I think it is also worth checking what the reason was why the inquiries where opened and how this correlates with the outcomes. I only looked at a few but lots of them starts with quite obvious wrongdoings or mistakes by the trustees already and these are of course much more likely to end negatively.
Agreed. My guess is that (a) the bar for opening a statutory inquiry of a larger charity like EVF is practically lower than for the significantly smaller charities who make up most of the reports; and (b) the CC will hold EVF’s trustees to a higher standard than significantly smaller charities. I think both would be appropriate -- (a) as a matter of enforcement priorities, and (b) because I think the minimum acceptable level of performance should rise as charities have more resources. If my guesses are correct, they would limit the predictive usefulness of past published outcomes.
I think it is also worth checking what the reason was why the inquiries where opened and how this correlates with the outcomes. I only looked at a few but lots of them starts with quite obvious wrongdoings or mistakes by the trustees already and these are of course much more likely to end negatively.
Agreed. My guess is that (a) the bar for opening a statutory inquiry of a larger charity like EVF is practically lower than for the significantly smaller charities who make up most of the reports; and (b) the CC will hold EVF’s trustees to a higher standard than significantly smaller charities. I think both would be appropriate -- (a) as a matter of enforcement priorities, and (b) because I think the minimum acceptable level of performance should rise as charities have more resources. If my guesses are correct, they would limit the predictive usefulness of past published outcomes.