[WiLT] An Antidote to Partnership Working?

[WiL Admin]

An Antidote to Partnership Working?

Is the voluntary and community sector in danger of losing touch with
its roots by being too close to government? *

On a blustery October day last year, around 30 people schlepped their
way to east London for a special meeting about celebrating and
reclaiming the role of voluntary and community action. Something had
appeared out of the email ether a few weeks before, a 'think piece'
about independent action for the voluntary and community sectors
(VCS). Advertised as 'an antidote to partnership working', it was
precisely what I had been looking for.

The call to re-legitimise independent action is about more than
safeguarding VCS rights and freedoms; it has profound democratic
implications. The meeting was a resounding success. The activists,
development, advice and public sector workers, consultants, academics
and others who turned up, moved from critique to collaboration. We
agreed that not only did government not get it but in the process of
not getting it, a whole ethos and culture was in danger of being wiped
out and that we would work together to challenge it.

The voluntary sector is routinely touted as the answer to more and
more social ills. It is cheaper, more trusted, closer to the ground.
Yet the more awkward bits - advocacy, campaigning, challenging
oppressive practice - are going the way of our polar ice caps.
Rhetorically it is possible to be signed up to everything - 'third way
' politicians have made this an art form. In practice those that work
in the field know the ethical dilemmas - the day-to-day compromises
that each organisation and each worker makes. But these compromises
are also choices. The learnt helplessness and defeatist posture of
many in the VCS has to be challenged.

For too long the VCS had been strangely quiet, content to have its
interests equated with the state. But government is not just taking a
friendly interest, it's moving in and taking over. So what's happening
as a result?

Community is prescribed to the poor, a new zone of interference. Where
the VCS is not 'contract ready' a battalion of housing associations,
private trusts, quangos, large national voluntary organisations and
reconstructed local government agencies are willing to draw resources
away from smaller community organisations and local campaigns.

The VCS has always had an imbalance at the heart of it. The richer,
more professionalised voluntary sector is more often detached from its
community organising roots, and central government has exploited this
tension to the full, driving a wedge between the new corporate small
businesses, who are voluntary in name only, and the far greater unpaid
mass of the sector, that works industriously on the margins.

At its best the wealthier and numerically smaller voluntary sector has
always had an important bridging role, mostly for the local council
but increasingly for other statutory providers. Alongside this
influence comes a notional accountability to a wider grass roots
'community' membership.

In the new climate of government capacity building (pathologising) of
the VCS, what has been most damaging is not so much the imposition of
a 'we know best approach' with small pots of money attached. It is the
frequency with which those in positions of power in the VCS
conveniently forget their wider community obligations.

By taking on government policy and funding uncritically, larger
voluntary organisations consolidate their role but risk diminishing
the interests and involvement of local communities. Government doesn't
need active citizens reinterpreting its top-down dogmas. A handful of
second tier VCS going corporate and councils for voluntary service to
rebrand themselves as simply councils will do fine. Just follow the
money.

The real problem with partnership working is the insidious way in
which it can claim to speak in the name of equal access and yet ignore
structural and power issues that actively disempower people. A
partnership implies many things but delivers few of them: equality of
resources, power and voice, a willingness to listen and to engage with
and be informed by different points of view. In practice people read
between the lines and act accordingly. They are not deceived but
instead lower their expectations and play the game. Idealistic
rhetoric becomes a code we learn to cynically translate. But something
gets damaged along the way.

Democracy has always been inherently unstable, fractious and messy yet
that is exactly what we need, so say thinkers across the political
spectrum. But democracy is not yet on the table. Gerry Stoker wrote of
New Labour adopting a high street bookie approach to local governance
policy, lots of combination prizes, many promotional drives, but where
the house always wins. He argues that New Labour's deep distrust of
ordinary people and of local government radically undermines its own
modernisation project.

The closing down of independent community space is a sign of weakness
not strength. It is counterproductive. If you are constantly fed the
message that something is transformational, socially progressive but
is so obviously none of those things, where do you go from there?
Self-censorship is one option; organised resistance is another. And in
resisting, we create new options and refashion democracy as a spirited
encounter. Partnership, if we must use the word, will be the healthier
for it.

* Matthew Scott is deputy director of Lewisham Community Empowerment
Network and is involved with the NCIA planning group. The coalition
represents a broad range of interests, experiences and views. His
comments are not necessarily endorsed by all members of the coalition.


A coalition for change

The National Coalition for Independent Action (NCIA) was set up
earlier this year by a group of people involved in voluntary and
community action who were concerned about the government's intentions
for the third sector and the need to defend the interests of the
communities in which they live and work.

Made up of local activists and groups, national agencies and networks,
academics, consultants and others, the coalition produced its first
newsletter last month. It describes the group's aims as to 'legitimise
independent action and dissent and to provide solidarity and support
to those already taking such action, or wishing to do so; and join
with others to champion grass roots action - for civic renewal, for
better public services, for political accountability - and to resist
the co-option by state interests of voluntary and community
endeavour'.

Voluntary action is, it argues, 'splintering, into the "haves" and
"have nots"' and that the ability of community based groups, without
the power and resources of the large corporate voluntary
organisations, to represent local people is under threat.

NCIA plans to build its network and to gather stories of independent
action, such as a protest by the charity Positive Action in Housing
which forced a four week suspension of enforced removals of asylum
seekers in Scotland last year.

There will also be a project based in a number of areas to support
community based action and demonstrate what can be achieved. The
coalition is also working with a university to plan a pilot course for
those involved in voluntary action to 'teach the skills and knowledge
needed for independent action'.

Details: http://www.independentaction.net, indyaction at yahoo.co.uk


Views from the sector

Orlando Fraser, chair, Third Sector Working Group of the Social
Justice Policy Group

  'I don't think all government involvement in the third sector is
wrong, and I don't think all big charities have lost their community
roots. But I do think that in many cases when funding voluntary
organisations, statutory commissioners do try to micro-manage the
methods excessively, and usually opt for the larger charity over the
smaller local community group. This then leads to the danger of simply
recreating the public sector in miniature - which is what they were
trying to avoid in the first place. Our report this summer will aim to
address both these issues, among many others.'

Seb Elsworth, head of projects, Association of Chief Executives of
Voluntary Organisations (Acevo)

  'The third sector has been delivering public services for centuries
and doing so is central to the mission of a great many organisations.
Independence is important but it is not an end in itself and
interaction with statutory agencies is often the best way to bring
about the change we want to see. Similarly, providing services for
client groups is often the best way to legitimise our advocacy role.
Those who claim the sector is losing its independence underestimate
the quality of leadership and the ability of chief executives to
achieve their organisation's vision while responding to external
influences.'

Elizabeth Balgobin, chief executive, London Voluntary Service Council

  'I welcome the National Coalition for Independent Action campaign as
part of the debate on public service delivery. Much of the sector has
always been engaged in public service delivery. The issue is that now
this is delivered through legal (and enforceable) contracting and not
through grants and donations. In taking on more business-like models,
groups should also look at their corporate social responsibility in
this area and decide what is right for their members and users. A
contract that compromises their aims and objectives and fails their
clients because it stifles independence, innovation and community
involvement is not a good thing just because it brings some income. We
as a sector have to get better at saying no when this happens and
stronger at making the right ask in the first place.'

A spokesperson for the National Council for Voluntary Organisations

  'Voluntary organisations should only deliver services and take money
from government when doing so agrees with their mission. Some
charities don't get any government funding. In terms of getting
bigger, from the almanac, we found that bigger charities are getting
bigger but not at the expense of smaller charities. There's also
evidence of bigger and smaller charities working together in
partnerships.'

Laura Moynahan, chief executive, Netherthorpe and Upperthorpe
Community Alliance, Sheffield

  'I can't accept the view that you should not have partnership
working. I think it's a question of knowing when you agree and when
you disagree with partners and being clear about that. If you have
principles, partners tend to respect them. We are not working for the
sake of the organisation but for the people in the community.'

Toby Blume, chief executive, Urban Forum

  'We have a remarkable tradition in the UK of achieving social change
through independent action. The government agenda encouraging and
involving the sector must not be allowed to compromise the
independence of those committed to social justice. There's clearly a
balance between engaging with government and seeking to advance change
from the outside. We hope that any shift towards the co-option of the
sector will be countered by a recognition of the benefits of
independent action. The loss of independence would serve no-one's
purpose.'
  Nick Seddon, research fellow at Civitas and author of Who cares?

  'This campaign needs some powerful voices, actual charities to give
them some oomph. They need to work out how they are going to add value
from the other umbrella organisations that are campaigning for more
independence.'

http://www.newstartmag.co.uk/features/

Posted on WiLT blog at
http://www.freecharity.org.uk/~womeninlondon/?p=281