supporting a stronger civil society consultation response

© URBAN FORUM 2011

Urban Forum has responded to the OCS consultation on Supporting a Stronger Civil Society, which suggests some ways that the government think improvements could be made that would support the delivery of the Big Society and seeks feedback to 10 questions that they ask. (See our briefing on the consultation document here)

Basis of our response
We conducted an online survey of Urban Forum members between 1 November and 31 December 2010 which was completed by 41 members (their full responses are appended). We have also drawn on the evidence from our recent annual survey of members and on feedback derived from 20 Big Society events we have been holding across England since June last year.

Question 1: How can online services for frontline groups be improved?
Whilst there is a plethora of online resources available to community groups, they are often not linked up and groups are not always aware of what is available or relevant to them. OCS suggests that they could streamline existing online directories for efficiency and ease of use and the majority of respondents to our survey agree that this could be beneficial to the way they operate. Indeed, a number of our members suggested that a single, central online portal or ‘one stop shop' would be welcomed and appreciated. If this were to be developed, it would need to be comprehensive, user-friendly and free to use. Our members would welcome a directory that would be searchable by geography, service or area of interest. However, it is important to note that online resources should not be seen as a substitute for real face to face/ offline support, particularly given that many people, particularly in deprived communities, are not online.

For this to be useful and effective, any funding opportunities listed on the site would need to be regularly updated with old or closed opportunities promptly removed. Whilst a more streamlined source of information for voluntary and community groups could be hugely beneficial, the reality is that creating a new website to bring together information will indeed require funding as bigger websites are more resource intensive. Some of our members instead proposed that there wasn't necessarily a need for a new online resource, but rather for better targeting of the resources that are already available and better links and signposting to and between resources.

Questions 2 and 3: What can Government do to forge more effective links and transfer skills between small civil society organisations and businesses or larger charities? How could brokerage of pro bono support be improved?
Closer working between the private sector and voluntary and community sector could provide numerous benefits to charities and small community organisations. Particularly in a time when government is expecting the VCS to work in new and different ways, groups could learn from business on how to be ‘more entrepreneurial', and thus employee volunteering schemes, mentoring and pro bono support and generally to be welcomed.

However, it is to be noted that this should not be seen as a one-way exchange of skills and information. If the Big Society is serious about promoting an agenda of increased social activism and volunteering, then it is important to recognise how much the VCS has to offer in terms of transferring skills and values to the private sector as well. Businesses should be encouraged to be more socially responsible and to contribute more to shared social, environmental and economic improvement. It would be particularly helpful to map available resources in businesses and charities in order to match up the skills and needs required on both ends.

Indeed, our members strongly believe that employee volunteering schemes should be supported and that there need to be incentives to support and develop these initiatives. As one of our members suggested, ‘Be creative, get some champions to demonstrate what can be achieved, recognise and reward achievement and dedication - this will all lead to a ‘business case' for brokered services'. Many of our survey respondents strongly believe that incentives will be necessary for businesses to engage meaningfully with the VCS and that this relationship needs to be engendered on a long-term basis to be effective.

In terms of how better brokerage of pro bono support could be improved (Q3), better relationships, networking and joint-working groups need to be developed so that pro bono support is properly targeted. As noted in the consultation document, often local groups do not know what support is already available so it will be necessary to expand networks and access to support. As previously mentioned, mapping of available skills and needs and matching these up will be necessary.

Questions 4-6: What support might your organisation need to become more resilient? What do you think should be the priorities for a bursary fund? How could any bursary fund be delivered simply and fairly?
Voluntary and community groups recognise that in these times of austerity and economic hardship, changes must be made in order to be resilient. In order to do this, better support on how to move forward in a time of funding cuts would be welcomed. Many organisations are ceasing to exist because of cuts in public spending, and those that are struggling to replace their funding streams will require guidance if they are expected to establish new business models. We support the increase in scrutiny over public sector spending, as well as more localised commissioning to this end.

There is potential for many community groups to use new funding models and develop income generating activity. However this will require significant support that is sensitive to the character and needs of the community sector. Furthermore, there are a significant number of community groups who undertake valuable work which is never likely to be income generating but should be supported nonetheless for its possible value and impact.

As far as a bursary fund for modernisation is concerned, our members have shown mixed levels of support. On the one hand, many feel that any source of funding is to be welcomed, particularly those that support administrative costs as well as training and development of skills. Given the shock that many groups will feel as a result of sudden funding decreases, any immediate source of income will help many groups to stay afloat and to adapt to respond effectively to future challenges.

On the other hand, many of our survey respondents are wary about the idea of a bursary fund. We worry that this may just be adding another layer of bureaucracy, and that there is some ambiguity in terms of who can become a provider of services under the scheme, and how these providers are chosen. Also, the proposal in Questions 2 and 3 that businesses should be encouraged to provide pro bono support to charities and community groups seems to contradict this idea. While a bursary system could be effective in helping VCS groups to receive the services and support they needs, perhaps better incentivising the provision of pro bono work could be an alternative.

If a bursary fund for developing entrepreneurial skills and modernisation is to be put in place, we would like to stress the importance of making it locally administered, transparent, and well publicised. There must be a competitive application process and a clear set of criteria and guidelines to determine who receives the bursaries, and there must be involvement of stakeholders in the process.

Question 7: How could consolidation grants help ensure the sustainability and efficiency of infrastructure services?
The diversity of representation of organisations needs also to be maintained, particularly to preserve ‘localism', but there is a case to be made for the merger and consolidation of the functions of some infrastructure organisations. Consolidation grants can help to achieve this only if they are linked to frontline needs as well as to eliminate duplication of services. We welcome support to cut administration costs but also feel that longer term grants and support would be more useful than one-off consolidation grants. However, whilst some rationalisation may be sensible, it must not loss of all small over big and specific specialised support organisations as this is already a problem, particularly for equalities organisations which represent small, specific communities.

Question 8: Are there ways that expert intervention can support areas which are lacking social capital to improve local relationships and develop a stronger civil society?
Infrastructure organisations can and do play an important role in strengthening civil society and support communities. In order to improve intervention and increase social capital, there must be an emphasis on the long term and less focus on one-offs. Social capital can only be built with the accumulation of trust, which requires meaningful and effective local participation, and establishment of priorities by local people. This will be difficult to achieve with such uncertainty about long term funding of any projects, but the development of local networks and decent support can help. Localism will only truly work if it is led by the grassroots and not through overly centralised programmes of support.