How the voluntary sector gets it wrong
While I’m on the subject of the Tories’ social justice commission report, I can’t leave uncommented upon the chapter about the better involvement of the voluntary sector in fighting poverty. My worry isn’t that this appears in the report - after all, Tories are supposed to think private philanthropy is better than democratically-controlled taxpayer-funded universal provision, it’s sort of what they exist for.
No, my dismay is the enthusiasm with which many not-very-bright medium and large charity (sorry, “third sector”) CEOs will greet this. For those of us that work for campaigning charities to change the things that are wrong with the world as we see it, there is something vastly miserable about watching our sector forget that:
1. charitable provision will never replace the state adequately (that is, if you have any concern about services being provided consistently to everyone in every area, which you should);
2. charitable provision is not in and of itself high quality, simply as a result of the sector from which it originates;
3. it’s elections which guarantee a political voice to millions of working people, not NGOs helping marginalised people of whatever stripe to participate, though that top-up participation is valuable;
4. if sustainable funding is what you are after, the Tories see NGO provision as a way to spend less money, not more, so your battle cries of “respect the COMPACT!” and “for a long-term funding settlement with full-cost recovery!” will go unheard. (Well, did you really think that a shrinking state would give masses more money to NGOs, rather than in tax cuts?!)
I’m not in practice against charities taking on state contracts or delivering public services (though I have red lines around charitable delivery of coercive services such as prisons and making funding allocation decisions, both of which I think require democratic accountability). But I do think that the sooner that the leadership of the sector recognises that it is deluded if it thinks of itself as inherently better or more responsive than the state and realises that the main distinguishing feature of a charity is that, independently funded, it can advocate for structural change, the better for the variety of disadvantaged people we’re supposed to serve. Charities exist to solve the problem they were set up to tackle: our aim should be to put ourselves out of business.
Apologies if this last post is intelligible only to other regular readers of Third Sector magazine. Once again, none of these points reflect the views of either the Oxford city Labour group, nor of my employer.
As a regular reader of Third Sector magazine (and not proud of it), I agree with you. I’d also add that I have not yet managed to shake off my suspicion that the main reason the Tories like the idea of public services being provided by the voluntary sector is that they think we are all volunteers.
As another Third Sector reader - not to mention Community Care, New Start and Social Enterprise magazine(s) - I also agree.
Not that I’m against the government giving cash to ‘Third Sector’ groups - I run a Community Interest Company which gets most of its income from various government agencies.
The ‘Third Sector’ does lots of things well and can often do new, different things in ways that the public sector.
The question is whether we want the voluntary sector delivering core services and whether the voluntary sector necessarily delivers levels of accountability that are better or even as good as public sector provision.
In many cases, the answer is no.
Yes, and having worked, providing PR, in the provision of social services by the state (local gov), a charity and the private sector, I’ve seen state provision wins hands down.
I may have a contempt for the capitalist party councillors or MPs of whichever colour but their (sort of) democratic mandate as opposed to the generally fuzzy accountability of charity decision makers or the diktat method businesses; the far greater understanding of the needs of service users by council officers etc (rather than just their revenue raising potential by the rest); the general greater statutory obligation to consultation from government; the state’s more natural predisposition to equal opps (as opposed to just ticking the boxes with private company) and the (only sometimes) enthusiasm of staff to feeling they are making life better rather than increasing the share price - all can make public provision the best.
Very interesting post and ensuing comments with which I am in complete agreement. In echoing Tom’s point above, something very interesting is that lots of Charities and NGOs don’t want State funding, nor do they want to replace provision. They see themselves as complements rather than replacements and see State funding on the one hand as coming with too many attachments which diminishes their ability to be independent and critical and on the other as diminishing their responsiveness and dynamism - which is the advantage that the Third sector sometimes has, owing to the fact that accountability takes necessary structure and time.
You said: “But I do think that the sooner that the leadership of the sector recognises that it is deluded if it thinks of itself as inherently better or more responsive than the state …. Charities exist to solve the problem they were set up to tackle: our aim should be to put ourselves out of business.”
As someone else working for a charity, can I just say HOO-BLOODY-RAY to this!
J
x
I agree 100% with points 1 to 4 that you make Antonia, and I get particularly annoyed with the big players in the charity world welcoming absolutely any move by political parties that gives us more work.
But there are some areas where I feel charities can be more responsive and highly effective in providing services funded by the public purse. I think in particular of charities providing drug and alcohol treatment services where they are closer to the client group, trusted by the client group and more open to developments in treatment.
“democratically-controlled”?
Don’t make me laugh.
This government was elected with less than 22% of the vote. In terms of pure numbers of people voting, in England they lost by a million votes.
I don’t support the Tory ideas about using the Third Sector, mainly because all that will happen is that they will become arms of the state. We’ve seen it happen.
But please don’t try to pretend that this government has a popular mandate for its spending plans.
DK
Hmmm..great more government, government has a great record on managing our money doesn’t it?
Don’t give your money to those unprofessional charities with all their altruism and expert knowledge. Give it to a bunch of lying politicians who love to prop up failing industries and a bloated over funded military.
All the major problems in society are caused by an overabundance of state control in the first place. Of course, as a representative of one of the most authoritarian governments in history you’re all for reducing the role of charity aren’t you?
You couldn’t possibly have people organising and helping one another on their own could you? Heavens above, self sufficiency? Passing on massive savings to the taxpayer? How very un-Labour.
Of course, given the Stalinist tendencies of this government why don’t you simply ban charity?
“This government was elected with less than 22% of the vote. In terms of pure numbers of people voting, in England they lost by a million votes.”
But they aren’t the Government of England, so that’s irrelevant, you might as well point out that Thatcher lost in Wales, unless you support breaking up the country into its constituent parts.
The dodgy trick of counting people who chose not to vote as voting against the result is nonsensical too. Indeed the research shows that if non-voters had voted, more of them would have voted Labour than the population overall.
No, no, no. What’s needed is much better control of what constitutes a charity. There should be no non-taxed status for pressure groups- I think that basically reverses your sense of priorities, Antonia, doesn’t it?
Instead of “campaigning charities”, what’s needed is Parliamentary accountability for all branches of Government, making Government responsible to Parliament and thus enhancing the democratic process so that money is spent better throughout Government (and less often, most likely).
When a mere Parliamentary question begins to matter again, as could happen with a de-Eufified system- unfortunately a contingent condition-, then the charities which succeed will be the ones that appeal to the public’s imagination as focussed through their democratic process, as happened in the best era for charitable giving. Antonia’s philosophy is a recipe for quagocrified chaos, benefiting only those familiar with arcane hierarchies of aid-quangos, such as herself.
There are many faults with charities, but the answer is to remove their carte blanche and subject them to proper public scrutiny through Parliament.
Hi Antonia,
Heh. I haven’t spoken to you since OUSU council 2002, I think!
Yep - another reader of third sector and charity worker here.
I agree with your basic position that more public service delivery contracts aren’t automatically a good thing for the sector.
However, if individual trustee boards are aware of the issues and the potential risks involved and make a decision that they can best serve their users by delivering public services under contract then more power to their elbow!
Nor are third sector organisations better at delivering services, or are closer to users etc just because they are charities. Indeed, that makes about as much sense as me saying I am a man so I must be good at DIY.
Though I think that is a bit of a straw man and fewer third sector leaders make that case than you’d think. Most just stress how good their organisation is, which, if they have to outcomes to back it up is fair enough.
The “we exist to put ourselves out of business” line is the extreme end of the outcomes approach and does make a lot of sense, but it is also overly simplistic. Poverty isn’t going to be made history overnight. Thames Reach isn’t going to eradicate homelessness next year. So until they do they need to seek sustainable funding in the medium term to make sure they can be around to help make it happen.