Tag Archives: voluntary and community sector

Practical tools to help demonstrate impact and value

Posted on by

By Dr Chih Hoong Sin, OPM principal and Shelley Dorrans, OPM fellow

Chih Hoong SinShelley DorransWe recently attended the National Commissioning and Contracting Conference and ran a workshop on practical hints and tools that can help service providers demonstrate impact and value. The presentation also aimed to help commissioners understand better what they should ask providers to demonstrate. The workshop was oversubscribed, perhaps testament to the growing demand in the field for practical tips in an area often regarded as difficult and confusing, yet increasingly vital. Continue reading →

Responding to the riots: A National Council for Voluntary Organisations event

Posted on by

By Joe Bonnell, OPM associate fellow

Joe BonnellI recently attended the ‘Review and Renew’ event organised by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO). More than 100 people from charities, social enterprises and the voluntary sector attended. Discussion focused on the role of the voluntary sector in responding to the recent riots and the messages for government. Nick Hurd, Minister for Civil Society attended in ‘listening mode’. Continue reading →

Defining outcomes in the voluntary and community sector: What’s the point?

Posted on by

By Carol Ward, OPM senior fellow

Carol WardAlongside my day job with OPM, I am the treasurer for a voluntary organisation CRASAC (Coventry Rape and Sexual Assault Centre). Having recently worked as a regional lead for the Commissioning Support Programme, a national initiative to improve commissioning practice in the children’s sector, I noted the increasing requirements from commissioners and grant-giving bodies for voluntary and community organisations to define their outcomes, rather than outputs, for funding and monitoring purposes. I subsequently did some work with staff and clients at CRASAC to identify the organisation’s outcomes.

Outlined below is a description of what we did, followed by my reflections on the process itself. In particular I wanted to understand the point of defining outcomes in the voluntary and community sector. Does it benefit the organisation in any way or is it just a paper exercise done to satisfy commissioners and funders? Continue reading →

What does the Big Society bank mean for social finance?

Posted on by

The Big Society bank may have, in the past, been somewhat misunderstood. Last year, as the threats of ever deeper local government cuts loomed, some said to themselves, ‘Ah well, at least there’s the Big Society bank’, hoping that its dormant account funds would be big enough to make up for the shortfalls.

There was a misconception that the bank, much like a benevolent fairy godmother’s coffers, would be able to offer grants and loans directly to the precariously positioned voluntary and community sector (VCS) organisations that were set to lose local authority funding.

Recently, the Office for Civil Society approved an outline proposal for the Big Society bank, which is now set to open for business later this year. What is clear is that the institution that will emerge from months of negotiations won’t be able to plug all of the funding gaps, and will not even transact directly with front line organisations. But outline plans suggest the bank will have a valuable function in the long-term development of the social finance market.

What will the Big Society bank do?

So what do we know about the Big Society bank and how it will operate?

  • It will not act as a direct investor, but instead will fund the work of intermediaries in the social finance market. These intermediaries offer structured financial products, such as social impact or community bonds, that connect private capital with VCS organisations.
  • In its first two years, the bank should be able to count on £200 million from commercial banks, together with £60-£80 million through reclaimed dormant account funds. While these figures do not match some of the initial forecasts made, the bank will still offer a sizeable sum of money that, once it has worked its way through the system, should ensure continued survival, expansion and innovation for many VCS organisations.
  • The bank’s mandate will include a special focus on initiatives to support opportunities for young people.
  • The bank will also act as a ‘robust champion’ for the sector, signposting information and connections on social finance through a new online portal, advising government on opportunities to open services to social ventures, commissioning research into market development and opportunities, and sharing expertise and best practice in the sector.

If the Big Society bank is successful, the UK will have a thriving social finance market, in which socially driven products tempt investors away from standard commercial investments.

One of the challenges for VCS organisations in getting a slice of any future social finance market will be evidencing their impact and demonstrating that they are using scarce resources efficiently. OPM’s evaluation team regularly supports VCS organisations to measure impact and efficiency as well as wider social returns on investment. We look forward to continuing this work with social investors and the VCS to help them make the most of what the Big Society bank will offer.

By Shelley Dorrans, OPM fellow, and Sarah Holloway, OPM senior researcher

Shelley DorransSarah Holloway

How do voluntary organisations demonstrate impact?

Posted on by

Against a backdrop of concerns over effectiveness, efficiency, quality and independence, voluntary and community sector organisations will need to be clear about how they can demonstrate impact and value in ways that are relevant to their organisational structures and cultures, while satisfying the needs of funders.

Crucial for public service delivery

In the last few months the role of the voluntary and community sector (VCS) in public service delivery has become increasingly prominent. The Office for the Third Sector, for example, was renamed the Office for Civil Society by the Coalition Government, heralding the critical role that such organisations are seen to play in the ‘Big Society’ agenda.

Nick Hurd, the Minister for Civil Society, argued that the sector’s ability to support and mobilise people puts it at the centre of the government’s mission to deliver better public services and to build the Big Society. Government policy will focus on (1) making it easier to run a charity, mutual, social enterprise or voluntary organisation; (2) getting more resources into the sector while strengthening its independence and resilience; and (3) making it easier for sector organisations to work with the state.

Changing financial pressures

VCS organisations – or ‘civil society organisations’ in the new official parlance – are seen as playing a vital role in new models of partnerships that have the potential to deliver greater choice and relevance of services in innovative and efficient ways. Statutory funding to the sector increased from £8.4 billion in 2000/01 to £12 billion in 2006/07. At the same time, the nature of this funding has changed significantly. Funding received as grants decreased over the time period from £4.6 billion to £4.2 billion, while contract funding increased from £3.8 billion to £7.8 billion.

These developments herald fundamental and ongoing changes for how the sector operates. Voluntary organisations have to build relationships based on contracts and competition and face an ongoing challenge of proving their worth or ‘impact’. It is unsurprising, therefore, that while VCS organisations are broadly positive about the attention they have been receiving under the current government, there is also a sense of nervousness.

Building capacity whilst maintaining independence

While acknowledging the diversity within the sector, there is recognition that a significant amount of capacity building is required if VCS organisations are to fulfil the challenging role expected of them in delivering an extremely ambitious public service agenda. However, given the scale and speed of public spending cuts, the extent to which appropriate and adequate investment continues to be made in the sector has been cast in doubt. In the new landscape of fiscal tightening, VCS organisations need to demonstrate more than just ‘trustworthiness’ and good intentions. Indeed, there is an expectation that they will need to demonstrate ‘effectiveness’ and ‘efficiency’.

At the same time, with closer and more direct engagement with the statutory sector as providers of public services, there is renewed concern among VCS organisations of the need to retain independence. Evidence from the Charities Commission suggests that VCS organisations that deliver public services are significantly less likely to agree that their activities are determined by their mission rather than by funding opportunities. They are also significantly less likely to agree that they are free to make decisions without pressure to conform to the wishes of funders. This is one of the consequences of the sector’s increasing engagement with the so-called ‘formal accountability regime’.

Hear more about these issues at e-seminar on 16 March

I will be contributing to discussions on this topic as a panelist for an e-seminar convened by the charity Ambitious about Autism. The e-seminar: ‘How to convince and persuade people about the real value of your work’ will be held on 16 March. Short videos of myself and the other panelists talking about some of the key issues are available at Ambitious about Autism’s website.

By Chih Hoong Sin, OPM principal.

Chih Hoong Sin

 

Voluntary sector: Start talking about collaboration

Posted on by

Effective collaboration is a pressing issue for the voluntary sector at the moment. In conversations over the past few weeks, however, I’ve heard a lot of people who work for small voluntary organisations say they’re feeling forced to collaborate. One person described the current situation as ‘collaborate or die’.

Forced collaboration is not a good basis on which to build a relationship. Many small organisations don’t have the resources to look strategically at the benefits that collaboration can bring.

Starting right

I know from my own work in consortia brought together for particular projects that the initial negotiation stages, in which assumptions and expectations are aired and shared – or not shared – are critical. This is the time when the basics of the relationship are developed, processes for working and learning together are agreed and the skills and knowledge of the collaborators can be combined in a complementary fashion. In the absence of this exploratory initiation stage, collaboration is likely to be strained, at best, or impossible.

The importance of this stage is even greater now that voluntary organisations need to consider collaboration not only with each other and with the statutory sector but also with the private sector. The ethos that drives many of those involved in voluntary work is seen to be at odds with the requirement to maximise shareholder profit.

The pressure to collaborate that small voluntary organisations are feeling at the moment comes in part, I think, from the desire to ensure that they are in the market to respond to tenders to deliver services. The nervousness – and at times anger – in the sector seems to derive from the fear of being squeezed out, by the private sector on one hand and, on the other, the new social enterprises, mutuals and so on, whose value is being heavily promoted by the government.

Have confidence

Voluntary organisations have grounds for more confidence in themselves and their contribution than they sometimes seem to show. Many of them already embody the benefits ascribed to the new organisational forms: flat management structures, responsiveness and the ability to change to meet new challenges. They have an infrastructure in place and are aware of the needs of most vulnerable in our society. This will be crucial for the Big Society to work.

Start talking

I would encourage those voluntary organisations not already looking at where they can share resources, or where they can collaborate to deliver services, to start having conversations with others sooner rather than later. This doesn’t mean making commitments. But it does mean that if (or when) the funding gets even tighter, the early discussions will benefit the voluntary sector and put it in a position to demand an equal place in the market.

By Diane Beddoes, OPM senior fellow

Diane Beddoes

What role should the voluntary sector have in private sector-led local economic partnerships (LEPs)?

Posted on by

As the geography of local economic partnerships (LEPs) begins to clarify following the Coalition Government’s announcement of its local growth white paper, the thorny issue of membership is coming to the fore.

Ministers have made it clear that LEPs should be led by the private sector. The voluntary and community sector was not included in the original invitation. Following pressure from the sector, CLG has now said (in a letter from communities minister Greg Clarke) that the third sector will be welcome, although it will be left up to localities to decide.

Third sector representative organisations have welcomed this. They point out that, particularly in those areas where the private sector is weak, the voluntary and community sector plays an important role in supporting the economy. The sector makes a contribution to local output, is a significant employer, and plays a key role in delivering learning and skills programmes and initiatives to help the workless. The sector also supports social business start-ups and helps to develop an enterprise culture. It can add important social and environmental perspectives to strategic discussions about the local economy (see for example the written evidence submitted by Voluntary Sector North West to the select committee on LEPs).

However, although some of the LEP bids included the third sector, there are signs that the sector will not always be welcome. National business leaders have made it clear that they see LEPs as being confined to business and local government interests. They have said they would not want LEPs to become like Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs), which businesses became disenchanted with because their representation and level of interest were so wide that they didn’t have a focus (for example see this transcript of oral evidence from business representatives to the select committee). Vince Cable also sees LEPs as a partnership between business and local government, and expects them to be ‘practical bodies for promoting enterprise, not talking shops.’

Experience of LSPs and, more recently, Multi Area Agreements (MAAs) highlights some of the issues that are likely to arise in relation to third sector engagement in LEPs (a report based on research into MAAs is available here).

The enormous diversity of the sector poses a challenge, particularly in terms of the ‘representative’ role of individuals who sit on partnerships, how far they speak for the sector and what ‘model’ of representation should be applied. Related to this is the issue of how the voluntary and community sector members of a partnership should be held to account by those whom they supposedly represent (something that OPM and partners explored as part of the national evaluation of LSPs). The engagement of the third sector in LSPs has often been hampered by the weakness of local infrastructure, and the sector’s engagement in MAAs was limited by the lack of sub-regional representative bodies . Of course, these issues often also apply to the private sector.

Another important issue is the need for clarity about the role of the voluntary and community sector in any partnership. In relation to LSPs, it has been noted that VCS representatives do not necessarily feel equipped to address high level strategic issues, nor is this where their interests lie. Yet – based on analysis of the bids – it is precisely on such issues that LEPs are expected to focus.

By Catherine Staite, OPM director

Catherine Staite