Consultation on the toolkit is ongoing but we consulted widely in 2008-09. The aim of the consultation was to:

• Inform the charitable sector about the “toolkit”;
• Seek feedback from the sector on its scope and content;
• Identify current best practice in key areas; and
• Identify those charities who wish to work with us in developing the toolkit.

We organised many roadshow events across the country. Approximately 900 charities - of all sizes - were invited to these events, with almost 200 charities attending. The feedback has been very positive and encouraging: nearly 60% of charities gave feedback, with 53% describing the events as “very useful”, and 47% as “useful”.

The events generally took the form of presentations by the Commission on the Commission’s Counter-terrorism strategy, talks by charities on their risk management procedures, and discussions on the development of the compliance toolkit.

The Commission has been careful to note all comments made by charities at these events. The following is a summary of the key points which arose from this consultation:

General context

• There was scepticism from some charities about the assumption that charities were particularly vulnerable to terrorist abuse¹, as there was already a strong culture of accountability, both in terms of the role of the Commission and the actual working practices of charities.
• However there was a need for guidance on terrorism and associated issues specifically for charities, and a general need for awareness raising in the sector.
• Any new guidance or procedures should not jeapordise humanitarian aid or compromise key principles of “civil society”, and should fully recognise the general legal context in which charities often operate, further to responsibilities under the Geneva Convention and with humanitarian aid brokered by agencies such as the United Nations or the European Union.
• the Commission should in general emphasise that the sector is well-run but that occasionally charities can be misused by individuals.
• There should be proper communication of the actual scale of the terrorist problem.
• There had to be recognition that adherence to new or enhanced guidance would result in resource issues for charities and had to be seen in the context of the capacity of charities to build expertise; however there was a great willingness for charities to share good practice.
• Guidance had to build on what was there already and have regard to the diversity of the sector, bearing in mind the varying sizes and types of charities; and it should not result in over-regulation.

The toolkit

• There was agreement that the provisional title of toolkit guidance (Protecting charities from harm) was helpful.
• The proposed shape of the guidance (as follows) was considered appropriate.
• Funding and governance: Know your donor/source of funds (including Reporting Serious Incidents); Money laundering; Transmission of funds; Verification of end use of funds; Know your partners; Know your beneficiaries; and Working in particular regions.
• Terrorism and associated legislation: Proscribed organisations; Designated entities, groups and persons; Working with designated people; Being designated; Due diligence; Control orders; Reporting suspicious activity.
• There was a general welcome for the Commission providing counter-terrorism advice. It was felt that there was the right balance: appropriately highlighting terrorism and associated issues, without over-focussing on them.
• There was recognition that fundamentally the issues here concerned effective governance and improved risk management processes, with reputational risk a key issue for charities.
• Toolkit guidance should be practical, proportionate, accessible and affordable; it had to distinguish between must and should.
• There should be effective use of the website but some non-website based material too.
• There was strong support for case studies and example working documents (e.g. partnership agreements).
• There needed to be clarity of definitions in respect of beneficiaries, donors, partners etc.
• There was a particular need for specific help and guidance on counter-terrorism issues, focussing on terrorism and wider issues, including links to relevant “lists” (e.g. of designated entities).

There is a more detailed summary of the feedback available. For a copy of this, please email ComplianceOutreach@charitycommission.gsi.gov.uk.

Footnote

1. viz. Financial Action Task Force (2004) SR VIII: “Countries should review the adequacy of laws and regulations that relate to entities that can be abused for the financing of terrorism. Non-profit organisations are particularly vulnerable, and countries should ensure that they cannot be misused”