Charity Commission gets a bashing from The Times
November 2011
The Times has come down hard on The Charity Commission for ‘lax regulation of charities’ that has “left the sector open to financial abuse”.
In reports by Mark Bridge (page 71 of The Times, Saturday 12 November) and Andrew Ellson (page 73), which extend to a one-and-a-half page diatribe all in, it highlights the regulator’s low percentage of investigations (8%) of the 1,865 complaints received, with only 2% receiving any serious sanction.
The journalists query why certain think-tanks “are allowed to benefit from charitable status despite clear political leanings, while some religious charities seem to act with impunity.” Turning the screws, they observe: “"The sad reality is that the commission's checks on charities are so pathetic that they make
the UK Border Agency look like it has built a new Hadrian's Wall."
the UK Border Agency look like it has built a new Hadrian's Wall."
They concede that “part of the problem is funding. The Government is cutting the commission's budget by 30% over the next three years, forcing it to cut back on investigations…. Reducing funding in this way is an invitation to fraud and misuse of public cash - though, to be fair, it is only the equivalent of pushing an open door a few inches further open."
According to the reports, a change of culture is needed at the Charity Commission. “To become an effective regulator the commission needs a wholesale change of culture. At the moment, it clearly sees itself as a 'facilitator' rather than a regulator. The commission is happier creating new charities than making sure that existing ones operate properly. Trustees need to understand what the public expects of them. That is to ensure that charities adhere to rigorous standards of probity and do not waste money on grandiose follies, empire building, political projects or personal enrichment."
According to the reports, a change of culture is needed at the Charity Commission. “To become an effective regulator the commission needs a wholesale change of culture. At the moment, it clearly sees itself as a 'facilitator' rather than a regulator. The commission is happier creating new charities than making sure that existing ones operate properly. Trustees need to understand what the public expects of them. That is to ensure that charities adhere to rigorous standards of probity and do not waste money on grandiose follies, empire building, political projects or personal enrichment."
In response, the Charity Commission told The Times: “Our strategic review determined that our core role will be to continue to protect the public interest in the integrity of charity. We will therefore continue to intervene decisively where the identified risk to public confidence is substantial and where it will have most impact. We will still continue to prioritise the higher risk issues that arise in charities, such as fraud and theft, allegations of terrorism and risk to vulnerable beneficiaries."
"A spokeswoman added: “The Charity Commission is a risk-based, proportionate regulator, therefore the decision to open an investigation, or to exercise our regulatory powers, is based on the level of risk involved and whether or not it is proportionate to do so.' She pointed out that most problems are resolved at the assessment stage by trustees with the commission's regulatory advice."
"A spokeswoman added: “The Charity Commission is a risk-based, proportionate regulator, therefore the decision to open an investigation, or to exercise our regulatory powers, is based on the level of risk involved and whether or not it is proportionate to do so.' She pointed out that most problems are resolved at the assessment stage by trustees with the commission's regulatory advice."
See also Charities Direct's interview with Sam Younger, chief executive of the Charity Commission here shortly after he took up the position in September 2010.
There are no comments on this article. Be the first to comment.