Dear Participants,
The expectation by government is of voluntary sector participation in
non-service provider work as part of the stakeholder democracy project. I
think it is wrong that government should place this expectation of
participation on organisations and/or individuals. In Yorkshire & Humber
region we have made considerable strides in persuading central government
that voluntary sector participation in democratic undertakings requires
finances to support organisations. But will paying individuals redress the
problem? In Yorkshire & Humber, experience is beginning to indicate that
community activists who are paid are being treated with less credibility by
the participants of their community organisations. Capture within local
government spheres of operation has long been recognised as a means of
quieting activists. But if the rock is the lack of adequate finance to
individuals and organisations, the hard place is that community regeneration
finance will not be awarded without clear evidence of community involvement.
In our neck of the woods we are unclear whether government is merely
woefully ignorant of the problem but take some comfort that there may be
valuable outcomes as a result of research Prof. Ken Spencer from Birmingham
University is undertaking for the Home Office.
On the issue of quality, Ware and Todd's article, which Malcolm kindly
extracts from, states, 'the voluntary sector is often praised for giving
better quality care'. I think, with respect, that this sort of statement
must not only now be backed by evidence, but must also be allocated a time
context. In the nineteen sixties and seventies, the Victorian evangelical
tradition still seemed to be maintained and the voluntary sector was 'of
course' of better quality because volunteers had religious or spiritual
motivation. I have a sneaking feeling that conspiracy theory may help
explain why this view continued. If voluntary provision was better then the
state didn't need to provide services and the tax payer didn't need to pay
for them. This may be one reason why Care in the Community seemed such a
credible idea in some quarters. But, as Ware and Todd's references
correctly indicate, quality is not guaranteed by the sector, nor was it an
expectation of local authorities during the early allocations of contracts
under the 'Value for Money' policy. Now, however, we are seeing a whole
raft of quality control systems emerging: ISO 9000, PQASSO, Investors in
People and so on such that we will , in the end, be able to say with
confidence 'voluntary sector = good'. This picks up on only part of the
point Malcolm raises. There is also the debate about 'what should state
welfare provide' and 'should sector provision be alternative or parallel'.
Perhaps we can continue next time around?
Turning to Tim's mail: Pragmatically, we have already had some 'joined-up'
when large numbers of 'silk petticoat' charities were permitted to merge in
the 1960s and make better use of their financial assets. I take the point
that Samaritans and Childline are only an example, but it's a useful one in
that it permits a demonstration of how complicated things actually are.
Childline only accepts calls from children and young people and is geared
partly towards the protection of its callers from abuse such that when
occasion demands, it reports details of calls to the police, social services
or such other statutory body as is appropriate. The Samaritans' principal
aim is the support of those expressing feelings concerned with taking their
own lives. It is available for callers of any age, is non-judgemental and
totally confidential. The police and other statutory bodies are not
contacted and callers can remain totally anonymous. The constitutions and
objectives of the two organisations are entirely different. I also don’t
understand Tim's argument about choice … only resulting in enhanced choice
but also confusion and thus lower trust. Please don't just say 'think about
it some more' again. Can we have some concrete examples?
Defining the voluntary/third/not for profit/community/ngo sector. (To say
nothing of charities.) Well, now, maybe a matrix which would accommodate all
known non-government and non-private sector organisations and their
use/non-use by government and their funding sources would reveal some
interesting findings. Where could you then go with identifying types of
third sector organisation as sites for subversive activity either by
individuals or whole groups? We have Greenpeace and the infiltration of -
was it the National Trust - by the pro-hunting lobby. But Andy is talking
about a 'project or voluntary activity' which enlarges the definition away
from 'voluntary organisation' i.e. with a constitution, aims and objectives
and so on.
Final thought: we've come a long way with the initial subject line!
|