Charities and the state
Guardian leader suggests the relationship needs a reset
A leader in the Guardian newspaper on 15 January entitled ‘The crucial relationship between charities and the state needs resetting’ contained many of the arguments I have rehearsed in this blog. They include the remorseless reduction in funding both directly from government sources and resulting from reductions in state funding to local authorities.
The emphasis on cheapness has seen many charities lose out, an issue I discussed in a blog on ‘creaming and parking’. Encouraging charities to compete with one another - consonant with government thinking that innovation is best achieved through competition - has seen a big waste of resources.
It notes that many social welfare provision often started with a charity being formed to campaign for such improvements. It notes that many public services started life with philanthropists. Many charities are now effectively subsidising public services when contracts do not cover costs - another topic I have discussed here. It notes that falling donations and increasing costs are likely to see more charities ‘tip over the edge’ as they put it.
The leader seems to suggest that things might improve from now on. It says the National Council for Voluntary Organisations is consulting on a manifesto. The Labour party, currently ahead in the polls, will be explaining their vision for a civil society. Personally, I do not think either of these will bring about much change. This is for a number of reasons:
The majority of charities and not for profits are small and they suffer from a lack of a strong collective voice. They are largely invisible politically.
People who work and volunteer concentrate on the work in hand and do little to promote themselves or to highlight the issues they are tackling. Not only that, when they do emerge into the limelight, it is usually to say something positive of optimistic. Seldom (like almost never) do they make plain some of the truths of falling financial support, rising costs and increasing demand. This leaves the public with the impression things are going well.
The Charity Commission, which should offer as part of its role, support for the sector especially in the corridors of power, is more concerned with controlling and policing the sector - albeit necessary functions - and is largely silent in terms of support.
There is no dedicated minister for charities. Instead he is tucked away and is led by a minister who has a host of other responsibilities eg tourism, sport, gambling, youth and loneliness. Looking at They Work for You it is clear that it is these matters which consume the minister’s time whereas charities are almost invisible. Governments are also ambivalent about the sector, again something I have noted. Locally, MPs love to appear at some charity sponsored event and smile for the camera, but they are suspicious of them because they highlight things they would prefer not to be highlighted. They smile locally, but where it matters in parliament, they are all too happy to vote for policies which hit the poorest and hence make the life of charities that bit harder.
Who gets what money is determined by the Treasury and their eyes are on the deficit and not on charities.
Although it was good to see the matter discussed in the pages of a national paper, it was disappointing not to see a more clinical view of the future prospects for the sector. There was a whiff of naivete about political prospects. As we have seen with the Post Office scandal over the past few days, and previously with Windrush, Grenfell Tower and other scandals, it takes a monumental effort to get justice or recognition in Whitehall and government. Charities are not in this league and are unlikely ever to achieve the necessary degree of salience to see a change in their fortunes.
Peter Curbishley
Author of How to be a Successful Trustee.