The Regulator for Charities in England and Wales
(Version March 2003)
For trustees, consideration of the level of reserves their charity needs to hold, and how to acquire them, is an important part of planning and of sound financial management. It is also a key issue for the Charity Commission as the regulator. Reserves levels which are set too high tie up money which could and should be spent on charitable activity. If they are too low the future of the charity may be put at risk.
In the year ending 31 December 2001, over £26 billion was held in reserves by registered charities. (1). Over £5.5 billion of these reserves were held by charities that did not have a reserves policy, and many of the policies that were in place were insufficient and of poor quality. Whilst the changing economic climate means that the values of reserves quoted by some charities will have fallen since then, the principle of a well thought out reserves policy, with a level of reserves that is right for the charity and is clear to its stakeholders, still holds good.
Each charity’s position is different and it is impossible to set a formula for reserves levels that will suit all charities at all stages of their development. Deciding how much money to hold in reserve, or how to build up reserves, is not an easy task for any organisation. But donors, beneficiaries and the Charity Commission should be able to expect that charities will have a reserves policy, that is robust and fit for purpose providing clear accountability. This report explores these challenges and makes recommendations to enable trustees to address them.
Income funds that could be spent, but are instead held back from expenditure, known as reserves, play a significant role in balancing the needs of future and current beneficiaries of a charity. Most charities will try to build up a reserve, but amounts and specific practices vary considerably and there is a wide spectrum from charities that have no funds in reserve to those that hold substantial reserves. At a macro level, the £26 billion held collectively in reserves by charities in 2001 was roughly equivalent to their total income in that year. 90% of reserves and income was accounted for by 10% of charities.
There is no specific legal rule dictating the amount or proportion of a charity’s income funds that can be held as reserves. Areas of activity, funding sources, future needs, opportunities, economic conditions, contingencies and the risks being faced are factors which determine a charity’s reserves level. A risk assessment is an important step in helping a charity to identify the right level of reserves.
Setting a reserves policy and, in particular, identifying free reserves helps inform the way in which a charity manages its cash, liquid assets and debt: its treasury management approach. A comprehensive reserves policy will also assist trustees when planning and explaining their approach to stakeholders. Trustees are legally required to publish their charity’s reserves policy in their annual report.
Many charities have thought very carefully about what level of reserves they need to continue to operate effectively, and have in place good quality, clear reserves policies. However, the policies of some charities in our study did not offer sufficient detail about their approach to building up reserves, or for how they managed their reserves in practice. For example, some charities simply copied a power to accumulate funds from the charity’s governing document and called it a reserves policy.
Too many charities gave little or no thought to managing their reserves. Nearly 70% of charities with an income over £10,000 did not have a reserves policy when they submitted their annual return for 2001, despite many of these charities having substantial funds held back from expenditure. This position is unacceptable. However, on the positive side, many charities told us that they were in the process of developing a reserves policy or had put one in place since submitting their 2001 annual return, and the Charity Commission expects to see this process accelerated.
In the majority of cases, charities were committed to bringing their actual reserves level into line with their planned level where variations occurred. Charities whose reserves are below the level required by their policy face a particular challenge in bridging that gap. A number of charities were happy to retain reserves over and above the level set by their policy. It is not satisfactory to build reserves indefinitely in this way.
The classification of a charity’s resources into funds, and the terms used to describe these different funds, varies considerably and this can make it difficult for stakeholders to see the true level of a charity's reserves. A number of trustees inappropriately use accounting conventions such as designated funds to distort the presentation of their reserves level.
Some charities believe that they need to 'hide' their true level of reserves because the reserves might adversely affect the charity’s ability to seek donations or grants. However, in our study, most charities found that a comprehensive and transparent reserves policy positively helped them to avoid problems with donors and funders. Only 6% of charities with a reserves policy found it unhelpful.
Nevertheless, some charities met problems because they were perceived to be 'rich', and a key message for potential donors and funders is to look beyond the headline figure of how much a charity has in reserves to examine why the charity is holding these reserves.
This report on charities’ reserves has been compiled using evidence from the Charity Commission’s records and an examination of our case files. We have also spoken to numerous charities and surveyed both charities that have a policy in place and those that do not. As a separate exercise we have looked at the experiences of small charities. The findings from this research will be published separately. Details of the research methodology can be found in annex A.
Our case work experience in dealing with reserves - related cases shows that charities get into difficulties when trustees and the charity:
Recommendations arising from the research are summarised below. Further information on each point made can be found in the findings section of this report.
Since the submission of Annual Returns 2001, the changing economic climate and stock market conditions will have reduced some charity’s reserves. The core messages of this report are unchanged however and, in uncertain times, building up and properly managing reserves is even more of a priority for charities.
Recommendations for charities and their trustees
Recommendations for grant making bodies
Recommendations for donors
Action for the Charity Commission
In the year ending 31 December 2001, over £26 billion was held as reserves by charities in England and Wales. This sum was roughly equivalent to charities’ total income for that year. Almost 90% of these reserves and income were held by only 10% of charities.
Reserves levels and policies differ widely. Some charities are happy holding no reserves at all; others feel that they need a number of years' worth of expenditure held as reserves. The table below shows the highest reserves level found in each income group, the average amount held and the number of charities with no reserves.
Reserves held by charities in England and Wales:
|
Very Large Charities |
Large Charities |
Medium sized Charities | |
|
Sample size - charities who answered ‘Please state the total amount of reserves held by the charity’ on the 2001 Annual Return |
3305 |
4985 |
26772 |
|
Total reserves |
£18.7 billion |
£3.8 billion |
£3.9 billion |
|
Total expenditure |
£19.4 billion |
£2.3 billion |
£1.6 billion |
|
Average amount held in reserves for these charities |
£5,600,000 |
£760,000 |
£146,000 |
|
Average Expenditure |
£5,900,000 |
£465,000 |
£61,000 |
|
Highest level of reserves (2001 Annual Return) |
£537 million |
£31 million |
£27 million |
|
Number of charities who had no reserves (% of total) |
267 (8%) |
412(8%) |
4387 (16%) |
|
Average reserves: expenditure ratio |
3.3: 1 |
2.9 :1 |
8.2 :1 |
|
Number of charities who have a ratio of less than 1:1 (i.e. less reserves than expenditure for 2001) (2) |
22% |
43% |
64% |
Whilst the highest reserves to expenditure ratio was found in the medium sized charities group, this group also had the largest proportion of charities whose current reserves level would not cover their expenditure for 2001 (i.e. a ratio of <1:1). Medium sized charities were also the highest proportion (65%) of charities that did not have a reserves policy.
In all three income groups roughly 80% of charities have less than the average amount of reserves for their group.
The area in which a charity operates or the service it provides does not appear to have any impact upon its ratio of reserves to expenditure. An examination of 30 charities with the highest reserves to expenditure ratio, 30 charities with the lowest and 30 selected at random revealed no significant pattern. No one type of charity or area of operation was prevalent in any of these groups. Nor does the type of charity affect whether or not it has drawn up a reserves policy.
The amount of reserves needed depends heavily on the charity’s aims and beneficiaries. A charity serving beneficiaries with an ongoing need may place more importance on the long term viability of their charity. If, on the other hand, beneficiaries do not rely on the charity long term, a much lower level of reserves may be required.
Some charities distribute only the money that has been raised in the year and it may be entirely appropriate for such a charity to have little or no reserves. For others with no reserves, the issue is how to identify and build up reserves.
"We are a dynamic organisation which is able to respond quickly to change so six months [level of reserves] would be too much for us."
Charity trustee
Reserve levels should be set after consideration of the risks and opportunities that the charity faces. The factors that should be considered are discussed later.
Our review visit team had concerns about a very large charity because it held no reserves at all.
During the visit the reserves level was explored in depth and the trustees were given an opportunity to explain their policy. The trustees told the visit team that the decision to have no reserves was based on both their moral principles and the fact that they had planned other measures that they could deploy in an emergency, such as selling certain assets.
The trustees believed that the risk of disaster for their charity was slight and therefore contingency plans could be equally as radical.
The review visit team was satisfied that the charity had thought carefully about their approach and taken appropriate decisions.
Charities that choose not to keep reserves must be sure that they fully consider the pitfalls of having low reserves, as described later, and that they manage risks properly.
The Charity Commission does not prescribe a 'correct' level of reserves, although reserve levels are monitored in comparison to expenditure levels using charities’ annual returns. Charities with an income over £10 million have their management of reserves scrutinised in more detail, during the normal review of large charity accounts and as part of a risk based regulatory approach.
Where high levels of reserves in relation to a charity’s expenditure are found, or where reserves issues contribute to a wider pattern of concern, the Charity Commission will draw the trustees' attention to the requirements and provide standard guidance to help the charity meet the requirements.
Charity Commission staff will also ask trustees to explain and justify their position. In most cases the charity’s explanation will be satisfactory. However, if a charity’s reserves level cannot be explained, that might indicate serious mismanagement and an investigation may be opened.
Monitoring of the annual returns 2001 showed poor performance by charities with high reserves in managing these reserves.
There is nothing wrong with charities holding some funds as reserves. For many charities reserves are vital to support their ability to operate.
Trustees need to be sure of their reasons for keeping reserves and should state those reasons clearly. Without this clarity, trustees are unlikely to satisfy stakeholders that they are using their income in the best way.
Reserves to absorb setbacks….
Of the charities surveyed, the most common reason for having reserves (71%) was to ensure ‘continuity in the event of a large variation of income’. Reserves to ‘spend in emergencies’ also featured highly (41%) indicating that reserves are mainly kept as a ‘shock absorber’.
Reserves for regular, short term fluctuations…
Reserves were used to bridge cash flow problems by 37% of survey respondents. Instances include cases where charities use reserves instead of borrowing to bridge the gap where there is a mismatch between the timing of income and expenditure, for example where grant finance for an activity is paid in arrears.
Reserves to help plan for growth…
Reserves were also used by a small number of charities to allow them to plan for growth or to grasp opportunities when they arise. This is often additional to the need for reserves to absorb setbacks. It is common for charities to have reserves for more than one reason.
A large charity has established three layers of reserves to reflect the different risks it must respond to and its motives for holding reserves.
The first level of reserves is held for short-term tactical reasons. The charity keeps two months' worth of expenditure to cover any short term setbacks in funding or cash flow difficulties.
Second are ‘opportunistic reserves’, set aside to enable the charity to evolve and take advantage of strategic development opportunities.
A third, long term reserves level is intended to reduce risks posed by large external changes in the environment in which the charity operates. This could include a large fall in stock market values or a major decline in donors’ empathy to the cause. These risks, if realised, would dramatically affect the charity’s funding streams.
In parallel, the charity ensures that if reserves are called upon, they can be replenished.
By dividing the reserves into these levels the charity is confident that it has considered all the different risks that the charity may face and has adequate money in reserve to deal with them.
Reserves for specific future projects…
Survey data revealed that a number of charities hold reserves to finance a specific future project (40%). Resources kept back to cover the costs of a future project could be placed in a designated fund, removing them from the reserves definition. Trustees should be able to explain the purpose of these resources whether they are held in reserves or a designated fund. More information relating to designated funds is provided later.
Reserves for power…
A few charities reported that one of their motivations to build up reserves was to be able to exert influence or power over other charities within their area of activity or sub-sector.
"Those with reserves have the power in the area, a charity that has no reserves is now ignored in group decisions."
Charity finance director
Whatever a charity’s motives for retaining funds in reserves, the basic principles for the application of funds must be complied with. These are discussed in more detail in the section ‘Classification of funds’.
Reserves for generating income (3)…
Some 20% of charities reported that one of their reasons for having reserves was to generate income.
It is not always clear whether these charities merely receive income as an additional by-product of investing reserves or whether their sole reason for having reserves is to generate income.
In the first case, making income from reserves is entirely appropriate, and retained income should normally be invested in some way. Where the income is potentially within a charge to tax, there will be no charity relief unless it is so invested. However, trustees who hold income in reserves solely to generate future income are not complying with their duty to expend income on the charity’s purposes within a reasonable period of receipt. In effect, they are converting income into capital, when they are not entitled to do so without an express power.
Charities often rely on the investment return from reserves, particularly where, for example:
"[Reserves] enable us to enjoy a degree of independence from the state sector, and from funders in general, in setting the agenda for the work we carry out."
Charity finance director
However, an alternative or additional income stream can only be created through investment in two ways:
Charities unsure whether they have the power to accumulate should read their governing document and contact the Charity Commission if they are still unclear. In some circumstances, trustees may ask the Charity Commission to authorise them to accumulate. If it is appropriate to do so, the Commission will authorise this power by making an amendment by Scheme or Order under Section 26 of the 1993 Act.
When trustees exercise their power to accumulate, the income is converted into endowment, thus taking it out of the scope of reserves. As with all powers, it must only be exercised in the interests of the charity and subject to statutory restrictions. Trustees cannot eliminate the need for this power by creating a designated fund (with the purpose of generating future income). More information can be found in our Operational Guidance Charity Income Reserves (OG43).
Investing funds is not the only way for a charity to gain some independence. The regulatory report Milestones: managing key events in the life of a charity, to be published later this spring, examines how charities can secure their independence by altering the way they are financed. Our publication The Independence of Charities from the State (RR 7) also explores the issue.
Reserves for…?
"For a number of small charities the existence of a pot of money somewhere is very tempting. Charities panic and go into their [reserves] and have not ring fenced their policies appropriately so are not clear what they are for and not for."
Charity advisor
The ability to justify a reserves level hinges on trustees’ understanding why their reserves are needed. Some reserves will always be held for contingencies, although carrying income forward as a buffer against unspecified or unquantified contingencies is an ineffective and unacceptable use of charitable assets.
Income reserves are defined in the SI 2000/2868 Charities (Accounts and Reports) Regulations 2000 as:
"Those assets in the unrestricted fund of a charity which the charity trustees have, or can make, available to apply for all or any of its purposes, once they have provided for the commitments of the charity and its other planned expenditure."
There is no specific legal rule about the amount or proportion of a charity’s income funds that it is allowed to hold as reserves.
Charity trustees are under a duty to apply the charity’s income within a reasonable time of receiving it. (4) This derives from Section 13(5) of the Charities Act 1993, which clearly implies that charity property must be effectively used, from Section 1(4) and also by analogy with the corresponding duty which applies to the trustees of private trusts. (5) Before trustees can use income funds in a way that does not comply with this duty they need to have a legal power that enables (or requires) them to capitalise the income (i.e. a power of, or trust for, accumulation).
Retaining income funds in reserves rather than expending them may not comply with the duty to expend charity income funds within a reasonable time of receiving them, since it will often involve the trustees delaying the expenditure of the funds beyond what the law would normally accept as reasonable. Since there is potential for a considerable degree of variation as to what constitutes ‘reasonable’, trustees should have a well thought out reason for retaining income for any length of time.
A charity may have an express legal power (or duty) in its governing document to accumulate income instead of expending that income within a reasonable period of receipt. The precise effect of such a power or duty is dependent upon its terms. This will, for example, affect whether the accumulated income constitutes permanent or expendable endowment. There is a statutory maximum period for which accumulation may be permitted or directed; in the case of charitable trusts that is normally 21 years.
Where trustees are not exercising a power (or executing a trust) to accumulate, they need to be able to justify the retention of income as reserves on the basis of what is ‘reasonable’ for the charity’s operational needs. Whilst there is no specific legal requirement to have a reserves policy, there is a clear implication that it is necessary in order to justify the holding of any income funds in reserves. Where this is done without justification, the holding of income in reserves may amount to a breach of trust.
Where charity trustees are obliged to prepare annual reports in compliance with Section 45(1) of the Charities Act 1993, they must provide a description of the policy they have adopted with regard to the maintenance of reserves, if they have one. (SI 2000/2868 Charities (Accounts and Reports) Regulations 2000, regulation 7(4)(k)(i)).
These principles equally apply to all charitable trust property administered by charitable or other companies as trustees. So far as the corporate property of charitable companies is concerned, there is no explicit duty under company law requiring such a company to apply its corporate property within a reasonable period of receiving it.
However, the members of a trading company have a legitimate expectation that the profits of the company will be distributed to them as dividends, insofar as the retention of the profits by the company is not considered necessary for the company’s business needs. In the Commission’s view the parallel expectation of the stakeholders of a charitable company is that the company’s corporate property will be used or applied in furtherance of its objects, and will not simply be retained without a proper justification for doing so. The duty is thus substantially similar to that which applies to trustees in relation to trust income. For more details see our Operational Guidance Charity Income Reserves (OG43 B2).
The directors of charitable companies should, in the Commission’s view, make the annual report disclosure which is required by regulation 7(4)(k)(i) of the 2000 Regulations on this basis.
Reserves policies enable charities to justify keeping some money back instead of spending it without delay. The creation of a comprehensive reserves policy contributes significantly to trustees’ ability to balance the needs of future and current beneficiaries, to provide stakeholders with assurances that the charity is well managed and, where appropriate, to have a strategy for building up reserves.
Analysis of the Charity Commission’s Annual Return 2001 presents a disappointing picture. Too many charities do not have a policy to explain their level of reserves - 75% of medium sized charities and 46% of large charities said that they did not have a reserves policy. Even very large charities are falling short; 33% did not have a policy (see annex A, table 1 for details).
Aside from income band, the characteristics of charities with or without a reserves policy are not dramatically different. (See annex A, table 13)
Both groups - those with a reserves policy and those without - have roughly the same number of service providing, grant awarding, or resource providing charities, and there was no variation according to charities’ income source or any statistically significant difference in the age of charities within each group.
Almost half (49%) of survey respondents who had a policy had created it in the last two years.
Reserves policy issues have featured in several Section 8 inquiries carried out by the Charity Commission. (6) Call centre and charity support staff give advice on the matter and our review visit teams recommend that all charities without a policy develop one as a matter of priority. The development of a reserves policy is also one of the key areas the Commission examines when assessing whether a charity is complying with the accounting and annual report regulations (SORP requirements), or one of the SORP golden rules. (7)
Of those charities surveyed that did not have a reserves policy in place in 2001, 20% of respondents said that they are now tackling the issue. (8)
A common assumption is that charities do not have a reserves policy because they do not have funds to keep in reserves. Our findings suggest that this is not entirely true. ‘No funds to keep as reserves’ was a common explanation for not developing a policy (33%) but 64% of survey respondents without a policy did have some funds that could be described as reserves. Charities with no funds to keep in reserves should still make a statement describing their situation and their intentions (if any) to try to establish a reserve.
Some of the charities without a policy reported having only relatively small amounts in reserves, but 9% had over £1 million. Worryingly, over £5.5 billion was held in reserves by charities that did not have a reserves policy. (9)
Other reasons charities gave for not having a reserves policy included ‘never considered having one’ (29%) and ‘did not realise obliged to have one’ (20%).
Complexity is clearly not a significant problem as only 7% of respondents said that they had not created a policy because it was too difficult. Likewise, charities with a policy found the process relatively easy; only 9% described the process as quite or very difficult.
Many charities without a policy are familiar with the concept of having reserves and are already managing the balance between incoming resources and resources expended without calling it 'reserves management'. In these cases, explaining what they already do and developing the concept further should be a simple next step.
Charities that had asked for advice about reserves, but said in the 2001 Annual Return that they did not have a policy, gave a variety of reasons for this. The most frequent comment was that they now had a policy or were in the process of developing such a policy (45%). Other reasons included it being a low priority (6%) and having insufficient funds to need a policy (6%) (see table 19).
Our survey findings confirm the benefits of having a reserves policy. Roughly half (46%) of respondents thought that having a reserves policy had helped their charity, whereas only 6% said that it had not helped.
The risks associated with getting the reserves level ‘wrong’ make it essential that this issue is considered by trustees and that a proper policy is created.
Charities with reserves that are too high…
Where reserves are too high, trustees risk acting in conflict with their duty to apply income within a reasonable time, or failing in their duty to be even-handed to future and current beneficiaries.
The reputation of a charity and charities in general could be damaged if the sector is seen to be sitting on or hoarding large sums of money where there is an obvious, immediate beneficiary need.
"Better spent on worthy beneficiaries than rotting in a bank."
Survey respondent
A charity experienced public criticism because of its reserves level, which was perceived to be too high.
As a result there was a drop in receipts and enquiries about leaving legacies, their primary income source. Although the charity did have significant long-term commitments to its beneficiaries, it became clear that a new expenditure programme was needed.
The charity undertook a major strategic review and as a result has been spending more than their income for a number of years.
The trustees are aware, however, that this is not sustainable in the long term and are putting measures in place to address the issue and bring income and expenditure into balance.
Grant funded charities may find that a reserves level which is considered ‘too high’ has a detrimental effect on their ability to obtain funding.
However, many of those making smaller donations, will be unaware of a charity’s reserves level or, indeed, what reserves are. Nonetheless donors expect their donations to be used to further the purposes of the charity and most would not expect those funds to be retained, unspent, for no good reason.
"Despite some claims to the contrary, the charity has no evidence that ‘excessive’ reserves have affected levels of support. Throughout the late 90’s in particular the charity has seen a steady and sustained growth in most forms of voluntary giving."
Finance director of a charity
High reserves levels may not be immediately or visibly detrimental to income but trustees should not risk acting in conflict with the duty to apply income within a reasonable time, or risk media criticism which can damage the perceived integrity of the charity.
Charities with reserves that are too low…
Low reserves can threaten a charity’s continued existence. They can also deter potential funders from donating to a charity if its viability if under threat.
"A funder who likes to take risks with innovative ideas may not view a low level of reserves as a problem. Another which was set up to support a certain client group, for example, young people, may want to see a healthy reserve which ensures a certain longevity."
Charity advisor
A risk of insolvency may create insecurity among beneficiaries, supporters and employees. If an unincorporated charity becomes insolvent, the trustees may be personally liable for the costs.
A charity had to change its organisational structure in response to severe financial difficulties.
The charity had previously operated with a negative balance on its unrestricted funds and had never been able to build up reserves. The charity was predominantly funded through project grants and administration costs were raised through public fundraising. In lean times the charity fell back on bank overdrafts and loans.
The charity existed as a ‘hand-to-mouth charity’ and successfully undertook a lot of good work. However, significant interruptions to more than one of its income streams left it in severe financial difficulties. Unable to continue in its current form, the charity sought a ‘rescue merger’ to protect its beneficiaries.
Whilst it is impossible to say whether adequate reserves could have allowed the charity to continue in its original form, its lack of reserves allowed no slack in their financial situation, forcing them to seek an immediate resolution.
Reserves would have bought the charity valuable time to readjust its finances and given the trustees more options for the continuation of their work.
Rescue mergers are discussed in more detail in our forthcoming (March 2003) regulatory report Collaborative Working and Mergers (RS4).
In less extreme cases, low reserves can still cause problems. A charity may be forced to cut or abandon aspects of its work as a result of a temporary or small drop in income or an unexpected expense.
A charity with a high level of commitment, or whose income is insecure and susceptible to factors outside its control, should examine ways in which it can build sufficient reserves to protect it from insolvency or serious disruption to its charitable work. (10)
Of the charities surveyed, 49% said that the hardest part of creating a reserves policy was deciding on the right level to have and 23% of charities said that the many ‘unknowns’ made setting a reserves level difficult.
How did you decide on the level of reserves to keep?
"[There was] considerable argument between the ‘hawks’ (spend, spend, spend) and the ‘doves’ (save, save, save). We raised it at numerous committee meetings and finally achieved a compromise."
Survey respondent
Trustees take different approaches to determining the right level (or range) of reserves for their charity. For some setting a ‘range’ of reserves was the most practical approach, for others combining reserves planning with a risk assessment of the charity’s activities helped to quantify an appropriate level of reserves.
Details of further guidance on this issue can be found at Annex C to this report.
A survey respondent detailed the process that their charity went through in deciding on its reserves level:
Many of the charities we spoke to found it useful to compare their reserves level against other charities in a similar situation. Such benchmarking is a useful ‘reality check’ for charities. However, as comparisons cannot take account of each charity’s unique position they should supplement, rather than act as a substitute for, developing a reserves policy.
"We try to benchmark against other organisations but it is extremely difficult to find a natural comparison."
Charity finance director
A number of factors should be considered by all charities when setting reserve levels and Charities’ Reserves (CC19) explains that a charity’s reserves policy should be informed by its:
While many charities consider these factors, there are still some charities who arbitrarily determine reserve levels. This approach is not sustainable as the resulting policy may not enable the charity to serve its purpose or to operate effectively.
How did you decide on the level of reserves to keep?
"Originally an ad hoc decision, I believe."
Survey respondent
Reserves planning inevitably involves consideration of risk and should be developed in conjunction with a risk management policy. Trustees of large and very large charities (annual income over £250,000) are required to include in their annual report a statement as to whether they have considered the risks the charity is exposed to and whether they have developed systems to mitigate those risks. (11)
The SORP requirement goes further, recommending that all charities include a statement in their annual report confirming that the major risks to the charity have been identified and reviewed and that systems have been established to mitigate those risks. (12)
Trustees should be realistic when undertaking a risk assessment and balance the likelihood of all possible risks materialising at once against the risks of holding excessive reserves. Our publication Charities and Risk Management published on our website discusses the relationship between reserves and risk in more detail.
Many grant-funded charities reported a lack of clarity in what was expected from them by grant awarding institutions. Their experience was that some funders insisted that applicants had reserves as assurance of future financial viability, whilst others considered that a charity with reserves did not require funding.
Our casework experience indicates, and many charities reported, that some grant making bodies operate blanket policies, automatically refusing grants where reserves exceed a certain amount. In these circumstances, charities were often left thinking about how much money their funder considered ‘acceptable’ rather than whether the level was appropriate to meet the needs of the charity.
"One of our funders insisted that we keep our reserves to an absolute minimum, and made this a requirement of our grant. Our level of reserves was decided on this basis."
Survey respondent
In contrast, many of the grant makers we consulted reported that they assessed each charity on an individual basis, and on the merits of the proposal rather than on the application of an arbitrary rule. Some grant makers had also recently revised their previously prescriptive policies on reserves to allow more flexibility.
"Our members usually assess the reserves of an organisation in relation to its application on a case by case basis. They take into account the nature of the organisation's work, its track record, its age, what it wants to fund, financial sustainability etc. The organisation’s reserves are put into that context."
Charity advisor
Grant making bodies can encourage better and more transparent reserves management by publishing how and why the level of reserves that they consider appropriate has been set.
Our survey revealed that the most common architect of reserves policies was the ‘trustee body as a whole’ (39%). We welcome this finding as it suggests a healthy attitude towards the importance of reserves and indicates good governance.
‘A member of staff’ was responsible for the reserves policy in 25% of charities. Provided there are mechanisms for ensuring that the trustees are involved in setting the guiding principles of the policy, understand the issues involved and take their involvement seriously, this approach can work well with responsibility resting on an individual such as the finance director. Where trustees’ delegate working out the details of how a charity should manage its reserves, they must still formally agree the charity’s overall reserves policy and record this agreement, for example in the minutes of a trustee meeting.
The charity’s auditor was responsible for creating the policy in 8% of charities surveyed. Auditors are an appropriate source of advice for trustees but neither they, nor any other third party, should be solely responsible for writing the reserves policy since it is not their role to justify the reserves level.
Trustees turned to a number of sources to help them write their reserves policy and decide an appropriate reserves level.
Auditors were the most popular source of information, used by over half of respondents (56%). Charity Commission guidance (Charities’ Reserves (CC19)) was also popular (used by 46%) as was SORP 2000 (31%).
Whilst Charities Reserves (CC19) was considered by charities to be practical and useful as a starting point, 12% of charities surveyed specifically asked for more guidance from the Charity Commission. Many charities said that they would welcome a case study approach within Charity Commission guidance, illustrating a variety of charity’s policies and methods. A significant number of charities also said they would welcome a model reserves policy or proforma wording that they could modify.
Our Operational Guidance Charity Income Reserves (OG43) was far less widely used (11% of respondents had referred to it). It does include worked examples with a commentary giving guidance on how Charity Commission staff should assess charities reserves.
Nearly one in three (29%) of charities said that they had less in reserve than they had planned whereas only one in ten charities (with a reserves policy) had more than their planned level. For some, the difference between the planned and actual level or range may be relatively small and inconsequential; for others it may be significant. It is only the correction of ‘material’ differences that are of concern.
Medium sized organisations were most likely to be on target with their reserves level (67% compared to an average of 58%). Very large organisations were most likely to have less than their planned level (40% compared to an average of 29%). There was no connection found between the type of activity that the charity undertakes and whether they maintain their desired reserves level.
Common reasons given by charities as to why they had more than their planned level in reserves included receiving unexpected income or donations (7%) and expenditure being less than expected (2%).
When asked how trustees planned to remedy the situation, dispersing excess funds to other causes and planning capital projects were common responses (Annex A, table 10 provides further details).
A few trustees with reserves over their planned level had no intention of reducing them. They saw the reserves level as a minimum which they would happily increase. This is not acceptable as it potentially ties up assets which should be used for charitable activities, thus treating future and current beneficiaries unfairly.
Reducing reserves by increasing expenditure…
Increasing expenditure is a good way to reduce reserves as it leads to increased benefit for the beneficiaries, but trustees should ensure that if they increase expenditure they have the capacity and organisational structure to cope with the resulting extra activities, and have properly assessed the risks. The forthcoming regulatory report, Milestones: managing key events in the life of a charity (RS5), examines this issue in more detail.
A grant making trust took a simple and straightforward approach to reducing reserves.
The trust had more reserves than planned due to a decline in grant applications. Realising that the charity had funds that could be spent, the trustees decided to proactively seek to increase grant applications.
This task was relatively straightforward; details of the trust were circulated to bodies with links to potential beneficiaries, raising awareness of the funds available and increasing the potential for successful grant applications.
If the trustees cannot spend all their incoming resources on the purposes set out in their governing document, they have a duty to contact the Charity Commission to discuss possible options. If the Commission agrees that the trustees would have difficulty in applying all their income on their current objects, it may be possible to widen the charity’s objects, for example, by making a Scheme or giving authority under Section 64 of the Charities Act 1993.
Reducing reserves by decreasing income…
Trustees should think carefully before stopping or reducing fundraising to reduce or maintain reserves at a certain level. Once donors or grant making bodies perceive that the need for funds has diminished it may be very difficult to re-establish that income stream. To avoid misunderstanding, trustees should ensure that they are open and transparent about their financial position in all their fundraising.
"Some people seem to be under the illusion that fundraising is a mechanism that can just be turned on or off. This is not the case; once you increase or decrease fundraising effort it takes years for this to translate into actual income increases or decreases."
Charity finance director
Reducing the appearance of reserves…
Our research has revealed that charities do a certain amount of ‘window dressing’ to reduce the reserves levels shown in their accounts. Designated funds are used by several charities without any real intention of using the funds for the designated purpose. Designations can be established then later retracted with relative ease because designation is an administrative task which does not involve any legal definition of the funds.
"Some charities engage in ‘churning’, meaning that finance directors move money around in designated funds yearly, which renders them useless."
Charity finance director
Keeping larger reserves than the charity needs, then trying to hide the excess in a designated fund, misrepresents the charity’s true financial position to donors and stakeholders. Equally, if charities’ accounts are not seen as authentic and reliable, the integrity of the charity and the sector as a whole comes into question. The Charity Commission will intervene where these practices are identified.
The designation of income funds does not, by itself, discharge the duty for trustees to be able to justify the retention of those funds. If trustees set up a designated fund they are required to provide reasons for this. (13) Circumstances in which it is appropriate to set up a designated fund are detailed in our Operational Guidance, Charity Income Reserves (OG 43).
The Charity Commission sees problems when trustees propose to finance out of the designated fund projects which:
This case highlights the need for charities to clearly state their project proposals.
A large grant making charity had unrestricted funds of several million pounds. The charity had increased its investments year on year with the stated intention of undertaking a major project in the future.
The charity had not provided any comprehensive plans relating to the project. They did not give details about when or where the project was planned or how much it would cost.
Despite incoming resources for a recent financial year totalling over £150,000 the charity spent only a tiny fraction of this (less than £4,000) on direct charitable expenditure.
Cases like this come to light as a result of our monitoring programme and we will work with the trustees to ensure that they review their programme of expenditure.
In this case the trustees have been made aware that they must either spend the funds or provide a satisfactory explanation of why they need to retain them. They now have a copy of our guidance leaflet Charities’ Reserves (CC19) and are considering their options.
The Charity Commission is becoming increasingly concerned about the number of charities whose designations are ill defined and we are examining ways to ensure charities properly disclose their planned projects.
The Charity Commission comes across ‘disclosure problems’ when trustees fail to tell their stakeholders the full extent of their plans. The Commission expects trustees, on request, to be able to show relevant stakeholders proposals for planned projects. These may include a business plan, estimated costs, planning documents, timetables or any other details showing why it is necessary for that amount to be set aside in a designated fund.
Designated funds are currently excluded from the definition of reserves for practical administrative purposes. There is some debate, however, as to whether they should be included in the reserves definition since they are available to be used should the need arise.
"We should exclude restricted funds and fixed assets but designated funds are woolly and difficult as in some respects they are often part of the contingency because you can use them if you want to."
Charity finance director
Changing the current reserves definition (see annex B) to include designated funds may reduce the temptation for charities to designate to remove funds from reserves. However, this may simply compound the confusion surrounding the terminology used in accounts. It would, in any case, be unnecessary if trustees fully disclosed their reasons for designations and provided details of the amounts in each fund.
For many charities the notion of too many reserves is a luxury, and they have difficulty in building up reserves to the level they have set in their reserves policy.
"There is no difficulty in developing a reserves policy but there are difficulties in building up the funds for reserves."
Survey respondent
Reasons given by charities for having less than the planned level of reserves included: experiencing an income drop or fluctuation (14%); a phase of high capital expenditure (9%); wanting to maintain or expand their level of services or activities (8%); and stock market movements which had reduced their investment income and the value of reserves.
The fact that a charity had only been in operation for a short period or had only recently developed a reserves policy also featured as a reason for having less than the planned level of reserves (5%)(see annex A table 10 for full details).
"The implementation of our planned policy is a gradual process. We have identified financial targets in the year's budget and work to them."
Survey respondent
Where trustees’ current reserves level was lower than adequate, they were prepared to take a range of corrective steps. Over a quarter (28%) of those with less than their planned level said they were aiming to build up or rebuild their reserves in the future. A further 16% reported that they would plan strategically to achieve their financial objectives.
Many charities state both their actual and ideal level of reserves in their annual report, regardless of whether the current level is significantly lower than the target level. A small number of charities felt, however, that this could be seen as showing weakness or as a potentially damaging ‘confession’.
"Charities may feel that by including the fact that they would like a reserve but can not get one in their annual report they are baring their soul. I think that this will be a stumbling block for many."
Charity trustee
There is no advantage in falsely stating that reserves are at an ideal level, or omitting a commentary on reserves because reserves are lower than projected. It is entirely legitimate for charities which have been unable to build up reserves to the desired level to fundraise for the specific purpose of adding to reserves, and this approach can often be successful. Trustees who take this course of action should ensure that donors are fully aware of the purpose for which the funds are required.
Charities unable to establish reserves to the desired level should consider ways of reducing the risk of a disrupted income stream, for example by diversifying their funding base or by developing alternative contingency plans.
Some of the charities surveyed had contingency plans that would serve in the place of reserves. These included an overdraft or other financial cushion (32%) or help from members or patrons (23%). However, 26% of charities without a reserves policy had no contingency arrangements. These charities had no means of ensuring that a sudden drop in income would not translate into a contraction of their charitable activities.
"Many charities don’t know enough about sustainability. It is the responsibility of both grant makers and charities to change the cycle."
Spokesperson of a charity resource body
Research uncovered a few charities that had become adept at using liquid funds from different parts of the balance sheet as part of managing their reserves. One charity reported using restricted funds as part of its reserves policy. This was possible because the charity had a large number of restricted funds which were unlikely to all be called on at once. This gave some cover, allowing the charity to keep a lower balance of reserves in their unrestricted funds. However, such practice is potentially unlawful. Trustees who use restricted funds to support work outside that restriction may be in breach of trust as they will be unable to use these funds for their intended purpose, if called upon to do so. Any deficit on a fund must be explained in the annual report, together with plans to rectify it. (14)
Charities should periodically re-examine their approach to reserves management to make sure it meets their current needs. As good practice, this review should be carried out at least once a year, alongside a review of the charity’s financial and organisational performance. Key events, such as one material source of funding ceasing or changing, may trigger more frequent reviews.
Our research showed that most charities review their policy, although nearly one in four (23%) do so irregularly or not at all. Without this review, charities cannot be confident that they are taking into account any changes in the environment in which they operate.
Where to invest reserves is a key decision to be taken in the context of the charity's wider financial strategy and should be regularly reviewed. A number of factors should govern where it is appropriate to invest, including:
This case study illustrates how a very large charity selected the most appropriate way to invest its reserves:
The charity developed a ‘financial framework’, combining all elements of its financial planning and covering both conceptual and practical elements of decision making within the organisation. The charity then developed policies for risk, investment and reserves which all interrelate within this framework.
In making investment decisions, the trustees can refer back to the framework and work through a series of questions, such as:
One factor may point toward a low risk option while another points toward a higher risk option to generate a better return. The charity’s investment decision making involves weighing these factors against each other in the context of the financial framework.
Through this process the trustees can be confident that they have chosen the course most suitable for their present needs.
As with any investment decision, it is essential that trustees discharge their general duty of care, take proper advice and have regard to standard investment criteria set out in Section 4 (1) of the Trustee Act 2000. (15)
Full guidance on charities and investment can be found in Investment of Charitable Funds: Basic Principles (CC14) published on the Charity Commission’s website.
An anticipated fall in investment returns as a result of poor stock market conditions, as currently experienced, should trigger a reserves policy review for those charities with significant stock market investments.
Charities that have lost a large proportion of their investment portfolio will need to carefully consider their options to ensure the long-term continuation of their charitable work. Some charities have anticipated the effect of a decline in stock market values, planned their reserves accordingly and can now deploy funds to maintain current levels of service. Others may have decided to reduce their expenditure and others may have identified new activities or sources of income. The mix and best solution will vary for each charity.
Under the standard rules of investment the return on the investment is labelled as either income or capital depending on the form in which it is derived (dividends, interest, capital gains). Under the rules of Total Return the investment return is not labelled as either.
In order to adopt a Total Return policy, trustees will need to apply to the Charity Commission for a power. This will normally be in the form of an Order under Section 26 of the Charities Act 1993.
Total Return works through the allocation of a proportion of the ‘total return’ (see definitions in annex B) to the ‘trust for application’ when the trustees think it necessary, but subject to an overriding duty of fairness towards present and future beneficiaries. Once money is in the trust for application it should be applied within a reasonable time and has the properties of income.
Trustees will not normally need to retain funds for any length of time in the trust for application (income) since they are free to convert unapplied total return into income at any time, subject to the above-mentioned duty of fairness. If funds are retained in the trust for application (income) this should be done in accordance with a proper policy on the maintenance of reserves.
Detailed guidance on Total Return can be found in our Operational Guidance, Endowed charities: A Total Return Approach to Investment (OG 83).
A significant number of charities participate in defined benefit pension schemes. The introduction of a new accounting standard – FRS 17: Retirement Benefits- by the Accounting Standards Board has focused attention on how the accounting treatment should influence the reserves policies adopted by charities. On full adoption of the standard, charities participating in such schemes will be required to make an additional disclosure in their balance sheet. They must disclose the recoverable assets or likely liability arising from any actuarial surplus or deficit of the scheme measured in accordance with the principles set out in the standard.
Currently only a few charities have adopted the standard in full and therefore the impact of the new accounting treatment on reserves policies adopted cannot be assessed.
The accounting treatment adopted in statutory accounts will not, of itself, impact on the cash flows of a participating charity. The contributions required of a charity, as employer, will generally be arrived at through negotiations with pension trustees or through statutory requirements, either of which may involve different computations than used for accounting disclosure purposes. FRS 17 has, however, focused attention on the funding of such schemes particularly in the context of significant deficits and how the resulting cash flow impact should be addressed when formulating reserves policies.
Charities can only be confident that they have explained their reserves position to stakeholders if they publish an adequate reserves policy. The level of detail of the reserves policy is therefore extremely important and should provide a range of information covering the management of reserves in relation to the overall management of the charity.
To explain their reserves position successfully, trustees need to understand the nature of their funds as a whole and describe them using the correct terminology.
There is a degree of uncertainty for some charities as to the correct way to classify resources. Charities' resources fall into one of three categories: permanent endowment, expendable endowment or income. Resources must be accounted for in accordance with this analysis.
This case illustrates the problems that can occur if funds are mis-classified in charities’ accounts.
A large charity had over £2 million represented as unrestricted income funds on its balance sheet.
The money came from the sale of land a number of years earlier. Due to the nature of the land sold, the money actually constituted permanent endowment. It was, therefore, subject to a trust for investment, and should have been accounted for as such; it should not have been classified as unrestricted income.
The trustees found fundraising difficult and were accused of being ‘cash rich’ because donors thought that this money could be spent on their beneficiaries.
A review visit gave trustees the opportunity to assess the funds they had. With the help of Charity Commission staff, they established that the money was in fact permanent endowment, leading to the correct classification on the balance sheet.
Correctly classifying the money will have the effect of dispelling the belief held by donors and funders that the charity is cash rich.
To ensure that resources are classified correctly, trustees should follow a number of ground rules. A brief overview is included here and full guidance is available in SORP.
The correct funds in which resources should be placed is dependent on the way in which the resource was acquired by the charity. Establishing the original source of the funds can be difficult and complicated, and sometimes it has to be a matter of the trustees’ best guess. But it is essential that trustees should, so far as they reasonably can, in relation to any particular resource know whether:
Where resources have come from the sale of goods or services they should normally be classified as income.
Where the resource is an investment return, its treatment will depend on the nature of the return. Certain rules of trust law normally determine which returns from the investment of endowment are income, and which are to be added to the endowment. These rules can be modified by the founder of the charity when a charity is set up, or by us (as in the implementation of our Total Return policy). Where investment returns arise from the investment of unrestricted income funds, the return is normally unrestricted income.
Where money has arisen from an appeal for income, trustees must act in accordance with the terms under which the funds were raised and classify them as income. (This may be restricted or unrestricted income, depending on the specific terms of the appeal). On the other hand, if an appeal was made for endowment (either permanent or expendable), the funds raised should be classified as endowment.
On receipt of a direct gift to a charity, trustees first need to assess whether the gift was intended as permanent endowment. If there is a specific direction by the donor to invest the gift, and there is no power to convert the gift into income, the position is clear. Otherwise careful analysis may be needed to decide whether the donor did, nonetheless, intend to create a trust for investment. In a hospital context, for example, the expression 'endowing a bed' has been treated as amounting to a direction that the gift should be invested. If trustees are unsure, they should contact the Charity Commission who can help with legal advice.
If the gift is not permanent endowment, trustees need to establish whether it is expendable endowment or income. In order for the trustees to treat the gift as being held on a trust for investment, with a power to convert the endowment into income (expendable endowment), there should be some evidence to suggest that this was the donor’s intention. Donors' wishes are paramount in identifying whether the money constitutes expendable endowment or income. Establishing the donor’s intention may prove difficult but, difficult or not, it must be done in order to classify resources as expendable endowment. It is not simply a matter of choice for the recipient trustees.
To establish the donor’s intention, trustees should use both direct and circumstantial evidence. The Commission's position on this is reflected in our Operational Guidance Charity Income Reserves (OG43).
Where trustees are satisfied that the gift was intended as expendable endowment, it is important that they then represent the fund in the endowment column of the charity’s accounts (the analysis between permanent and expendable endowment should be made in notes to the accounts).
A grant making trust was identified by our monitoring system because their accounts showed reserves in excess of 60 years of direct charitable expenditure.
Charity Commission staff contacted the trustees and it then became clear that the fund was in fact expendable endowment, which had clearly been created by the wishes of the donor and added to through the application of their power to accumulate.
As such, this fund was outside the definition of reserves and was being managed appropriately in accordance with the trust.
The accounts could have been much clearer in identifying the type of funds the charity had, especially as the trustees were already confident that the resources were expendable endowment.
Where direct gifts to the charity are not permanent endowment, trustees ought to be able to provide clear reasons why they believe the gift to be expendable endowment, if they are treating it as such. Trustees should be able to produce an ‘audit trail’ of the evidence they used to determine that classification. This should detail their efforts to establish the nature of the gift and the evidence on which the final classification was made.
Where there is no evidence that the resource was intended by the donor as either permanent or expendable endowment, it should be assumed that they intended the gift to be used as income. It must therefore be classified as income in the accounts and applied for the purposes of the charity within a 'reasonable' period of receipt.
Trustees should be clear about the nature of the funds they hold and ensure that they describe these funds in a way which is consistent with SORP terminology. In a number of cases, charities are not using the classifications for funds that SORP describes.
In some cases charities use ‘reserves’ instead of ‘fund’ as recommended by SORP. Charity balance sheets sometimes refer to ‘restricted reserves’, ‘endowment reserves’ and ‘designated reserves’ rather that describing them as funds. The terms ‘free reserves’ or ‘liquid reserves’ are then used to describe ‘reserves’ as defined in SORP and the 2000 Regulations (see annex B for details).
In the context of SORP accounts, the use of the term ‘reserves’ may on occasions lead to some confusion for stakeholders and their ability to accurately assess a charity’s financial position. This can occur even if trustees and staff understand exactly what they mean. SORP terminology should be consistently used in statutory accounts, even in the context of incorporated charities where the Companies Act 1985 allows the use of the term 'reserves' to disclose the balance sheet funding of a company.
Trustees who have gone through the policy-making process properly will be able to justify their reserves level. They should then take positive steps to explain it to parties with a legitimate interest. Some of the policies we examined as part of our review were not comprehensive enough to explain why reserves were being kept. For example, a number of charities’ reserves policies stated only that they had the power to accumulate and gave no details whatsoever of their plans or reserves levels.
Charities’ Reserves (CC19) sets out four areas that a policy should cover. Despite the fact that this is widely read, we have found that most charities do not cover all four of these points in their written statement. In particular, few charities included a statement about how they established an appropriate level of reserves or how they reviewed their reserves policy.
A reserves figure alone gives only limited information to stakeholders. Placing a figure in perspective, for example expressing reserves as ‘month's direct charitable expenditure’ gives a feel for proportionality and enables the actual sum to be compared to the size of the charity.
Encouragingly, our survey found that 84% of trustees with a reserves policy publish it in their annual report. This is in keeping with positive feedback we have had about charities’ understanding of the need to be open, accountable and transparent in all aspects of their work.
The annual report is seen by some as an opportunity to communicate the aims and achievements of the year, not just as a narrow technical report on financial issues. However, there are still some who feel that minimum disclosure is the way forward.
"We publish as little as you have to and tell our clients to do the same."
Charity trustee
Only 12% of charities with a reserves policy do not publicise it anywhere. However, we see no reason why there is not 100% disclosure of reserves policies. Indeed, where charity trustees are obliged to prepare annual reports, they must provide a description of the policies they have adopted. (16). This includes the disclosure of a reserves policy if they have one. (17).
There are a number of stakeholders who have a potential interest in a charity’s reserves policy. Charities told us that trustees were most likely to express an interest (67%), with auditors also featuring highly (59%). Almost all grant funded charities surveyed said that grant-giving bodies had shown interest in their reserves policy. The Charity Commission and charity employees were also cited frequently as showing interest in the policies (see annex A, table 22).
"I think that it is important to articulate this [reserves policy] as fully as possible as questions about the level of our reserves are becoming so frequent."
Charity finance director
Trustees should recognise that people have a right to question their level of reserves and will do so.
Good practice therefore requires trustees to:
(1) Data extracted from charities’ annual returns to the Charity Commission for the year ending 31 December 2001. For details see table 1 at Annex A.
(2)The ratios are derived from charities’ answers given to Q10C (reserves amount) divided by answer given to Q2 (ii) (Total expenditure) on Annual returns 2001. As such these only offer a comparison with one years expenditure that may include for example restricted expenditure and may not be representative of a charities usual expenditure.
(3) ‘Income’ is defined in Annex B.
(4) Annual Report 1992 paragraph 98
(5) See In re Peel [1936] Ch. 161; In re Gourju’s Will Trusts [1943] Ch. 24; In re Allen-Meyrick’s Will Trusts [1966] 1 All ER 740.
(6) A Section 8 is the power that the Charity Commission has to formally investigate a charity or group of charities where there are concerns regarding misconduct or mismanagement of charity resources and to take action to rectify abuse or poor practice where possible. The results of these inquiries are published on our website.
(7) The SORP golden rules is a list of six of the most significant areas Charity Commission staff examine when assessing compliance with SORP 2000.
(8) Charities which answered ‘no’ to question 10c on the 2001 annual return
(9) As reported in the 2001 Annual Returns, Q10A & Q10C
(10) The term ‘insolvency’ and its applicability to unincorporated charities is defined in Annex B
(11) Regulation 7(3)(b)(ii) of the Charities (Accounts and Reports) Regulations 2000
(12) SORP 2000 Paragraph 31 g
(14) SORP 2000 Paragraph 31 (f)
(15) The Trustee Act 2000 only applies to property held on trust not the corporate property of charitable companies.
(16) Section 45(1) of the Charities Act 1993
(17) SI 2000/2868 Charities (Accounts and Reports) Regulations 2000 Paragraph 7(4)(k)(i)