Get real on volunteering

New research from the third sector research centre comes at an opportune moment. Governments of all colours like to talk in a romantic and hazy way about citizenship and us all "doing more", helping our neighbours etc.

Indeed at the moment the Government are working on a top down, centrally driven programme "community organisers", to encourage more people to volunteer in communities (ignoring community organisations as it does so, and with Councils cutting their support: crazy world we live in eh!)

The new research shows,

"policies to engage people in community action need to be informed by a more sophisticated understanding of how and why community organisations operate. People primarily take part in community action for very personal reasons rather than from a sense of civic duty, and the research questions whether this can be co-opted to deliver particular policy objectives. Voluntary action for many is about social needs, ‘fun’, doing something different to the ‘day job’ or taking action about something that directly affects them, their families or community.

The research team found that there were major concerns among organisations involved in this activity that the Big Society agenda would create greater inequalities, by favouring strong communities with the resources, skills and knowledge to engage. The research identifies a need for policy to be informed by a much stronger analysis of power relations within and between communities and the state.

Where Governments have been successful at directly motivating people to act, anger has also played a major role. This can be seen in the establishment of the Countryside Alliance, the anti-Iraq war demonstrations, anti-globalisation actions at the G8 and G20 Summits and recent demonstrations against increased tuition fees. Yet this has received very little attention in ‘Big Society’ debate."

I had a meeting yesterday at DCLG of the Sector Advisory Board. The Minister was down to attend, but too busy. A surreal moment when we were waiting in the lobby to be ushered up by a civil servant (they don't want you wandering the building looking for leaks!). A civil servant appeared and was calling for the "aspiring communities group". She looked at me. I said, "No, no, we are the expiring communities ".

I made clear to the meeting of officials the anger there is in the sector about uninformed, senseless cuts. I made the point that despite Coalition agreements on fairness these cuts were clearly hitting disadvantaged communities more severely. I said it was time for a direction from the Department. Ministers speeches are not enough. Nudge is clearly not working. I'm afraid the civil servants seemed to think that demonstrates the value of good practise will shame others into behaviour change.

Of course with my decades experience of Local Government from the inside I know this is not going to work in time.

The capacity and infrastructure of third sector and community bodies takes time to build but moments to destroy. We will pay a big price in the country for the axe being wielded over our sector. It's our beneficiaries who suffer. And they are.

Don't you dare!

A shocking story in the Sunday Times which suggests that the Government have reviewed the contract of Dame Suzi Leather because of her outspoken comments on issues like public schools and the cuts. The report says,

"She should be given some time to prove she can work constructively with us," said a Government source. "But her appointment is in the gift of the Secretary of State. He can terminate it. We want to see a different approach at the Charity Commission and an end to the politically motivated statements."

Well, just you dare. Suzi has the confidence of the sector. We applaud her for speaking about how cuts are damaging charities. That is her job. She is not a Government stooge. The idea that the appointment of the Chair of the Charity Commission should be dependent on the political whims of a Government Minister is disgraceful.


I shall be seeing Francis Maude and Nick Hurd later and shall ask for a denial. We need to beware. As things start getting nastier we can expect more attacks from unnamed sources. The snide remarks about big charities are but a start. But members will always be able to rely on ACEVO to speak out. Any members who have any pressure applied should contact me. I'll be watching this one carefully.

Robert Halfon, Douglas, Nick and Lambeth...

Well, Robert Halfon MP turns out to be not quite the caricature I had imagined from my reading of the PASC hearing. I go to met him at The Commons to talk through the issues and we had a good exchange of views. He is clearly someone who has a strong interest and commitment in our sector. He was upset that I had misattributed a view to him that charities campaign and "don't do a lot". He was right that I had misquoted him so I said my Blog would put the record straight - important as my Blog is becoming the official record of events in our dear sector.

We had a good discussion on accountability. He said that if charities campaign and spend large amounts on advertising (a practise I strongly defended) then this should be very clear in their accounts and reports. I think this is right. We are sometimes a little coy on such matters. Trying to hide our administrative costs in case the,"I want every penny of my pound spent on starving babies" brigade complain. We should be upfront and clear about what we spend and WHY. Otherwise we will never convince people that volunteering is not a free good, or that medical aid arrives in Africa at the wave of a CEO's magical wand. It was good to have an interchange and I was pleased he got in touch. It is crucial we debate these issues and expose them to scrutiny.

I went from Robert to listen to that wonderful old statesman Douglas Hurd, once my MP and now a Lord. He was talking on Lords reform and its historical context. An evolutionary approach which preserves the practise of putting people with wisdom and experience into the second chamber. Hear hear I say in an obviously disinterested way. As David said, it was a bit like an induction session.....

David Fielding, the headhunter never at a loss for opportunities to network, had taken me to this event, the Mile End Club organised by St Mary's College and Chaired by Peter (now Lord) Hennessey.

Amusingly, over drinks with Hurd senior afterwards my phone rings and it is Hurd junior. I tell Pa that son is making a good fist at the sector job and has won many friends. Now all he needs to do is stop the cuts.

Yesterday was the sector appearance before the Bill Committee of the Commons on the Localism bill. The two sector knights doing battle on the side of righteousness and supported by our good friend Neil Cleeveley from NAVCA. I like MPs, they are a good bunch, united in their desire to better the country. I don't buy into the "they're corrupt and useless" lobby. But they do sometimes need a spot of education. That's what they got from us. I have to admit I enjoyed the session. I've never been one to be overawed by the majesty of Parliament and meekly submissive at Committees. My tip to anyone appearing at a Select Committee etc is; enjoy it. You know more than them. Stand no nonsense. One MP who suggested that it was bad that Councils were having to sack Council staff working in community development. I suggested that actually we need people working in third sector organisations not in Town Halls. And we can often deliver services more cost effectively and closer to communities

I'm now blogging from Coin Street, where the Lambeth Co- operative Commission final report is being launched. Entitled,"The Co-operative Council; sharing power; a new settlement between citizens and the State."

In a real sense this is a report that embodies the principle of the Localism Bill. A partnership approach between a local authority and the citizen and community. Empowering the third sector to act and deliver and, crucially to represent the voiceless and powerless and protect the vulnerable.

And when I finish here I'm off to lunch with Sir Stuart. Good food and wine and sorting the sector....then it's the weekend.

More Attacks on charity!

What is going on? Another attack on charities in The Times Letter column, this time from a Conservative MEP, Syed Kamall. This is beginning to look like a concerted campaign to attack the charity sector for daring to speak out about cuts.

The letter is headed "Charity Quangos". It makes the ludicrous claim that, "a number of charities have become clients of the State, little more than quangos running publicity campaigns, rather than agents of change."

Anyone who actually knows the work of the big charities delivering key services knows this is nonsense. In fact great charities like Action for Children, Barnardo's, the Children's Society, Turning Point, Tomorrow's People, St Giles Trust, Addaction... the list goes on, have been responsible for major advances and innovation in delivering public services. Mental health charities, largely funded through contract work by Health Authorities and Councils, have revolutionised our treatment in tackling mental illness. The disability charities have pioneered better ways to support and treat disability. The list of charity innovation is long and splendid. It is right the State has supported this, often because it has been more cost effective.

And anyone who knows the Chief Executives of these charities knows they are no gutless quangocrats.

That is why Messrs Lansley, Ken Clarke, Greg Clark, Ian Duncan Smith, Michael Gove, for example, are seeking a major expansion of delivery of State funded services by charities. So is Mr Kamall telling his Conservative colleagues they are wrong? Is he saying they should be withdrawing contracts from these charities? Does he want them to provide less? Not take up the challenge of the Prime Minister to help reform public services by more contracts for delivery?

Is he worried that Capita and Serco are now also quangos because they get something like 90% of their funding from the State?

But what is chilling about this letter is what it reveals about some politicians views that Big Society is in fact about the withdrawal of State funding. In reality, turning back the clock to providing key welfare services by private philanthropy rather than through taxation. Whilst the Prime Minister has been explicit in his view that Big Society is not about the State withdrawing, this is not the view of Mr Kamall.

He says, "the attacks on Big Society from some charity leaders... (perhaps he means me though if he does he has clearly not actually read what I have said!).. stem from their unwillingness to accept greater responsibility without money from the State in return."

So presumably charities being urged to provide a major expansion of support for rehabilitation to cut the prison population should be bidding for the contracts for free? Or charities wanting to run DWP work programme should do so on the basis they don't want any money but will go and fund raise,(though obviously the private firms, or private quangos as we must call them bidding will get paid.)

So Mr Kamall believes that, "the point of the Big Society is that the State should not be the primary agent, nor a funder of change. A smaller State should leave space for voluntary action and social co-operation to tackle problems that affect communities. Many charities need to be weaned off State dependency".

Is the mask slipping? Back to Victorian philanthropy. Our welfare services now to be provided through private donations, not the taxpayer. Meals on wheels provided only in areas where the charity is able to fund raise.

The logic of this argument is obvious; much of the work of our great national charities would cease. Hospices would close. Work with the jobless cut. The mentally ill left in communities unsupported. All these services run on contract for the State.

The truth is that the MPs who seem to delight in attacking charities are unlikely to win over the masses. The public trust us. Pick a fight with us by all means. But the charity sector has been around for a thousand years, delivering public services. The public don't like the cuts being made to charities. Suggesting we need more, not less cuts will not go down well. Remember there are millions of people who are members of the charities you are now slandering by calling them quangos!