Hi again, Anon.

I think we're in danger of talking at cross purposes here. I don't think it's a good idea to pigeon-hole charities any more than you seem to; yet I do think that charities often need to group together in order to influence government or advance a common cause.

There are times, in other words, when the sector needs to present a united front. Here's an example. When the government was thinking recently about how to change the rules on Gift Aid, it asked the charity world for its views. A plethora of umbrella groups claimed a right to reply to the consultation. After a little skirmishing (which wasn't edifying to watch), most of these groups recognized that there was strength in numbers, and so banded together to submit a joint response. But CAF - a sort-of umbrella group and service-provision company - took a different tack and submitted its views separately.  

Of course, CAF had the right to do this. But by breaking ranks, CAF allowed the government to exploit the sector's splits - and this allowed mega-charity Cancer Research UK to intervene and claim credit for the shape of the eventual rerform. It looked suspiciously like the government had got fed up with divisions in the umbrella groups and listened to the loudest charity voice instead.

Like Anon, I think that small charities have a vital part to play in a diverse charity sector. This is why umbrella groups are so important. But when they fail - as they did in this instance - they open the door for charity giants to take the initiative. And that runs the risk of damaging small charities - and the diversity of the sector - in the long run.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

The fact that NCVO and ACEVO don't agree on everything hardly means that the charity sector as a whole presents a divided front to the media and governemnt.

Secondly, even if they did, would this be such a bad thing? What's wrong with a little diversity of voice? I'm troubled by your utter lack of perspective, seriously Adam, nobody knows who the NCVO or ACEVO are outside a very small group of interested parties. I'm also troubled by your apparent assumption that all UK charities' interests are best represented by one body.

Surely the beauty of the charity sector is its diversity? Pidgeonholing a donkey santuary in Devon and a small grassroots community organisation in East London simply due to the way that UK law requires they are constituted is both bizarre and quite obviously not the best way to get their respective voices heard.

If you're so worried about declining public trust, surely lumping all charities, no matter what their mission, size or ethos together and a generic mass is quite the worng way to go about it.

Also, again, what evidence do you have other than your own opinion that UK campaigning charities are no good?

And intrigued as to why Adam feels the need to put the word about in inverted commas. Does this imply that there's normally no need for his posts to be 'about' anything?!

Anyhow, aside from that, I totally agree with Anonymous. Who really gives a monkeys about the fractious relationship between NCVO and ACEVO? Certainly nobody from outside this little navel gazing sector.

Don't shoot the messenger

Thanks for your comments, Anon. This post is 'about' all those things - and how they relate to each other.

The fact that two of the biggest hitters in the charity world don't get on is important, even if you find it boring. Their strained relationship means that charities with different views don't communicate as much as they should, and this in turn means that charities present a divided front to the media and to government - which stops them from packing as much of a punch as they should.

Some people (and organizations) don't believe that charities should lobby at all - and that they should stick to the hands-on stuff instead. We don't want to pass judgement on that. But we do want to say that when charities do choose to lobby and exert influence, then they should do a better job of it than they do at the moment.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

I would surmise that much of the debate, and perceived loss of trust in charities is self generated irrelevancy. I would suggest that 99.5% of donors neither know nor care who the NCVO or ACEVO are - so they can on slagging themselves off until the charities get bored with supporting them.

On the more important donor/public front I would suggest two things have happened. The one is the relatively questioning cynical nature of the new crop of donors over anything that smacks of authority, structure and control, and the other is the sector's assiduous determination to cosy up that most untrustworthy of authorities - the government. The latter, of course taking all the credit and in the process rubbing off their acquired mistrust onto the charities - certainly on to the larger charities who take most of the money. Donors aren't fools - effectively they are paying for their charity twice, once to a cause they support, and second probably to one they don't through their taxes.

What's this post really about Adam? Is it about the fact that the heads of two umbrella bodies don't get on? Is it about structural flaws on the third sector? Or is it about the fact that you seem to dismiss most campaigning charities as not doing enough lobbying?

If it's the first, then sorry but that's really very uninteresting to all but a very meagre few! If it's the second, then could you define those flaws please? If it's the third, could you provide some evidence? And perhaps you could talk about the legal limits on charities' political activities and the ongoing dialogue on that? Or perhaps you could acknowledge the very real difference that many grassroots charities make to people's lives every day, even if they are not great at lobbying (which I might say is a technique cultivated by agencies who act as paid agents of massive multimnational corporates, funny that most charities don't run such slick operations.)

At any rate, tell us what this post is about then we start a discussion!