Brian Harvey, Advocacy Initiative, Dublin, 29th January 2014 brharvey@iol.ie
Purpose, method of research Obtain ground truth on way in which state: Supports Inhibits Suppresses advocacy through the funding link
Context set in Funding dissent (2013) Request for case studies spring 2013
94 interviews, greatly exceeding expectations 23 written communications Supervised by advisory committee
Case studies checked autumn (<4 times)
All contributors asked to confirm, modify, agree text Anonymized in many instances Given opportunity to withdraw Some asked not to be identified
Nature of research
Attempts to bring together experience of
voluntary, community activists, coordinators, managers, informed observers Some contributors on statutory side Tells V&C side of the story They are not triangulated with all players in each story to reach agreed interpretation of events Most are past 5-10 years, a few to 1990s Wide range of contributors Large, small organizations; national to community-
based; many sectors; insiders, outsiders; role (service, representative); style of advocacy.
A simple question Does the state support, inhibit, or suppress
advocacy? But answer is a complicated one. Answer: yes, yes and yes but… A range of experiences from positive to negative State inconsistent not only between its agencies, but within them Some issues and places more sensitive than others Three particular problematics explored: Service paradigm SLA template 2.8 Redefinition of charitable by Revenue
Support Social partnership Voluntary, community pillar Environmental pillar Health strategy within NAPS
National organizations Men’s Network FLAC
Local FRCs Community platforms Mental health advocacy (STEER)
Qualifications
State attitude permissive/neutral, rather than
supportive? Welcomed by ‘reformers’ in system, solutions Two examples state intervention to support V&C organizations (LGBT, Traveller issues) Many went to extremes to manage relationships, avoid conflict, ‘make style/language acceptable’ State perceived to be reluctant to challenge organizations which: Had substantial fund-raising capacity Were perceived to be politically protected
Permission does not equal preparedness to pay
Inhibition (1) A fine line that is continually tested State over-reaction forces V&C orgs to draw back next time, personalization of criticism ‘Going public’ carries risk of losing relationship Continually having to ‘mend fences’ Ensuring advocacy funded elsewhere (I have your file here) State indicating displeasure at advocacy State ‘showing who is boss’ (‘fearful respect’ of FAS) County council complaining Traveller advocacy Dissuaded from bringing appeals up through the system Deputies going to minister Complaint an opposition TD had supported them
Inhibition (2) Publications Double lock in European programmes
Disclaimer; + text must be submitted in advance Not required at EU level
Red lines: summoned to explain criticism, money thereafter
released on good behaviour.
Threat of review: M5o Roma Did not happen, but funding lost a year later Withdrawal of access ‘You will never get another meeting’ Meetings become more difficult
Change of lexicon: ‘campaigning’ now ‘public education’,
‘casework’, ‘information’
Services paradigm ‘We only fund you to do services’ (ruling out research,
advocacy, publications, networking etc…) Also manifested in ’frontline’ ‘coalface’ services (over) Organizations asked: ‘Are we paying for that?’ ‘Tell us where else are you getting your money?’ Are you doing this in your time or ours?
Forces organizations into evasion ‘You end up doing advocacy at night’ Keeping FAS funded staff out of local papers
This had a clear chill effect on advocacy; advocacy
devalued in eyes of state, ignored
Preserving ‘frontline’ services? • “Once you get rid of the administration
and all the other things you need to keep the service going, you don’t have a ‘front’ line any more, because there’s nothing behind the front line. By now, it’s only a line.”
2.8 Service Level Agreements (SLA) Introduced 1994 Shaping a healthier future
HB agrees to respect the funded body’s functions of
innovation, advocacy, representation and research From 2002...
You must not use the grant to
change law or government policies, or persuade people to adopt a view on law or public policy
Consequences SLA 2.8 for advocacy Legal effect to services paradigm Enforcement varies: examples of state colluding with non-
enforcement; also inconsistent (not supported by former NHS staff) Some organizations challenged A defined chill effect: organizations on defensive, have to be ready to prove advocacy funded elsewhere See You are not as independent as you would like to be ‘Restricts you psychologically’ Avoid major campaigns Some groups form coalitions ‘to give you cover’
Charity law • Until recently, campaigning legitimate in pursuit of charitable
objectives. Note this is minister’s view. • Under Charities Act, human rights no longer charitable. • Now, any advocacy activity will prevent ‘charitable status’ • • • • •
Case studies: TENI, Marriage Equality Decisions based on examination of website only Inconsistent: existing organizations that do campaigning not affected Revenue scrutinizing course modules to test if educational One organization updating memo & arts had to replace ‘advocate’ with ‘promote and advance the welfare of…’ (case study)
Concluding inhibition • Intimidation, micro-management, absurd scrutiny: •
What meetings staff have attended, whose picture in local papers
• Complaints come suddenly from unexpected directions • But it all leads to self-censorship • State treats voluntary, community organizations as
extension of itself, as seen in petty supervision • SLAs not applied to universities, IDA-funded bodies (e.g. campaign to retain 12.5% corporation tax) • Mechanistic view of service delivery •
Denies research, evaluation, reflection: anti-intellectual
• Ireland a European outlier (cf. EPIM) • Charity law interpretation penalizes new organizations
Prohibitive legislation ď&#x201A;&#x2014; You may not engage in, promote,
encourage or advocate the attaining of any political objective by violent means (s.31, Broadcasting Act, 1960) ď&#x201A;&#x2014; You must not use the grant to change law or government policies, or persuade people to adopt a view on law or public policy (SLA 2.8)
Suppression Principal example: closure Community Development
Programme (CDP)
Advocacy role had been diminished from 2002 Warnings issued following 2004 locals 14 closed in what appeared routine review Case studies: NICWN, ICRG, CTA [Kilbarrack CDP] Later, Dublin Inner City Partnership, CWC funding Story of policy unit confirms 2002 strategic turn
Belief of suppression does not make it so, but: Many of those closed were high profile Reasons were not given: process was underhand FOI’d documentation lost/did not exist
Suppression: media Some places more sensitive than others e.g. media Several case studies: Keeping advocacy in house (keeping it out of media) Prime Time (threat of retaliation) Losing the lottery grant (loss of funding several years) Citizen Traveller (closure of campaign)
These cases explored boundaries of what V&C could
say, or not Views were not in contention: issue was whether they should be in public domain (next)
Suppression: conferences Two case studies: Are we paying for that? Invitation delayed because title of conference was challenged You are paid to deliver a service, not to question Conclusions Absolutely explicit link of funding/advocacy Supremacy of ‘services-only’ doctrine Threat of dire consequences Actual outcome: ‘after this, we went quiet’ Ireland an outlier compared to NI, Europe
Suppression: publications, film Three case studies: Film Postcards: ‘are we spending money on this?’ The supplement Comments Again, a clear threat to pull funding Film issue followed comment on independent blog Clear instruction: cease and desist advocacy Increased monitoring followed State intervention successful
No more postcards, Sunday supplements Went back to safe pre-budget submissions
Some issues more sensitive than others Especial state sensitivities: Community development, childcare, development education, corruption Case studies: Centre for Public Inquiry, Patient rights,
Behave!
In latter case, govt withdrew funding for campaign activities,
told not to do so, had to pay from other sources, no basis for contesting decisions
Conclusions Assumption by govt that all advocacy is adversarial: ‘a whingeing crying lot, never happy’ Some state decisions appeared to be highly individualistic: some officials supportive, others ‘can ruin everything with a phone call’
Suppression: conclusions Boundary of permissible/impermissible never clear Issue was rarely, if ever, what V&C groups said, but that it
entered public domain. Is state response proportionate to ‘threat’ posed? Difficult to establish pattern of advocacy favoured or not favoured by state No evidence of favouring ‘quiet insiders’
No place for dialogue on these issues: ‘pointless’ Casualty of lack of VAUs proposed 2000 Instead, theatrics: ritual summons, reprimand, capitulation Two successful challenges: Patient rights, Prime Time
Overall conclusions (1) We can now constructive a narrative: Consequences of failure to implement Supporting voluntary activity, which was supposed to make relationship consistent, respectful Strategic turn, 2002 (policy unit) to alignment (2014) and ending of independent stream of community development Services paradigm, coinciding with HSE, 2002 Restriction of ‘charity’ following Charities Act. Disruption theory? Do V&C organizations destabilize governing environment Accusation of being ‘led by Europe’. UN in Geneva etc.
State actions demonstrate unpredictability, volatility,
erratic nature
Overall conclusions (2) Tolerance bar for disruption can be low CPI spoken of as a threat to the state State unable to consider radical, even mild critiques See The passion of St Tibulus (‘Careful now’)
No one quoted Supporting voluntary activity ‘Arguing was futile. Winning was costly. They only got annoyed if you tried to’ SLA 2.8 is ‘take-it-or-leave-it’ Promotes evasion, collusion, creative semantics, but
overall a chill effect
Role of public, civil service We have tended to focus on making our behaviour
acceptable to them, but are we looking in right place? This research encountered: At best, V& C seen as difficult people who had to be managed Their interventions seen as inappropriate At other extreme, extraordinary antagonism (‘bunch of trots’) Personalization, issues become personal conflicts
Issues should not depend on caprice, arbitrary antipathy Inconsistency illustrates: Lack of knowledge Lack of firewall personal & political views/public behaviour Lack of training
Way forward Place for structured dialogue Re-affirm Supporting voluntary activity Affirm value of engaged civil society (Funding dissent) Challenge bad practice Restrictions on advocacy, micromanagement,
authoritarianism, retaliations, threats, censorship
Name ‘services-only’ paradigm, SLA 2.8 as pernicious Because it chills, restrains advocacy Because it is bad for public administration Propose a Penny Wong amendment Propose code of guidance for consistent behaviour of
public administration, assisted by training
Concluding comments ď&#x201A;&#x2014; This research raises broader issues of civil society,
openness, quality of our democracy, still unresolved issued of state/voluntary and community organizations. ď&#x201A;&#x2014; Up to voluntary and community organizations to make a self-critical space to reflect on their situation, develop a narrative of events, come to terms with our fear of the state, develop strategies to survive, find ways to challenge inhibition or suppression and put forward practical proposals to create a more enlightened model of civil society in Ireland. ď&#x201A;&#x2014; Thank your for your attention!