This is an open question for discussion - Which of the following views do you tend to agree with more, and why?
a) The Charity Commission should protect the reputation of the charitable sector by being rigorous and questioning before accepting registrations, even if that means registration takes longer and fewer charities can be registered
or
b) The Charity Commission should encourage charitable activity through a swift, light touch registration process, even if that means very few checks on charities before they are registered
Welcome to the Charity Commission’s strategic review site. The Commission’s funding is to reduce by 33% in real terms over the next four years – a reduction of around £8 million. Cuts at this level mean we can’t just keep going as we are. We have developed this site to help you shape the Commission’s future.
I think that scrutiny of charities being set up is essential. Tales of dubious charities tend to reduce giving to all.
ReplyDeleteI also think though that there are too many charities and that groups should be pointed in the direction of existing charities in their domain and do more to prove that they are offering something new.
I fully agree with anonymous. A rigorous scrutiny is necessary, it is so to speak a 'quality assurance' for both beneficiaries and donors, that they are dealing with a bona fide organisation.
ReplyDeleteAlso agree there are too many charities. Rather than competing for the funding still available, it is time to scrap false pride and work smarter by merging existing charities (e.g. like AGE UK), point newcomers in the direction of what is already established in their field or just sharing services in admin or fieldwork.
Potential registered charities will potentially be handling yours and my donated money. I want to believe that registration is built on a quality process - proper checks and enquiries. Registration can bring about valuable benefit and shouldn't merely be speeded through for convenience. Otherwise, what you have is a glorified list - with the potential for rogues to register 'dodgy outfits'. More charities should merge, to reduce the number of registrations; and they should be charged a small fee. It would be a one-off arrangement, and would generate income (if the government would let the Commission keep the money, to plough in to other areas of its work). A token payment of, say, £75 would surely not be too much to ask?
ReplyDeleteI agree with payment for registration - I can't believe they don't charge already. If you have to pay for something, you are buying in to it and are more likely to pay attention to the requirements, etc. I would say £100 wouldn't be excessive.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the Commission should start charging for Registration. After all, under the War Charities Act 1940 (section 4(1))the Commission was allowed by statute to charge for registation - "The Charity Commission may make regulation....prescribing the fee (not exceeding ten shillings) to be paid on registration".
ReplyDeleteObviously ten shillings wouldn't be a good figure these days, but a fee of £75, £100 would be a good ballpark figure to start the debate with!
(Whilst on the subject of fees, I think the Commission should charge a nominal fee (£10) per year when submitting an Annual Return/Accounts - charities over £10,000 income. This would raise a sizeable amount of money for the Commission - your latest figures show nearly 78,000 charities over £10,000 income (0.1% of the £10,000 income). Perhaps this could be on a sliding scale? If Companies House can charge then surely the Commission could)
The CC performs VERY poorly compared to the CIC regulator for example. Two weeks to set up a CIC, months for a charity.
ReplyDeleteRR13/14 is a mess: If it cannot be expressed as a series of Yes/No answers then its no wonder that CC Officers stumble around trying to decide what is truly charitable and what's not.
The proces to validate registration is slow, bureaucratic and tends towards arguing about semantics.
It's just not fit for purpose.
One surprise I have found with our new charity is that while the registration was complex and thorough the annual accounts is not. In fact, when I submitted our accounts on-line I phoned CC to find out when I would know everything would be ok. I was told I wouldn't, because only a fraction of the accounts are checked.
ReplyDeleteI found this disturbing. Having come across recently a charity that I felt was not behaving appropriately with its funds or governance I found it surprising that the CC was not interested in looking into it.
While I accept that charities should pay to submit their accounts, I do agree that they should have to pay it if they have already paid to do so to another government department (Companies House).
I think it is critical that checks be carried out properly. The reputation of the sector is really important, particularly now when government is encouraging charities to take more prominent roles in its 'Big Society'. It would be all too easy for public confidence in the sector to be dented by scandals in any parts of it, and the losers are the people we serve. I think the issue of the efficiency of the process of registration is a different one, but a valid concern
ReplyDeleteI think option A is the one to go for. I also think payment for services - including the registration service - is a good idea. I think the Commission has (dare I say it), been generous for too long in not charging. Also, I'm sure most trustees aim to get accounts, etc. in on time. It really annoys me that a small minority don't and nothing much seems to happen. They should be fined.
ReplyDeleteOption A is a definite yes. Rigorous and thorough checks at registration could avoid compliance issues later on in the charity’s life. A registered charity number is a huge asset and trustees should be able to prove their organsiation deserves it. Charge a registration fee, and fine those that don’t comply.
ReplyDeleteI agree that option A does seem the more sensible approach. Robust checking and advice at the initial registration stage would save costly guidance and possible investigation later on. I think the only reason that registration at the moment is fairly quick is that there are target set for the number of days taken and so I imagine, tho I could be totally wrong here, that the procedure is rushed to meet those targets.
ReplyDeleteAgain I agree with what has been said previously about charging for registration - they would be more 'buy in' if people had to pay...
"Also, I'm sure most trustees aim to get accounts, etc. in on time. It really annoys me that a small minority don't and nothing much seems to happen. They should be fined"
ReplyDeleteA valid point but unlike Companies House who fine for late filing (and the fines come out of the company) how could the Commission enforce where the fines come from? If the fines are paid out of the charity money then that is money that should be going to the beneficiaries. I think it would be hard for the Commission to enforce that the trustees pay the fine out of their own pocket.
Saying that I am in favour of having some fine system - too long the Commission has had a softly, softly approach. If you fail to file your Annual Return/Accounts you get sent a letter. If you still don't file they send you another letter. If you still don't file you get another letter, this time with some writing in bold! And so on and so forth - what an utter waste of time and resources!!! Now they threaten no filers with a red banner on the Commission's website - so what? How many ordinary folk even check the register? The Commission should start acting like a Regulator and not as a friend and start naming and shaming. How about press releases going out each month to regions about what charities in their area are breaking the law (for the law states they have to submit). Write to every trustee of each charity about their law breaking rather than at present to the correspondent who may or may not be a trustee.
The Charity Act gave the Commission a lot of powers to use, so instead of being a roaring lion - it is I'm afraid acting like a mouse with a microphone!
Good points made so far. Interestingly, if the trustees are failing or(as some say,) they are actually breaking the law then surely they are guilty of misconduct? Couldn't the Commission do something then? What about fixed penalties (you can get them for virtually everything else in Society these days - whether you deliberately or accidentally fail in some way). If you are looking after public money, then you have a greater degree of responsibility and should expect to face the consequences of bad management. Or may be .. tar and feather them all (sorry, I'm getting too excited about it all)!
ReplyDeleteI too would opt for option A, it is vital for the protection of our donors and the work of charities generally. I would favour an annual fee to be paid by all charities which should not exceed £100 per annum. This could be staggered, charities with larger incomes paying more and smaller charities with less income paying as little as £10 per annum. We will all suffer and potentially have our income seriously reduced if there is any doubt about the CC ability to 'police' the sector with rigor.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely option A - it's important that all charities are thoroughly checked, or it could encourage scams and lead to lack of trust for all charities.
ReplyDeleteOption B (in part). Over 80% of registrations are deemed low risk work by the Commission this is becuase they usually emanate from membership organisations or a larger national entity eg CVS and these larger national entities perform their own (sometimes more rigorous) scrutiny before they permit an organisation to use their brand. There must be an increased role for these national entities so that many of these 80% are effectively approved with minimal human input.
ReplyDeleteThe approval process should be rigorous to test the motives of the founding Trustees. Then the public can have some confidence when the charity asks for donations.
ReplyDeleteOption A is the right one. Careful scrutiny of potential charitable organisations is essential - great damage is done to the charitable sector by press reports of the misuse of charitable status. A modest charge for registration would be acceptable - but please remember that £100 is a large outgoing for some small charities
ReplyDeleteIs no-one getting it yet ? A 1/3 reduction means there WONT BE this harry potter majic approval and checking!...do you still fell confident in people giving to your charity or in giving to charity ...they are the real questions.
ReplyDeleteb)
ReplyDeleteWith out a doubt A - if more rigour is applied at inception then you would expect less problems arising once established. It should not be easy to set up a charity, I have come accross a number of new charities where the trustees, all very well meaning with great plans have little real understanding of how they are going to achieve this in reality, almost zero understaning of their regulatory obligations...it's frightening.
ReplyDeleteOption A
ReplyDeleteIf option a is applied then there is a strengthened chance of appropriate operation of charities and of less money and resources needed in investigation and intervention at a later date.