The Charity Commission for England and Wales may have regressed in recent years, but our colleagues across the Atlantic are facing similar challenges, says Gareth Jones.
“The older I get, the more I realise every single generation has to fight the same battles again and again and again. There’s no final victory, and there’s no final defeat.”
So said the late Labour MP Tony Benn. I raise this quote not to make partisan political points, nor to contribute to the ongoing factional warfare in the Labour Party, but because it challenges us to reconsider the permanence of our achievements.
Perhaps it is just me, but it is tempting to believe that broadly speaking, society is on the forward march of progress. Indeed, much charitable endeavour rests on the belief that we can improve lives for the better, and long may that continue.
Juxtapose this worldview onto the recent EU referendum result, of course, and one can quickly become disillusioned, and thinking about recent events at the Charity Commission for England and Wales can have the same effect.
How can a regulator that was once considered a beacon of good practice across the world (to paraphrase Andrew Purkis’ thoughtful assessment) have so quickly lost the trust of those it regulates? How is it that the board of a non-ministerial government department can have become so politically unbalanced that it resembles little more than a web of think-tank affiliations and personal ties (as detailed last month by Kirsty Weakley, in an article which has received more positive feedback than any other Charity Finance article I can recall).
From attempting to discourage charities from campaigning in the EU referendum (guidance the Commission was later forced to amend but which still maintained an unnecessarily frosty tone), to telling charities to “stick to their knitting” and stay out of politics (via board member Gwythian Prins), to leaking sensitive material about charities to hostile newspapers such as The Telegraph and The Times, the last few years have not been a distinguished period for the regulator.
Global perspective
But without wishing to minimise the gravity of these transgressions (what self-respecting journalist would do that?), England and Wales is not unique in facing regulation challenges. As Erin Bradrick points out, charities in the US find themselves applying for charitable status not to a friendly regulator but to tax-collectorsin- chief, the Internal Revenue Service, where waiting times have at times been as long as a year. Not only that, but if non-profits wish to raise funds nationwide, they face registering with 40 disparate state regimes.
Likewise, in Canada, the principal regulator sits within government rather than being independent (however notionally). Furthermore, the last Conservative government introduced restrictive audits on campaigning. Terry de March’s piece this month at least offers some hope, however – these audits are now being wound down by the new Liberal administration.
The Charity Commission for England and Wales was never perfect. Notably, it was forced to rewrite its guidance on public benefit after a legal challenge from the Independent Schools Council. However, at a time when funding was relatively plentiful, it did a job that largely commanded the respect of charities here and the envy of those overseas.
Now in a context of constricted funding, it finds itself unable to carry out many of its former functions, while it simultaneously transitions to a “policeman” role which is arguably undermining rather than enhancing public trust. But just as in so many areas of society, the battle for improvement continues. That’s just what the charity sector does.
Gareth Jones is editor of Charity Finance magazine.
