The UK Charity Commission: Focus on Problem Solving, Program Beneficiaries

Printer-friendly version

In the United Kingdom (UK) the Charity Commission, an independent regulator for charities in England and Wales, uses a vastly different approach to the issue of charities and counterterrorism than the U.S. In March 2009 the Charity and Security Network interviewed David Walker, Head of Compliance Outreach and Development and Sarah Jane Digby, Regional Manager sub-Saharan Africa International Programs, in the Commission’s London office. Here is what we learned.

The Charity Commission (CC) is an independent regulator accountable to the public and to Parliament without being subject to direction or control of any Minister or any other government department. It is considered an arm of the court.

The CC regulates over 190,000 charities with the objectives of increasing confidence in charities, insuring accountability to donors, beneficiaries and the general public, while “encouraging compliance.” Their statutory objective is to promote transparency to the public and compliance with the law. The CC stresses that their aim is to put the charity on track by finding the problem, solving it, and allowing programs to move forward. The number one focus throughout any investigation is the beneficiaries. 
 
The CC takes a “risk-based” approach in dealing with any investigation of a charity. While the charity is under investigation the CC allows operations to continue,  recognizing the essential need that the charity fulfills. Digby said “we recognize the vital role charities play both domestically and the wider global impact.”
 
The CC has identified what they consider to be the “most serious issues and areas of greatest risk” for charities, with significant financial loss to the charity and serious harm to beneficiaries ranking numbers one and two. 
 
The CC’s goal with any charity under investigation is to work with the trustees to resolve the issue, providing guidance, and following up at a later date. When a case is more serious, they move into a “statutory inquiry” under the Charities Act of 1993. If suggestions are made and the charity does not comply, “robust action” is taken and the trustees (board members) can be removed. In this case, an interim trustee, usually an NGO attorney,  is placed within the organization until the membership votes for a new trustee. Charities can appeal any decision through a Charity Tribunal, an independent committee made up primarily of lawyers and members of the sector. This is a low cost means of appeal and fees are based upon a sliding scale. 
 
The purpose of any investigation by the CC is to determine if there is misconduct or mismanagement and try to resolve the problem without affecting the work of the charity. The outcome of any investigation is made public.
 
One example of a CC inquiry is the group Interpal, a UK based charity that is designated as a terrorist organization in the U.S., but that has been cleared of that charge in three separate CC investigations. However, in the report published in February 2009 the CC found serious issues with Interpal’s operations and procedures. As a result, the CC  recommended that Interpal sever their relationship with Union of Good. Interpal appealed, but later decided to comply.
 
This approach contrasts sharply with the U.S. process of shutting down charities the government believes are supporting terrorism, so that all beneficiaries lose assistance. Both representatives CSN met with stressed the CC’s “proportionate” approach.
 
The CC also recognizes that NGOs must lobby on behalf of their beneficiaries in order to conduct their work. The example given was an NGO concerned with the health of children lobbying government in favor of a bill that protects child health. Ones political views are not taken into account, but the nature of the work itself is when one is lobbying government. As for Palestine, there are numerous UK NGOs who lobby for Palestine, particularly after the attacks on Gaza in early 2009.