Charities and funders can’t afford to ignore impact: UK chief

In a keynote speech for New Philanthropy Capital (NPC), outgoing chief executive Dan Corry warned that adoption of impact measurement had “plateaued” among UK charities in recent years and it was time for organisations to lift their game.

After 13 years in the role, Corry delivered his parting words to the organisation’s NPC Ignites annual conference in London last month, in front of 200 of the nation’s top charity leaders. His call to action echoed the views of several other speakers at a conference centred on the ideal of a “systemic approach to creating change”, where charities and funders do more to address the root causes of interconnected social problems.

Corry argued charities weren’t squeezing enough value out of information.

“There is not enough data, not enough good learning and evaluation, and even where there is, it often does not shape decision making,” he said.

While charities were vital “for building a successful pluralist society”, such as through their work to boost volunteering and active citizenship, too often there was “little focus on using resources effectively”, he said.

There were many reasons for this, not the least of which was that frequently “charities and non-profits behave as though our funders and trustees are our primary stakeholders, not those we say we’re here to serve.”

He blamed a string of other factors for discouraging an impact focus: “Governance is crazy; funders are variable and powerful; funding mechanisms guarantee competition not collaboration; contracts promote short termism; there is a lack of common metrics to aid comparison and learning, and a real absence of benchmarking data. And yes, there are too many people who do not want to engage with – or even say out loud – concepts like effectiveness, efficiency and value for money.”

And he said that charities often did not do themselves any favours.

“The sector is still too precious, too disjointed, too defensive. It often pushes back against things that could help – like submitting more data to the Charity Commission or considering mergers more often, not just when you are going bust. It has an unhealthy delight in the big versus small charity narrative, each criticising the other, weakening the combined voice of the sector, when in truth we need both ends of the spectrum – and a lot in the middle.”

Yet he said it was “borderline immoral” not to consider whether charities could do more with existing resources.

Corry argued that “impact really matters – it’s a moral imperative”. And while impact was often talked about, it was not “embedded”.

“Impact, outcomes, making the most difference you can, matters.”

A greater focus on impact would pay dividends, he said.