Blog

9 February 2015, 17:34

Data is nothing without context

In my final column of 2014, I predicted transparency would be a continuing topic this year, and so it is proving. You’ll find quite a bit on the subject in this month’s Finance Focus, some of it related to a report published only a few days into the new year by the right-leaning think tank the Centre for Policy Studies. I’m not going to suggest you read the report because the tone and nature of it is likely to raise your blood pressure – I know it had that effect on me. However, there is a danger that such ill-informed pieces have the effect of switching us off so we fail to engage in the debate, or conversations may become polarised “for” and “against” transparency, rather than producing serious dialogue about what transparency actually is.

This latest report, like many that have come before, calls for the publication of more data. In this case, one call is for the proportion of funds which come from government to be disclosed. It also has a little swipe at the SORP Committee for rejecting a recommendation that such a disclosure should form part of the accounting framework. The principles which guide the SORP committee’s setting of the sector’s accounting and transparency framework take into consideration the public interest.

We weigh disclosure against burden because unless the benefit of mandating disclosure outweighs the burden caused in making it, charity resources are wasted. The problem with putting out the simple data is that, more often than not, data requires a decent narrative to make sense.

Releasing data on its own doesn’t necessarily leave people better informed or able to make a judgment. Here is an example: last year I attended a meeting in our northern region. I travelled first class. You can see the headlines now… “CFG chief wastes charity funds in first class travel scandal”. But let’s unpack this disclosure. My ticket in first class was £4 more expensive than a standard ticket. Included in the price were free wifi and food/refreshments. Under CFG’s travel and subsistence policy, I would have been entitled to claim for refreshments. To make the most of the time, I would have purchased a wifi connection, another £5. Thus you can see that actually I saved money for the charity by travelling first class. Working was more comfortable and productive too. A scandal or sensible?

Now factor in that we are talking about a financial impact of only a few pounds: is this level of debate and effort proportionate and does it really improve understanding? Or does it just create more storms in teacups? Yes, we must intelligently engage with the debate, but we should also tread with care, exploring trust and transparency with an open mind and with a healthy dose of scepticism regarding the motives of those asking for more.

Caron Bradshaw, Chief Executive, CFG

« Back to all blog posts