MPs and ministers are media savvy characters, seemingly incapable of letting a good photo opportunity pass them by. Media management and vote winning are inextricably linked in 21st century politics so, increasingly, charities have found themselves drawn into the fold.

But how far is political involvement with the third sector just another example of vote hunting?

Earlier this year, minister for the third sector Ed Miliband pledged almost £1.5 million to support the UK Scout Association, which is hosting a world jamboree in Chelmsford this summer to mark the charity’s centenary.

This is an important celebration indeed, but also a very popular one. Could this account for the government’s interest in putting such a large figure behind one charitable event?

Margaret Ounsley, head of public affairs at WWF, believes that decisions around involvement with charities, from a simple expression of support to MPs giving their time to volunteer, can represent another way of contacting the electorate. “There is a certain amount of populism and cynical electioneering there,” she says. “But to a certain extent I don’t think it really matters. The point is that all political parties now recognise that the voluntary sector is a large part of public life.”

WWF is also a recipient of large sums of tax payers’ cash. Ounsley says there will be no concern about the size of the sum pledged, but it could be questioned “whether or not it’s appropriate for what’s essentially a big party”. “Will it be questioned within the third sector? Possibly. Publicly? Quite possibly,” she warns.

Tony Blair’s former PR guru Alistair Campbell was famously criticised for making political mileage out of his voluntary work with charities fighting for leukaemia sufferers. But some, Ounsley included, are less cynical about such efforts.

“Quite often when you look into the support that MPs give to charities you find that there is something in their personal lives [that drives it],” she says. “Most of them get into public life because they care so very strongly about certain issues.” After all, she says, MPs and their henchmen could often earn a significantly higher salary using their skills in the private sector. And when it comes to funding decisions for third sector organisations, the majority of the electorate are unaware of the winners and losers in the race for government cash. “I can’t imagine it’s done for the popularity,” Ounsley says.

But this does not mean the government’s involvement with the voluntary sector is solely motivated by altruism. Ounsley fears we are beginning to foster a “give them the money and let them get on with it” attitude towards the role of the third sector. “I think the government does it for very hard-nosed reasons, not because they like this charity and give,” she adds.

“Labour has moved its position quite radically on this. Twenty years ago they felt very strongly that the state should be the providers of all services and eschewed the voluntary sector. They’re now recognising that we can’t do without it, and it’s a helpful part of a healthy society.”

A politician devoting their personal time to a charity by volunteering is undoubtedly an easy way to attract media coverage and voter attention. Mark Restall, head of information at Volunteering England, admits that this happens, but says the onus is on the charity to make the best out of the experience. “I’m sure there is a mixture of some MPs doing it because they’re absolutely committed to the cause, and some doing it with one eye on the publicity,” he says. “It’s up to the organisation to get something out of it so they’re not just being used for the publicity, but use that publicity for themselves.

Top

Volunteering England recognises that it provides a service to politicians and that the service is often two-way. “There is a lot of general use of the voluntary sector as a resource by MPs. We have had MPs’ researchers call us up to find out some of the details around benefits issues, for example.”

Restall, however, suggests the motivation behind working with charities is in fact a desire to be seen to be keeping up with the political agenda, rather than a direct attempt to win votes. “It’s more a case of the flavour of the month,” he says. “There are certain areas, such as volunteering, that get focused on. There are definitely areas that fall out of favour.”

Restall says the current trend is to support youth volunteering. “I think there are some concerns there about other age groups – does that mean that there is going to be more of a focus on young people volunteering, and rejecting them when they move out of those age brackets? I think it’s something that needs to be taken into account.”

If the funding for the UK Scout Association is an attempt to support a major public charitable event that will bind world communities, then are smaller, local charities losing out as a result? Kevin Curley, chief executive of NAVCA, thinks not. He believes the funding is not simply a public gesture, but a strategic decision taken in the light of the Cabinet Office approach to get more young people volunteering and encouraging them to engage with community issues where they live.

“This is a major volunteering organisation,” Curley stresses. He maintains that other charities have not lost out, and the funding for the Scouts is being put to good use. “I’m pretty sure that the minister will want this world jamboree, this international event, to be a great success and if it is it will result in more young people joining the Scouts, more adults volunteering to become leaders, and both of those things are extremely good for cohesion in our society. So it looks to me like a very reasonable price to pay.”

The NCVO also acknowledges the emergence of trends in government funding decisions. “The Scouts do a fantastic job and deserve to be funded, but so do other less popular causes,” a spokesperson said.

But NAVCA’s Curley warns that if the government is to be seen financially supporting a major international event, the funding should come with some important conditions. “My only reservation is that we would like to see at a major international event of this sort, which is involving more people than the Olympics, the government representing the diversity of English communities,” he says. “We would be very disappointed if the representation was mostly white children, because it’s really important to demonstrate inclusive good practice in this type of major event where there is a world spotlight on it.”

NAVCA itself is required to have a diversity strategy, and to be able to demonstrate that it has a diverse membership. “We would hope that they [the Scout Association] should and could do the same thing,” Curley says.

It is inevitable that government funding – taxpayers’ money – will be distributed with one eye on the political ball. Dana Hovig, chief executive of Marie Stopes International, laments the politicisation of international aid and charitable support at home. He says that here in the UK funding decisions are likely to be taken, at least partly, with politics in mind. “I’m sure it’s value driven, but I also imagine it’s got political,” he says. “When it’s overly politicised it’s a problem.”

The simple solution is to have an extremely transparent procedure for state funding allocations to the third sector. But even this is fraught with problems. Hovig emphasises the need for flexibility in the system, fearing an EU-style bureaucratic nightmare. “The one thing I would want to say is that I think procurement and these sorts of awards need to be transparent, but I don’t want to see the world go to a place where you’re tied up in knots,” he says.

Hovig, himself American, says there are things we can learn from the US to help patch up the gaps in funding for unpopular causes, especially those that fail to win votes. He would favour an overhaul of the tax system encouraging philanthropy and major donor gifts.

“The UK is outstanding in terms of individual giving. Where the UK is less good is in terms of philanthropy,” Hovig observes. The US tax system, in contrast, supports large gifts. “That’s what I’d like to see here. A philanthropist who sees the need and the opportunity to make a difference will take the risk. I think that would be important.”

In effect, overhauling the tax system could help to eliminate the politics of favouritism from the distribution of funding across the third sector. Organisations providing support for HIV and Aids sufferers, or a safe needle exchange for drug users, can be among the first to lose out in the popularity contest.

Hovig is clear about the charities that would benefit most from such a change: “Those issues that are not very sexy, and yet make a big impact in other people’s lives.” The question is, would a change in tax laws be politically popular enough to make it on to the government’s agenda?

What the government says:

“The World Scout Jamboree takes place every four years, it is usual for the government of the host nation to contribute to the event,” says a Cabinet Office spokesperson. “In allocated public resources the government is advised by a politically impartial civil service and is subject to rigorous scrutiny. Ministers observe a code of conduct that clearly states such decisions must be made on merit and in the public interest. Government spending is audited by the National Audit Office and ultimately held to account by Parliament.”

Top