Voluntary and Community Sector Infrastructure

A response by NIACE to the Active Community Unit consultation

Published: December 2003

The National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (NIACE) works to encourage more and different adults to engage in learning of all kinds. Its functions include research, development and consultancy; advocacy to inform and influence public policy; information services and dissemination; campaigning for, and celebrating the achievements of, adult learners. Established in 1921, NIACE is an independent non-governmental organisation, a registered charity (No. 1002775) and company limited by guarantee (No. 2603322). Its corporate and individual members come from all sectors concerned with adult learning: colleges; local authorities; universities; voluntary and community organisations; churches; broadcasters and unions. While receiving core grants from the DfES, National Assembly for Wales and through the 1988 Local Government Act, the majority of its income is earned through research, development and consultancy work - including contracts with the UK government, the EU and the national lottery.

NIACE welcomes this consultation, and fully endorses the aims underlying it. It is good to see the case for infrastructure support strongly expressed by government. In particular we welcome the recognition of the role, actual and potential, of local government, and of the Adult Learning and Social Services Inspectorates. We also support the view that working with existing infrastructure organisations is preferable to inventing new ones.

There are some additional issues which we would have liked to see included, or given more prominence, in the document. Analysis of the problems which the proposals are intended to address is lacking: this may have appeared previously in the ‘cross cutting review’ document itself but it would have helped in weighing the proposals to have it revisited here. The distinction between generic and sector-specific infrastructure organisations could be made clearer. Mention should be made of the ‘infrastructure’ needs within VCS organisations (HR; staff development; ICT; accommodation; etc.), and the way that umbrella organisations can support these functions through funding or by carrying out some of them on individual organisations’ behalf, thus achieving economies of scale. We have covered BME issues mainly in the questions linked to that section but we would prefer to see this as a strand running through the whole document.

We would like to see explicit recognition of the learning opportunities afforded by these proposals, and the way that development of individuals and organisations underlies the entire approach. Linked to this, we believe it will be crucial for government departments - and particularly DfES - to publish their own statements on how they will contribute to implementation of the proposals. Anecdotal evidence still indicates that ‘Compact’ and ‘cross-cutting review’ principles, although formally embraced at senior level in government, have yet to have a consistent impact on everyday business.

NIACE’s interest in the VCS centres on its role in delivering, promoting, developing and supporting adult learning. As such we see a key role for the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) , nationally, locally and now also regionally, working in partnership with the VCS to enable it to carry out these roles effectively. We welcome and support the LSC’s current work to develop a strategy for its engagement with the VCS as the first steps towards consistency of approach and standards across the organisation. However among points not currently covered by the draft strategy - shortly to go out for public consultation - we would like to see a commitment to a central point for contracting with LSC for national / multi-site VCS organisations, and location of the overall lead on VCS issues within a central strategic function of the Council.

While unnecessary duplication should certainly be minimised, there is an argument against the complete elimination of any overlap of infrastructure support. We would not wish to see ‘first tier’ VCS organisations finding their only prospect of support came from an ineffective monopoly. There is, for example, a great deal of sense in an organisation being part of both sector-specific and geographically-focused umbrella bodies, which may offer some functions in common, and being able to choose which one best meets its needs as they arise. This is the case for many members of the learning and skills consortia established to support contracting with local Learning and Skills Councils (LSCs) who also belong to their local CVS and/or regional VCS forum. Transparency about roles, and about what funding buys, on the part of each infrastructure organisation is important.

National bodies, whether generic or sector-specific, can help VCS organisations with strategic thinking and planning on areas such as policy, quality, management and ICT, and cascade this through national communication and staff development events, and through centralised purchasing. Sub-regional and local umbrella bodies can be most useful in supporting VCS organisations on delivery issues, understanding the agendas of corresponding funders and planners (LSC, Local Authorities), and in ‘day-to-day’ capacity-building. The ideal role of regional fora is less clear, though the currently increased emphasis regionalisation means it makes sense to have a VCS representative body that corresponds to Regional Development Agency, Government Office, Regional Assembly and (possibly to come) regional government remits.

As already stated, transparency about roles and use of funding is key: it may not matter if functions are carried out at different levels in different parts of the country as long as all support needs are met effectively and roles are agreed between the people concerned.

Greater clarity about what funding was intended to ‘buy’ would avoid displacement and show up gaps or inadequacies where more funding was needed. Independent auditing and inspection - supplemented by the skills to manage these processes - for organisations in receipt of public finding would provide reassurance and build confidence among funders that existing grants were effectively spent, as well as making the case for further investment.

We believe the correct split of responsibility is for statutory bodies to support core infrastructure costs, and for trusts, charities, lottery etc. to support specific activities, projects or initiatives. Increasingly, this is being done through matched funding. Through communication and staff development, infrastructure organisations can help ensure that services are very focused on funders’ priorities (and therefore more likely to attract money).

BME VCS organisations are particularly reliant on trusts, charities and private philanthropy because they receive proportionately less support from statutory bodies. While this inequality must of course be remedied, this indicates a crucial role for trusts etc. in the meantime in identifying and filling gaps, entailing a very fine-grained analysis of needs. Trusts, charities and private donors are often seen as more understanding of BME concerns and priorities, and more flexible in their approaches to addressing them.

Contrary to the implication in the analysis of this issue, quality assurance schemes such as PQASSO and EFQM are already well established in the VCS, and we suggest these should form the basis of any further work on measurement of effectiveness and performance. We welcome the proposed guidelines on good practice in capacity-building and infrastructure support (paragraph 4.13).

It should be possible to draw on an analysis of existing good practice to agree some general indicators and characteristics of high-quality services, and reasonable costings for these. The forthcoming LSC draft strategy for working with the VCS is likely to include a similar idea focused on learning and skills consortia.

It is of course important to recognise the distinction between volunteering and voluntary organisations. From projects NIACE has managed under the Adult and Community Learning Fund we know that inexperienced VCS organisations particularly may not even be aware of the particular set of issues involved in recruiting, developing and managing volunteers, so organisations undoubtedly need support in building their capacity to carry out these functions effectively, though we are agnostic about where in infrastructure terms this support should be offered, as long as it is effective and meets needs.

There is a very close connection between volunteering and learning. We think LSC and government should count volunteers towards its delivery targets: on basic skills, for example, all volunteers could be routinely (though sensitively and voluntarily) screened for basic skills needs and have any support in this area included in their training. Other skills and experience acquired when volunteering, if accredited, could contribute to other targets on improving skill levels. There is also evidence that volunteering, and the development that accompanies it, helps people find paid work. In all these ways volunteering could contribute to the objectives of the government’s Skills strategy, and government should consequently be prepared to fund infrastructure arrangements that build VCS capacity to recruit, train and manage volunteers effectively.

BME infrastructure organisations add value in helping ‘first tier’ BME organisations do what they do best, carrying out the functions that they, uniquely, offer to BME and faith communities, often on a very local or neighbourhood level.

However widespread scepticism is reported among local BME VCS organisations about BME infrastructure organisations: apparently they do not see links between their own very local agenda and the issues prioritised by umbrella bodies. Scepticism may to some extent be due to the patchy performance of the still relatively new regional BME VCS fora. However these findings also support the conclusions of the ‘Finding the Funds’ report which highlighted development needs among first-tier BME VCS organisations including governance, access to strategic information, awareness of national drivers and funding priorities.

The Black Training and Enterprise Group (BTEG) is currently looking at how more established and robust (in terms of funding) white voluntary sector organisations can work with and support the BME VCS: results are expected in February 2004. There is always the danger of mission drift in developing associations and there is likely to be a significant number of BME organisations that remain cynical about the reasoning behind collaborations or partnerships. However we can already see successful examples of BME VCS consortia joining generic infrastructure organisations for specific purposes such as securing contracts for the delivery of basic skills without jeopardising their overall mission or ethos.

Our networking among the VCS suggests that the SBS is inconsistent, at best, in its approach to the sector. The message needs repeating that VCS organisations are also Small- and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs), and generally form a significant element of the SME sector in any area.

The four components of community development listed in paragraph 4.24 are important in defining infrastructure needs but we would like to see a fifth added dealing with quality. We look forward to contributing to the forthcoming consultation on community capacity building, given the fundamental connection between capacity-building and adult learning (as highlighted, for example, in the report of the inter-departmental Skills Policy Action Team (DfES, 1999)).

Local Authorities; CVSs; local LSCs; health trusts and NHSU; housing organisations; Government Offices; national and regional VCS; service users.

NIACE warmly supports the involvement of local government, as long as this includes all parts with VCS links - LEA, social services, housing, regeneration, etc. The opportunity for ‘joining up’ at local level should not be missed. Moreover since interest in the VCS extends widely across departments, the lead and coordinating role should rest centrally, within a chief executive’s / strategy function.

Question 25 is answered in Question 4 above.

If Government Offices are to administer the Fund (and they seem the most likely candidates, as the regional outposts of the Home Office and some eight other government departments) it is important they have adequate staffing resources, in terms of numbers and skills, to do so. It is not uncommon, at regional and national government level, for programme funding to be under-spent, or spent ineffectively, because of constraints on staffing.

Top of page