Social justice through service provision and advocacy

Dr Sandra Grey and Dr Charles SedgwickSocial Justice in Communities Conference

23-24 October 2014

sandra.grey@vuw.ac.nzcharlespsedgwick@gmail.com

The sector and democratic debate

Our questionHow is democracy – as measured by the involvement

of the community and voluntary sector in public debate and policy making – faring?

The sector and democratic debate

• Comparing data from two surveys conducted in 2008/09 and 2013/14

• Quantitative and qualitative analysis447 and 597 participant statements for first and second surveys respectively

• 93 participants from around New Zealand

None 27

1 to 2 21

3 to 10 20

11 to 19 7

20 to 50 6

100-300 10

900 1

Blank 1

Full time staff as at 2013-14

Field of provisionTotal number of

respondents per field of provision

Percentage of total respondents

Distribution of paid staff in social service nonprofits by field,

2004 (%)* Advocacy 21 22.6 2.9Education 4 4.3 27.5Health 14 15.1 20.3Housing 2 2.2 5.8Philanthropic 1 1.1 1Social service 51 54.8 43.5Total 93 100

* Adapted from The New Zealand non-profit sector in comparative perspective (p.16) J. Sanders, M. O’Brien, M. Tennant, S.W. Sokolowski & L. M. Salamon, 2008. Wellington: Office the Community and Voluntary Sector.

The sector and democratic debate

2008-09 2013-14Yes 80 79No 16 22N/A 4 0TOTAL 100 100

Have you been involved in government consultation processes over the last term of government?

Attitudes of governments to debate, 1999 to 2013

“Debate is tolerated”

[Under Labour] There was not a great fear that speaking out … would be “punished” by for example loss of contracts. However there was not a total encouragement of debate either, e.g. all the fuss about “advocacy” in 2005.

[Under National] There always seems to be a subtext of ‘already made our minds up but we will listen to appear like ‘the good guys’.

“It’s getting harder to challenge”

No Change Negative Change Positive Change

Advocacy 33% 48% 14% Education 25% 50% 25% Health 29% 64% 7% Housing 50% 50% 0% Philanthropic 100% 0% 0% Social Services 27% 61% 12% Total 30% 57% 12%

Dissenting organisations are valued

20008-09 2013-14Strongly disagree 5 22

Disagree 47 55

Agree 27 15

Strongly agree 1 1

Blank 14 5

N/A 5 2

Total 100 100

Dissenting organisations are valued

[Under National] This particular government does not seem to listen or take into consideration any conflicting opinion or EVIDENCE contrary to its outlook…If they continue to “high handedly” proceed with actions and policies without REAL consultation or regard to social or environmental consequences it will be a big turn off & people become disengaged with our democratic system.

Getting key concerns heard

Labour-led Government 1999-2008

National-led Government 2008-2013

Not successful at all 4 38Moderately successful 68 53Highly successful 23 3

Getting key concerns heard?

Change driven by Ministers who listen to vested interests of industry too much. Public servants follow orders – do not/are not able to act as advisors.

[Our influence has been] more in implementation than in major policy topics – e.g. MSD funding processes – we have influenced decisions about changed processes. Review of incorporated societies / Development of accounting stats.

Contracts that constrain

Gag clauses• 12.9% of the 2008/09 respondents • 25.8% of the 2013/14 respondents.

[It’s] contractual. Must seek departmental sign-off before speaking up about the contract, the contract negotiations, or the work.

We are not allowed [to make] public criticism.

Dissenters risk their funding

2008-09 2013-14

Strongly disagree 7 1

Disagree 32 27

Agree 42 40

Strongly agree 5 18

Left Blank 11 8

N/A 3 7

Total 100 100

Dissenters risk their funding

…removed from appointments/committees after media article critical of government policy (unrelated to [the] committee). Funding not renewed after criticising.

Government actually threatened to immediately cease funding us if we proceeded with a discussion document with the purpose of establishing some shared understanding between all Social Service Agencies.

… we are very cautious about what we say publicly as we cannot afford to lose our funding.

Lack of space and respect

Government pushes too many things through under urgency – denying proper process.

Poor facilitation of reference group. Obfuscation, delays in documentation. Less frequent meetings than expected. Broken promises from officials.

Funding from MOH, MSD, is based on no negotiation ... Take it or leave it, our way or no way.

Consultation was: “this is what we require – how will you measure.”

Lack of resources

NGOs are being requested to take more responsibility and give “more for less.”

NGOs used to refer clients to Government Department’s now it is the opposite. Government policies are not well thought through and NGOs are left to pick up the pieces.

Lack of certainty

NGO’s suffer from uncertainty over their future because of short term funding model used / Excessive resources involved in seeking & maintaining funding / by economic necessity focus on short term project work rather than long term change.

The bigger picture

2008-09 2013-14

Agree 70 42

Attitudes to democracy in New Zealand encouraged

public debate

2008-09 2013-14

Disagree 46 47

Agree 38 41

The New Zealand media provided a forum for a

range of perspectives in public policy debates

What does it all mean?

Democracy is constantly being undermined and decisions are being manipulated/negotiated behind closed doors by key power-holders. There is a climate of intimidation and management so that ministers only hear “good news” as far as possible… There is also a narrow focus on short term measured targets at the expense of other health measures that are as important.

What does it all mean?

• Intolerable and untenable environment • Plagued with contradictions which damage the

sector

Where to?

• Work out core messages for engagement • Make demands and define yourselves• Seek a review of the Charities Act• Seek to change what is ‘counted’• Public support crucial