Next year the regulation of charities will polarise.  At one end, the Charity Commission’s activity will pretty much focus on fraud, serious abuse and counter-terrorism, as well as registering the new Charitable Incorporated Organisations.  The jury’s out on whether CIOs will catch on beyond an initial flurry of interest in early 2013 or if, longer term, they’ll prove to have limited appeal.  The charitable company model is familiar to both funders and lenders, so dual regulation is no longer the burden it once was;  it’s likely to remain the most popular and convenient structure. Public benefit cases, such as the Plymouth Brethren’s Tribunal appeal will continue to hound the Commission as well, masking the fact it’s a ‘non-issue’ for most charities.

At the other end of the spectrum, the vast majority of charities will simply submit their annual return to the Commission and  be left alone, providing they don’t get a ‘red mark’ for sending in late accounts.   Instead, there will be increasing emphasis on self or voluntary regulation with, for example, the Professional Standard Authority’s new accreditation scheme for health charities going live in 2013.

Expect also to see William Shawcross, the Commission’s new chair continuing to make strong statements about charities’ independence and to court controversy with those charities who regard themselves as ‘social businesses’.

The personalisation legislation which brings in direct payments to service users has huge implications and will lead to many financial gainers and losers.   Implementing the ‘Social Value’ legislation into commissioning will also bring opportunities and challenges, not least  the temptation for charities to go ‘off-mission’ in  pursuing some of these contracts.  Trustees will need the right skills to ensure that their charity properly understands and makes the most of these changes.  Some charities’ governance structures will clearly need to play catch up with the dramatic changes in the funding environment. For example trustee skills audits will need prioritising to ensure the board has the right financial and new business skills for the opportunities, risks and complexities.

One out of six charities say they may have to close next year so trustees will also need to be equipped to anticipate the options whether that’s collaboration, merger, or winding up.

Lastly, whisper it quietly, but I anticipate many charities continuing to approach the Charity Commission for permission to pay trustees.  The numbers of charities with these arrangements in place will grow, whatever is said at Ministerial level.

A version of Rosie’s blog first appeared in Third Sector on 8 January 2013

All members of the choir are people who have experience of being homeless, or otherwise living on the margins of society, who enjoy coming together to sing. Their shows are not at all sentimental or voyeuristic: this is a serious choir singing complex harmonies, not Saturday night karaoke. But it is also great fun – for the choir and their audience.

CWNN is the brainchild of the very talented Marie Benton and it has been her imagination, inspiration and persistence that has seen the original north London Choir With No Name go from strength to strength since it was founded in 2008. Since then it has performed across the UK, getting rave reviews and even supporting names such as Coldplay and Paul Weller. Last year saw the birth of CWNN Birmingham and a south London Choir has just been set up. And they say this is only the beginning…

I first came across CWNN several years ago, when they sang at an NCVO reception. Talking to members afterwards made me realise what a big difference an apparently small thing like joining the Choir had made to their lives: just being seen as ‘normal people who love singing’; doing something new – and doing it well; a chance to share stories and experiences; to be part of a team that helps each other; to prove themselves.

Seeing the Choir again this week, made me think about what we mean when we talk of ‘empowerment’. Too often it is associated with specific goals such as employability or personalisation, and more recently with activities such as running local services or taking over local assets. We forget that empowerment is also about the person within, how we feel about ourselves, our lives and our place within society. And we underestimate the importance of conviviality, of fun and friendship and the sense of belonging that that brings. That is what CWNN gives to its members.

Clearly food, warmth, shelter and security are essential priorities for all. But it is also true that everybody needs to be valued and respected for themselves, their spirit to be nurtured, regardless of their circumstances.

With homelessness once again on the rise, as the housing safety net falls apart, we need a diverse voluntary sector that both tackles the root causes of homelessness and provides support to those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. Now more than ever.

We need organisations such as Shelter, speaking out on behalf of homeless people and campaigning for affordable homes for all. And we need those like St Mungos, providing emergency accommodation and longer term support to people with complex needs. But we also need organisations like the Choir With No Name, helping people living on the margins to feel good about themselves, their place in the world and their future. That is why I’m a proud member of the CWNN fan club.

It is interesting that the Prime Minister made this announcement at the CBI, which has in the past been supportive of the Consultation Code. When the previous government proposed watering down some of the Code’s provisions, business representatives, including the CBI, were as much against these changes as those of us from the voluntary sector. Both sectors then agreed that the 12-week rule, for example, enabled us to consult with our members, to get the views of those who might be implementing the policy and / or those who would be most affected by it. This in turn would help to assess the impact it could have on the frontline, and identify any unintended consequences, or side effects, which might then be addressed before the policy reached the statute book.

And that is the point, surely, of both consultation and equality (or environmental) impact assessments (EIAs): identifying, in advance, the likely effectiveness of a particular policy and the potential costs to people and planet. Policy-making will always involve trade-offs between competing needs and interests; difficult decisions have to be made. But it is not unreasonable to expect a government that espouses fairness to at least consider the impact that its policies could have, particularly on those who are already disadvantaged and discriminated against. The alternative, to act now and worry about the consequences later, might be too late for some.

EIAs were introduced precisely because the ‘smart people in Whitehall’ were unable to say what impact government policies had on women, people with disabilities, those from BME communities and other marginalised groups. Expecting us to trust them to do so now, smacks a little of the nanny state: we should leave it to them because they know best.

Get rid of the tick box approach by all means, but don’t lose the transparency and accountability that EIAs were meant to provide.

The recent PCC elections have again highlighted the apparent apathy and antipathy many people have towards politics and politicians. Some of this seems to be fueled by a sense that politicians are out of touch and unwilling to listen to people’s views and concerns. Failing to consult or to consider the impact of policies will do nothing to alleviate this. Moreover, by failing to consult, governments may be putting their own reputations at risk.

There has long been a perception in Whitehall (predating this particular government) that consultation is just an excuse for delay and obfuscation. But it doesn’t take too much imagination to suppose that recent incidents, from the forestry fiasco to pastygate, might have been avoided if there had been even the most cursory consultation. As has been said before, uniting National Trust members and those of the Socialist Workers Party is such a rare feat that the Department of Environment might have been expected to have spotted it earlier.

In other words, consultation should be seen as an opportunity, rather than a burden: an opportunity to improve policy and identify problems at an early stage, thereby avoiding embarrassing u-turns later on. Less haste, more speed.

This blog was first published in Civil Society on 26 November 2012

Inspired by the 2011 European Year of Volunteering, the project is exploring how to create a more supportive environment for volunteering in the EU, focusing on the 3 ‘R’s of Recruitment, Retention and Recognition of volunteers. The aim is to devise a framework for good practice in these areas.

Different contexts
At first I thought it might be difficult to identify common ground, given the different types of organisations involved and the very different political and institutional contexts for, and perceptions of volunteering in each country. Indeed, even agreed definitions of volunteering, let alone social care initially seemed hard to find.

In Cyprus, for example we learned that it is not uncommon for nurses to volunteer their professional skills (eg giving injections) to patients who can’t afford health care. Our Italian colleagues, on the other hand, emphasised the ‘value added’ by volunteers, expressing a concern that the current interest in volunteering might be a cover for cutting state welfare (sound familiar?)

Common Themes
However, consensus was easier to find once the discussion got on to how individual organisations support volunteers and the policies and processes that help them to do this well. This was apparent at the recent meeting in London, when some common themes clearly emerged from very different case studies. To give you a flavour of the diversity of examples presented, they included:
• Generate, a London-based organisation supporting people with learning disabilities;
• PASYKAF, providing support and palliative care to cancer patients in Cyprus;
• the Romanian branch of ELSA, the European Law Students Association; and
• the Agnese Bagnio Study Centre for refugee and migrant children in Adria, Italy.

Each one is unique in terms of their aims, the people they are working with, and the needs they are trying to address. Yet all highlighted the importance of volunteering being a central part of the ethos of their organisations. And all drew attention to the importance of managing volunteers (and therefore of volunteer managers) to ensure that it is a positive experience for them, for the organisation and for service users.

The 3 Rs
Looking at the ‘3 Rs’, it quickly became apparent that they don’t exist in isolation: the way that volunteers are recruited and supported, and the extent to which their contribution is recognised and valued by the organisation, can have a direct impact on retention.

Key here is understanding what motivates people: most volunteers are motivated by a combination of altruism and self-interest. People want to give something back to their community or support a particular cause. But they also want to learn new skills or make use of skills they already have, develop confidence or self-worth, or simply to meet new people and have fun. That is true whether they are a law student or someone with a learning disability; whether they are just starting out on their career or retired.

In all of these cases, successful recruitment involves finding out what motivates people and giving them good information about the organisation, the role and what is expected of volunteers. PASYKAF, for example, does this through open day events, interviews with potential volunteers and by providing training. Agnese Bagnio also highlighted the importance of interviewing recruits – and of this being a two-way process. A successful outcome being, as our Romanian partner put it, ‘placing the right volunteer in the right project’.

We also learned that if you want to go beyond the ‘usual suspects’, you may need to adapt the way that you recruit and support volunteers. People with learning disabilities, for example, may not be able to read or write, so you will need to find other ways of communicating – perhaps using pictures or photographs. They may need extra learning time or tasks to be broken down, so they can learn one thing at a time. And they need to know that they can ask for help – and who to ask.

But the need to be supported in a volunteering role, to be able to do it effectively, is the same for all volunteers. All need to be given feedback on their performance and invited to give feedback on their experience, as well as opportunities to develop or try out new roles where possible. And they want to feel that they are making a contribution to the organisation – and that the organisation values the contribution they make.

Interestingly, we had begun the project thinking that recognition should be a formal process, perhaps leading to accreditation. That will be true for some people. But the experience of these organisations is that volunteers are more likely to stay with them if their needs and interests are taken into account, their role is appreciated and they can see that they are making a difference.

Much of this is not new – in England we have good practice frameworks and occupational standards from Third Sector Skills and Volunteering England that address these issues directly. However, it has been very valuable sharing these experiences with colleagues in Europe. From these very different stories, common understandings of good practice in volunteering is beginning to emerge. I’m looking forward to the next meeting to see how this might develop and what a joint framework might look like.

This blog was first published on Civil Society Online on 1st November 2012

My guess is that the ASA’s ruling will have lots of implications for other companies working in similar fields to A4e, providing public service contracts such as the Work Programme.  I imagine that, over the next few weeks, these companies will be making lots of edits to their websites and tender documents.

The Charity Commission’s latest survey of public trust and confidence in charities shows that charities continue to be held in high regard by the public.  It is not surprising then if a company seeks to gain some of that cachet by using ‘social purpose’ as part of their branding.

That said, there are countless examples of profit making companies who are honest and clear about what they do, and who have excellent corporate social responsibility (CSR) credentials.  For example, look no further than those companies featured in the Corporate Responsibility index  published by Business in the Community each year.  These companies are making a genuine and positive contribution to social good.  But it is important to remember they are also profit driven, whether for individuals or shareholders.

At the same time, the professionalization of charities over the last few years, and the drive to improve their efficiency, has led to some charities setting up commercial arms or subsidiaries to generate surpluses (profits) to support, or cross-subsidise, the activities carried out by their ‘parent’ charity. The challenge for these organisations is how best to describe the totality of their offering, with its mix of hard business decisions, and charity values, in a way that the public will understand and support, and which will enable these organisations to continue to attract fundraising income to support their charitable activities.

This requires sophisticated messaging, as the Commission’s survey also suggests that there is some evidence to suggest that the public already finds the boundaries between charities and other organisations blurred and confusing.  If charities cannot describe the totality of what they do, I wonder what the longer term impact will be on public trust and confidence.   Does it also make it easier for commissioners and funders, when faced with a ‘social purpose’ company or a charity ‘business’, to focus in the main on price?

Longer term, I think the ASA’s ruling will make companies delivering public services think twice about how they describe themselves.  Hopefully it will also act as a reminder to charities working in the same arena to reassert one of their most cherished characteristics – that any money they generate is used for public benefit, not private gain.  It is public benefit that after all that makes charities unique and special, and that’s a powerful ‘USP’ well worth guarding.

Rosie’s blog first appeared in the Guardian Voluntary Sector Network  

And in my one foray to the stadium (for the opening ceremony dress rehearsal) it was apparent that this delight was shared by her fellow volunteers. A more diverse group you are unlikely to meet – 70,000 people from all walks of life and from all over the country, they were without exception helpful and good humoured. They seemed to want to share their excitement and enjoyment of the event with the thousands of us attending.

Their contribution is impressive and their commitment remarkable.

But – and this is no disrespect to them – I am still left wondering what the longer term legacy will be. Has the Games ‘inspired a new generation’ of volunteers, or has it provided an opportunity for already active citizens to take part? Of those I spoke to, most fell into this second group – community activists, scout leaders, school governors or hospice volunteers who all wanted to be part of this ‘once-in-a-lifetime’ event.

It is impossible to say whether this small, if random group are typical Games Makers, but it does suggest that, at the very least, LOCOG has been able to build on an existing ‘civic core’ of volunteers. It may also have encouraged others, perhaps many others, to get involved for the first time. But what will happen when the show leaves town?

This Government, like the one before it, has placed a high value on volunteering. But it has tended to focus on high profile initiatives, such as the Olympics or the National Citizens Service. Even the Government’s grassroots social action fund prioritises projects that can ‘mobilise large numbers of people’ or ‘give people the opportunity to help the most vulnerable people in society’.

Yet most volunteers – and voluntary organisations -  are engaged in small scale action in their community. And there is a long history of people who are vulnerable or marginalised, for whatever reason, coming together to help themselves and each other; to play an active role in society.

These organisations are the glue that binds society together. Few of them will want to deliver public services or own local assets, but they will want to ensure that they, and their members, have a say in how those services or assets are run. Some may want to grow in size, but more will simply want to get better at doing what they do best: furthering their mission and meeting the needs and aspirations of their members.

Although these organisations may not be directly affected by cuts in public spending, as cuts to local infrastructure start to bite it is hard to see how grassroots action will continue to be nurtured and sustained over time; how these organisations will be able to come together, learn from and support each other; or how their voices will be heard. Whatever happens post Olympics, there is a long legacy of local and specialist support to voluntary and community organisations that is now in jeopardy.

With all the talk of transforming and rationalising infrastructure, it seems that we have forgotten what it is actually for. Its not just about preparing voluntary organisations for market: infrastructure organisations also provide information, advice and support to the grass roots; build bridges and share learning between groups; and make links between communities and decision-makers.

The case needs to be made for infrastructure organisations in all these roles. Not simply as business advisors, but as a vital resource for increasingly hard-pressed communities and groups. A source of patient social capital.

So as we celebrate the volunteers of the Olympic Games, let’s not forget that we also need organisations who can support and sustain voluntary action from the bottom up. Creating ‘an ethos of volunteering’ must be about more than finding placements for the reserve army of labour – the young, the old, the unemployed. It must also be concerned with investing in, and mobilising the little platoons of the big society – and the organisations that support them.

This article first appeared in Civil Society

I was speaking to a senior NHS medical professional the other day.  She’s currently a trustee of a medium sized medical charity, providing them with invaluable skills and experience.  Historically, this NHS employee has been able to take time off, and to ‘box and cox’ her work pattern to enable her to fulfil her trustee role.  She’s benefitted, the charity has benefitted and the NHS has benefitted from the added insight she gained through her trusteeship.  However she told me that, as part of the NHS’s decision to operate an internal market for its services, she’s now required to account for every hour of her time.  And the NHS’s standard practice and leave policy does not allow time off for trustee duties, except in the case of ‘public bodies’.  Given this policy, and her heavy workload, the doctor I spoke to was not sure for how much longer she’d be able to continue in her trustee role.

Elsewhere in the public sector, similar pressures apply. And that’s despite the Government promoting the notion of the civil service as a ‘civic service’ in their Giving White Paper.  In February 2011 it was also announced that every civil servant would be encouraged to do at least one day of volunteering each year using special leave, with the aim of the civil service employees giving 30,000 volunteering days per year.  Given the current climate and job cuts, I wonder whether that target’s been reached?

Another source for trusteeship is the employees of other charities.  I can think of endless examples of where a charity employee is a trustee, or often the chair, of another charity.  The Small Charities Coalition, ACEVO, and Mind are just three examples of charities whose chair or vice chair also works for a charity.  And if you look at any charity’s list of trustees, you’ll very quickly see how many people working in the charitable sector are also trustees.  I wonder what time pressures these people are currently facing as the latest NCVO survey of charity leaders sees charities battling with an increased demand for their services despite being hit by multiple financial pressures.  As Sir Stuart Etherington puts it, “The sector is already doing a lot more with much less, and something has got to give eventually.”  I wonder if one of the things that will ‘give’ is charities willingness to let their employees take time off to carry out trustee roles in other charities?

I compared the situation in the public and charity sector with some recent conversations I’ve had with employees at RBS and Barclays.  Now I know the banking world is not without its reputational problems (even more so since first writing this blog), but I was struck by both banks really good record on employee volunteering. The people I spoke to told me that they were encouraged to volunteer, and that they were allowed some time off to do so.  For example, Barclays employees are given time off and up to £500 in grants to support their volunteering activities. Elsewhere, in the insurance industry Aviva pay their staff up to three days a year for volunteering activities.  I’m sure some of these examples of volunteering take the form of trusteeship. These firms aren’t just doing it for love; they see it as good business sense as well.

Whilst corporates are by no means perfect, and the motives behind their increasing emphasis on CSR may be as much about rebuilding trust as they are for altruistic reasons, is there more that charities and the public sector could do in this area?

If marketization is now the reality for the public sector, perhaps there should be more calls for the equivalent of a strong corporate social responsibility ethos to match?   As well as their online Employee Volunteering Check Up tool, Business in the Community also publishes a Corporate Responsibility index each year.  Might something similar, which incorporates the extent to which these organisations encourage volunteering, including trusteeship, be encouraged for public sector bodies?

Likewise could charities, larger charities especially, do more to develop a more structured approach to encouraging their staff to take up trustee roles and other volunteering opportunities?  I’m sure many do, but when I was researching this blog I couldn’t find much in the way of evidence of charities talking about their employees’ volunteering activities.  I’m sure if charities put a value to their employees engagement with other charities it would be extremely impressive and worth publicising.  Returning to the recent NCVO survey, it found that a third of charities are planning to increase their workforce over the next three months.  These new employees could be the trustees of tomorrow.  A total reward package which values their contribution to other charities would be well worth shouting about.

Rosie’s blog first appeared in Civil Society on 29 June 2012  

However the publication does signal a significant change at the Commission, which will affect all charities.

Accountability rests with trustees

As its starting point, the Commission makes clear that responsibility for administration and management of charities rests with trustees; it is trustees who are accountable.  The regulator says it will set out the basic principles all trustees should follow to help trustees in this task.  Beyond this the Commission makes clear that, unless it has a regulatory concern, it will not intervene except where it is legally required to grant a permission or to give a consent.  The one exception it quotes is where advice is needed on complex charity mergers and restructures. Instead, put simply, trustees will be expected to ‘get on with it’.   I think that we will now see the Charity Commission being very hard headed about when and how it will engage with charities.

Charities getting their own legal guidance

The extent of the regulatory engagement that the vast majority of charities have with the Commission is, and will continue to be, through completing and submitting an annual return, along with their trustees’ annual report and accounts.   Those organisations which are operating along established lines may experience little change.  However, those charities who were used to contacting the Commission for advice and help, or simply because they viewed the regulator as an important ‘stakeholder’ could be in for a shock.  In particular, many charities are engaging in innovative work, some of which pushes at the boundaries of their charitable purposes.  These charities should no longer look to the Commission to providing a ‘comfort’ to their proposals.  They will be expected to seek their own legal advice if they have doubts about whether they should be undertaking a course of action or funding a piece of work.  Where the proposed initiative is risky, it will also be up to the trustees to ensure, if required, they have carried out a proper risk assessment in reaching their decision.

There will, of course, be a few instances when a charity will still require the Commission’s consent or permission, for example where it wishes to make a change which is outside the trustees’ powers.  The example quoted in the Commission’s publication is where a charity wishes to employ a trustee.

‘First Contact’

The Commission will expect any requests for a permission or consent to be directed through the Commission’s ‘First Contact’ team.  Straight forward work will be dealt with by that team with only complex issues going through to the operational team.

This Large Charities team has been disbanded and the Commission has now reorganised into four operational teams, with each team specialising in particular areas of charitable activity.

Transparency and signposting

The Commission has plans to develop the information that’s made available about charities on its website and the red banner, which signals a charity is late in submitting its accounts, will remain.  The Commission is promoting the merits of this feature as a preliminary piece of due diligence for funders.

Alongside these changes, the Commission has said that it will signpost charities to other organisations, including membership bodies, who can better assist charities with specific advice and guidance.    This aspiration isn’t new, as the Commission’s website already has a list of useful organisations.   However, the emphasis is now on charities supplementing the Commission’s online general guidance by seeking specialist advice and support – not from the Commission – but instead from an infrastructure, umbrella or membership body or, if necessary, from a lawyer.

Prevention rather than compliance?

No discussion of regulation would be complete without looking at the Commission’s compliance or investigatory role.  Here the Commission has signalled that in deciding whether to engage in an issue it will look at whether it needs to be involved (for example whether the issue is within the Commission’s remit), as well as the nature and level of the risk involved.  Whilst the regulator will continue to deal with serious abuse and non-compliance, it has signalled that, in future, it will only use its formal investigatory powers, including opening a statutory inquiry, in a limited number of cases.  It will instead “place an emphasis on preventing problems” by identifying risks early and by providing web-based guidance.

No doubt there will be some tweaks and tests as the Commission’s new approach beds in.  I also suspect a number of wrinkles will need ironing out over time, and it will be interesting to see how the Commission keeps abreast of issues affecting charities.  For now though, trustees should simply ‘get on with it’ so that they benefit their organisation and its work.

This post is based on a longer article which first appeared in the March edition of Trust and Foundations News.

But, as Debra Allcock Tyler recently pointed out at the Directory of Social Change’s (DSC) Social Change Awards, no matter what happens over the next year, people will still be born, get together, have children and muddle on with their lives. Other commentators, such as the Royal Society of Arts (RSA) chief executive, Matthew Taylor, have also talked about the need to stay positive and to look on the bright side during these uncertain times.

So developing their theme, and without being naive, are there any positive glows for the voluntary sector in 2012? And, if we are going to be positive, how can we make the most of the opportunities which will exist, while remaining realistic about the challenges?

The very fact there’s a sustaining and enduring civil society should be a continuing cause for celebration. Dame Suzi Leather, chair of the Charity Commission, speaking at the the DSC awards ceremony talked powerfully about the continuing interest in and importance of civil society. Reminding us that, on average, 25 new charities register every day, she said that they are there “because of the need for our civil belonging”. No doubt some of these new charities are being formed precisely as a response to these hard times.

And it’s worth remembering that not all of these organisations are chasing public sector money or contracts: 64% of charities do not receive any public funding. Many are small community-based organisations, and rely on fundraising and voluntary effort.

The latest Charities Aid Foundation/National Council for Voluntary Organisations giving survey shows the value of donations staying static over the last year, but it also shows more people are donating and that they’re increasingly doing so online. Given the current climate, these results show that giving is holding up rather well, which must be encouraging news going into 2012.

While contracts inevitably favour larger organisations, it’s still the case that local organisations, which focus on making the connections at a neighbourhood level, building up skills, “passporting” what they do, rather than scaling up, could still flourish in 2012. An example is Pathways 2 Progress, a west London project providing mentoring and empowerment to young people at risk of involvement in serious crime.

It has an impressive record because it has great people involved in the project; it works hard at making links in the local community, cultivates local businesses to provide funding and job opportunities, and hasn’t tried to become too big or inhuman.

Many of the provisions within the Localism Act also come into force from April 2012. Sector organisations can nominate a list of assets they think are integral for community life, and local shops, pubs, post offices and libraries have been quoted as examples. If the owner wants to sell the asset, there is a “right to bid” for it, and a six-month period for funding to be organised. 2012 could therefore see the continuing growth in new forms of mutual ownership, such as the Metfield Stores, a co-operative community interest company. (Rumour has it; the Metfield Stores was also the inspiration for The Archers community-run village shop).

Next year is likely to be a time when there are louder and shriller voices calling for charities delivering public services and in receipt of public funding, to be barred from political campaigning. The sector’s voice in speaking truth to power and speaking out on behalf of their beneficiaries is one of its powerful hallmarks. Of course, charities have to make a judgement and consider the consequences of speaking out, and to think through whether the potential gains are worth the possible downsides. But the prolific use of social media means that there will always be people ready to do so, and in 2012 it simply won’t be practical to put the sector’s voice back in the box.

So yes, next year will still have challenges for the sector and it won’t be easy. But, to misquote the Christmas carol, there will still be some little stars which twinkle.

Rosie’s blog first appeared in Guardian Voluntary Sector Network.

Many of these organisations began life by challenging the way that public services were provided: identifying gaps and piloting new ways of delivering services to meet people’s needs more effectively. They were localism in action. That is why the sector has tended to be strongest in areas where the state has been weakest, for example in child protection and adult social care – for many years the ‘Cinderella services’ of the welfare state.

Opening up all public services to ‘any willing provider’ will create new opportunities for some, but not necessarily for this squeezed middle. I can only think of one or two national charities who may be interested in taking over some acute health services, for example. And in spite of all the talk of voluntary organisations running prisons in recent years, it is still just talk. Many, if not most want to continue doing what they do best: providing high quality specialist and niche services to local communities.

Yet this is more difficult to do when commissioners are going for fewer, larger contracts to help balance their budgets. And at a time when VCOs are competing for funding with organisations from all sectors, including major players in the business world – indeed, it could be argued that in this environment the very concept of ‘voluntary sector funding’ will soon be consigned to the history books.

VCOs are fighting back. We recently spoke to one CEO of a medium sized charity who has spent many months building and leading a consortium of local VCOs to bid for a large, single contract to provide services locally. Now waiting to hear if the bid will be successful, she highlighted the tensions and dilemmas for mission-driven organisations in the current financial climate:

‘I am perfectly comfortable being business-like, but that doesn’t mean I want to be more like business. I made a positive choice to come into this sector because I share its values and principles. Because it puts the user first, it’s not just about the bottom line.

‘I’ve put together the most competitive bid I can without compromising on quality or values; I would rather see my organisation go to the wall than do that.’

To some extent these concerns are shared by commissioners. As one senior local authority manager told us:

‘With the cuts we are in danger of losing real expertise, commissioners with specialist knowledge of services are being replaced by generic procurement officers who know a lot about process – EoIs and PQQs etc – but little about outcomes. I’m really worried that this will mean that contracts will go to those who can put in the best bid, not those who can deliver the best service.’

The Coalition Government is keen that, in spite of the cuts, the voluntary and community sector should play a key role in delivering public services – getting a larger slice of a smaller cake. Its best value guidance, for example, attempts to create a level playing field by emphasising the importance of social as well as economic value.  But, as always, policy is made as much by the actions of those on the ground as by the intentions of Ministers. And the reality on the ground is that local VCOs are being squeezed hard.

Belinda’s blog first appeared in Civil Society.