All for one and one for all?
Stuart Etherington and Stephen Bubb deal with the suggestion that the sector should be engaging with the government in a more joined-up manner
Stuart Etherington, CEO, NCVO
There is a general presumption that the voluntary and community sector is more powerful and more effective when it acts in a joined up manner. As a sector we do recognise the benefits of working together – indeed it would be odd if we did not, after all the very basis of voluntary action is that people come together to make a difference rather than acting alone.
Coming together to provide support, services and a shared voice is of course the raison d’être of umbrella bodies such as NCVO. Umbrella bodies bring the sector together in specific areas – geographic, in a particular field (such as disability or regeneration), or, as with NCVO, on generic issues that impact on the environment in which we all operate.
There are many high profile examples of the sector coming together to campaign for change – Every Child Matters, or the current Robin Hood Tax campaign, spring to mind. Away from the limelight, the sector has a strong track record of working together to achieve change that has made a significant impact. The reform of charity law, the introduction of the Compact, protecting lottery income, and improvements to Gift Aid, are all issues where the sector has come together to work with the government and bring about improvements.
But we should not be complacent. We ought to challenge ourselves and ask whether we could – or perhaps should – do more together. Equally it would be a mistake to assume that when we do not engage with government in a joined up manner; that is a failure. There are many legitimate and entirely sensible reasons for working separately.
We need to be clear about why, when and how we work together. Together our voice can be stronger. But sometimes the process of coming to a shared voice can weaken our message: the points we all agree on can be too general, or too cautious. Or by trying to incorporate the priorities of every partner, we may lack a single strong message.
We also need to recognise the diversity of our sector. We do not always agree on what issues need to be addressed, or how. And that is no bad thing. Our responsibility is to raise issues with the government, to suggest ways forward that benefit the people and communities that we work with. It is the responsibility of the government to listen to us – even if those voices are competing – and to reach decisions that balance competing interests in the wider public interest.
When we agree on an issue we need to think tactically about which is more powerful – a single authoritative voice speaking on behalf of the sector, or many hundreds or thousands all calling loudly but separately.
Ironically we often face two contradictory criticisms. On the one hand, the government can argue that it is more straightforward, or more convenient, for them to deal with a single organisation, or to hear a single voice. But that should not be the basis for deciding how we operate.
On the other hand, we also have to be wary of those in government who argue that they only want to talk to ‘real’ or front-line organisations, or who dismiss those from umbrella organisations as the usual suspects. We receive a very clear message from our members that they value our role in identifying public policy issues that will impact on them, and responding on their behalf. This leaves them to devote all of their energies and resources to their primary purpose.
There are strengths and weaknesses to both approaches. If we speak with one voice, we may be stronger and have more influence, but we could risk silencing dissenting or different voices in the sector. On the other hand, a plethora of voices can emphasise strength of feeling, and enable all concerns to be aired. But that risks government playing different parts of the sector against each other, or choosing which voices it wants to listen to.
So how so do we do it better? There is no easy answer. But there are some key points. We have a responsibility to ensure that we act in the best interests of the sector. That means taking strategic decisions about those issues where we have shared concerns, and a shared approach, which really would benefit from closer working. We need to be prepared to take the lead on some issues, but equally be prepared to support or follow others. And those of us in membership organisations need to be sure that we are genuinely speaking on behalf of our members, and indeed that where ever possible we are enabling their voices to be heard directly.
The one critical area in which we undoubtedly can and must work together is on providing the evidence base to demonstrate the unique value and contribution of
our sector to helping the most vulnerable members of our society.
In a difficult economic climate, our role will be vital. We must all work together to ensure we play our part.
Stephen Bubb, CEO, ACEVO
One of the greatest glories of our sector is its diversity and its ability to speak for so many sections of the community. To paraphrase Henry James, we are a ‘loose and baggy’ monster.
For government departments and ministers I can understand this can make things difficult. Politicians often prefer to address one clear message and to answer one voice. Ultimately this makes their jobs easier. This was an approach favoured by the Soviet Union! Not one that can find favour in a society that relies on a thriving civil society for a healthy democracy.
I remember talking about this to the last Cabinet Secretary who had said we have too many voices. I asked if when they speak to the retail sector, do they suggest to the Tescos, Morrisons, M&Ss etc that they should all merge? After all, is it necessary to have all of those supermarkets along one high street?
However, it isn’t good enough to ignore the need for greater rationalisation in our sector. There probably are too many charities and some merger, partnership and alliance working is needed. The last decade has seen a range of important mergers of key charities, and I suspect we will see more over the next decade as public spending cuts kick in.
An interesting model has been developed by the RNIB led by Lesley Anne-Alexander, who also chairs ACEVO. They have developed a merger model where the organisations are able to retain their brand and identity. When NSPCC merged with ChildLine, the helpline retained its incredible brand.
But this is not just about merger. We are now seeing different and exciting ways of partnership working between the private sector and third sector bodies to deliver contracts; the recent example of Turning Point, Catch 22 and Serco winning contracts to run two new prisons was one dynamic exemplar of that. Another portent of the way to come is 3SC. It is a partnership third sector body that manages a consortia of over five hundred separate third sector organisations; large, medium and small. They are now the biggest deliverer of places under the Future Jobs Fund.
As national umbrella organisations we should be open to discussion on the potential for partnership and even merger if that is what members want. We should explore the potential for sharing back office functions and sharing offices. And we do need to get better at collaboration. It is a fair point for politicians to say if we argue for the government to be more joined up, then should we not do the same1?
In ACEVO we have explored the potential of acquiring one building between ourselves and our colleagues in CFDG and IoF. Other organisations have looked at how to share back office functions to achieve economies.
As our sector grows and expands the need for more of a partnership approach nationally becomes more necessary. It is time we explored this with more urgency among the national umbrella bodies. The ACEVO board is keen we do this, and indeed we have agreed a joint manifesto with the Social Enterprise Coalition and the Community Alliance. This is just the start on how we want to work together by drawing on the strengths of social enterprises and of community organisations, and we intend to do more together.
We have also deliberately opened up our meetings with the Chancellor and the Conservative Summit on 18 March to our national umbrella colleagues in NCVO, NAVCA, the Community Alliance, bassac and the Social Enterprise Coalition.
In particular our board is keen to explore how we can work further with NCVO, the other lead sector representative body.
Sometimes we need our diverse voices and sometimes we need to act together with one voice. I do think there have been occasions when we have not spoken with one voice when, with effort, we could have done. It has been frustrating we have not achieved this on Gift Aid for example. A failure to have a shared view here has allowed the government to shrug its shoulders and do nothing, using the excuse that the sector can't decide itself what it wants. The fact that this has never stopped government from doing what it wants in the past seems to have escaped it!
So in a coming decade of austerity in public spending and cuts that may affect our members we do need to redouble efforts to see where we have shared agendas and to consider how we do promote a common view to the government. And where there are not common views (and it is entirely defensible for this to be the case) we must certainly work to ensure this does not present as discordant or adversarial. There is probably more work that goes on behind the scenes to try and ensure that happens than is observed from the outside, but it is always important we do more.
Author: Stephen Bubb
Sir Stephen Bubb is chief executive of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations and chair of The Social Investment Business.
In 2007 he became secretary general of EUCLID, the European Third Sector Leaders Network.
He has had major national roles in the TGWU, NUT and the AMA (Association of Metropolitan Authorities), as well as being a founding director of the National Lottery Charities Board
www.thesocialinvestmentbusiness.org
Author: Stuart Etherington
Stuart Etherington joined NCVO as CEO in 1994.
He holds degress in Politics, Social Planning, International Relations and Diplomacy and an MBA from the London Business School.
He is Pro-Chancellor of Greenwich University.
Recent appointments include the treasury's Standing Committee on Euro Preparations and the Prime Minister's Delivery Unit.
He served on the Cabinet Office Performance and Innovation Unit's Advisory Board on the Voluntary Sector and HM Treasury's Cross Cutting Review of the Voluntary Sector.
He is a member of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, The Institute of Strategic Studies and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts.
There are no comments on this article. Be the first to comment.