Executive summary
Overall, the Charity Commission’s customer service is still rated highly: two-thirds of surveyed customers say it is good or very good, a slight increase on last year’s rating.
There are signs that improvements to guidance and other services have had an effect. When prompted, around a third suggest some of the Commission’s services have improved, and they qualitatively note that there is greater use of plain English and clear headings within guidance.
Customers continue primarily to come into contact with the Commission through its website, mostly to perform tasks required of them such as updating their details and filing their accounts. The Commission’s website and register are rated highly.
As in 2019 to 2020, practical interactions continue to drive positivity. The register and annual returns processes are rated highly and mostly regarded as intuitive. When able to speak to staff, most customers praise their professional and helpful service.
Those more critical of the Commission’s services continue to find the website difficult to navigate and the information they seek hard to find, despite improvements overall. They believe the Commission needs a more intuitive search engine that produces fewer ‘hits’ and is clearly differentiated from the wider gov.uk website. Some are concerned that the Commission’s information and guidance is not written for people like them, because it is overly technical or is not applicable ‘in the real world’. They would like better access to Commission staff to resolve those queries they cannot solve themselves.
Customers have found coronavirus (COVID-19) information useful, though only a small number have used it.
Charity Commission customer service
Views of the Charity Commission’s customer service remain positive, with a majority rating it as good
69% of those surveyed rate the Charity Commission’s service as ‘good’ (29% very good, 40% good). This is up 5% since 2019 to 2020.
7% rate the Charity Commission’s service as ‘poor’. This is down 3% since 2019 to 2020.
Note: survey question was “Overall, how would you rate the Charity Commission’s customer service?” Base 1,315.
Larger charities are slightly less likely to rate the Commission’s services highly
| Charity income | Percentage that rated Charity Commission’s services as ‘good’ | Same figure from 2019 to 2020 survey |
|---|---|---|
| £0 to £10,000 | 73% | 68% |
| £10,000 to £25,000 | 74% | 63% |
| £25,000 to £100,000 | 71% | 70% |
| £100,000 to £500,000 | 66% | 65% |
| £500,000 to £1 million | 64% | 63% |
| £1 million to £5 million | 57% | 54% |
| More than £5 million | 56% | 55% |
Rating of the Charity Commission’s services has improved amongst all customers since last year
| Customer group | Percentage that rated Charity Commission’s services as ‘good’ | Same figure from 2019 to 2020 survey |
|---|---|---|
| Volunteer | 78% | 71% |
| Trustee, board or committee member | 74% | 69% |
| Chair | 73% | 68% |
| Professional advisor | 73% | 67% |
| Treasurer | 72% | 66% |
| Other | 72% | 56% |
| Member of staff | 56% | 49% |
Note: survey question was “Overall, how would you rate the Charity Commission’s customer service?” Base 2019: 0 to 10k (284), 10k to 25k (201), 25k to 100k (296), 100k to 500k (255), 500k to 1m (89), 1m to 5m (127), more than 5m (127). Base 2020: 0 to 10k (327), 10k to 25k (195), 25k to 100k (275), 100k to 500k (235), 500k to 1m (59), 1m to 5m (90), more than 5m (109).
Contact is mostly made through the website
| Channel through which respondents had come into contact with the Charity Commission | Percentage that used a particular channel | Same figure from 2019 to 2020 survey |
|---|---|---|
| I have visited its website | 78% | 84% |
| I have used or searched its register | 50% | 57% |
| I have sent it an email or emails | 43% | 51% |
| I have been contacted directly by the Charity Commission | 28% | 27% |
| I have called the contact centre | 17% | 24% |
| I have written it a letter or letters | 10% | 13% |
| Other | 12% | 10% |
| I have had no contact with the Commission in the last year | 5% | 3% |
Note: survey question was “Through which channels have you come into contact with the Charity Commission in
the last year?” Base 2019 (1,451), 2020 (1,386).
Interaction with the register or more practical functions continues to drive positive sentiment
Of the channels the Commission provides, the register and the website perform best.
| Channel | Percentage that rated the channel as ‘good’ | Change from 2019 to 2020 survey |
|---|---|---|
| Register | 85% | 0% |
| Website | 78% | +2% |
| 72% | +8% | |
| Direct contact | 70% | +1% |
| Contact centre | 66% | +2% |
| Letter or post | 40% | +5% |
Note: survey question was “How would you rate the service that is provided by the Charity Commission through each of these channels overall?” Base: Website (1,085), Register (691), Contact Centre (242), Email (602), Letter /post (136), Contact it has made with you (391).
A majority find it easy to find the information they need on the website.
82% say it is easy to find information (18% very easy, 64% easy). 17% say it is difficult (13% fairly difficult, 3% very difficult).
Note: survey question was “How easy or difficult is it to find the information that you need from the Charity Commission’s website?” Base: (1,315)
Customers most commonly come into contact with the Commission through practical tasks such as updating their details or accounts
It remains those practical interactions, including updating details and register information, that are rated highest by customers.
| Reason for coming into contact with the Charity Commission | Percentage that came into contact with the Charity Commission | Same figure from 2019 to 2020 survey | Percentage that rated those services as good |
|---|---|---|---|
| Updating charity or trustee details | 68% | 73% | 92% |
| Filing a return or accounts | 65% | 69% | 88% |
| Looking for information or guidance on the website | 49% | 51% | 74% |
| Looking for information on the register | 37% | 41% | 88% |
| Answering a query or to seek advice | 28% | 33% | 73% |
| Applying for permission to change something | 18% | 32% | 68% |
| Applying to register a charity | 18% | 20% | 83% |
| Reporting a serious incident | 13% | 13% | 72% |
| To look for information about COVID-19 and how it affects your charity | 13% | Not applicable | 80% |
| Dealing with a matter that the Commission contacted me about | 8% | 6% | 61% |
| Other | 3% | 3% | Not applicable |
Note: survey question was “For what reasons have you had contact with the Charity Commission in the last
year?” Base: 2019 (1,045), 2020 (1,315)
Improvement in services since last year
There has been some perceived improvement in services since last year. Many services are rated slightly higher than last year, most noticeably by those looking for an answer to a query and registering a charity.
| Reason for coming into contact with the Charity Commission | Percentage rated as ‘good’ 2019 to 2020 | Percentage rated as good’ 2020 to 2021 |
|---|---|---|
| Updating charity or trustee details | 89% | 92% |
| Filing a return or accounts | 86% | 88% |
| Looking for information or guidance on the website | 77% | 74% |
| Looking for information on the register | 85% | 88% |
| Answering a query or to seek advice | 61% | 73% |
| Applying for permission to change something | 62% | 68% |
| Applying to register a charity | 71% | 83% |
| Reporting a serious incident | 64% | 72% |
| To look for information about COVID-19 and how it affects your charity | Not applicable | 80% |
| Dealing with a matter that the Commission contacted me about | 68% | 61% |
Note: survey question was “For what reasons have you had contact with the Charity Commission in the last year?” Base: Registering (235), Filing (852), Updating details (647), Register (489), Query (369),
Permission (240), RSI (176), Contacted me (99), COVID-19 (166)
When prompted most say the Commission’s services have stayed the same, although a significant minority point to some improvement.
| Charity Commission service | Improved | Stayed the same | Got worse | Don’t know |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Filing a return or accounts | 30% | 58% | 4% | 9% |
| Updating charity or trustee details | 30% | 55% | 3% | 13% |
| Guidance | 30% | 44% | 2% | 24% |
| Website | 29% | 50% | 3% | 18% |
| Register | 29% | 46% | 2% | 23% |
| Applying to register a charity | 25% | 22% | 9% | 44% |
| Contact centre | 22% | 35% | 9% | 35% |
Note: survey question was “Have you noticed any change in the quality of the following services in the last 12 months?” Base: Its website (1,049), Its register (740), Its contact centre (242), Filing returns or accounts (852), Updating charity or trustee details (891), Apply to register a charity (235), Guidance (1,049)
Most believe that the Commission provides helpful advice and support overall as well as largely intuitive online systems
The Commission is seen to be most helpful in 4 key areas.
Helpful and professional staff
When able to speak to someone at the Commission, usually via the contact centre or email, customers are impressed with the service they receive
Staff are seen to be helpful and professional
Some feel the website can be confusing or difficult to navigate, particularly the search function, and so discussing a query with a member of staff is highly valued
Quotes from research
“The contact centre staff were amazing. Prompt, knowledgeable, quick to refer and provide assurance.”
“Being able to speak with a person was helpful at the beginning of the COVID 19 situation.”
“Call centre staff very knowledgeable and helpful.”
The charity register and annual returns
As in last year’s survey, the register and annual returns system are generally thought to work well.
There is some recognition that improvements have been made to the layout of the website which some say is clearer and easier to use.
Quotes from research
“Filing annual return and updating charity details is very easy. The register is also easy to use.”
“The new style layout of the register entry is useful.”
“The new website is really good and makes finding basic information easy.”
General advice and guidance
Customers value the wealth of information and guidance available on the Commission’s website.
Many say it is clear, accessible and covers all the key elements those involved in the running of charities need to know.
Some say guidance has improved in the past year, and has been particularly useful in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Quotes from research
“Clarity about subject matter and detail when needed.”
“Guidance is clear and use of examples has improved.”
“Guides for trustees etc. in pdf format. Very helpful to email on to trustees and clearly worded.”
“Having COVID-19 guidance on governance issues highlighted clearly.”
Updating details online
Many say the online filing system works well, and they appreciate the ease at which they can update details about their charity online.
Quotes from research
“In providing charity information to the Charity Commission, the site is user friendly which is very important for slightly older and less capable (in terms of modern technologies) clerical officers like myself.”
“Updating information is straightforward.”
“The layout and procedure for updating Trustees details and information.”
Areas for improvement
Whilst the Commission is seen to provide detailed and helpful services, ratings for concision and ease of access remain lower.
| Description of Charity Commission services | Percentage who agreed | Percentage who disagreed | Percentage who agreed from 2019 to 2020 survey |
|---|---|---|---|
| Comprehensive | 73% | 6% | 72% |
| Sufficiently detailed | 72% | 7% | 71% |
| Aimed at people in roles like mine | 68% | 9% | 69% |
| Clear | 67% | 10% | 64% |
| Easy to understand or follow | 65% | 11% | 62% |
| Easy to find or access | 62% | 13% | 59% |
| Understands my needs | 59% | 13% | Not applicable |
| Concise | 58% | 12% | 60% |
Note: survey question was “Using a scale of 1 to 5, to what extent would you say that the services provided by the Charity Commission are… Base: 2019 (1,405), 2020 (1,315)
Calls for improvement centre on providing clear and accessible information for all customers
Clear and accessible information
Despite some suggestion that the Commission has improved its website and guidance over the past year, the most common criticisms still relate to ‘complicated’ information that some feel is inaccessible to those who may be less experienced or work for smaller charities.
Terminology used is sometimes viewed to be overly complex or legal in nature, and not aimed at ordinary people.
Quotes from research
“The Commission is excessively complex, bureaucratic, impractical and generally unhelpful. Guidance is wordy, often unclear and requires interpretation.”
“I get more informative and supportive advice elsewhere. I don’t feel they are there for the smaller operations.”
“I think that the guidance, whilst good, does tend to throw the reader into loops within the pages of info and you don’t always find what you are looking for.”
Responsiveness
Understandably, those frustrated with the website or guidance believe the Commission needs to provide an option to speak to a member of staff to try to resolve queries.
Some feel the process of contacting the contact centre or email queries can take far too long, leaving them confused or unable to resolve their issue.
Quotes from research
“I would prefer to be able to easily make contact by email, so I have a clear record of what was asked and the response. I find the guidance hard to unpick and unclear or contradictory.”
“It is extremely difficult to make direct verbal contact with an officer.”
“A couple of conversations with the Case Officer resolved, in about 30 minutes, outstanding issues that had been dragging on previously for months.”
Website functionality
As was prevalent in last year’s survey, there are complaints that the website is too difficult to navigate.
It is seen to be ‘clunky’ and unresponsive in many areas, such as when using the search function, navigating through guidance or looking for specific information.
Quotes from research
“I do think that navigating around the website could be made easier. For example, when I want to log in to my account there is not one place to go to find it I find myself fishing all over the website to find where to log in.”
“I think the website needs a complete overhaul.”
Interpretation of guidance
Some suggest that the Commission fails to advise charities where guidance requires a ‘real world interpretation’.
These people are frustrated with a ‘one size fits all approach’ which ignores the needs of specific charities or does not account for how the rules may apply to charities in ‘real life’.
This is partly seen to be linked to difficulty in speaking to an advisor or case worker.
Quotes from research
“I appreciate that hard and fast lines need to be drawn, and the website is clear in this area. However, there are grey areas in the work of a charity, and the charity for which I volunteer has found that help with grey areas is not really available.”
“I think they could sometimes try to be clear in their answers to queries. One gets the feeling that the rules are repeated and left to one’s interpretation.”
“Our trustees sometimes feel that they need expert advise to correctly interpret the rules.”
Overall, customers would like to receive more help from staff verbally or guidance that is better tailored to certain audiences or processes
Quotes from research
Verbal contact from the Commission
“Ability to book a Zoom or Skype conference call to get explanations on requests or seek more information and advice.”
“A phone number to call for clarity on things, if we are not quite sure how to do something without thinking we will get in to trouble by the Charity Commission if we haven’t got it quite right.”
More information or guidance on specific processes, for example, reporting serious incidents, good practice during COVID-19
“The annual return, I totally understand the benefits of updating it but more comprehensive guidance notes would help.”
“Reporting a serious incident could be simpler. I found that I was repeating myself on the multi page form as it was not clear what to write in each box. The guidance notes are no help with this.”
“We are changing to a CIO and it would be good if there was a step by step guide that we could understand on what is required and when.”
More tailored guidance, for example, for both smaller and larger charities, supported by more ‘real world’ examples
“A far more intuitive question function. Our charity is a diocese in the church of England and has complicated rules and the generic charity rules don’t always cover the depth of question or provide the right level of detail.”
The few who had not had contact with the Charity Commission thought they did not want or need it
5% of those surveyed had no contact with the Charity Commission.
Why customers had no contact with the Charity Commission
- I did not want or need any help or contact (85%)
- I wanted help with the management of my charity but I did not know that the Charity Commission provided it (4%)
- I wanted help with the management of my charity but I got it from another source (3%)
- I wanted help with the management of my charity but did not know where to start (3%)
- Other (7%)
Methodology
Yonder conducted an online survey of 1,315 participants taken from the Charity Commission’s database of charity main contacts. Participants came from a range of charity types, regional areas of focus, and length of tenure. Sample is not representative of the charity register.
Where relevant, answer options were randomised and scales rotated.
Appendix
Involvement in the COVID-19 pandemic
| How respondents said their charity had been involved in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic | Percentage who said their charity had been involved in a particular way |
|---|---|
| Not involved | 49% |
| Helping those in isolation | 25% |
| Other | 21% |
| Helping those in financial need | 18% |
| Helping those shielding | 16% |
| Delivering medical care | 4% |
| Medical research | 1% |
‘Other’ includes:
- delivering or coordinating food supplies
- general COVID-19 advice
- childcare
- education
- accommodation
- online support
About the survey respondents
Role
| Charity role | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Trustee | 36% |
| Member of staff | 26% |
| Chair | 25% |
| Treasurer | 22% |
| Volunteer | 11% |
| Other | 7% |
| Professional advisor | 2% |
Years operating
| Number of years the charity has been operating | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Up to 5 years | 25% |
| 6 to 10 years | 9% |
| 11 to 15 years | 7% |
| 16 to 20 years | 9% |
| 21 to 30 years | 13% |
| 31 to 50 years | 16% |
| 51 to 75 years | 7% |
| 76 years or more | 14% |
Charity income
| Charity income | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| £0 to £10,000 | 26% |
| £10,001 to £25,000 | 15% |
| £25,001 to £100,000 | 21% |
| £100,001 to £500,000 | 17% |
| £500,001 to £1 million | 4% |
| £1,000,001 to £5 million | 7% |
| More than £5 million | 8% |
Geography (primary area)
| Charity primary area or country | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| South East | 15% |
| London | 12% |
| South West | 12% |
| No primary area | 10% |
| East of England | 9% |
| North West | 8% |
| West Midlands | 7% |
| Yorkshire and the Humber | 7% |
| East Midlands | 6% |
| Overseas | 6% |
| North East | 4% |
| Wales | 4% |
| Scotland | 0% |
| Northern Ireland | 0% |
Charity remit
| Charity remit | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Education or training | 40% |
| Prevention or relief of poverty | 19% |
| Health or saving lives | 17% |
| Religious activities | 17% |
| General charitable purposes | 16% |
| Arts, culture or heritage | 15% |
| Recreation | 13% |
| Disability | 11% |
| Economic or community development, or unemployment | 9% |
| Other charitable purposes | 9% |
| Environment or conservation | 8% |
| Accommodation or housing | 6% |
| Amateur sport | 6% |
| Equality or diversity | 6% |
| Overseas aid or famine | 5% |
| Animal welfare | 3% |
| Human rights, religious or racial harmony | 3% |
| Science and technology | 2% |
| Armed forces or emergency services | 2% |
Credit: Source link
