Scottish Compact Baseline Review

CHAPTER TWO: BACKGROUND AND ISSUES

"Evaluating compacts is not easy. It is extremely difficult to tell what achievements can be ascribed to the compact and what to the rest of the modernisation and partnership agenda", (Craig, et al, 2002, p.21)

INTRODUCTION

2.1 Since the Labour Party won the General Election in 1997 there has been increasing interest in developing closer relations between government and the voluntary and community sectors. At one level this can be seen as an example of the commitment to new styles of government and a new political landscape that was set out in the Labour Party's manifesto. As well as devolution and reform of the House of Lords, this included commitments to participative as well as representative democracy. However the idea of a formal agreement between the voluntary sector and government was first floated by the Commission on the Future of the Voluntary Sector in 1996 (the Deakin Commission). Implicit in this was the view that the sector should have a role in policy formulation, rather than simply implementing policy that had been devised, in isolation, by government. Following the 1997 general election there was rapid movement by national government and the sector which culminated in the publication of a national agreement, or compact, in England in November 1998 (see Hems, 2002, NCVO, 2002 and Osborne et al, 2002 for details). Although this was an attempt to codify and formalise the sector-government relationship, in many respects it can be seen as a culmination of efforts to involve the wider community more fully in policy formulation and implementation that had been developing in a host of economic development and regeneration initiatives since the early 1980s. However, politically it may have been more attractive to New Labour to have a formal agreement between the voluntary sector, with its representative organisations and communications networks, rather than the less well defined "community".

2.2 There were parallel changes elsewhere in the United Kingdom, some of which predated English activity. Local government reorganisation in Scotland saw the publication of a Positive Partnership statement by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (CoSLA) and the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (SCVO) in 1995. This outlined a number of undertakings that the new Councils and voluntary organisations would commit themselves to. There were similar developments elsewhere in the world. For example in Canada the Voluntary Sector Roundtable was created in 1995 to bring together a cross section of the sector to work towards enhancing and strengthening the relationship with government. This culminated in the launching of an Accord in late 2001 (Voluntary Sector Canada, 2002).

2.3 Despite the increasing interest from government, and the sector, in developing some form of formalised agreements, academic commentary tends to be polarised. At one extreme is the view that compacts are about replacing existing government mechanisms and methods of working with new democratic structures which are based upon participative rather than representative democracy. In this model the voluntary sector is not just an implementer of policy but an active participant in its formulation so that it becomes more effective in meeting the needs of the target client group. This is closely linked to wider political agendas such as modernising government and best value and therefore coincides with New Labour's views on governance as outlined in its manifesto. At the other extreme is the view, probably most coherently outlined by Ralf Dahrendorf in 2001. He sees compacts as a way of subverting the sector and subsuming it into government (Dahrendorf, 2001). Thus he sees the "compact sector" as being fundamentally linked to the purposes of government, whilst those groups and organisations that do not become involved in compacts represent "free and charitable activity" (Taylor, et al, 2002, p. 2). Commentators sharing Dahrendorf's opinions see compacts as being a way of obscuring the imbalance of power between the voluntary and community sectors and government. As with all such polarised arguments, there are probably elements of truth on both sides, with the reality, possibly, lying somewhere in between.

2.4 One's opinions on the motives for setting up compacts may also be affected by perceptions of the government's objectives for wanting them, the extent to which there is seen to be political commitment to make them work and the differing expectations of the various partners in the compact process. Given the scope for interpretation of these issues it is perhaps not surprising that ambiguous, and perhaps conflicting, messages can be sent to the various partners which, in turn, colour opinions.

COMPACT DEVELOPMENT

2.5 Regardless of these polarised views, compacts are now in the process of being rolled out across the United Kingdom at various levels of government. For example:-

There are now 4 national compacts;
There are a growing number of local compacts between local government and the voluntary sector, although, as yet, there seem to be none in Scotland. For example, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations has 53 compacts on its register (NCVO, 2002). In Scotland the approach has been for the unitary authorities to adopt policy statements on relationships with the voluntary sector in line with the Positive Partnership Statement (CoSLA and SCVO, 1995). By early 1998, 26 of the 32 unitary authorities had done this (Craig et al, 1999). However it seems that adherence to these is mixed. Some authorities are felt by the sector to have been in breach of the Statements, yet there is nothing that can be done to enforce compliance. It may be for this reason that in a number of areas moves are now underway to translate these Statements into formal compacts. For example discussions are currently at an early stage in Borders and West Dunbartonshire (where the emphasis is upon the social economy) whilst Edinburgh seems to be the most advanced. Indeed the Edinburgh Compact seems to be the only one in Scotland that is to bring together the local authority, a range of other public bodies and the voluntary sector (see Appendix 1 for further details) in an approach that is modelled on community planning. In part the move towards setting up formal compacts reflects a view that, whilst local agreements have been useful, they have not resulted in the type of cultural and practical changes that are needed if the relationship between the local state and the sector is to be recast;
A number of other public bodies, for example health service providers, are beginning to produce compacts to formalise their relationship with community and voluntary groups that are involved in complementary service provision (Rickford, 2001); and
In addition to these formal compacts there is a proliferation of other agreements between various sectors often related to specific initiatives such as the English Local Strategic Partnerships ¹ (LSPs). This reflects a formalisation of the type of partnership arrangements that have become increasingly characteristic of most economic development and renewal initiatives.

2.6 Undoubtedly the growth of these arrangements has been stimulated by the guidance produced by such bodies as the Local Government Association, SCVO and the Executive (see for example, Local Government Association, 2000, SCVO, 2001 and Scottish Executive, 2000). There is, therefore, now a proliferation of advice and good practice guidance on compacts, albeit that much of it is aimed at local, rather than national, agreements. However, when talking about compact implementation, it has been stated that it would be possible to produce "great compact documents but not great 'compacts'" (quoted in Osborne et al, 2002). "Great compacts" imply that the spirit of the compact can be incorporated into policy. Changes in the relations between government and the community and voluntary sectors then come about. For this to happen there has to be a growth in mutual trust and confidence between the 2 parties. Essentially, therefore, the process of Compact implementation is one of relationship building, something that both Good (2001) and Hems (2002) highlight. Despite this recognition, there is a danger that progress in implementation is restricted as there is too much focus on the documentation, with the compact being seen as the document rather than the process and the changes in culture and mutual understanding that implementation brings about (Hems, 2002 and Osborne et al, 2002). The only way to assess these changes is to undertake ongoing monitoring and eventual evaluation.

MONITORING AND EVALUATION

2.7 Most of the literature dealing with compacts identifies the importance of undertaking monitoring and evaluation. Despite this, progress to date seems to have been very limited. For example Craig et al, (2002) state that implementation plans and review mechanisms are a long way down the line whilst Osborne et al (2002) state that there is "an urgent need" (p.61) to develop "a model and tools for evaluating the effectiveness, or otherwise, both of the compact process and of local compacts" (p. 61). In their review of compacts Craig et al (1999) highlight the importance of monitoring and review as did a number of the local authority respondents to their study. Although their report does not give details of the type of monitoring undertaken they do make a number of recommendations. These include:-

The setting up of an on-going forum to bring together all sides to monitor the compact. This should be paralleled by similar structures within the local authority and the voluntary and community sectors, albeit that the justification for these parallel structures is not made clear;
Having an action plan or codes of practice which will translate statements of principle into actions that can then be monitored. They also suggest that this should be linked to a timetable; and
The need for periodic review, by which one assumes they mean formative evaluation (see Paragraph 4.2). Apparently arrangements for review were very variable in the compacts they researched. Despite review being seen as a key part of the compact process, often there was no review commitment incorporated into the compact agreements and codes of practice.

2.8 The authors felt that implicit in initiating and undertaking a review is the notion of sanctions. Thus if the review process finds that the compact is not being adhered to what happens? Clearly it would seem important for the credibility of the compact, and the compact process, that there are some "teeth". If not then it would seem to be all too easy for those who are sceptical about the process to avoid involvement in it. The lack of effective "teeth" may be one of the reasons for the recent establishment of the English compact advisory service whose remit is to "battle on behalf of charities that feel hard done by in their dealings with government" (McCurry, 2002, p. 10). However practices do seem to differ throughout the United Kingdom. For example in Wales it is felt that, given the role of the National Assembly in the Voluntary Sector Scheme (the Welsh version of the compact), any perceived breaches could be dealt with through the Assembly's formal complaints procedures. In England, as Hems outlines in some detail (2002), there was considerable debate, and tension, between those who wanted some form of arbitration process and government which was only willing to commit itself to mediation. The view in Scotland is that the Compact is for guidance only. As such there are no sanctions for non-compliance.

2.9 In a later study a number of indicators were identified that could be used to assess progress in local compact development (Craig et al, 2002). These were:-

Information and promotion;
All voluntary and community organisations knowing of the compact and how they could use it;
All local authority departments knowing about the compact;
There being staff in the local authority with specific responsibilities for the voluntary and community sectors;
Involvement of a range of organisations in the compact, not just the ones funded by the local authority;
Evidence of energy being put into engagement with different interest groups;
Demand for involvement in the compact, both from other agencies and from voluntary and community groups;
Evidence of the compact influencing other initiatives; and
Visible gains for the wider community.

2.10 What is evident from these indicators is their variability. Some, for example there being staff with specific responsibility for the compact, are easily measurable. Many of the others, such as evidence of impact on other initiatives, are far more difficult to measure. In this the study is following the path taken by much of the academic writing on compacts: recognition of the importance of monitoring and evaluation but little indication, or awareness, of how it can be undertaken in practical terms. Unfortunately this seems to be a reasonable reflection of what actually happens on the ground.

2.11 Even the practical advice from government bodies on monitoring and evaluation tends to be vague. For example the Local Government Association (2000) suggest that there be an annual review with information being obtained through surveys of public bodies and the voluntary and community sector. Such surveys should cover:-

Awareness of the compact;
The extent to which it has been perceived to have been useful over the last year;
Changes in relations with local public bodies; and
Ideas for next steps in implementation.

2.12 The Association proposed that the review should cover such things as:-

How the government-voluntary sector relationship is now perceived;
Significant achievements of the compact;
Identifying major issues that have impacted on the sector over the year;
Identifying difficulties and missed opportunities that can be learnt from;
Identifying issues that are likely to impact upon the sector in the coming year.

2.13 Surprisingly, given that the Association suggests that there be an action plan with specific annual targets, no mention is made of reviewing the extent to which these targets have been met over the past year. Although talking about monitoring and evaluation in generalities is prevalent in the literature, a clearer insight into specifics can be gained when the concerns about compacts and their implementation are considered.

COMPACT ISSUES

2.14 Academic and professional commentators on compacts identify a variety of issues regarding the compact process and its implementation. Many of these are written very much from a voluntary sector prospective, there often being limited appreciation (or even perhaps understanding?) that a compact involves at least two parties and the changes in culture and attitudes necessary to make it work are not solely limited to government but should also permeate the voluntary and community sectors. However, the issues identified might be a useful start to the process of devising monitoring indicators. Synthesising a variety of writings (Craig et al, 1999, Craig et al, 2002, Hems, 2002, Hunter, 2000, McCurry, 2001 and 2002, Osborne et al, 2002) the following emerge as the main issues:-

A lack of awareness amongst smaller organisations of the compact;
The corollary of this is that often compacts are structured and implemented in such a way that they are dominated by the "institutional voluntary sector" (McCurry, 2002, p. 11). This is seen as the large well funded bodies and umbrella groups. The concern is that smaller groups are then marginalised;
Closely related to this is the view that black and ethnic minority groups are underrepresented;
A dominance of many compacts by funding issues. From this it follows that organisations that are not receiving funding from the compact partners are excluded from broader discussions on policy;
The dependency of many organisations, especially smaller ones, upon government funding may compromise their ability to become involved in policy discussions;
A feeling that, despite the existence of a compact, often consultation has no impact upon policy. Related to this are concerns that: there can be too much consultation, which may be a significant problem for small groups with few, if any permanent staff; the timescale for responses may be too short; and even when groups have responded, there may be no, or limited, feedback so that the impact of an individual group's response may be difficult, if not impossible, to identify;
The compact may not be deeply embedded in an organisation. Thus senior management may be aware of the compact but the frontline staff, whose actions are crucial to its implementation, may be unaware, or only vaguely aware, of it;
Although many commentators suggest there is a need for a compact "champion" within government agencies the danger may be that the compact becomes associated with that individual. Staff changes may then mean that commitment is lost. There is therefore a need to ensure that compacts are embedded in organisations and this embedding is independent of personalities; and
The lack of sanctions, or procedures, for resolving disputes when actions are taken that are felt (whatever the merits of the case) to go against the spirit of the compact. The need for some mechanism to resolve disputes is something that the Local Government Associations' Guidelines identifies as an issue (Local Government Association, 2000).

2.15 Given that the key research studies covered Scotland as well as England (in particular Craig, et al, 1999 and Hems, 2002) the issues identified above are equally applicable to the Scottish Compact.

GOOD PRACTICE

2.16 As well as identifying issues that might be useful in devising indicators some authors have also outlined good practices that could be built upon in devising monitoring and evaluation frameworks. For example Craig et al (2002) identify the following, that:-

The compact should have an action plan associated with it. This should have targets and goals. Implicit in this suggestion is that the targets be monitored and action taken if they are not being met;
Within each agency that is a compact partner there should be someone with specific responsibility for the compact. This relates to the need identified earlier for a compact "champion";
Each agency should have some internal process whereby the compacts' content and its implications for the agency can be disseminated; and
Every 3 years there should be a fundamental review, by which one assumes they mean an evaluation of the compact and its impact.

CONCLUSIONS

2.17 There is a growing literature on compacts. This covers academic commentaries and research and advice from government and the voluntary sector on all stages of development and implementation. Yet, whilst there is general recognition of the need for monitoring and evaluation, advice and guidance on the practicalities of doing this are vague. There is an emerging view of the need for structures, for example action plans and targets, which can form the basis of a monitoring (and perhaps evaluation) system. However guidance on specifics is generally absent. In part this is simply a reflection of practice. To date it seems as if time has been spent setting up compacts and preparing the documentation. Only now is thought been given to assessing the impact they have. It therefore seems clear that the next stage in compact development is devising systems and structures for measuring impacts. The next Chapter begins to consider how this might be done by looking at the development of compacts in the United Kingdom and Canada.

« Previous | Contents | Next »

The Scottish Government

Research

On this page: