Memorandum from the Association of Chief
Executives of Voluntary Organisations (ACEVO)
ACEVO is the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary
Organisations. We represent over 2,000 third sector leaders across
the UK—from small community groups to some of the biggest
national charities. Our role is to support, develop, connect and
represent our members in order to promote the efficiency and effectiveness
of the sector.
This response was informed by a joint round table
event held in collaboration with Sitra, during which we invited
voluntary sector providers to consider the questions raised by
the inquiry. The event was attended by a number of local and national
organisations that are responsible for providing a diverse range
of services.
This response focuses on five broad questions:
- 1. How far should power be devolved and is
there a space for regional commissioning/delivery?
- 2. What can be learnt from Total Place and
what should its successor look like? What role is there for the
third sector in shaping and influencing the way place based budgeting
is rolled out?
- 3. What should the framework be for cross-sector
engagement in developing local strategies? How can the third sector
gain a "seat at the table"?
- 4. What role should central government play
in defining and setting local agendas? What role can the third
sector play in influencing central government?
- 5. How can the third sector promote itself
as an effective public service delivery partner at a time of cuts?
How can we tap into the Big Society rhetoric to influence local
services?
1. How far should power be devolved and is
there a space for regional commissioning/ delivery?
We believe that the devolution of power is a positive
step towards improving public services. It can improve the flexibility
of services, break down barriers and, perhaps most importantly,
better utilise local knowledge. It is not a panacea, however,
and should not be viewed as such. Devolution does not necessarily
result in better services. Questions surrounding local capacity,
understanding and knowledge as well as legitimate concerns over
local accountability need to be addressed before it can be assumed
that service design and quality will improve.
Regarding accountability, a number of providers commented
on the fact that commissioning decisions (an often poorly understood
process currently) were being taken solely by officers within
the local authority and that elected members were not playing
their part in the governance and scrutiny of these decisions.
This reduces levels of local elected accountability, running against
the grain of local democracy and putting power in the hands of
local communities and people. Therefore not only must commissioning
be made more intelligent and based on need (ie real commissioning,
not just procurement), it also needs to become a more democratic
process of itself. There was some confusion from front line organisations
surrounding the actual meaning of locality and localism. There
seems to be little common agreement on what is defined as local,
how this is shaped and by whom. It was argued, however, that following
the example of personalisation, true devolution in many services
would see power and money devolved to the individual across a
range of forms (vouchers, smart cards, budget holding, direct
payments etc). This has the potential to revolutionise service
provision, increasing efficacy and reducing long term cost.
ACEVO members have expressed concerns around how
the increase in budgetary freedom at the local authority level
(by removing ring-fencing) may negatively impact upon the most
vulnerable members of our society. Specifically that services
for people facing disadvantage (or unpopular groups), who have
little influence over how monies raised and allocated nationally
for them but spent by local authorities, could experience a decline
in the services they depend upon as local authorities decide to
meet other (possibly more politically popular) priorities.
These concerns are exacerbated by proposed changes
to commissioning structures (eg. GP commissioning) and their potential
lack of engagement with the third sector. More help is required
for third sector organisations to build relationships with commissioners:
the difficulty of establishing organisations as known and trusted
partners must be overcome, particularly as much of the current
commissioning expertise (eg in PCTs or RDAs) is being redistributed.
Regional commissioning levels have proved effective in giving
those client groups that are thin on the ground or transient are
adequate representation. It is vital that a level of infrastructure
is maintained, providing an overarching and joined up knowledge
of localities. This will reduce duplication, increase efficiency
and spread best practice. It is critical that a strategic level
is maintained and a level of standardisation continued, otherwise
published data (a keystone of the Coalition' localism and accountability
plans) is meaningless for comparison. Furthermore, adequate lines
of accountability over actions are essential which cannot be provided
purely through the publishing of spend data.
2. What can be learnt from Total Place and
what should its successor look like? What role is there for the
third sector in shaping and influencing the way place based budgeting
is rolled out?
ACEVO fully supports the direction of Total Place
and the evidenced savings of joining up local budgets. However,
we have concerns that the Total Place pilots did not involve the
third sector to any significant degree. We believe that greater
inclusion of the sector would have brought much stronger results.
Local authorities need to be strongly encouraged
to involve the sector in a meaningful way. This is particularly
true in need assessments (eg JSNAs) where sector experience is
greatly needed and currently underutilised. Incorporated sector
knowledge must be placed top of the place based budgeting agenda.
Both the advocacy and delivery abilities of the sector must be
utilised. Local, holistic service knowledge is an important strength
of the sector, particularly when bringing together budgets where
we have that delivery expertise. If, however, the third sector
is to shape and influence place based budgeting it will also require
clearer contacts within commissioning bodies to aid communication
and break down barriers. Whilst we support proposals such as the
"Right To Bid", it is important to note that they will
take large amounts of resources and time and would therefore urge
for them to be as simple and transparent as possible. Finding
the correct person to speak with can be a challenge in itself—if
an organisation is approaching a new commissioning body it will
not understand how the body operates, where the power resides
or its idiosyncrasies. It is essential that sufficient space is
carved out of the statutory sector to enable third sector delivery
as well as develop productive cross sector working (eg referrals
and proper procedural patterns) to break down municipalist barriers.
We strongly support joint working between and across
sector organisations, but are aware of the challenges this can
pose. Trust, which can be so fragile, is a vital ingredient and
yet with budgets being cut and competition fiercer, the tension
between organisations could easily increase. An unintended consequence
of these commissioning changes could be that organisations stop
talking with one another. We need to ensure the sector plays a
strategic and joined up role to help make smart cuts, not silo
themselves and become passive recipients of salami slicing.
3. What should the framework be for cross-sector
engagement in developing local strategies? How can the third sector
gain a 'seat at the table'?
Cross-sector engagement at the local level requires
a framework that includes an obligation for local authorities
to include the third sector. As discussed, this should involve
a degree of infrastructural oversight and scrutiny. The development
of local strategies should look to include duties to ensure the
third sector is viewed as an equal partner and not restricted
in any cross-sector relationship. We recommend that public sector
officials attend third sector meetings as well as vice versa to
ensure true engagement and move beyond what is currently too often
a nominal consultation process. Current examples of best practice
will need to be mainstreamed and actively encouraged if, for example,
local Health and Wellbeing Boards, are to have strong third sector
representation. A cultural shift within the public sector will
be required to shift power from local authorities to society and
the organisations and networks that exist within it.
4. What role should central government play
in defining and setting local agendas? What role can the third
sector play in influencing central government?
National agendas that influence the local level via
policy levers are greatly needed. Central government will still
play a significant role by setting national agendas and must hold
local bodies accountable for their delivery. We would also argue
that central government must retain its oversight over the actions
of individual local authorities to ensure against unjustified
local agendas or malpractice. Whilst CAAs have gone, there is
a vital role for government to play in making sure that need is
properly analysed, that national indicators are better reported
and that it is able to take action where necessary.
There is also a role for government to protect the
most vulnerable groups, ensuring that those passed over by the
localism agenda are not forgotten (eg transient groups). Furthermore,
central government, on behalf of the taxpayer, needs to play a
role in exercising value, control and responsibility—taking
a cumulative view of localities' actions.
The third sector has an important role of influencing
policy at the national level. Two key (symbiotic) roles that the
sector performs are through advocacy and service delivery. From
these and our networks into communities, we have unparalleled
insight into what makes successful and effective services. Our
role in lobbying and research has helped drive forward innovation
at a national level which has then rolled down to local service
provision. The sector has an increasingly large and well documented
evidence base and the knowledge contained within it must be drawn
on effectively by Government to influence national agendas. National
infrastructure bodies help broker this relationship and will have
an increasingly vital role in helping co-ordinate and describe
the sector to government.
5. How can the third sector promote itself
as an effective public service delivery partner at a time of cuts?
How can it tap into the Big Society rhetoric to influence local
services?
Key to promoting the sector as an effective public
service delivery partner is generating strong evidence based on
outcomes. Whilst the trends are positive, the sector still needs
to become better at generating a substantial and appropriate evidence
base. However, there is some confusion in providers over who exactly
the third sector should be promoting itself to given the fragmentation
of commissioning, personalisation and localism agendas—is
it GP consortia, local people, central government or local authorities
and in what order? Furthermore, the third sector has raised concerns
over who could represent the sector effectively and coherently
with government if infrastructure bodies are to be seen as less
of a priority.
ACEVO members have expressed concern that the Big
Society is seeking to reinvent the wheel. There is particular
concern by what appears to be the government's misunderstanding
of what a voluntary organisation is, how is operates, and the
extent to which an army of volunteers can be raised. The process
of helping people engage with their communities is not going to
happen over night but is a long cultural change. Although we embrace
the greater involvement of the third sector and the devolution
of power, we cannot allow the Big Society to be used as a political
tool to cover up further cuts.
October 2010
| 
