The Charity Commission will be mapping out the legal boundaries and a regulatory framework for charities which are involved in the running of prisons.
Chair of the Charity Commission, Dame Suzi Leather announced the news in a private letter to Kevin Curley, chief executive of NAVCA, who had met Dame Suzi earlier this year to make the case for charities disengaging from prison management.
In the letter, seen by Civil Society, Dame Suzi said the Commission had spoken with crime prevention charities Catch 22 and Turning Point about the nature of their involvement in bidding for contracts to run prisons and was satisfied with the arrangement:
“Both charities have explained to us the work they will be delivering, and the arrangements that are in place with Serco," she said.
“In addition they have described to us the decision-making processes used by both boards of trustees. Having considered this information the Commission is satisfied that both charities are acting within their objects in these arrangements.”
However, she said the issue would be evolving: “Clearly, the role of charities in delivering public services, and where the boundaries lie, will continue to be a live issue, for charities, for commissioning bodies and regulators over the next few years, particularly as the funding environment evolves and changes," she said.
“For our part, we will be mapping both what the legal boundaries are, as well as the regulatory framework, in order to inform our decision-making in this area.
“I hope we will talk again about this evolving issue.”
Curley told Civil Society that he was disappointed with the response and would be pressing the Charity Commission to find out what its 'fact finding' with Catch 22 and Turning Point revealed.
NCIA: Commission letter is 'spin'
Andy Benson, chief executive of the National Council for Independent Action, called the letter 'spin': “We will be seriously naïve if we place our trust in the Charity Commission to sort this out," he said.
"Behind the whole sorry tale is the twin damage of privatisation on the one hand and the voluntary sector complicity with this on the other.”
