NEGOTIATING VALUE-BASED TENSIONS: VOLUNTARY WELFARE … · the 1980s, notably the United States,...

NEGOTIATING VALUE-BASED TENSIONS:VOLUNTARY WELFARE PROVISION IN

CHRISTCHURCH, NEW ZEALAND

SUMMARY RESEARCH FINDINGS

David ConradsonDepartment of GeographyUniversity of Southampton

SouthamptonSO17 1BJ

UK

May 2002

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This document summarises the findings of research undertaken on Christchurch’scommunity and voluntary welfare sector between 1997 and 2000. The project sought toidentify and explore key trends in the sector in relation to organisational values and fundingrelationships.

The key findings were that:

� Against a backdrop of national economic restructuring and welfare reforms, communityand voluntary organisations (CVOs) have become increasingly significant as providersof social care in Christchurch over the last fifteen years. This can be seen in thesignificant number of new agencies formed since 1984, but also in the increased clientloads of longstanding agencies such as the city missions and emergency relieffacilities.

� The values articulated by community and voluntary welfare organisations weredistinctive from those of statutory funders and providers. While there was variationbetween individual agencies, most CVOs shared a concern for holistic serviceengagements (addressing both material and psychosocial needs); for seeking to workalongside and empower individuals; for maintaining personalised and flexible services;and for developing innovative responses to social disadvantage.

� Obtaining funding has become more difficult for Christchurch CVOs in recent years.There has been a decline in the charitable funds available to some providers, but theissue of most significance has been the shift by government from grant-based tocontractual funding arrangements.

� Many CVOs felt that contractual service arrangements with government funders wereaccompanied by inherent value-based tensions; these were rooted in the differingconceptions of welfare held by the voluntary and statutory sectors.

� Responses to these value-based tensions with external funders differed. Amongstsome CVOs there was evidence of modifications in the nature of services in responseto funders’ emphasis upon tangible material outcomes, monitoring systems and short-term timeframes. Other agencies, however, were seeking to avoid or deflect suchchanges through various strategies of resistance.

� Within the community and voluntary welfare sector, divergent organisationaltrajectories could thus be discerned. A small number of agencies were movingtowards more structured and professionalised services. Others were managing tomaintain relatively similar operations within a context of funding based pressures.Despite these changes, amongst both large and small agencies, there remained clearexamples of distinctive and innovative welfare provision within the sector.

� There was some evidence of government funding contracts accruing differentially tolarger, more structured providers. This trend reflected the relative ability of theseagencies to meet statutory funders’ approval standards, as well as their institutionalcapabilities in the application for and management of service contracts. Smaller, lessstructured agencies tended to fare less well in this regard. This raises some concernsabout the potential emergence of a division within the sector between relatively welland relatively poorly resourced institutions.

iii

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

THE NEW ZEALAND WELFARE STATE 2

CONTRACTUAL FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS 4

Statutory welfare: values and practices 4

Voluntary welfare: values and practices 6

Value-based tensions 7

THE CHRISTCHURCH COMMUNITY AND VOLUNTARY WELFARE SECTOR 8

Modification of services 9

Strategies of resistance 11

Organisational trajectories 12

International comparisons 15

CONCLUSION 17

Appendix 1: Research Sample of Christchurch CVOs 23

1

INTRODUCTION

Throughout Western countries, it seems now self-evident that the role of the state asthe provider of a wide range of public services rooted in the promise of dramaticallyevening up the life chances of individuals and populations is coming to an end.

Peter Leonard, Postmodern Welfare, 1997, p. 1

A group of nations deliberately adopted deregulatory, market-driven strategies duringthe 1980s, notably the United States, Britain and New Zealand; to a lesser degree, alsoCanada and Australia. Since Britain and New Zealand were once pioneer welfarestates with strong full employment commitments, this exemplifies a radical regime shift.

Gosta Esping-Anderson, Welfare States in Transition, 1996, p. 15

Far from retreating to the margins of welfare provision, the voluntary sector finds itselfat the centre of a fundamental change, the full impact of which has still to be felt. It is afairly safe prediction … that the sector will grow larger. And it has already reacheddimensions that would have been unthinkable fifty years ago.

Justin Davis-Smith et al, An Introduction to the Voluntary Sector, 1995, p. 2

Over the last decade, welfare provision in New Zealand has been subject toconsiderable reform. As in many other western nations, a programme of ‘new right’policies has seen a decisive move away from Keynesian economic management andits allied formulations of a strong welfare state. Levels of benefit payments have beencircumscribed (Dalziel, 1996), education now operates to a greater degree on a ‘userpays’ basis, and healthcare and social services have become subject to quasi-marketsand significant elements of contractual delivery (Barnett, 1999; Boston, 1995; Cheyneet al 1997). Notions of workfare have additionally become influential, such that toqualify for statutory income support individuals are now often required to undertakesome form of work or at least to give evidence of searching for it (Higgins, 1999). Forthe unemployed or poorly paid, the elderly and those with deteriorating health, thesecurity once offered by the post-war welfare state is thus no longer available (Bostonet al, 1999). Citizens who require assistance to meet their basic needs now encountera significantly leaner and more discriminating statutory welfare system than its socialdemocratic predecessor (McClure, 1998; Rudd, 2001).

Within this context of circumscribed state welfare, the voluntary sector has taken on anew significance in welfare provision. In the postwar period, the nationalisation ofhealth and social services had tended to displace voluntarism into a more marginal rolewithin New Zealand society (Bassett, 1998; Oliver, 1997, 1988). It became, as Owen(1964, p. 527) writes in a British context, a ‘junior partner in the welfare firm’. Whilevoluntarism still flourished in the informal, community spheres left relatively unaffected

2

by the state’s activities, its broader significance in welfare provision was curtailed.From the mid-1980s onwards, however, policy reforms have created a context in whichcommunity and voluntary organisations (CVOs) have once again taken up moreextensive roles in welfare provision (Boston and Dalziel, 1992; James, 1992;Koopman-Boyden, 1992).

Against this backdrop of welfare reforms, this report summarises the findings ofresearch undertaken on the community and voluntary welfare sector in Christchurchbetween 1997 and 2000. Drawing on interviews with staff in a sample of 45 CVOs,1

the research explored the ways in which agencies were seeking to reproducethemselves, and their services, within an often challenging social policy environment.This focus was in part guided by the concerns of Wolch (1990) who observed that, asa result of contractual funding relationships, some American and British CVOs wereceding their distinctiveness to become little more than a shadow or arm of the state.Such an observation has considerable relevance for New Zealand in the 1990s, ascontractual out-servicing of state welfare functions to voluntary and private sectoragencies grew significantly during this period (Boston, 1995; Smith 1996a, 1996b).

The report has three main sections. First, the social and political context for thecontemporary prominence of voluntary welfare provision in New Zealand is outlined.This involves reviewing the development and subsequent reform of the post-warwelfare state. Second, the rise of a contractual funding regime for statutory welfaredelivery during the 1990s is noted. In bringing voluntary and statutory welfare actorstogether in service partnerships, contracting has become highly significant as a relationthrough which different organisational value systems have to be negotiated. In the thirdsection, the significance of these developments for the community and voluntarywelfare sector in Christchurch is explored.

THE NEW ZEALAND WELFARE STATE

The development of the welfare state in New Zealand is closely associated with theelection of the first Labour government in 1935 (Armstrong, 1994; Hawke, 1985;Oliver, 1988). With a view to underwriting the material security of the populationfollowing the Depression, Labour’s 1938 Social Security Act sought to guarantee areasonable minimum income for many different groups in need. The legislation’sbroad remit encompassed benefits for the elderly, widows, orphans, invalids, miners,the sick and the unemployed (O’Brien and Wilkes, 1993). In the following years, thegovernment also became involved in the provision of education, housing and

1 See appendix 1 for a list of the CVOs researched in Christchurch. Semi-structured interviews were conductedwith senior staff in each agency in order to develop an understanding of the agency’s core values, servicepractices, issues of strategic concern and experience of the New Zealand socio-political context. This qualitativematerial was then set alongside more structured and quantitative information obtained from annual reports,internal memos and other research on the Christchurch voluntary welfare sector (Fitzgerald and Cameron, 1989;Jamieson, 1998; Black, 2000)

3

healthcare (Avery Jack and Robb, 1977; Oliver, 1988). By the 1940s New Zealandhad a targeted welfare state ‘which, in all respects bar its selectivity, was as extensiveas any in the world’ (Castles, 1996, p.94).

These statutory initiatives effectively took elements of welfare provision away from thecity missions and other voluntary agencies that had, to that point, formed an importantsafety net for citizens (Bassett, 1998; Trlin, 1977). Strong postwar economic growthgenerated funds for this early welfare state, whilst at the same time ensuring thatrelatively few citizens needed to avail themselves of its support. With unemploymentat historically low levels, social need for statutory assistance was demonstrably lowduring the 1950s and 1960s (Hawke, 1985, 1992; Rosenberg, 1977). CVOs tended toplay a secondary role during this period, addressing those social needs and individualsless well provided for by statutory welfare (McClure, 1998).

From the early 1970s onwards, however, a series of national and internationaldevelopments converged to undermine the stability of this postwar welfarearrangement (Le Heron and Pawson, 1996). As elsewhere, the OPEC oil price shocksof 1973 and 1974, which led to dramatic rises in import prices, were significant in thisunravelling. Britain’s entry to the European Community also reduced access to avaluable export market. With increased import costs and diminished Europeandemand for its agricultural products, the New Zealand economy began to suffer fromstagflation, followed by problems with weakening terms of trade and recurring balanceof payments deficits (Hawke, 1992).

In 1984, a Labour government came to power amidst this fiscal turmoil (Boston et al,1991). It was this party that most decisively initiated the reworking of the postwarsocial democratic consensus. The policy initiatives that followed fell into three maingroups (Pawson, 1996). The first, which began in 1984, saw state regulation of theeconomy significantly reduced as subsidies were removed, tariffs lowered and theexchange rate floated. The second, from 1986/87 onwards, gave attention to theproductive elements of the state sector itself. State trading departments, such asforestry and electricity, were corporatised,2 and a selection of these was thenprivatised (Bollard and Mayes, 1993).

The third phase – that of most relevance here – began in 1990 when a new, Nationalgovernment came to power and sought to curb the soaring social expenditure of thestate by placing its welfare dimensions under similarly neoliberal scrutiny (Boston andDalziel, 1992; Boston et al, 1999; Rice, 1992).3 Significant cuts were made to incomesupport benefits and superannuation (Dalziel, 1993), particularly in the budget of April1991, and preferences for targeting and an emphasis on personal responsibility were

2 Corporatisation was a form of state sector reorganisation which involved the ‘conversion of public tradingenterprises into businesses, or SOEs [State Owned Enterprises], required to be as profitable and efficient ascomparable private sector businesses’ but yet remaining in the state sector (Pawson 1996, p. 214). 3 Elevated social security expenditure at this time was in part related to the heightened numbers of beneficiariesand unemployment claimants that followed the economic restructuring of the 1980s.

4

progressively advanced within official documents and policy discourse. In addition, aseries of purchaser-provider splits were introduced within health and social services(Barnett, 1999; Boston, 1995; Cheyne et al, 1997). Echoing developments inThatcher’s Britain and Reagan’s America, these reforms represented a significantmove away from the social democratic provision that had characterised much of thepostwar period (Boston and Dalziel, 1992; Kelsey, 1996; Le Heron and Pawson, 1996).

With the New Zealand state more discriminating in its assistance of the unemployedand disadvantaged, the role of the voluntary sector in welfare provision expandedduring the 1990s. Many longstanding CVOs reported heightened care-loads inresponse to greater numbers of individuals presenting for assistance, and as a resultof their newly negotiated contractual responsibilities to deliver welfare services(Boston, 1995; Hawke and Robinson, 1993). New agencies also arose as peoplecame together in collective response to social deprivation and isolation in particularplaces (see Jackman, 1992; Jamieson, 1998; Young, 1995). In Christchurch theseinitiatives included foodbanks, budget and debt advice centres, interest free loanservices, and community drop-in centres.

CONTRACTUAL FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS

The ability of CVOs to respond to these elevated levels of social need, however, hasnot always been easily realised. Having reworked much of the postwar welfaresystem, the government now purchases a significant number of social services fromprivate and voluntary sector agencies through contractual funding agreements(Boston, 1995; Department of Social Welfare, 1990; NZCFA, 1995. 1996). As is thecase in the British ‘contract culture’, many CVOs experience these agreements asproblematic (Common and Flynn, 1992; Deakin 1995, 1996). In order to obtain ormaintain external funding, research suggests that some agencies have found itnecessary to move away from their core values and service practices towards thoseheld by external funders (Leigh, 1994; Smith, 1996a, 1996b; Tassie et al, 1996).

At the heart of such organisational difficulties lie the different conceptions of welfareheld by statutory and voluntary welfare agencies. As context for the Christchurchanalysis, the following section elaborates on these conceptions through anexamination of the expectations NZCFA had of voluntary sector providers. It alsoconsiders government understandings of citizens presenting for welfare assistance inthis period. By way of comparison, the understandings that Christchurch CVOs had ofthese issues are then examined.

Statutory welfare: values and practices

For most of the 1990s, government appeared to view statutory welfare provision asfostering dependency, discouraging the need for personal initiative and resolve withinsociety at large. This understanding was evident within the Welfare to Wellbeing

5

publications (1995-1999),4 the Code of Social Responsibility Discussion Document(1998), and in the activities of the newly created Work and Income New Zealand (1999onwards).5 State welfare was thus about the targeted and time-limited delivery ofsupport to individuals and families, with the goal of facilitating their return to self-reliance and financial independence.

Working with this conception of welfare, government had certain expectations of itscontractual service partners. For the NZ Community Funding Agency (NZCFA) – theprimary statutory funder of voluntary welfare services at the time of the research –these were expressed as ‘Standards for Approval’. The first set of these standards,released in December 1995, took the form of fourteen criteria that a voluntary orcommunity sector organisation had to meet before government funding could beconsidered.6 As summarised in table 1, these comprise a significant set ofrequirements. While staff in Christchurch CVOs appeared to view several of theserequirements as appropriate (around client respect and safety for example), the needfor comprehensive internal monitoring and management systems was often viewed asabsorbing time that might better be spent on direct service provision. In addition,accountability procedures were felt to be poorly indexed to contract values: smallcontracts in particular were seen as requiring disproportionately large amounts ofpaperwork.

Within statutory welfare policy, individuals presenting for assistance were implicitlycharacterised as lacking in personal initiative and as potentially dependent. Thoseseeking assistance thus became ‘customers’ who required assistance to get offwelfare:

A customer is to have a one-on-one relationship with a customer service officer whoprobably has a caseload of 250 or more customers, and they are to transact businesswith that customer by appointment. The responsibility on the customer service officer isto help that customer move from welfare dependency towards self-sufficiency, self-reliance … and independence.

[Senior Staff Member, Income Support Services]

This practice of encouraging people from ‘dependency’ to ‘independence’ was firmlyintroduced in the workfare policies of 1 April 1997 onwards. Here the requirement tosearch for paid work was explicitly set alongside the right to access welfare assistance.

4 A set of social policy initiatives introducing changes to the delivery of and eligibility for statutory welfare support.A key feature was to emphasise personal responsibility for one’s own well being. 5 In 1999, WINZ was formed through the amalgamation of the old Income Support Service of the Department ofSocial Welfare, Employment New Zealand, and certain parts of the Department of Labour. Reference to the NZIncome Support Services has been retained within the text, however, given its existence during the research. 6 In January 1999 the NZCFA was combined with the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Service(CYPFS) to form the Children, Young Persons and their Family Agency (CYPFA). In October 1999 CYFPA wasseparated from the Department of Social Welfare to form the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services(CYF). A revised, yet relatively similar set of standards for approval was released by CYF in 2000. The textrefers to the NZCFA and the earlier set of standards, as these were in effect at the time of research.

6

Table 1 NZ Community Funding Agency Standards for Approval (1995)

STANDARD DESCRIPTION IN STANDARDS BOOKLET

ParamountcyAll services or programmes reflect the principle that the welfareand interest of the child or young persons are the first andparamount consideration.

Cultural Appropriateness All organisations must provide services which are culturallyappropriate to clients.

Assessment All organisations have in place a process for investigating andassessing referrals which have been accepted.

Safety Procedures There are safety procedures in place for children or young peopleattending a programme.

Discipline in the Programme

Children and young persons are not physically punished, ordisciplined or treated in a way that is degrading or humiliating orcauses unreasonable fear or anxiety. Alternative methods ofdiscipline are employed.

Recruitment of Staff & Volunteers All organisations have a written policy for the recruitment ofappropriate staff and volunteers.

Vetting of Staff and Volunteers

All organisations have in place a procedure to ensure that, unlessthere are exceptional circumstances, no person with a criminalconviction for sexual crimes or crimes of violence against theperson is engaged in a paid or voluntary capacity.

Staff and Volunteer Training All organisations ensure that all staff and volunteers aresufficiently competent to carry out their tasks.

Procedure for ComplaintsOrganisations have a policy for dealing with all complaints aboutstaff and volunteers, which is written, given to, and explained toclients.

Management Structure All organisations have a clearly defined management structure.

Financial Management The finances of the organisation are managed competently.

Monitoring An internal monitoring system is set in place.

Disaster ManagementLocal authority emergency management plans and emergencypreparedness recommendations are monitored to ensure that theneeds of clients can be catered for in the event of an emergency.

Occupational Safety & Health The work activity of individuals should not harm themselves orothers.

Source: New Zealand CFA (1995, pp. 15-33)

Voluntary welfare: values and practices

In a number of ways, the welfare values and practices of Christchurch CVOs differedfrom these statutory formulations. In their understanding of those accessing welfaresupport, for instance, CVO staff tended to balance recognition of the structuralconstraints working against individuals – unemployment, racial prejudice, gentrifyinginner-city housing markets – with a consideration of their personal actions and choices.The appropriate welfare response to deprivation and exclusion was not, therefore, amatter of galvanising individuals from welfare dependence into action. Rather it wasabout assisting individuals towards well being in a holistic sense, empowering them

7

towards self-determination through various forms of material and relational support.This progression was seen as requiring interdependence rather than independence.

CVO staff felt this understanding of their clients’ situations was reflected in servicesthat were more empathetic and positive towards them. A commonly expressed view inthis regard was that CVOs related to service users in greater depth than was typical inthe statutory welfare services. As staff in two community agencies suggested:

We probably give a more personal touch to people, you know. You know, obviously[the Employment Service] see a lot more people, so they tend not to be as personal aswe. I mean we interview every person that comes in here, and we tend to you knowtolerate people letting us down a lot more. Whereas the Employment Service, if theysend someone to a job, and he ... he blew it, they may tend to say, ‘well look, mate, I’msorry, but your unemployment benefit’s going to be cut, you know, for 26 weeks,because you’re really not supposed to be doing that’.

[Staff member, Christchurch CVO]

We do care about them in a personal way. About Income Support Services, they can’tgive them a week of social outing. Now this may sound stupid, but we know [the users]by name. And we know them by name not because we’re looking at a piece of paperwhich tells us. We know them by name, because we know them. [Gesturing aroundthe room] That’s Peter and that’s Bill, and that’s Jack and that’s Mary.


When the caseloads of such agencies are compared to the figure of around 250clients per staff member in Income Support Services, the basis for such claims is clear.Simply put, there was a greater sense of the importance of the relational dimensions ofwelfare amongst many CVOs. Alongside the material provision of food, blankets andso forth, interactions between volunteers and clients interactions were seen as asignificant dimension of service quality. This reflected a concept of welfare thatacknowledged and often sought to engage with the whole person (material, emotional,psychosocial).

Value-based tensions

Given these different conceptions of welfare, it is not difficult to see the potential forvalue-based tensions between CVOs and statutory funding agencies. For a voluntaryagency to obtain contractual funding, some degree of compliance with the values andpreferences of funders was generally needed to meet the latter’s approval standards.The potential difficulty was that an agency might then feel that its distinctive, perhapsinnovative qualities were being compromised in favour of a more systematised service(cf. Lewis 1994, 1996; Nicholls, 1997).

8

The potential for such processes of service modification to occur within the voluntarysector in New Zealand is arguably greater than in North America or the UK.7 Ascharitable giving has declined in recent years, so the reliance of many CVOs uponinternal sources of income (e.g. investments) and external funding bodies has grown.Given the relative dearth of philanthropic trusts in New Zealand, a significantproportion of these external funding sources have been statutory in nature. In therelative absence of alternatives, CVOs have thus become somewhat vulnerable tobureaucratic capture by statutory bodies in their need for external financial revenue.

In this context of value-based tensions, the efforts of CVOs to offer welfare services inChristchurch have become more politicised and contested. Where an externalfunder’s values differed significantly from those of a CVO, for instance, managersspoke of tensions regarding whether it was possible to accept such funding and remainfaithful to the agency’s core organisational values. The following section exploressome of the institutional responses to these difficulties.

THE CHRISTCHURCH COMMUNITY AND VOLUNTARY WELFARE SECTOR

As in other western cities, Christchurch’s community and voluntary welfare sector ischaracterised by considerable diversity in terms of the size, age and nature of itsconstituent organisations (Barker and Currie, 1994; Fitzgerald and Cameron, 1989;see also appendix one).8 At one end of a spectrum are small, relatively autonomousagencies that work with specific client groups, such as sole parent families anddisabled adults for example. Many of these have been formed since 1984, reflectingthe expansion of voluntarism in social care during this period of welfare reform andsocio-economic polarisation (Black, 2000). At the other end of the spectrum are larger,often multi-service agencies, typically with longer institutional histories. Several ofthese are church based providers and some are part of national structures, withparallel offices in other cities.

Within the 45 sample agencies, the majority of staff felt that delivering voluntarywelfare services within the socio-political environment of the late 1990s involvedinherent tensions. These were principally related to value differences with the statutorywelfare agencies with which they had, or with which they were seeking to secure,service contracts.9 Two broad categories of organisational experience and responsewere identified in regard to these tensions: modification of services and strategies ofresistance. 7 As a relatively young nation, New Zealand has fewer benevolent trusts than many northern hemispherecountries. Further, in its promotion of individualism as a social creed, the last fifteen years of neoliberalgovernance have done a great deal to erode the social capital once inherent to existing associations such astrade unions and urban neighbourhood collectives.8 As a comparison, see Clark (1997) and Whale (1993) on the voluntary welfare sector in Auckland. 9 Key funding sources for Christchurch CVOs at the time of research included the New Zealand CommunityFunding Agency (NZCFA), the Christchurch City Council, the Regional Health Authority (and its successor theHealth Funding Agency), the Lottery Grants Board, Trustbank Community Trust and a number of smallphilanthropic trusts and grant-making bodies.

9

Modification of services

A significant number of Christchurch CVOs felt that service contracts directly orindirectly generated pressure to modify the specification of their services. Agency staffspoke of a sense of obligation to adapt their welfare practices to more closely matchthe criteria of funding agencies:

Ah, so what we’ve become aware of is that where you’re having to contract forservices, you come under pressure eventually to adapt the service to fit the fundingcriteria, and not to make um, the innovative response, um, to wholeness and justice.Which is what our mission statement commits us to.


And I can’t blame the City Council. If I ask for funding … they have ideals. They wantto see their philosophies of helping the poor executed by organisations like us. Theywant their ideals of reaching the poor to be put into practice by people like us.


When asked to be more specific about these pressures, CVO staff spoke of fundershaving a number of practical preferences. First, there was a sense that servicesdefined and measurable in terms of clear, tangible outputs were favoured:

The way Community Funding Agency sets up its funding, it works best if you’re abusiness; if you can define outputs, and measure them. Community development andpolitical advocacy are very difficult to measure in this way.

[Voluntary sector researcher]

The way in which TrustBank Community Trust evaluates projects, with their emphasison outcomes and statistics, provides difficulties for us when we value the interactionsbetween people and the intangible things that probably aren’t measurable in economicterms.


Some services were clearly more amenable to being framed as measurable outputsthan others. The provision of food-parcels and budget advice was easier to accountfor in the metrics of many external funders, for example, than the recovery ofinterpersonal trust that might emerge in a support group for survivors of sexual abuse.While both were important elements of the Christchurch voluntary welfare sector’swork, the psychosocial dimensions of the latter appeared to be less well appreciatedby funders.

Second, several CVO staff felt that funders tended to favour organisations that workedwith a dichotomous service model of expert provider vs. deficient client. This relates tothe statutory conceptions of welfare and welfare recipients mentioned earlier. Such a

10

dichotomy might be expressed as a service that sought to instil particular values andattitudes into clients, so as to facilitate their success in the formal economy and labourmarket for example. In contrast, most local voluntary agencies sought to workalongside their clients, assisting them towards goals of their own setting, rather thancoercing them in particular directions.

As funders’ preferences meshed with the diversity of the local community andvoluntary sector, there was an unsurprising tendency for contracts to differentiallyaccrue to relatively structured agencies. With their pre-existing internal managementand accounting systems, medium to large providers were often well placed to thedeliver measurable, regularised services (Hawke and Robinson, 1993; Leigh, 1994;Smith 1996a, 1996b). As one manager expressed it:

Funding isn’t an issue … I’ve been told that directly by Community Funding Agency.Um, I was told that by the Manager of our local … division. Because I am a statisticperson. We won’t have any problem with funding, because we produce what they wantto see. And that’s the idea. You actually have to be able to do that, otherwise youcan’t get funding.


In contrast, many smaller organisations felt they were disadvantaged in applying forcompetitively allocated funding sources. Some interviewees located this disadvantagein a lack of rigorous internal accounting systems, whilst others referred to a shortage ofknowledge and experience of the applications process.

While these experiences reflect the realities of competitive funding regimes, they alsoraise important questions about the allocation of funding contracts. The ability of aCVO to negotiate an application process is always likely to be influential in obtainingstatutory funding contracts. However, if administrative and managerial competenciesbecome as important as baseline service quality in securing such contracts, then onecould argue that the approval system needs adjustment in recognition of the diversityof the community and voluntary sector.

A further point here relates to the accountability requirements of service contracts. Forsmall agencies in particular, these often were seen as burdensome and as consumingresources that could be more appropriately spent in direct service provision. Therewere very strong feelings about this within the sector. Speaking of CFA, for example,the manager of one CVO felt that:

Their level of feedback and accountability is beyond what I would consider is anacceptable level. What they require in terms of applying for funds is out of this world.And what they require in terms of feedback, you know, and pretty consistent feedback,is out of the world too. You know, I think you’ve got to be accountable, but … fundingorganisations have to make it achievable for an organisation to do that. Someorganisations I know spend half their time on funding, and particularly with CFA.

11


Clearly not all agency managers felt this strongly, but there was a considerable degreeof frustration regarding dealings with CFA. Other funders were viewed as moreflexible, but there was a growing trend for these ‘secondary’ funders to require anagency to be CFA approved before they would consider funding it themselves. Thislessened their need to stringently monitor the credentials of an agency (as it was donefor them), but effectively strengthened CFA’s position as a gatekeeper for theallocation of funding to the city’s community and voluntary sector. In several ways,then, relations with CFA were a primary conduit of tension and externally inducedpressures for Christchurch CVOs in the late 1990s.

Strategies of resistance

In an effort to remain faithful to their core values, a second form of organisationalresponse to value-based tensions with external funders was strategies of resistance.Three examples are illustrative here. First, several of the medium to large agenciesused internal memos and public newsletters to emphasise their values relative to thewider political context. The internal documents appeared designed to promote staffand volunteer adherence to organisational values, particularly where such adherencewas deemed likely to generate institutional pressures. The external materials oftensought to garner support, both general and financial, from the public.

Other CVOs sought to negotiate the terms on which they were evaluated. Someagencies, for example, suggested alternative sets of performance indicators to thoseinitially offered to them:

If you actually put up a different indicator to CFA for their service monitoring, accordingto your own philosophy, then our experience is that most government contractors willrespect that.


Here we see acknowledgement of a flexibility to the contracting process. Amidst theirfrustrations CVO staff did not make such points often, but it is important to note thatsome agencies did profess to have reasonably harmonious relations with CFA.

Still other CVOs were seeking to become financially independent of state fundingsources. This was seen as a solution to the value-based tensions that they feltinevitably accompanied service contracts. Such quests for autonomy was particularlyevident amongst the larger, church-based agencies where state funding formed asignificant component of their income stream:

Many of the church based organisations are trying to [become], to be independent ofCFA funding. How do we maintain our independence and our commitment to ourvalues, when the State funds us?


12

In the context of declining charitable giving and a limited philanthropic trust sector,however, these efforts to attain financial independence from state funding appearedproblematic for all but small agencies.10 For medium to large CVOs in Christchurch,financial management was more likely to be concerned with ongoing viability, andaspirations of independence from statutory funding, while desirable, seemed difficult torealise.11

These strategies of resistance were not equally open to all community and voluntaryorganisations. In particular, deployment of the bolder options was generally theprerogative of larger CVOs alone. Here institutional resources afforded some degreeof insurance against the most obvious potential fall-out of such strategies: the failure tosecure funding. Smaller organisations were typically in a weaker position, theirchoices being more starkly a matter of either complying with funders’ requirements orvoluntarily withdrawing from the competitive regime. In addition, some smalleragencies were hesitant to complain or speak out about their difficulties with externalfunders for fear it would undermine their own chances of success. While entirelyunderstandable, such hesitancy clearly augurs badly for the political autonomy anddistinctiveness of the local community and voluntary welfare sector.

Organisational trajectories

At the level of individual CVOs these responses to funding-related pressures cametogether as particular organisational trajectories. This term is intended to describe thedevelopment of an agency over time in relation to its core values and to those of thecontemporary social policy environment. Organisational trajectories were not typicallya matter of an agency either undergoing service modification or exercising resistance –elements of both were often identifiable. But in many cases the broad direction inwhich an agency was moving, relative to its core values and those of the wider socio-political context, could be discerned. 12

Figure 1 schematically depicts this notion of organisational trajectories. The backdropis a field representing the spectrum of voluntary welfare values and practices in theChristchurch CVO sector. At one side, we have ‘traditional’ voluntary welfare, arguablycharacterised by small to medium voluntary agencies, prior to any intensive levels ofservice contracting to the state. At the other end of the field is ‘professionalised’voluntary welfare and the characteristics one might associate with large, high volumeagencies that have been in existence for some time and which receive significantstatutory funding. Further to the right still, we might envisage what Wolch (1990) callsthe ‘shadow state’ – agencies where service practices have been shaped by state

10 For many small, volunteer reliant agencies, external statutory funding was not often operationally critical.Attaining independence from it was thus not likely to cause financial difficulties. 11 Between 2000 and 2002, however, the annual reports of several larger providers in the city make mention ofincreased signals from government that they should be developing independence of statutory financial support. 12 Indications of the nature and direction of CVO development was sought within annual reports, newsletters,internal memos and the research interviews with key staff.

13

funders to the extent that they are in practice difficult to distinguish from those ofstatutory welfare providers.

Figure 1 Organisational Trajectories in the Community and Voluntary Welfare SectorW

olch’s (1990)Shadow

State

‘PROFESSIONALISED’ VOLUNTARY WELFARE

� professionalised, structured services� staff and volunteer-based� larger client numbers� greater reliance upon statutory funding� some cost recovery for services� potentially less room for innovation

(1) ‘PROFESSIONALISATION’

(2) ‘RELATIVE STABILITY’

Community/ VoluntaryOrganisation @ T1



‘TRADITIONAL’ VOLUNTARY WELFARE

� personalised, flexible services� primarily volunteer based� small client numbers� plurality of funding sources� services generally free� freedom for innovation


SPECTRUM OF VOLUNTARY WELFARE VALUES AND PRACTICES

As might be expected, Christchurch CVOs productively occupy a range of positionswithin this field. Some have always been more orientated towards volunteer-basedsupport, whilst others have operated relatively professionalised forms of serviceprovision for some time.13 This diversity is manifest as a broad range of serviceswhich people seeking assistance in the city may access. Since the introduction ofcontractual funding mechanisms, however, it appears that the distribution of CVOswithin this spectrum has changed in a number of ways. In part this reflects longer termstrategic organisational developments, but it has also been about financial survivalwithin a difficult socio-political context and the negotiation of value-based tensions withexternal funders.

Two main types of organisational trajectory can be identified. First, a small number ofagencies have shifted towards more professionalised forms of welfare delivery (1). In

13 It is recognised here that CVOs, like other organisations, develop over time. In particular, amongst those inoperation for several years, one tendency is to evolve from small, multi-focus agencies with a strong relianceupon volunteers towards larger, more specialised agencies that make greater use of paid staff. Not all CVOsfollow this path – many innovative agencies remain small and relatively volunteer based over time – but there isnevertheless a tendency for some providers to move towards the right of the spectrum in figure 1 over time.

14

the context of a competitive funding environment, these CVOs have chosen to moveaway from materially focused work (e.g. emergency relief) towards psychosocialservices such as social work, counselling and family therapy. Accordingly they havedeveloped relatively high ratios of paid staff to volunteers: this reflects thequalifications necessary for individuals working in these areas. Relative to the incomestreams of ‘traditional’ voluntary agencies, they also tend to be more reliant uponstatutory funding contracts.

Second, a significant number of agencies have been relatively stable, maintainingvalues and welfare practices similar to those they began the 1990s with (2). Suchrelative stability was most common among small to medium providers, and tended toreflect some combination of strategies of resistance and efforts to avoid statutoryfunding sources altogether. Within these agencies, there tended to be similar orgreater numbers of volunteers than paid staff.

Placing these trends together, the community and voluntary sector in Christchurch hasthus undergone a small increase in terms of its distribution along the continuum infigure 1. In other words, it displays some indication of professionalisation. At the timeof the research, however, this had not occurred to the extent that Wolch’s descriptionof a ‘shadow state’ was in any way descriptively appropriate. In fact, there remainedclear evidence of innovative and distinctive providers in both the small/traditional andrelatively professionalised ends of the sector.14 Innovative practice in small/traditionalorganisations was observable, for example, within a number of community drop-incentres, women’s support groups and services for the elderly. These CVOs typicallycombined both material and psychosocial forms of support; service users were oftenable to form supportive relationships with volunteers and other clients (Jamieson,1998). Several of the large providers in the city also continued to break new ground intheir work with disenfranchised individuals and social groups in the city. For many ofthese agencies, Christian faith was highly significant in shaping both particular servicesand for informing a broader vision of justice and well being in the city.

In terms of possible future developments, it is worth noting that in the late 1990sstatutory funding contracts were differentially accruing to the relatively large,professional providers towards the right of the figure 1 spectrum.15 This can be seen inthe prominence of such agencies in the allocation tables of organisations like CFA(table 2). Smaller or more autonomous agencies towards the left of the spectrumtended to be conspicuous by their absence in such lists.16 While the state is clearly notthe only funding stream for CVOs for Christchurch, a continued concentration of its

14 Designation of a particular service as innovative is inherently a value judgement. However the comments hereare intended to be indicative of the creative vitality of the sector rather than of an allocation of agencies intobinary categories of innovative/distinctive and not so. 15 As noted earlier, given their alignment with the metrics of external funders and institutional capabilities,professional organisations were arguably better suited to obtaining statutory funding. 16 Organisational size is of course a factor in the composition of this table – large agencies are more likely toapply for large amounts of funding – but the relative absence of community sector organisations in theseallocations remains notable.

15

funding contracts has the potential to facilitate the emergence of a two-tier CVOsector. The division here would be between relatively well and relatively poorlyresourced agencies. In this scenario small agencies offering personalised, perhapsinnovative services might well be deprived of access to centralised resources. Thiswould have implications for the diversity and autonomy of the voluntary sector,reducing in turn the breadth of services available to citizens.

Table 2 CFA Funding Allocations, Canterbury/Westland Region, 1996-97 (Top Five Recipients)

ORGANISATION FUNDINGALLOCATION

(NZ Dollars)

% CFA REGIONAL

FUNDING ALLOCATION

Anglican City Mission 116243 3.7

Catholic Social Services 256579 8.1

Christchurch Methodist Mission 230064 7.3

Kingdom Resources Ltd 62466 2.0

Presbyterian Support Services 429849 13.6

Organisational Total 1095201 34.5

Source: New Zealand CFA (1996)

International comparisons

The value-based tensions and organisational changes evident within the communityand voluntary welfare sector in Christchurch are not something specific to NewZealand (Gidron et al, 1992; Harris, 1993). As part of a wider refiguring of statutory-voluntary relations in western democracies over the last 15 years, they have parallelsin many other western cities. In their comparative study of Vancouver and Jerusalem,for instance, Hasson and Ley (1994) observed that:

It appears that linkages created between the organisations and the political-administrative system led unintentionally not only to greater dependence on the stateand its redistributive power, but also to a modification of original norms, anenhancement of socialisation in terms of the centre, and a change of personalorientations … Organisations … that decline the co-productive option are ignored bythe state, unless they attract very large numbers. More often than not, bereft ofresources, they wither away.

Hasson and Ley (1994, p. 321-22)

16

Similarly, from an American context, Wuthnow (1991) notes that:

When accountability becomes the dominant operating norm, voluntary associationsbecome less clearly distinguishable from government agencies and for-profit firms ...Specialisation that focused on delimited objectives triumphs, measurable results takeprecedence over less well defined outcomes, and competitive pressures to gain themost tangible results with the most efficient expenditure of resources rise to pre-eminence. The work of a voluntary association may still be oriented toward broadsocietal values such as health, equality, or psychological well being. But governmentalpressures to keep costs down in the interests of not having to raise taxes or because offoreign economic competition are likely to redefine the very meaning of these values.

Wuthnow (1991, p. 298)

In Britain, Deakin (1995, p.62) has similarly observed a range of responses to thetensions inherent to contracting:

[CVOs have entered] a new universe with very different rules of engagement: inshorthand, the ‘contract culture’. Some are well equipped to cope with it. Most largevoluntary organisations have taken on board the lessons of the management revolutionof the 1980s and kitted themselves out with all the paraphernalia of the enterpriseculture: mission statements, logos, personal identification with tasks, ‘passion’ (evenobsession) for excellence. Others resisted but have recognised that survival has meantbeing able to play the game according to the new rules. Others are still simplybewildered or hardly aware of what the rules are – ‘generic’ organisations operating atcommunity level and many ethnic and women’s groups. Others still have beendeliberately excluded because their objectives do not mesh with the project: these arethe deplorable ‘pressure groups’ – mainly advocacy and campaigning bodies.

The picture here is a stark, even polemic one, and its details are not necessarilyneatably translatable to the New Zealand context. Within the different organisationalresponses to contractual pressures in Christchurch, however, some of the elementsDeakin identifies above were evident in the late 1990s.

Pressures upon voluntary sector values and service practices in association withcontractual funding arrangements are thus a relatively common experience across anumber of western nations. In Christchurch there remain clear positive featureshowever. As noted, several agencies continue to provide distinctive and innovativewelfare services for marginalised citizens. With their personalised approach and abilityto develop meaningful relations with clients, such CVOs often function as significantsocial environments for their users (Jamieson, 1998).

17

CONCLUSION

The findings of this research clearly indicate that many Christchurch CVOs werefinding operation in the socio-political and financial climate of the late 1990s to beproblematic. National charitable giving was in decline, philanthropic trust funds wererelatively fewer than in Britain or the United States, and statutory funders were workingwith welfare models that were, in several ways, in tension with those employed by theagencies themselves.

Individual CVOs experienced and responded to these value-based tensions in differentways. Some modified their service specifications to more closely match the criteria offunders. Others resisted the imperatives of external funding bodies, and some wereactively seeking independence of particular funding streams. At the level of individualagencies, different organisational trajectories could be discerned as these dimensionsof response came together. There was some evidence of professionalisation withinparts of the sector, as well as instances of relative stability and continuingdistinctiveness.

Since the interviews were completed, the intensity of neoliberal policy pursued byNational governments during the 1990s has been somewhat moderated under theLabour/Alliance coalition. A number of ‘third way’ policies, akin to those developed byNew Labour in the UK, have been implemented (Chatterjee et al, 1999; Giddens,1998). The political context for community and voluntary welfare provision in NewZealand has accordingly moved on. The functions of CFA have been relocated to theDepartment of Children, Youth and Family (CYF) in 1999, for instance, and changeshave been made to contracting and evaluation processes since then. More recently,following the report of the Community and Government Potential for PartnershipWorking Party, a Statement of Government Intentions for an Improved Community-Government Relationship was signed in December 2001.

As government and the voluntary sector work through the implications of thesedevelopments in the coming months, the negotiation of value-based tensions withinservice partnerships will continue to be an important issue. In this context, it is hopedthat the findings here will be of some use in the associated processes of discussionand debate.

18

REFERENCES

Armstrong N, 1994 ‘State’, in Spoonley P, Pearson D and Shirley I (eds) New ZealandSociety: A Sociological Introduction (Palmerston North, Dunmore Press, SecondEdition) pp 113-129

Avery Jack P and Robb J H, 1977 ‘Social welfare policies: development and patternssince 1945’ in Trlin A D (ed) Social Welfare and New Zealand Society (Wellington,Methuen New Zealand) pp 29-44

Barker R and Currie A, 1994 Food Security in Christchurch Unpublished report,Healthlink South, Canterbury Regional Health Authority, Christchurch

Barnett J R, 1999 ‘Hollowing out the state? Some observations on the restructuring ofhospital services in New Zealand’ Area 31(3) pp 259-270

Bassett M, 1998 The State in New Zealand, 1840-1984: Socialism without Doctrines?(Auckland, Auckland University Press)

Black J, 2000 The Development of the Voluntary Sector in Canterbury New ZealandUnpublished MA Thesis, Department of Geography, University of Canterbury, PrivateBag 4800, Christchurch

Bollard A and Mayes E, 1993 ‘Corporatisation and Privatisation in New Zealand’ inClarke T and Pitelis C (eds) The Political Economy of Privatisation (London,Routledge) pp 308-336

Boston J, 1995 The State Under Contract (Wellington, New Zealand, Bridget WilliamBooks)

Boston J, Martin J, Pallot J, Walsh P (eds) 1991 Reshaping The State: New Zealand’sBureaucratic Revolution (Oxford University Press, Auckland)

Boston J and Dalziel P, (eds) 1992 The Decent Society? Essays in Response toNational’s Economic and Social Policies (Auckland, Oxford University Press)

Boston J, Dalziel P and St John S, 1999 (eds) Redesigning the Welfare State in NewZealand: Problems, Policies, Prospects (Auckland, Oxford University Press)

Castles F G, 1996 ‘Needs-Based Strategies of Social Protection in Australia and NewZealand’ in Esping-Anderson G (ed) Welfare States in Transition: National Adaptationsin Global Economies (London, Sage) pp 88-115

Chatterjee S, Conway P, Dalziel P, Eichbaum C, Harris P, Philpott B, Shaw R, 1999The New Politics: A Third Way for New Zealand (Palmerston North, Dunmore Press)

19

Cheyne C, O’Brien M and Belgrave M, 1997 Social Policy in Aotearoa New Zealand: acritical introduction (Auckland, Oxford University Press)

Clark J, 1997 Restructuring the Welfare State: Changes in Auckland’s VoluntaryWelfare Sector Unpublished MA Thesis, Department of Geography, University ofAuckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland

Common R and Flynn N, 1992 Contracting for Care (York, Joseph RowntreeFoundation)

Dalziel P, 1993 Taxing the Poor: Key Assumptions behind the 1991 Benefit Cuts.What are the Alternatives? (Working Paper, Department of Economics, LincolnUniversity, Canterbury, New Zealand)

Dalziel P, 1996 Poor Policy: A report for the New Zealand Council of Christian SocialServices on the 1991 Benefit Cuts and the 1996 Tax Cuts (Wellington, New ZealandCouncil of Christian Social Services)

Davis Smith J, Rochester R and Hedley R (eds) 1995 An Introduction to the VoluntarySector (London, Routledge)

Deakin N, 1995 ‘The perils of partnership: the voluntary sector and the state, 1945 –1992’, in Davis-Smith J, Rochester R and Hedley R (eds) 1995, An Introduction to theVoluntary Sector (London, Routledge), pp 40-65

Deakin N, 1996 ‘The devils in the detail: some reflections on contracting for socialcare by voluntary organisations’, Social Policy and Administration 30(1) pp 20-38

Department of Social Welfare, 1990 Contracting for Social Services: Principles andGuidelines (Wellington, New Zealand Department of Social Welfare)

Easton B, 1980 Social Policy and the Welfare State in New Zealand (Auckland, Allenand Unwin)

Esping-Anderson G (ed) 1996 Welfare States in Transition: National Adaptations inGlobal Economies (London, Sage)

Fitzgerald K and Cameron J, 1989 Voluntary Organisations in Christchurch - AnOverview of Staffing, Funding and Service - Phase One (Christchurch New Zealand,Christchurch District Council of Social Services)

Giddens A, 1998 The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy (Cambridge,Polity Press)

20

Gidron B, Kramer R M and Salamon L M, 1992 Government and the Third Sector:Emerging Relationships in Welfare States (San Francisco, Jossey-Bass)

Harris M, 1993 ‘The changing role of the voluntary sector in welfare’, in Thomas N,Deakin N and Doling J (eds) Learning From Innovation: Housing and Social Care in the1990s (Birmingham, Birmingham Academic Press)

Hasson S and Ley D, 1994 Neighbourhood Organisations and the Welfare State(Toronto, University of Toronto Press)

Hawke G R, 1985 The Making of New Zealand: an Economic History (Cambridge,Cambridge University Press)

Hawke G R and Robinson D (eds) 1993 Performance without Profit: the VoluntaryWelfare Sector (Wellington, Victoria University Press, The Institute of Policy Studies)

Higgins J, 1997 ‘Policy trade-offs in social service contracting: a case for transparencyin policy discourse’ Social Policy Journal of New Zealand

Higgins J, 1999 ‘From welfare to workfare’ in Boston J, Dalziel P and St John S (eds)The Redesign of the Welfare State in New Zealand: Problems, Policies and Prospects(Auckland, Oxford University Press)

Jackman S, 1992 Windows on Poverty: A Report from the New Zealand Council ofChristian Social Services (Wellington, New Zealand, New Zealand Council of ChristianSocial Services)

James C, 1992 New Territory: the Transformation of New Zealand, 1984-1992(Wellington, Bridget Williams Books)

Jamieson K, 1998 Poverty and Hardship in Christchurch: a Reference Guide(Christchurch, Leisure and Community Services Unit, Christchurch City Council, POBox 237, Christchurch, New Zealand)

Kelsey J, 1996 Economic Fundamentalism (London, Pluto Press)

Koopman-Boyden P G, 1992 ‘Volunteering in the 1990s’ Social Work Review, July1992, pp 14-18

Le Heron R and Pawson E (eds) 1996 Changing Places: New Zealand in the Nineties(Auckland, Longman Paul)

Leigh J, 1994 Contracting for Social Services: A Process Evaluation of the CFAContracting Procedures (Unpublished MA Thesis, University of Waikato, Hamilton,New Zealand)

21

Leonard P, 1997 Postmodern Welfare (London, Sage)

Lewis J, 1994 ‘Voluntary organisations in “New Partnership” with Local Authorities: theanatomy of a contract’, Social Policy and Administration 28(3) pp 206-220

Lewis, J, 1996 ‘What does contracting do to voluntary agencies?’, in Billis D andHarris M (eds) Voluntary Agencies: Challenges of Organisation and Management(Basingstoke, Macmillan)

McClure M, 1998 A Civilized Community: A History of Social Security in New Zealand,1898-1998 (Auckland, Auckland University Press)

Nicholls V, 1997 ‘Contracting and the voluntary sector: a critique of the impact ofmarkets on Mind organisations’, Critical Social Policy 17 pp 101-114

New Zealand Community Funding Agency, 1995 Standards for Approval. Level Three:Community Services (Wellington, Government Printing Agency)

New Zealand Community Funding Agency, 1996 National Services Plan: FundingDecisions 1996/97 (Wellington, Community Funding Agency)

O’Brien M and Wilkes C, 1993 The Tragedy of the Market: A Social Experiment inNew Zealand. (Palmerston North, New Zealand: The Dunmore Press)

Oliver W H, 1977 ‘The Origins and Growth of the Welfare State’ in Trlin A D (ed)Social Welfare in New Zealand Society (Wellington, Methuen) pp 1-28

Oliver W H, 1988 ‘Social policy in New Zealand: An historical overview’, in The AprilReport, Report of the Royal Commission on Social Policy. Volume I (Wellington,Royal Commission on Social Policy) pp 3-45

Owen D, 1964 English Philanthropy: 1660-1960 (Cambridge Massachusetts, HarvardUniversity Press)

Pawson E, 1996 ‘The state and social policy’, in Le Heron R and Pawson E (eds)Changing Places: New Zealand in the Nineties (Auckland: Longman Paul Limited) pp210-221

Rice G W, 1992 ‘A Revolution in Social Policy, 1981-1991’ in Rice G W (ed) TheOxford History of New Zealand (Auckland, Oxford University Press, 2nd edition) pp 482-498

Rosenberg W, 1977 ‘Full employment: the fulcrum of social welfare’, in Trlin A D (ed)Social Welfare and New Zealand Society (Wellington, Methuen) pp 45-60

22

Rudd C, 2001 ‘Welfare policy’ in Miller R (ed) New Zealand Government and Politics(2nd edition, Melbourne, Oxford University Press)

Smith V, 1996a ‘Contracting for social and welfare services’, Australian and NewZealand Third Sector Research Limited 2 pp 5-18

Smith V, 1996b ‘The changing relationship between the government and the voluntarysector in New Zealand, 1985 - 1995’, Conference paper delivered to the Australian andNew Zealand Third Sector Research Conference, 2-5 July 1996

Tassie B, Murray V, Cutt J and Bragg D, 1996 ‘Rationality and politics: what reallygoes on when funders evaluate the performance of fundees?’, Nonprofit and VoluntarySector Quarterly 25(3) pp 347-363

Taylor M, 1992 ‘The changing role of the nonprofit sector in Britain: moving toward themarket’, in Gidron B, Kramer R M and Salamon L M, (eds) Government and the ThirdSector. Emerging Relationships in Welfare States (San Francisco, Jossey-BassPublishers) pp 147-175

Trlin A D (ed) 1977 Social Welfare and New Zealand Society (Wellington, MethuenNew Zealand)

Whale A, 1993 Voluntary Welfare Provision in a Landscape of Change: the Emergenceof Foodbanks in Auckland. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of Geography,University of Auckland

Wolch J R, 1990 The Shadow State: Government and Voluntary Sector in Transition(New York, The Foundation Centre)

Wuthnow R, 1991 ‘The voluntary sector: legacy of the past, hope for the future?’, inWuthnow R (ed) 1991 Between States and Markets: the Voluntary Sector inComparative Perspective (Princeton, Princeton University Press)

Young M, 1995 Housing the Hungry: The Second Report. A Survey of Salvation ArmyFoodbank Recipients to Assess the Impact of the Government’s Housing Reforms(Wellington, Salvation Army and New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services)

23

Appendix 1: Research Sample of Christchurch CVOs

01 Anglican Care (Central Office)02 Anglican Care: Addington Community Cottage03 Anglican Care: City Mission04 Anglican Care: Waltham Community House05 Aranui Community Development Scheme06 Barnado’s New Zealand07 Beneficiaries Advisory Service08 Birthright09 Catholic Social Services10 Christchurch Household Budget and Advisory Service11 Delta Community Support Trust12 Floyd's Workshop13 Hornby Community Care14 Housing For Women Trust15 Lincoln Community Care16 Linwood Union Church17 Maori Women's Welfare League18 Methodist Mission (Central Office)19 Methodist Mission : Child And Family Services20 Methodist Mission: Emergency Relief21 Mission Possible22 Moni Awhina23 Open Home Foundation24 Oxford Terrace Baptist Drop In25 Presbyterian Support (Central Office)26 Presbyterian Support: Campbell Centre27 Presbyterian Support: Family Care28 Presbyterian Support: Holly House29 Presbyterian Support: Senior Support30 Prospect Work Trust31 Rowley Resource Centre32 Salvation Army: Addington Men’s Social Centre33 Salvation Army Community And Family Services34 Solo Women As Parents35 Spreydon Baptist Church: Cross-Over Trust36 Spreydon Baptist Church: Kingdom Resource Trust37 Spreydon Baptist Church: New Harvest Trust38 Spreydon Baptist Church: Project Esther39 St Vincent De Paul40 Taua Mahi Trust41 The Friendship Centre42 The Samaritans43 Wai Ora Trust44 Whareora House45 YWCA Women's Night Shelter

Contact details and further information for many of these agencies are available from the CINCH(Community Information Christchurch) database. In April 2002 this was accessible online from theChristchurch City Council webpages (follow the link from http://www.ccc.govt.nz/services.asp).

NEGOTIATING VALUE-BASED TENSIONS: VOLUNTARY WELFARE … · the 1980s, notably the United States,...

Documents

Transcript of NEGOTIATING VALUE-BASED TENSIONS: VOLUNTARY WELFARE … · the 1980s, notably the United States,...