Charity governance: when does oversight become intervention?

Five developments from the past fortnight offer an important reminder that charity governance is about much more than policies, procedures and board meetings.

1. Protecting charitable assets
   The Charity Commission has opened an inquiry into The House of St Barnabas in Soho, following concerns that its principal property asset may be at risk because of disputed financial arrangements.
   The inquiry has not reached conclusions about wrongdoing, but it raises an important question: how well do trustees understand the financial arrangements affecting their charity's most valuable assets?
2. When regulators appoint interim managers
   The Commission has appointed independent interim managers to Merseycare Community Transport, excluding the trustees from management while an existing investigation continues.
   The case illustrates the seriousness of regulatory intervention when concerns arise about governance, financial controls and organisational viability.
3. Accountability for activities undertaken in a charity's name
   An official warning issued to Lewisham Islamic Centre concerns failures in the management of speakers and events.
   Whatever a charity's purpose, trustees need to understand what happens under its auspices and ensure that appropriate oversight exists.
4. Fundraising and cryptocurrency
   Updated Charity Commission guidance now points trustees towards specialist advice on cryptocurrency fundraising.
   New fundraising opportunities should be considered alongside financial controls, due diligence, fraud exposure and reputational risk.
5. Protecting staff and volunteers
   In Scotland, new resources supported by OSCR address hostility, difficult interactions, safety planning and staff wellbeing. These issues deserve attention across the wider charity sector.

My reflection

Across these developments, one common theme stands out. Good governance depends on trustees knowing enough to ask the right questions, challenging constructively and acting before difficulties become crises.

Having worked with charity boards in many different circumstances, I have seen how easily governance can become dominated by process rather than judgement.

Three questions I would encourage every board to consider:
• Do we genuinely understand our most significant risks?
• Are our delegated responsibilities supported by appropriate oversight?
• Would we recognise the early warning signs of governance failure?

Good governance should not constrain a charity's ambitions. It should give trustees the confidence to pursue them responsibly.