Any regulator exists to protect the public. It exists to serve the public.
What if a regulator is failing in its duties, and undermining public confidence in the sector it is supposed to protect? What happens then?
In the case of the charity sector, scandal after scandal is being reported in the media.
In almost all cases it is quickly discovered that decent members of staff or volunteers had raised concerns about the wrong-doing or fraud. Most were either ignored, or were hounded out of their organisation, or subjected to false allegations, or all three.
Many had reported their concerns to the Charity Commission, which did precisely nothing.
Why is public faith in charitable giving being so undermined? Is it because of the repeated charity scandals? Has the public lost faith that the money they give will be properly used? Do the public now KNOW that their money will most likely be fraudulently used?
Almost every statutory enquiry into wrong-doing in charities, finds what any layperson would describe as fraud. Yet almost no-one is ever prosecuted. Vast sums of money go missing each year from charities, and those who have taken it, are allowed to keep it. None of it is recovered. It is money that the public has given in good faith, which has, through lack of scrutiny, found its way into the pockets of wrong-doers.
How many times each year does the charity commission pass on evidence to the police? If there are around 200 statutory enquiries per annum, and almost every case involves fraud, that should be about 200 case files, containing evidence going to court. How many is it? Almost none.
Criminals tend to operate where there is a low chance of detection, and if detected, a low chance of prosecution. The same applies to the corrupt – where there is no scrutiny is where the corrupt prey.
That makes the charity sector rich pickings. Members of the public give large amounts of money and never ask about how it is used.
Those who are supposed to oversee charities, trustees, are absent most of the time – that presents a no scrutiny opportunity to those of ill will. Even when trustees are present, it is only for a handful of board meetings a year. Most want the status of office but not the responsibility. If any do show signs of doing their duty, those really running the charity can decide what information those trustees are given. They will certainly not be given any information that is close to the wrong-doing – unless the trustees are themselves involved.
If the regulator is also ineffective, and there are almost never prosecutions for charity fraud, the charity sector becomes a top career choice for those intent on acquiring some free cash, at the public expense.
When the full failings of the Charity Commission are eventually exposed, and it is disbanded in disgrace, or reformed, what will replace it?
Two separate bodies are needed. One to advise charities, to train trustees, to give guidance on the law, on how to run a charity in accordance with the law.
That is necessary, but not sufficient. Advice and guidance are effective for those who are law abiding and of good intent.
What of those with nefarious motives? What is needed there? A regulator with teeth – a body that enforces charity law. An OFSTED for the charity sector. Standards in schools have dramatically increased since OFSTED had the powers to swoop at any time. Once we have an OFSTED for the charity sector the same will happen.
Where scrutiny takes place so does compliance with reasonable expectations – the law. Where there is no scrutiny, there is temptation for the previously law-abiding, and rich pickings for those of other intent.
Is the Charity Commission failing the public by failing to conduct proper scrutiny? They admit that 99% of their charity wrong-doing cases come to them through whistle-blowers. That sounds as though whistle-blowers are conducting the scrutiny that the Charity Commission should be carrying out.
In the absence of proper Charity Commission scrutiny, how many more charity scandals will the public endure before faith in the charity sector is fatally eroded?
Will the Charity Commission be reformed, or replaced before the next scandal, or will it take ten more, twenty?
How motivated are you to give to charity when you know there is an absence of proper scrutiny? When you know there is a vacuum where there should be enforcement?
Where scrutiny takes place so does compliance with reasonable expectations.
If the charity commission is failing the public, we should ask, is the charity commission being properly scrutinised? Is the performance of the charity commission being examined? Who conducts the OFSTED type inspection of the Charity Commission? No one.
What can you do if you want to ensure that your charity giving will not be trousered?
Write to your MP and ask for an investigation into the failings of the Charity Commission.
