Intelligent Giving

Something else that's hard to find funding for.  Research into how well campaigns, campaigning and awareness raising works.

g23, I'm sorry you found my statement strange. My argument was that there is a real lack of good-quality independent research into charities - including work into how effective their campaigning strategies are. Of course, there are some notable exceptions to this rule - nfpSynergy's studies in particular stand out, and CAF provides a vital service with its Charity Trends - but overall, if you want unbiased information about almost anything in the charity world, it's pretty hard to find.

Of course, you could just ask the charities involved how there work is going - but for the good of the whole sector, I think there needs to be more independent research too. There are encouraging signs that this might be about to happen, but nothing has got off the ground just yet.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

"In the charity world, good-quality research into anything is thin on the ground" - Adam, would you like to qualify this strange statement at all? Of course I'm taking it in context that you mean research into finding out how effective money spent on campaigning/lobbying is (rather than some charities' excellent medical research work for example). Therefore I'd recommend that if you want to find the answer you speak to those charities who are best at it, who would no doubt be happy to prove it raises millions of pounds from government, which would otherwise not be there.

Good question, Champignon. Unfortuantely, though, the research you allude to doesn't exist.  In the charity world, good-quality research into anything is thin on the ground, even when the results of such work could be fantastically useful - as would, I think, be the case here.  So my answer is: who knows?

As for your argument that campaigning work doesn't sound very efficient - I agree. But I think the alternative (that the government might end up spending my money on something I don't like the sound of) is even worse.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

Thanks Adam. Yes of course I'd rather my taxes were spent on causes I support than ones I don't but I don't particularly relish the prospect of paying twice over to ensure that they do so. That doesn't strike me as particularly efficient.

Have there been any studies done that back up claims that this is the most effective and efficient way to spent charitable donations?

The question of why some organizations are allowed to campaign and receive tax breaks for doing so, and why some are not, is tricky to say the least. And I don't know whether I have an answer to it.

The Charity Commission says that registered charities are allowed to campaign for pretty much anything, so long as it doesn't involve the direct endorsement of a political party. Charities, in other words, aren't allowed to give advice on who to vote for at election time, but are permitted to endorse the ideas contained in specific policy commitments.

This is, I think, a strange arrangement. The division between prohibited 'political' campaigning and everything else strikes me as artificial. And it's not just me who thinks this. When the Charity Commission last revised its guidance on campaining, it casued consternation across the charity world.

As for your objection, Champignon, that it's your money (as a taxpayer) that's being shunted around government thanks to charities' lobbying efforts, I would argue: wouldn't you rather that the government spent your taxes in line with causes you support, rather than splashing out on something of which you might not approve?

Adam, Intelligent Giving

Yes, a big organisation can have more clout than one person when campaigning but (as I said) I'm not sure that answers my question as to why some campaigning organisations being given tax breaks when others are not. I question whether a campaigning charity can properly say it is not for poltical purposes and so not lose its charitable status. 

Also, while I agree that it is important that charities use their resources efficiently, I'm not convinced that "saving charities a lot of money" is a cogent rationale for channelling funds away from the needy and into political campaigning.

Those thousands of pounds are my taxes, so what you are really saying is that by giving £1 to Shelter, I am effectively paying £1 to pay another £1,000 - which was my objection in the first place.

We don't deny that writing to your MP can be an excellent way of having your views voiced in Parliament. But we think that a big charity like Shelter can lobby and protest much more effectively than any individual. That's why we think its campaigning work is valuable.

We don't think that lobbying is all that big charities should do. But if any organization successfully brings about a change in the law, then that will always count as a major success. 

In the long term, lobbying might also save charities a lot of money.  Street homelessness has declined dramatically over the past ten years thanks to charities like Shelter pressuring the government into spending lots of cash to tackle the problem. A pound given to Shelter could result in many thousands of pounds being spent by the government.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

You say Shelter "does what most large charities should" by campaigning to get the government to spend money to help the homeless, rather than taking direct action. I stopped giving to Shelter for precisely this reason, on the basis that I already pay tax and am capable of writing to my MP myself and I was giving to try to provide something more than what my taxes alone might for the homeless.  I'd be happy to find I'm wrong but I just don't get it: why do you think campaigning is what large charities should be doing? And why should charities that are effectively political pressure groups get tax breaks when actual political pressure groups like Amnesty or WDM do not?