Charity regulation review: consultation analysis

Introduction

Background

In 2019 the Scottish Government ran a consultation about proposals the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) had made on improvements to the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005 ("the 2005 Act"), which originally established the current regulatory regime for charities in Scotland to support the charity sector and to safeguard the public interest in relation to charities. A Bill was introduced in Parliament in November 2022 to strengthen and update the legislative framework for charities registered in Scotland and the Charities (Regulation and Administration) (Scotland) Act 2023 ("the 2023 Act") received Royal Assent in August 2023. In response to the 2019 consultation, the consultation for the Bill and in evidence sessions during the Bill’s passage, some people responded that they wanted a wider review of charity regulation.

During the passage of the 2023 Act, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice committed to looking at a wider review of charity regulation in recognition of stakeholder feedback on matters outwith the Bill. In the Programme for Government 2023 to 2024 the Scottish Government committed to ‘work with the third sector and partners to develop the scope for a wider review of charity regulation.’

A public consultation on a review of charity regulation ran from 29 April to 22 July 2024. The consultation sought stakeholders’ views on whether there needs to be a review of charity regulation, and if so what the purpose and parameters of a review should be. This consultation asked 10 short questions about a review and was split into three sections:

• The need for a review and the purpose of a review
• The parameters for a review - What should it cover and not cover?
• Technical areas for review

The analysis of responses set out in this report will be used to inform next steps.

Respondent profile

In total, 163 consultation responses were received^[2]. Most were submitted via the online consultation platform, Citizen Space. Those received in an alternative format, for example, an email or PDF document, were reviewed separately by the research team.

Individuals provided 83 responses to the consultation; the remaining 80 responses were from organisations. To aid analysis, organisations were grouped on the nature of their work. Table 1 shows the profile of respondents.

A few faith-based organisations used similar wording in elements of their response. However, this is often the case where a respondent shares or endorses the same views as an organisation which has made its response public before the consultation closes. Each of these responses has been treated as a separate response in the analysis.

Table 1: Respondent profile

Respondents who were responding on behalf of a charity were also asked to indicate their charity’s income for last year. This was included to understand the size profile of charities responding to the consultation. As well as most charities, some other organisations answered this question. Table 2 shows the income profile among charities and umbrella bodies, and among the total sample.

Table 2: Income profile

Consultation events

The analysis also included notes collated from nine consultation events.

These included two Scottish Government webinars open to anyone, two Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (SCVO) webinars, and events hosted with the Third Sector Interface Network, the Scottish Churches Committee, the Law Society of Scotland Charity Law Sub-Committee, the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) and Social Enterprise Scotland. All the webinars followed a similar structure and were based on the consultation paper questions, with attendees representing a range of stakeholders in the sector, including charities, professional advisors, membership and umbrella bodies.

Analysis approach

The Lines Between was commissioned to provide a robust, independent analysis of the responses to the public consultation. The main purpose of consultation analysis is to understand the full range of views expressed and, where possible, using closed questions, to quantify how many respondents hold particular views. This report provides a thematic analysis of responses based on the analysis approach outlined below.

Some respondents, especially organisations, shared lengthy submissions reflecting their specific subject matter expertise. The report references these responses where possible. Full responses to the consultation, where permission for publication was granted, can be found on the Scottish Government’s consultation website.

Quantitative analysis

The consultation included nine closed questions which asked respondents for their views on the possible approaches set out in the consultation paper. Not all respondents answered every question. However, where those who did not answer the closed questions expressed a view in their open comments; this has been noted in the qualitative analysis.

To allow comparisons across sub-groups, the tables in this report and appendix present the results of the closed questions based on those who answered each question. For clarity, each table shows:

• The percentage of respondents from the total sample of 163 respondents who selected each response (grey row).
• The percentage of respondents among those who answered each question, broken down by individual and organisation responses and by type of organisation (rows including and under “All answering”).
• The sample size column notes how many respondents within each audience answered each question.

Please note that the row percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.

Qualitative analysis

Qualitative analysis identifies the key themes across responses to each question. The research team developed a draft coding framework based on a review of the consultation questions and a sample of responses. During the coding process, new codes were created if additional themes emerged.

When reviewing the qualitative analysis in this report, we would ask the reader to consider the following:

• Public consultations invite everyone to express their views; individuals and organisations interested in the topic are more likely to respond than those without a direct or known interest. This self-selection means the views of respondents do not necessarily represent the views of the population, or everyone with an interest in this topic.
• Where differences between the views of individuals and organisations were evident in qualitative responses, these have been noted. If no specific differences are highlighted then a theme was raised by a mix of respondents.
• Some issues or suggestions were raised at multiple questions, regardless of the focus of the question. While this report includes all views, analysts judged the most relevant place to include each theme to minimise repetition.
• In a few instances where a response received via email or in a PDF document contained information that did not align with specific questions, analysts judged the most relevant place to include this material for analysis purposes.
• Notes from the consultation events were reviewed to identify where there were similarities with the themes evident in the formal consultation responses or to identify any new themes or any differences in opinion compared to the consultation responses. The themes evident in the events typically aligned with those evident in the main sample, but any additional or unique perspectives are noted in this report.
• Quotes from the consultation responses have been used to illustrate key points and provide useful examples, insights and contextual information. Quotes have only been used where a respondent gave permission for their response to be published.

Weight of opinion

This report presents the themes identified in responses from most to least commonly mentioned. All themes, including views shared by small numbers of respondents, are covered; a view expressed by a very small number of participants is not given less weight than more general comments shared by a majority.

Similarly, all responses have an equal weighting. We recognise this means a response from an individual has the same weight as the response from an organisation which may represent many members, but this approach ensures all views are presented.

To assist the reader in interpreting the findings, a framework is used to convey the most to least commonly identified themes in responses to each question:

• The most/second most common/prevalent theme; most frequently identified.
• Many respondents, 20 or more respondents, a prevalent theme.
• Several respondents, between 10 and 19 respondents, a recurring theme.
• Some respondents, between 5 and 9 respondents, another theme.
• A few / a small number, fewer than 5 respondents, a less common theme.
• Two/one respondent; a singular comment or a view identified in only one or two responses.