Hi ā€“ Iā€™m really interested in this discussion, particularly from a trustee duty perspective.
Trustees have a legal obligation to act in the best interests of the charity, which includes ensuring that resources are applied in line with its objects. In the case of almshouses, that core purpose is typically the provision of housing for those in need who can live independently.
I do wonder whether there is a potential tension where charities begin funding services that sit outside that core remit. Personal alarms are a good example ā€” particularly as, where there is an assessed need, these can often be provided through local authority or health routes.
That raises a broader question about stewardship of charitable funds. Even where a charity can afford something, the test is arguably whether it is the best use of those resources in furthering the charityā€™s purposes ā€” for example, whether funds might have greater impact if directed towards housing provision or supporting beneficiaries with the greatest level of need.
That said, I can also see there may be circumstances where providing alarms is justified ā€” for example where it directly supports independent living or mitigates risk in a way that aligns with the charityā€™s purpose.
Iā€™d be interested in how others approach this ā€” particularly whether decisions are made on a needs-led basis rather than as a universal offer.
Thanks, Emma