goodmaking THE FUTURE OF THE VOLUNTARY SECTOR A collection of essays by voluntary sector leaders Supported by the Baring Foundation MMakingaking GGoodood Essays.inddEssays.indd 1 004/11/20144/11/2014 009:259:25 Edited by Caroline Slocock, Civil Exchange, November 2014 Published by Civil Exchange, in partnership with DHA Designed by David Casey, DHA Supported by the Baring Foundation Text and graphic ©Civil Exchange, 2014 Civil Exchange is a think tank established to strengthen civil society’s connection to government. It links up with other organisations on particular projects to bring together existing expertise and knowledge. It aims to be a catalyst to help civil society and government work together in new ways and a resource for research, policy development, capacity building, awareness-raising and exchange. civilexchange.org.uk DHA is a policy and communications agency specialising in social change. It works solely with public and not for profi t sector organisations across a range of sectors, including with the voluntary sector, trusts and foundations, think tanks and government. dhacommunications.co.uk 2 MMakingaking GGoodood Essays.inddEssays.indd 2 004/11/20144/11/2014 009:259:25 Making Good: the future of the voluntary sector A collection of essays by voluntary sector leaders 3 MMakingaking GGoodood Essays.inddEssays.indd 3 004/11/20144/11/2014 009:259:25 Introduction Caroline Slocock In these essays, 29 voluntary sector leaders and commentators give their views on where and how voluntary organisations could add most value to society over the next decade. Most are from the UK but there are also some illuminating contributions from or about other countries. The aim is to generate wider debate that will help shape a stronger future for the voluntary sector. The idea came from the Panel on the Independence of the Voluntary Sector, which has highlighted serious threats to independence in its reports – including challenges to the sector’s independent voice; markets, not mission, becoming the driving force and undermining independent purpose and action; and a general loss of identity and respect for independence.1 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 stakeholders. There are different perspectives and many essays will provoke lively discussion, but some strong and surprisingly consistent messages do emerge. A turning point The fi rst is the need for the voluntary sector, collectively, to set a clear direction for its future, rather than passively responding to different forces – including from the state, which is looking to the voluntary sector to help it cut costs, reshape services and re-engage with the public. The voluntary sector must also adapt to refl ect social and technological change, different expectations and increasing diversity within the sector itself. A number of contributors comment on the underlying resilience of the sector and Karl Wilding thinks that it should face the future with “militant optimism.” But Professor Nicholas Deakin warns “the voluntary sector risks declining over the next ten years into a mere instrument of a shrunken state, voiceless and toothless, unless it seizes the agenda and creates its own vision.” Julia Unwin sums up a wider mood amongst contributors: “The voluntary sector has the will, the power and the capability to set its own direction. If it can do this, and not be diverted by politics, funding or simply fashion, it will continue with its vital historic mission of serving the dispossessed and at the same time providing a platform for dissent.” 4 MMakingaking GGoodood Essays.inddEssays.indd 4 004/11/20144/11/2014 009:259:25 Making Good: the future of the voluntary sector Many contributors see real benefi ts to people in society with limited infl uence and power of more effective working between the state and the voluntary sector. Sir John Elvidge, for example, argues that the voluntary sector should deploy its historical strengths of “mutuality” and “reciprocity” to help make public services more responsive and accountable and create an “enabling state.” But there needs to be a signifi cant shift away from the current market-based model for modernising public services toward a “new paradigm” which better supports the distinctive value that the voluntary sector can bring, I conclude in my essay. Otherwise, the risks to independence remain. Modernising mission A number of contributors call for a reframing of the purpose of the sector. Prevention, rather than the alleviation of social problems, emerges as a potential unifying focus. Danny Kruger believes that refocusing in this way - around opportunities, not problems - requires a signifi cant culture change in the sector itself. He calls for a “bolder charity sector” that “fi ght[s] with everything in us to avoid becoming the poverty industry.” Benefi ciaries must be treated as agents, not recipients of charity. The ability to empower and establish relationships based on mutual trust and respect is identifi ed as one of the distinctive strengths of the voluntary sector, at its best. But there is also an element of genuine challenge here. Looking at the implications of an ageing population with different expectations to earlier generations, Lynne Berry asks whether the sector is really ready to move away from “ideas of dependency, vulnerability and disengagement” and allow older benefi ciaries the power and agency they increasingly expect. In a similar vein, Steve Wyler comments on the transformative power of the ‘common good’ - in which “power and ownership and risk and reward are distributed more widely, trust and friendships are built [and] new forms of solidarity emerge.” This spirit should be at the heart of charitable mission, he believes. Indeed, common values and principles could help unify an increasingly diverse sector, David Robinson suggests. Steve calls for all institutions and individuals to work together to help solve major societal challenges for the common good. Organisational boundaries start to break down when you look at mission in this way. Paul Farmer sees a move from being simply “campaigners and ‘doers,’ to become ‘changemakers’ and ‘enablers’.” Voluntary sector ‘changemakers’ support social action initiated by others within the community or facilitate this wider action. ‘Enablers’ work with others to “create a different debate, change the environment, help people to help themselves.” 5 MMakingaking GGoodood Essays.inddEssays.indd 5 004/11/20144/11/2014 009:259:25 Valuing the voluntary sector Several contributors write eloquently about the distinctive ability of the sector to generate social value in communities. Kathy Evans calls for a renewed focus on the voluntary sector’s “greatest economic role – the creation of value beyond money.... We have the capacity to act as a ‘currency converter’ between what the economist Edgar Cahn calls the ‘core economy’ of family, friendship and community, and the ‘cash economy’ where everyone and everything must be paid for.” But this quality is undervalued – even fatally undermined – when the state tries to harness it through price-driven contracting and competitive processes: collaboration and pooling of resources is seen by Kathy and others as a far better way to generate real value in communities across sectors. Kate Bagley also calls for steps to unlock social capital, including better measurement and reward of capacity building within communities and more investment in innovation. Writing from the experience of Trussell Trust foodbanks, Chris Mould says: “Merciful, non- judgemental, believing in you, are not phrases anyone would commonly associate with state social security provision.... Voluntary organisations can justifi ably occupy a different and complementary space.” There’s potential for genuine collaboration with the state to create “scalable solutions to societal problems” but too often “condescension [is] their default setting.” Strengthening communities Many contributors agree that voluntary activity within communities, often through small organisations, can create the most change in individual lives and is the most distinctive way in which the voluntary sector operates. As Judy Robinson says “Smaller groups.... are connected to their locality and they know it because they are part of it. This means that 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.” Joanna Holmes calls for a move away from standardised services to services that meet needs with a presumption of ‘local fi rst.’ Many contributors point out that current pressures are pointing in the opposite direction and call for better recognition and fi nancial support for local organisations and the infrastructure that supports them. A rebirth of civil society in every community is needed, John Tizard suggests: the time is ripe for a “new type of economics, public policy and political activity” with an increasing focus on localism. Based on his own “grass roots” experience, Richard Bridge thinks both local authorities and voluntary organisations need to change behaviour – respect 6 MMakingaking GGoodood Essays.inddEssays.indd 6 004/11/20144/11/2014 009:259:25 Making Good: the future of the voluntary sector for independence being one critical element. Michael Zisser, looking from the USA at community-based organisations across the world, calls on voluntary organisations to take more risk and use their voice. Intriguingly, Paul Farmer in his earlier essay sees so-called ‘federated charities,’ which combine locally run organisations in national networks, as one way to combine the best of local with the strength of a national voice. An independent voice Many contributors want the voluntary sector to be more assertive. David Robinson writes, “My fi rst and biggest plea to the sector for the coming years – recover the mojo, raise the voice, revive the anger.” Despite the importance of diverse voices in society, Oli Henman and Danny Sriskandarajah are concerned that “the ‘civic space’ available for open debate ..