October e-news survey: is the relationship between the government and the sector getting better, getting worse, or still the same?

Analysis of results and comment

In our October survey we asked:

It is ten years since the Compact between the government and the voluntary sector was introduced. The Compact is 'the agreement between government and the voluntary and community sector to improve their relationship for mutual advantage and community gain.'

In your opinion, is the relationship between the government and the sector getting better, getting worse, or still the same?

Many thanks to the 240 people who responded. There were three possible responses, and only one response could be selected. Responses are broken down as follows:

• 18% getting better
• 49% getting worse
• 33% still the same

People were also invited to submit additional comments and 113 people did so.

Discussion of Question Responses and Additional Comments

Although this was a relatively small survey sample, the fact that only 18% of respondents felt the relationship between government and the sector is ‘getting better’ is striking. Nearly half of respondents chose ‘getting worse’, and the fact that one-third of people selected ‘still the same’ implies that in their opinion recent efforts to improve the relationship, such as the Compact, have been ineffective.

‘The implementation of the Compact is very dependent on local council officers.’

For people who felt the relationship was improving, it is not clear what role if any the Compact has played. Around 16% of people who left comments felt the relationship was improving, or improving with some qualifications, and most of these also selected the ‘getting better’ question option.

However, none of these people mentioned the Compact specifically as a reason why the relationship was improving. In fact, several people argued that the reason the relationship had improved had nothing to do with the Compact at all, and was more about the quality of individual working relationships at the local level.

‘The relationship between the VCS and the Government is an abusive relationship. We are disrespected and slapped around, and yet we keep going back for more.’

A significant number of people who left comments felt either that the Compact was a total failure or that statutory bodies routinely ignored it in their dealings with the sector, and that it ‘needed more teeth’ to be effective.

In contrast to those people who described the relationship as improving, almost all of these people mentioned the Compact specifically in a negative context, and were much more likely to have selected ‘getting worse’ or ‘still the same’ in response to the question.

The majority of people who left comments did not mention the Compact specifically at all, but raised a number of other problems that were having a negative impact on the relationship between the sector and government.

Issues such as full cost recovery, fair and transparent commissioning processes, fairly negotiated contracts, and proper communication by statutory partners – which should form key parts of a Compact ‘way of working’ – were not being adequately addressed in their opinion.

‘The Compact is making no difference to small grass roots organisations. The big boys in the third sector are sharing the benefits among themselves. The small organisations are excluded or get the crumbs.’

If these results are indicative, there is also significant concern and even anger about the government’s drive to engage the sector in delivering public services, particularly from smaller organisations who feel this is not appropriate or relevant for them. This dovetails with the shift to allocate more funding on a commissioned basis at the expense of grants programmes.

There is also a sense that government bureaucracy and frequent changes in policy make relationships with statutory bodies very difficult, and that on the whole this is not improving or is getting worse. The perception that funding is decreasing, remains predominantly short-term, and is becoming less and less accessible is also causing frustration.

DSC says…

As mentioned in the survey question, this year marks the ten year anniversary of the Compact. During the last decade the relationship between the government and the sector has changed drastically. The sector is now much more involved with government at all levels, and forms an integral part of both Labour and Conservative political strategies – not just in terms of improving public services but as part of their efforts to engage and revitalise civic society.

The amount of money being directed towards the sector in the last ten years has also increased massively, in large part as a result of the sector’s greater involvement in public service delivery. This is often presented by government as if it were financial support from a generous benefactor, when in fact it is predominantly payment for services rendered, rather than funding in the traditional sense. This is hugely unhelpful in understanding how the relationship is changing.

Imagine if the government trumpeted private sector contracts in this way: ‘HM Revenue & Customs gives £2 billion funding to support XYZ technology company in its fight to help collect more taxes’. ‘Local Authority signs £30 million contract with PDQ construction company to counter threat of sewer overflow’. This would be absurd, of course. But why is the sector any different? Why is a contract for a charity to deliver youth services, or a contract for a social enterprise recycling project, presented as if it were some kind of charitable donation?

The fact is that the government’s position as the major funder of the sector has had profound consequences on the sector. At the micro level many organisations, especially smaller ones, have had consistently negative interactions with statutory bodies. Small grants programmes are disappearing and more and more funding is allocated on a contractual basis, with associated expectations of ‘efficiency’.

At a macro level, there are very real concerns about what increased involvement or ‘partnership’ with government is doing to the sector’s independence and its reputation with the public. As one person put it, the sector’s ‘intrinsic ethical essence’ and its ‘challenging voice to the status quo’ are being warped by the gravitational pull of government policy and funding.

So where does the Compact fit in all of this? From the feedback received in this survey it is difficult to draw conclusions. Some people believe it has delivered real results, but others believe it has been a total waste of time. Many people think it could be a good thing if only it had ‘more teeth’, and but many others just aren’t aware of it or don’t think it offers any real benefits. Even where Compacts are in place, it seems that when the chips are down the principles are all too often chucked out the window along with a bunch of other good intentions.

Whatever your opinion, it seems clear that 10 years on there is a lot more to be done before the ‘culture shift’ the Compact is meant to achieve actually happens. Let’s just hope it doesn’t take another 10 years.

Analysis of Comments

Comments were categorised into the following 12 themes, which summarise the main points made. Some people wrote much more than others and touched on many points – those comments were categorised according to the main focus or thrust of what they said.

See Appendix 1 below for a percentage breakdown of comment themes.

1. Compact has failed – The Compact has failed, and is a waste of time and resources.

2. Funding decreasing – Statutory funding is decreasing or becoming harder to access for most organisations (especially smaller groups), is still predominantly short-term, and the burden of administration makes it almost impossible to manage in many cases.

3, Government bureaucracy – Government bureaucracy and frequent changes in policy prevent good relationships being developed at all levels. Lack of effective consultation with the sector and lack of coordination between Central and Local government exacerbates this problem.

4. Miscellaneous – Unclear meaning of the comments meant they could not be categorised.

5. Public service delivery / commissioning – The government’s public service delivery agenda, and the associated increase in commissioning, is being driven forward regardless of whether a good relationship exists between statutory bodies and the VCS. Many contractual relationships are not based on a Compact way of working but are characterised by bad practice, particularly on the part of the statutory funder.

6. Relationship getting worse – The voluntary and community sector’s relationship with government is getting worse, in general.

7. Relationship getting better – The voluntary and community sector’s relationship with government is improving in general.

8. Relationship getting better, with qualifications – The sector’s relationship with government is getting better, but with qualifications – i.e. not improving fast enough; not improving in a comprehensive manner; signs are good but concrete results are not yet evident.

9. Relationship still the same – The voluntary and community sector’s relationship with government has remained the same.

10. Split between smaller and larger organisations – Government policy has exacerbated splits within the sector, between larger charities and umbrella-type bodies, which have the capacity to access statutory funding, deliver public services, manage relationships with statutory bodies, and in some cases implement government policy, and smaller organisations that do not.

11. Statutory bodies breach or ignore the Compact – Statutory bodies, especially Local Authorities, breach, ignore, pay lip service to, or are not aware of the Compact. The Compact ‘needs teeth’ for it to be taken seriously by statutory bodies.

12. VCS awareness of the Compact – The voluntary and community sector, particularly smaller groups that lack capacity, is not aware of the Compact or of its obligations.

Selection of Comments

Overall the Central Government policy, and the way funding is made available, is encouraging better partnership working and respect, to achieve a common goal.

…compared to how it was when I started in the sector 20 years ago (when we barely registered on Government’s radar!) or even 10 years ago - we are now in a much better scenario.

The Compact is like the Curate's Egg - good in parts. It will work more effectively when the culture of the Statutory bodies fully reflects an acceptance that voluntary and third sector bodies have something positive to contribute.

Better strategic thinking at higher level government - but still token local government commitment and implementation.

[Getting better] but the pace of improvement is way too slow and is not consistent over all areas.

The implementation of the Compact is very dependent on local council officers.

The relationship between the VCS and the Government is an abusive relationship. We are disrespected and slapped around, and yet we keep going back for more.

The voluntary sector is being seen as a means of achieving government targets at minimal cost. We should not be contributing to social engineering, regardless of its political source.

Compact is a waste of time and although the VCS understand it and abide by it, in most situations the public sector do not even know of its existence.

The Compact does not appear to have made any positive difference at all to the way in which my local authority deals with the voluntary sector.

The situation whereby commissioners prefer one big provider is getting worse (the ‘Tesco-isation’ of the sector!)

The Compact is making no difference to small grass roots organisations. The big boys in the third sector are sharing the benefits among themselves. The small organisations are excluded or get the crumbs.

Small and medium charities are being killed off by the drive towards delivering public services.