Campaigning for change
Why don’t more charities invest in campaigning to achieve their objectives? Anthony Julius, Michael King and Vicki Bowles share their thoughts
If the results of a survey of US charities published in July 2008 by the John Hopkins University Center for Civil Society Studies are extrapolated and applied to UK charities, then most charities will currently be devoting less than 2 per cent of their time to advocacy or campaigning work.
When asked why they did not engage in campaigning, 70 per cent of the charities questioned said that they simply did not have the time or manpower to do so. Crucially, the survey did not indicate any lack of enthusiasm for campaigning; merely a lack of resources.
We should all be alarmed by this finding. Non-profit organisations represent the needs and concerns of the most vulnerable and often most under-represented groups within our communities.
It is therefore vital that they engage in the debate about what, as a society, our priorities should be. In the current economic climate, it is especially important that non-profits work to ensure that philanthropic endeavours remain a priority and do not fall victim to budget cuts.
Engaging in campaigning ensures that charities’ objectives are understood by the public and by the key decision-makers at a local, national and, where appropriate, international level
Campaigning is the pursuit of legislative or policy change with the objective of improving society for all or for a specific section of society – often a group that is underrepresented or disadvantaged
Many will suspect that the term is nothing more than a euphemism for 'lobbying' – a word that conjures images of covert (at worst, dishonest) dealings with politicians. This perception is flawed in two ways: first, though lobbying plays a part in any successful advocacy strategy, it will only ever be one element of that strategy.
Second, there is nothing inherently sinister about lobbying. A good lobbyist is trusted by decision-makers. The role that they perform is to educate decision-makers on a particular issue, to advocate for a particular viewpoint and, if they're any good, address the opposing viewpoint as well.
But why should charities divert funds from frontline projects to campaigning? Because it is one of the most effective ways of bringing about change: it enables charities to effect lasting change beyond the frontline work in which it is directly involved. It therefore increases the charity’s impact and gives it greater leverage.
For example: a charity is created, its objective is to improve care for the terminally ill. It funds five palliative care nurses. This enables more patients to die in their own homes rather than in the unfamiliar surroundings of a hospital.
The initiative is a success and it has a profound impact on the lives of patients and their families. But the charity has limited resources and cannot replicate the model nationwide.
If the charity engages in campaigning, it can utilise the knowledge and expertise that it has gained from its work on the frontline projects to persuade government to change its policy on palliative care and even to adopt the charity’s model for home-care. If the campaign is successful, the impact of the charity’s work will increase exponentially.
So why do charities decide to become involved in campaigning? For a small number of charities, policy change may be a primary objective. Charities must be careful that their policy work complies with the regulatory framework of the jurisdiction in which it is registered.
In the UK, whilst lobbying by charities is regulated, many charities believe these rules to be more restrictive than they are. For the vast majority of charities (like the hypothetical example above), it is their involvement in frontline work that leads them to realise that campaigning will be an essential component of the work that they are doing to fulfil their primary objective.
A charity may wish to persuade key decision-makers to adopt its approach or to collaborate on a particular issue through a private/public partnership. Charities may also want to push for a change in legislation or policy, increase state and/or other funding for its issue, secure government adoption of a particular project, encourage better representation for a particular interest group or at the very least increase the profile of the charity.
An interesting and potentially powerful advocacy tool is litigation. An example of this is the case of Debbie Purdy. Mrs Purdy suffers from Multiple Sclerosis. She applied to the Courts for guidance on whether her husband would face prosecution if he helped her to travel to Switzerland to end her life.
Although such a prosecution has never occurred, under the Suicide Act 1961, Mr Purdy's actions would expose him to the risk of criminal proceedings and, if found guilty, a 14-year jail sentence.
Mrs Purdy’s case went all the way to the House of Lords, where, in a unanimous ruling, the Lords ordered the Director of Public Prosecutions to immediately draw up a policy that would spell out when prosecutions would and would not be pursued.
The guidelines were published on 25 February this year. Sarah Wootton, chief executive of Dignity in Dying, described them as ‘a victory for common sense and compassion.
The case reminds us how law and policy are inextricably linked and that a creative approach to campaigning can yield impressive results.
Michael King and Vicki Bowles continue...
The run-up to the general election has raised the age-old question of charities involvement in party politics – just how far can a charity go in support of a particular party, and what about campaigning on political issues?
One could argue that almost all social issues have a political dimension, so when can a charity campaign or lobby, and when should a charity get involved in overtly
political issues?
Campaigning and lobbying by charities – often (and usually incorrectly) termed ‘political activity’ – has long been the subject of much debate and misunderstanding within the sector, leaving many charities with the view that it is safer to avoid any form of dealings with ‘politics’.
As Anthony Julius suggests, campaigning for changes in law can be a very effective tool for charities attempting to get their message across, increasing the effectiveness of their activities by reaching a wider audience.
The Charity Commission’s guidance on this issue (CC9: Speaking Out – Campaigning and Political Activities by Charities) deals with party political activity as well as campaigning and lobbying. CC9 is generally agreed to be a useful and accessible document, serving as a practical guide to charities wishing to undertake any such activities.
The key point for charities – and this applies to all activities, not just those with any form of political element – is to link the campaigning or lobbying to their objects. When deciding what activities to undertake, charities should always be asking the same question ‘How does this activity advance our charitable objects?’
Take an animal welfare charity as an example – lobbying for a change in the law on criminal sanctions for animal abuse could well be an effective way of advancing an object of preventing animal cruelty. Lobbying by such a charity for a change in the expenses that MPs are entitled to, whilst admirable, would not be appropriate for that charity.
Party politics is an area often seen as particularly controversial, but does not need to be so. Andrew Hind, chief executive of the Commission, recently reminded the charity sector of the need both to avoid public support for a particular political party and being assumed by what is said or done to support a particular party.
A charity should be politically neutral, and is not entitled to support one party over another, but this does not mean that charities cannot become involved with party politics at all. Charities are permitted to support a particular policy of a particular party, if that policy is an effective means of advancing their objects.
The example here which springs to mind is an environmental charity which might naturally support some or all of the aims of Green Party. The charity should not be blindly supporting the Green Party without distinction, but it is likely that some of the party’s policies will be relevant to the work of the charity.
The charity would be entitled to come out in support of those policies, provided it was clear that the charity was not supporting the Green Party overall. Another legitimate way in which a charity may be involved in party politics would be to arrange a debate between parties on an issue relevant to the charity’s objects.
Provided that the results of such a debate were reported in a non-partisan way, this would be a legitimate activity for a charity to undertake. Such a debate would inevitably stray into issues such as taxation policy if the charity were concerned with public funding of a service which the charity wished to provide or wished government to enhance; that would be fine, so long as the debate was not structured to address taxation policy alone.
Provided a charity understands the limitations, campaigning on political issues can be a useful and valuable tool in getting a message across. We would go so far as to say that charities should seriously consider using campaigning as part of their effort to add value to that part of society.
Religious charities, for instance, need to tell people what they are about and what values people should live by, rather than let the media, Twitter or Wikipedia do it for them, sometimes with precious little attention accuracy.
On a cautionary note – although political campaigning is permissible, charities should keep the level of campaigning under constant review, both in terms of cost and effectiveness. It can be perfectly legitimate for a charity to spend a large proportion of its resources on one particular campaign, but only as long as that campaign is effective.
Long term, as we all know, charities cannot exist solely to change the law, as the courts have ruled that this is not a charitable activity, but in the short term, it can be a highly effective way of bringing about real change.
Lobbying of the government – or of representatives of political parties to influence government policy – needs also to be kept under review; even if members of parliament or professional lobbyists are not employed for this purpose, lobbying can eat up the time of senior management and, like any other activity, the question needs to be asked, ‘Is this an effective use of our time?’
Author: Vicki Bowles
Vicki Bowles is a barrister within the charity and education team at Stone King and was formerly legal adviser at the Charity Commission.
A member of the Charity Law Association, Vicki is currently sitting on the working party that is responding to the education and public benefit guidance.
She is also a Brownie leader and a governor at a local school
Author: Michael King
Michael King is senior partner of Stone King LLP and head of its charity and education team. An active member of the Charity Law Association, he was its chairman from 1997 to 2000.
He is recognised by Chambers Directory and the Legal 500 as a leader in charity law and has held several appointments as receiver and manager/interim manager of a charity by the Charity Commission.
He is co-author with Ann Phillips of Charities Act 2006 - Guide to the New Law (Law Society 2007).
He regularly speaks and writes on charity matters, lives in Bath and divides his time between Bath and London
Author: Anthony Julius
Anthony Julius is deputy chairman of Mishcon de Reya and has appeared in both the High Court and the Court of Appeal and acted for many high profile clients.
He taught part-time in the Law Faculty, UCL for three years and is now a visiting professor at Birkbeck College, University of London.
He has written on law, literature, art, culture and anti-Semitism. Anthony is chairman of the London Consortium.
He is vice-president of the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund, and was one of the charity's founders and its first chairman.
There are no comments on this article. Be the first to comment.