Continuity and Change

[Simon James]

Has anyone commented on this consultation on the sector from WG?  It is more about WCVA and CVC's (the infrastrcuture) with the Sector almost added on as an afterthought, but well worth a look to look at WG thinking on the Sector.  Please feel free to add to our response or do your own - but the deadline is only the 8th August.  A summary of Interlink's draft for consultation is included below.

 

CONSULTATION RESPONSE: Continuity and Change - Refreshing the Relationship between Welsh Government and the Third Sector in Wales

 

The Interlink draft response on behalf of its members to this Welsh Government consultation is outlined below. Please submit your comments by 08 August 2013, in any of the following ways:

 Feedback of any kind is encouraged and welcome.  You can contact us in person, by phone [phone], email [e-mail] or social media – visit the website for links www.interlinkrct.org.uk (the website is new this week, so check it out!).  We will be pleased with any opportunity to come speak to you about this AND HOW YOU CAN HELP US plan for the future.

 

To view the consultation documents, please visit: http://wales.gov.uk/consultations/housingcommunity/welsh-government...

 

Summary Response

 

Resilient Communities - Community wellbeing and sustainability are the central organising principles of Interlink.  Producing things together (or coproduction) is the process by which this can be achieved.  The priority for public services experiencing excessive demand and under increasing financial pressures is to focus on working with the third sector, communities and service users (the sector) on early intervention and preventative services.  The focus of communities is to have the support to work with the public sector to develop community activities and services using local knowledge, resources and community networks. To meet the challenges and capacity issues this can only be realistically achieved using a coproductive approach.  A starting point is the meaningful involvement and participation of service users, communities and community and voluntary organisations.

 

Outcomes - there is a need to develop and define what outcomes can be achieved as a result of funding the infrastructure and the wider sector.  This requires the meaningful engagement of key partners involved in this work, specifically, Welsh Government, WCVA, local authorities and local health boards working with the sector.  Interlink believes the sector should be at the centre of establishing the outcomes of the services they receive.  The Sector needs to be supported to engaged in this work with a view to a new ‘outcomes framework’ for 2013/14.   See linked discussion document ‘ Measuring Change’.

 

Local / regional / national - Interlink is content with the current funding arrangements.  The value of a CVC is its local focus and its independence, with a local volunteer board made up members from the sector.  If Welsh Government is serious about regionalisation, it needs to mainstream it within existing funding arrangements.  While recognizing the independence of individual CVC’s, a regional framework could be developed in relation to outcomes, funding, performance targets and delivery plans.  We believe this would lead to improved consistency, quality, sharing of best practice, and innovation. This should take priority over any new funding streams.  For example, increased regionalisation should be incorporated within the delivery of Convergence funded projects.  Interlink believes WCVA and CVC’s have good intentions but when collaborating on a national basis, make little progress.  If the regional agendas is to be progressed, time and resources need to be focused on regional working.  This regional working should fully involve charities working within that region.  Therefore, there should be a switch of emphasis to local and regional rather than time spent on national collaboration, networking and meetings.

 

Leadership - Regionalisation and collaboration across the sector is raised in the consultation.  Welsh Government and others need to be clear which organisations they are funding to do what and where.  CVC’s do not have access to this information.  It is not realistic to expect the sector to address issues of potential duplication on a voluntary basis that result from a lack of clarity in funding / commissioning between public sector funders.  The sector is delivering what it is funded to do.  There is plenty of opportunity to improve collaboration through a coproductive regional or local approach to improve community services.  This will require leadership and facilitation  from Welsh Government, meaningful involvement of the sector, a coming together of public sector funders and an evidenced based approach.

 

Realism – the whole sector is under pressure from depleted resources, including CVC’s (which have already experienced a significant drop in funding).  Generally, the sector has continued to deliver and maintain high quality services.  However, further cuts to the sector will lead to a reduction in locally based community services, reduced availability of early intervention and prevention services, and a crisis in public sector provision.  To date Welsh Government has been a strong proponent of the sector and developed polices that support this agenda.  This has been a success.  Welsh Government should continue with its vision and implement policies that lead to the availability of local community based services delivery by the sector.  The sector is hugely diverse in size and make-up, from large publically funded organisations to the huge numbers of small scale community organisations who self organise and deliver free services on a volunteer basis.  All are vital to this agenda and welsh civil society.

 

To see the Full Consultation Response, visit www.interlinkrct.org.uk

[Ruth Dineen]

Many thanks for sharing this Simon. Really clear and helpful. The only thing I would be inclined to raise in addition is the issue of commissioning / procurement. From what people tell us, the current approach neither supports genuine partnership between WG and 3rd sector, nor innovative collaboration between 3rd sector organisations. And the criteria all too often are cost, cost and cost. A co-produced commissioning approach is needed that helps to create a context where partnership-working becomes the norm for WG as well as for the sector.

[Simon James]

Thanks and agreed - I will add to our response.  We also have a local commissioning (Cwm Taf) website http://www.commissionaccomplished.co.uk/ . . . it is in line with Fulfilled Lives Supportive Communities . . . which we also need to update with the LHB.

[Martin Rolph]

Do WG normally respond to individual organisations' comments? I thought they would be more likely to "consider" what people say, and perhaps publish a summary, even quotes, of evidence submitted, and then (possibly - if they don't delay greatly or do nothing) give an account of their plans? Perhaps others have more detailed recent experience.

Simon -  I support almost all of what you say in your summary response. I particularly welcome your reference to the diversity of the sector, which is bound to mean relationships between WG (and the agencies to which it provides significant taxpayer funds such as WCVA)  and third sector bodies have to vary to be productive.

The spectrum varies from bodies receiving no public funding (except possibly the UK Government's tax breaks for charities) to those which are virtually wholly owned subsidiaries of WG or bodies it funds. Like the public and private sectors it also varies from very well led and managed bodies making well aimed, altruistic and positive impacts in Wales to inefficient bodies making a low level of beneficial impact and even in a few cases disproportionately helping the more privileged.

One huge elephant in the room is the impact of UK Government policies on third sector bodies working with the most vulnerable and excluded in Wales - especially on benefits, including housing benefit, immigration policy etc.. Realism suggests that explicit reference should be made to this issue (well known to WG and many voluntary organisations) in any formal WG document, as well as in the context of possible increases in WG's responsibilities, tax and borrowing powers being consulted on elsewhere.

[Simon James]

Thanks. really helpful. We have been asked to focus on antipoverty work. I think WG are mindful of the need to support organisations supporting the most vulnerable, but maybe not as aware of their indirect impact when cutting funding to other bodies. So I think it important WG directly engages with groups on the front lines and ensures they are effectively resourced.

[Ruth Dineen]

Hi Martin

My impression, both personally and in terms of the First Minister's reply to our Open Letter, is that WG are wonderfully open to individual organisations' comments. Doors are at least ajar. It's definitely worth lobbing your twopennorth in their direction - particularly if you have possible solutions to offer.

Go for it!

R