Published on 12, July, 2020
Considering that nearly 90% of all NAS income comes from the government, where almost all of it is ring fenced for specific people, then it is clearly evident that the NAS is not really a charity in the traditional sense of the word and more of a government service provider. Therefore is it befitting and honourable that the NAS - or at least the side which chases public money - deregisters as a charity and converts itself into a business?
The concept of heavily government funded charities is an issue that I am planning on discussing with my MP. I am hoping that the issue is debated in Parliament and legislation enacted that will restrict how much money a charity can receive from the government. Any that wishes to receive more must convert into a business.
It's always been possible for one organisation to do both charitable and non-charitable work, although the charitable funds have to be accounted for separately. Usually the charity owns the for-profit trading arm. IMHO that is a better form of governance to accomplish the objects of the charity than reporting to shareholders who are only interested in profits.
I think to understand this properly, one would need to look at the constitution of all involved organisations, and, crucially, the nature of the contracts, the tendering process, and actual practice. Problems in an organisation often begin from the 'operating environment', just as problems with people do.
The Institute for Economic Arseholes (IEA, lobbyists), has recently managed to screw this up, as you may be aware. If for example, we think there should be a major organisation working on behalf of autistic adults who don't have language delay or learning disability, the logical thing would be to feed this back to policymakers, use research to design policies and services for that target group, and have a public campaign to raise funds and raise awareness. The research may still be possible, but because larger publicly-funded charities are already subject to these very unclear new rules, they may be scared to do any resulting advocacy, or much outside their contracts, even if it falls within their charitable objects and powers. Oddly, the new rules don't restrict private companies from lobbying. Thus, if NAS sold off its services to Richard Branson, he could lobby on behalf of whatever made most money for shareholders (indeed that would be pretty much the only object his company can lobby for under the Companies Act), but not on behalf of what serves people's health, education, scientific and artistic expression, and wellbeing.
Sorry, I seem to have got a bit ranty recently. I'm hoping it's a positive sign of emerging from my rut.
There are people who think that it is dishonest for charities to spend a large proportion of their income and efforts in non-charitable works or as government service providers. In some cases governments outsource their operations to charities as it exempts them from the FOI act and superficially makes it look like a charity rather than the government is carrying out the operation.
Charities are also restricted in what they can do. For example, CAGE has decided not to register as a charity because it is involved in lobbying the government in a way that may be deemed political. I also think that if the NAS got involved in lobbying the government to change the National Curriculum and method of GCSE assessment then that would violate the terms of the Charities Commission. This has been mentioned in the home education community.
Arran said:I also think that if the NAS got involved in lobbying the government to change the National Curriculum and method of GCSE assessment then that would violate the terms of the Charities Commission.
The Charity Commission prevents party political campaigning, but AFAIK campaigning that helps charitable objects such as health or education of autistic people would be permitted and seen as charitable. I can see why that would legitimately include at least methods of GCSE assessment. As far as I know, the 2016 restrictions are contractual:
https://www.theguardian.com/voluntary-sector-network/2016/dec/08/charity-lobbying-government-grant-making-standards
Yes, if there are primarily political purposes, then don't register as a charity. And obviously don't take government money if that stops you being effective.