VCS 2020 A Force for Good - British Library/media/bl/global/social-welfare/pdfs/... · 4 A Force...

Acknowledgements Newcastle CVS would like to thank Newcastle City Council for commissioning this report. SkillsBridge has been an excellent partner and has provided a comprehensive and independent report. A number of people and organisations have contributed their time and thoughts to make this such a broad and wide-ranging report, and time is a very precious commodity. Thanks must go to everyone who contributed to individual interviews : Nick Forbes, Joyce McCarty, David Faulkner, Pat Ritchie, Andrew Lewis, Eugene Milne, Ewen Weir, Mick Murphy, Tony Durcan, Neil Quinn, Rachel Baillie, Phil Hunter, Ang Jamson, David Fay, Andrew Rothwell, Neil Munslow, Bridget Atkins, Paul Brownlee, Guy Pilkington, Mark Adams, Jackie Cairns, Elaine Snaith, James Duncan, Elizabeth Moody, Louise Robson, Barbara Harrison, John Lee, Mark Tewdyr-Jones, Lucy Winskill

The Chief Executives of Sported, VONNE, CITA, NESEP, SES, SkillsBridge, Volunteer Centre Newcastle, Ouseburn Trust, Newcastle Tenant’s and Resident’s Federation, Newcastle CAB, Pendower Good Neighbour, Jet North, Garden Village Playgroup, Tyneside Cinema, Crossings, Disability North, better Days, Northern Learning trust, RHWE, Millin Centre, NIWE Eating Disorder, Tyneside Women’s Health, St Anthony of Padua, Search, dementia Care, Newcastle YMCA, Kids Kabin, grange Park Boys Club and Byker Community Centre

The 71 voluntary and community organisations who contributed to Taking the Temperature

Newcastle CVS is the primary voluntary sector infrastructure organisation in Newcastle with a growing membership, currently over 630 charities, voluntary and community groups and social enterprises.

Newcastle CVS exists to improve the quality of life in Newcastle by a broad programme of voluntary action and activity, recognising that priority should be focussed on the most disadvantaged communities. It is the only organisation based in Newcastle that provides this for all of the citizens. The difference we make is through supporting voluntary and community organisations to develop and extend their offer and by supporting people in vulnerable circumstances and marginalised groups, to have their voices heard, their rights upheld, access to the services they need and improved quality of life.

VCS 2020 a force for good by Newcastle Council for Voluntary Service is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 4.0 International License.

Copyright: Newcastle Council for Voluntary Service, 2015 Published: Newcastle Council for Voluntary Service, July 2015

Newcastle CVS, Higham House, Higham Place, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 8AF Registered charity 1125877 and company limited by guarantee 6681475 Tel 0191 232 7445 www.cvsnewcastle.org.uk twitter @newcastlecvs Email [email protected] Fax 0191 230 5640

3 A Force for Good : VCS 2020 Newcastle Council for Voluntary Service

Contents

1. Introduction 4

2. Executive Summary 5

3. The Voluntary and Community Sector in Newcastle – a brief history 12

4. Public Sector views of Newcastle Voluntary & Community Sector 15

5. Planning for the future 31

6. How does it look in 2020? 38

7. The nature of the support needed 41

8. National policy around the voluntary sector 45

9. Taking the Temperature 2015 49

10. Regional and national research 72

11. Reference list 81


Introduction Newcastle will be a very different place by 2020. If we do nothing, external forces – a vicious circle of cuts, deprivation and inequalities – will drive change for the worse. Alternatively if we take action, our vision and leadership could support communities to drive change for the better. Newcastle City Council is currently developing a suite of transformation projects known as Newcastle 2020. The objective is to bring together the political and policy direction and information about the resources that will be available in future years, and to use these to help stakeholders imagine and plan for the future. The future wellbeing of the city depends in large part on the vibrancy, sustainability and focus of its voluntary and community sector. As part of the Newcastle 2020 project, the City Council wants to develop a new shared approach to the future of the sector, which can be used to further develop the capacity and vision of Newcastle’s communities. As part of the Council’s desire to meet the challenges of 2020, it commissioned Newcastle CVS to produce a comprehensive report on the position of the voluntary and community sector in 2015, the support it needs and uses now, and looking to the position in 2020. The research was carried out in January to April 2015, before the General Election, but some of the analysis was completed after the Election result was known; and before the first budget of the new Parliament on 8 July 2015. This report has a number of separate elements – interviews with 29 key public sector and community leaders, interviews with 20 local voluntary and community organisations, interviews with 10 key support (infrastructure organisations), a survey of 71 local organisations and a background review of the key policies affecting the voluntary and community sector locally and nationally. Newcastle CVS carried out the public sector and community leader study, the survey of local organisations, the national policy context and produced the overall report. In order to increase capacity and provide independence, Newcastle CVS commissioned SkillsBridge to carry out detailed interviews with local organisations – both service providers and infrastructure organisations. The result is the most comprehensive study carried out for many years on behalf of the voluntary and community sector in Newcastle. The report cannot provide answers to all of the current challenges but does illustrate some key questions for the commissioner of the report, Newcastle City Council. The City Council is the driver behind Newcastle 2020, its strategies and direction will shape the environment for what is to come. This report illustrates some key questions and choices for the City Council. The voluntary and community sector is clearly crucial to civic life and although not all of its funding comes from the public sector, the Council can create, or destroy, the environment for it to thrive. The answer is not just about financial support, as most organisations are very realistic about the funding challenges, but instead about involvement, engagement, partnership, creative commissioning, best use of grant aid, social value, joint bidding processes, and recognising the voluntary and community sector as an innovative provider of solutions to be involved from the start of processes and initiatives.


Executive Summary Newcastle City Council is currently developing a suite of transformation projects known as Newcastle 2020. The objective is to bring together the political and policy direction and information about the resources that will be available in future years, and to use these to help stakeholders imagine and plan for the future. The future wellbeing of the city depends in large part on the vibrancy, sustainability and focus of its voluntary and community sector. As part of the Newcastle 2020 project, the City Council wants to develop a new shared approach to the future of the sector, which can be used to further develop the capacity and vision of Newcastle’s communities. As part of the Council’s desire to meet the challenges of 2020, it commissioned Newcastle CVS to produce a comprehensive report on the position of the voluntary and community sector in 2015, the support it needs and uses now, and looking to the position in 2020. The questions to be answered:

•••• Where is the sector and what has happened so far?

•••• What does the sector look like now?

•••• What are the implications for the sector from public sector reform?

•••• What do we know about current support to the sector?

•••• What are the suggested recommendations for change in light of the shape of the sector in 2020?

This report has taken an overarching look at the potential contribution of the voluntary and community sector in Newcastle. It demonstrates that there is a strong potential within the sector to help to mitigate the worst impacts of the recession, but only if the public sector chooses to involve, engage and invest in the voluntary and community sector and see it as a key partner in transforming the city in the years ahead. The voluntary and community sector in Newcastle is unique in the North East. It is very diverse, covers most areas (geographical and interest), offers many different services, manages large and complex buildings and projects, runs many services, employs several thousand people and supports many thousands of volunteers. If it did not exist, nothing comparable could take its place. So how can the power and the good of the sector best be harnessed to best support the City’s communities through 2020 and beyond? The voluntary and community sector in Newcastle has a wealth of skills, experiences, capacity and ideas to help address Newcastle’s key challenges. However social action can thrive only in the right environment. The report highlights many examples of different ways of supporting people and communities that aren’t just through traditional service delivery. Possibly one the most important roles of the sector is as a ‘community anchor’, not a phrase often used. But those organisations that are from, and rooted within communities are trusted, and can provide security in hard times. If the focus is purely on transactional services, then this quality is absent – you get what you pay for.


Unless communities are involved and seen as central to Newcastle 2020, they become purely the inactive receiver of services. Clearly engaged and active communities should link into any devolution discussions, and this gives a different dimension to genuine devolution. There have been some community decision-making initiatives in Newcastle, but these need to be more significant and link into power structures or else they can become marginalised. Voluntary and community organisations are well-positioned to support local communities to engage at this level. A key finding is that if the community and voluntary sector is perceived purely as a supply of (free) volunteers or a provider of public service contracts, then a huge opportunity is missed. Organisations need be involved from the start of processes and their views taken seriously. Public sector leaders commented on the quality of leadership within the sector, and some stars were identified – how can these people, who often have creative and entrepreneurial skills be used to supplement Newcastle 2020? The local NHS has recognised the potential value of doing things differently and Ways to Wellness has been established to offer an alternative for people with certain long term conditions. This uses a social impact bond to provide funding for voluntary organisations to engage Link Workers who work with the referred patients on a one to one basis. Part of the offer is referral to local community groups. Could a similar process be considered for diversion from other professional services, whilst still ensuring the person receives support; an example of this could be a ‘Looked After’ child being actively engaged in a youth group The whole idea of community development, engagement and empowerment can be seen as enabling communities to increase control of their lives. When people gain control over the factors and decisions that shape their lives, they become empowered. There are many examples of voluntary organisations, particularly in the areas of greatest need that have supported people through hard times for many years, sometimes have provided work and training, and crucially they have simply been there for them. These organisations should be recognised, prioritised and grant-aided precisely to keep doing this community resilience work. Voluntary and community organisations are not just a way of engaging into and with communities, particularly those who are often excluded from decision-making structures, but also act as a voice and advocate for them with external partners and agencies. The issue of trust emerged several times and organisations take this role very seriously. The sector is often a source of information and intelligence about communities. The Police valued this role of advocacy and providing a conduit to communities. There were very different views of the current procurement and commissioning processes. Clearly Council managers involved with procurement saw it as a way of delivering their intentions, getting best practice out of (limited) resources and targeting these resources effectively. Other public service managers and a number of voluntary organisations saw procurement differently; as being divisive, time-consuming, not delivering the outcomes and impacts the Council wanted to achieve and sometimes having unintended consequences. It was unclear why Newcastle hadn’t put social value clauses into procurement processes. There could be more jointly commissioned services across all sectors, and involving the private sector as appropriate as a mechanism to do things differently and reduce costs. Feedback from several charity leaders highlighted the need for more service user, carer


and provider engagement in designing systems to ensure that these were what was really needed and prioritise certain features. When services are genuinely co-designed with users and carers they should be more effective, more efficient and probably more creative. There was an appetite for complete service redesign in some areas, to use a cohort approach, to design pathways around people’s needs and involve the organisations most appropriate to delivery. This was seen as being more transformational and appropriate than many current approaches which involve cutting the services to fit the budget. In some instances statutory providers might not be what is needed, and services could be ‘provider-blind’, as long as the specification is correct. Would the public sector be brave enough to do this? ‘Does the nature of provider matter?’ has been a key question for public sector reformers over the last thirty years. Many would argue that the key issue is quality and that services should be ‘provider-blind’. Clearly the ‘private sector bad, public sector good’ and the reverse rhetoric does not hold, but thinking is shifting towards the culture of the provider organisation being important – does it pay a Living Wage, does it treat its staff well, does it invest its surplus/ profits back into the community and further organisational development? Volunteers were essential to many voluntary and community organisations and now the Council and NHS want more volunteers in their work. However this requires support and investment. A number of voluntary and community organisations commented on the lack of capacity in Newcastle to achieve this (only one funded staff member at the Volunteer Centre Newcastle). Could this be a model for social investment? There could be better engagement with the Universities’ Volunteer Centres. Similar Core Cities have large Volunteer Centres; Newcastle has the smallest Volunteer Centre in the North East LEP area. There were mixed views about the roles of volunteers in managing services that were previously managed by the City Council. The current asset transfer programme has demonstrated that there were a very small number of community organisations and volunteers who have the capacity and skills to do this. However more successful transfers had been to existing voluntary organisations who knew how to manage complexity, staff and buildings. Projects which involved volunteers in roles in leisure and community services, showed that these worked best where there was still some level of support, and the ‘safety net’ of a paid worker. The strategic role of the voluntary sector in partnerships was mentioned by many respondents; whilst public sector managers referred to the engagement of the voluntary sector in partnerships, some voluntary sector leads commented on the lack of partnerships and systematic engagement and compared it to what had been around previously. Voluntary sector leads recognised the lack of capacity but found it very difficult to engage with Council senior managers about non-contractual issues. Participants often referred to previous partnerships and felt there was a loss in the system, and that when an opportunity arose the Council would tend to look to its structures first, rather than focus on the opportunities for communities. This meant that system design did not necessarily include all the potential opportunities, and there should be greater consideration of designing around cohorts and communities, rather than organisational structures. Some public sector interviewees commented on the number of voluntary and community organisations negatively, others saw the spread and diversity as a positive element. Some public sector interviewees commented there should be more partnership working; but this


was often difficult for organisations that had to compete against each other in tendering processes and some of the goodwill in the sector had diminished because of this competition. A Newcastle Voluntary Sector Consortium had been established but to date there had not been any suitable public sector contracts. There could be more active engagement with the consortium for service delivery through negotiation with commissioners The relative freedoms of the voluntary and community sector provided opportunities to do things differently, quickly and flexibly and focus on the outcomes. A Co-operative Council should recognise that sometimes it’s better for others to deliver, and all new resources should be seen in this way. This requires honest and difficult conversations. Sometimes there is limited capacity for the voluntary sector to secure resources from elsewhere. There could be greater consideration to how to support voluntary organisations get resources from large funding programmes by giving support from the public sector. Clearly the sector has a role in campaigning and highlighting areas of unfairness, such as the impact and scale of public sector cuts. There could be better and more joint lobbying on specific issues in order to increase the power and voice. Often voluntary and community organisations have the narrative and people’s stories, which are powerful. These could be used to challenge public attitudes; ideally in partnership with statutory bodies e.g. the public’s negative attitude to migrants. There were a number of references to the age-friendly city, demographic changes, doing more digitally, and the issue of austerity arose in most of the conversations. It wasn’t clear how other areas were facing these challenges. Newcastle is a relatively compact city, it has many assets and it wasn’t clear how the universities were contributing their expertise and resources to the process. There were several comments about silo thinking and the lack of a whole system and both the public sector and voluntary organisations retreating as their budgets diminished. The issue of social isolation and loneliness were felt to be key areas for a whole systems approach to tackle the problems. The questionnaires and interviews highlighted the status of the sector; and the Newcastle position clearly is reflected by the national one, but is worse locally. Public sector contracts form a significant part of the funding mix for medium size and large voluntary organisations. This is not surprising as a lot of this is direct provision, often for health and social care services. A key characteristic for many organisations is the amount of change with significant decreases and increases in income, staff, volunteers and often then resulting in changing premises. Several respondents took the opportunity to promote the unique value of the voluntary sector, not as a ‘cheap’ provider of competitive services, nor as a supplier of unpaid volunteers, but as a genuine force for good, focussing on their clients / beneficiaries. There were certainly more pessimistic than optimistic views about the sector in 2020 with it being dominated by large providers, but this also means the public sector needs to take appropriate action if it wants to retain the rich and diverse mosaic that currently operates in Newcastle, which provides huge amounts of added value. The surveys undertaken showed big increases in demands for services in the last year (65% and 74% of organisations in the studies reported this). The Taking the Temperature study covered 71 organisations, employing over 2,000 people, engaging nearly 3,000 volunteers and supporting over 100,000 people. 83% of the organisations would use up their reserves in less than a year if there was no additional income. 40% of organisations would be using their reserves this year. In relation to income in the last year 28% had


experienced an increase, 27% had stayed the same, with 45% reporting a decrease. These changes were reflected in staffing numbers with 54% seeing increases and decreases in staffing numbers and shifts between part time and fulltime posts. 34% of organisations had more volunteers than last year. In relation to infrastructure support, twenty service provider organisations were interviewed. This was done to scope the extent of the use of infrastructure support by very different organisations across the city. There was a high awareness of support provision, with flexibility and responsiveness being important. Organisations particularly valued funding support, newsletters and Ellison Services (financial management and payroll). The representation, support and lobbying and advocacy for sector role was rated by 90% of organisations as very important. Support was accessed in a variety of ways and was highly rated. Organisations asked for a greater understanding of the additionality in relation to economic and social value brought by the voluntary and community sector, they wanted more contact with commissioners on engagement and advice, to help commissioners develop a better understanding of the sector, more co-production not procurement, better opportunities for consortium delivery and ways to overcome the loss of the public sector’s organisational memory. There is a wide range of support provision available for voluntary and community organisations in Newcastle, and much of this is free to the service user, although there is an increase in paid for services. The eleven infrastructure organisations interviewed by SkillsBridge (different to the service provider) interviewed noted that support is often face to face in terms of advice and training, there are regular information bulletins, and Newcastle CVS and VONNE produce research. 80% of infrastructure organisations take on a representative role on behalf of their members to influence and inform policy and planning on the part of funders and public bodies. 40% of organisations provide information on funding although only Newcastle CVS had a dedicated funding advice officer. 60% of organisations work in partnership on aspects of their support delivery. All the infrastructure organisations interviewed identified infrastructure funding as the number one challenge faced by themselves. 60% of infrastructure organisations did not feel sufficiently funded to cope with need. 30% had experienced a decrease in staffing, affecting their ability to deliver support. They have only limited options for offering paid for services as a means for significant income generation. There was general uncertainty about the future with only 50% certain of their own future funding, with an increasing reliance amongst 30% on grant funding. Commissioning was not always viewed positively as it had the potential to remove some of the added value and not adequately cover core costs. 70% of organisations had identified new services or delivery areas they would like to explore. Only four of the infrastructure organisations interviewed focussed principally on Newcastle, and each had a different remit. Some organisations noted the need to change the relationship between the local authority and the voluntary and community sector and had concerns about future relationships in the face of funding pressures, policy decisions and the loss of organisational memory by the local authority. There were concerns about losing the links between grassroots organisations and the local authority, as well as the impact on small organisations if medium-sized ones disappeared, as these often give support to smaller organisations.


Next steps for consideration:

• For the City Council and the NHS to consider seconding key voluntary sector leaders into transformation and other key projects. There are a range of skills and experiences that could prove helpful and senior voluntary sector leaders are more than able to engage in these processes.

• For the public sector to actively and openly involve voluntary sector partners at the start of initiatives and use their expertise appropriately. It is pointless inviting them in at the end when it is ‘presentation time’.

• To establish a Newcastle Investment Group to look at all sources of external funding to see if Newcastle could benefit and who would best placed to go for the funding. Support and intelligence would be supplied across the group for the bidder in order that Newcastle communities could benefit

• In recognition of the importance of volunteers, the City Council should invest seriously in support for volunteering, in line with neighbouring authorities.

• For the public sector to work with the voluntary and community sector to identify those organisations which act as community anchors and promote resilience so that they can survive through the next few years and support communities going through hardship and austerity. Recognition of the varying challenges faced by each would help address emerging issues and safeguard against instability that could lead to the loss of important community links.

• The City Council could support voluntary and community organisations that are looking to develop services in particular areas, with current up to date research and statistics on the area in a responsive manner, probably using the Newcastle Future Needs Assessment. This could access external funding such as Big Lottery or European monies.

• To examine the benefit of a social impact bond with voluntary sector delivery by engaging actively with Ways to Wellness to learn lessons and follow best practice.

• The Council to actively engage with the voluntary and community sector around devolution. To work with local groups to encourage conversations, create coalitions and explore benefits and problems.

• For infrastructure organisations to produce better and clearer information about the range of support for organisations in Newcastle. Consideration should be given to how this could be delivered to smaller organisations.

• For the voluntary sector to promote the systematic development of more peer to peer support. Is there a way in which larger voluntary organisations could share skills and knowledge and resources with smaller organisations (recognising some already do this now)?

• Making greater use of local intelligence and the capability of service providers to share valuable information about the sector to be used for lobbying, campaigning and investment purposes.


• New ways to approach and encourage social enterprise as a means of economic and social regeneration might help stabilise the sector through challenging times.

• Support around the development and use of partnerships and consortia could serve to attract new funding to hard pressed areas.

• For the City Council to identify when to co-produce, when to commission and when to procure services. It currently isn’t clear how the voluntary and community sector can engage with the Council about co-producing services. There is a strong desire to work with the local authority in designing services but not if these services then have to be procured. A clear protocol for why, when and how each approach is used would be very helpful.

• There is scope for discussion around what and when to commission as time and value can be lost through the over use of commissioning. Other factors being equal, recognition of the added value of local service provision would benefit some of the current local service providers.

• When a decision is made to commission services, it would be very helpful to have some meaningful engagement prior to the tender notice going out, with time built in to the process which doesn’t disadvantage the voluntary and community sector from being able to consult, discuss and develop an appropriate submission. This should also involve service users.

• To prioritise grant aid and have simpler processes for administering smaller amounts of funding. To use more negotiation for contracts and consider consortium approaches not just through contracts and procurement.

• For the City Council and the NHS to formally introduce Social Value clauses into contracting and other processes.

• The public sector to try to give long-term funding wherever possible in grants or contracts to enhance stability and forward planning. Support providers would benefit from access to funding to help them scope and develop service areas where there is an identified need. Most would benefit from longer term funding arrangements to provide stability for services.

• The Co-operative Communities service, economic development and the legal teams within the Council should work together with the voluntary and community sector to develop an approach to placing a social and economic value on the local voluntary and community sector delivering a service.

• There may be scope for new ways to bring public sector and voluntary and community organisations together for more open discussions to develop a shared vision and bottom-up approach to service design. This could learn from the current Our Place initiatives.

• For the City Council to involve partners including the voluntary and community sector to develop a cohort approach around specific groups of people/challenges. This involves all partners in mapping the costs and outcomes of key groups with multiple needs and gather evidence about the best way to help them in an integrated fashion.


The Voluntary and Community Sector in Newcastle – a brief history Newcastle has a large and diverse voluntary sector; as the regional capital of the North East it hosts a fifth of the voluntary sector. The current government website no longer enables close examination of the Charity Commission or Charitable Incorporated Companies (CIC) registers. There are 1,100 registered charities which operate in Newcastle. These are mainly local organisations, but some are Tyne and Wear wide, and some are regional. There are also a number of national charities that support people in Newcastle but are not included in this 1,100 figure. The CIC register notes 536 CICs as being registered in the North East. There are 57 organisations, based in Newcastle listed on the mutual public register. Mutuals include co-operative societies, community benefit associations, credit unions, building societies and Friendly Societies. One of the Northern Rock Foundation Third Sector trends reports noted that for each registered charity there were about three local community organisations. Newcastle continues to have a vibrant voluntary sector which divides into:

• Large, over £1 million, employ people and deliver contracts. Picking up new contracts from medium-sized organisations, but challenged by larger ones

• Medium, £100,000 to £1 million, employ people, getting squeezed as large amount of funding comes from public sector

• Small, £10,000-100,000, staff and volunteers, few contracts, getting squeezed and reliant on others for support, who might no longer offer this

• Micro, under £10,000, no staff or contracts, volunteer-led, community focus In relation to the National Almanac produced by NCVO (the National Council for Voluntary Organisations) in 2015 half of all registered charities have an income of less than £10,000. Only 3% of all charities have an income of more than £1 million. The top 1% of registered charities has 73% of the assets. Looking at this information and what has emerged so far from the Northern Rock Foundation Third Sector Trends Study analysis, it is reasonable to assume there are around 4,000 not for profit organisations which work in or are based in Newcastle. This will include some private schools, the universities, charitable trusts and Housing Associations as well as faith organisations, local community associations and more recognisable local charities. The growth of the sector in Newcastle has mirrored that of other cities, and is illustrated in studies produced by Newcastle CVS. A key driver in the sector must be attributed to the Tyneside Council of Social Service, which was established in 1929 “to fight the misery of mass unemployment”. This was responsible for voluntary and social action to improve education, housing, welfare services, help and advice centres, befriending, lunch clubs, women’s organisations, ‘over-60’s clubs, over a hundred ‘old people’s welfare committees’, a women’s hostel, setting up pre-school playgroups and establishing multiple other organisations which we would now recognise as Age UK, local Citizen Advice Bureau, Volunteer Centres and Disability North. In 1978 following the publication of the Wolfenden Report on the future voluntary organisations, Newcastle CVS was established out of the Tyneside Council of Social Service. The Wolfenden Report saw the voluntary’s sector role in terms of “a capacity supplement and complement to what was assumed to be the primary vehicles of social


welfare – the state, and informal and family care. It was seen as a cost-effective provider, innovator and advocate operating as a ‘partner’ to the state”. During the 1980s the sector failed to penetrate most mainstream public policy and the discourse was seen in terms of public and private solutions to the perceived welfare state crisis. A very small number of central Government politicians or managers recognised the voluntary sector as contributors to a potential solution. There was no real sense of a cohesive sector and the biggest complaint from voluntary organisations was underfunding. At a local level the City Council was supportive of the voluntary and community sector and invested in grant aid, community development and infrastructure support. The Council’s own staff – initially Priority Area Team Leaders, and later Ward Co-ordinators and community facilitators actively encouraged and supported local organisations to set up and a significant amount of funding came through grant aid from the City Council. During the 1990s, and then from the 1997 Labour Government, there was much greater emphasis on partnership working, and a view of the sector as an identifiable entity that would contribute to improving civic life, and the development of the Compact arrangements. From the year 2000 onwards there were several national initiatives including the establishment of the Big Lottery Fund, the rising profile of the voluntary sector – including the concept of the third sector including social enterprise, and the focus on a broader third sector rather than voluntary action. Professor Pete Alcock, a significant commentator on the sector, usefully describes the shifts between the sector and the state as in four distinct phases; from the nineteenth century as providers of service, then in first half of the twentieth century voluntary action was complementary to the state. After the introduction of the welfare state in the 1940s, voluntary action moved to a more supplementary role, in the twentieth century it became one of partnership. The number of charitable organisations has increased but the definition has changed as well with very large trusts e.g. the Wellcome Trust, independent school trusts, universities, and now English Heritage being defined as charities and granted charity privileges. These shifts can be seen in the development of the voluntary and community sector in Newcastle and are described in The Heart of the City 2012. In the last five years with the concept of the Big Society, tendering for public contracts, the Localism Act, the investment in social finance, and a number of national initiatives such as National Citizen Service, the sector could be seen as shifting into a new age. The views of voluntary and community organisations illustrated in Taking the Temperature 2015 indicate how it is surviving, thriving and diving as it deals with major changes in funding and increases in demand. Throughout the report and indeed systems in Newcastle the terms co-production, collaboration, commissioning, procurement and Co-operative Council are used, but they are not the same thing. Co-production can be defined in a variety of ways, but NEF / NESTA offer “Co-production means delivering public services in an equal and reciprocal relationship between professionals, people using services, their families and their neighbours. Where activities are co-produced in this way, both services and neighbourhoods become far more effective agents of change. Co-production is about best use of each other’s assets and resources to achieve better outcomes. It reframes the position between users and professionals in the process of producing services. Users are not passive consumers or a drain on public


finance, but instead but important agents with the capacity to design and even deliver services, with improved outcomes. Collaboration can be defined as working with others to do a task and achieve shared goals. The emphasis is on the sharing aspect, of being creative and building consensus. It does require leadership, but the experience is that teams that work collaboratively can obtain greater resources, recognition and reward when facing competition for reduced resources. An example of this would be a team of people, from different organisations, working together on a joint bid for funding in a competitive bidding process. It can apply to a one-off project or long-term arrangement and can happen across different departments, organisations and sectors. Collaboration is a process and sometimes the outcome can be improved awareness of each other’s challenges and priorities and better relationships. Commissioning and procurement can be used interchangeably but are not the same. Commissioning is the process of finding out about public needs, then designing and putting in place services that address those needs. It’s a decision-making process that frequently involves the procurement (or purchasing) of services by either grant-funding or competitive tendering for contracts. Public bodies have a statutory responsibility to commission services to meet needs. Commissioners should engage and develop potential providers who are able to tackle the problem. NCVO notes that “procurement is governed by specific laws that seek to ensure probity and fair competition between all providers – including the VCS”. Commissioning and procurement should be part of a cyclical approach, involving monitoring (provider performance and service users’ views), and evaluation to feed into future design to meet new and changing needs. Newcastle declared itself a Co-operative Council and this definition is taken from the council’s website, “it involves renewing and reshaping local government to unlock potential and empower residents. Staff and managers must begin to think differently about how we deliver our priorities and work together to make a difference to our city.

Working cooperatively means

• Integrating our cooperative values and principles into everything we do.

• Committing to and ensuring that residents are part of decision making and the social and political processes that shape the society we live in.

• Working with staff, partners and communities to co-deliver and co-produce services.

• Exploring how delivering services through partnerships, cooperatives and mutuals might help maintain services for residents and create opportunities and jobs in the long term.

At the heart of our approach is a shift away from thinking about people and communities in terms of their problems and needs, towards thinking about the potential they have to take greater control of their lives, encouraging more people to become active citizens in active communities. People and communities are stronger when we support them to take control, identifying their own opportunities and interests and taking action themselves. We will learn from existing examples of best practice of the council working cooperatively with local people to develop and embed a robust approach to shifting the balance of power and resources away from council control and towards making communities stronger.

Being cooperative also means taking a positive approach to close collaboration with other organisations in the city and beyond - be they public sector partners, the voluntary and community sector or businesses and investors. We recognise that we achieve much more by working in partnership than by working alone and Newcastle City Council will be a good partner working constructively and collaboratively with others.”


Public Sector views of the Newcastle Voluntary and Community Sector Twenty-nine interviews were carried out with key public sector decision-makers in Newcastle in January and February 2015; this was during the time the City Council was consulting on and agreeing its budget so finance was a key issue for many contributors. The methodology used was four open-ended questions with some prompts. In order to achieve a broad spread the interviewees included the following: From the City Council - three councillors, including the Leader of Council and the Deputy Leader of Council (who has responsibility for the voluntary sector) and a senior opposition member; the Chief Executive and Assistant Chief Executive, the Director of Public Health, two Executive Directors and ten managers including a number of commissioning leads. Some staff had been in post for several years, and for others it was their first year in this particular role. From the NHS – the Chair, Chief Executive and the lead director for Newcastle Gateshead CGG; the Deputy Chief Executive and Lead Nursing Director of the Northumberland ,Tyne and Wear NHS Trust and the Financial Director and community and voluntary sector lead for the Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. From the Universities – a Pro Vice Chancellor and a Senior Professor, who both have roles in a number of key external, strategic partnership boards. Other key public sector leaders included the Chief Executive of Your Homes Newcastle and the Chief Executive of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner. The interviews were usually carried out on an individual basis, however there were three interviews with two participants present and the commissioning managers were interviewed as a group of four people. Some participants had a good understanding of the voluntary and community sector through their roles; some had worked in the sector and for some the sector was new to them. There were some common themes that emerged from the interviews and views about the strengths and value of the voluntary and community sector:

1. The sector as provider of public services 2. The sector as a provider of volunteers 3. The sector as a manager of previously managed council services (asset transfer) 4. The sector as a community anchor 5. The sector as a strategic player in key partnerships 6. The sector as a route into communities, particularly those considered

unrepresented in traditional structures 7. The sector as an advocate for excluded groups 8. The sector as a provider of research and intelligence, particularly about the

communities they worked with 9. The diversity and nature of the sector in Newcastle 10. Value for money 11. Potential role for partnerships and consortia working 12. Leadership in the sector


1. The sector as a provider of public services

Probably unsurprisingly, given the number of commissioners interviewed this was seen as a key benefit of the sector. Indeed it is the role in which many voluntary, but not community, organisations would wish to occupy. Local authorities, and increasingly the NHS, no longer have the capacity, skills and expertise to deliver certain services and they see the voluntary sector as a key provider in Newcastle. In 2013/14 Newcastle City Council invested £55 million in the voluntary sector, with more than 95% of this spend being on contracts and service agreements. When asked about the advantages of voluntary sector providers, the responses included: “A number have been based locally for many years, family projects, generational linkage – they are ‘go to’ organisations.” “Some organisations operate in a small geographical area and can’t become bigger – restricted and no mandate to move. They are non-profit making so the money goes back into the service. The surplus in a service goes back into another local service, but when Circle and Serco run public sector contracts, the profit making goes to shareholders.” However another view was “Can’t stereotype – private provision can be good. Don’t subscribe to private sector v VCS as a bad thing.” “The VCS organisation might have a national presence. Some very big charities and could have a policy impact.” Another noted “The lines are becoming blurred, nothing is black and white any more. (We) – can’t say that is charity and that is private. There are now new emerging enterprises outside of traditional set up.” “The VCS has diverse offers, specialisms are very good.” “They drive down costs, offer matched funding, and are quicker than public services.” “Individuals in the sector are entrepreneurial people – they have to be.” “I see innovation in certain organisations; but this is certain VCS groups, not the whole sector.” “Some organisations have very good things they do but they need an eye to their future.” This selection of comments illustrates the spread of views expressed, and there were divergent views. Some officers felt protective of local groups, particularly where they had developed relationships with them through partnership arrangements and could appreciate their input into policy. “The PMRG group was a discussion group that worked together. The representatives at PMRG were all key people, health, education etc. This was a good group to share information.” The PMRG was an officer group of the Children Trust Board. The local versus national organisation theme emerged several times during interviews. All the commissioners interviewed had good and poor experiences of both. Sometimes a national voluntary organisation could have access to expertise, shared data, input into policy and campaigning and strategic change at a national level. However there was


concern and suspicion that surpluses “just went to national Head Office with no local reinvestment”. The flexibility and responsiveness of the sector was seen as a major advantage compared to the “slow and clunking systems of the state”. Some commissioners raised the issue of price and cost, with voluntary provision being seen as a cheaper option than the state, but not always necessarily the private sector. Some local voluntary organisations pay the Living Wage. Most pay for travel time and travel expenses, and traditionally voluntary organisations staff policies have better than the statutory minimum; however a number of social care providers have had to reduce these in the last few years as contract prices have dropped nationally as local councils face severe cuts and they need to be competitive on price or lose contracts. The issue of innovation, entrepreneurship and doing things differently was recognised by some commissioners. Also the rise of social enterprises, CICs and mutuals, was seen as good thing by those who commented “I like they have social purposes and values but they run as businesses”. Relatively few people commentated on governance structures, as they can be mysterious to those outside the charity world. “They are run by people who have used those services themselves – that must surely give some insight”. There were different views on the commissioning process itself. Not surprisingly commissioners saw it as a way of delivering their intentions, to getting best practice out of (limited) resources and targeting these resources effectively. It was a way of “driving down costs but opening up opportunities and letting organisations extend their repertoire and enter new areas”. There were several references to the Council’s budget, “The reality is the total money is going to shrink rapidly, so we need to find ways to maintain outcomes more cost effectively. More for less – it’s tough when you are in the market but we need to see it as a shared challenge”. Interestingly those who didn’t share this view were from outside the Council. “I’m no fan of procurement. It’s an expensive process, subject to legal challenge. Why not have a different model and bring people together around the task in hand?” “So commissioning now happens on a much bigger scale, and so it goes out of the region. Game we are making the VCS play. Large scale contracts are an abject waste of energy – better to have small, focussed organisations. Large scale commissioning is dangerous as the big boys sweep up. It’s small local projects that deliver innovation.” “(Commissioning) commodifies, marketises, and destroys ways of work.”


2. The Sector as a provider of volunteers

During the interviews the words ‘voluntary’ and ‘community’ weren’t defined and some participants framed their responses purely in terms of the voluntary, volunteering aspect of the sector i.e. as provider of free volunteers. This was particularly noticeable in some of the NHS responses, both university responses, and some council officer responses, particularly those officers who had responsibility for service areas. The figures from the most recent Newcastle Resident’s Survey illustrate that 27,000 people volunteered in Newcastle last year; this is out of a total population of 292,200 and nearly 6,000 used the Volunteer Centre Newcastle. There are two student volunteer centres, one for each university. The National Citizen Programme (volunteering opportunities for young people) operates in Newcastle and is provided by three organisations. There are specific programmes around using the skills of professionals to support local charities and CICs; this is provided in the North East by SkillsBridge, the Cranfield Trust and Community Ventures. There is also Business in The Community, which focuses more on general volunteering opportunities for business. Volunteering is usually described as an unpaid activity where someone gives their time to help an organisation or an individual to whom they are not related, the environment, their community, or a cause they feel strongly about. The key element is that volunteering is freely undertaken. Many people choose to volunteer because it:

• provides an opportunity to put something back to an organisation that has impacted on a person’s life either directly or indirectly

• makes a difference to the lives of others

• helps the environment

• helps others less fortunate or without a voice

• makes people feel valued and part of a team

• allows them to spend quality time away from work or a busy lifestyle

• allows them to gain confidence and self-esteem

• can be route to / back into employment

• allows them to try something new

• helps them gain new skills , knowledge and experience

• enhances a CV

• improves employment prospects

• helps gain an accreditations

• uses one’s professional skills and knowledge to benefit others (pro bono work)

• encourages meeting new people

• gives a chance to socialise

• helps getting to know a local community

(For a fuller and more comprehensive explanation the Volunteering England website, which lists the above advantages and the Institute for Volunteering Research should be explored). The interviews with the University leads also highlighted the benefits of trying to encourage a sense of social responsibility into the students.


Some of the comments made by participants included: “As the state rolls back, we expect communities doing more for themselves. The Council will become smaller, deliver less, and have less contact with local people.” “The council services will reduce, so we will want the community and volunteers to take on more responsibility and show civic pride. What can I do for the city? I don’t want to restrict this but we need to be sensible.” “The new Parks Forum is a godsend to us; else we would have to create something like that. It provides readymade partnerships and advice on how we should engage with them for service delivery.” “There is a range of volunteers through certain services, and there is a clear view from Unison on the use of volunteers in not providing frontline services…particularly used in heritage services. In parks through the Rangers, though this varied across the City and Gosforth is very good. There are over 200 volunteers in the parks, but not so many in the poorer wards.” “I’m worried that there is a move from the voluntary sector to volunteering.” “There is a problem of a paucity of approach. We can’t guarantee volunteers and everyone seems to want to go to Jesmond or Gosforth.” This selection of comments illustrates the realistic and honest views of council officers around volunteering. The vast majority of council officer responses in relation to volunteering were framed mainly in terms of environmental and heritage services, very few in relation to social care. Yet many voluntary organisations engage actively with volunteers to deliver services. Although there were several references to the patchy provision of volunteers across the city, there were relatively few references to the need for volunteer support. This is in sharp contrast to the views expressed later in this report by voluntary organisations. The response from some NHS leads saw the role of volunteers as potentially helping with vulnerable people in the community, potentially as part of the Better Care Fund offer to support people with low level tasks in the community. There were volunteer drivers with the ambulance service and patient transport. The Chief Executive of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner explained the new initiative on supporting victims (Victims First Northumbria), which would rely greatly on volunteers. There is evidence of a growing trend in the voluntary and community sector when paid staff have lost their jobs, or had their hours severely reduced, that they volunteer (unpaid) for the organisation. There are also potential cultural differences where volunteers might feel comfortable offering their services to a charity; they could feel different about large statutory organisations. Clearly it seems to work best in defined areas – the local park group, library or museum that seem separate and distinct from a large council. However there can be an underlying feeling that why should you volunteer for a service that is paid for through taxation?


3. The sector as a manager of previously managed council services (asset transfer)

One of the thrusts of the Localism Act was to encourage local groups to challenge authorities and take on the running of public assets – both buildings and services. However across the North East there have been relatively few challenges of this type. In 2012, when the City Council recognised the scale of the budget cuts, they were open about the desire to transfer assets to the community. The most obvious areas have been buildings in community use (particularly Community Centres) and building used by voluntary organisations, swimming pools, leisure centres and libraries. Most voluntary sector leaders believe the driver in Newcastle (for asset transfer) has been that of budget, rather than ideology, although some local politicians genuinely see this as being part of the total devolution process. There were already organisations in Newcastle who were leasing council premises and wanted to manage the buildings themselves and this has given them the basis to move this further forward (Healthworks, West End Women and Girls, Riverside Community Health Project). All the buildings deemed suitable for transfer were named publically and a formal process was established of getting the buildings assessed for viability (one has been closed as it was not deemed appropriate to use). A team of council officers was established and lately this has involved YHN (Your Homes Newcastle, who own a number of the community centres). Although the community centres were initially offered to their local Management Committees, in a number of instances this has not proved viable as the nature of the task (and in some instances the building) was too onerous for smaller community groups. The City Council and YHN established a capital fund, and any organisation wishing to take on a building has had to go through a rigorous systematic process, around governance, business plan production, budget and income generation, and capacity to deliver. There are quarterly updates on progress to the Voluntary Sector Liaison Group. Initially there was lobbying from the voluntary sector, led by Newcastle CVS, that smaller organisations would need some developmental support in order to be able to completely manage their own building. Previously this had been done by staff from the Communities team and a number of the smaller organisations were quite reliant on these staff. Funding for community buildings came from different sources; in some instances the Newcastle Fund, for others Ward Committee funding, and for others more external funding sources. The City Council agreed to the additional development support and the successful provider was Open Doors, a partnership of the Ouseburn Trust, Newcastle CVS, Boxx Consultants, Locality and SES. It is funded until September 2015 and was shortlisted for an award in the 2014 Compact Awards. It is important to recognise that without this additional infrastructure support there would be far fewer asset transfers, which would have ended up with the building closed, or costing the Council more money. There have been other scenarios which have involved larger voluntary organisations e.g., Northumbria Daybreak taking over a community building, and this also gives them a community base in Newcastle. Newcastle was host to one of the first asset transfers in the early 1990s when the Jesmond Pool Group took over the running of Jesmond Pool from the City Council.


Jesmond Community Leisure is a registered charity that manages this successful local pool. The trustees have been very generous with their time in supporting other similar initiatives whilst being honest about the demands and pitfalls involved. Of the local libraries initially advertised for transfer, four are now managed by the Newcastle College Group, two are now managed by Your Homes Newcastle, Moorside Library has closed, Blakelaw Library is managed through the Blakelaw Ward Community Partnership; Jesmond, Fawdon and Dinnington are run as community libraries by local organisations. Jesmond Library is managed by a local community group, the Friends of Jesmond Library, who run it as a community hub with a range of facilities, and the library element is open three days a week. From the perspective of officers there are different views. “I’m convinced this is the way forward. We have managed to keep buildings and services open we would have otherwise closed. However it’s a bit galling to see what some of them [former council managers] now get paid.” “The problem is it’s patchy. A lot of the community centres had quite a number of old people running them for their convenience – the bingo, the pie and peas suppers and just wanted council handouts to keep doing this. Some of them objected even to the kids using the building. Those sorts of groups can’t manage something of this size, and to be honest we [former community building staff] have done it for them in the past.” “I don’t know what we will do about the parks. There’s a clear view from Unison about the role of volunteers and frontline jobs. But we are going to run out of money.” “We need to be more innovative and entrepreneurial. Your lot [VCS] are good at that. Buildings could be rented out, used for commercial lettings to bring more money in.” “It’s also about the capacity of voluntary organisations to be able to respond to complex bidding processes e.g. Leisure Trusts. You need significant operational capability and capacity to run something like this and we should be honest about this.” “It’s a bit galling to see public services which have been invested in and built up over the years just being handed over to “preferred providers”, but I suppose it’s a way of keeping them going.”

4. The Sector as a community anchor Because the voluntary and community sector is a product of the people it supports and the fact that it doesn’t have to exist can give it strengths as well as vulnerabilities. Ward areas, NHS boundaries and other artificial structures can be changed (usually by central Government), but communities and their products, are self-defined. People might define themselves by condition, geography, demography and host of other factors, but the fact they are self-defined gives them additional power. The phrase ‘community anchor’ emerged, but several others spoke about community empowerment and the sense of the sector of being able to support the community to move in a positive way. This is about being trusted and having the history and relationships to take this further. Of the participants who mentioned devolution, some raised the hope that


communities would be able to respond to any new powers and they saw the voluntary and community sector as a key player in making this happen. Sometimes the sector was seen as a protector, a shield for communities, but it should be an active shield, not just a translation device. The public sector interviewees who raised this role, were people who had a longer history and under-standing of the voluntary sector – several had worked in it, others were trustees, and it was seen as a particularly credible role when times were hard. This was seen as a long term role which was intrinsic to certain organisations; it was not a short term project. Some organisations were seen as bringing resources, not just money, but also time, capacity, goods and skills into an area. They benefitted the wider community, and indeed other organisations. They were there for the common good, and often had a campaigning and lobbying role. These organisations draw attention to areas for improvement, engage with users and carers about what can be done, undertake research/ studies and act as a catalyst for change. They work with individuals, helping them to get involved, improve their skills, join groups and have a say about local issues and services. The whole area of community development, engagement and empowerment can be seen as “enabling communities to increase control over their lives”. This definition comes from the World Health Organisation (WHO), and this interest was reflected by three interviewees who have a detailed understanding of health, inequality and wellbeing. The WHO recognises that when people gain control over the factors and decisions that shape their lives, they become empowered. By increasing their assets and attributes they build capacity to gain access, partners, networks and / or a voice to gain control. Community empowerment is more than involvement, engagement or participation (although they might be precursors). It implies community ownership and action that explicitly leads to social and political change. “Community Empowerment recognises that if some people are going to be empowered, then others will be sharing their existing power and giving some of it up”. Power is a central concept in community empowerment, and there will be inevitable struggles. There can be genuine friction when an empowered community starts to lobby against the existing power structures and if this empowered community is associated with a voluntary organisation that receives public funding, it can lead to friction. Experienced politicians and officers understand and appreciate this position and all three councillors interviewed raised it during their interviews. “We see the VCS as an essential part of the system in supporting residents across the city. They support challenge. They will challenge us honestly in how we work.” Indeed the Leader of the Council felt that although he was “often lobbied by the sector, the sector doesn’t understand its power in relation to lobbying. They usually want him to sign up [to something], send a standard email, or raise a particular issue.” He went on to observe he felt that was because the sector was often issue-specific “The sector doesn’t have the lobbying and political clout it could do, if it were co-ordinated. There is something in the public sector where it’s easy to brush things off because it’s easy to dismiss single issues, but a well-functioning civic society needs the VCS as infrastructure.” One of the challenges is how community development and empowerment is funded. Some of the national initiatives, e.g. Community Organisers, clearly don’t work effectively at a local level, and indeed it is anathema to have large national organisations parachuting inexperienced workers who are not part of the community and know nothing about it. The


Benwell/Scotswood Our Place initiative is more thoughtful and relies on the engagement of grounded and existing local community organisations, but was inadequately funded and had to relate to an externally driven timescale. There is a problem with sustainability and as it is often harder to measure outcomes and impacts of community engagement, particularly over longer periods of time. Programmes can be pulled before they have the chance to deliver and the community is left with another empty building and time invested in a project that wasn’t given a chance to work. The other resource problem is when funding is tight; it is more attractive to invest directly in frontline delivery than infrastructure and capacity building. “If the vision is of a more and engaged civic society, the VCS is the framework to make this happen. The voluntary endeavour, not for profit, is a powerful challenge for change as it challenges orthodoxies. Particularly could be better used in challenging inequalities. It could be something bigger – [there is] a fault in society overall.” “Citizens to be the party of change, but they need capacity to be masters of their own destiny. The (VC) Sector has a huge critical role to play in delivery. We need to focus on this because of the need, growing inequality, and need to understand and encourage this. Don’t know how to support this, but I think it’s something about supporting and growing those values.” “It’s that closeness to communities, the knowledge of strengths and weaknesses. Points of connection, workers are often former users and volunteers. More knowledgeable than councillors and council officers. Doesn’t always mean they lobby correctly but well- equipped to do so.” “The sector divides into idealists and pragmatists. I understand this and that there is a need for both. The idealists think how the world should be and it should come to them. The pragmatists wonder how should we make the best of this?” “The VCS has proved to be remarkably resilient under very difficult circumstances; it shows how embedded they are in the community. More important than ever.” “[It is] influential yet also inspiring. A model of where things can be achieved by volition, rather than being corralled in. [It’s a] powerful message when see peers involved in activity for city.”

5. The sector as a strategic player in key partnerships Throughout the city, partnership working is seen as one of solutions to dealing with the current challenges. By bringing together key players from different sectors (council, business, universities, schools, criminal justice, NHS, and of course the voluntary sector) it is believed that more can be achieved. This could be through the sharing of resources – finance, skills, experiences, time and knowledge; the creativity generated through cross-sector working to stimulate ideas; relationship-building / strengthening and developing insight into each other’s’ worlds; increasing capacity and opportunities and engaging in new initiatives. Newcastle has a strong history of partnership working, the previous Local Strategic Partnership with its multiplicity of groups, the current Wellbeing for Life (Health and Wellbeing) Board with three voluntary sector representatives, the Newcastle 2020 initiative


and several cross-sector boards. But with all partnerships there are leaders, key players and junior partners, so the voluntary and community sector has to think carefully about what it ‘brings to the table’ with any partnership. Often it is the closeness to the community, the issue of reducing inequalities and authenticity. Partnerships need to be based on openness and trust, agreed shared goals and values, and regular communications; this hopefully leads to shared ownership. Too often partnerships are set up which are artificial and are created in order to chase a particular fund or because they have been externally determined and these often prove to be unsustainable with ‘partners’ more interested in what they can take out for their organisation rather than their contributions. The voluntary and community sector should naturally be involved in key strategic partnerships, and most of the interviewees recognised this and saw it as a legitimate role. There can be tensions however – in the same way we don’t expect one organisation to represent all the businesses in Newcastle, we can only ask for a reflection of different perspectives of the voluntary and community sector and probably invite more than one individual. The voluntary and community sector, similar to business, isn’t a single entity but is a collection of different types, sizes, ranges of organisations and as long as this is recognised, then the voluntary and community sector can add to strategic partnerships. “We recognise it’s not reasonable to see [the VCS] as one voice. There can be too many views and not enough points. How do the VCS have a voice at the table? There are big VCS organisations, we need a stronger VCS. How do we recognise and enhance it, how does the VCS get properly represented in discussions? Often small single interest groups. Capacity can be a weakness. It’s a challenge because can see a role in delivery, but worried about the demand. Worried couldn’t cope with the demand.” “I am concerned that the Council can have a paternalist approach, but we want to see the VCS as an integral partner in all that we do. We often broker relationships in other parts of the council so we have a responsibility to encourage those partners.” “You [the interviewer from Newcastle CVS] can be quite challenging at board meetings, but afterwards I reflect and think she’s right and it can be humbling to be made to think differently and see how it is through the X eyes” 6. The sector as a route into communities A number of respondents, particularly those working in the NHS, saw the sector as a route into communities as a legitimate and valid role for the sector. Voluntary and community organisations often get established because a driven individual or a group of people, with something in common come together because something isn’t working properly, there’s a gap, something is wrong and needs to be put right or there is an issue they want to highlight. Often this leads to the setting up of a group, a campaign or an initiative, depending on what happens next, the problem might be resolved, no-one might be interest e.g. the status dissolves or something happens. That ‘something happening’ can be an organisation is formed which can become more formalised, and depending on income and what it does, a charity.


The governance structures for charity trustees and management committee and association members usually means the majority of them come from the community and cause served. So the majority of allotment associations will have members who have allotments. This simplistic explanation is to try to highlight that voluntary and community organisations are managed (governed) by the community they serve. Inevitably tensions can arise when part of the community doesn’t feel the initiative and its management represents them, and break-away groups can be established. Sometimes the groups are limited by their geography, so an allotment association in Walker wouldn’t be represented by a group in Throckley; but there is a space where the concerns of all allotment holders can be heard. It is by being part of and from communities, that voluntary and community organisations can be seen as a trusted way in to engage with a range of communities, particularly with those people who are marginalised and often suffer the greatest inequalities and have the poorest levels of health and wellbeing. The word ‘trust’ emerged several times during conversations where managers saw this as an important role for the sector. “The biggest strength is they are, belong to, and are part of the community. We [NHS] can be criticised by the fact that we can’t engage with people the way they want to be engaged. There are cultural, language and professional barriers that we are not good at transcending. We want to serve the needs of the population and the VCS offer a translation service.” “The value of small organisations is that they have been based locally for many years, family projects, generational linkages; they are ‘go to organisations.” “Their [VCS] big strength is that they exist because of need. They are close to service users and carers, rather than having to be there.” “They [VCS] are close to the people, to the needs of the people. [They have a] more holistic view to needs, pressures and motivation.” “They are more responsive to the communities they work with. Subjectivity and expertise where they work with particular communities. Also their objectivity is not driven by political and economic goals.” “Sometimes we [Council] need access into certain communities. The City is a big place, lots of relationships that need to happen. Can’t do this just as a council, so a supportive colleague, partner, advice as required.”

7. The sector as an advocate for excluded groups The issue of excluded groups, which are sometimes described as ‘hard to reach’ or ‘seldom heard’ is an important one for a number of voluntary organisations. People from excluded groups often trust the voluntary and community sector precisely because it is not the statutory sector. A voluntary or community organisation can often be a safe haven for excluded groups, whether it is that organisation’s key beneficiary group or whether it emerges as the organisation develops over time. It provides a way for people to voice an opinion without becoming marginalised or ‘picked off’.


From the groups’ and individual users / carers perspectives, the voluntary or community organisation is seen as a trusted friend, possibly a service provider, someone who will deal with authority, someone who will trouble shoot problems and who might bring resources into an area. An example of this is within the criminal justice system where a young people’s organisation will advocate on their behalf with authorities, without exposing any of the individual young people to inappropriate risks. At times of community tensions, voluntary organisations are often asked to calm down situations. Historically the voluntary and community sector has had strong involvement with people with protected characteristics and has campaigned for rights and social justice. Although equality is now enshrined in law, this is no small part due to the campaigning and lobbying of many individuals in organised groups. The development of the voluntary and community sector in Newcastle reflects key social policy movements with tenants’ groups being established at the same time major social housing changes were taking place, advocacy organisations being established as ‘Care in The Community’ developed etc. As a relatively high proportion of sector volunteers and staff are from the groups themselves, the workforce and volunteer support is more diverse and more reflective of the communities supported. This is often reflected by strong commitments to equality and diversity, innovative practice and challenging hierarchies. A number of sector groups focus on equality and diversity issues and intersectionality. There are networks of organisations with common themes, or the same beneficiary group e.g. VOLSAG (mental health), CHYP IN (Children and young people’s forum). The discussions at these groups don’t just cover organisational matters but instead focus on the key issues affecting the client group. This area can be seen as the partner to the previous one, i.e. a route into the sector, but is actually different as it focuses on the voice / voices out and the sector advocating as a communal advocate. Some organisations will have a greater emphasis on this area – particularly advocacy and disability groups. The public sector managers who were more used to dealing with the sector recognised this as a useful and valuable role. “The sector provides a unique opportunity to both tap into those [people] who we can’t reach, but can speak up on their behalf.” “People trust them [VCS] more than they trust us. So they are more likely to be truthful and let them know what is really going on in the hope that they [VCS] will tell us.” “The VCS has a really important role to play on behalf of marginalised communities and people who don’t have a voice.”

8. The sector as a provider of research and intelligence, particularly about the communities they worked with

Most organisations would not necessarily see themselves as a provider of information. They might collect information as part of their funding commitments (grant aid and commissioning), but over the last few years there has been a much greater emphasis on impact and outcome reporting, as opposed to inputs and outputs. Registered charities have to produce a certain amount of information as part of their charitable returns, but number offer minimal information as they don’t have the capacity to do more. More


charities are now focussing on impact and stories as a route into fund raising. However most organisations are a rich source of intelligence about their user group(s), even if that information isn’t routinely captured or disseminated. Some groups, where there is capacity, will engage with external studies and polls and clearly the more that do there is a more accurate picture. There are some organisations that undertake studies and research as part of their work, but often the case studies from voluntary organisations are used to illustrate a point rather being used to generate ideas and theories. The Carnegie Trust has tried to bridge the gaps between universities and the voluntary sector and held a round table event in Newcastle in April 2015 as part of this exercise. In some of the more negative examples, universities or other large research organisations expect voluntary and community organisations to supply people as subjects to be interviewed. However in the last few years there have been more sensible arrangements e.g. Knowledge Transfer Partnerships or good relationships with department heads and research students where both organisations and research organisations have benefitted. It is important for voluntary organisations, where there is capacity, to be able to demonstrate the impact of specific policies on the lives of their beneficiaries and users. This follows the previous section where the advocacy role for the sector was noted, but takes it further into providing evidence and information for system change. By reflecting the opinions and views of service users, this is a more powerful message than that from workers or the organisations themselves. The sector can be a repository for people’s and communities’ stories and these should be collected and used more actively to create and sustain policy change. As part of the engagement process, people who use services need to be involved not just in having their say, or the research into quality, but through a proper commissioning process into service design and specifications. The intelligence collected by organisations should be more actively used to feed into commissioning processes. “It’s very important to have the research; this is the step on from bringing the knowledge into becoming a voice and articulating what is said.” “I’m trying to find innovative ways to allow the voluntary and community sector to have a more direct voice to discuss change in the city – austerity, transport. They have so much information about what goes on people’s lives that is rarely tapped. We need to be much cleverer and involving them [VCS] properly and at an early stage and in way that makes sense.”

9. The diversity of the sector in Newcastle A number of participants noted the diversity of the sector in Newcastle. The size and diversity of the sector in Newcastle has been described earlier. It is the biggest voluntary and community sector in the North East and the next nearest significant area is Leeds. For some of the participants this diversity and number of organisations was an advantage and for others it was problematic. To have nearly four thousand organisations, albeit of different sizes and significance, can be viewed as both a benefit and a challenge. The vast majority of organisations have no or minimal engagement with the state or public bodies. They are groups of people doing good things – it could be for their own


enjoyment, e.g. a local camera club, but this has an impact on wellbeing and reducing isolation. They don’t ask for anything, they just get on and do good stuff. It is important to recognise that voluntary and community organisations are there because people and communities have created them, rather than to make the state easier to run. The question of ‘are there too many charities’ is eloquently rebutted by Karl Wilding of NCVO who comments that at a national level there are lots of charities, and some do overlap; however the majority are small local community organisations such as playgroups, and parent teacher associations. The vast majority of charities are local and specific to the people who use them, and many are supported by their members’ contributions. “What’s remarkable is the size, scale and importance of the sector. There are some top quality people in Newcastle who are passionate, committed, and engaged in a way which seems unusual when you get outside of Newcastle.” “I see the key strength of the sector in its diversity, many different groups and organisations. This can mean they are hard to talk to (Heinz 57 varieties)- but the sizes, nature, culture, different ways [of working], issues and communities makes up for it. Yes they are difficult to deal with, but this means it can be very rich. Maybe two people, but reflect 5,000 nationally.” “It’s huge, lively and complicated, maybe it’s easier to understand if you are inside it.” There were a number of comments about partnerships, mergers, collaborations and consortia which are discussed in more depth later.

10. Value for money There is still a view of the voluntary sector being cheap as the wage bill tends to be lower, but also of better value as it can engage with volunteers and be more flexible and responsive. Charities are regularly urged to produce impact statements to illustrate how they impact on beneficiaries, how they gear up income invested, how efficient services are and where savings can be made. There is still the perspective of value for money as activity at a certain cost, rather than looking at the whole impact on beneficiaries and the wider community. In the last few years, some organisations have tried to capture the added benefits through mechanisms such as SROI (social return on investment), social accounts and case studies. Many community organisations and most voluntary organisations will incur costs. Voluntary organisations have staff costs, they need premises (rent, repairs, capital, utilities, furniture etc), there are IT and insurance costs, they pay rates (albeit 20%), they pay VAT, i.e. they have very similar costs to businesses. Even for the volunteer-run organisations, volunteers need support, training, supervision, Vetting and Barring checks, etc. Because the salaries are often below those of comparable public sector roles, and a number of organisations did not offer pension schemes or made small contributions (which changes with auto-enrolment), and the reliance on volunteers, voluntary organisations can be perceived as cheap alternative to state provision on price alone. This potential aspect is particularly important in relation to health and social care support. Previously under Care in The Community initiatives and the closure of long stay hospitals,


a number of very vulnerable people were transferred from NHS care to supported living accommodation, supported by voluntary organisations. However the TUPE protection for statutory staff, particularly if NHS and Council pensions are involved, changes in the benefits system, and the loss of the Independent Living Fund, make this more complicated. However the voluntary sector would regard itself as not just about price and cost, but the added value that it can bring. The Public Services (Social Value) Act 2013 requires the people who commission public services to think about how they can also secure wider social, economic and environmental benefits. Before they start the procurement process, commissioners should think about whether the services they are going to buy, or the way they are going to buy them, could secure these benefits for their area or stakeholders. The Act is a tool to help commissioners get more value for money out of procurement. It also encourages commissioners to talk to their local provider market or community to design better services, often finding new and innovative solutions to difficult problems. As a non-statutory organisation, a charity can decide what it wishes to do, clearly within the terms of its charitable objectives and area of benefit. Clearly some charities deliver statutory services and these will be regulated. However this freedom from certain statutory obligations can enable more innovative, flexible and speedier approaches to and solutions to difficult issues. “They [VCS] drive down costs, bring in matched funding and they are quicker than public services.” “Driving down costs, being fleet of foot and responsive.” “There’s a cynical view of being cheap. Takes away the issue of problems of volunteering. Pay modestly.”

11. Potential role for partnerships and consortia working Throughout the interviews there were unprompted references to organisations needing to work more closely in partnership to deliver services. Some commissioners referred to a number of providers working in a particular theme, yet in other areas, multiplicity and diversity were appreciated e.g. arts organisations There are currently some large potential contracts in Newcastle which could be delivered in partnership e.g. support for women and children suffering from domestic abuse and elements of the Family Services Review work. At the moment these contracts are delivered in part by several voluntary organisations but experience has shown that moving to a large single contract does not always deliver a multiplicity of providers. Unless tender documents are written in such a way to encourage partnerships, it is often difficult to write a partnership response. Partnerships are complex and take time to develop, so short timescales within tenders are a barrier to collaboration. Sometimes the tender documentation is constructed so that every provider has to provide a high level of information, even though the responsibility lies with the lead partner or the consortium. At the time of interview the Newcastle Voluntary Sector Consortium had been in existence for a year, but there was minimal recognition or awareness of it. There are also forums


such as VOLSAG where local organisations involved in mental health come together to share information and look at joint initiatives.

12. Leadership in the sector Throughout the interviews there were references to individuals and organisations who were seen as being pivotal. These weren’t necessarily from large organisations, or always the Chief Executive, but people who understood, contributed, challenged, held the organisation to account. There was little understanding about the role of voluntary sector leaders (and why should there be), nor the levels of responsibility and accountability they held. There were some comments that implied envy of “being able to do what you want, rather than you have to”, without an understanding of statutory and other responsibilities that voluntary sector managers hold. A small number of people interviewed had worked in the voluntary sector, but the vast majority of participants had worked only in their own particular sector. There have been a number of leadership initiatives within the sector and there is currently a Leaders Network for Social Change supported by Newcastle University, which is for anyone who defines themselves as ‘working to create social change.’ As funding and capacity to attend events decreases, there are concerns as how leadership capacity can be further developed and grown to deal with future challenges. There are very few leadership development events held locally and few invitations from the statutory sector to local initiatives.


Planning for the future All the participants were asked about the assumptions they were making about the voluntary sector in their mid to long term plans in relation to assumed service delivery, to new delivery models, and to new functions / revised offerings in response to changing needs and conditions. The City Council A number of participants noted the voluntary and community sector had an important role in service delivery, but it could have a much larger role. It could add value through bringing volunteering and more not for profit organisations being actively involved. This was seen as a missing element in public sector reform and there could be an opportunity to involve people and service users to develop more engaged delivery models. Additionally this could improve procurement by adding social value. In relation to commissioning, comments were made that this was a formalised contractual relationship and as the overall budget would shrink, the Council needed to find ways to maintain outcomes in a more cost-effective manner. It would expect organisations to deliver more for less money; this should be seen as a shared challenge but it was “tough wherever you are in the market”. Those participants who had a history of working with the sector (not unsurprisingly) noted that “everything the Council wants to do can be delivered only if the voluntary sector support is there…..the sector sits at crucial points in service change.” There was a dichotomy in that the Council was seen as the main source of income for many organisations (whether through contracts or grant aid), but as the funding decreased, organisations would see the Council as less relevant and not necessarily engage in its activities. A recent study with local youth organisations has illustrated this; but this gives the Council a dilemma if it wants to manage the transition to community ownership and retain goodwill. Some participants challenged whether the sector would be there and operating in the same way, “Is there a vibrant voluntary sector we can work with, lots of red flags?” There were different views expressed within commissioning staff – some believing there would be more fragmentation, competition, trading arms and separate enterprises, whilst others seeing more of the prime provider led partnerships (the current Big Lottery model). There were a number of comments about organisations working more in partnership, whether informally, or in consortia, or merged organisations. Some participants raised the potential for more jointly commissioned services – working across local authorities, with health, and the private sector, as a way of doing things differently, and reducing costs. The focus should be the population and citizens, not individual departmental requirements. There were several comments on how the voluntary sector, including faith communities, had responded to the pressures of austerity by setting up food banks, clothing exchanges etc. Charities and faith groups did not have to “wait for permission, they are fleet of foot”. Sometimes large statutory organisations could be inflexible and bureaucratic, whilst if voluntary organisations saw the need they could “just do it”. However there were also


some comments by some officers that queried some voluntary activities if they hadn’t been funded by the City Council. There was recognition that there were a number of changing organisations “There is a new breed of charity Chief Executives who are much more business orientated and are upfront about growing their organisations”. Reference was also made to other organisations that had charitable status e.g. universities and private schools, which didn’t necessarily use their resources to help the city, and this should be explored. The loss of direct engagement with state schools was problematic and there could be more opportunities for joint working. This could be difficult because of the range of different structures which encouraged schools to see themselves as independent organisations, rather than contributing to the city. There were some comments from some commissioners about the numbers of community groups that were re-establishing, or setting up again, often without the Council’s support, and the potential for problems if they didn’t develop and fit into statutory frameworks. This was at odds with other examples where officers quoted organisations known to them which they admired “Look at X [organisation], no paid members of staff, 200 volunteers, 4000 members, run by email; they are like dealing with an amoeba, changing shape all the time….doing cutting edge stuff….It evolves as it goes along, agreeing through consensus, and they engage with people who are socially disengaged….This spills over into social activity, so they now run an English Language course because they are in Byker.” In relation to assumed service delivery, particularly in areas which relied on a number of staff doing specific tasks in a particular space, e.g. parks and leisure services, there was an assumption that local trusts, both large charitable trusts and small community organisations, would and could take over the running of some of these services. The examples from some large leisure trusts show that these don’t necessarily involve volunteers, but surpluses made go back into the organisation and that governance is different from the public sector. With smaller community groups, there is a greater reliance on volunteers, and often volunteer-led services do not provide the same professional and comprehensive services as those provided under statute. The model of Jesmond Community Leisure, which manages Jesmond Pool, is unusual as it is a registered charity offering a full professional and comprehensive service, whilst attracting volunteers and being seen as part of the community fabric. Some participants noted that current drivers were both financial and philosophical. For some this was the right thing to do, but they recognised that the resource framework had speeded this up, for others the voluntary sector was seen as a cheap supply of labour and volunteers. Some officers referred to the capacity of the voluntary sector to secure resources from elsewhere. There is significant money with Big Lottery programmes, which are becoming larger and more targeted; there could be greater consideration given to how to support voluntary organisations to get resources from large funding programmes e.g. Big Lottery, European Funding, Department of Health, national programmes which would benefit the citizens of Newcastle. New delivery Some senior directors noted the traditional way of delivering public services was being tested to the limit, so a cohort-based approach could be more significant. If services were genuinely co-designed with users and carers they should be more effective, more efficient and probably more creative. Part of the problem was having the space and capacity to do


this. The voluntary sector was seen as having a key role in such a process, particularly in supporting people and communities to engage in the process as well as contributing its own experiences. This approach was mentioned by several more senior officers – defining what needed to be done and working together on a solution, which might involve a different process. The financial position of insufficient resources and too many demands means the starting point should be to define what really needed to be done, and then addressing it, rather than looking at current delivery and cutting back to within a budget. This cohort approach eg Fulfilling Lives, involved focussing on a group of people with common characteristics. Traditionally they used lots of different services and the services responded as separate agencies, rather than helping people to turn their lives around and tackling the cause of the problems. The unique position of the voluntary sector by being embedded within these communities and trusted by the communities could be positive in helping identify people, input into the strategic work, help organisations respond differently and also provide services. The current Big Lottery Fulfilling Lives programme supporting people with complex needs should be examined. In relation to new delivery models, council officers expressed that transformation should be happening all the time through each part of the system, whether by electronic or capital systems, different skill sets, combining activities, prioritising actions or streamlining. There was an expectation on all organisations to innovate and deliver differently, with fewer resources. The focus needs to be on transformation not just delivery. As the Council moves to a ‘Digital by Choice’ mode, this will be challenging for many people and communities, and there could be a natural reaction of wanting to support everyone with everything. There is a genuine challenge on focussing on the people who need the more intensive face to face support as they cannot easily use online services. There is clearly a role for the voluntary and community sector that goes beyond having computers in public places to offering support, to input data and give direct help – clearly some organisations have drop-in sessions with volunteers who can help, but as more personal interchanges become electronic e.g. assessments under the Care Act, Universal Credit applications, could this be a role for different types of volunteers? There has been a successful programme managed by Active Newcastle about basic benefits support. Basic benefit information is given to non-specialist advice staff and volunteers, backed up by electronic resources, so there is less demand on the precious time of specialist advisers, whilst at the same time accurate information is given. This means challenging the mind-set of specialist professionals (whether employed in the voluntary or statutory sector) that they are not the only people who can do a particular task. A concern was made that if all services were delivered digitally in the future, what does quality mean? There was frustration expressed in “how long it takes to turn the ship around” and that changing attitudes and behaviours was slow. There were a few participants who raised the concept of social enterprise and felt the Council itself, not just the sector, needed to do more “there could be reverse learning from public bodies how the voluntary sector had changed and became more entrepreneurial”. The nature of the Council’s processes meant that if a department traded and earned income it wasn’t necessarily to the advantage of that department and this was seen as a deterrent. Several participants mention consolidation of contracts and organisations collaborating with others as contracts were either too large for one organisation to deliver or involved


skills that went beyond a particular organisation’s experience. Some were keen to promote this “there has to be more consolidation through collaborating on contracts and commissions further and faster”. Others took a different view, “just because you are good at running a youth organisation in X, doesn’t mean you can, or would want to, run one in Y [Ward]”. There was recognition by some participants that it would take time and support for some services to be developed “there’s a kernel of an idea about a Parks Trust for Newcastle, clearly it couldn’t be statutory, but it could be a mixture of individual groups and services, but it needs the appetite of people to be involved”. There were a number of comments about structures and an apparent view from the Government that changing models e.g. mutualisation, trading arms, would solve problems and that there was insufficient recognition of the time needed and the development process and, in any case, benefits were debatable (see later). “We already have a thriving infrastructure so why would we reinvent the wheel? There are ways to bring the voluntary sector in to deliver and shape and work in partnership, so let’s formalise this. Let’s focus on doing something different, using what we have. If we see the benefit of formalising governance structure [then] fine. Mutuals are not the answer to everything.” The amount and speed of changes was commented on by several participants. Within the Council, this had meant that a number of staff had different roles, so relationships were shifting quickly. This provides a dilemma when there is so much emphasis on relationships and partnership working, yet there is insufficient capacity in parts of the system to engage, develop and sustain relationships and partnerships. “There will be radical changes – churn and change in the system. Some voluntary organisations will continue to work with the council, but others that don’t make the change won’t be part. There are currently good relationships across the board, but there is growing pressure with some individual arrangements. For some they will get stronger, but others will find it more difficult to work with us [the council]. There will be diversity of experiences. Organisations need to be flexible and resilient.” A number of officers referred to specific initiatives throughout the interviews, but there was clearly no standard model, and no critical mass. This could suggest that commissioners are not always clear about what they want or how to achieve it, or conversely they are very relaxed about the diversity of activities, and what was important was what worked, rather than how it worked. However there could be certain features of success and trends which were not being captured. Community activities were often perceived as additional and supplemental rather than central and critical. There had been relatively few attempts to expand, until the financial circumstances had promoted this e.g. asset transfer, local leisure/ parks groups. However these initiatives take time and need to be developed with community consent rather than be imposed and often need external, independent support. New functions There was a belief expressed by several participants that the voluntary and community sector would always be involved; that people would continue to come together to achieve progress, and where those initiatives involve people, there would always be a role for the sector. But there were also concerns that there was an assumption that the voluntary and


community sector delivered for free. This seemed to be coming centrally from Government that the sector was always going to be there and step in. “Austerity eats away at the voluntary sector capacity and ability to respond.” There could be a greater involvement of the sector not just in delivery but in engagement and helping the Council to improve its processes. “[The sector] supports good quality conversations and coproduction to help get things right, if not perfect. The Council can’t take the view of having a moratorium on design, what people want will change with circumstances.” There were fears expressed that the austerity programme was set to continue “so poor people are getting poorer and marginalised communities more marginalised”. The politicians felt they had a duty to respond to needs, that there was a role for lobbying and campaigning to increase resources, and that voluntary and community organisations should participate to improve the circumstances for their beneficiaries. A comment was made that there was a “mind-set with big charities that it all happens in Whitehall” and powerful large charities should raise issues of local importance and with local government. The relationship between the Council and sector would be changing as resources and power shifted. One officer noted “The future is about partnership. When we are up against it, partnership is really helpful. But the Council needs to be a modest partner. It must avoid using partners’ resources for the Council’s benefits. It’s about the good of the city. People must want to work to work with us. We have a history of using forums as a tick-box on consultation. Now it’s about honest dialogue and genuine partnership. The Council will be less powerful as there is less money. There is a mixed appetite between members and officers. Lots of members want to see it, but they might not realise what it means. Mixed among officers”. The role of the voluntary and community sector in civic life and being a key strategic partner was mentioned by some senior managers, others focussed more on the provider side. If social value and creative commissioning could be developed in such a way to include the voluntary sector more, this could be one way to address fewer resources. “We intend to commission in a way to bring the voluntary sector in. It doesn’t always feel like that. You should be part of service design, not just a procured service.” The role of the sector in advocacy was highlighted, particularly if austerity got worse. It was important that users/ clients/ carers were involved, their needs are articulated, and this could be even more important if austerity worsened and communities became more marginalised. There are specific issues such as demographic changes and the desire for an age-friendly city. Whilst conversations are happening now, they are not always on an asset-based approach. There is potential in engaging older people in different ways to help improve civic life. This could be expanded into different systems of planning in relation to housing and transport, and challenging a system that is based on a working age population. During the conversations, there were a number of concerns expressed that local people and communities had so far as possible, been shielded from the worst impacts of the austerity measures, but the Council had less capacity to do this in the future. It was expressed by some respondents, that local people and communities did not really understand what the future could be. There are still (perfectly understandable) concerns, in parts of the Council, about conversations on doing things differently, in case these raise


expectations. However experience demonstrates that communities are often very realistic and have their own valid ideas of what needs to be done, and not done. But there are groups of people who will not be able to cope, to whom digital means nothing and who are at great risk of being both excluded from services (maybe because those services are no longer there), but in greater need of those services because of the exclusion. There is a feeling that the voluntary sector will need to pick up these people. “The Government has the Samuel Smiles philosophy based on self-reliance, and if you are not self-reliant you are buggered.” The NHS The CCG was on the verge of formally merging (Newcastle West, North and East and Gateshead CCGs) so the issue of change was foremost in the mind of the CCG leaders interviewed. The NHS Five Year Forward View had been published which emphasised a positive and involved role for the sector and the CCG leaders were clearly considering how this could be taken further forward. There was greater awareness of the importance around place and communities, housing and work and the impact on health and wellbeing. There was a desire to work more locally and have devolved budges, but leaders were aware there were still huge national imperatives (and an impending General Election). There was recognition that voluntary and community organisations should have a role in engagement, and supporting communities but there needed to be greater coherence between what was happening and a focus on outcomes and experience in terms of cohesive activities. There was a commitment to keep commissioning the voluntary sector but to focus more on outcomes and also to use grant aid as appropriate. “We could think about micro-communities and do something clever with communities and money. We need to get closer to community understanding, and therefore our reach is closer to the front line. We could have smaller organisations working with communities and the larger ones working on themes across communities.” The demographic changes will mean more people with complex care needs living longer so the network of the care resource has to be greater and interventions have to be more focused holistically. There was a general recognition of the importance of investing time in and with individuals, but clinical specialists’ (including GPs) time was rationed so a different approach and intervention was needed in keeping people well. There was a view that the secondary and tertiary services were clinically excellent but medically focussed, so there was an opportunity to improve the community and public health resource, particularly around earlier intervention and prevention. The voluntary sector was seen as having a larger role to play, this was not necessarily about efficiencies, but it could involve better value for money. An example was given as the sector being an “an extended out of hospital team, depending on collaboration and integration.” A number of NHS respondents noted the pace of change and the agenda shifting rapidly and some elements being very hard to measure on quantitative systems. All the participants noted the demands on the current structures, but at the same time needing to increase capacity and capability. There was recognition of the need to deliver holistic, integrated support packages of care, particularly for vulnerable communities, and the voluntary and community sector was seen as playing a role in this. But at the same time a number of participants working in health felt ‘The System’ mitigated against partnerships and connectivity.


“We should focus on outcomes and impacts; this is the currency we should all be working with. How do you design pieces of work that transcend this?” A number of comments were about approach, and that one of the failures of the current system was that all organisations were planning independently instead of thinking of the whole system model. People heard about initiatives accidentally and independently. There were a number of areas where there wasn’t an overall strategy – there were individual responses, and individual organisational plans but often these weren’t shared. Sometimes (in health) it could take 5-10 years to shape the discussions. There appeared to be a genuine desire for organisations to work together, but a lack of foresight on how this could happen. “We must not fall into the trap of piecemeal innovation and investment; we need to align to the 2020 whole system model of change.” Another key element where the voluntary and community sector could have a role was around supporting and enabling people to take control of their own health destiny, to go back to the personalisation agenda, and make decisions for themselves. Better information, support and advocacy would lead to better decision-making. It was important for people to be in charge of their own health destiny, recognising that the circumstances for some communities made this even more difficult to maintain. All the NHS interviewees recognised their limitations, particularly in working with communities. Some saw the sector’s volunteering role “In A&E they could get cups of tea and talk to people who are waiting” and “volunteer drivers are great, people can be waiting for 6-8 hours for [patient transport] ambulances which leads to patchy service”; others saw the routes and roads into communities, and as advocates, particularly for the hard to reach groups (who often have the worst health outcomes). There was a role in providing different sorts of services (Ways to Wellness was about to start two months after the interviews), and there was clearly a role in being a conventional service provider. “Expectations are changing and in a time of austerity how can this be balanced with affordability, and if this can’t be achieved how could these conversations be held with communities? At the same the Inverse Care Law prevails and the current system of healthcare is becoming even more market-orientated, so that further increases the inequalities in health and becomes even more problematic.” Most participants raised concerns about social isolation and loneliness, the bringing together of health and social care, and how to genuinely engage local people. The issue of geography and the need for place-based solutions emerged strongly, but it seemed no-one felt they had the mandate to lead on this. There was certainly a sense of the voluntary and community sector having a part in these plans, but there was still an amount of internal system re-organisation that appeared to be engaging managers. Although all spoke about the need to focus on outcomes and impacts, these are rarely (if ever) achieved by system reorganisation. “When we are making decisions about our [NHS Trust’s] future, we are still assuming the voluntary and community sector is there and thriving, but if it disappears it would be very problematic. It would be good to have a more explicit relationship on how things are considered.”


How does it look in 2020? All the participants were asked the question ‘How would the voluntary and community sector look in 2020 if it were meeting your emerging expectations and is this different to the current position?’ Most of the participants thought the sector would look different. Inevitably people responded in terms of how they saw their own area of work / service changing, and what this would mean for the voluntary and community sector. The sector was seen by these participants as a responder to changes in public services rather than as an initiator. An example of this response was that for the NHS there would always be a demand for hospital services, but probably much shorter stays in hospitals. This would mean a need for more community and outreach services, more locality based working and more shared services. This could provide an opportunity for the NHS to engage better with local groups (both within a community and within a theme). This could give opportunities for voluntary organisations to configure differently to relate to professionals, and others. This could lead to more partnerships and shared responsibilities. However there were different responses from the most senior leaders interviewed. One had ambitions for the voluntary sector to coproduce services round cohorts of people; this would be part of a sustainable whole system approach and the sector should be supported to develop this. Another saw the sector’s role more around community cohesion and ‘holding the ring’ and the need to maintain good relationships and keep conversations active so there was a shared vision for the city. The third noted that “if another six or seven years of this [austerity], voice becomes even more important”. There could be a protest by people because of the unfairness, especially if they were adrift and one of the valid roles of the sector could be the research and to provide evidence to challenge national orthodoxies. Another important role identified would be the sector providing “strong, strategic, powerful voices….with stronger alliances and players”. There needed to be stronger partnerships. Some participants wanted processes whereby the sector could feed in good ideas and be involved more with decision making. There was a role for the sector in both community empowerment and local empowerment in order to maintain the quality of life in communities. Clearly there would be further asset transfers and there needed to be “support to get local people galvanised to take these on….it’s really community development, empowerment and galvanisation”. This needed to be done in more co-ordinated and cohesive way than at present. Some leaders saw a greater role for the sector in helping neighbourhoods being more networked and connected, tackling social isolation, the advantage of befrienders and the community ownership of space. This could go beyond traditional care and support into design and responsibility. It could involve a more holistic environmental approach. Inevitably there were comments about reduced resources, but others also raised relationships and interdependency and joint or transferred delivery and ownership. “The sector can’t expect to have the same profile as in the past. It has to change because there aren’t enough resources. The best we can do is to help the sector change in a positive way, trying to hold on to its values. But we don’t know what this will look based on the information that we have.”


“Building a strategy around funding and investment from the Council will no longer be a sensible strategy for any organisation…….” In relation to commissioned services, there were comments that the sector should be able to respond to more demanding requirements (less funding but more activity expected), but this would have an impact on viability and stability. This could clearly have an effect on the nature of the sector if it was seen to be divided into those organisations that were commissioned, and those that did not want to be commissioned A number of participants mentioned partnerships and ‘organisations coming together’ to create more sustainable delivery. This could also be through co-location, community hubs, and much greater diversity in service delivery – so it isn’t just more of or less of the same. There could be more shared services. There were several comments about more collaboration and working with partners (voluntary, statutory and possibly private) and the potential for much larger contracts that would necessitate multiple providers to work together in partnership. There were examples given of a large public sector provider helping smaller voluntary organisations through being trustees, shared services, policy development, and seconding staff. However there was a different view of consortia in that they added value and allowed the “smaller ones to join in” and provided a new alliance for competition. But there was also a trap of one large entity and “the big boys always win so don’t go there”. There was no recognition of the need for the core funding for any consortium. A different approach could be to focus on flexibility and a multi-modal type of alliance with non-obvious partners. This could mean the growth of cross-sector alliances, and the emergence of new models. An example of this could be alliances to cover a pathway of care e.g. with dementia – early identification, assessment (client and carer), support, giving knowledge, instilling confidence, management of condition, crisis management and final stage disease management. If there was a holistic response that was personalised to the user and carer and provided through an alliance, this could be better for all concerned. It was suggested that the concept of who employs a worker will change if people are working fluidly across boundaries. There were several discussions around the sizes of organisations, but again much of this was in response to the commentator’s needs, this was mainly positive “size doesn’t matter, what counts is emerging models, how organisations contribute and be able to be small enough to connect to communities, but large enough for delivery”. Another participant noted, “There is a difference between being top down and bottom up and big nationals don’t take account of local circumstances.” The issue of communities and the support they would need continued to be challenging. Would strong communities need less support (as the Council had less to offer / give)? Would stronger communities relieve some of the pressures around homelessness, home care, youth support if they were able to provide more internally? How could communities reach this position, and was it achievable in five years? Another role was for the sector to do more lobbying for impact for their beneficiaries. The voluntary and community sector could organise and run campaigns using their collective lobbying strength. These would be legitimate campaigns where they could make a difference. Campaigns currently tended to focus on political issues but there could be broader campaigns for good e.g. around asylum seekers to challenge misconceptions, and encourage public debate in a positive way. There was the potential for the voluntary


sector to challenge public attitudes to certain groups e.g. homeless people, people with mental health issues, substance users. Could a fairer society be created by trying to help people see what their neighbours faced? The voluntary and community sector “could be the church without the faith”. The sector was seen by some as running more services which are currently now delivered by the local authority. For some this was about budget, and also the voluntary sector being able to access additional resources (including volunteering) for others this was more of a philosophical shift in the role of the state and the “shrinking public sector”. The role of the voluntary sector as a partner to private enterprises was raised “To what extent could they make the private sector more palatable?” There were positive comments about social value and how the voluntary sector could aid the private sector in this. There was a role seen for the sector in relation to being a ‘navigator of care’. By being an engaged partner in care and support there was a role for the sector not just a direct provider of services, but support and advice, and the provision of independent information and advocacy. It was recognised that this would mean investing early on at the prevention stage. A few participants raised the issue of power shifting and whether power would really be shared. If the public sector had fewer resources, how could they assume the role of being the power-broker? Would activities continue to happen, in some instances, without the involvement of the public sector? One participant raised the danger of “public services protecting their own patch”. One of the external participants suggested “By 2020 certain organisations will have stepped up to the mark and undertaken a broader range of tasks that were previously done by the local authority. It will be a very different authority in the future, with different people and points of access. It will be the same for some parts of the private sector, and there could be more CSR (corporate social responsibility) and opportunities for business groups. Some social groups will want to step up to the mark, but on their terms. How will this be resourced? Lean companies are easier said than done, but [there will be] fundamental change for the rest of the public sector. [The] public have a right to have services delivered. Whether national, international or local, the pressure will be on the treasury…….History is fixed but some things are wicked problems that keep popping up.”


The nature of the support needed The final question was ‘What support do you think the voluntary and community sector would need in order to make this happen?’ Some of the answers related to the devolution debate (although no prompts were given), and seeing the sector as part of that response, in relation to ‘double devolution’ and a local civil society. There were also examples of very local devolution with participatory budgets, bringing energy to communities, getting people’s views on service design to produce some interesting outcomes. Inevitably some responses were about communication, but that it should be two way so the public sector had a better understanding of communities and used this to commission and shape and deliver more public services. There needed to be better routes of communication with all the public sector organisations across the city as not having clear routes in could have an impact on the visibility and impacts of organisations. A current vehicle for communication and involvement is the Wellbeing for Life Board, which has three voluntary sector representatives; even if this didn’t exist in five years’ time, there was likely to be a similar board, which would benefit from similar broad representation. “I always listen to what the voluntary sector people say at the [Wellbeing for Life] Board, they always seem to know what is happening locally. It can be a bit left of field, but it makes me think”. There were some comments about the skills development and future capacity that the sector would need – business development, alliances, and future models. Inevitably leadership emerged in that there needed to be consistency of leadership and people who “really got the transformation agenda”. But the access to skills and information and advice could also come from others e.g. the universities. There were a number of comments about partnerships, alliances, mergers and more that needed to be done to get working between organisations. Some commentators reflected this in relation to how the public sector would be configured in 2020, with mergers in local government, changed NHS organisations and some currently powerful organisations having to “cede sovereignty”. However several respondents also recognised that a competitive commissioning approach didn’t always encourage partnership working. “How do you become part of a partnership without being eaten up, how to bid for business, how to give commissioners what they want before they know it themselves? How do you harness the value and try to get this recognised in the bigger system?” “To what extent is the sector becoming collaborative?” “Lots of turf wars in the sector, can feel like the Balkans so maybe we need a few peace envoys to gel people around common causes.” “The sector needs to stop being competitive. Need collaboration. It needs to work harder at creating relationships. Things happen because of individuals”


“More time is spent focussing on income generation than delivering services. What is the capacity of voluntary organisations to be able to respond to complex bidding processes – they need significant operational capacity to do this?” But relationships are not necessarily the same as partnerships, and several participants reflected the need for different relationships – across and between voluntary organisations, the public sector, universities and the private sector. There was reference to enhanced regional relationships, both with community based approaches and regional tier efficiencies. There were a number of comments about commissioning practices and the responsibilities of commissioners (council and NHS) to act responsibly and be aware that their actions had consequences. “Good commissioning support doesn’t exist in the current [NHS] system – the focus is all about money and governance. If smaller organisations are sitting around the table with a voice in the pathway, rather than piecemeal involvement it could happen. But you need to commission the whole picture. [They have] no understanding of what’s a good pathway and how to commission it……..There is still a sense of us and them between the voluntary and medical sector, but if really wrapping care round people, miles from this.” “I’m fearful for small community organisations. They are very good at supporting local people, they grow organically, but they could be excluded. There’s a difference between being top down and bottom up and big nationals don’t take account of local circumstances.” “Legitimacy and finding multiple models so that there are many different ways of working. As soon as accept different ways of working, they commodify, marketise and destroy it. They need to work without the state attempting to constrain them- don’t commodify. Asset can be broader – should be celebrated as a distinct feature of place.” Some respondents referred to the potential problem of working only with organisations that were known to them, and was there a way that smaller organisations could engage? Could some partnerships be formed specifically to strengthen smaller organisations and build on their good characteristics? There were also references to the size of organisations and compliance – for whose purpose were they there – for the commissioners or their service users? There was a suggestion that another potential set of partnerships could be voluntary and community organisations partnering with private enterprises seeking contracts – “to make the private sector more palatable” and whether the Social Value Act would encourage these new relationships. There were also references to apparently similar services that the Council ran and those offered by the voluntary and community sector – how did the Communities team fit into this? How would relationships work when “we were all chasing the same budget?” One respondent felt the debate should be about “complementarity, not substitution”. There were a number of references to resources in the system and the conundrum of enabling people to live more sustainable and independent lives. It is hard to be able to see into the future and the potential it can offer when the drive is to cope with the present.


There is “an inevitable push to react to the present and the burning platform rather than then consider the art of the possible”. Some respondents worried about the risk of exploitation of the sector if statutory services were cut back and becoming reliant on goodwill. What would we do if there wasn’t a voluntary sector? Limited delivery; couldn’t grow to fill the gap. If one of the Council’s roles is to provide leadership, then it should facilitate a strong voluntary sector, that doesn’t always agree with what the Council does.” “If the state wants a Big Society it doesn’t come free; it’s only fair that expenses and travel are paid.” “Put together a strong story about the strength of the sector.” There was still the need for voice and indeed the need not to just maintain but enhance this with higher representation – one model offered was the Newcastle Gateshead Initiative, and having a voluntary sector strategy. “They [VCS] need a seat at the table. They provide the opportunity to challenge the orthodoxy” A number of voluntary and community organisations focus on health and wellbeing and they were seen to have a much greater role in prevention. More than one respondent referred to demographic changes and increased demands on services. There could be more integrated networks (two respondents noted the Leeds Community Networks initiatives) as a way to tackle loneliness, and isolation through active ageing and a focus on local communities rather than formal public services. Some of the respondents who had previously promoted the cohort approach saw that this could work in future. A suggestion was made that the concept of ‘who employs’ would change so the challenge would have people working fluidly across boundaries to focus on the cohort / the ‘thing’. Another reference was to shared values and potentially changing entities to deliver differently – this could involve blurring boundaries, but also willingly sharing ownership. “We need to move ahead with what we have talked about for a while. There should be more direct support to move out of the council and transfer across to the community. The Localism Act never really took off in Newcastle. In future it could be a team for all sectors. This is what we do; this is how we do it, one strategic team” There were comments about Newcastle CVS, but as the interviewer was the Chief Executive, this might have prompted these responses. “Can’t underestimate the value of Newcastle CVS, in particular the continued position of Newcastle CVS as a support and contact point and its visibility and profile in the city.” “Newcastle CVS representation and the whole sector voice is really important.” “Newcastle CVS offer governance, funding information and support and bring organisations together to talk.”


“CVS has a role in pulling things together. Could we have a single research focus, then university stuff – a research centre for the region?” And finally “There’s a need for infrastructure support and advice to activity – folly to think otherwise. It’s easy to go down a path and give up, but easier to invest in support and advice and infrastructure and activity and prevent so many aborted projects. Once funding goes, it’s hard to resurrect. Would be a shame not to have some suppor.t”


National Policy around the Voluntary Sector Commissioning and contracting From around the late 1980s when public sector services were put out to competitive tendering, the voluntary sector has been seen as a key potential provider of services. This is mainly in social (and NHS) care where those services and support which once would have provided by local authorities and the NHS are now often provided by the voluntary sector e.g. domiciliary care, support in the community for people with long term and complex needs. Governments of all complexions over the last twenty-five years have extended this offer. The former Coalition Government launched ‘Modernising Commissioning’ in 2010; this was aimed at “increasing the role of charities, social enterprises, mutuals and co-operatives in public sector delivery”. The sub-title gave hope to a number of organisations that there would be new and different opportunities open to them to deliver services. The paper was the precursor to the Open Public Services White Paper. It soon became clear however, that many of trailed opportunities could not become a reality for small or medium sized voluntary organisations. The concept of Payment by Results was not feasible for many organisations as they did not have the money to put up front and / or take risks about not getting paid in full. Some organisations cannot bid for contracts outside particular areas (geographic and thematic) as it might not be within their charitable objectives. Several of the services discussed in the paper were ‘too big’ to be considered by many voluntary organisations. There were issues around TUPE and the transfer of risk. The key issue that came across from local responses was that many charitable organisations don’t want to purely be a service provider. Many have minimal experiences of contracting and don’t necessarily want to go down that route. It was also clear that these opportunities would be offered to all potential providers – private and voluntary, and several respondents saw this as a way of maximising private sector provision and noted experiences with the Work Programme. The Open Public Services White Paper was launched in July 2011. The document built upon ‘Modernising Commissioning’, and was line with many of the Coalition Government’s announcements on health reforms, the Localism Bill, and general commissioning policies. The main focus of this proposed reform was the belief that the opening up of service delivery to competition was the way to improve standards. That competition and choice would deliver better outcomes for users. This policy has had far reaching consequences for the public sector, the voluntary sector and the people and communities who use public services. The White Paper had five key principles:

• Choice – giving choice to individuals wherever possible and, where direct choice is not possible, to give elected representatives more choice over who provides services and how

• Decentralisation – power should be devolved to the lowest possible level • Diversity of providers – public services should be open to competition from a range of

providers of different sizes and sectors • Fairness – ensuring fair access • Accountability – public services which are held to account by citizens and elected

representatives


The former Coalition Government made clear its belief that ‘open public services’ are the only way to improve services. It states the proposals “are not based on ideology; however we do not hide from the fact that we are driven by an ideal of people power – a belief that people know better than politicians”. There is recognition that there can be no single policy prescription that different services have different characteristics, and the proposals are tailored accordingly. The paper promotes the view that there are few public services that can’t be changed (reformed) in some way; but it recognises it can’t take a commissioning approach in national security or the judiciary. However, even in these areas, back-office, support and specialist functions could be changed e.g. through contracting out. Payment by results and shifting government to a commissioning role are key themes. The other seminal policy that pushed this shift further was the Localism Act. According to government ministers, this would trigger ‘the biggest transfer of power in a generation’. Greg Clark, when Minister for Decentralisation said it would ‘reverse a hundred years of centralisation’ and has described it as ‘the essence of the big society’. The Act introduced a new set of rights for communities to make it easier for them, should they want to, to take over running public services and local assets (community right to challenge and community right to buy). Communities are now able to produce their own local development plans. Along with these new rights, the Act included new ‘freedoms and flexibilities’ for local authorities including general powers of competence, changes to planning regulations and social housing reform. Since this time there has been the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2013. This means that commissioners must consider social value ahead of a procurement exercise. This applies to both services and goods. Although the Social Value Act has been recently reviewed, the general consensus appears to be that it is having very little impact on commissioning nationally. It was raised in the research by the Leader of Council and commissioning staff. There has been a Social Value Partnership Group led by Newcastle Council which involved external partners and the Cabinet agreed a commitment in February 2015 which was to be adopted once the EU regulations on procurement were published, which happened in February 2015. There has been a consultation exercise in June, but no outcome at the time of writing this report. The two major national programmes which were initially promoted as major opportunities for the voluntary sector have turned out to be different in reality. These have involved complex supply chains with the small, local organisations at the bottom often being squeezed by the large nationals, usually international private sector providers at the top. The easier work has been ‘cherry-picked’ and only the most complex people given to voluntary sector to support (customer parking) by the prime providers. There have been accusations from some voluntary sector providers that they had been used as ‘bid candy’ in order for larger primes to appear diverse and ultimately win the contract. The Work Programme is now in its fourth year and the evaluations nationally by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations have been critical of the actual amount of delivery by the voluntary sector. All but two of the initial forty prime providers were private companies. In Newcastle the two prime providers are Ingeus and Avanta and there has been nothing like the amount of investment into the voluntary sector locally as there was through the previous Working Neighbourhood Fund. The more recent Transforming Rehabilitation Programme was thought to offer potential opportunities for the sector, and locally the Northern Inclusion Consortium was established by five large local charities (DISC, Changing Lives, Groundwork North East, Mental Health


Concern and Spectrum Community Health CIC) as a potential provider. Sodexo (Justice Services) and Interserve, two large international outsourcing companies, were successful in gaining 11 of the 21 Community Rehabilitation Companies that are now running former probation services. There are some national charities associated with 20 of the 21 successful bidders, but all but one is led by a private firm. One large charity in a prime partnership has withdrawn and many smaller voluntary organisations that expected to be involved have not yet been given any work. The programme is worth £2.25 billion from 2015 to 2020. The preference exhibited by national Government towards large national contracts e.g. for National Citizens Service or multi-regional providers within the NHS, means that medium-sized and local voluntary organisations are often not able to compete for contracts. The playing field is clearly not level, and indeed even large voluntary organisations (by North East standards) are feeling squeezed by large multi-national companies Volunteering Over the last twenty years there has been significant investment into volunteering, recognising it has a cost. Volunteers need to be recruited, checked if they are working with vulnerable people, trained and supported, communicated with regularly and properly supervised. A frequent cry from the voluntary sector is that ‘volunteering is not a free good’. People will volunteer in their areas of interest and connection; and they can walk away from it at any time. Volunteers need to know about health and safety, there can be issues around Data Protection, insurance, copyright and driving. The involvement of volunteers can be complex as well as rewarding. There are new ways to engage in micro-volunteering, volunteering without leaving the house. In the last five years there have been several government initiatives encouraging volunteering but these have often been delivered at a national level, sometimes at the expense of more local, sustainable volunteering. Whilst a lot of attention was focussed on the 70,000 people who volunteered for the 2012 Olympic Games, the longer term research shows that this wasn’t significantly sustained by new volunteers, and in any case was very much focussed around London. Some more recent national initiatives e.g. the Do-It website, have not been generally welcomed by the sector as they are not rooted in local communities, and in the case of Do-It are causing major problems at a local level with established Volunteer Centres. There has been an ongoing discussion with the DWP about the rights of unemployed people to volunteer, as this can be perceived as a barrier to actively seeking work. A number of voluntary organisations, both local and national have signed up to ‘Keep Volunteering Voluntary’ in opposition to the Workfare programmes, which are government schemes where unemployed and disabled people have to work in return for their benefits. These include a variety of programmes including Mandatory Work Activity, Help to Work, Sector Based Work Academies and Community Work Placements. If participants don’t attend they can be referred for sanctions. Conservative Government policy There have been few pronunciations on the voluntary sector since the General Election 2015, but Rob Wilson remains the Minister for Civil Society. The manifesto commitment,


since ratified in the Queen’s Speech for the current deficit to be eliminated by 2020, with no VAT or tax increases, whilst ring-fenced budgets for health (plus £8 billion), education and overseas aid mean that other departmental budgets need to be cut by 42% (£61.9 billion) over the next five years (figures from the Office of Budget Responsibility). This will mean cuts to the welfare budget as well as the continuing cuts to central and local government spend. The policy framework includes enhanced powers for the Charity Commission under the draft Protection of Charities Bill and a possible amendment of the Lobbying Act following Lord Hodgson’s review, and many large charities are concerned about the implications of these two measures in relation to charity campaigning and lobbying. The introduction of Right to Buy for Housing Association tenants risks interference with charity independence. The implications of the proposed abolition of the Human Rights Act to be replaced by a British Bill of Rights are not clear. There has been a recent media-led campaign on fund-raising methods used by some national and international charities and this might result in further legislation. The other policy areas which will impact on the voluntary and community sector include devolution of budgets and powers to local city regions, targeting a third of the government spend on Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, expanding the use of Payment by Result contracts, (possibly) three days a year workplace volunteering for employees in the public sector and large workplaces (more than 250 employees), the expansion of National and International Citizen Services, matched funding for aid charities and a Stronger Community Right to Bid.


Taking the Temperature 2015 As part of its VCS 2020 work, Newcastle CVS (Council for Voluntary Service) carried out a survey of its members in April 2015. The survey asked questions about the organisations - their status, their achievements and challenges, and what pressures they had identified for the future. 71 voluntary and community organisations completed the survey, and they represent a reasonable reflection of the Newcastle CVS membership, although small community organisations i.e. those organisations which are volunteer-led and have an income of less than £5,000 are under-represented both in CVS membership and the responses. Executive summary

Over the last four years Newcastle CVS has surveyed local voluntary and community organisations that work in Newcastle. This study follows on from three years of similar surveys produced with VONNE through the ‘Surviving or Thriving’ series, and a piece of work Newcastle CVS commissioned in 2013 to look at our own quality. As the sector is increasingly required to navigate a complex and changing funding, commissioning and policy environment, reporting this information is more important than ever.

The voluntary and community sector in Newcastle provides a rich and diverse range of services, over a wide geographical area, designed to meet the needs of many different groups. Respondents ranged from small community based organisations that are completely volunteer-led, to those with several hundred members of staff. 54% of the organisations filling in the survey (37 organisations), had an income of less than £100,000. Although the study cannot be said to be representative of the 4,000 community and voluntary groups that operate in Newcastle, they certainly can provide a valid perspective of what life is like at the moment. Most of the findings and comments reflect the views and opinions that Newcastle CVS staff hear on a regular basis through individual conversations, forums, meetings and network events; nothing in the report can be said to be a surprise.

The range of organisations, geographical service area and thematic area, illustrate the diversity and richness of the sector in Newcastle. One trend Newcastle CVS has noted, and was reflected in a small number of comments, is the push on specialist organisations e.g. those working only with women, to become more generic; or those working in a particular geographic place, to extend their trading area.

The questions on the size of the organisation (numbers of staff, volunteers, and beneficiaries) don’t adequately illustrate the diversity in the answers. What was clear however, was a significant number of employed staff work part time, there were more unpaid volunteers than paid members of staff and across the 71 organisations interviewed they had identified nearly 137,000 beneficiaries. The high number of beneficiaries can be explained by some people potentially benefitting from several different organisations, and some organisations identifying their beneficiaries as potential rather than actual; however there are clearly many tens of thousands of Newcastle residents who benefit because of the impact of voluntary and community activities.

The reserves question is of concern as 83% of organisations reported that they would use up all of their reserves in a year or less if they had no additional income. Best practice is usually thought to be 3-6 months of running costs and 42% (29) organisations had less than this; with 12 organisations having no reserves at all. On analysis of this data by size


of organisation, this was found to be particularly the case for small organisations. 40% of those responding would be using reserves in this financial year (2015-16), with another 12% likely to use reserves i.e. more than half of all respondents.

The question on funding sources illustrates that the highest percentage of funding source was public sector contracts. Analysis shows that for the 33% of organisations that responded with an income of over £250,000, contracts were a very significant part of their funding portfolio; unsurprisingly smaller organisations had no public sector contracts. The second highest figure was grants from charitable organisations, followed by trading. Although 56 organisations received some public sector grant aid, on average this contributed only 13% of their income, and is a significant drop from previous studies. Similarly there is a noticeable increase in the percentage of income raised through selling goods or services. The actual funding profiles are extremely diverse.

The questions about experiences in the last year reflect other previous and current studies locally and nationally – 29% saw an increase in income, 27% stayed the same, but 45% saw a decrease in income. This is reflected in changes in staffing levels; with more than half of organisations reporting change with 25 respondents increasing numbers of staff and 18 losing staff. In three organisations, some paid staff became volunteers. These differing experiences can be explained through some of the data analysis, with larger organisations becoming larger, small community-based organisations seeing few changes, but the ‘squeezed middle’, which now includes organisations with incomes over £50,000, suffering the most. Of concern, but unsurprising, nearly three quarters of organisations noted an increase in demand for their services.

One in five organisations has developed new areas of work to support people in response to welfare reform changes. However looking towards the future, 53% of organisations were positive with wanting to expand the number of services provided and engage additional volunteers with 30% wanting to increase staff, but 19% felt they would be closing a service.

The open questions highlighted the top challenges as raising funding, contracting processes and amount of flux. This churn was expressed internally with organisations having to constantly re-organise and deal with changing numbers of staff (more and less), and having adequate and sufficient premises given their new shape. Alongside this went retaining and recruiting staff and volunteers. But change also impacted in different ways, particularly in relationships with the local authority, the loss of key contacts and the shifting policy environment. There were also concerns about the increasingly complex needs of people supported with a noticeable rise in poverty and destitution.

The issues around partnership surfaced as a number of organisations noted having to compete with organisations they would have preferred to work with co-operatively, and the pressure of large organisations taking on more of the work of smaller ones. Some organisations felt forced into arrangements, rather than partnerships based on values.

Finally several respondents took the opportunity to promote the unique value of the voluntary sector, not as a ‘cheap’ provider of competitive services, nor as a supplier of unpaid volunteers, but as a genuine force for good, focussing on their clients/ beneficiaries. There were certainly more pessimistic than optimistic views about the sector in 2020 with it being dominated by large providers, but this also means the public sector needs to take appropriate action if it wants to retain the rich and diverse mosaic that currently operates in Newcastle, which provides huge amounts of added value.


Findings A survey monkey questionnaire was used; this was promoted in e-inform, the Newcastle CVS newsletter and directly to all 632 Newcastle CVS members.

Profile of respondents


Answer Choices Average

Number Total number

Responses

Number of employees (Full Time Equivalent)

26

1,584

61

Number of employees (Part time)

7

434

63

Number of volunteers

43

2,768

64

Number of trustees/ Management Group members

7

477

64

Approximate number of beneficiaries / people who benefit from your organisation

2,137

136,741

64


Answer choices Responses

Under £1,000

10%

£1,001 - £10,000

15%

£10,001 - £50,000

10%

£50,001 - £100,000

19%

£100,001 - £250,000

13%

£250,001 - £500,000

17%

£500,001 - £1 million

6%

Over £1million

10%


Answer choices Average

number Responses

Public sector contracts (council, NHS, central government)

28

56

Public sector grants (council, NHS, central government)

13

56

Grants from charitable organisations

25 63

Charitable donations / fundraising

14 56

Endowments and investments

3 44

Selling goods and services

20 56

Reserves

8 47

Other

10 38


The Year Ahead


In the year ahead do you anticipate?

Answer choices Responses

Increasing staff levels

30%

Engaging additional volunteers

55%

Reducing staff levels

19%

Reducing the number of your volunteers

0

Expanding the number of services you provide

53%

Closing services you provide

19%

Closing the organisation

2%

Merging with another organisation

6%

Increasing the number and type of beneficiaries you support

43%

Reducing the type and number of beneficiaries you support

9%


The Open Questions Q16 What do you think will be the three top challenges that your organisation will face in the next five years? 69 organisations responded to this question, with more than half raising funding. There were a number of references to contracting processes and the shifts to larger contracts which made it difficult for respondent organisations. There were several references around having to keep re-organising to cope with shifts in funding, which provided challenges around staffing, and space. The changes in the local authority – the loss of organisational memory and key contacts, the shift to funding statutory work, and the increasing internal nature of the Council. The need to constantly demonstrate innovation to funders, particularly with more specialist services, was problematic. There were the internal issues of retaining staff and volunteers during a time of change. Several organisations mentioned the changing nature of public services and shifts in public policy. A number raised the increasingly complex needs of the people they supported and the noticeable impact in poverty and destitution. A number raised the difficulties around partnership working in a more competitive environment. A significant number of respondents raised surviving and sustainability. Reductions in funding/ more time spent on fund-raising and increasing costs were raised by organisations of all sizes. Medium-sized and larger organisations referred more to commissioning and contracts; this is not surprising as very few of the 54% of organisations that responded to survey, with an income of less than £100,000 were involved in contracting. A number of medium and larger-sized organisations did refer to the increasing difficulties of the expectation of partnership working in a competitive environment. The issue of frequent reorganisation in relation to a changed funding environment and the problems this created around staffing and premises was noted for the first time. Another new feature was charging clients for services, or trying to resist charges. The concern around recruiting and retaining volunteers was more marked this time, particularly amongst the smaller organisations. A selection of the challenges are quoted below: “Continuing to secure funding. Ensuring that women-only services are able to compete for funding/contracts. Developing partnerships where we share values and ethos.”

“Continuation funding when our Big Lottery Fund grant ends. Being able to start new projects, bring in new employees and develop. We have an ageing, experienced and dedicated workforce but without an increase in funding it is difficult to have a successful succession plan.”

“Demonstrating the value of specialist legal advice / access to justice for all in an environment where generalist help is perceived as 'enough' for people on low incomes. Resisting the pressure to try and charge clients for services where charitable funds won't fund and contracts aren't available. Surviving to see the next five years.”


“Local Authorities no longer able to fund any services other than child protection, looked after children and adult social care. (Barnet Graph of Doom). Grant funders no longer interested in funding existing work, only new work.”

“Reduced statutory funding, competing for tenders, maintaining levels of service.”

“Reduction in fees, on-going funding challenges, meeting the needs of people with increasingly complex and challenging needs.”

“Recruiting new Volunteers. Loss of facilities. Finances.”

“Further cuts in LA funding. Increase in demand.”

“Sustainable and secure funding. Competing against larger organisations from outside. Maintaining public sector funding levels.”

“Funding. Competition from private firms. Forced to change service delivery.” “Maintaining the number of volunteers. Organising and running activities to engage the public. Maintaining sufficient income.”

“Balancing capacity with delivery. Keeping growing/achieving financial targets. Putting systems in place to allow for flexible and scalable expansions.”

“Sustainability - the funding model on which our organisation was set up was based on a % contribution to overhead and staffing costs per contract. Firstly there have been no contracts for which we have the capacity or backing from our members to ours. Secondly that funding model is increasingly difficult to be accepted by commissioners.”

“Sustainability; continuing to contract with current CCGs and to expand to others; building reserves and retaining staff.”

“Accessing funding. Commissioners working with large organisations. Maintain staff expertise within the organisation to accommodate shifting contracts.”

“Coping with increased demand for services from young people with complex needs. Securing sustainable funding. Competition from other VCS partners.”

“Winning our core service contract. The increased demand on service with (in real terms) a reduction in funding.”

“Fundraising. Being forced to compete with other voluntary organisations that we should be working in partnership with. The decimation of communities through austerity measures.”

“We are highly dependent on a grant from one organisation: if this is reduced or ceases then we will not be able to function. A significant proportion of our volunteers are of retirement age and we are finding it difficult to recruit young people. To try to minimise DNAs, we are centralising booking of appointments and asking for payment of, as a minimum, a small deposit upfront. This may deter potential service users.”


Q17 What would you like to see happen in the next five years? This could include services you would like to develop; where you see needs that you believe should be addressed as a priority, or new approaches that you would like to see tried. Of the 56 organisations that responded, many of the comments related to the individual organisations’ own aspirations. The most common theme was around partnerships and relationships, but natural ones with shared values, rather than being forced by commissioning processes. Another repeated them was around changed commissioning, genuine co-commissioning and co-production. A third area was around the unique value of the voluntary sector. The most common organisational aspiration was around expansion, whether to another geographic area or a new piece of work. The following selection of comments reflect the wider themes or repeated issues.

“We would like to see the decommissioning of larger service providers who are not delivering on their contracts. And co-commissioning of VCS services who can deliver effective services in partnership with each other.”

“Strengthen our infrastructure, both office staff and performance. Strengthen partnerships, particularly with universities. Establish an international link to illuminate our aspirations. Work with Scottish arts and cultural organisations.”

“Greater understanding of the voluntary and community sector as a force for good - for social action, not just as an alternative provider of services or a supply of 'free' volunteers. Greater focus on inequality . Proper commissioning and co-production, not just minimalist tendering exercises as we have at the moment.”

“More funding to neighbourhood projects. Newcastle City Council's idea to "devolve democracy" at ward level should stop. Just an excuse to not take responsibility by local councillors for budget cuts. Grant funding and not contracts.”

“Recognition of the vital role of volunteers and committed Local Authority support.”

“Continue to grow in a sustainable way link up with other campaigns and national organisations and pursue the same agenda and priorities.”

“More commissioned, real jointly and co-produced services with statutory providers.”

“An increase in support from the private sector to help develop opportunities.” “CIC's to be able to access more funding from different areas. To develop our services and reduce the costs with grant /funding support. Work in partnership with other organisations in the same field.”

“Develop services and activities that attract the community to get involved. Would like to have an outreach worker as community development is a big ask for unskilled volunteers.”

“No further cuts! Community centres/libraries in deprived areas to stay open! Free Wi-Fi including ALL areas of Newcastle, especially the deprived areas.”

“More work to support transition from primary to secondary education. More work to support young people with poor mental well-being/mental health problems. New approaches to supporting young people in alternative education and helping young people to achieve L1 and L2 functional skills so they can access training and employment.”


“Improved access to mental health services for all especially young people, more recovery focused work, shorter waiting times for services including ours.”

“Every individual who needs support with literacy and numeracy have access to appropriate and accessible support. The Digital Inclusion agenda has reached everyone including those living in disadvantaged areas.”

“A proper respect for the citizens of Newcastle.”

“Better funding levels for adult social care. More collaborative working with others.”

“Greater recognition of value the voluntary sector brings to communities. Better communication with other voluntary and statutory groups.”

“A more constructive working relationship with the local authority; improved links with similar organisations in other areas.”

“Longer term funding agreements - currently we have contracts which only last 12 months, and these are not efficient. It takes 3 - 5 years to make new projects really successful.”

“Provision of weekend care for isolated older people, - this is the most common request we receive.”

“Return of Legal Aid. Better advice services for people who can't get Legal Aid. Legal advice services that are better rooted in communities and community people who know more about their rights and are aware of where to get help.”

“Cooperation between organisation and funders to deliver needs based services and not opening new duplicating and competing services because a funder wants to back a particular organisation at the expense of others. The representation of voice of children and young people restored in partnerships. New business models that incorporate service users in trading activities.”

“Addressing further the needs of the community re food bank, clothing etc. Further growth in services we already offer.”

“We are working on culture change in the NHS - empowering individuals to make informed decisions. We are concerned to see improved home care monitored against standards. We want to make sure that our client group understand their rights in relation to making choices - personal, health, leisure.”

“Scale-up our work and expand into other North East LA areas Improve the way we demonstrate and market our impact.”

“Greater emphasis on partnerships and collaboration to provide services to our communities.”

“VCS seen truly as equal partners with the statutory sector; recognition of added value it brings i.e. NHS and social care commissioners are not the only investors; increased working across Newcastle and Gateshead.”

“Stability - knowing where the sector is heading and being able to predict market trends within it. Increased funding for the sector would help but is now a pipe dream!”


Q18 How do you see the voluntary and community sector in Newcastle in five years’ time and how do you think your organisation could contribute to this? 53 organisations answered this question and there were very different perspectives ranging from the growth of the sector to providing a much wider range of services and resources to its contraction and absence; with more negative comments. This could be a reflection of the current position of the respective organisations or the outlook of the person filling in the survey. However not a single respondent noted “the same as now”. There were some comments about the emergence of much larger organisations and need for more partnerships. There were a number of comments around the growth of need and increased demands from local communities. “I suspect it will be very extensive. I would like to engage with community groups more.”

“Overstretched, underfunded and mopping up what's left of the welfare state.”

“If austerity cuts continue, there will be more pressure and less money.”

“We are not optimistic if central government continues to reduce local government funding.”

“Smaller unless the City makes it a priority.”

“I’d like to see the VCS in Newcastle more united and working together on the same agenda, a fair, green and sustainable city for people. We contribute to this from a transport angle.”

“I would like to see the VCS in a stronger position and prepared to take advantage of forthcoming tender opportunities. Strategically I would like to think the VCS would be contributing to and shaping new service specifications. I would like to see the VCS picking up substantial work based on tried, tested and successful practice.”

“Under increasing pressure, such that volunteers will lose faith and not be prepared to continue. In the face of Council actions the sector will need to be smarter or fail.”

“I see more people needing and accessing the services provided by this sector, less money available for all the projects that provide these essential services, and people becoming more vulnerable as a result of this.”

“Limited to a few specialised organisations.”

“Very important to the communities here. Community help.”

“Fear the sector will contract to fewer larger organisations.”

“Probably we will have a core of service providers with others springing up for a short while as the result of media attention on a subject.”

“The sector will expand its activity over the next five years. However, we are very small and have a very particular niche. Therefore our contribution to the sector as a whole will be very limited.”

“I think it's going to become very tough and very competitive. We will be forced even more to 'beg, borrow and steal' in order to survive. We would love to be able to play a more


leading, coordinating, partnership role but this will all depend on funding. All our spare/unpaid time already goes to responding to needs.” “I think we are adjusting/adapting and hopefully getting stronger in a new/different environment. I think the number of employees will reduce, the challenge is finding committed volunteers with the capacity to fill the gaps.”

“We hope the contraction of the VCS halts and that there is some regeneration of the sector. Collaboration will become more important and we hope to be able to be more active in seeking devising and delivering joint work. There will need to be even more diversification of income, possibly more innovative sharing of functions.”

“Larger organisations leading on contracts.”

“I see an increase in the size of organisations with larger ones continuing to be successful at winning contracts. I think small organisations will continue to operate; running on small grants from the Council/CCG but mostly from charitable trusts and foundations. I think the medium sized organisations will continue to be squeezed.

“I see an increased need for charitable organisations to take up services that the government are unable to support because of financial constraints.”

“Dominant in provision of social care needs.”

“I think things will get worse if local authorities and the CCGs continue to take short term views and measures so that the voluntary sector is not sustainable.”

“I think it will be very difficult financially for many VCS organisations. However I do believe there are opportunities for some VCS orgs to develop and improve their 'offer', work together in a more coordinated way, and also in partnership with statutory sector. We will continue to remain active in developing partnerships and consortia approaches as well as providing support to smaller VCS orgs when we can.”

“The sector is being devastated - I see larger organisations only with a wider base of micro charities providing services on low or no incomes. It is our aim to try to generate income sufficient enough that it will allow us to offer pro-bono support to such groups.”

“Having to form more partnerships to work effectively for the good of service users and potential service users.”

“Decimated. Services are being stretched, funding harder to find and organisations running on reserves - it's not sustainable.”

“No idea - the times are so hard - it would be good to see a strong community sector that is invested in because our value is recognised and funded.”

“Worried that the sector will only be left with large national and regional - maybe citywide organisations. The value of neighbourhood work is acknowledged but funding doesn't seem to come down via this route.”

“I think the sector will contract further and some more of the medium sized charities will close. I don't want to contribute to this. I think that more organisations will rely on volunteer support and that ultimately the VCS will be competing to recruit volunteers. We will be recruiting more volunteers and so we will be contributing to this competition.”

“The voluntary sector as a more cohesive group being able to work together rather than competing – funding permitting! Community organisations being co-located where


everyone benefits but it must be accessible with good access for parking as well as public transport.”

Too many looking to generate income from the poor or each other, what a shame. Too many delivering services for LA/Government on the cheap at the expense of the people they are supposed to be there for. Lacking trained people and populated by low paid staff (resulting from the contracts won!). All saying they hit targets while the evidence on the street is shockingly obvious. Management increasingly populated by business trained [people] with little regard for social or anthropologically trained people (already embarrassing to use the language). Outcomes replace social justice, with its victims the means of income for the entrepreneur. We are trying hard not to contribute to this thanks. So we must create spaces where voluntary meetings can take place, where local folk can create what they want without the direction of the needs of a strapped council. We suppose regardless of what we and states do, people will act in their own interest create networks socially either good or bad. We suppose our role has over many years been a bridge between wider society and the poorer neighbourhoods, what happens without that bridge might emerge as things change.”

“Less diverse with fewer small local organisations and more nationals running larger and larger contracts.”

“Smaller, but those that remain being more effective.”

“We have a lot of expertise and experience amongst our volunteers. We would like to see this better recognised by the public sector and the public at large.”

“Survival of the fittest. We are keen to work closely with organisations across the sector and so extend the "reach" of our advice services.”

“Small organisations like ours who make a huge difference to the lives of many individuals are being gradually eroded. Without solid funding I cannot see any of the smaller agencies surviving. Smaller agencies give a more personalised service.”

“It will be strong and resilient because any organisations that manage to survive that long will have to be. There might be entry for bigger organisations that might mean that the community of organisations in Newcastle is diluted - I hope this doesn't happen. Also perhaps more voluntary led / community groups, etc. We need to value our infrastructure bodies more and the support they provide as we will need it more than ever.”

“More isolated. Less capacity to meet, discuss, participate, advocate, share or fill in surveys like this. Generating more of its own income. We need to be more vocal and more visible about youth work, its value and its need. We need to work with other organisations better but not in outdated consortium, we should help create new models such as alliances.”

“Probably one large organisation with all of the issues that involves - We will have to be large to have any chance of getting/keeping local government contracts.”

“Supporting and developing the sector to change to respond to the needs of local people and communities.”


Q19 Are there any other comments you would like to add? “Newcastle CVS must fight against the contracts culture and the commissioning model or else there will just be Sodexho and sub-contractors with no ethics.”

“Difficult to assess the number of beneficiaries but about 100 people use the Dene daily including dog walkers, families, horse riders and nature lovers. Cuts to the ranger service have impacted on events we can hold. Our core group is very small, only four regular members but more people come to help care for the Dene e.g. litter picks, tree planting, removal of unwanted saplings etc. These events are organised by the Ranger Service who we closely work with.”

“We support the creation of a sustainable transport forum in Newcastle, which would involve key VCS groups including campaigns, together with bus operators, LA, and other interested organisations. This would guide and steer the transport transition the city needs.”

“These are extremely difficult times and the VCS needs to play an active part in informing and challenging many of the recommendations, systems and processes that are supposed to bring about change.”

“Whilst we have some sympathy for the pressure Councils face in regard to their funding priorities we believe they are short sighted in thinking they can simply offload their responsibilities on others.”

“More liaison between community sectors. Keep up the good work.”

“I do pray that there will be a change of government that is not focussed on letting the ordinary man pay for the economic mess they are in. One million Britons using foodbanks! It sounds very much like a war situation. Apologies for sounding so pessimistic.”

“The choice of Government will bring about change - for the better is yet to be seen.”

“We have noted an increase in the demand and activity for our services but from different market segments - larger VCS organisations. The medium sized and small organisations simply cannot afford us and as a result the general effectiveness of IT within the sector has gone backwards to the level that we started to offer our support.”

“Unless organisations across sectors are prepared to change the way they work, to bring about a meaningful change in how they work together, based in dialogue and understanding, we will all struggle to keep meeting the increasing needs of those facing the greatest challenges in our communities.”

“Concerned about the idea that bigger is better within the youth sector. From our experience developing relationships is essential to effect change. The idea of Youth zones is the exact opposite to what we believe young people need and there is a concern that it is a cynical attempt to take the biggest part of the limited funding on offer.”

“We will be 125 years old in 2016; we have survived much worse than the present environment during our long history. By staying true to the changing needs of disadvantaged children and young people we will continue to be here for some time to come.”

“I think we are in a privileged position at the moment in that we are in receipt of direct Government funding. If this is removed with a change of Government, I foresee that our services will reduce. I am concerned that the VCS will increasingly rely on volunteers to


deliver front line services. Whilst I believe that volunteers either are, or can be trained to be, capable to deliver these services, I am concerned that there is little understanding of the support volunteers need to ensure that they deliver these services legally and competently and that there is an expectation that these services and the support for these services should be entirely volunteer led. We are increasingly seeing volunteering as a way to gain employment, if we lose the opportunity for people to gain employment in the VCS, we lose some of the motivation for volunteers to volunteer. I believe the reliance on volunteers to deliver key front line services also undermines the skills / experience /knowledge of the employees who currently work for us. It also undermines economic growth in that we end up with a workforce who delivers essential services, who are not earning money and who therefore cannot spend.”

“We are seeing a steady supply of new volunteers coming forward, and this is very welcome.”

“The Voluntary Sector is being asked to do more and more in the community. We often get told we do a good job but this does not fund those who do the work or pay our running costs.”

“Between 1 Apr 14 and 31 Mar 15 2,281 individuals accessed our services 36,932 times taking part in 2,425 different youth work sessions. A total of 168,793 hours of support to individuals.”


Regional and national research There is a body of research around the voluntary and community sector over the last twenty years, the following significant reports have all been published in the last eighteen months and are from authors and organisations who understand the sector. Some are documents in a series and illustrate trends. The UK Civil Society Almanac 2015, NCVO (National Council of Voluntary Organisations) www.data.ncvo.org.uk June 2015 This is the 14th edition, published over the last 18 years. It presents “a comprehensive picture of the structure and economy of the UK voluntary sector”. It uses data from charity accounts (financial year 2012/13), administrative data and surveys and includes some provisional data for 2013/14. It illustrates a slight fall in sector income and a slight decrease in the number of registered charities. Within the 160,045 registered charities there are some very large new charities, which were previously government agencies e.g. Nesta, English Heritage. The top 1% of charities own 73% of the assets. Grant-making remains dominated by a small group of large charities, with the ten largest grant-makers accounting for 43% of all grants made. However the report emphasises that the majority of charities are local and small-scale, with 78% operating locally. The value of grants and contracts from (central and local) government has fallen by £1.7 billion in two years. The sector has seen no growth in spending since 2006/07 with total spending for 2012/13 holding steady at £39.3bn; the provisional figures for 2013/14 indicate a fall to £39.1 billion. Charities are diversifying their sources of income - nearly doubling earned income in ten years. Volunteering had decreased slightly from the previous near, but 41% of the UK population (21 million people) take part in formal volunteering at least once a year; with 27% once a month; the estimated value of this was £23.9 billion. The voluntary sector workforce is 2.7% of the total UK workforce. The total sector workforce in 2014 was 821,000, with a fall in the number of fulltime employees and an increase in the number of part time employees from the previous year. The voluntary sector contributed £12.1 billion to the economy in 2012/13 as GVA (Gross Value Added). This is the same as the agricultural sector. The North East is the English region with the lowest amount of voluntary organisations (4,405), by number and per 1,000 people. Voluntary organisations tend be concentrated in major urban areas. The overall numbers of charities are slightly higher in areas of low deprivation. Around half of the sector’s wealth is held by London-based charities, with the North East having the lowest number of organisations by income and assets. Since the recession income from grant-making foundations has risen by more than a quarter, while corporate donations have fallen by half. Social Landscape : the state of charities and social enterprises in 2015 ACEVO (Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations) and CAF (Charities Aid Foundation) March 2015 This report is based on data from 572 charity leaders, mainly from larger and medium sized voluntary organisations. More were pessimistic than optimistic about overall economic conditions for their organisation, with around a third having used reserves in the last year. Large charities were particularly affected by a reduction in public/ government


funding. One in five smaller charities were ‘struggling to survive’. 78% of respondents had seen an increase in demand for their services in the last year, and 80% anticipated a further increase in demand over the coming year. Although 82% were confident in their own organisation’s ability to meet demands, only 41% were confident about the ability of the sector as a whole to meet demand (with 32% being pessimistic). Collaboration and accessing external support and expertise were significant. The three most pressing challenges were identified as generating more income/achieving financial sustainability, the reduction in public/ government funding, and insufficient resources. The challenges differed according to charity size. Charities with an income of less than £1 million were more likely to highlight ‘generating income’ as a key concern, with larger charities more likely to highlight ‘private sector competition in bidding for public contracts’. Although the sample size didn’t allow for a full regional breakdown, charities based in the North more commonly highlighted government funding cuts, meeting demand for services, and private sector competition for contracts as greater challenges than charities based elsewhere. What was significant was only 12% of respondents were optimistic about government support for the sector, with 59% pessimistic. Respondents from smaller charities were less optimistic than those in large organisations in relation to the future of the charity sector, overall economic conditions, and the future of their own organisation. Given that a large proportion of the charity sector is formed of smaller organisations, this is of particular concern. The report covers the ways in which charity leaders are continually looking to improve their operations e.g. investing in new technology and social media activities to communicate better. However there is a clear strain on resources for many organisations. The report notes “A vibrant charitable sector needs adequate support from policy makers, and both central and local government must consider whether their actions disproportionately affect charities and voluntary groups, organisations upon which so many people depend. There is also a duty for government to ensure that charities have the freedom to act for the benefit of society.” Charity Street : The value of charity to British Households IPPR (Institute for Public Policy Research) September 2014 This report takes a completely different perspective which illustrates that “charities play a vital and varied role in all aspects of our national life”. The size and scope of the charitable sector in the UK means that most people have had contact with charity, in many different ways, at some part of their life. The report focuses on the value of charities from the perspective of individual beneficiaries and their households. In a poll of 2,070 adult, 79% of the respondents had used a charity service in the last year, with 51% in the last month. This included buying something from a charity shop, visiting a community centre or attending a charity event. Many people reported having got advice from a charity or a charitable website. A number of people who used charities in the last year, used more than one type of charity. Among household types, families with older children are more likely to have used a charity in the last year, followed by older couples and single parents; however multiple service use is highest among young single adults. The report calculates the estimated value of charity services used and illustrates that charities clearly play an important role in the lives of many households, though very often in combination with other service providers.


Charities can be closer to people than many other government and commercial bodies. The summary concludes “it can be sometimes easy to forget the very real impact that charities have on people’s lives, and the value that charities add to society – not just by providing much-needed support and assistance but also by enriching lives through the arts, science and education.” The Health of the Women’s Sector in the North East of England 2014/15 NEWomen’s Network and Women’s Resource Centre June 2015 The NEWomen's Network published a report of findings from a survey to assess the health of the women’s sector in the North East. This report draws upon earlier survey findings, yearly from 2009-2013, to monitor the impact of economic recession and austerity measures upon the women’s sector. Fifty-two women's voluntary organisations responded to the survey, representing 48% of organisations in the current membership of NEWomen’s Network. Almost a third of the women’s organisations who responded to the survey stated that they were not funded in 2014/2015. Of those that were, almost half reported a decrease in income over the last 12 months. Over the five years the surveys have been conducted, the accumulative findings show a long term trend of lack of investment in the women’s sector against ever increasing demand for services. 66% of respondents had witnessed increases in demand for their services in the last 12 months and these were as high as 38%. Austerity measures, along with diminished public services and the impact of welfare reform mean that more women are in need of support. When their funding is cut, the organisations prioritise protecting frontline services for women. However, this is at the expense of networking, collaboration and influencing to bring about strategic change. Women’s organisations still rely heavily on grants from charitable trusts and public bodies and less upon service level agreements, contracts competitively tendered for, or Payment by Results. The 2015 findings suggest that self-generated income and donations are important sources of income for the women’s sector. In 2015, almost a fifth of all survey respondents were not confident that they would survive the next year. Despite the challenges of the current situation almost two thirds of those who responded to the survey are confident that they will still be here this time next year. Although only 25% of respondents were part of existing funding consortia or partnerships, there was an appetite for exploring this potential development. Small Charities Index : trends Shifting sand in the Small Charity Sector FSI June 2015 The FSI collects quarterly data on the way small charities (defined as those with an annual turnover of less than £1.5 million) have been coping and their confidence (or otherwise) in the future. Trend data has been collected since June 2013 with between 154 and 277 organisations contributing to quarterly questionnaires. Most of the charities taking part in the surveys were fairly confident about the future, but up to a quarter of them were financially exposed, with one in ten being at risk of closure during the coming year. The key challenges were a heavy workload, increased demand for services, little change in the financial position for most charities, but some serious exceptions. The Relationship between Small Charities and Public Sector involvement : the missing pieces published by the FSI in September 2014 examined how charities faced a different


set of decisions when considering whether to become involved in delivering public services and how they structure themselves to deliver those services in future. It recognises that a number of charities had never held a contract to deliver public services, and had no intention of pursuing this in the future. Charities with public sector funding had been impacted by funding reductions, which had meant cutting back on service delivery. 40% of the 306 respondents felt their charity was not operating in a sustainable funding environment. The study highlighted some of the conflicts facing organisations that held contracts to deliver public services – greater difficulties in recruiting local volunteers, concern around independence, the impact on campaigning activities, problems in managing Payment by Results contracts. The relationship between small charities and the public sector is shaped by the extent to which a charity is dependent on public sector income. As a consequence of reductions in public expenditure cuts, some charities are experiencing difficulties in their ability to meet demands or to grow. The State of the Sector : Key trends for voluntary sector organisations working with offenders and their families CLINKS March 2015 This report examined the environment for 62 organisations that worked with offenders; the respondents are from CLINKS membership and reflect the voluntary sector, with additional interviews for under-represented groups. There have been surveys run for four years. The study reported that many organisations were reliant on their reserves, putting them at risk of closure - 69% noted if reserves were used at the current level, they would close within a year. Organisations were spending more time on funding applications, which meant resources were being diverted from frontline work. Due to the ‘complex and fluid commissioning environment’, that whilst needing to close or reduce capacity of services, organisations had also been able to open new services. The funding questions indicated that the voluntary sector was supported by a very mixed funding portfolio. In relation to contracts, 95% of organisations only sometimes or never achieved full cost recovery on the contracts they delivered. Small and medium sized organisations were least likely to win new contracts. In relation to Payment by Results, some organisations struggle to deliver services on this basis, with a number having to use reserves to set up and finance running costs before any additional payments were made. The user group was offenders and their families and 79% of respondents reported that needs of service users had increased over the last three years. This was worsened by other agencies having tighter criteria and clients being sent around the system. 38% of respondents had made redundancies in the financial year 2012/13. Organisations were increasingly delivering contracts as part of a consortium, as many contracts had increased in size. Keeping It Simple : how to work effectively with the third sector A discussion paper and evidence review for local authorities Tony Chapman and Fred Robinson for the ILG (Institute for Local Governance) September 2014 This report, which is based on evidence from the North East, Cumbria and Yorkshire and Humber, examines the nature of the relationships between local authorities and third sector organisations. It looks at some of the common assumptions and differences that


occur. Chapman and Robinson in their extensive work for the Northern Rock Foundation Third Sector Trends Study have considered voluntary and community organisations as being driven by three different kinds of ethos – community driven ethos, public-sector driven ethos and a market driven ethos market. It looked at differing and different priorities, the diversity of the third sector, the role of third sector organisations as service providers, independence, competing interests, and the importance of values. It noted that most organisations depended on a wide range of income sources, but the income from the public sector was significant for north east organisations. The authors describe the different sources of income for voluntary organisations and how this is changing, and the decisions that local authorities have made in last few years. The briefing looks at the issue of expectations, from both sides, and what is currently happening with these relationships. It differentiates between the local authority buying services, investing in development or communities, selling services and not engaging (passing) on third sector activities. There were inevitably differing expectations to what each sector expected of each other: the local authority expected easier access, procedural compliance and continuity, a ‘marketplace mentality’, intra and inter-sector partnership working, impact and outcomes measurement, recognition of the local authority’s mandate to define local priorities and shape strategies to tackle them, and to add value to the financial investment. In return the third sector expected its independence should be respected including its right to challenge and campaign; its opinions should be called upon, listened to and acted upon; that its special contribution / added value should be recognised; the relationship should be based on trust without too much monitoring or bureaucracy; development should be invested in, but the third sector should define its priorities and approaches; any procedure for grants and contracts should be fair and transparent; any new commissioning opportunities should be promoted and that a full cost recovery approach should be adopted. Clearly these widely held expectations can produce uncertainties and tensions, and some of the expectations can be contradictory. The report highlights the importance of good relationships, and local authorities making realistic appraisals of what can be achieved by the third sector. Local authorities are recommended to get to know about the structure and dynamics of the third sector; not to assume that third sector organisations will get behind their agendas; there is value in developing third sector capability and checking organisations are serious about delivery; involving the third sector in strategic thinking and commissioning can be advantageous; the need to communicate with the third sector in a timely way about strategic priorities that may affect them; to clearly communicate what is wanted if investment strategies are developed; to be clear about the objectives of grants and contracts; and to be clear about the decisions made on things the local authority isn’t supporting. Making Good: the future of the voluntary sector edited by Caroline Slocock, Civil Exchange, November 2014 This selection of 29 essays from voluntary sector leaders and commentators illustrates where and how voluntary organisations could add most value to society over the next decade. This is the result from the Panel on the Independence of the Voluntary Sector which had highlighted serious threats to independence in its reports. It calls for greater consensus about what is distinctive and important about an independent voluntary sector in order to underpin a ‘new settlement’ between the sector and its partners.


Caroline Slocock proposes the voluntary sector must get ahead of the curve and set its own agenda over the next decade. This should be one that makes best use of its distinctive strengths, meets the genuine interests of those it serves and responds to changing circumstances. As the state gets smaller, it will look towards the voluntary sector to help it change. The state will be less hands on and more effective in tackling social problems, engaging communities and individuals more actively in shaping their world. Politicians are also looking to the voluntary sector to help with the democratic deficit, particularly as many people are disengaging from traditional politics. The answers to where and how the voluntary sector can add most value over the next decade depend partly what is distinctive and important about it as compared to the public and private sectors. Its distinctive strengths can be seen as community empowerment, its independent voice, and its specialist expertise. Judy Robinson proposes that small is beautiful, but it needs more recognition and support. She notes that it is the smaller organisations with a few staff that are more vulnerable to closure. Many are using up reserves to survive, and many have none. Small groups are connected to their locality and know it because they are part of it. This means their work is trusted and it meets real needs drawn from insightful intelligence. They can attract volunteers and local resources because people can see the connection with a social good. Smaller groups provide an independent voice, about their locality and this saves money as social capital is created. However sometimes the urge to scale up means losing the very qualities that made local provision effective. John Tizard calls for a rebirth of civil society in every community and sees an increasing focus on localism. Strong communities and local economies need strong partnerships between local authorities and other local bodies, in particular the voluntary and community sector. This needs to be based on mutual trust, respect and openness and a genuine willingness to work together for the greater good of the community and individuals. Local authorities should recognise and respect voluntary and community groups as legitimate sources of voice for communities, ideas and solutions and key members of local civil society. Managing in the new normal 2015 : the latest instalment in the series of Managing in a Downturn IoF (Institute of Fundraising), CFG (Charity Finance Group), PWC February 2015 This series of research reports started in 2008 to look at the immediate impact on charities of the financial crash. This report was written to influence an incoming government about the current challenges for the charity sector and how the government could create conditions to ensure its sustainability. The most important challenge facing the sector was identified as public funding cuts. A significant number of organisations, particularly small ones (47%), identified protecting the independence of the sector was the most important priority for the next government. 70% of the (more than 400) respondents had experienced an increase in demand for their services in the previous year, with 28% noting they were not sufficiently resourced to meet the increase in demand. Most charities were planning to diversify their income stream. Collaboration between charities seemed to focus on service delivery and fundraising or joint bidding, rather than sharing services and staff. There was still little appetite for repayable (social) finance. A significant number of organisations had restructured and


22% had made staff redundant, whilst 57% reported an increase in staffing levels in the last year. This report also commented on staff mood and morale with 61% reporting an improvement with 15% being more pessimistic. Because of the nature of the IoF and CFG, more than three quarters of their member respondents were from charities with an income of over £1 million and it should be assumed that many of these are London-based national charities which employ professional fundraisers. NCIA (National Coalition for Independent Action) The NCIA has commissioned a series of papers as part of its ‘Inquiry into the Future of Voluntary Services’. The inquiry is specifically concerned with those voluntary and community organisations that deliver services in local communities, especially those that accept public money for these activities. It has long been NCIA’s contention that the co-optive nature of these relationships has been damaging to the principles and practice of independent voluntary action. It believes the actions of the previous Coalition Government (and it should be assumed the new majority Government) have created new imperatives for Voluntary Service Groups to remind themselves of their commitment to social justice and to position themselves so that they can once again be seen as champions of positive social, economic and environmental development. Its most recent publication ‘Fight or Flight : Voluntary Services in 2015’ NCIA reviews the seventeen separate reports it commissioned and concluded that overall, the environment for service-providing voluntary organisations is increasingly hostile and getting worse. The response from many groups and their leadership bodies (ACEVO, NCVO) has been to fail to “defend their autonomy or show active solidarity with their users and communities” and to fall in to the state’s line. It believes that cuts and contracts have promoted a race to the bottom, and the heavy transaction costs involved were diverting resources that might have better spent on providing more and better frontline services. It highlights the loss of grant aid and the shift to contracts, the marketization and privatisation of public services, and the inbuilt advantages of larger organisations and corporations as making matters worse. It notes the growing gap between the ‘winners’ and ‘losers’, and evidence of aggressive and predatory behaviour. It notes the small, and medium size groups, overwhelmingly rooted in local areas, that have suffered the most from reduced resources, increased pressure and greater competition. There is a particularly adverse impact on community groups, infrastructure organisations and community anchors, and BME groups. Third Sector Trends in North East England and Cumbria Headline trends 2008-14 Tony Chapman and Fred Robinson for the Northern Rock Foundation December 2014 This report presents preliminary findings from the 2014 Third Sector trends survey. Its purpose is to begin an exploration of trends from 2008-14 by providing headline results. Further reports will be available in 2015 (as yet unpublished). This series of reports are based on data sets of between 1,050 to 1,700 groups, and aim to reflect the wider third sector in the North East and Cumbria. The respondents include a number of smaller community organisations, so not all are registered charities. For around 71% of participant


organisations, income has remained relatively stable, and for a sizeable minority (13-22%) it has significantly fallen, and for between 8-16% it has increased. There is more evidence of income fluctuation for larger (income above £250,000) more formal organisations. The report highlights the different sources of income for small (below £50,000), medium (£50,000-£250,000) and large organisations and discussed the interplay between different income sources. The report indicates that smaller, less formal organisations are most likely to have experienced income stability. The report notes that organisations, particularly larger ones, have become more enterprising in their activities in the last few years; focussing on trading and contracts. The series of reports have analysed attitudes and note a ‘strengthening of the sector’s sense of identity’ and a strengthening of public sector or community sector practice ethos. The Government has been keen to involve encourage more third sector organisations to deliver public sector delivery contracts; but this evidence shows no increased participation by smaller organisations. Although there is greater involvement in public sector delivery by larger organisations, this hasn’t significantly increased since 2010 (32% to 35%). Amongst the larger organisations, there is considerable variation in the levels of participation of contract working with 49% of big (over £1 million income) delivering contracts. Partnership working for contract delivery has increased from 10% to 18% from 2010 to 2014. When looking to the future, 60% of participants expected a rise in the demand for their service; 48% expect funding from statutory bodies will decrease/ decrease significantly with 46% expecting an increase/ significant increase. However looking at overall funding 44% believe it will increase, with 16% expecting a decrease. 50% of organisations thought partnership working would increase. Many organisations had changed the way they did things, in anticipation of a changing operating environment. Few organisations are interested in moving into new areas of activity. There is evidence to show that organisations are working to tackle the challenges of the future and capitalise upon opportunities they identify. An insight into the future of charity funding in the North East Cathy Pharoah and Tony Chapman for the Garfield Weston Foundation 2014 182 small to medium-sized charities (with incomes of below £3 million) working in frontline areas in community, youth or welfare in the North East were interviewed to develop an understanding of their funding resources. The findings included there was a highly localised focus with 57% supporting only their local neighbourhood, and localities with some of the highest deprivation in the UK had the fewest number of charities serving them. 86% of organisations interviewed received funding from at least one government source, and 63% said their income had been directly affected by government spending cuts. 38% reported a decrease in their previous year’s annual income. The report noted the ‘emerging polarisation between organisations in terms of adapting to the new funding context’. 24% expect income to grow, with 30% anticipating a future decrease. At the same time 57% were reporting an increase in service demand and were prioritising frontline services. 44% noted a reduction in resources for fundraising. Organisations in the middle of the income range clearly emerged as vulnerable. They were the most likely to expect decreasing income, and also to report a decrease in income generating resources.


There was a diversity of income streams, with an average of six different sources. Grant-making foundations were frequent funders. 77% of organisations thought their funding mix wasn’t right or would need to change in the future, and organisations were at different stages in progressing this. Garfield Weston is a national foundation and they noted relatively few North East charities received support from national foundations – whether this was because of insufficient applications or too many rejections isn’t clear. Following this report, they have invested in a support programme for some North East charities (it is a competitive process to engage in the programme), but there is no evidence yet of North East charities having greater success with national foundations. The Garfield Weston Foundation had noted low and falling levels of funding applications from the North East compared with other areas, and were concerned about the future availability of voluntary support for people suffering the sharp end of economic pressures in the North East.


Reference List ACEVO and CAF (2015) Social Landscape : the state of charities and social enterprises in 2015, ACEVO (Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations) and CAF (Charities Aid Foundation) Alcock P. (2010) Partnership and mainstreaming: voluntary action under New Labour, Third Sector Research Paper Working Paper 32 Baum F. (2008) The New Public Health, OUP Australia and New Zealand Cabinet Office (2010) Modernising Commissioning, Cabinet Office Cabinet Office (2011) Open Public Services White Paper, Cabinet Office Chapman T. Robinson F. (2014) Third Sector Trends in North East England and Cumbria Headline trends 2008-14 Northern Rock Foundation Third Sector Trends Study Chapman T. Robinson F. (2014) Keeping it simple : how to work effectively with the third sector A discussion paper and evidence review for local authorities ILG (Institute for Local Government) CLINKS (2015) The State of the Sector : Key trends for voluntary sector organisations working with offenders and their families, CLINKS FSI (2015) Small Charities Index : trends Shifting sand in the Small Charity Sector, FSI (Foundation for Social Improvement) Green J. (2012) The Heart of the City : the Voluntary and Community Sector in Newcastle, Newcastle CVS Howells C. (1989) Growing Together 1929:1989 Newcastle upon Tyne Council for Voluntary Service , our first sixty years Newcastle CVS Independent Commission on the Future of Local Infrastructure (2015) Change for Good, NAVCA (National Association for Voluntary and Community Action) IoF, CFG, PWC (2015) Managing in the new normal 2015 : the latest instalment in the series of Managing in a Downturn, IoF (Institute of Fundraising), CFG (Charity Finance Group) IPPR (2014) Charity Street : The value of charity to British Households, IPPR (Institute for Public Policy Research) Kane D. and Mohan D. (2010) Mapping Registered Third Sector Organisations in the North East, Northern Rock Foundation Third Sector Trends Study Kendall J. (2000) Mainstreaming of the third sector into public policy in England in the late 1990s: why’s and wherefores” Civil Society Working Paper 2 Large D. (2015) Good Intentions, Newcastle CVS


Localism Act 2011 Mohan J. Barnard S. (2013) Comparisons between the characteristics of charities in Scotland and those of England and Wales, Centre for Charitable Giving and Philanthropy (CGAP) MacMillan R. Paine A. et al (2014) Building Capabilities in the Voluntary Sector : What the evidence tells us, Third Sector Research Centre Mohan J., Kane D., Wilding K., Branson J. and Owles F. (2010) Beyond ‘flat-earth’ maps of the third sector, Northern Rock Foundation Third Sector Trends Study NCIA (2015) Fight or Flight : Voluntary Services in 2015, NCIA (National Coalition for Independent Action) NCVO The Work Programme : Perceptions and Experiences of the Voluntary Sector 2012 and 2014, NCVO NCVO (National Council for Voluntary Organisations) (2015) The UK Civil Society Almanac 2015, NCVO Newcastle City Council (2014) Newcastle Residents Survey, for Newcastle City Council Paxton W., Pearce N., Unwin J., Molyneux P. (2005) The voluntary sector delivering public services; transfer or transformation, Joseph Rowntree Foundation Pharoah C. Chapman T (2014) An insight into the future of charity funding in the North East, Garfield Weston Foundation Public Services (Social Value) Act (2012) Robson S. (2015) The Health of the Women’s Sector in the North East of England 2014/15, NEWomen’s Network and Women’s Resource Centre Slocock C. (2014) Making Good: the future of the voluntary sector edited by Caroline Slocock, Civil Exchange Stevens S. (2014) The NHS Five Year Forward View, Department of Health Wolfenden Report (1978) The Future of Voluntary Organisations, Croom Helm World Health Organisation (2008) The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion, WHO

VCS 2020 A Force for Good - British Library/media/bl/global/social-welfare/pdfs/... · 4 A Force...

Documents

Transcript of VCS 2020 A Force for Good - British Library/media/bl/global/social-welfare/pdfs/... · 4 A Force...