New on our blog
Email this page
Adam Rothwell
- Monday, July 7, 2008
English charities are an extremely lucky bunch: they are regulated by the Charity Commission. Not only does the Commission protect the reputation of all charities by cracking down on fraudsters and bogus ‘charitable’ operations, it also produces reams of advice, letting charities know how they can be most effective.The Commission is, in other words, a magnificent achievement. Today, for example, it’s released a new version of its guidance, ‘The Hallmarks of an Effective Charity’ – a clear, concise summation of how good charities ought to run themselves. It’s this sort of practical help that charities – and small charities in particular – really need.
But the Commission isn’t perfect. In fact, there’s a serious contradiction at its heart. That’s because, in law, it has a duty both to promote public trust in charities and to crack down on charities when they break the rules. And these two objectives are simply not compatible.
Being charities’ booster and regulator means that the Commission’s enquiries into misbehaving charities aren’t always made public – because to publish them, we’re told, would damage the reputation of charities as a whole. So we don’t always know which charities have been breaking the rules.
This is surely wrong. If, for example, the energy-company regulator decided that it would shield electricity companies from criticism in the name of protecting the reputation of the industry, there would be an outcry. So why are charities treated any different?
Sure, charities earn public trust. They also start with a measure of trust by virtue of being charities!
A regulator often promotes trust by existing - at least you have a vague idea that someone is supposed to be watching over those companies and those problems.
Not always effective - the energy regulator springs to mind. But can be useful.
As for making things public - there I can see a disagreement. Perhaps everything should be made public, including allegations that aren't taken forwards?
After all, the commission don't have to investigate every little thing (good thing too with their budget issues).
I rather like them - wish they had more teeth over such things as accounts, but still like them.
Martin
Martin, I think charities should earn public trust on their own merits - they shouldn't need a regulator to do it for them. Alternatively, an umbrella group like the NCVO could do its bit to foster confidence in the sector.
The Commission's job ought to be to regulate - and to do so effectively. But I think its effectiveness is undermined by these conflicting goals, since it sometimes keeps quiet about things it really ought to make public.
Adam, Intelligent Giving
Sorry, I'm not sure I see how the two roles are not compatible.
Cracking down on those who break rules can also help promote public trust in THE REST OF THE CHARITIES.
Rather like the police cracking down on drivers who break the rules for driving while at the same time promote road safety.
Though not with their own driving necessarily. :)
What would you prefer Adam? Two seperate organisations (with presumably increased costs because they are seperate), one promoting trust and one cracking down?
Come to think of it, aren't there are charities that exist to promote things while also at the same time make noise about lawbreaking?
Post new comment
Recent comments
3 days 3 hours ago
3 days 4 hours ago
3 days 17 hours ago
3 days 22 hours ago
3 days 23 hours ago
3 days 23 hours ago
4 days 55 min ago
4 days 3 hours ago
4 days 14 hours ago
6 days 4 hours ago