Risk and Resilience in Scottish Charities
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Stirling Online Research Repository Risk and Resilience in Scottish Charities A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Sociology and Social Policy) Faculty of Social Sciences University of Stirling By Diarmuid McDonnell June 2017 1 DECLARATION In accordance with the Regulations for Higher Degrees by Research, I hereby declare that the whole thesis now submitted for the candidature of Doctor of Philosophy is a result of my own research and independent work except where reference is made to published literature. I also hereby certify that the work embodied in this thesis has not already been submitted in any substance for any degree and is not being concurrently submitted in candidature for any degree from any other institute of higher learning. I am responsible for any errors and omission present in the thesis. Candidate: _____Diarmuid McDonnell_____ 2 AWKNOWLEDGEMENTS Those who know me will not be surprised to note I required a great deal of help to reach this stage. First and foremost, my principal supervisor Dr Alasdair Rutherford, for going above-and-beyond in all aspects of his guidance and support: I hope I did your project justice. Professor Johnston Birchall, for sage advice on a great variety of topics but particularly on establishing an academic career. Dr Richard Simmons, for getting on-board with the project at a late stage and bringing his customary depth of knowledge, keen eye for improvement and enthusiasm. Finally, to my viva panel – Professor Carolyn Cordery, Dr Dave Griffiths and Dr Ian McIntosh – thank you for your fairness, rigour and deep interest in the thesis. The team at OSCR were fantastic. Dr Louise Meikleham dealt with my requests for data, advice, corrections, reviews and whatever else I could throw at her with great patience and personality. Dr Judith Turbyne brought ridiculous energy to the project and sang our praises to the rest of the (regulatory) world. To Nicola, Laura, Angela, David, Ann, Anne, Judith, Cameron and more, thank you for showing me the ropes. The PhD is a culmination of four (and a bit) happy years at the University of Stirling. Thank you to everybody who called 4S24 a home (particularly the ‘quants boys’), Ashley, Linda, Angela, Sam and a whole host of other people that supported me through the ups and downs of university life, and anybody that played a role in my education there. To every charity that participated in the study (and those that did not): you are needed and keep on keeping on. To my funders, the ESRC and OSCR, thank you for taking a punt on what I hope was a worthwhile endeavour. To my father, I finally understand how important education is and I wish I listened to you sooner. To my mother, I promise I will embark on a career that can be more easily explained than a PhD. To my brother and sister, thanks for taking the shine off my achievements by doing better than me in school. To my grandparents, thank you for being proud of me no matter what I do. To my in-laws, thank you for the endless support (emotional and culinary). To my (unofficial) godmother, thank you for treating me as one of your own. To my uncle Michael, thank you for ceaseless entertainment and for being the cool uncle. Finally, to my wife Sonia: Darlin' if you're weary Lay your head upon my chest We'll take what we can carry And we'll leave the rest 3 ABSTRACT Concerns have long been raised about the conduct and accountability of charitable organisations, particularly the adequacy of reporting and oversight mechanisms. Consequently, charities and the institutions that monitor the sector are under increasing pressure to demonstrate their legitimacy. This thesis focuses on the ways in which risk is operationalised by the Scottish Charity Regulator and experienced by charities. In particular, it examines the nature, extent, determinants and outcomes of four types of risk: complaints concerning charity conduct, regulatory action in response to a complaint, financial vulnerability, and triggering accountability concerns. The thesis begins with a detailed review of the overlapping literatures of risk, regulation and charity theory, and the development of a contextual framework for guiding the empirical work. The thesis draws on contemporary large-scale administrative social science data derived from the regulator, supported by modest use of primary social survey and qualitative data. Findings from the four empirical chapters provide evidence that the risks explored in this research are uncommon for individual charities but are a persistent feature of the sector as a whole, and vary in predictable ways across certain organisational characteristics. The results also reveal the concern of charities with financial risks, their willingness to demonstrate transparency regarding their actions (particularly in response to complaints), and the perceived lack of regulatory burden. The thesis makes an original contribution in the form of new empirical knowledge about the charity sector, in particular through the use of large-scale administrative social science data to ‘peer under the hood’ and shine a light on aspects of charity behaviour that are often overlooked. The thesis concludes with a reflection on the key findings and comments on potential areas for future research. 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE – RISK AND RESILIENCE IN SCOTTISH CHARITIES ................................ 7 1.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 7 1.2. DEFINING THE SCOTTISH CHARITY SECTOR ................................................................................ 8 1.3. CHARITY REGULATION IN SCOTLAND ....................................................................................... 10 1.4. THESIS OUTLINE ........................................................................................................................ 11 CHAPTER TWO – LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................ 13 2.1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 13 2.2. RISK THEORY ............................................................................................................................. 13 2.3. CHARITY THEORY ...................................................................................................................... 17 2.4. REGULATION THEORY ............................................................................................................... 21 2.5. RISK, REGULATION AND CHARITIES .......................................................................................... 24 2.6. RESEARCHING RISK IN THE CHARITY SECTOR .......................................................................... 30 CHAPTER THREE – METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................... 33 3.1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 33 3.2. RESEARCH QUESTIONS .............................................................................................................. 34 3.3. METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................... 34 3.4. METHODS ................................................................................................................................... 36 3.5. RESEARCH DATA ....................................................................................................................... 41 CHAPTER FOUR – THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF MISCONDUCT .................................. 54 4.1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 54 4.2. INVESTIGATING CHARITY MISCONDUCT ................................................................................... 55 4.3. LITERATURE ............................................................................................................................... 56 4.4. METHOD ..................................................................................................................................... 57 4.5. RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................... 59 4.6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 75 CHAPTER FIVE – ACCOUNTABILITY MATTERS ................................................................... 79 5.1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 79 5.2. LITERATURE ............................................................................................................................... 80 5.3. MONITORING ACCOUNTABILITY CONCERNS ............................................................................. 82 5.4. METHOD ..................................................................................................................................... 83 5 5.5. RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................... 86 5.6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION