calling for the streamlining and improvement of the regulation of the not- for- profit sector for some considerable time and there is widespread support for the Commission.

However, despite this level of support there remain concerns that, without support from the states and territories, the impact of the Commission will be to increase, rather than decrease, the administrative burden on NFP groups, particularly smaller agencies.

I have cited El's piece in full:

Will a Charity Commission cut Red Tape 
by El Gibbs

A proposal to regulate and oversee a section of the Australian economy that employs 8 per cent of workers and comprises over 600,000 different organisations went through the House of Representatives last week. It’s due to come before the Senate in the next sitting of Parliament.

The proposed legislation will set up a commission to manage all aspects of governance and require annual financial reporting by organisations across the country.

The Australian Charities and Not-for-profit (NFP) Commission is a long-standing goal of the NFP sector and has been recommended in a series of reports into the sector since 2001. Currently, charities and NFP groups report to a myriad of government agencies. They often have to report a number of times and in different ways, creating a great deal of red tape. 

"We are at the altar of the reforms we want and need and we ask for the support of our national parliament and of the states and territories to deliver for us better and smarter regulation. We don’t want to be jilted yet again," David Thompson AM, Director of the National Roundtable of NFP Organisations, told New Matilda. 

The Commission will also oversee future changes to the definition of what is a charity and which organisations are able to claim the lucrative Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) status, that allows donations to be tax-deductible — this has an impact on the kind of fundraising an organisation can do. The Commission could also frame the unique place the NFP sector holds in relation to the government and business sectors. 

The CEO of ACOSS, Dr Cassandra Goldie has said:

"Our sector is overly but ineffectively regulated. For the reams of paper and hours of analysis that charities put in to reporting the same information to multiple funders and regulators, we know little about the activities, size or scope of this essential sector."

The proposed Commission will, according to Senator Ursula Stephens, have three main objectives.

"Its first object is to maintain, protect and enhance public trust and confidence in the NFP sector. Its second object is to support and sustain a robust, vibrant, independent and innovative NFP sector. The third object underlines the important role that the ACNC will have to promote the reduction of unnecessary regulatory obligations on the NFP sector."

In a statement from the State, Territory and National peak groups for the sector, Goldie states that "the creation of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profit Commission is the culmination of a long process and has broad support from the community and social services sector. 

UnitingCare Director, Lin Hatfield-Dodds, told New Matilda that the opportunities offered by the Commission could be of great benefit to the community and to the sector:

"It’s important that funders can quickly and easily get an objective and transparent look at the community groups they support. The Commission could also act as a ‘Report once, use often’ tool, so that community groups report to one agency across all government. When we are spending public money, we have to be transparent. However, there is a risk that we spend more time and administration on reporting, rather than delivering innovative services."

However, there are concerns that, without support from the states and territories, the impact of the Commission will be to increase, rather than decrease, the administrative burden on NFP groups. Currently, organisations can either incorporate, and be regulated by ASIC, or form an association, which is regulated by state-based Departments of Fair Trading. The addition of a Commission, with no corresponding reduction in state-based regulation, is of concern to many groups. COAG is due to consider these issues early in 2013. 

In the interim, the Commission could drive reform of red tape within the federal government by streamlining reporting requirements across departments and agencies. For example, each time a group applies for a grant, they have to start from scratch, rather than being able to register with the Commission once for all other agencies. 

The relevant bills have been available for public scrutiny for some months, and have been through an extensive consultation process, including a formal review by the Senate Community Affairs Committee.

 The current legislation is the result of many changes, however there are still concerns held by the Greens, who intend to move amendments in the Senate in the next sitting of Parliament. 
"As I outlined in my dissenting report on this legislation, the Greens remain concerned that there’s not enough detail about gag-clauses for advocacy groups, and we think there needs to be more consultation on the governance arrangements and independence for the sector to advocate on behalf of those they look after," Greens Senator Rachel Siewert told New Matilda:

"Not-for-profit groups are an essential part of civil society and it’s important that this legislation gives transparency in dealing with government. We also want to see the Commissioner given more power to drive the red-tape reduction agenda."

The Greens confirmed to New Matilda that they will consider blocking the legislation if their amendments are not adopted by the Government. However, they stated their commitment to working with the Government to improve the bills to address the remaining issues of concern to the NFP sector.

The LNP currently opposes the creation of the Commission. Despite the broad sector support, the LNP provided over 30 speakers against the Bill when it came before the House last week. Kevin Andrews, the Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services, stated  that "this is legislation which has been foisted upon the charitable sector in Australia which they do not want, which there has been no case made by the hapless minister at the table." 

"This is simply not true," said Thompson, who leads the sector’s peak body. "The evidence is in the thousands of words in submissions from the sector, calling for this reform. The Government has taken on board a significant number of issues raised in submissions." 

Other LNP members quoted a range of charitable and NFP groups’ concerns about the Bill. However, some of these quotes were from submissions about a much earlier version of the legislation and many of these concerns have now been remedied. Several sources have confirmed that there has been considerable disquiet among those groups named by LNP members in the debate. 

One, the Australian Institute of Company Directors, is quoted as having concerns regarding the impact of the legislation on board members, most of whom are volunteers. In a recent statement, the AICD said: "if suitable amendments giving effect to these changes were to be made to the current Bill, and subsequent to our review of the revised Bill wording, we would support its passage through Parliament." They support the amendments that the Greens will be putting to the legislation. 

The Bill has been introduced into the Senate and is due to be debated in the next sitting, starting 9 October. If the legislation is not passed, Thompson says "it will be back to the drawing board in the quest to get the regulator we want. We have waited a long time and an enormous effort has been put in to get it this far."