Voluntary Sector Public Policy Toolbox

Part II: Voluntary Sector-Directed Input

	Key Questions to Ask Yourself What is the change we are looking for? Who benefits from the change? Who loses from the change? Why are the benefits worth more than the costs? Who has the power to make that change? Who has influence over the individuals and the body that has the power to make the change? Who are "we"? Who do we represent? Who else is concerned about this? How can we work together?

In Part I on Policy Making in Canada, we noted that there are two kinds of input opportunities: those like the ones described in Part I that originate with government, and those that originate with the voluntary sector. When the topic of most concern to you isn't on the government's radar screen at all, it may become necessary for you to get it there. In fact, the government often relies on voluntary organizations to bring issues to its attention. Getting on the government agenda needs careful planning, good research, much reaching out to the public, and considerable patience. Other parts of this toolbox deal with making your point effectively and working collaboratively. Here, we'll concentrate on the keys necessary to be heard and be listened to.

Strategy Development:
Key Questions for Developing a Government Relations/Public Input Strategy
(Adapted from: Advocacy Basics: Building Global Capacity for NGO Policy Advocacy Training. Check the Advocacy pages of this toolbox for more information.)

	For more information click here.

One of the most common confusions in the development of strategy is the difference between "strategy" and "tactics." Tactics are specific actions – circulating petitions, writing letters, and staging a protest – that are the building blocks of advocacy. Strategy is something larger, an overall map that guides the use of these tools toward clear goals. Strategy is a hard-nosed assessment of where you are, where you want to go, and how you can get there. At its heart, effective strategy is rooted in nine key questions:

Looking Outward

OBJECTIVES: What do you want?

Any effort to contribute to and influence public policy must begin with a sense of its goals. Among these goals some distinctions are important. What are the long-term goals and what are the short-term goals? What are the content goals (e.g. policy change) and what are the process goals (e.g. building community among participants)? These goals need to be defined at the start, in a way that can launch an effort, draw people to it, and sustain it over time.

AUDIENCES: What can give it to you?

Who are the people and institutions you need to move? This includes those who have the actual formal authority to deliver the goods (i.e. legislators). This also includes those who have the capacity to influence those with formal authority (i.e. the media and key constituencies, both allied and opposed). In both cases, an effective effort to influence policy requires a clear sense of who these audiences are and what access or pressure points are available to move them.

MESSAGE: What do they want to hear?

Reaching these different audiences requires crafting and framing a set of messages that will be persuasive. Although these messages must always be rooted in the same basic truth, they also need to be tailored differently to different audiences depending on what they are ready to hear. In most cases, effective messages will have two basic components: an appeal to what is right and an appeal to the audience's self-interest.

MESSENGERS: Whom do they need to hear it from?

The same message has a very different impact depending on who communicates it. Who are the most credible messengers for different audiences? In some cases, these messengers are "experts" whose credibility is largely technical. In other cases, we need to engage the "authentic voices" who can speak from personal experience. What do we need to do to equip these messengers, both in terms of information and to increase their comfort level as advocates?

DELIVERY: How can we get them to hear it?

There is a wide continuum of ways to deliver an effective message. These range from the genteel (e.g. a petition) to the in-your-face (e.g. direct action). The most effective means varies from situation to situation. The key is to evaluate them and apply them appropriately, weaving them together in a winning mix. Remember ­ don't assume that the government doesn¹t want to hear from you. Before you storm the gates, try ringing the doorbell to see if you can come in to talk.

return to top

Looking Inward

RESOURCES: What have we got?

An effective policy effort takes careful stock of the resources that are already there to be built on. This includes past successes in public policy processes, alliances already in place, staff and other people's capacity, information and political intelligence. In short, you don't start from scratch, you start from building on what you've got.

GAPS: What do we need to develop?

After taking stock of the resources you have, the next step is to identify the resources you need that aren't there yet. This means looking at alliances that need to be built, and capacities such as outreach, media, and research, which are crucial to any effort.

FIRST EFFORTS: How do we begin?

What would be an effective way to begin to move the strategy forward? What are some potential short term goals or projects that would bring the right people together, symbolize the larger work ahead and create something achievable that lays the groundwork for the next step?

EVALUATION: How do we tell if it's working?

As with any long journey, the course needs to be checked along the way. Strategy needs to be evaluated revisiting each of the questions above (i.e. are we aiming at the right audiences, are we reaching them, etc.) It is important to be able to make mid-course corrections and to discard those elements of a strategy that don't work once they are actually put into practice.

Working Collaboratively

Definition

In a review of the research written by Paul Mattessich (Mattessich, Paul W. (1992). Collaboration: What Makes it Work. St. Paul MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation), and published in 1992, collaboration was defined "as a mutually beneficial and well-defined relationship entered into by two or more organizations to achieve common goals.

The relationship includes a commitment to: a definition of the mutual relationships and goals; a jointly developed structure and shared responsibility; mutual authority and accountability for success; and sharing of resources and rewards."

The key to this definition is "sharing". Collaboration differs from co-operation in the level of shared policy development and resource allocation, as well as in the shared provision of service. Collaborative efforts blend the goals, policies, practices, and resources of two or more organizations in providing defined services to a defined group or community.

The National Network for Collaboration (Bergstrom, Arno et al. (1995). Collaboration Framework‹Addressing Community Capacity. National Network for Collaboration )has developed a framework into which various levels of collaboration fit. It provides a useful way of understanding the structure and organizational implications of different levels of activity. Based on this framework, most of the Canadian examples reviewed in this analysis are operating at the co-ordination and co-operation levels. A number of the U.S. examples operate at the collaborative level.

return to top

Collaboration: What Works?

After going through several thousand pages of material, many of the following factors appear to be present in those communities where best practices in collaborative service provision are occurring.

• They exhibit a creative use of funding. Either the funders themselves use their resources creatively, or the providers massage the funding to meet their objectives. Where a significant amount of collaboration exists, traditional attitudes towards funding are overcome and the dollars that are available are used collectively.
• The funders, when they take the lead, see themselves as enablers, not monitors. They focus on outcomes, not money management. This appears to be one of the keys to successful collaboration. Funders who support collaboration are more interested in results than in accounting for each budget line.
• Most initiatives combine funding from government‹often more than one level‹with non-profit funders and often private sources. Few efforts were funded by only one source. Combining funding sources sometimes required some creative interpretation on the part of the service delivering agencies (and occasionally on the part of the funders themselves).
• Providers see their services as outcome-centred, not problem-centred. They are often preventative rather than coming into play only when problems are serious. These providers seem to have recognized that they must stem the flow of need upstream rather than waiting for crises to develop downstream. Often they take treatment dollars and stretch their meaning in order to provide preventative services. Bruner (From: Bruner, C. et al. (1992). What Does Research Say About Interagency Collaboration?. Oak Brook: NCREL) presents these 10 rules for effective collaborative service provision:

Involve all key players

Commitment to change must be broad-based and should include the participation of not only those with the power to negotiate change, but representatives from those whose lives will be affected.

Choose a realistic strategy

Partners need to choose a strategy that reflects the priorities of service providers, the public, and key policymakers, the availability of resources, and local needs.

Establish a shared vision

Co-operative ventures are based on recognition of shared clients. Collaborative partnerships must create a shared vision of better outcomes for those they serve.

Agree to disagree in the process

Participants need to establish a communication process that gives them permission to disagree and uses conflict resolution as a constructive means of moving forward.

Make promises you can keep

Setting attainable objectives, especially in the beginning, is necessary to create momentum and a sense of accomplishment.

Keep your eyes on the prize

It is easy for collaborative initiatives to become so bogged down in the difficulty of day-to-day operations and disagreements that they lose sight of the forest for the trees. We are striving for better outcomes and more successful futures for the people we serve.

Build ownership at all levels

The commitment to change must extend throughout the organizational structure of each participating agency. In-service staff training should allow staff time to air feelings about proposed changes and to predict resulting outcomes of the changes.

Avoid "red herrings"

Partners should not let "technical difficulties" impede the development of a shared vision. Most differences usually result from misunderstandings or from policies that can be changed or otherwise accommodated. They should not be allowed to become convenient excuses for partners not fully committed to working together.

Institutionlize change

Participants must incorporate partnership objectives into their own institutional mandates and budgets, and earmark the permanent flow of adequate resources to keep joint efforts going.

Publicize your success

	For more information, click here.

Interagency partnerships are a promising conduit for the large-scale creation and delivery of comprehensive services to children and families. Well-publicized results that consistently meet reasonable objectives will go far to attract the funding necessary to replicate and expand innovation.

return to top

Public Participation Processes

	For more resources on working with the media, click here.

Good public policy development is usually built through a process of community-wide consensus building ­ whether the community is a neighbourhood, municipality, province, or nation. The tables below offer some best practice suggestions for building both passive and active public participation processes into your policy development undertaking.

Passive Public Information Techniques

(Based on information prepared by the International Association for Public Participation. Used with Permission. For more information: www.iap2.org)

return to top

Active Public Information Techniques

return to top

Charity or Non-Profit?

Although all charities are non-profits, not all non-profits are charities, and the legal differences between the two can have considerable impact on an organization's capacity for active public policy input. If you are forming a new organization that will be actively involved in encouraging government to act in a particular way, careful consideration should be given to the legal form of the organization. Being a registered charity makes it easer to raise funds because of the tax advantages of charitable receipts. However being non-profit non-charitable allows the organization to devote more of its resources to influencing government. The article below was written by Miller Thomson LLP.

Charitable and Non-Profit Organizations: What is the difference?

Charitable and non-profit organizations share many characteristics. They are non-profit and direct their resources to furthering their objects. There are however critical differences between a non-profit organization (NPO) and a charitable organization. NPOs do not have the right to be registered under the Income Tax Act (Canada) (the ITA) with the Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) as registered charities. The ITA recognizes two categories of charities eligible for exemption from income taxation and issuance of charitable receipts: a charitable organization and a charitable foundation.

NPOs are not entitled to issue receipts for donations received by them, whereas charities, if registered, are permitted to issue receipts for income tax purposes. A tax credit, up to a maximum allowable credit, may be claimed by individuals in respect of their charitable donations. A tax deduction, also subject to a limit, may be deducted by a corporation in respect of its charitable donations. The ITA treats donations from individuals differently than donations from corporations.

A charity is not required to register with Revenue Canada as a "registered charity." There are, however, a number of advantages to registration. These advantages are as follows:

1. the organization may issue tax receipts;
2. the organization is exempt from taxation;
3. the organization may more readily qualify for other benefits

Some of the disadvantages of registration include the following:

1. the organization must devote all of its resources to its charitable activities;
2. the organization must make annual filings with CCRA;
3. none of the property of the organization may be distributed to the members on dissolution or winding up of the organization.

Registered charities are automatically exempt from tax on their income.

An NPO may be exempt from the payment of tax on its income if the following conditions are met:

1. it must not, in the opinion of the Minister, be a charity;
2. it must be organized exclusively for social welfare, civic improvement, pleasure, recreation or any other purpose except profit;
3. it must in fact be operated exclusively for one of the purposes mentioned in (b); and
4. no part of its income may be paid, payable or otherwise made available for the personal benefit of any proprietor, member or shareholder.

NPOs may, however, be subject to tax on their property income and on certain taxable capital gains.

An NPO is not required to file an information return under the ITA unless it has certain types of income, such as:

1. if it receives more than $10,000 in interest, rentals or royalties;
2. if it has more than $200,000 in assets at the end of the preceding fiscal year; or
3. if it has filed an information return in a preceding fiscal year.

Registered charities must, within six months after the charity's fiscal period, file a Registered Charity Information Return and Public Information Return with applicable schedule.

This article first appeared in the Miller Thomson LLP Charities and Not for Profit Newsletter, Winter 2001.

return to top

Charitable and Non-Profit Organizations: What is the difference?

	For more information on charities and political activity prepared by IMPACS, click here.

Many people believe that charities cannot become involved in political activity, and in the most literal interpretation of political activity ­ working for or against a political candidate or party ­ they are right. But the Income Tax Act (there is no charities act) does provide some guidance. In section 149.1(6.2) it states:

For the purposes of the definition "charitable organization" in subsection (1), where an organization devotes substantially all of its resources to charitable activities carried on by it and

1. it devotes part of its resources to political activities,
2. those political activities are ancillary and incidental to its charitable activities, and
3. those political activities do not include direct support of, or opposition to, any political party or candidate for public office,

the organization shall be considered to be devoting that part of its resources to charitable activities carried on by it.

This, of course, leads one to ask just what "substantially all" means in the context of the Act. In its administrative role, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (formerly Revenue Canada) interprets the Act in determining whether to grant charitable status for an organization, or in fact, to remove that status from an existing charity. It is CCRA's role to decide which non-partisan activities fall into the political activity realm and which don't.

In order to be of assistance, CCRA has published an interpretation bulletin, sections of which are provided below. For the complete bulletin, go to: http://www.ccra-adrc.gc.ca/E/pub/tp/871et/871e.txt.html

In summary, it provides for the following:

First, partisan politics is forbidden. A second category of political activity will be deemed to be charitable by CCRA. These are:

1. oral and written representations to the relevant elected representatives or a public servant to present the charity's views or to provide factual information;
2. oral and written presentations or briefs containing factual information and recommendations to the relevant government bodies, commissions, or committees; and
3. the provision of information and the expression of non-partisan views to the media.

A third category consists of "political activities allowed within expenditure limits." These activities are not considered to be charitable themselves, but are allowed by CCRA as long as they occur within the expenditure limits set out by CCRA. This is where the "substantially all" clause becomes important. CCRA believes that "substantially all" means that 90% or more of a charity's resources must be spent on charitable activities. This leaves only up to 10% "of all the financial and physical assets of the charity as well as the services provided by his human resources" is the maximum that a charity can spend on "permitted political activity".

Finally, charities that re-classify their political activity as "education" must realize that education, in the CCRA sense, must be balanced, non-partisan, must not promote a particular point of view, nor try to be persuasive.

Recommend a link. Recommend an online report. We'll take the best recommendations and add them to the site every month. Send them to info@ginsler.com subject: toolbox recommendations.

return to top