Terms used
1. Are you comfortable with the term ‘Voluntary & Community Sector' as used in this document.
Yes, but consideration needs to be given to the full range of organisations in the sector. The definition should extend beyond registered charities and include organisations active at a local or community level. These are usually small, modestly funded and largely dependent on voluntary effort. These should be recognised as distinct from the larger, professionally staffed agencies which are most visible in voluntary and community sector profiles.
2. Would you prefer government to use another term to communicate the breadth of the sector such as ‘third sector' or ‘not for profit sector'?
No.
The Compact Plus commitments
3. Do you support the idea of Compact Plus as a mechanism for continuing to develop the relationship between public sector bodies and the voluntary and community sector?
No, not as described. The existing Compact is a mutual process that involves developing, maintaining and enhancing relationships between the public sector bodies and the voluntary and community sector at local, regional and national levels. The Compact Plus describes national relationships and imposes a unilateral way of working rather than allowing for local evolution.
4. Do you agree that a list of Compact Plus commitments should be developed?
Yes, but not as described. Compact Plus commitments as described in the consultation document could cause confusion and a two tier system. It is possible that some organisations would be on the upper tier and covered by Compact Plus commitments with other organisations on the lower tier and covered by the existing Compact commitments. One solution might be to develop one universal set of undertakings. Such undertakings would have to be widely consulted on, locally endorsed and expressed in the language of mutuality. The primary focus should not be procurement issues and they should build on what currently works well in the Compact.
5. What are your views on the draft Compact Plus commitments?
They are inadequate. They offer a simplistic approach to a complex issue. As the focus appears to be on procurement, funding and contract issues they are most relevant to larger, professionalised voluntary and community organisations delivering services under contract. It is not clear from the consultation document how Compact Plus covers voluntary and community organisations not delivering public services.
6. Are there any that you would remove or others that you would add?
Yes. However, if there are to be removals or additions to the Compact Plus commitments they should be negotiated and mutual. Furthermore they should draw on the commitments within the original Compact and associated codes.
7. Would Compact Plus meet the diverse needs of the voluntary and community sector?
No, not as drafted in the consultation document.
8. How best can Compact Plus work at local level and draw on best practice in Local Compact development and local partnership arrangements?
As drafted Compact Plus would not work at a local level. To be effective:
- It would need to take full account of the local level
- There would have to be an acceptance that there may be a multiplicity of models
- These would draw from a palette of good practice
- There might not be a single best option.
9. How could the Compact Champion best work with those at local level to help with the move to Compact Plus?
As drafted the Compact Champion would not be effective at a local level. Volunteering England support the NCVO proposal for a Compact Commissioner, backed by a Compact Commission, reporting to a Parliamentary Committee. However Volunteering England believes that there is still a strong case for independent support for the local voluntary and community sector working on local compacts independent of the Commission.
The funding relationship
10. Do you agree that the Compact Plus commitments should give a stronger emphasis to the funding relationship?
No
A kitemark scheme
11. Do you agree that bodies and organisations should have their practices assessed when seeking to opt into Compact Plus?
Yes. However, the process should not be overly burdensome or bureaucratic. A kitemarking scheme based on an assessment of practice should be open to the full range of voluntary and community organisations. Care should be taken to ensure that the outcome of a kitemarking process is not the creation of a preferred provider list for public service delivery. Before a kitemarking scheme was launched it would have piloted widely and diversity and rural proofed.
12. If so, do you think this should be done by self assessment or by an independent assessor?
Independent assessment and external accreditation are more likely to encourage transparency, credibility and rigour.
13. Do you agree that voluntary and community organisations should explicitly opt into Compact Plus?
No, not for all organisations. For some voluntary and community organisations this could be appropriate if freely chosen. There will be other organisations where this is not appropriate, particularly where there is concern about the other side of the relationship. For instance will public sector bodies and arms-length agencies explicitly opt into Compact Plus?
14. Do you think that a charge should be levied on bodies and organisations that had opted into Compact Plus?
No, this is not in the spirit of mutual cooperation or the Compact.
15. In which areas could Compact Plus mean a lighter touch in existing performance monitoring requirements?
None. There should not be a relationship between Compact Plus and existing performance monitoring requirements between voluntary and community organisations and public sector bodies.
Support for organisations
16. Do you agree with the proposals for thematic and peer review?
In part. Volunteering England has concerns that this might duplicate work that is already happening within the sector. We believe that much more thought needs to be given to the peer review process and how this would work in the context of Compact Plus.
17. Do you agree that thematic review should be applicable to organisations and bodies that are not members of Compact Plus?
No, not for all organisations. For some voluntary and community organisations this could be appropriate if freely chosen.
18. Do you agree that peer review should be applicable to organisations that aspire to opt into Compact Plus?
No, not for all organisations. For some voluntary and community organisations this could be appropriate if freely chosen.
19. Do you agree that the Compact Champion should charge a fee to some bodies or organisations that wanted to participate in peer review?
Volunteering England is not clear from the Compact Plus consultation document what incentive bodies or organisations would have to pay to participate in the peer review process. More thought followed by detailed proposals for consultation are required for fuller comment.
Penalties for non-implementation
20. Do you agree that there should not be an option to impose financial penalties or award compensation on organisations where Compact Plus has been breached?
Yes, Volunteering England agrees that there should not be an option to impose financial penalties or award compensation. Penalties and compensation are not in the spirit of mutual cooperation or the Compact and they set a precedent for an adversarial approach.
A renewable commitment
21. Do you agree that members should have their commitment to Compact Plus renewed from time to time?
Yes, if Volunteering England's previous caveats were implemented.
22. Do you think that members of Compact Plus should have their membership renewed on a fixed basis, such as every three years, or on a more flexible basis, dependent on performance at previous renewals or evidence from thematic or peer review?
Yes. On a fixed basis as this would add value however the process should not be overly burdensome or bureaucratic. Care should be taken that this is not perceived as a voluntary and community sector OFSTED style inspection.
23. Do you think that organisations which are successful when renewing their membership of Compact Plus should be graded according to performance?
No, this would inappropriate in this context, meritocratic and is not in the spirit of the Compact.
Structures
24. Do you agree with the proposals for governance and structural arrangements of the Compact Champion?
No. Volunteering England support the NCVO proposal for a Compact Commissioner, backed by a Compact Commission, reporting to a Parliamentary Committee.
About Volunteering England
Volunteering England is the integrated national volunteer development organisation for England. We work across the voluntary, public and private sectors to raise the profile of volunteering as a powerful force for change.
Membership is open to organisations and individuals operating in England with an interest in volunteering. Volunteering England was formed in April 2004 following a merger between The Consortium on Opportunities for Volunteering, The National Centre for Volunteering and Volunteer Development England.
Volunteering England is the accountable body for the activity of the Volunteering Hub. The Volunteering Hub will work to achieve the ChangeUp high level objective that by 2014 there will be a leaner, effectively marketed and high quality volunteering infrastructure reaching, recruiting and placing a greater number and diversity of individuals coupled with improved volunteer management.
