News

There was much kerfuffle recently over disability charity Scope shutting some of its services so that it could focus on campaigning. Although some reports claimed Scope was closing 50 of its residential homes - it is shutting just two and will continue to provide services as well as campaign - the news reignited the debate about the role of charities.

Should charities be ardent campaigners on behalf of their client groups? Or is it more appropriate for them to concentrate on providing services? And as the government encourages voluntary sector participation in the delivery of social care services, how far should charities accept the government's invitation to get involved?

The dictionary definition of the word charity is "the giving of help... to those in need" while the word campaign means "a series of co-ordinated activities designed to achieve a goal". One school of thought is that never the twain should meet because the critical nature of campaigning could upset funders and jeopardise the money coming in.

However, an increasing number of charities strongly believe that providing services directly to clients informs and guides campaign work, and vice versa. Paul Ward, deputy chief executive of the HIV charity Terrence Higgins Trust (THT), describes his organisation's two-pronged approach as a "virtuous circle". Of its £12m income a year it spends 99 per cent on services and 1 per cent on campaigning. Ward says: "It is important that campaigning work is grounded in the needs of the people we are here to serve. Over 20 years we have found the best way of doing that is by being a campaigner and provider of services." The brand name of THT acts as a quality assurance measure for those using its services and adds credibility to the work it does with government and other agencies, he says.

Andy Rickell, Scope's executive director of diversity and corporate planning, agrees that campaigning and providing services is a virtuous circle. He argues that if a charity is going to campaign for a particular issue then it has to be willing to provide that same service itself. This is why Scope is focusing on providing community-based services to its clients alongside campaigning for disabled people: it is putting its money where its mouth is, he says. Of its £99m annual income in 2003-4, Scope spent £65.9m on services and £400,000 on campaigning.

But can a charity effectively provide services and campaign at the same time? Is there a concern that if a charity is too outspoken against the policies of its funder its grants will suddenly cease? Ward admits this can be a problem but says THT avoids it by receiving funding from 200 statutory bodies rather than just relying on one. "The level of influence they have over us is minimal in terms of our campaigning but not in terms of our services."

Chris Hanvey, director of operations at Barnardo's, believes that fear of losing funding does not have to constrain campaigning activity. "It can be done in a way that allows you to campaign against the organisations that fund you," he says. About 5 per cent of Barnardo's donated income of £28.4m is devoted to its campaigning and influencing work while 95 per cent goes on services.

One charity that has recently upped its campaigning work by appointing a dedicated team with its own budget is Crisis. Mark Flannagan, director of communications and campaigns for the homelessness charity, says the move was necessary to build on the issues that its operational work has highlighted. In the financial year ending in April 2004 Crisis spent just over £116,000 on campaigning and more than £4m on service provision. "The whole raison d'tre of Crisis is to lobby for change in order to get the door open, come inside and get the solutions needed in place."

The adult care green paper Independence, Well-being and Choice makes no secret of the government's desire for the voluntary sector to play an active role in providing services that strengthen communities. But just how far should the government expect charities to go in helping it meet its policy commitments?

As part of its public sector reform the Labour party is keen for the voluntary sector to bid jointly with private companies to run detention centres, prisons and young offender institutions in an effort to introduce a more humane approach. However, two months ago children's charities including the Children's Society and NCH firmly rejected these plans on the grounds that working in the current prison system goes against their commitment to children's welfare (news, page 6, 21 April). Any efforts to encourage further joint working between the voluntary and private sectors could prove problematic for charities, as doing so could require them to act in a way that contradicts their stated aims and beliefs.

Hanvey says jointly provided secure residential care for children creates a "moral dilemma" for voluntary organisations. "The reasons for private organisations' involvement are purely financial whereas voluntary organisations have their own values. This is an issue the voluntary sector has to face up to; the motivation may be more financial rather than ethical."

So is there a danger that charities could align themselves too closely with the government's own agenda? Rickell says this is something that already happens in the disability world, to the detriment of its clients: "For some voluntary sector organisations their role as provider is so close to government as funder that they exclude the people they are doing the work for." In effect, the danger in such cases is that charities act according to their funder's priorities and not the priorities of the users they represent, sometimes becoming overly reliant on the government.

Luke FitzHerbert, a senior researcher for the Directory of Social Change, an organisation which campaigns for the better management of charities, agrees this is a danger. "It is difficult to bite the hand that feeds you and naturally the government, when faced with critics, may buy them out or show them how things should be done." This results in the charity becoming complicit in the government's work and weakening its position as an external, impartial critic.

In light of this, it is essential that charities give clear messages to the public about the difference their work can make. Hanvey says that when people donate to charity "they do not want to think their money is propping up local authority services". He would advise any voluntary organisation to avoid getting into a position where it is "compromised" in terms of its government contracted work, limiting the extent to which it can speak out for its clients.

While some charities maintain their distance from the government at all costs, others have potentially useful access to those in positions of power. FitzHerbert says it is about striking a balance between the two and that at times it can be necessary to be reasonably close to government.

One scenario that highlights this involves the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, which was critical of the government for not providing digital hearing aids to people with hearing loss.

But in 2003 the charity began working with the Department of Health to ensure that the hearing aids were available on the NHS across the country - a goal that through collaboration was eventually achieved. The saying, inspired by 19th century social reformer and historian Sidney Webb, that it can be necessary to pull individuals from the swamp as well as to drain it - or at least be in a position to do both things - evidently applies to the voluntary sector in the 21st century.