Regulation is not the role of umbrella bodies, and the Charity Commission is wrong to expect all charities to become members, says NCVO head of research Karl Wilding.

The recent news that the Charity Commission expects all charities to join an umbrella body has sparked a debate on civilsociety.co.uk around the relative roles of the regulator and membership bodies within a context of fewer resources for the regulator and the regulated. So where next for umbrella bodies and the Commission and, most importantly, charities themselves?

Our view at NCVO is that a strong Charity Commission, with a clear focus on maintaining public trust and confidence in charities through effective regulation, remains an important part of the operating environment. The regulation of charities – a complex issue at the best of times – is a job for the regulator, not for umbrella bodies. And where regulation is about compliance with the law, we would argue that this is the role of a regulator with statutory powers.

NCVO and the other umbrellas should not become quasi-regulators: we’re not the charity police. It’s already the case that multiple, overlapping regulation is a problem – witness the further encroachment of HMRC into the field – so our direction of travel should be towards greater clarity and effectiveness of regulation.

If the Charity Commission is to focus on ensuring compliance with the ‘must dos’, what of its plans to reduce its role in providing advice and guidance? The Commission should continue to play a role in providing guidance on compliance with the law: this is its core objective as the charity regulator. But we believe that it is neither necessary nor appropriate for the regulator to give advice on how charities can run themselves effectively. Guidance on best practice and standards (the ‘should dos’) is an issue for the sector itself, not the regulator.

Does this mean that all charities should be strong-armed or even coerced by the regulators into joining an umbrella body? We think not.

Charities voluntarily should join an umbrella organisation because it enables them to be more effective in achieving their mission: and whilst we would like to think this applies to all, realistically not all charities will join a thematic or geographical umbrella body.

It’s no accident that voluntarism is a defining characteristic of our sector: compelling organisations to adopt ‘best practice’ (if such a thing exists) would go against the value of voluntarism that underpins our work. So whilst we would welcome better signposting about the role and range of umbrellas from the Charity Commission, it is still down to us to make the case – both for membership in principle and for joining our organisation specifically.

It also has been argued that not all charities can afford to join, yet membership of many local umbrellas can be had for a few pounds. NCVO provides free membership for over 4,000 organisations, which we can only do because of the support we receive from the largest charities. And all of our members have one vote at our AGM.

By the way, I’m not convinced either that the Charity Commission stepping back will suddenly lead to an increase in membership income in the sector – so whilst we and others will make better use of new technology to provide advice and rethink our support model – with a greater emphasis on peer-to-peer support – we still have to face up to the fact that someone has to pay for this. We remain concerned about the development of a responsibility gap here.

Is it realistic that all charities should or will join an umbrella organisation? The answer is almost certainly not, though I suspect if we had some proper evidence we might be surprised at just how many charities are members of umbrellas.

Our rough estimate is that over 200,000 groups and organisations are members of the local, national and thematic umbrella bodies who are members of NCVO. There is double counting here, but it suggests that joining an umbrella body is a sector ‘norm’.

Again, it’s down to us as umbrella bodies to make the case for joining. And here, sharing best practice and advice is only one of the functions of umbrella bodies.

However imperfect, I don’t think we should underestimate the role of membership bodies in binding the sector together, as a means for sharing the norms and values that define us a sector, and as means of amplifying the voices of those at the frontline. Umbrella organisations are different from regulators. And long may that continue.