‘Leadership’ groups, at both national and local levels, have failed to protect voluntary services groups and their users and communities from the damaging changes of the last decade. This is the broad conclusion of two Inquiry reports released today.
The first report looks at the record of six national infrastructure organisations (ACEVO, NAVCA, NCVO, Locality, Clinks and Homeless Link) and the positions they have taken in relation to cuts and the privatisation of public services. Whilst most have expressed words of concern about the impact of the cuts, this has not led to practical action, organising amongst their members or even demands to counter cuts and austerity. With respect to privatisation these groups are revealed to have implicitly or explicitly supported the outsourcing of public services, confining any criticism to technical matters, such as commissioning processes, or complaining that voluntary services groups are unable to operate on a ‘level playing field’ with the private sector. Most have committed resources to encouraging and supporting voluntary groups to bid for public services contracts. The report concludes: “It is a tragic waste not to use the power that the national umbrella bodies claim they have to stop colluding, to ‘speak truth to power’ and to take a stand against the dismantling and selling off of the welfare state.”
Homes for local radical action: The position and role of local umbrella groups
The second report focuses on the work of local infrastructure groups and especially Councils for Voluntary Services. It shows how these groups were, during the New Labour years, progressively drawn into a ‘partnership’ that was defined by statutory bodies and led to focus their attentions on the voluntary services groups that could assist with the implementation of government plans for voluntary action. As the Coalition government stepped up its privatisation and outsourcing, many local CVSs actively assisted with the process despite mounting evidence that their own local voluntary groups are losing out to national charities and private sector contractors. The report also voices the frustration of many frontline workers and others who want to resist these changes, gives examples of alternatives that are emerging and sets out an agenda for change.