Following months of political controversy, the Charity Commission recently clarified that charities are allowed to campaign robustly and engage in political debate provided that such actions align with their mission and have the backing of trustees.
Nevertheless, leading charities and sector representative bodies reiterated concerns that political attacks on campaigning could produce a “chilling” effect. But even if this is true in individual cases, it has not been fully evidenced for the sector as a whole.
Today, Third Sector Trends has released analysis addressing this topic. The indications are, from a representative sample of over 6,000 organisations across England and Wales, that almost three quarters (73%) of third sector organisations (TSOs) “steer well clear of political issues”.
But that’s not the end of the story. Amongst those that steer clear of political issues, many still get involved in campaigning (38%), attend relevant meetings or events to shape local social policy (67%) or work behind the scenes to influence key stakeholders (35%).
As would be expected, organisations that “do not steer clear of political issues” are more likely to campaign (68%), go to relevant policy meetings (79%) or work behind the scenes to influence policy (61%).
Why do charities campaign?
Politicians only tend to get upset about campaigning when it conflicts with their views. So, debate tends to be focused on controversial political issues. What’s needed is robust generalised data on who campaigns for what. But that’s easier said than done in a pluralistic sector.
To find out which way the sector is leaning, politically, we’d need to find out if TSOs aim to protect something (such as the greenbelt) or to challenge people’s views or behaviour (such as persuading them to accept the idea of same-sex marriage).
They’d also have to decide if their aim is to relieve conditions (as can be the case with foodbanks) or to transform policy and practice (by, for example campaigning for the living wage).
If only it were this simple – a case of choosing between options. The reality is that many charities do all of these things. A local environmental organisation, for example, may be involved in protecting natural habitat while challenging those who threaten it; they may relieve conditions where harm has been done and seek to transform policy to limit or eradicate threats to habitat.
The same problem applies to taxonomies of charitable purpose and impact. It is mightily hard to pin down statistically what TSOs do in a sector where most organisations have many objectives, several constituencies of beneficiaries and multiple impacts.
Are campaigning organisations more effective?
The plot thickens when determining if campaigning actually makes a difference. Taking a long view, it’s clear that attitudes and behaviour do change over time. For example, British Social Attitudes 2023 shows that amongst people born in the 1960s, only 18% agreed that “same sex relationships are not at all wrong” in 1983 (when they were in their twenties) compared with 73% in 2022 (now that the same cohort of people is in their sixties).
It’s hard to know how this came about because taking or attributing credit for social change is a national pastime amongst politicians, novelists, social influencers, film makers, entrepreneurs, academics, trade unions and, of course, charities.
Certainly, campaigning charities believe that they make a bigger impact. On average, 23% of campaigning organisations say they make a “strong contribution” to their chosen cause compared with 12% of non-campaigning organisations.
Interpreting self-reported evidence is not easy. A literal interpretation might indicate that campaigning organisations are the most effective due to their commitment and determination. Would this persuade many people who run non-campaigning organisations?
A polite yet sceptical interpretation would suggest that campaigning organisations understand the technical language surrounding social impact and are more likely to ascribe success to their operations.
A more critical and personal interpretation might argue that campaigning organisations have a stronger sense of self worth and exaggerate, intentionally or otherwise, their assessment of impact.
Or findings could be dismissed as a statistical anomaly. It is true, for example, that bigger campaigning organisations are more likely to claim they have a strong social impact (27%) than the smallest (16%). But remember that there are more small campaigning organisations in England and Wales (47,600 with income below £50,000) than big ones (7,300 with income between £1m and £25m).
Is it politicians who need to chill out?
Threats from politicians to limit the third sector’s campaigning and influencing activity are unlikely to impinge significantly on the way charities work. It is just one amongst many considerations such as their ability to attract trustees, volunteers, employees and beneficiaries; their need to raise funds and to decide whether to work alone or with other organisations. Keeping all these balls in the air requires dexterity and diplomacy in a crowded and competitive social marketplace.
In future, government ministers may tinker around the edges on the limits of charitable campaigning activity – but a sustained political attack on the realm of civil society would be hard to justify. The freedom to speak out, associate and campaign feel like a normal part of life in the UK – an inalienable right. To threaten that would bring some very peculiar alliances out from the woodwork.
