Brian Harvey, Advocacy Initiative, Dublin, 29th January

2014

brharvey@iol.ie

Purpose, method of researchObtain ground truth on way in which state:

Supports InhibitsSuppresses advocacy through the funding link

Context set in Funding dissent (2013)Request for case studies spring 2013

94 interviews, greatly exceeding expectations23 written communicationsSupervised by advisory committee

Case studies checked autumn (<4 times)All contributors asked to confirm, modify, agree textAnonymized in many instancesGiven opportunity to withdrawSome asked not to be identified

Nature of researchAttempts to bring together experience of

voluntary, community activists, coordinators, managers, informed observers

Some contributors on statutory sideTells V&C side of the storyThey are not triangulated with all players in

each story to reach agreed interpretation of events

Most are past 5-10 years, a few to 1990sWide range of contributors

Large, small organizations; national to community-based; many sectors; insiders, outsiders; role (service, representative); style of advocacy.

A simple questionDoes 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 negativeState inconsistent not only between its agencies,

but within themSome issues and places more sensitive than

othersThree particular problematics explored:

Service paradigmSLA template 2.8Redefinition 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 relationshipContinually having to ‘mend fences’

Ensuring advocacy funded elsewhere (I have your file here)

State indicating displeasure at advocacyState ‘showing who is boss’ (‘fearful respect’ of FAS)County council complaining Traveller advocacyDissuaded from bringing appeals up through the systemDeputies going to ministerComplaint 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 RomaDid 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 advocacyLegal effect to services paradigmEnforcement varies: examples of state colluding with

non-enforcement; also inconsistent (not supported by former NHS staff)

Some organizations challengedA defined chill effect: organizations on defensive,

have to be ready to prove advocacy funded elsewhereSee You are not as independent as you would like

to be‘Restricts you psychologically’Avoid major campaignsSome 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 legislationYou may not engage in, promote, encourage or advocate the attaining of any political objective by violent means (s.31, Broadcasting Act, 1960)

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)

SuppressionPrincipal example: closure Community

Development Programme (CDP)Advocacy role had been diminished from 2002Warnings issued following 2004 locals14 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 profileReasons were not given: process was underhandFOI’d documentation lost/did not exist

Suppression: mediaSome places more sensitive than others e.g.

mediaSeveral 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: conferencesTwo 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

ConclusionsAbsolutely explicit link of funding/advocacySupremacy of ‘services-only’ doctrineThreat of dire consequencesActual outcome: ‘after this, we went quiet’Ireland an outlier compared to NI, Europe

Suppression: publications, filmThree case studies:

FilmPostcards: ‘are we spending money on this?’The supplement

CommentsAgain, a clear threat to pull fundingFilm issue followed comment on independent blogClear instruction: cease and desist advocacyIncreased monitoring followedState 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

ConclusionsAssumption 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: conclusionsBoundary of permissible/impermissible never clearIssue 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 stateNo evidence of favouring ‘quiet insiders’

No place for dialogue on these issues: ‘pointless’Casualty of lack of VAUs proposed 2000Instead, theatrics: ritual summons, reprimand,

capitulationTwo 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, 2002Restriction of ‘charity’ following Charities Act.

Disruption theory?Do V&C organizations destabilize governing environmentAccusation 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 stateState unable to consider radical, even mild

critiquesSee 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 serviceWe 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 managedTheir interventions seen as inappropriateAt other extreme, extraordinary antagonism (‘bunch of trots’)Personalization, issues become personal conflicts

Issues should not depend on caprice, arbitrary antipathy

Inconsistency illustrates:Lack of knowledgeLack of firewall personal & political views/public

behaviourLack of training

Way forwardPlace for structured dialogueRe-affirm Supporting voluntary activityAffirm 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 perniciousBecause it chills, restrains advocacyBecause it is bad for public administration

Propose a Penny Wong amendmentPropose code of guidance for consistent behaviour of

public administration, assisted by training

Concluding commentsThis research raises broader issues of civil society,

openness, quality of our democracy, still unresolved issued of state/voluntary and community organizations.

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.

Thank your for your attention!