Posted By Alex Le Vey on December 5, 2011

I am essentially, a free market thinker. I love the concepts of choice and competition, and believe strongly that when applied, and supported correctly, these concepts result in better products and services.

This belief does not seem to be shared amongst many in the sector, and it seems to be widely thought that if charities do not ask beneficiaries what they want, then charities are being paternalistic. With this, I fundamentally disagree, and recite the old adage of ‘If Henry Ford had asked people what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse; he gave them the car’. Responding to need is good, but I think it is the job of charities to interpret that need, and innovate services accordingly.

Need is important to charities and all others in the not-for-profit sector, as these organisations exist to do something for others: to provide a service, to make lives better. The value of the organisation or the activity or service can be judged on how well it has met need, and whether or not people think the service is valuable.

In this time of fierce competition charities are increasingly being asked to answer harder questions, and demonstrate with greater precision that they are meeting the needs of their beneficiary group(s) (this is a good thing). As a result, and due to the view that charities should offer directly what people feel they want or need, a question along these lines seems to constantly be asked of charities: ‘How have you consulted with your beneficiaries ’ (BIG Lottery Reaching Communities: Page 7). This, for me, is a strange and disruptive question with regards to service development, and one that we simply do not encounter in other areas of life. Great to ask what people think of existing services, but consultation before implementation seems odd. It creates unnecessary work for charities, forces beneficiaries to answer questions they shouldn’t have to, and potentially limits innovation.

To think of the charity sector as a high street retailer better illustrates this. There are multiple shops on the high street, yet not one of them has consulted with me about the type of clothes I like, how much I would be willing to pay for them and in what months I’d be likely to purchase them. Shops stay open because of supply and demand. If their product isn’t good enough the shop will close.

I wish the same could be said of charities. I believe that charities should offer services, and it should be for people to decide whether they want to use the service or not. This isn’t advocating a paternalistic ‘take it or leave it’ view of charity, but instead aiming to promote a culture of choice. Demonstrating robust beneficiary figures should be enough to show that a charity is needed and that people like what it is doing. If beneficiary figures decline, or remain low, then this is enough of an indication to show something isn’t right, and the charity needs to innovate services or cease to operate. Jumping through hoops to demonstrate need isn’t useful.

Categories: Opinion
Tags: charity, competition, Impact, need, reporting, services