Charities inward turn —and the political and public gap it leaves
The charity sector has for the last ten years become less influential in government and less relevant to much of the public, against a backdrop of a weakening of the resilience of many charities, particularly those reliant on local government funding. [1]
Charities have turned inward as their confidence has been hit by the fundraising scandals, by fights with Ministers over their ability to campaign and by worries over legitimacy in the face of challenges like Charity So White. Many in government (and the networks of think tanks around them[2]) subscribe to public choice theory, seeing civil servants, charities and experts as largely self-interested agents serving their own interests rather than working in the public good. The Labour party has also been sceptical of “charity” as an approach in recent years, though that might change with the new leadership.
The sector’s agenda from the 1990s on charity law reform, new partnership with the state around public service reform and involvement in decision making and support for boosting giving has run its course. It has failed to keep up with this new world of a society that has become more polarised around values (rather than class), where trust in institutions has declined and where there is stagnation in incomes (so people compete over what there is rather than expect to see all incomes rise) and productivity. On top of this, the impact of climate change, Brexit and Covid-19 and the new challenges they bring mean the sector needs a new agenda and narrative.
Government and civil society
The Government of Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings is either indifferent to the voluntary sector or at worst is downright hostile — a long way from the third way/third sector partnership approach of the Blair and Brown years or the Big Society approach from David Cameron.
Even the international development sector, which has traditionally had very strong links with Number 10 and can call on an impressive public and opinion former audience behind them, is now struggling to find a sympathetic ear. The decision to merge the Department for International Development into the Foreign Office and to cut international development spending by £3bn this year are signs of this change.
Much hope therefore rides on the review by Danny Kruger for the PM, looking at how to maximise the role of volunteers and civil society, particularly in the context of the Government’s levelling up agenda.
But while we wait to hear what Danny Kruger has decided, there are clues elsewhere on what Number 10 thinks. The Prime Minister’s speech on the economy on 30 June mentioned charities in the context of the “psychic energy” of the last few months, where he praised the “selflessness and the love of the health and the care workers and the charities”. In this view (and the focus of Danny Kruger’s review), charities belong to the world of solidarity, of keeping society going rather than changing it.
In contrast to this world, the PM’s speech also had a vision of unleashing the creativity of scientists, fintech and the “world’s most brilliant medical minds” to make the UK a science and innovation “superpower”. He also called for applause for “our innovators, our wealth creators, our capitalists and financiers”.
Many civil society leaders see themselves and their organisations as social innovators and change makers — more like the second category above. But if the PM and others see charities as being in the first category (keeping things going rather than changing things) then that poses a challenge for the sector if it wants to have more impact with senior politicians in the Government. Should it try and change ministers’ minds so that they work with charities in their reform agenda? Or try to use their perceived role as social infrastructure as a way into wider conversations about the levelling-up agenda? Or have they got nothing to lose by moving into a completely outsider campaigning mode?
Charities, their regulator and public attitudes
Baroness Tina Stowell, the Chair of the Charity Commission, wrote in The Times on 15 June about the role of charities in response to Covid-19. She called for charities to think more about the importance of meeting public expectations of what it is to be a charity, especially in the context of more diversity in the sector between big corporate charities delivering public services and smaller ones working in a more bottom-up way to fill gaps they identify.
The emphasis on public opinion poses a challenge for foundations who support activity that “public opinion” does not necessarily support. Baroness Stowell’s views have not translated into changed guidance or legislation from the Commission so should charities just ignore her? Or should they take up the challenge of ensuring the public understand their work in controversial areas?
The Commission also published polling alongside the article.[3] Two findings are particularly troubling for charities. One is the fall in the proportion of people who say that charities play an essential or very important role, down from 75% six years ago to just 55%.
The second finding is that while overall levels of trust have started to recover, there is a strong divide between what you could characterise as “Remainers” (top left quadrant of the heat map below) who trust charities and “Leavers” (bottom right) who do not. Other polling backs this up and suggests this divide on trust is more pronounced for charities than some other sectors.[4]
NFP Synergy research published in June also highlights another issue for charities with the proportion of people who say they have given to charity in the last three months falling to 60%, down from 78% in July 2011, though those fewer donors are giving more.[5]
So rather than appealing to the public as a whole, charities may increasingly look to fewer donors, ones that look like them with higher education levels, more likely to live in Remain voting areas and with similar attitudes. Appealing for funding from foundations with similar mindsets may also influence them similarly. Both risk increasing the divide in how charities are viewed by different demographic groups.
Conclusion
The charity sector is increasingly focusing on the issue of power within the sector. But at the same time, its influence and power beyond itself is declining.
Political power is being centralised in Number 10 as other departments are marginalised and local government is on its knees after 10 years of cuts.
Beyond government, wealth is being captured in fewer and fewer hands.
The Government’s focus on levelling up focuses on addressing skills and infrastructure inequalities across the country but is not about sharing power more equitably between the centre and local areas, nor does it fundamentally address the accumulation of wealth (and therefore power) in fewer hands. It also has a limited amount to say on the big challenges of climate change and an ageing society, and its approach to raising productivity through disruptive changes risks social and environmental progress.
Charities’ inward turn and failure to have an effective approach to political influence and public attitudes risks making them irrelevant to the big discussions the country needs to have. To be #NeverMoreNeeded, charities need to have a collective agenda that offers a convincing alternative to the centralisation of political power and the narrowing of wealth and has a positive agenda on the role that charities can play in the big social and environmental challenges in the coming decades.
[1] 59% of charities delivering public sector contracts according to NPC https://www.thinknpc.org/resource-hub/state-of-the-sector-2020/
[2] See for instance https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2020/02/daniel-hannan-alarmism-doom-mongering-panic-and-the-coronavirus-we-are-nowhere-near-a-1919-style-catastrophe.html
[3] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/891221/Regulating_in_the_public_interest_research_report.pdf
[4] https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/trust-politicians-falls-sending-them-spiralling-back-bottom-ipsos-mori-veracity-index
[5] https://nfpsynergy.net/blog/number-giving-lowest-level-over-decade.
