Council cutbacks are affecting voluntary and community groups disproportionately. This is unfortunate and self-defeating for a government seeking to develop localism and create a Big Society
Localism can offer a huge opportunity for voluntary and community organisations. But across the country the anecdotal evidence and the perception is that, faced with unprecedented and rapid cuts in funding, many local authorities and the NHS have disproportionately reduced grants and contract prices paid to the smaller voluntary organisations. Community development funding has been cut. And support for essential local infrastructure bodies has in many places been drastically slashed.
This is short sighted. It is bizarre at a time when the public sector and political leaders at local and national level are protesting their commitment to the ‘Big Society’ to more volunteering; to community empowerment; and to a greater role for the voluntary sector in delivering public services.
As a trustee of the National Association of Voluntary and Community Action (Navca) I know that for all too many colleagues in the sector it does no feel that ‘we are all in this together’.
It would be tragic if the current public expenditure pressures were to drive a wedge between the voluntary and community sector and local government. This is time for a rapprochement between these key elements of our civil society. This requires national dialogue between the Local Government Association and the sector as well as local conversations.
Austerity and public expenditure cuts will be with us for at least another six and probably many more years. Society is changing demographically and in terms of public expectations. Unemployment and poverty as well as inequalities are increasing. In five years’ time the current public sector landscape and structures will look very different from those of today.
The voluntary and community sector and its infrastructure bodies will have to adapt if they are to remain relevant and honour their values and objectives. Major change is inevitable and would have been even if we were not facing economic uncertainties and the Government’s public deficit reduction programmes. The current policy agenda adds to the challenges.
We have to challenge orthodoxies, our comfort zones and be willing to do different things in different ways. Local authorities and others should not seek to impose change on the local voluntary and community organisations through drastic and immediate cuts in grants and contract payments. There must be transition arrangements where funding is being reduced.
The public sector should not seek to shape the local voluntary and community sector. The shape and nature of the voluntary and community sector has to be determined independently by the sector and its constituent members. Unfortunately, there are too many examples of local authorities seeing their role in localism as being to ‘manage’ the local voluntary and community sector. This is wrong and must be resisted and withdrawn.
Of course, a local authority and its political leadership does have a role to play through is community leadership responsibilities to work with and to support local civil society. Voluntary and community sector organisations should be seen as genuine partners and be fully engaged in all key decisions including community planning, budgeting and strategic commissioning. They should be seen as voice of the community and in particular marginalised communities. Their community development and voice roles should be recognised and valued.
Ward councillors need to find ways of working with, supporting but also challenging and sometimes co-ordinating and cajoling local community organisations. As local community leaders they must see the sector as an ally though one that will from time to time be a challenging critic. Mutual respect is required but has to be earned by both parties.
The sector must be given the fullest opportunity to deliver public services in a manner that is properly funded and allows for innovation and responsiveness. Individual voluntary and community organisations have to decide whether they wish to contract with the public sector asking if this is in the best interest of their beneficiaries; and if by contracting they can remain true to the mission and values. They will also want to be certain that the commercial terms of the contract are sustainable and that the risks involved are manageable. They must not be seduced at the prospect of a contract and funds if this is not right for their organisation.
Thousands of organisations survive without any public and many without contracting with the public sector. Consequently, the public sector has to recognise this and retain a grants programme for those organisations for which a grant adds public value.
Two contemporary government policies offer real opportunities to advance localism with the public and the voluntary and community sectors working together. The first is the right to challenge supply. For this to be successful the public sector has to ensure that there is real and not a superficial opportunity for the voluntary sector. The other is ‘neighbourhood community budgets’.
To maximise their impact these must harness all the public, voluntary, business and community capacity and resources and not just public sector resources. Neighbourhood community budgets will only work when local authorities engage the voluntary and community sector as well as the wider public and business sectors in the programme’s governance.
The localist agenda really does offer hope and opportunity. It can enable the voluntary and community sector to play an ever-increasingly important role contributing to fairness, equity and community wellbeing. This requires co-operation between the sector and the public sector. It requires both to show mutual respect and to work together for the common good. It requires a revolution in both sectors.
This blog is based on John Tizard’s presentation to the Acevo/NCVO national conference on localism held in Birmingham on Friday 9 December 2011
