It's time for charities to do more and campaign less

In a somewhat sinister article in Wednesday's Guardian, it is reported that charities may lose funds if they lobby against the Government.

In essence, the report states that a DfID Directive states that: any charity seeking grants from Dfid, will not get any funding if they are involved in any lobbying "for or against activities of particular companies and institutions (which include Government)".

This is despite Cabinet Office Secretary Ed Milliband, saying only recently that funding was certainly NOT dependent on charities taking particular political or policy positions.

Although the Orwellian nature of this announcement is to be condemned - hardly a surprise under a Government that is inherently authoritarian, I cannot help thinking that some of the bigger charities have walked into a trap of their own making.

Not so long ago, Danny Finkelstein wrote in The Times that charities had to be distinguished between those who 'campaign' to change the Government's view, or get the Government to 'do something' and those smaller charities who were at the coal face and deeply rooted in the communities they serve.  Iain Duncan Smith has also spoken of the 'Tesco-isation' of the bigger charities. He argues that some have become indistinguishable from Government Departments and primarily rely on Government contracts and Government grants to run their daily affairs, leaving the smaller charities out in the cold. It is these kind of charities that have large 'Public Affairs' or 'Corporate Affairs' sections and spend a lot of time and money trying to achieve campaigning objectives (Christian Aid for example, often sends out literature with a one-sided view of the Israel-Palestinian conflict and usually criticising Israel for one action or another).

So, if charities are to escape being meshed in the Government's all emcompassing web it is time to get back to basics. Less 'campaigning' and more doing. If anything more focus and support should be given to local charities and voluntary groups. These are the real social entrpreneurs transforming lives for the better. They are not suffocated by bureaucracy and they don't have any Directors of Corporate Affairs and yet the positive difference they make in local communities is incalculable.

Comments

[Paul, Southampton]

In Britain, we have a long tradition of charitable endeavour. According to GuideStar UK, the origins of our formally constituted charities can be traced back to Elizabethan times. Until recently, it has been the case that charities have not engaged in political campaigning and have simply raised funds to spend on what have been considered to be worthy causes.

Times have changed and there has been a measure of politicisation of charities (for instance, the campaigning by the RSPCA on banning foxhunting, the campaigning by the NSPCC on outlawing the smacking of children, and of course the Smith Institute which is simply a New Labour think tank). Over the past 11 years, we have witnessed a centralisation of control right across Government and the quango-sphere. New Labour politicians have a distrust of private sector philanthropy and believe that if a cause is worthy, it has to be taxpayer funded. Otherwise, God forbid, it might not be inclusive (private-sector schools, for example). Oh, and let’s start calling the charitable sector the ‘Third Sector’, a bit like the ‘Third Way’, perhaps?

New Labour has seen charities as a cheap way of implementing social engineering projects and has also encouraged smaller charities to merge thus forming much larger charities. It then ensures that its own placemen (or should that be placepersons?) have influence, either as chief executives or as trustees. Dame Suzi Leather is the New Labour cheerleader at the Charity Commission.

Charities are encouraged to apply for taxpayer funding, subject to the usual New Labour requirements of diversity, equality, inclusivity, etc, etc, etc. Charities then become dependent on taxpayers’ money and have to toe the Government line for fear that the funding will be withdrawn.

I have witnessed at first hand small local charities being merged, first into county-wide charities and then into one ‘nationalised’ charity. The Government says it is to ‘ensure a high quality and uniform service delivery’ across the country. Meanwhile, the remote governance, reliance on taxpayer funding and lack of local accountability of the new structure have ensured that the ‘uniform service delivery’ is uniformly mediocre.

[Mark Brooks]

As a Chairman of a charity helping male domestic abuse victims I am certainly aware of charities being 'captured' by the Government and the state in general.

If a charity wants to change the Government's mind or is opposed to a number of Government initiatives, the Government then gives them money to help their activities. They become reliant on this funding (often for some people it is their jobs as well). Inevitably, this blunts their criticism/campaigning activity because they can't bite the hand that feeds them. For some, I have seen a 180 degree change once they become dependent on the state.

They become 'bought off', effectively.

It is a classic New Labour approach and many charities have blundered into the trap.

[Peter Botting]

For those of you who would like to be involved in a DOING charity without a PR staff and other massive cost overheads, you may be interested in the concept of kitchen table charities. These are smaller charities with little or no cost structure.

You could find out more here - http://www.kitchentablecharities.org

Kitchen Table Charities has partially inspired the way we have set up www.orphanaidmalawi.org - also on facebook http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=9467232126

[Big E]

Well done.

In a similar vein - I'm sure anyone who works for an MP is well aware of the amount of ‘campaign postcards’ these charities send.

Friends of the Earth, to name but one of many, will ensure that sometimes 200+ plus postcards are sent to an MP in one envelope. All that has happened, in reality, is that an MP’s constituent blindly writes their name on that back of a postcard they have been sent by the charity (you know this as many often put their details on the wrong line) and send it back to the charity. The charity will then forward it on to an MP, leaving their subscribers with the false and disingenuous impression that the charity is achieving something.

It also gives the impression to people who pay a subscription to FoE (and all the others who conduct similar time wasting activities) that they are 'lobbying' hard.

All that has actually happened is that they are wasting an MP’s staff time who then have to act as data inputters to send a standard letter back to these 200+ people.

I once heard the sanctimonious drivel that "everyone has the right to write to their MP" from one of the larger charity's 'Public Affairs' department. Well, yes they do: but surely old Mrs Moggins who cant get her pension now has had her reply delayed.

Also, it is apparent that a lot of charities consider the number of signatories to an EDM as a successful campaign (everyone knows EDMs are a waste of time) rather than actually achieving the objectives of that particular charity or the campaign!
In essence what I am trying to say is that many charities mis-focus their attention – and in doing so waste their subscriber’s money.