Charities' spend on advertising rapped by MPs

News

Charities' spend on advertising rapped by MPs 5

Governance | Vibeka Mair | 18 Jan 2011

Charities’ spend on advertising and campaigning compared with levels of service delivery to beneficiaries has come under scrutiny by the Public Administration Select Committee.

The Committee (PASC) met with Sir Stuart Etherington, chief executive of NCVO and Thomas Hughes-Hallett, chief executive of Marie Curie Cancer Care this morning to discuss the voluntary sector’s role in public service delivery and the Big Society.

Sir Stuart warned that government plans to encourage philanthropy and social investment were not being carried out quickly enough to counter the effect of public spending cuts which were starting to bite.

Hughes-Hallett added that the sector was seen as a soft target by local authorities and the situtation was very difficult.

PASC chair Bernard Jenkin suggested a league table of local authorities which would look at how much was being cut from the voluntary sector.

The conversation, however, quickly turned to the activities of charities, with Conservative MP Charlie Elphicke criticising charities that chose to campaign or lobby rather than provide services to beneficiaries.

He singled out to Shelter and NSPCC who he said concentrated on advertising and campaigns, and in the case of Shelter “did not provide shelter for the homeless”.

Conservative MP Robert Halfon added that it was hard to know from charity accounts how much was spent on political campaigning and advertising and called for this to be included.

In response, Hughes-Hallett conceded that there was concern around the spending on advertising by large charities: “I am conscious that a handful of large charities spend too much on advertising. Barnardo’s and Marie Curie Cancer Care have talked about this in relation to other charities in similar areas to ours.”

But on the point of campaigning, he asserted it was sometimes necessary for charities to speak up: “A new £750m cancer strategy fund had no mention of terminally ill patients,” said Hughes-Hallett, “so I feel I have to speak out on behalf of my beneficiaries. There are shades of grey in political campaigning.”

Sir Stuart added that a good charity did both campaigning and providing support for beneficiaries, acting within charity law.

Sir Stuart: Bankers should give bonuses to charity

Meanwhile, speaking before the committee hearing, Sir Stuart had called on bankers to give their bonuses to charity in order to set an example and provide a “shot in the arm for the voluntary and community sector”.

His Acevo counterpart, Sir Stephen Bubb, had previously called for a 50 per cent tax on bankers’ bonuses to fund the Big Society Bank.

Directory: Marie Curie Cancer Care | National Council of Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) | National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) | Shelter
Who's Who: Thomas Hughes-Hallett | Sir Stuart Etherington

Place a comment

John Marshall
CEO
Centrepoint Outreach
26 Jan 2011

The amount of 'charitable expenditure' attributed to advertising often seems very excessive! It is not what donors give money for! I did receive an apology from one very large charity - who wrote to us asking for a donation (cheek of it!) Their ad. budget would keep a smaller charity going for several years!

[Reply]

Paul Edwards
Community Projects Officer
N/A
19 Jan 2011

Since it mostly isn't taxpayers money, what business is it of MPs how charities spend their money? Why should MPs feel more entitled to interfere with the Voluntary Sector than, say, supermarkets? The sector really needs to robustly reject the idea that the voluntary sector is merely the handmaiden and plaything of Government. Afterall, we are not the NHS! And, talking of taxpayers, at least charities are not bilking the taxpayer of thousands of pounds by fiddling their expenses.

[Reply]

Lindsay Milner
Fundraising etc
18 Jan 2011

Couldn't agree more with Karen Drury's comments.

This is an old debate, and many in the charity sector have been concerned for some time that delivering public services erodes the voluntary sector's independent voice. Charlie Elphicke's criticism is proof that there is indeed an element of risk in engaging in 'Big Society' in this way.

In addition, I note that Shelter's charitable aims and objectives, as stated on the Charity Commission website, include

'TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC CONCERNING THE NATURE, CAUSES AND EFFECTS OF HOMELESSNESS, HUMAN SUFFERING, POVERTY AND DISTRESS AS AFORESAID AND TO CONDUCT AND PROCURE RESEARCH CONCERNING THE SAME AND TO MAKE AVAILABLE THE USEFUL RESULTS THEREAFTER TO THE PUBLIC'.

Sounds like campaigning to me.

[Reply]

Karen Drury
fe3 consulting
18 Jan 2011

Oh, for God's sake! Simply because the Government is dangling in front of the voluntary sector the possibility of delivering large chunks of public services for a quarter of the money, should this mean that they lose their voice and by implication, the voice of all the people who use them?

In an age where attention lasts about eight seconds, it's hardly surprising that the advertising spend of the larger charities is up - they need to try and maintain their share of shout in an economic climate where the voice of the less fortunate is growing ever softer because of the clamours of other creditors.

As for the MPs, I note that political parties spent £31m for the 2010 general election, which covered just one month of activity. This equates to £372m for the year.

[Reply]

Anon
18 Jan 2011
Response to [Karen Drury]

£31m on an election campaign can't really be extrapolated to an annual figure as elections don't happen monthly (thank goodness).

A better comparison would be government spend on campaigns to reduce smoking, obesity or drinking. Those do cost a fortune and their effectiveness is very questionable. My wife worked on one campaign where the minister in charge of the department changed just prior to launch. The new minister disliked the campaign signed off by his predecessor and binned it, wasting over £1m in agency fees. Now that's a scandal.

[Reply]

Comments

[Cancel] | Reply to:

Name *

Email *

Organisation

Job Title

Comments *

Verification *

* Please read our Community Standards

Close »

Community Standards

The civilsociety.co.uk community and comments board is intended as a platform for informed and civilised debate.

We hope to encourage a broad range of views, however, there are standards that we expect commentators to uphold. We reserve the right to delete or amend any comments that do not adhere to these standards.

We welcome:

Robust but respectful debate
Strongly held opinions
Intelligent relevant discussion
The sharing of relevant experiences
New participants

We will not publish:

Rude, threatening, offensive, obscene or abusive language, or links to such material
Links to commercial organisations or spam postings. The comments board is not an advertising platform
The posting of contact details for yourself or others
Comments intended for malicious purpose or mindless abuse
Comments purporting to be from another person or organisation under false pretences
Gratuitous criticism, commentary or self-promotion
Any material which breaches copyright or privacy laws, or could be considered libellous
The use of the comments board for the pursuit or extension of personal disputes

Be aware:

Views expressed on the comments board are left at users’ discretion and are in no way views held or supported by Civil Society Media
Comments left by others may not be accurate, do not rely on them as fact
You may be misunderstood - sarcasm and humour can easily be taken out of context, try to be clear

Please:

Enjoy the opportunity to express your opinion and respect the right of others to express theirs
Confine your remarks to issues rather than personalities

Together we can keep our community a polite, respectful and intelligent platform for discussion.