April 21, 2013
Posted in Civil Society, Funding and Finance, Impact Measurement, Marketing, Recognition of Volunteering, Valuing Volunteers tagged Civil Society, community and voluntary sector, Philanthrocapitalism, Qualitative outcomes, Social Investment at 4:04 am by Sue Hine
There’s my question for the week, something to puzzle over after reading the headline Some community social services could be funded privately in future, under a new agreement with the Government. This is the first public statement on Social Bonds from a New Zealand government minister.
‘Social Bonds’ is a process of advancing funds to NGOs by philanthropist groups (‘private providers’) for the term of an outcomes-based contract, and then reimbursed by Government when the NGO delivers on pre-determined targets. This funding arrangement has been researched and discussed within government in New Zealand since 2009. Earlier this year a roadshow promotion from Treasury and Ministry of Health travelled the country to inform community organisations, and to start public discussion.
Those of us who do the media watching, monitor trends, and understand the politics of the day will not be overly surprised. In the UK Social Bonds have been transforming the community and volunteer landscape since Big Society became the favoured social policy of the Coalition Government. An Australian report indicates ongoing discussion and debate on details of a Social Bond programme. Maybe we should heed a Canadian view that says “Social Impact Bonds are a new way to privatise public services.”
On the face of it, the intention of a Social Bond arrangement makes a lot of sense – as any venture capitalist would want from investing in a new enterprise. You put in the money, and you expect to see some real returns on investment, like a reduction in the rate of teen-age pregnancy, fewer smokers, or a drop in criminal re-offending figures. Social Bonds also link favourably with current developments in New Zealand for user-friendly contracts between government and NGOs, including multi-agency contracting and simple format financial reporting. Social Bonds sit well with the results-based programme set by Better Public Services – though this ambitious agenda needs to involve all parts of the community and voluntary sector, from the beginning.
Nothing is yet certain, except for evidence of government intentions for change. In my reactionary moments I see a pincer movement to corral organisations into a private sector model of service delivery, to get the job done in the shortest time at the lowest cost. There are risks of reduced public accountability. Worse is how the ethos of a welfare safety net is further eroded, because investor profits will take precedence. At the work-face performance-based contracting could mean a selective practice devoted to the most ‘deserving’ clients who will boost the return on investment.
Nowhere in the discussion so far has there been a mention of volunteers – neither their existing contributions to NGOs, nor their future potential. Non-Government Organisations are those which contract with government. To be drawn closer to web and snares of government is to revert to the decades-old acronym of QANGO – a quasi-autonomous non-government organisation, the ‘almost, but not quite’ independent body, a phrase that will fool nobody.
Not-for-profit organisations (NFPs) can be thankful they are outside this net. Yet they too will be drawn into this new environment, if only in their efforts to secure a share of the charity dollar. Will philanthropists consider NFP applications favourably alongside a guaranteed return for investing with NGOs? And, if the ROI from government contracts is lower than finance market rates doesn’t that reduce the size of the over-all funding pool?
What will become of volunteering when government-sponsored community services become the norm?
Well, here’s your example. There is one institution, developed and run by volunteers for many years. Since it gained a government contract a few years back there has been a huge growth in paid staff, and volunteers have been side-lined, reduced to wondering what their role is, and whether they are needed any more. They do not feature on the organisation chart; they are bit-part players, not really essential to the way the organisation is playing out its mission and vision.
If I was writing a fictional scenario for the future I would be describing the growth in NGOs marketing and fundraising departments. The organisation-wide volunteer programme will be down-graded in favour of ‘greater efficiency’ from paid staff. Volunteer activities will be confined to promotional and fundraising events. No need now for managers of volunteers, because HR and FR people know how and can do.
But if I was looking for inspiration I would go straight to Inspiring Communities, where community-led change is still the mantra to follow, where they know about ‘learning by doing’, about community development thinking and action. Or I would read again the stories from NZ Social Entrepreneur Fellowship.
Volunteering shall not die, because it is in our nature to collaborate and to care about our families, neighbours, and communities. We just need to our voice to be heard, and heeded.
June 10, 2012
Posted in A Bigger Picture, Leadership, Leading Volunteers, Managers Matter, Professionalism, Recognition of Volunteering tagged business, community and voluntary sector, community-led development, cost benefit analysis, leadership, Managers of Volunteers, OCVS, Organisation development, Philanthrocapitalism, Qualitative outcomes, social capital, social entrepreneur, Social Investment at 4:06 am by Sue Hine
Nothing can be certain, said Benjamin Franklin in a letter written in 1789, except death and taxes. I am surprised he did not include ‘change’ in his aphorism. He lived through a fair bit of historical change himself, in his enterprising career and as a Founding Father of United States, and he must surely have seen what was coming to France when he wrote his letter.
Well – change in the not-for-profit sector, and in volunteering, is all around the world at present. I read the exhortations for managers of volunteers to get up to speed with social media – for everything from organising fundraising events to volunteer recruitment, and for regular organisation promos. And for networking and conversations on common interests for managers of volunteers.
I read about the impact of generational differences and the statistics on who volunteers and what for and why. Short-term, time-limited assignments please. A specific focus, relevant to my skills. Or please, some work experience that will get me a job (when you give me a reference). There are significant increases in prospective volunteers out there. They are clamouring for roles – particularly the younger age groups. And despite the huge bubble of older people, the baby-boomers, newly retired, this cohort is not rushing to fill the ranks of volunteers.
There is no denying the global financial crisis (GFC) is creating change, forcing governments to downsize, to rethink priorities for community support and development.
Change is coming from another direction too: the ethos of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is generating waves of corporate volunteering. Corporates are going beyond conventional sponsorship and funding grants: active partnerships with non-profits are being pursued. Even ‘Philanthropy’ gets a new connotation, loses its original glow of generosity, munificence and beneficence. Now philanthropy is about venture capital for social change.
A whole new way of looking at the community and voluntary sector is evolving. The social value of volunteering is increasingly seen in economic terms. We trumpet the significant contribution volunteering and the NFP sector makes to GDP. We are trying to improve reporting on volunteer impact beyond numbers and hours and donations in kind. We look for ways to measure the social return on investment (SROI) in volunteering. The word ‘social’ starts appearing in front of words I thought only bankers and accountants used: capital, innovation, investment – and even New Zealand’s OCVS has a raft of papers and information social finance and social enterprise. What will these terms mean for volunteers and
the community sector? They sound good, but will they really do good?
Well – if we want to get volunteering and management of volunteers properly appreciated and recognised by those holding the purse-strings, then we need to learn and understand this language. We need to be able to promote our causes and to argue our cases on an equal footing.
Yet in all the heady engagement between the not-for-profit sector and business and government, and with current trends in volunteering, I have not seen specific comment on the future for managers of volunteers. Yes, we need to ride with changing times, adapt programmes to fit with the expectations of new generations of volunteers, be flexible innovative, creative. But no-one has raised a direct question of what an alliance between public, private and community sectors might mean for managers of volunteers, and what will happen to volunteering further down the track.
What if CSR becomes the dominant source of volunteers, a formal process that may require a different style of management? Different from the basic model of engaging individuals who want to ‘help’ add value to an organisation’s services?
That’s when managers of volunteers need to rise to Rob Jackson’s challenge: instead of organisations headed by “someone who knows how to make money … what we need is people-raising skills” (my emphasis).
We have been people-raising for several decades. We have adapted to major change in the past. Let’s demonstrate for the new era the know-how and can-do of our management expertise.
April 29, 2012
Posted in A Bigger Picture tagged Charities Commission, Civil Society, community and voluntary sector, community-led development, Philanthrocapitalism, Qualitative outcomes, social capital, social entrepreneur, social innovation, Social Investment at 9:44 pm by Sue Hine
I’ve been to a few meetings lately, listened to presentations and viewed the power point slides. They were not meetings about volunteering or volunteer management, but the information and ideas sure made me sit up and take notice.
Here is my take on some of the straws in the wind that have come my way.
- Demographic trends indicate a shrinking working-age population
We’ve heard about the dramatic increase of older populations for decades. On the flip side is a decline in people of working age, which will give us the benefit of lower unemployment. We are going to get ZPG without even trying. The bad news is a big revenue problem for government and a rise in resource demands. All this, on top of a national economy struggling to recover from the impact of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC).
NGOs, already struggling to maintain their funding base, will be under pressure to do more with less. In rural areas where population change will be greater community organisations will face shrinking resources, of both funding and volunteers. There are serious implications for national organisations providing outreach services in provincial areas. On the other hand there could be opportunities to work more closely with local government, to develop partnerships with other organisations and subsequent economies of scale.
- Collaboration, Participation, Innovation
These words are the catch-cry for change in the community sector, the drivers for action. Proposed changes in both central and local government offer an opportunity for community organisations to articulate a new view, to occupy a new space and to develop new coalitions. Yes!
Can we do it?
- Collaboration is the buzzword of the month
There are plenty of models to follow: community development partnerships, through community engagement, the effective use of social capital and linked with social enterprise. None of these words are new, but they gain increased currency in a time of sector uncertainty. What is new is the trend towards alliances with the business sector and philanthropic trusts. But I worry about collaboration, and whether it is another word for the public and private sectors to take control while proffering the hand of partnership.
- “A new phase of capitalism, where new ways of creating wealth are identified”
In all the talk of Social Investment and Social Impact and Outcomes it is difficult to see who benefits. Governments can transfer risks to the community sector. Social investment from the private sector could lead to creaming off the best of NFPs and ignoring others, thus creating new forms of underclass. It also leads to the Marketisation of Charities. That sounds more like a death knell for the sector’s capacity for innovation. When organisations become risk-aversive it is too easy to curtail services in areas where outcomes and impacts are less impressive. The spectre of ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ poor is resurrected, specially when funding gets tagged to results.
- “The community sector is not considered a peer of Government”
Too true, I sigh, and has been so for decades, despite terminology like Third Sector and concepts of Civil Society. Volunteers and their organisations might enjoy praise and platitudes of appreciation, but never do they get to be equals at negotiating tables.
So I am disappointed the recent report on public services makes never a mention of relations with NGOs, NFPs or the community sector. It is like these organisations do not exist.
Well, it is proclaimed, the Government and the community sector need to get to know each other better. They need to build mutual trust and understanding, not stand-off bargaining. They need to reduce the power imbalance, get a pay-off for both funders and recipients (not to mention the beneficiaries). I wish.
Yes, I know the NFP sector is complex. We struggle to establish a common definition and language, and to determine the essence of the sector. Yet the diversity of communities and organisations means a single voice and a unifying philosophy is unrealistic.
Yes, there is room for collaboration where there are shared interests. Yes, we need to break down the silos and patch protection. And Yes, we have been in the business of change for generations. Except this time it seems like the change is being done to us, and not in the spirit of community development.
To gain a stake in the future it we need to stake a claim, on our terms, for the territory of our communities and their missions.