Political parties and public bodies all loudly proclaim their commitment to helping small charities deliver essential services. In practice, the infrastructure that makes this possible is crumbling at the seams
Small charities play vital roles in their local communities, acting as catalysts for both the growth of social capital and the drivers of local community voluntary social action. They commonly offer a voice for some of the most marginalised and vulnerable members of society. And as service providers, they can innovate and respond swiftly (often, much more so than long-established large charities) to local needs and to their local members, beneficiaries and communities.
Many of these charities have long and distinguished histories, and some have been established in response to contemporary needs and aspirations. Indeed, their contribution and the demand for their services has never been greater as austerity bites, and poverty and inequality grow. Small charities – usually locally focused – have as much a role to play and sometimes a more bespoke role than their larger cousins.
Many of these charities receive no public funding. And few choose (or are able) to contract with the public sector to deliver public services. A recent survey by the Foundation for Social Improvement (FSI) has found that small charities were often not interested in bidding for public service contracts. This is not surprising given that:
• too much public commissioning and procurement is undertaken in ways that make it very difficult for smaller organisations to bid
• too often, public procurement is overly-prescriptive and inhibits, discourages or even bars innovation and experimentation – two key attributes of the small charity sector
• in spite of the Compact, public bodies are frequently unhappy if and when bodies in receipt of their funding campaign on behalf of their beneficiaries and communities
• many smaller organisations do not have the resources to write bids and negotiate contracts
• as the FSI survey found, many such organisations do not have balance sheets that would enable them tobear the risks of public contracting
Despite all these barriers, however, the irony is that government and all political parties at both local and national level - when challenged by myself and others - continue to state their commitment to small local charities playing a greater role in public service delivery.
Traditionally, local authorities and their public sector partners have supported small community charities through grants directly to them, and to local infrastructure organisations, who in turn offer support, advice and fellowship to these charities. There is a serious risk that the removal and/or reduction in such grants will lead to the demise of small charities across the country. And as this happens, the losers are vulnerable people and communities.
I truly believe that too many local authorities in particular have yet to fully grasp or appreciate the implications of their decisions - including their expenditure cuts, and commissioning and procurement policies and practices.
National, local and regional voluntary sector infrastructure and membership bodies should absolutely be making the case for small local charities and local infrastructure much more forcibly than has hitherto been the case. And whilst they should challenge local bodies to change, they should also support the latter’s growth and sustainability.
The NAVCA independent commission on local infrastructure, which is due to report later this year, is a positive initiative which hopefully will identify news ways of securing local voluntary community action and the local infrastructure required to enable and support this. Its recommendations are likely to be highly challenging towards the sector, national and local infrastructure bodies, and the public sector more generally.
The truth is that local authorities and the wider local public sector can support local voluntary organisations in many ways, not just by letting contracts to them, and are deeply short-sighted if and when they reduce financial support to local infrastructure bodies or impose contracts that are very prescriptive. If they want a thriving local voluntary community sector, then they have to recognise the need for effective intermediary bodies that can offer support and facilitate development and consortia building within the local sector. And, ideally these bodies will be owned by and accountable to their members – local voluntary organisations.
There is no logical reason why local authorities and other public bodies should not support voluntary organisations, especially small charities, through grant aid which avoids the need for competitive procurement and makes it easier for these charities to secure funding, to innovate and to be responsive to their beneficiaries and communities.
And when the public sector and local authorities in particular do use competition and contracts for the delivery of public services, they should value the contribution that many small charities can make; and they should not adopt practices that effectively exclude many of these valuable local groups. To do so has the effect of diminishing, rather than building local social capital. Instead, I suggest that local authorities should:
• recognise and promote the role and importance of local voluntary and community bodies, especially small charities, as core to community well-being as service providers, advocates, campaigners and builders of communities and social capital
• always engage with small local charities and their representative bodies throughout the commissioning and procurement processes – to understand user needs better, what these organisations can offer, and the terms that will maximise their impact
• use grants wherever this is possible and appropriate to avoid costly and ‘excluding’ procurement processes
• when procuring, to do so in ways that allows small organisations to bid – e.g. avoiding payment by results contracts, considering and being pragmatic about the scale of the contracts and services to be delivered, and being willing to pay realistic charges that will cover all costs plus future investment
• be very explicit and ‘walk the talk’ about their commitment to the principles of the Compact, and not expect charitable organisations that bid and/or contract to run public services, to be restrained in terms of their voice for their beneficiaries and communities
• support voluntary sector-led infrastructure bodies; and invest in sector capacity building
• encourage charity consortia where appropriate; and facilitate social investment where appropriate
• avoid business sector-led service integrators and prime-sub-contractor models where risk is unreasonably passed to the smaller charities
• require all large national charities and business providers under contract to involve smaller local charities as partners in their delivery systems
• agree with the local voluntary sector how the ‘right to challenge’ and ‘right to transfer of community assets’ are implemented
• encourage other public bodies to adopt similar and joint approaches to the local voluntary and community sector
• encourage and facilitate local businesses to support the local voluntary and community sector
The next few years are going to be extraordinarily challenging as austerity bites harder and deeper. Communities and many vulnerable people are going to need the support of strong, vibrant, innovative and fleet-footed voluntary and community sector organisations, including small charities.
Sadly it is not only the public sector that is seemingly being short-sighted as far as smaller charities are concerned. Small charities will be set up. Some will grow. Some will fail. Some will reach their objectives and stand aside. And all the time thankfully new ones will be set up.
So it is particularly unhelpful when national sector leaders call for greater barriers for new charities to form and register – for example, Acevo has recently been reported as arguing that new charities must demonstrate need before they can register and the former Charity Commission chief executive has argued for less competition and diversity between charities.
I can only hope that it will not dawn too late on the public sector and others, that they should champion the benefits of strong social capital and a strong local voluntary and community sector. If small charities are not valued, supported and nurtured, then it is inevitable that many vulnerable people and communities will be weaker - and I guarantee this will come back to both bite and haunt the public sector.
Local government, government and the wider public sector has a self-interest as well as an altruistic interest in the success of small charities. It is time that the national and local voluntary sectors reminded them of this - and for the public sector to respond positively.
