Compact Voice recently submitted a series of Freedom of Information requests to fourteen government departments.
The requests contained a number of questions that we hoped would establish how well the government was working with the voluntary sector, and how well it was using the principles of Compact - the agreement between government and the voluntary sector, which sets out a number of principles to help them work better together.
A month later, we received replies to our requests. We had thought that the responses would give us a snapshot of how much money was being spent with the sector through grants and contracts, how many consultations had taken place and for how long, and whether adequate notice had been provided to funding changes.
The answers we received told a very different story: most government departments didn't know.
Some did, and were able to tell us how much they were investing both through financial support and engagement with the voluntary sector. Others refused, saying that it would exceed the limits of time and money set out by the FOI Act to gather the data.
Others said that the information wasn't collated centrally within their department, listing different directorates with the implied suggestion that we should contact each of those component parts individually. In two instances, no reply was offered at all.
These responses surprised us. This was a government which had emphasised the importance of accountability through data transparency, had emphasised its commitment to the voluntary sector, and had issued guidance to local areas expecting them to follow those same principles we were asking departments to report on. To not know, refuse to respond, or ignore questions which we believed would help us understand how things were working seemed contrary to the spirit of partnership working we had agreed together nearly two years previously.
Earlier this year, Compact Voice sent a survey to its nearly 3000-strong membership of organisations across England, asking how local partnerships between government and the voluntary sector were faring, particularly in difficult financial times. We received responses from both sectors which highlighted an interesting trend: local government thought that things were going much better than the local voluntary sector, which was significantly more negative.
It's perhaps not surprising, and not too difficult to understand why. Budgets have been cut, there are fewer opportunities for funding available, and there are often concerned reports in the press about contracts for local service provision going to large private sector organisations. The truth, we thought, would likely be somewhere in the middle, with some areas faring better than others, some fears legitimate and others more subjective.
We also knew that this perception gap was less pronounced in those areas where partnerships were better established. When the sectors spoke to each other, there was more likelihood of shared understanding.
By not being able to report on compliance with its own policy on partnership working, government runs the risk of exacerbating this difference of opinion, and sending a mixed message to local areas that are being encouraged to both uphold these principles as well as report on them. Last week, the Department for Communities and Local Government issued a consultation asking whether to make reporting spend with the voluntary sector a mandatory requirement.
Yet this same level of openness is not being upheld by central government, making it difficult – if not impossible – for the government to evaluate its own progress, or for civil society and citizens to be able to hold government to account on those measures that government itself has stated are priorities.
We know that many departments are engaged in many activities with the voluntary sector, and we have worked with some of them to help establish and strengthen these. But in many instances they are hard to discover if you are not directly involved with them, and this can only undermine the vocal commitment to the voluntary sector which the government has expressed. It also runs the risk of diminishing the activities that do represent good partnership working, undermining the leadership example that many local areas look to central government to provide.
The findings from this investigation can be found on our website, along with a number of recommendations about what we think government should do to help minimise the potential perception gap.
Much of it could be achieved by being more open and transparent about its engagement with the voluntary sector, principles which this government has stated it is committed to. But it's not enough to simply state that something is a priority – it has to be demonstrated too.
Tom Elkins is manager at Compact Voice, the the voice of the voluntary sector on the Compact — an agreement between the sector and the Government to ensure better working together.
This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the voluntary sector network, click here.
