Charity is a concept, it is the voluntary giving of help to those in need, this can in fact be any type of help, however when we talk about registered charities this help translates to money. We donate our money to charities so that charities can facilitate help and support, on our behalf, for those in need (as specified by the individual charity).
Boiled down, its a very simple relationship regardless of the size or source of that donation. We give, they deliver (we feel better) but the success of that relationship absolutely relies on our trust which in turn depends on their honesty. The relationship quite obviously fails when there is no trust.
However you look at the Charity Commission and all its stated aims and objectives its basic and only real role is to protect the money, ie: ensure their honesty to preserve our trust, if they do that then our relationship with charity will remain strong.
Who is a charity and what a charity is, is no longer clear. Donors need clarity.
Big businesses that give very little of their income to charitable causes are registered and given the same charity badge as small and medium sized charities. Charities that strive to give all or most of their donations to their stated causes. This is not fair and it is confusing, it damages the special relationship between the public and charities. All are charities but they are not even slightly the same. Any review needs to look at this.
We passionately believe in charity and we support charities, we recognise both the need for charity and the amazing work that charities do. We are people who have raised many thousands of pounds for charities, worked with and for charities. We are not charity bashers.
We recognise that there is huge confusion with regard to;
- the Commissions role and particularly its regulatory role,
- the publics perception of that role,
- the charities perception of that role,
- what the Commissions perception of their role is and what they actually do.
This is not conducive to good or strong regulation or preserving the relationship between donors and charities.
We believe the public and donors want to give their money to charity safe in the knowledge that charities are honest about what they do and how they do it, that the money they donate will be safe, will be used responsibly, will be used as the charity have said and how the donor believes it will be used, that it will be used for the causes it is given. The public need to believe in charities and be confident that charities are honest, truthful and also moral ie: meet the publics perception of what a charity should be.
The question is, can we ?
The simple answer is no because as the sole investigator of charities and the regulator, the Commission does not ensure that we can.
By its actions and its reported inquiries the Commission demonstrates to the public its failure to regulate as the public believes it does and should, whilst at the same time the Commission congratulates itself on a job well done.
There is a disconnect between the Commissions view of a good job, the publics view of a good job and charities view of a good job. This disconnect is leading to increasing scepticism and distrust in charity and charities which eventually translates into less donations. This is not good for anybody.
The Commission spends years advising, supporting and hand holding ‘bad charities’ because the Commission do not investigate, they simply ask questions and accept the answers (bad charities lie). The Commission at most, produce an action plan ( similar to the ones the Commission has been given following inquiries into their role) which the charity is supposed to follow. Whether they follow it or or not is self reported by the charity (similar again to the Commission action plans) as stated bad charities lie and cover up. It is years before any real regulatory action is taken, years of misappropriated funds and fraud before it is finally stopped and that really depends on if anyone ever complained or raised concerns to make the Commission notice.
It is this lack of action and lack of regulation by the Commission that destroys public confidence.
The public are not stupid they know and understand that where there is money there is likely to be attempted crime including within charities. However what they expect is that the Commission will regulate to prevent it and regulate to stop it, what they see is the Commissions failure to prevent and failure to act. At the same time the Commission are patting themselves on the back for a job well done. It appears to the public that the Commission are incompetent and do not protect our charity donations but will go to any lengths to protect dishonest charities.
At the same time the Commission damages the publics confidence, it also alienates charities. Good charities are investigated for mistakes honestly made, trustees are volunteers, lay people with jobs and lives outside the charity. Errors do occur and honest people will fully cooperate with the Commission; they will seek to correct any mistakes and learn. However, honesty, cooperation and acceptance of failings often seems to spur the Commission on to look for more mistakes and heavily apply its regulatory powers. Its a much easier job for unqualified and poor investigators to tackle honest mistakes with honest people than recognise and deal with fraud perpetrated by con artists and thieves. Its also great for their stats!
The Commissions continuing answer is a lack of resources and the need for more regulations, this only serves to add to the confusion. They do not use their resources wisely , they do not apply the regulations they have. Requesting more of either is a smokescreen to cover their incompetence and only seeks to confuse the public and the charities alike.
Under the Commissions watch the public cannot donate to charities with any confidence they cannot have faith that the charity they are giving to is actually what they and most people consider is a charity. They can have no faith that the money they give will be used in the way they want it to be used when they give it, or how the charity says it will be used. They can have no faith that the charity even does what it says it does. This increases tenfold if the charity works overseas.
It is clear that many people feel the same and that this number is increasing, the problem is not the charities it is the Commission. It is not the regulations or the regulatory powers, it is how the Commission chooses to use them …. Or not. It is the constant rolling out of the words proportional and proportionality, the meanings of which are left for the Commission to determine. Regulations/law must be clear so that all clearly understand them and sanctions should be clear not individually determined by the Commission. It is the total lack of transparency in how they work (claims that it needs secrecy in order to do its job are ridiculous) and how they make their decisions that breed distrust from the public and charities . It is the covering up for and protection of bad charities and serious fraud for years before acting that damages confidence.
The Commission is charged by parliament with the role of increasing public trust and confidence in charities, it is their job. Yet public trust and confidence is decreasing year on year the Commission continues to fail miserably.
We urgently need a serious, thorough review into the Commission, its role and its remit. We need it particularly now more than ever. It is highly likely that following the pandemic there will be even more fraudulent and criminal charities exposed the fall out of which will be felt for years.
We need a review that is not followed by an improvement action plan but is followed by real change and restructure.
A review that looks at what parliament want from the Commission what the public want from the Commission and what charities need from the Commission. We all need clarity including the Commission.
This can only be good for Charities
