Emerging findings for charity trustees from the Charity Commission's public benefit assessment work: 2009-11
(March 2011)
You can also view the colour PDF version of Emerging findings for charity trustees from the Charity Commission's public benefit assessment work: 2009-11.
The Charity Commission is the independent regulator of charities in England and Wales. Its aim is to provide the best possible regulation of those charities in order to increase their effectiveness and public confidence and trust. Most charities must register with the Commission, although some special types of charity do not have to register. There are some 180,000 registered charities in England and Wales. In Scotland the framework is different, and the Commission does not regulate Scottish charities.
The Commission provides a wide range of advice and guidance to charities and their trustees, and can often help with problems. Registered charities with an annual income over £10,000 must provide annual information to the Commission. The Commission has wide powers to intervene in the affairs of a charity where things have gone wrong.
Contents
|
A report from the Charity Commission on the emerging findings for charity trustees from its public benefit assessment work.
This report is intended to help charities with their public benefit reporting but is not statutory public benefit guidance.
|
A. Foreword
We have published on our website detailed reports on the findings of twenty public benefit assessments of individual charities. Those reports provide details of the issues that arose in individual cases and our conclusions and recommendations.
The purpose of conducting assessments into the public benefit of a selection of charities is to provide real examples for the rest of the charity sector, to help raise awareness and understanding of public benefit and to supplement the guidance the Commission has published.
We continue to be encouraged by the extent to which the charities we assessed demonstrated their understanding of public benefit by providing many excellent examples of how they meet the public benefit principles.
Charities play a vital role in society, and showing how they benefit the public is an essential part of that. We have consistently said that most charities can demonstrate sufficiently how they benefit the public, and the arts, religious, schools, care homes and recreation and leisure charities we have worked with have proved this. All the charities took a constructive and imaginative approach to the assessment process and we particularly want to recognise, and thank them for, their hard work and good will.
|
Dame Suzi Leather
Chair
|
Sam Younger
Chief Executive
|
B. Background and methodology
B1. The purpose of this report
In this report, using general observations and illustrative case studies from our public benefit assessments, we aim to provide trustees of all charities with:
- good practice examples of ways in which charities have demonstrated that they meet the public benefit principles
- examples of where public benefit principles were not met, and why and
- examples of what helps our public benefit assessments
B2. Context
Under the Charities Act 2006 ('the Act'), an organisation can only be a charity if it has aims that:
- fall within the descriptions of purposes listed in the Act, and
- are for the public benefit
The public benefit requirement is not a new requirement for charities. However, the Act highlights this requirement by explicitly including public benefit in the definition of a charitable purpose. In addition, the presumption that some kinds of charity are for the public benefit has been removed.
The Charity Commission, as the independent regulator of charities in England and Wales, has a specific statutory objective to promote awareness and understanding of the operation of the public benefit requirement and to issue guidance in pursuit of this objective. Trustees must have regard to our public benefit guidance when exercising any powers or duties where that guidance is relevant. We also have to ensure that registered charities are properly established for charitable aims which are for the public benefit and that the aims are administered for the public benefit.
Our public benefit assessment programme has been part of the work we are doing to fulfill our statutory public benefit objective.
B3. Our role in assessing public benefit
To help explain the requirements introduced by the Act, we have published the following guidance, all of which is available on our website.
Also, for each publication, we have published an analysis of the law that underpins that guidance.
The Charity Commission is responsible for registering charities and for promoting their compliance and accountability. In carrying out this role, both at registration stage and with already registered charities, we have to interpret and apply the law on charitable status. That includes assessing the public benefit of individual charities. Public Benefit: Statement of the basis for the Charity Commission's role and actions, which is available on our website, explains our approach to assessing public benefit.
B4. What a public benefit assessment covers
We assess whether:
- the organisation's aims fall within the descriptions of purposes in the Act
- the charity's aims are for the public benefit
- the charity's trustees are in practice administering those aims for the public benefit
Section H of Charities and Public Benefit sets out in more detail the criteria we apply.
B5. How we selected charities for the second programme of assessments
In our second programme of assessments we looked at eight individual charities:
- charities for the advancement of the arts (four charities) and
- recreation and leisure charities (four charities)
Independent research that the Commission published on charities' awareness, understanding and attitudes towards the public benefit requirement indicated that smaller charities, those involved in certain activities such as sport/recreation and those in operation before 2006 were most likely to have little or no awareness of the requirement. When selecting the individual charities to assess in the second programme, we took account of this and also used the following selection criteria:
- charities within each group which are sufficiently different in character, for example in the nature of the charity's objects and the methods used to advance the aims
- a geographical spread across England and Wales
- a range of income levels
- a range of the numbers of users, methods of access and fees charged
B6. The findings from our individual assessments
We have produced a report of our findings for each of the individual charities we assessed, all of which are available on our website.
These reports concern the following charities (registered numbers are given in brackets after the charity's name):
Charities advancing the arts:
Recreation and Leisure Charities:
C. Are the charity's aims capable of being charitable?
In this section we have set out some general, wider issues relating to whether a charity's aims are capable of being charitable. Some of those issues are examined in more detail at sections C2 - C6.
C1. Wider issues
From the assessments we carried out we found that:
- it is important to regularly review whether the charity's aims, as set out in its governing document, are up to date and relevant to the needs of its beneficiaries
- where a charity's aims are not fully or accurately expressed in its objects, it may be helpful to look at the full range of the charity's activities to establish its aims
- where the aim of a charity originally expressed as the advancement of education in the arts might, when viewed in a modern context, be more properly understood as an aim for the advancement of the arts, the trustees might find it helpful to consider, and possibly revise, their aim in those terms
- where a charity carries out a service or a function of a governmental authority the charity must be established for a charitable aim (which may coincide with the aim of that governmental function) and not for the non-charitable purpose of implementing the policies of a government authority.
C2. Issues arising from the assessments
We use the term 'aims' to mean the purposes of an individual organisation. It is important to be able to clearly distinguish between an individual organisation's purposes and charitable purposes in general. We use the term 'aims' as shorthand for the purposes of an individual charity.
An organisation's aims (or purposes) are usually expressed in the ‘objects clause' of its governing document. Sometimes the objects clause does not adequately or fully express the organisation's aims. There is therefore a distinction between an organisation's aims and the words that appear in its objects clause. In order to understand the precise meaning of a charity's objects clause it may be necessary to consider the contextual background in determining its aim.
Similar to our first programme of assessments, we found that, for a number of the charities we assessed, there was a mismatch between the charity's intended aims and its stated objects. For more information on the findings from our first programme of assessments see our Emerging Findings report 2008-09.
The issues that arose for this programme of assessments were:
- the advancement of the arts as a charitable aim
- fully and accurately expressing the aims in the objects
- incidental activities unrelated to the aims
- exclusively charitable aims of charities delivering public services under contract
C3. Advancement of the arts as a charitable purpose
Many charities concerned with the advancement of the arts have their aims expressed in terms of advancing education in the arts. This is because, historically, the courts had recognised advancement of the arts as furthering the charitable purpose of advancing education. However, the advancement of the arts is now recognised as a charitable purpose in its own right and is included as one of the thirteen descriptions of purposes in the Act.
This is a small but important distinction because the advancement of the arts is capable of having a wider meaning than the advancement of education in the arts and, as such, there is a wider range of activities by which that purpose may be advanced. In assessing public benefit, for a charity whose aim is to advance the arts that might mean looking for evidence of how it improves public access to the arts so as to encourage artistic and literary appreciation, as well as demonstrating the artistic merit or value of the work it advances. Charities whose aims are about advancing education in the arts need to show that there is an educational benefit to the public and how this is delivered.
When we assessed the aims of the four arts charities, it was important that, although the object may be expressed in terms of advancing education in the arts, where it was clear in the context that the meaning extended to the advancement of the arts as an aim in its own right, we undertook the assessment on that basis.
We also took into consideration the different ways in which the charities advanced the arts, which included:
- public performance
- training and skills development for artists and technicians across a range of artistic media, and
- educational and participatory activities for the general public
|
Case study: Gwent Ballet Theatre Limited
Gwent Ballet Theatre Limited, also known as Independent Ballet Wales, is a touring ballet company that takes its productions to small theatres in communities that may not have access to ballet, and provides classes and workshops for anyone to attend.
The charity was registered in 1990 with objects that read as expressing an aim for the advancement of education. In our assessment we found that, although there is an educational element to what the charity does, when considered in a modern context its aim is the advancement of the arts. We therefore needed to look at how the charity carried out its aims so as to widen the audience for its performances and introduce the public to the art of dance. Our assessment found that by staging public performances of new and existing works of ballet and providing training and development of dancers, all of which were of demonstrable quality, the charity is advancing the arts by ensuring that the public can experience and appreciate ballet of a high standard.
By assessing its main aim in the context of the advancement of the arts, rather than the advancement of education, we were better able to identify appropriate benefits in terms of artistic, as well as educational, merit.
|
C4. Fully and accurately expressing the aims in the objects
In assessing the public benefit of an individual organisation we are concerned only with the benefits that arise from that organisation carrying out its particular aims. Benefits that are not related to an organisation's aims cannot be used as a way of demonstrating that the aims are for the public benefit. It is therefore important for a charity to fully and accurately express its aims in its objects and to be able to articulate them clearly.
For some of the arts charities we assessed, in establishing the charity's intended aims it was necessary to understand the meaning of the objects in a modern context. In those cases where the aims were not fully or accurately expressed in the objects we needed to look beyond what was written in the objects in order to clarify what the charity's aim or aims were in relation to the benefits they were delivering. In some cases where there was more than one aim, the intended beneficiaries and the type of benefits delivered for each aim were different. It was important, therefore, that we considered each aim separately and assessed them accordingly.
Although this issue did not arise in our assessments of recreation and leisure charities, it is just as important for these sorts of charities to be clear what their aims are and who the aims intend to benefit. Often such charities have more than one aim, such as advancing amateur sport and providing recreational facilities in the interest of social welfare under the Recreational Charities Act 1958. Charities that are concerned with enabling or encouraging people to participate in sport or leisure activities might have aims that fall within one or more of the descriptions of purposes in the Act. For further information on how this issue can be relevant for recreation and leisure charities see our recently published consultation on advancing amateur sports or games and the Commission's decision to register Hitchin Bridge Club.
|
Case study: Young Concert Artists Trust ('YCAT')
YCAT's stated objects are 'to promote the arts and sciences and in particular the art and science of music by assisting young musicians of moderate or limited means ('beneficiaries') in such ways as to enable them to be self-supporting.'
When we looked at these objects we concluded that they described two separate charitable aims - the advancement of the arts and the relief of those in need - and so we assessed them as such.
The benefits delivered by the charity for each of those aims were different. When we assessed the charity's nurturing of young musicians as an activity for the advancement of the arts, we found the benefits were those provided to the general public through being given access to high quality art. However, when we assessed the same activity in relation to relief of those in need, we found the benefit to be the opportunity they provided for young musicians of limited means to seek to establish themselves as professional artists and, in that context, could regard any private benefits to the young musicians as incidental.
The benefits from these separate aims are quite different. Had we viewed the charity's aim solely as advancing the arts we would not have identified the full extent of the benefit to the public provided by the charity and we may not have been able to regard the private benefits to the young musicians as incidental.
It was not necessary for the charity to amend its objects, although it could choose to do so, to make its dual aims clearer. What was important in this case was that we identified that there were two distinct aims, the charity was able to demonstrate public benefit for each aim and that we assessed public benefit in a way that was appropriate for each aim..
|
C5. Incidental activities unrelated to the aim
A charity can only have charitable aims; it cannot have a mix of some aims that are charitable and some that are not. We therefore need to know what all of a charity's aims are, and whether each of those aims is capable of being charitable.
Trustees should understand, and be able to explain, why their charity is undertaking any activity and how it furthers the charity's aims.
In the course of their activities, some charities might appear to further aims that are not part of their stated objects. Where that is the case, we have to ensure that these are legitimate activities for the charity to pursue as a way of advancing its charitable aims.
|
Case study: Wigan Leisure and Culture Trust ('WLCT')
WLCT operates a tourism service. The promotion of tourism, as such, is not a recognised charitable purpose. We had to ensure that this activity was concerned with furthering the charity's aims and that it was not pursuing an unstated, non-charitable, aim.
WLCT advised that the tourism service does further its charitable aims, in that it promotes facilities for art and recreation in Wigan and beyond, through facilitating access to events and marketing WLCT's services.
The majority of the tourism expenditure was concerned with providing information to the public about WLCT's arts, heritage, historic, educational, cultural, sports and leisure facilities.
In this case we concluded that the tourism service was not pursuing a non-charitable aim and was concerned with furthering WLCT's charitable aims, such as the provision of facilities for art and recreation.
|
C6. Charities delivering public services under contract to further their charitable aim
Where a charity carries out a service or function of a governmental authority under contract, the aim of the governmental function must coincide with the charity's aims.
|
Case study - Wigan Leisure and Culture Trust ('WLCT')
WLCT has contracts with Wigan Council, Selby Council and the local Primary Care Trust to deliver services on their behalf. Services include:
- delivering recreational and sporting, library, parks, open spaces, community development, crematoria and cemetery, heritage, arts, sports development and play services
- weight management contracts to deliver dietary advice and various health prevention services
As part of our assessment we needed to ensure that WLCT was not pursuing a collateral purpose on behalf of a governmental authority which was not exclusively charitable. We found that the charity had aims that were exclusively charitable, and that the statutory functions of the local authority undertaken by WLCT coincided with these aims. We concluded that the functions were administered in a way that was sufficiently independent from the funding authorities.
|
For further information see the following guidance on our website:
D. Assessing benefit
Sub-principles 1a (it must be clear what the benefits are) and 1b (the benefits must be related to the aims)
In this section we have set out some general, wider issues relating to assessing benefit. Some of those issues are examined in more detail at sections D2 - D5.
D1. Wider issues
From the assessments we carried out we found that:
- when demonstrating public benefit, it is helpful where trustees provide or refer to:
- recent, relevant, real examples of what the charity has done to carry out its aims which show the frequency, regularity, and extent of the availability of what the charity does
- independent reviews or other evidence which demonstrate the artistic merit or value of their work (especially in relation to charities advancing their aims through public performances)
- direct feedback from participants and other beneficiaries
- audited accounts and Trustees' Annual Reports
- information provided on the charity's website or other published material
- when providing evidence of, or reporting on, public benefit, it is helpful if trustees avoid:
- making general statements about what the charity does that are not supported by specific examples
- examples that give little or no indication of how often they occur, or the extent to which they are a significant or insignificant aspect of the charity's work
- examples of benefits that are accidental or unplanned, which occur by chance, or which are not related to the charity's aims
D2. Issues arising from the assessments
All charities must act within their charitable aims. In assessing public benefit we will take into account any benefits that arise from carrying out those aims. When assessing whether an organisation is being administered for the public benefit, the benefits that are relevant for us to take into consideration are those that arise as a result of the organisation pursuing its charitable aims.
In this context, when assessing evidence of benefit, 'evidence' refers to information provided by a charity which demonstrates how it carries out its aims for the public benefit.
In our public benefit assessments we took into consideration
- information provided by the charities in writing and, in some cases, at meetings at their premises
- reports by other regulators or independent assessors
- independent reviews from verifiable sources
- direct feedback provided by audiences and participants
- information held by the Charity Commission in relation to previous dealings with the charity
- the charity's audited accounts and Trustees' Annual Reports
- other relevant and reliable publicly available information
In considering evidence of public benefit for charities advancing the arts, we found it particularly useful where charities were able to provide us with positive reviews from a suitably qualified independent source. Whilst any review is bound to be a matter of subjective opinion, those written from the perspective of a reviewer with appropriate knowledge and expertise were helpful in validating the charity's assessment of its work.
We also considered feedback obtained by charities from people who took part in their activities. This was useful in providing a profile of the charity's beneficiaries and demonstrated the direct impact of its work. It was also a good indicator of how responsive charities were to their beneficiaries in terms of meeting their needs.
The issues that arose for this programme of assessments were:
- assessing artistic merit or value
- assessing the benefits to the participants of public performance
- assessing the benefits of recreation and leisure charities
D3. Assessing artistic merit or value
It is important for arts charities that the subject matter they choose to advance, and the method by which they advance it, are capable of advancing the arts in a way that is charitable. This can involve a broad platform of the arts. We take an inclusive view of art and accept that it will include representational and figurative art, abstract, conceptual and performance art.
For charities whose activities involve public performance, this means that there should be sufficient public access to the charity's services and their aims and the benefits they deliver must extend beyond the provision of entertainment for its own sake.
The entertainment value of an artistic performance does not equate to artistic merit or value. Clearly art can be entertaining, but the provision of entertainment that lacks artistic merit would not be advancing the arts. What matters is that the work can be demonstrated to add to, or enhance, the understanding and experience of the participant and audience in terms of the advancement of the arts for the public benefit.
The cases we assessed made art accessible to the public at large and included a wide variety of artistic performance. Whilst providing entertainment for both the audience and participants, they fulfilled their aims through the artistic merit or quality of their subject matter, and the means by which it was brought to the public included structured rehearsal under the guidance of suitably qualified professionals. By enabling members of the public of all ages to experience productions of recognised artistic works, both as participants and audience members, the charities' aims encouraged an appreciation of the arts.
|
Case Study: The Royal Opera House, Covent Garden Limited
The Royal Opera House is well known for the presentation of opera and ballet of the highest quality, at the Royal Opera House and elsewhere. The charity also seeks to advance its aims by:
The charity advances education in opera and ballet and also, more widely, maintains and promotes high standards of performance now and in the future, encouraging the creation of further works for the benefit of all and developing and improving artist performance and production skills.
|
D4. Assessing the benefits to the participants of public performance
In assessing the intended benefits of charities that deliver their benefits through public performances, it is relevant to take into account the process by which these are created. Planned activities, such as rehearsals, workshops and classes which involve participants or audiences in the preparations for performances, deliver benefits to those taking part, who are also beneficiaries, as well as to the wider public through the performance itself. These are all means by which advancement of the arts for the public benefit can be achieved.
|
Case study: The Castle Players
Leading up to their public performances, The Castle Players run a series of rehearsals and workshops aimed at teaching participants the necessary skills and techniques to present a high quality production. These activities are designed to improve participants' understanding and appreciation of the work in question, and, through this, their appreciation of the arts.
|
D5. Assessing the benefits of recreation and leisure charities
In contrast to the arts charities, when assessing the benefits of recreation and leisure charities (where the benefits are generally identified as being benefits to health and social welfare), the focus is usually on benefits to the participants, not the spectators.
The benefits from recreation and leisure activities are wide ranging and can include:
- improving health
- reducing social exclusion
- improving education
- providing facilities that improve the conditions of life in the interests of social welfare where no, or no adequate facilities, exist
The recreation and leisure charities we assessed pursued a number of different aims which resulted in a broad range of benefits. As with all charities, it is important for recreation and leisure charities to be clear about the aims they are advancing and understand how the benefits of what they do directly relate to those aims.
|
Case study 1: The Radlett Lawn Tennis and Squash Club
The charity's aims are concerned with the provision of facilities for the playing of amateur tennis and squash. In common with many recreation and leisure charities, the benefits attributed by the charity to playing tennis and squash were mainly concerned with the improvements to physical and mental health that result from participation in physical exercise.
The health benefits identified included increased flexibility and all-round physical fitness for all age groups and ability levels, as well as helping to prevent obesity and illness.
|
|
Case Study 2 - Birmingham City Football Club Community Trust ('BCFCCT')
BCFCCT runs a Football Development and Education Programme. The Programme uses football as a motivator to encourage young people to engage in further education. The Programme is a full-time course designed to provide educational opportunities for 16 - 19 year olds who may have lost focus on, or require support with, their education, future career paths or life goals. Although the football element of the Programme delivered health benefits, the primary benefits of the Programme were the educational benefits to the students.
|
E. Assessing detriment or harm
Sub-principle 1c (benefits must be balanced against any detriment or harm)
In this section we have set out some general, wider issues relating to assessing detriment or harm. Some of those issues are examined in more detail at sections E2 - E4.
E1. Wider issues
From the assessments we carried out we found that:
- when assessing the public benefit of a charity that deals with vulnerable beneficiaries, it is helpful if the trustees can provide evidence, especially independent third party evidence, of how they manage risks of detriment or harm to those beneficiaries
- when assessing the public benefit of a charity that carries out an activity to further the charity's aims that could have the potential to cause detriment or harm (such as the risk of physical injury), it is helpful if the trustees can provide information and evidence about how they undertake that activity in a way that mitigates the risks of detriment or harm
E2. Issues arising from the assessments
We took a similar approach when assessing evidence of detriment or harm as we did when assessing evidence of benefit.
Consistent with our general approach to casework, in our public benefit assessments information we took into consideration when assessing the extent to which there was any evidence of detriment or harm included:
- a preliminary review of the Charity Commission's data and case files
- a high level review of publicly available information, such as any recent media reports relating to the charity
- whether the widespread publicity given to our public benefit assessments prompted any substantiated complaints about an individual charity
Clearly where the information available to us suggests that there may be evidence of actual detriment or harm, or evidence that the risks of detriment or harm are not being properly or adequately managed, then we would investigate this further. In our public benefit assessments, where, taken together, this information suggested there were no reasonable grounds for conducting a more detailed investigation into detriment or harm we did not actively seek further supporting evidence of it. That would not be a proportionate use of our resources.
The issues that arose for this programme of assessments included:
- protecting vulnerable beneficiaries
- mitigating risk of injury
E3. Protecting vulnerable beneficiaries
When assessing the public benefit of a charity that provides services or facilities to vulnerable beneficiaries (such as children and young people, elderly people or people with a disability) it was particularly important that the trustees could demonstrate that there is no detriment or harm to those beneficiaries and that they are taking reasonable steps to protect those beneficiaries from detriment or harm. That might include, for example, ensuring that Criminal Records Bureau ('CRB') checks are properly conducted for people where there is a legal requirement to carry them out.
|
Case Study: Birmingham City Football Club Community Trust ('BCFCCT')
BCFCCT's aims are to further and assist in the education of children and young people through the medium of football and other sports activities. Its activities include running extensive programmes that involve children and young people.
It has identified that its beneficiaries are vulnerable members of the public and, to mitigate risks of detriment or harm to its beneficiaries, it has implemented a child protection policy.
All trustees, coaches and other individuals coming into direct contact with the children and young people participating in the charity's activities are subject to enhanced CRB disclosure.
|
E4. Mitigating risk of injury
Sometimes the activity a charity undertakes to carry out its aims involves activities that carry a risk of injury. To ensure that any detriment or harm from that does not outweigh the benefits that otherwise arise from carrying out the aims, it is good practice for the charity to ensure that it has considered those risks and has mechanisms in place to manage them.
|
Case study 1: Independent Ballet Wales
Independent Ballet Wales carries out its aims by operating a touring ballet company, running classes for dancers of all ages and abilities and providing master classes for its own, and other, professional dancers. Because of the extreme physical demands of ballet, the charity has to consider the risk of dance-related injury. The charity manages this risk by facilitating access for its dancers to physiotherapists who specialise in injury prevention and rehabilitation for treatment-resistant injury.
It also ensures that all dancers involved in delivering workshops to the public are given training in how to do so safely.
|
|
Case study 2: Wigan Leisure and Culture Trust ('WLCT')
As with many recreation and leisure charities, WLCT advances its aims by a number of recreational and sporting activities, such as the running of gyms and leisure centres. The charity mitigates risks of accidents or injury to members of the public involved in those activities in a number of ways, including:
- comprehensive training of all relevant personnel
- regular health and safety inspections and reviews
- posting of warning and correct usage notices
- examinations by legislative agencies
- gaining of accreditation from the relevant bodies and associations
- the adoption of a formal risk policy and a central and project specific risk register
|
For further information see the following guidance on our website:
F. Assessing who are the beneficiaries and any restrictions on who can benefit
Sub-principles 2a (the beneficiaries must be appropriate to the aims) and 2b (where benefit is to a section of the public, the opportunity to benefit must not be unreasonably restricted)
In this section we have set out some general, wider issues relating to assessing who are the beneficiaries and any restrictions on who can benefit. Some of those issues are examined in more detail at sections F2 - F4.
F1. Wider issues
From the assessments we carried out we found that it is important that trustees of charities whose benefits are primarily delivered via a membership structure are able to demonstrate that membership is sufficiently open, including considering what restrictions on who has the opportunity to benefit might arise in practice as a result of any costs or conditions of membership.
F2. Issues arising from the assessments
The issues that arose for this programme of assessments were:
- restrictions based on eligibility for membership
- restrictions based on ability
F3. Restrictions based on eligibility for membership
Many charities, particularly recreation and leisure charities, provide access to their services and facilities through a membership structure. Some charities have a membership structure under which the members are also the charity's beneficiaries. Confining benefits to members of the charity is consistent with the public benefit principles provided that:
- the particular membership structure is appropriate for the better provision of benefits (provided that all those who might benefit can apply to join and there are objective criteria for deciding membership) rather than as a means of limiting them, and
- membership of the organisation is not unreasonably restricted (being, in practice, open to all who wish to join), or
- there are practical reasons that dictate a limit upon membership numbers, such as limited space and health and safety reasons (in such cases it is reasonable to have a waiting list provided that the next available membership is offered on a 'first come, first served' basis)
Where benefits are delivered exclusively through a membership structure, we examine whether the membership structure is sufficiently open. Factors that might affect whether membership is sufficiently open or not include:
- the cost of any membership fees
- selection by ability
- required nomination by an existing member
|
Case Study: Radlett Lawn Tennis and Squash Club and The Castle Players
The Radlett Lawn Tennis and Squash Club is a membership organisation that offers tennis and squash facilities and coaching within the Radlett area. The majority of the benefits delivered by the charity are accessed through membership. Although the charity has an open membership policy, welcoming players of all ages and ability to join, the charity's benefits are mainly accessed through obtaining annual membership. The fees charged for annual membership have the effect of restricting benefit only to those who can afford the fees. The implications of this for the charity are covered in more detail in section G4.
In the case of The Castle Players, the opportunity to participate in performances and production is available to members. Membership is open to all, irrespective of ability or means. The charity also provides significant benefits to non-members by providing full and open access to the charity's public performances of high quality work. In this case, the delivery of benefits via a membership structure did not result in unreasonable restrictions on who can benefit from the charity's services.
|
F4. Restrictions based on ability
In some cases a charity's aims are intended to benefit people who have a certain level of academic, artistic, sporting or other ability. Where this is done because people without a certain level or type of ability would not be able to benefit fully from the teaching or other opportunities to benefit offered by the charity, then this is reasonable.
|
Case study 1: Birmingham City Football Club Community Trust ('BCFCCT')
BCFCCT runs a Football Education and Development Programme. There are a limited number of places available on the Programme and so some reasonable process of selection is required to identify which students would benefit most from the educational opportunities offered by the Programme. The educational success of the Programme relies upon the use of football development as an incentive and motivator for learning. As well as committing to the educational part of the Programme, for the Programme to succeed it is necessary for participating students to have a certain level of ability, and a strong desire, to play football. Entry onto the programme is therefore based, in part, on the individual's football playing ability. In this context, the restriction on who can benefit based on an individual's ability to play football is reasonable.
|
|
Case study 2: Young Concert Artists Trust ('YCAT')
YCAT's aims are to identify, nurture, support and promote outstanding young classical soloists and chamber ensembles at the outset of their professional careers, at a time when commercial management is difficult to secure. By supporting and nurturing individual talent they are both helping young musicians on their way to their chosen career and ensuring that high standards of music are maintained for the benefit of the public.
In order to provide their artists with prestigious performance opportunities and introductions to highly regarded commercial managers (which will afford them the greatest opportunity of succeeding in their careers as musicians and therefore bring their musical talent to the public) the trustees consider that it is vital to devote YCAT's resources to beneficiaries of exceptional musical and technical ability. This is achieved through a rigorous selection procedure which involves auditions in front of a panel drawn from the music industry, leading festival directors, performers and trustee representatives.
In the context of the charity's aims for the advancement in life of young musicians and the advancement of the arts we considered that a selection criteria based on an individual's level of musical ability was reasonable.
|
G. Assessing the effects of fee-charging
Sub-principles 2b (the opportunity to benefit must not be unreasonably restricted by ability to pay any fees charged) and 2c (people in poverty must not be excluded from the opportunity to benefit)
In this section we have set out some general, wider issues relating to assessing the effects of fee-charging on public benefit. Some of those issues are examined in more detail at sections G2 - G8.
G1. Wider issues
From the assessments we carried out we found that:
- Whilst providing free or subsidised access is an obvious way of providing opportunities to benefit for people who cannot afford the fees, what matters is that the opportunity to benefit for people who cannot afford the fees is, overall, (when taken together with any other significant opportunities to benefit that do not involve providing free or subsidised access) more than minimal or tokenistic or occurring by chance.
- There is considerable scope for charities to be innovative in providing opportunities to benefit for people who cannot afford any fees charged.
- It is important that trustees of charities, whose benefits are mainly accessed through membership for which fees are charged, ensure there are sufficient opportunities to benefit for people who are unable to afford the fees, such as through reduced membership fees or by providing other opportunities to benefit for non-members.
- Ensuring awareness amongst potential beneficiaries of the availability of fee assistance or other significant opportunities to benefit is helpful to ensure that any charged-for services or facilities are likely to be accessible to people who cannot afford the fees. This is an important matter in helping us determine whether an opportunity to benefit is 'material'. (Our public benefit assessment reports include lots of examples provided by the charities we assessed of how people who cannot afford the fees can benefit from those charities' services or facilities).
- The use of means-tested assistance helps to demonstrate that a charity is seeking to ensure that access to the services or facilities it provides is not unreasonably restricted by the payment of fees.
- A charity's financial and other circumstances are an important part of assessing the extent to which it can satisfy principles 2b and 2c.
- Openly publishing the availability of the opportunities to benefit for those who are unable to afford the full fees, such as on the charity's website, in its literature or in its Trustee Annual Report, can assist in demonstrating clearly that principles 2b and 2c have been met.
For further information about our approach to assessing the effects of fee-charging on public benefit see sections G2 - G8 of our Emerging findings report 2008-09 and our guidance Public Benefit and Fee-charging.
G2. Issues arising from the assessments
An important issue for fee-charging charities is the effect that charging fees has on who has the opportunity to benefit from its services or facilities and, where relevant, whether or not there is sufficient opportunity to benefit for people who cannot afford to pay the full fees charged. It does not mean that all people who cannot afford the fees must actually benefit. What is important is that they must not be excluded from the opportunity to benefit, whether or not they actually chose to do so.
The issues that arose for this programme of assessments were:
- charging low fees
- the effect of membership fees
- assessing the totality of opportunities to benefit
G3. Charging low fees
Many charities charge fees for the services or facilities they provide but the payments are relatively low. In our public benefit assessments, where that was the case the fee-charging presented no public benefit difficulties as it did not have the effect of excluding people from the opportunity to benefit from the charity's charged-for services or facilities.
The following case study helps to illustrate this.
|
Case study: Tintagel Memorial Playing Fields Association
Tintagel Memorial Playing Fields Association provides a playing field and recreation ground for the local community of Tintagel. Facilities include three all-weather tennis courts, a children's play area, a cricket field, football pitches and a skate park. The majority of the charity's facilities are available free of charge to the general public.
The principal activity for which there is a charge is the use of the tennis courts. An annual membership of £48 for adults (£16 for juniors) is payable. The charity also offers 'pay and play' arrangements at a cost of £5 per court per hour (£1 for juniors) for people who may not be able to afford the annual membership, or who want to use the courts on a casual or one-off basis.
The fees are of a level that most people could afford and so fall within the definition of 'low fees' as defined in Public Benefit and Fee-Charging. As the level of fees charged does not exclude people from the opportunity to benefit, there is no need for the trustees to do more (such as offering fee assistance or other significant opportunities to benefit) to ensure sufficient opportunity to benefit from those charged-for services or facilities.
|
G4. The effect of membership fees
Where a charity's sole or main aim is to provide a facility for which it charges a membership fee, the level of fee it charges is significant when assessing whether the organisation is carrying out those aims for the public benefit.
In our assessments, charities that charged low membership fees, or which offered significant opportunities to benefit that were not dependant on the payment of fees, presented no public benefit difficulties in relation to fee-charging.
However, for charities that charged high membership fees, particularly where this was the main way through which people accessed the benefits, we needed to look more closely at the totality of opportunities to benefit provided for people unable to pay the membership fees, including people in poverty.
The following case study illustrates this.
|
Case Study: Radlett Lawn Tennis and Squash Club
The charity's aims are concerned with the provision of facilities for the playing of amateur tennis and squash in Radlett. Opportunities to benefit from the charity's facilities, which is the main way the charity carries out its aims, are largely limited to members who pay an annual subscription fee. Full membership provides access to all the charity's facilities at no extra charge, all year round. The cost of full adult membership is currently £339 a year, a fee that many people could not afford.
There are some concessions available to specific types of members, such as families, students, juniors and people aged 60 and over. There is an option to obtain 'limited membership' at a reduced cost for use of the squash and table tennis facilities only. These options are based on a person's ability to pay and would still be unaffordable to many people. We therefore needed to look at the range of opportunities to benefit which did not depend on payment of a high membership fee.
When we assessed the totality of opportunities to benefit we found that, for people unable to pay the membership fee, these opportunities were very limited. They included:
- access to tennis, squash and table tennis facilities for a maximum of six occasions per year as a guest of a full subscribing member
- coaching and tuition (but these were also subject to a high fee and therefore unaffordable to many people as a regular activity)
- the opportunity to participate in open grading competitions and tournaments
- occasional taster sessions
- free twice yearly open days
Because members of the community of Radlett interested in accessing the charity's facilities can only do so in a material way as a full subscribing member, which requires payment of a high fee, our assessment found that the effect of membership fees in this case was to place an unreasonable restriction on who can benefit.
|
There are a number ways in which this charity, and others like it, could address this whilst still operating as a membership organisation. For example, they could consider one or more of the following:
- using membership merely as an administrative means of managing the use of the facilities (for which only a nominal administration fee is charged) and offering 'season tickets' for full, lower-cost short-term or occasional use (such as three or six months use or use on a set number of occasions) - this would offer a wider range of options to people in the community with varying need of the facility (the committed, regular player as well as the occasional player) and at a range of levels of affordability
- offering advertised, means-tested concessions on membership fees
- offering the facility for members to 'pay-and-play' on an occasional, low-cost one-off fee (and which does not require signing in by a full subscribing member)
It is important that charities whose benefits are delivered primarily via a membership structure, and charge a fee for membership, consider the effect of the fee on who may benefit. If a charity charges a high membership fee, it needs to consider how it will provide significant opportunities to benefit for those unable to afford the fee.
Charities that charge low membership fees do not exclude people from having the opportunity to benefit from the charity's services or facilities and so do not have to offer fee concessions or other opportunities to benefit.
|
Case study: The Castle Players
The Castle Players operates as a membership organisation which is open to people of all ages and ability. It charges a membership fee of £1 for adult members, and a termly fee of £35 for members of its junior section. Membership is an effective way for the charity to manage use of its facilities, and ensure that it provides adequate levels of supervision for its junior section.
As well as through paid membership, people can benefit from the charity by becoming an associate member, for which there is no charge. Associates help with the productions as non-performing supporters.
The charity also delivers benefits to the audiences who attend its performances.
The membership fees fall within the definition of 'low fees' in Public Benefit and Fee-Charging, and the benefits accessed via membership are only part of the ways in which people can benefit from the charity.
|
G5. Assessing the totality of opportunities to benefit
When assessing whether the aims of a charity that charges high fees for the services or facilities it provides are being administered for the public benefit, we consider the charity's total package of measures to provide opportunities to benefit for people who cannot afford the fees.
In assessing the totality of opportunities to benefit provided by a charity, what is important is the extent to which the charity is targeting assistance and other opportunities to benefit in a planned and deliberate way to provide opportunities to benefit for people who cannot afford the fees. What matters most is the opportunities to benefit that are offered, rather than the extent to which people are choosing to take up those opportunities.
Where the service or facility that is charged for is a minor aspect of what the charity does, or is just one of the many ways in which the charity carries out its aims, many of which are not charged for, then fee-charging is less of a public benefit issue.
|
Case study: Wigan Leisure and Culture Trust ('WLCT')
The fees charged to access some of WLCT's services, such as gym membership, burial services and holiday club, were regarded as high fees which, on their own, might be regarded as a restriction on who can benefit based on ability to pay the relatively higher fees charged. However, in view of some of the higher fees charged, WLCT provides significant opportunities to benefit by enabling people to spread the cost of gym membership, access a 'pay-as-you-go' facility or take advantage of available fee concessions.
In relation to WLCT's burial and funeral services, government funding is available to assist with funeral costs for people who are eligible for state benefits and tax credits.
The charged-for services and facilities only form a small proportion of the overall range of services and facilities provided by WLCT.
The majority of its services are provided free of charge and others for low fees which most people could afford. These include:
- access to all parks and gardens
- access to art galleries
- arts festivals
- children's sport sessions
- adult computing courses
- weight management and other health related services
- music society concerts
In view of the significant opportunities to benefit for those who are unable to afford any high fees charged, we concluded that the opportunity to benefit was not unreasonably restricted by ability to pay the fees charged and that people in poverty were not excluded from the opportunity to benefit.
|
Providing free or subsidised access to a charity's services or facilities is one clear way of showing that people who cannot afford the fees have the opportunity to benefit, but charities can also demonstrate other significant opportunities to benefit. Our public benefit assessment reports include many examples of other significant opportunities to benefit provided by fee-charging charities.
For many arts charities (though by no means all), the main activity through which they deliver their benefits is in some form of presentation, performance or exhibition for the public, for which sometimes a high fee is charged. In carrying out our assessments we found that charities where this was the case were often innovative in their approach to providing opportunities to benefit that were not dependent on ability to pay.
|
Case study: Royal Opera House, Covent Garden Limited
The charity owns and operates the Royal Opera House in Covent Garden, a world-class venue for the public performance of opera, ballet and the musical arts. Although the charity charges high fees for access to many of its performances, there are a significant proportion of lower priced tickets accessible to people on all budgets. For performances in the main auditorium, where for the season when we carried out our assessment the most expensive tickets cost up to £210, around 40% of tickets were priced at £30 and under. The charity also has other performance spaces where tickets are very much cheaper, typically ranging from £3 to £22.50, where charged. At the time of our assessment, around 14% of tickets for events in these venues were free.
As well as providing subsidised access to its live performances, the charity offers a wide range of significant opportunities to benefit. These include:
- screening recordings of its performances in cinemas and on open air screens in towns and cities
- running a multi-media website broadcasting podcasts, performances and other educational material
- offering development programmes for artists and technicians in a wide range of disciplines related to the musical arts
- running projects for diverse groups including school children, older people and disadvantaged communities
- contributing as a commentator to government policy and planning in relation to arts education
Taken together, the combination of subsidised access to services or facilities for which high fees are charged and the other significant opportunities to benefit provided by the charity enabled us to conclude that the opportunity to benefit was not unreasonably restricted by ability to pay any fees charged, and that people in poverty are not excluded from the opportunity to benefit.
|
H. Assessing private benefits
Sub-principle 2d (any private benefits must be incidental)
In this section we have set out some general, wider issues relating to assessing private benefits. Some of those issues are examined in more detail at sections H2 - H5.
H1. Wider issues
From the assessments we carried out we found that:
- it is helpful where trustees are open and transparent about any related party transactions in their accounts and annual reports
- it is helpful for charity trustees to establish a formal conflict of interests policy
- it is important for charity trustees to familiarise themselves with the terms of their charity's governing document regarding the payment of trustees and other conflicts of interests provisions
- it is helpful for trustees to keep under review any private benefits to individuals, to ensure that they do not become more than incidental to the charity's aims, or outweigh the public benefits it provides
H2. Issues arising from the assessments
'Private benefits' are benefits that people, or organisations, may receive other than as a beneficiary.
When assessing whether there are private benefits, we are not concerned with the benefits that anyone receives because they are a beneficiary of the charity and further the aims of the charity, such as the benefits of receiving an education or relieving their poverty.
Charities can provide private benefits to people other than their beneficiaries so long as these benefits are incidental and not an aim of the charity. Private benefits will be viewed as incidental if it can be shown that they directly contribute towards achieving the charity's aims and/or are a necessary result or by-product of carrying out these aims.
The issues that arose for this programme of assessments were:
- assessing potential commercial and professional benefits from promoting excellence
- managing conflicts of interest
- ensuring the independence of charities delivering public services under contract
H3. Assessing potential commercial and professional benefits from promoting excellence
Training young persons to a level of excellence can be charitable where it is part of their education and development. Developing young persons may involve training them to a high level in a chosen field of study in which they might excel, such as music, art or sport. This may result in a private benefit to the beneficiary. Where this is the case, we need to be satisfied that the private benefits are either incidental to the charity carrying out its aims, or are legitimate benefits for an individual to receive as a beneficiary.
|
Case study 1: Birmingham City Football Club Community Trust (‘BCFCCT')
BCFCCT runs a Football Development and Education Programme which combines formal education with the opportunity to train and play football using the club's facilities. The aim of the programme is to provide young people who have fallen out of education with the chance to gain some formal qualifications.
For the programme to succeed it is necessary for participating students to have a strong desire to play football and demonstrate a certain level of playing ability, and the programme has identified some budding sports professionals who have progressed to playing careers, but the development of the players' football skills is secondary to the advancement of their education.
For those who go on to a career in professional football there will be some private benefits that arise as a consequence of having taken part in the programme. However, in this case, our assessment concluded that the private benefits to individuals are incidental to the charity carrying out its aims, which are to advance education through football.
|
|
Case study 2: Young Concert Artists Trust ('YCAT')
YCAT identifies, supports and promotes talented young artists to help them establish themselves professionally, usually through securing a contract with a commercial agent.
We identified a number of benefits to individuals associated with the charity carrying out its aim of the advancement of life of young artists. They included:
- benefits to artists whilst with YCAT
- benefits to artists who move to commercial management as a result of support by YCAT
- benefits to commercial agents
In this case, we concluded that the benefits are incidental as they directly contribute towards achieving the charity's advancement of the arts and advancement in life aims, and are legitimate benefits for the artists to receive as beneficiaries. The basis of our findings highlighted the following:
- Earning from performances provided artists with an income they would otherwise have to earn from non-musical employment, which would reduce the amount of time available for rehearsal and musical development.
- The earnings came from performing in concerts which were an integral part of the artists' development into professional concert artists.
- The charity's promotion of its young artists gave them the opportunity to perform, which is an essential element of the support provided by YCAT in carrying out its intended aims.
- Although artists may progress to commercial management this is not guaranteed, and it is only a possible outcome of the charity carrying out its advancement in life aim.
- The benefits to artists from having improved skills with which to practice their profession are benefits that would arise incidentally from pursuing the charity's other charitable aim of advancing the arts.
- There is no evidence that the charity operates with the intention of developing artists for the gain of commercial agents, nor that it is influenced or controlled by the interests of commercial agents when working with, or for, its artists. Therefore, any benefits of this nature arise incidentally in the course of the charity carrying out its aims.
In the YCAT case, we considered the private benefits of helping young artists to develop their full potential to be legitimate benefits in relation to its aim of establishing young artists in their career, and that there were also benefits to the public at large from being able to attend and appreciate high quality musical performances.
|
For further information see our current Consultation: The advancement of amateur sport which considers and seeks views on what constitutes 'amateur' sport, including the consideration of 'private benefits', such as potential commercial benefits arising to successful sportspersons and the establishment of a professional career.
H4. Managing conflicts of interest
Trustees should not be subject to any conflict between their duties to their charitable trust and their personal interests, unless the possibility of personal benefit which gives rise to that conflict is authorised and managed.
In assessing public benefit, where a conflict of interest is not adequately managed the trustees cannot demonstrate objectively that all decisions have been, and will be, made in the interests of the charity and its beneficiaries to the exclusion of all private interests. As a result, we cannot judge the extent to which unmanaged private interests, and the possibility of unauthorised private benefit, can be regarded as incidental.
|
Case study: Birmingham City Football Club Community Trust ('BCFCCT')
In the case of BCFCCT, three out of the six trustees are representatives from Birmingham City Football Club, which provides facilities to the charity.
The charity manages potential conflicts of interest by the requirement, incorporated in its governing document, that a trustee must absent himself or herself from any discussions in which it is possible that a conflict will arise between his or her duty to act solely in the interests of the charity and any potential personal interest.
|
H5. Ensuring the independence of charities delivering public services under contract
A charity can be set up to carry out a service or function of a governmental authority where the aim of the governmental function or service coincides with the charity's aims. The charity must be independent and must exist to carry out its charitable aims, and not for the purpose of implementing the policies of a governmental authority, or of carrying out the directions of a governmental authority.
|
Case study: Wigan Leisure and Culture Trust ('WLCT')
WLCT has contracts with Wigan Council, Selby Council and a local Primary Care Trust to deliver services on its behalf.
Where the charity undertook a statutory service of a governmental authority, it did so only where the aims of the service coincided with the charity's aims. The contracts represented full cost recovery and there was no evidence of private benefit to the governmental authority.
WLCT identifies ways of delivering and improving services so as to achieve the agreed outputs. It implements the services at its own discretion and has developed an Impact Framework to ensure that it is delivering those services that customers want and are beneficial to them.
WLCT clearly demonstrated that, in carrying out public services under contract, it is sufficiently independent from the relevant governmental authorities, both in terms of its aims and operation.
|
For further information see the following guidance on our website:
I. The assessment process
In this section we have set out some observations on what we have learned from our programme of public benefit assessments.
I1. Information gathering
The public benefit assessment questionnaire
Following the first round of public benefit assessments, we evaluated our process and sought feedback from the assessed charities. We used that feedback to modify our programme.
As in the first round, the eight charities included in the second round of our public benefit assessment programme were required to complete a questionnaire, but this time we were more focused with the questions we asked and allowed more time for the charities to respond. All charities were asked the same questions which mirrored the principles of public benefit as set out in Charities and Public Benefit.
In order to ensure that the information we received from the charities was focused, quality, evidence-based information, we provided improved guidance notes to help the charities complete the questionnaire. We found it necessary to ask the charities for additional information to clarify information provided in only a minority of cases.
I2. Visiting the charity
The first round of public benefit assessments included, in all cases, a visit to the charity's premises. For the second round, the improvements we made to our questionnaire and guidance notes resulted in improvements to the quality of the information we received, which in turn resulted in fewer visits being required. Where a visit was conducted, this was to meet with representatives of the charity to help us better understand certain aspects of the charity's work and the context within which it operates. It was not intended, or necessary, to view all aspects of the charity's operations as the assessment visit is not an inspection of the charity's premises or general operations.
I3. Pre-visit desk-based research
In all cases we carried out desk-based research to review information we already held about each charity, the history of the charity, financial information from the last three years and any public information, such as websites and leaflets.
From the assessments we carried out, in relation to our desk-based research we found that:
- Charity websites and published literature, connected websites (such as those of relevant statutory regulators) and general internet searches were helpful, especially where this indicated what information a member of the public could easily find out about a charity. However, in reaching our conclusions we only took into account relevant information from credible sources.
- Financial information, especially a charity's recent and draft accounts, was helpful in understanding its current economic circumstances and in relation to assessing fee-charging.
- Details of any written policies, procedures and forms (such as policies and practices on providing financial assistance) were helpful. We often found that charities had policies or procedures which they operated in practice but which were not written down and might therefore be misunderstood or operate inconsistently.
- Information from previous Charity Commission cases was generally helpful in understanding the charity's history (such as reasons for adopting or changing its objects).
I4. Making recommendations and reaching conclusions
For each of our public benefit assessments we set out our conclusions about the extent to which the charity has demonstrated that it has aims that are capable of being charitable, and that those aims are, and are being administered, for the public benefit. We have done this by assessing the charity's aims against the principles and sub-principles of public benefit set out in our general guidance, Charities and Public Benefit.
Where we have concluded that a charity's aims are not being administered in a way that satisfies the public benefit principles, we have specified the required or recommended actions that the trustees will need to take in order to address those issues. The charity will be given sufficient time to implement the plans.
I5. The public benefit assessment report
We have produced a report of the findings from each of the twenty public benefit assessments. For each charity, the report describes the charity, considers whether its aims are capable of being charitable for the public benefit and summarises the extent to which it is currently fulfilling that requirement.
Each assessment is carried out against the public benefit principles set out in Charities and Public Benefit so the reports follow the same format. The reports also set out our conclusions and any actions we are recommending to the trustees or require them to carry out.
Each charity received a copy of their report in advance of publication on our website. This created an opportunity for the trustees to learn of our conclusions and recommendations, and to give comments on the factual accuracy of the report, before the findings were published.
I6. Follow up from the first programme of assessments
In our first programme of assessments, we found that the aims of four out of the twelve charities assessed (two care homes and two independent schools) were not being administered for the public benefit.
In all four cases we worked with the charity's trustees to help them resolve their public benefit difficulties. All four charities developed and submitted plans, each of which reflected the circumstances of the charity and the flexibility of approach available to them in meeting the public benefit principles. All four charities were given sufficient time to implement their plans; up to a period of five years where necessary.
In the case of the two independent schools, they each needed to provide more in the way of opportunities to benefit for people who cannot afford the high fees charged to access the educational benefits provided. In both cases, the schools produced plans which included offering new or additional bursary assistance, financed by fundraising, together with increasing the other educational benefits they provide in the local community. Neither of the schools' plans was based on a need to increase fees in order to make these changes. As a result of these plans, taking into account the totality of the opportunities to benefit that will be provided for people who cannot afford the fees (which includes working with local communities and state schools as well as offering bursaries), we have now been able to conclude that the aims of both schools will be administered for the public benefit.
In the case of one of the care homes, the plans produced by the trustees addressed the findings of our assessment report by developing a clear strategy for publicising the financial assistance it offers to those who could not otherwise afford to use its services. We have now concluded that this charity's aims will be administered for the public benefit.
In the case of the fourth charity, also a care home, we recognise that the trustees face some significant challenges in addressing the findings of our assessment report and that they are continuing to work on developing their plans. We have allowed additional time for this and are working closely with the trustees so that they can prepare plans which will demonstrate how the charity's aims will be administered for the public benefit.
In exceptional cases we may conclude that the effect of not administering a charity's aims for the public benefit might mean that the organisation is not, in substance, a charity. However, as we hope all our public benefit assessments have demonstrated, this is very rare and is not something that we have concluded in any of our assessment cases.
I7. Next steps
We will continue to work with the two charities (one from the first programme and one from the second) that have yet to demonstrate that their aims will be administered for the public benefit as they develop their plans.
Consideration of public benefit issues will continue to be a routine part of our casework and an essential element of all registration cases.
We found the public benefit assessments we have carried out have been useful in identifying a range of public benefit issues for different parts of the charitable sector. We were encouraged by the participating charities and their understanding of public benefit and the many excellent, innovative examples of how they administer their charities' aims for the public benefit.
Having regard to the public benefit requirement provides an opportunity for charity trustees to review, and be open and transparent about, how they administer their charity's aims for the public benefit. Some of those who participated in the programme commented that, on the whole, they found the need to articulate the public benefit their charity provides immensely beneficial, reinforcing their sense of the charity's purpose. We think that if trustees can find ways to maximise their charity's public benefit and communicate that well, rather than viewing public benefit requirements as a regulatory burden or hurdle to get over, this will only lead to enhancing the strength and the reputation of the charitable sector overall.
We are grateful to all the charities that agreed to take part in our public benefit assessments. We hope that the lessons learned and good examples they provided will be of assistance to many other charities.