Advocacy and education. (Comments).

Advocacy is a difficult issue for boards and administrators of voluntary health and social service organizations because it can put them into conflict with the laws that presently govern charities, and can place them in the midst of disturbing public controversy.

After consulting with many charitable organizations, the Institute for Media, Policy and Civil Society, IMPACS, put forward proposals for changes that would enable charities to spend more than the current limit (10% of budget) on advocacy and lobbying, without losing their charitable status. The study also calls for a broadened concept of educational activity by charitable groups that would enable them to take on serious societal issues. The report recognizes that charitable organizations that provide services to people in need have something to contribute to the development of law and public policy.

The law is only one factor, finances is another. Charitable organizations have limited capacity to engage in advocacy and lobbying because of staffing and resource limitations. Most community service agencies rarely use anywhere near 10% of their budget on advocacy. As most organizations contend with severe financial constraints, 10% takes too large a bite out of their budgets. Raising the allowable amounts would not necessarily avoid financial limitations.

Another constraint on advocacy by social agencies is government funding (federal, provincial and municipal). Most health agencies receive 60% or more of their budgets from these sources and social service agencies also receive substantial support from government.

When agencies undertake activities that aim at changing laws and policies, it maybe interpreted as criticism of politicians and government administrators. Agencies that engage in public advocacy may find as a result, that their funding is delayed or reduced.

It is understandable that in such circumstances, an agency may choose to tread very carefully. Some tread so carefully that their educational activities are limited to public ceremonies of thanksgiving and praise for the party in power. This might be called "positive reinforcement" for politicians, in hopes that a good deed will beget more good deeds, but we have our doubts.

Some agencies confine their advocacy activities to "quiet diplomacy," that is, private meetings with government ministers and their deputies in the hope that they will get better financing deals-for their organizations, and may also manage to get some policy and programs changed. This usually works for larger organizations that have influential members on their boards, and may benefit specific groups, however, it often avoids or delays public discussion on major issues requiring attention.

This brings us to the question of "education." The IMPACS study recommends that the currently vague definition of education should be broadened. Even in the current situation, education is a problem. Some organizations qualify for charitable status as research and education agencies. They finance and support the publication of papers and organize conferences around social issues. The groups involved include both progressive and ultra conservative organizations. The latter receive contributions from high income individuals and corporations whose major themes are the search for new and harsher ways to restrict welfare and other income security measures. They advocate the benefits of a two-tier health care system and demonstrate the blessings of fewer government services, and a less progressive tax system. All this falls under the rubric of "education."

Their donations are deductible from income tax. Expanding the education definition will enable these groups to enlarge their activities. This is a challenge.

Recognizing all the difficulties involved, we believe that the proposals put forward by IMPACS and the changes in the Income Tax Act and its regulations which they propose, should be supported. The people who maintain the charitable sector and provide direct services should be able to offer their opinions on public policy and programs that impact their clientele, and they should be listened to most carefully.

The charitable sector should be encouraged to enlarge its role in advocacy and education. They need help in developing an approach that enables them to take on controversial issues without damaging the integrity of their services. Otherwise, their efforts will be little more than band aids on much larger societal ills. It is a daunting task but tackling the major issues of the day is exhilarating and a tree expression of democracy.

-- L.K.