Decision

City Hearts: regulatory compliance case conclusions

Published 22 November 2019

This decision was withdrawn on 18 January 2022

This report has been archived as it is over 2 years old.

City Hearts: regulatory compliance case conclusions

The Charity Commission has found historical misconduct and/or mismanagement at City Hearts, following an investigation into safeguarding concerns at the charity.

Headquartered in Sheffield, City Hearts (UK) runs services including residential accommodation for women overcoming addictions and refuges and support programmes for people escaping exploitation.

In 2018 a television news investigation reported on the alleged experiences of women who had used the recovery programme (which closed in 2012) of the charity and felt they had been subject to emotional harm.

Among the allegations, one woman on the charity’s recovery programme, said on her experiences at City Hearts: “I realised I had gone from one controlling relationship to what felt like another.”

Another woman, who was escaping trafficking and let staff know about her sexuality, said she was told: “You have a devil in you and you have to change that.”

The programme linked these experiences to a close relationship the charity has with Hope City Church.

Following the broadcast the charity appointed an independent investigator to conduct a review of the allegations.

The Commission opened a regulatory compliance case to assess governance and safeguarding at the charity.

The Commission engaged with the charity and established:

• the allegations raised, whilst significant and concerning, were historic dating to 2011-2012 and there were no live risks; and
• the charity had acted appropriately in relation to the allegations by instructing a thorough independent investigation, reviewing their systems and putting in place their own action plan to address outstanding recommendations of the investigation

The Commission reviewed the charity’s safeguarding policies and procedures and worked with the trustees to ensure they had a sufficient range of mechanisms in place to protect people.

The Commission advised the charity on what was expected in relation to the independent investigation and the intention to monitor the outcome.

The Commission subsequently met with the trustees in May 2019, and established that the charity had implemented a number of changes based on recommendations from the independent review.

The Commission also verified that since the time the allegations referred to the charity had already improved some of its processes, policies and procedures before the allegations were made public.

However, the Commission found there had been misconduct and/or mismanagement in relation to:

• how safeguarding incidents were escalated. Senior figures at the charity had been unaware of incidents and did not have sufficient information about the charity’s activities to manage effectively. The trustee board did not have sufficient oversight
• conflicts of interest and/or loyalty, which the charity was not managing sufficiently. For example, at the time the news programme aired, the entire trustee board were also members of Hope City Church and the charity was not able to demonstrate how it managed conflicts of interest and/or loyalty and how it made decisions only in the best interests of City Hearts

In June 2019 the Commission acted under section 15(2) of the Charities Act 2011 to issue the charity with formal regulatory advice and guidance in the form of an action plan.

The action plan included measures to ensure that the charity has trustees able to manage any conflicts of interest appropriately, including in relation to Hope City Church. This will ensure that all decisions in relation to City Hearts are always made in its best interests.

The trustees are also required to show how they will implement the remaining recommendations from the independent review and produce a safeguarding plan for their charity.

The Commission will monitor compliance with the action plan, and the trustees have been put on notice that any failure in taking the actions specified may result in further regulatory action including the issuing of an Official Warning.

Kate Waring, Head of Risk at the Charity Commission, said:

The women who used the services of this charity as a refuge and as support, had an expectation and a right to feel safe. The charity should have delivered on this expectation. Instead, a small number of women in real need of support felt at risk and exposed to emotional harm.

We hope and expect the charity to learn from this experience, and understand that it matters as much how it delivers services to people at risk, as much as what service is being delivered. The trustees have made a series of commitments to improve their organisation, but our intervention and the resulting action plan has set clear continuing objectives to ensure these changes are realised.

Wider lessons for trustees

Safeguarding is an essential duty for trustees of all charities, regardless of size, type or income to take reasonable steps to safeguard beneficiaries and to protect them from abuse. Additionally, trustees must take reasonable steps to protect staff, volunteers and those connected with the activities of the charity from harm. Trustees should refer to our regulatory alert around safeguarding and our guidance on safeguarding duties for charity trustees.

Trustees must ensure that their charity has sufficient trustees in place to be able to manage any conflicts that may arise. They must not put themselves in any position where their duties as trustee may conflict with any personal interest they may have. Trustees should consider the Commission’s guidance on conflicts of interest and decision making.