The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Scottish Compact Baseline Review

CHAPTER THREE: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

3.1 The purpose of this Chapter is to: briefly outline how other national compacts have developed, highlight some of the key processes and outputs that are relevant to monitoring and evaluation; draw comparisons and then look at some of the lessons that might be transferable to the Scottish Compact. For the sake of clarity the various national agreements are referred to as compacts, even though they often go under different names. The Chapter starts by looking at the English Compact and then considers those in Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and finally Canada.

THE ENGLISH COMPACT

3.2 The English Compact is certainly the best documented of all of those in the United Kingdom. Indeed it tends to dominate the academic and research literature. The Compact was published in November 1998 but, as elsewhere, it was based on earlier initiatives. The key ones in England, (which also had an impact upon other parts of the United Kingdom prior to devolution), were the Labour Party's "Building the Future Together" project that started in 1994, overseen by Alun Michael M.P., and the Deakin Commission on the "Future of the Voluntary Sector" which was set up in 1995. One recommendation arising from Deakin was that there should be a formal agreement between the sector and government, set out in the form of a framework or concordat (Commission on the Future of the Voluntary Sector, 1996). This was then picked up by Michael and incorporated into "Building the Future". In parallel with these political moves the voluntary sector, under the auspices of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, began to meet to pursue the idea of a sector-government agreement. By now this had become known as a compact. The election of the Labour Government in 1997 saw a Ministerial Taskforce established to look at government-sector relations. At the same time the sector produced a draft compact, in 1998, which it then circulated for comments. Given that the sector, and government, were in broad agreement it is not surprising that very soon afterwards (November) the Compact was launched. However, despite the long standing interest in developing closer links between the sector and government, no baseline information was collected prior to the launch. Monitoring of the relationship between government and the sector, as opposed to specific actions, is therefore problematical.

3.3 The Compact itself, like most others, takes the form of a memorandum between government and the sector. It has no statutory or legal status but derives its authority from "its endorsement by Government and by the voluntary and community sector" (Home Office, 1998, Paragraph 2). The document sets out a series of shared principles, for example that an independent and diverse voluntary sector is fundamental to the well being of society. It then gives specific undertakings by government and the sector. For example, government commits itself to reviewing the Compact's operations annually whilst the sector makes a similar commitment.

3.4 One of the contentious areas in the Compact's development was the resolution of disagreements. The Compact states that, as far as possible, these should be resolved between the concerned parties. Mediation is suggested as a way of helping this process. Where behaviour that contravenes the Compact is thought to constitute maladministration then a complaint may be made to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. However, this is to be kept under review. As Hems (2002) states this reflects the tensions between those in the voluntary sector who wanted some formal adjudication process and the willingness of government to only agree to mediation.

3.5 In common with other Compacts the detail regarding implementation comes through codes of practice. These have been prepared by the sector with varying levels of involvement of government, albeit that part of the production phase invariably involved consultation and negotiation with government. There are currently 4 Good Practice Codes covering Funding, Consultation, Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) organisations and Volunteering (Home Office, 2000a, 2000b, 2001a and 2001b). The first, on Funding, was published in May 2000. A fifth, on Community Groups, has been through the consultation process and was to be published by the end of 2002. Although the Codes vary in length, with the Funding one (at 39 pages) being the longest, they have a common format in so far as:-

• Each has specific undertakings that government commits itself to: for example to build consultation with the sector into plans for policy development;
• The commitments of the sector are also outlined, for example BME organisations commit themselves to developing cohesive regional structures that are accountable to local groups; and
• Joint undertakings are also identified, as when government and the sector commit themselves to encouraging and supporting volunteering in the BME community.

3.6 The Codes often include examples of good practice, for example in the BME Code this covers the key areas of cross-cutting policy, such as consultation and funding. It also includes specific Action Points, dealing with such things as funding and consultation so that it begins to move beyond the rhetoric, that could easily dominate guidance, into very specific detail. The Consultation Code goes into similar detail about the appropriate consultation methods and the layout and presentation of consultation documents.

3.7 In so far as the Codes have "teeth" this comes through the statement that "where (the partners to the Compact) do not follow this good practice they must satisfy themselves that, if asked, they have good reasons for not doing so" (Home Office, 2000a, Paragraph 23.2).

3.8 The process of Compact implementation has built into it a monitoring framework. This takes the form of an annual meeting, chaired by a Home Office Minister and attended by other Government Ministers, official and representatives from the sector. This process is supported by the Active Communities Unit which has responsibility for the Compact within Government. The meeting has 2 main purposes:-

• It agrees an Action Plan that is then to be implemented over the next year. For example, that for 2000/2001 ranged from detail, such as the Minister writing to his counterparts in government inviting them to draw up departmental action plans, to more problematical actions such as reviewing the need for mediation in the application of the Compact and associated Codes. Each Action has the lead agency, be this a government department or the sector, identified and a target date set; and
• To review progress in implementing the previous year's Plan. As part of this process, surveys of government and the sector have been undertaken annually, looking at such things as awareness of the Compact and the extent to which the Codes had been of use. As with other surveys of compacts, the response rates tend to be low. For example the first survey of the voluntary sector produced returns from 150 organisations: a 15% response rate. The responses from the surveys have then been used to inform the content of the next Action Plan. The operation of the Codes is also considered at the annual meeting.

3.9 At the completion of the meeting an Annual Report is published. This summarises the Review process, and the findings, and thereby provides the context for the next year's action plan. The Report itself is placed in the House of Commons Library. This commitment to producing the Report is seen as a critical factor in making the Compact accountable. It has been described by Sir Kenneth Stowe, one of the key people driving the Compact, as "the most important bit in the whole process", (quoted in Good, 2001, p. 50). In addition progress in implementing the BME Code will be included in the Home Office's "Race and Equality in Public Services" report

3.10 The intention is that the impact of the Compact will be evaluated. A Working Group has been set up to manage and oversee this process and a brief for consultants is in the process of being drawn up. However no other details are public as yet.

3.11 Despite the level of political commitment to the English Compact, and the considerable energy that has been invested in it by both politicians and the sector, there are concerns about its impact. For example the Treasury Cross-Cutting Review on "The Role of the Voluntary and Community Sector in Service Delivery" (HM Treasury, 2002) acknowledged the importance of the Compact in providing a mechanism for the sector and government to work together. However concerns were expressed about the relatively slow rate at which the various Compact commitments were being implemented and the low level of awareness of it in government. Accordingly, it was recommended that departmental champions be identified to take forward the implementation of both the Compact and the Codes of Practice. They were to "be held personally responsible for effective implementation of the Compact and its Codes" (ibid, p. 29). Part of their task is to establish a baseline for their department and articulate a vision for the future. The suggestion was that priority should initially be given to those departments that had the greatest interaction with the sector, for example Health and the Home Office. Underlying these recommendations was the view that the Compact needed to become mainstreamed, with implementation being part of "normal business" (ibid, p. 29). To make this happen it was suggested that departmental resource allocations for 2003/2006 be conditional upon effective implementation of the Compact, although as yet this does not seem to have been done. Despite this, this seems a significant step and is clearly indicative of the government's strong political commitment to making the Compact work. However, that such action needs to be taken, does indicate that, even with high level political support and what many would consider to be a reasonable level of funding, Compact implementation is by no means guaranteed nor easy.

THE WELSH COMPACT

3.12 The Welsh Compact was launched in December 1998 Annual Compact Monitoring Survey. and shares a common background to the English one, in terms of the development of a commitment by both the sector and the Labour Party, when in opposition and, from 1997, in Government, towards closer co-operation and partnership. The layout of the original Compact document was similar to that in Scotland, being structured under 4 headings: Recognition, Representation, Partnership and Resources (Welsh Office, 1998). For each of these broad areas the commitments of government and the sector were outlined. For example, the government was committed to encouraging public bodies to designate a senior member of staff as the main liaison point with the sector, whilst the sector was to be pro-active in telling government of developments in its activities that might be relevant for the formulation of policy. However, following the setting up of the Welsh Assembly in 1999, the status of the Compact changed. This was largely due to the Government of Wales Act 1998 which contained a statutory obligation on the Assembly to "make a scheme setting out how it proposes……… to promote the interests of relevant voluntary organisations". The Scheme is to specify how: support is to be given to the sector; such support will be monitored; and how consultation is to be undertaken. It is to be reviewed and, after each election, a decision has to be made as to whether it will be remade or revised. There is also a commitment to publish a report each year on how the proposals outlined in the Scheme have been implemented.

3.13 As a result of this legislation the compact changed its name and is now known as the Voluntary Sector Scheme. This name change was accompanied by the publication of a revised version of the compact, which appeared in September 2000 (The National Assembly for Wales, 2000). Although some of the text is identical, the Scheme is far more unbalanced than the original compact in so far as it is very much an Assembly document, outlining what the Assembly intends to do in such areas as encouraging volunteering and consultation with the sector. There is now no explicit mention of what the sector's obligations are, in marked contrast to the 1998 Compact. The Scheme is also more limited in its scope than other compacts, dealing with essentially the Assembly's interface with the sector rather than other agencies and NDPBs as is the case in, for example, Scotland. The exception to this is that those agencies that provide funding on behalf of the Assembly are covered, albeit that no details of these are given (in contrast, for example, to the Scottish Compact). It is therefore unclear how extensive this group is.

3.14 The structure for ensuring that these legal obligations are met comes through the Voluntary Sector Partnership Council, one of 3 similar initiatives established as a result of the Wales Act, the other 2 being for business and local government. The Council is the key body for maintaining regular dialogue between the sector and the National Assembly. It has 35 members (11 Assembly members selected to represent the party balance, 21 representatives of the sector and 3 from the Wales Council for Voluntary Action (WCVA), the Welsh equivalent of SCVO).

3.15 The Council's purpose is to ensure that the principles of the Scheme are put into practice whilst giving the sector the opportunity to raise issues with Assembly members and Ministers. It meets 4 times a year at various locations across Wales and meetings are open to the public, whilst agendas and papers are published on WCVA's web site. The last meeting, held in October 2002, considered such things as trends in government funding of the sector and the relationship between public services and the sector. In addition the Scheme contains a requirement that each Minister meet with representatives of the relevant networks of voluntary organisations covering their area of policy at least twice a year.

3.16 The Scheme is to be implemented through an Action Plan. This is then to be used to monitor progress. The first Action Plan was divided into 5 sections covering: the annual report and monitoring; funding; policy engagement; volunteering; and community development. For each area specific commitments are set out and the actions needed to meet them, along with target dates and the key agencies responsible for taking the lead.

3.17 The main monitoring mechanism is the annual review and published report on the Scheme's operations. The first of these, covering the 9 months to March 2001, was published in September 2001 (The National Assembly for Wales, 2001a). It looked at progress in meeting the Plan and outlined other actions that had been taken, and were to be taken, to develop the Assembly-sector relationship. As in most other compacts no baseline information was collected that could be used as a yardstick for subsequent monitoring.

3.18 The only specific Code of Practice is that dealing with funding. This is described as "living" document, being maintained on the Assembly's website and regularly updated (The National Assembly for Wales, 2001b). Twice a year a group of sector representatives and Assembly officials meet to consider amendments and what needs to be done to make it more user-friendly. They also have a role in monitoring and, to this end, visitors to the website are asked to give WCVA any comments they have, using WCVA's electronic forum. The Code is, however, like the Scheme very one-sided. In effect it is a detailed guide to help groups access financial support from the Assembly set out in the form of a series of questions and answers. Nothing is explicitly said about the responsibilities of the sector when receiving financial support.

3.19 Despite there being only one formal Code, the Scheme itself outlines the intended mode of operations between the sector and the Assembly in a number of areas, for example dialogue and co-operation, policy proofing, consultation, volunteering and community development. Although not described as codes of practice, several of the topics are dealt with in some detail. Thus the section on policy proofing lists 9 areas that the Assembly will have regard to when looking at the impact of policy upon the sector. These include such things as: are the views of the sector and volunteers being sought: and is there scope for exemptions to reduce any adverse impacts upon the sector? This level of detail means that in some respects the Scheme is covering some of the areas that other Compacts deal with in separate guidance.

3.20 There are no Compact-specific sanctions built into the Scheme or Action Plan. The expectation is that any complaints about the operations of the Scheme, or breaches of the Code, will be dealt with through the Assembly's formal complaints procedure. The intensive contact between the sector and Assembly politicians is also likely to mean that complaints can be dealt with informally, rather than be left until they have become major issues.

THE NORTHERN IRELAND COMPACT

3.21 The Northern Ireland Compact, "Partners for Change", was published, technically, as a consultation document in June 2001, albeit that a revised version has not been produced (Northern Ireland Executive, 2001). Like the compacts elsewhere, its roots go back a number of years. For example in 1993 a Strategy for supporting the sector and highlighting its importance was published. Subsequently the sector and government were formally brought together through a Joint Government Voluntary and Community Sector Forum. This body played an important role in developing the Compact and agreeing its structure, in particular the development of a number of core Aims (for example "Building Communities" and "Tackling Disadvantage") that crossed all government departments. The attainment of these aims is seen as the key measure of the Compact's success.

3.22 The Compact itself is structured around 3 Common Themes which are described as "the essence of a shared working relationship that would result in added value" (Ibid, p. 14). These are Capacity Building, Working Together and Resourcing the Sector. Each of these has its main dimensions outlined. For example Resourcing the Sector covers such things as providing direct financial support, making available specialist advice and information to help with service delivery and providing help in kind, through such things as the use of premises.

3.23 Where the Northern Ireland Compact differs from the others examined is in the detail that it goes into on implementation. Each of the 12 Government Departments has formulated a "Strategy for Support of the Voluntary and Community sector". These were apparently devised by the Departments in consultation with representatives of the sector. Each Departmental Strategy is then structured according to a common format:-

• An outline of the Department's mission;
• Its strategic aims and objectives;
• A brief description of its main roles;
• A section detailing the context of its work;
• A short statement of its relationship with the sector, outlining such things as funding, partnership working and consultation;
• For each of the 3 Themes, the Department's Strategic Priorities are listed along with a number of Action Points. These are a mixture of activities, such as funding, to which there is a continuing commitment and time limited actions, such as reviewing specific activities; and
• Finally a contact point is given for each department in terms of a named individual along with address, telephone number and email.

3.24 As an Annex to the document Good Practice Guides are included covering Community Development, Funding, and Volunteering. However the focus of the Guides, like the Compact itself, is upon government action, rather than the obligations of the sector. Indeed this reflects the tone and content of the document which is all about what government has to do to meet the spirit of the Compact. The obligations of the sector are touched on tangentially but nowhere is there an explicit statement of how the sector needs to rise to what is a partnership challenge.

3.25 Unlike most other Compacts monitoring and evaluation is addressed explicitly. The process is as follows:-

• Each Department is to monitor progress and report on an annual basis, starting in April 2003;
• This will be undertaken using a monitoring pro-forma. This is currently in the process of being devised. The intention is that monitoring will be undertaken against the various Action Points, with Departments setting specific indicators to measure each. Again these are in the process of being devised. Given the variety of Action Points it may be that this process will be lengthy. The intention is that the pro-forma will also collect information on consultations with the sector, volunteering initiatives, examples of good practice in relation to partnership working and such things as secondments;
• The Department for Social Development's (DSD) Voluntary Activity Unit (VAU) will then collate the Departmental reports and produce a Compact Monitoring report. Following comments by the Forum's Strategy Sub-Group it will be submitted for endorsement to the DSD Minister. It will then be published on the DSD website; and
• Evaluation is to take place every 3 years, as opposed to the Executive's current policy of evaluating major policies every 5 years. This reflects the cross-Departmental significance of the Compact. Accordingly an external evaluation will be undertaken in 2004. Through the Joint Forum both government and the sector will be involved in this.

3.26 The Northern Ireland Compact differs from some of the others considered in 2 other aspects:-

• The issue of complaints is explicitly addressed, with aggrieved parties being encouraged to direct complaints either to the VAU or individual Departments. A review of complaints is to form part of the annual monitoring process; and
• The distribution of "Partners for Change" was accompanied by a Consultation Questionnaire. This collected information on the characteristics of the voluntary sector respondent and asked for a rating to be given to existing relations with government for each of the Strategy's 4 aims, for example the level of co-operation with government, community involvement in decision making and targeting of resources at the areas of greatest need. The intention is that this baseline information will inform the evaluation to be carried out in 2004.

THE SCOTTISH COMPACT

3.27 In common with most other compacts no baseline information was collected prior to the Scottish Compact being set up. The Compact's origins are similar to those of the other parts of the United Kingdom, in particular the commitment of the Labour Party to the sector, when in opposition, which then carried over into Government, as outlined briefly above (see Paragraph 3.2).

3.28 The Compact was published in 1998, prior to the Parliament being established (The Scottish Office, 1998). Unlike the situation in Wales, no revised version has, as yet, been produced. There was also no legislative commitment in the Scotland Act to creating a sector-government relationship, again a marked difference from the situation in Wales. The document is structured in a similar manner to others. Thus there is a statement of shared values and then a series of commitments by the sector and government set out under 5 headings: Recognition, Representation, Partnership, Resources and Implementation.

3.29 The Compact is an agreement between all government departments, Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) (many of which are specified, for example Scottish Enterprise, the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency and the Scottish Arts Council) and government agencies in Scotland. Within the Executive the Compact is the responsibility of the Voluntary Issues Unit, based within the Social Justice Group in the Development Department.

3.30 Good Practice Guides have been published covering 4 areas: Funding, Consultation, Partnership Working and Proofing (Scottish Executive, 2000). These are very detailed and cover a mixture of explanation (for example outlining what Executive funding is available for and what feedback consultees can expect to receive) and very specific guidance for Departments. Thus the Funding Guide has 26 good practice points, that for Consultation 27. Yet, despite this detail, the Guides are addressed solely to the Executive. There is no mention of what the obligations of the sector in delivering, what is theoretically, a partnership agreement involving commitments on both sides, are to be. Unlike the Compact document therefore the Guides are asymmetrical, being "intended to help Departments and agencies of the Scottish Executive that have an interest in voluntary organisations…..to carry out their responsibility to implement the commitments set out in the Compact" (Ibid, Introduction). The Guides are therefore establishing a series of protocols, and administrative rules, that are to steer government and its agencies in their interactions with the voluntary and community sector. In so far as there is parallel guidance for the sector this comes from SCVO. In 2001 it published Implementation Guidance (SCVO, 2001) that outlined the sector's obligations under the Compact. This uses the same headings as the Good Practice Guides. Whilst such guidance to the sector is to be welcomed the fact that 2 sets of guidance have been produced, only one of which has been produced by the Executive may mean that the Compact's impact is diluted.

3.31 Although it can be argued that the Good Practice Guidance is an extension of the Representation section of the Compact the correspondence between the Guides and the Compact seems to be partial. For example the Compact identifies 5 areas under which the Commitments of Government and the sector are outlined (Paragraph 3.28). The Guides deal with only 2 of these. Resources are covered in Funding Guidance whilst Partnership is covered by the remaining 3 (Consultation, Partnership and Proofing). The preparation and publication of further guidance is, however, currently being considered.

3.32 Monitoring has so far taken the form of the production of an Annual Review for 2000/0 (Scottish Executive, 2001). This was based on a survey of Executive Departments, agencies and NDPBs. A parallel survey of the sector was undertaken by SCVO. Unlike experience elsewhere there is no outcome of the monitoring process other than the published report. No feedback is provided to respondents and there is no action plan or other implementation document which the monitoring report can then inform. However there is now interest in moving to some more formal monitoring and evaluation process. This started in June 2002 when a Compact Review Group was formed, bringing together representatives of the sector and the Executive. Out of this has come the current study.

THE CANADIAN COMPACT

3.33 There are close parallels between the development of the Canadian Accord (the Canadian version of the Compact) and events in the United Kingdom. In 1995 12 umbrella organisations came together as the Voluntary Sector Roundtable to consider how the relationship between the sector and government could be enhanced. Out of the Roundtable's deliberations came the Broadbent Panel (the equivalent of the English Deakin Commission) which looked in some detail at the sector-government interface and made a number of recommendations. In parallel with this a Reference Group of Ministers, chaired by the President of the Treasury Board, began considering the relations with the sector. One outcome of these activities was the setting up of 3 groups, or Joint Tables, bringing together federal officials and the sector. In 1999 a joint report "Working Together: A Government of Canada/Voluntary Sector Joint Initiative" was published, which recommended that some form of agreement or accord be developed. With funding from government, progress was rapid and the Accord was published in December 2001, following extensive consultations throughout the country with some 2,000 organisations (Joint Accord Table 2001). It included commitments by both parties to such things as developing codes of good practice to implement the Accord. The first of these were published in October 2002, one dealing with Funding, the other with Policy Dialogue (Joint Accord Table, 2002a, 2002b).

3.34 Both Codes have a similar structure in so far as the commitments of the voluntary sector and government are separately outlined as are the good practices that both sectors commit themselves to: for example to "identify and allocate resources and time to policy activities".

3.35 The production of these documents has been paralleled by:-

• the allocation of funds to set up specific projects, for example $95 million for the Voluntary Sector Initiative, which is to promote the development of the sector-government relationship over a 5 year period, including the implementation of the Compact, for which $10 million has been allocated;
• allocating clear political responsibility for the sector, with the Minister of Canadian Heritage being designated as Minister Responsible for the Voluntary Sector; and
• setting up a small voluntary sector unit in the Minister's Department.

3.36 The next stage in the Accord implementation process is the development of a monitoring and evaluation framework. The Accord itself refers to the need for periodic review and evaluation as a consequence of which there may be changes and new priorities. Both Codes also refer to monitoring and evaluation. For example, they talk about discussing the Code and learning from one another and proposing reforms to make them more effective. However, correspondence with the Voluntary Sector Initiative's Secretarial confirms that, as yet, there has been limited progress in moving beyond this. Thus there has been no development of any systematic approach to ongoing monitoring or assessing the long term impact of the various initiatives in strengthening collaboration and co-operation between the sector and Government.

3.37 What also seems clear is that the Canadian Accord has been influenced by the United Kingdom's experiences. Given this it would seem that there are limited transferable lessons that could influence Scottish practice at this stage. It is also worth making the point that the Accord was developed against a background of "declining government financial support "(Good, 2001, p. 46) for the sector. This might have implications for monitoring and could shift the focus of the Accord away from funding which, as Chapter 2 highlighted, tends to be the focus of interest, to other areas of the Accord, where progress might bring more substantive long term benefits.

A COMPACT DEVELOPMENT AND REVIEW MODEL

3.38 Although the Compact development process differs between the 5 countries detailed above, there are more similarities than differences. An overview of the development and review process is shown in Diagram 3.1. The key stages are:-

• Interaction between the sector and government out of which comes the formal compact document to which both parties are usually signatories;

• Detailing of aspects of the Compact through good practice guides. However, it is not always the case that the guides cover all aspects of the compacts' operations, as is the case in Scotland;
• Implementation is then, in several instances, directed by an action plan, drawn up usually on an annual basis. In the Northern Ireland example this plan is detailed at the departmental level. Elsewhere the plans tend to be more general, although most identify those responsible for delivering on key actions and the delivery timescale;
• There is then normally some form of review process, in effect monitoring. This is undertaken in 3 main ways: through surveys of the sector and government, as has happened in Scotland and England; by assessing progress against the action plan; and by gathering views of the sector and government through annual, or on-going, meetings as is the case in Wales. In some countries only one of these methods is used, for example Scotland has undertaken a survey. Others use all 3, as happens in England. Review is also not necessarily linked to an action plan. Thus there is no Scottish action plan yet an annual implementation review was undertaken in 2000/01. The clear danger with this is that the review exercise becomes discredited as there is no obvious way for it to feed back into the compact implementation process;
• There is often some formal meeting between the sector and government which, as is the case of England and Wales, involves senior politicians. This considers the monitoring and review information, formulates the next year's action plan and then publishes the results. In Scotland whilst there are structures for bringing ministers and the sector together, for example the annual Away Day, these do not take place under the Compact "badge", although it may be debatable if the issues covered differ much from the ones covered in England and Wales; and
• Finally all compacts identify the importance of evaluation and some, as in Northern Ireland, have timetabled this and are in the process of drawing up a specification. However this is as far as most have gone.

3.39 Of the 5 compacts considered, the English and Welsh conform most closely to the model shown in Diagram 3.1. The Northern Irish compact will soon conform to this model, once the first round of departmental monitoring starts in 2003. The Scottish one is perhaps the compact that deviates furthest from it, in that it has no action plan and the monitoring and reporting processes do not, yet, seem to be formalised or linked into the Compact implementation process.

COMPARING THE COMPACTS

3.40 Some of the deviations from this general model will become clearer when the compacts are compared in terms of the more detailed key development and process criteria. Table 3.1 compares the various national compacts on a range of criteria. These are:-

Table 3.1 Comparisons of Compacts on Key Development and Process Criteria

• Whether baseline information was collected prior to the compact being prepared so that there was a foundation against which to measure implementation progress. In only one case, Northern Ireland, was this done. However, most of the other countries have information, covering such things as the "shape" of the sector and levels of funding, that could be used to describe components of the sector-government relationship (see Chapter 5 for details of Scottish information);
• The legal status of the compact. Again in only one instance (Wales) has this statutory status, being described by the Assembly's First Secretary a "the first such statutory scheme in the UK (and) the first of its kind in Europe" (The National Assembly for Wales, 2000, Foreword). One clear advantage of such statutory status is that the compact then falls within the remit of whatever formal complaints procedures exist for government;
• The partners to the compact (in addition to the voluntary and community sectors). These fall into 2 groups: those compacts that cover central government and its various arms length agencies; and those, such as the Northern Ireland and Welsh compacts, where, although mention is made of NDPBs and agencies that distribute funds on behalf of government, the focus of the documentation is very much on government;
• The "shape" of the compact is then considered using 2 criteria: whether it is symmetrical (that is it contains obligations and commitments by the sector and government) or whether it is more one-sided, covering only government with little explicit indication that a partnership has commitments and obligations on both sides. Both the Northern Ireland and Welsh compacts seem to be asymmetrical;
• All compacts have codes of practice, varying in number from 1 to 4;
• The "shape" of these codes is then considered, using the same criteria as for the compact. Of the 5 compacts, 3 are considered to have asymmetrical codes:
• ones that are very one-sided, dealing only with governments' obligations and commitments, albeit that in some instances (for example Scotland) the sector has produced its own guidance (Paragraph 3.30);
• 3 of the compacts have action plans: annual ones in the case of England and Wales and essentially a 3 year one for Northern Ireland;
• Annual reviews and associated reports seem to be the norm. However the extent to which these link into implementation plans varies. In the case of England, Northern Ireland and Wales the plans either currently, or will, explicitly address the extent to which the various measures outlined in the action plans have been attained. They are therefore clearly about monitoring. Some compacts, for example the English one, have, linked to the review, a survey of attitudes, albeit that the response rates to these are low. The Scottish compact has produced one annual review, based on surveys of government and the sector (Paragraph 3.32). This looked at perceptions of the relationship with government, rather than covering the extent to which specific actions had been implemented. Clearly, in the absence of a phased action plan, such detailed monitoring of the implementation of the compact is not possible; and
• Finally an impressionistic appraisal of the degree of political involvement and commitment in the compact is given, based upon such things as the extent to which the compact acts as a formal means for linking politicians and the sector, rather than acting as a link to officials. Here, within the United Kingdom, the Welsh compact stands on its own, given that it has a variety of mechanisms for bringing politicians and ministers together with the sector under the compact umbrella. The situation in England is classed as "medium" given that the annual meeting is chaired by a Home Office minister and attended by other senior politicians. Involvement in Scotland is classed as low as there do not seem to be such mechanisms for bringing politicians together with the sector under the Compact umbrella. This is not to suggest that there are not frequent meetings between the 2 parties (for example the Away Day and ministerial meetings with the sector (see Paragraph 3.37)). However these seem to either date from before the compact was established or to be undertaken on an ad hoc basis.

3.41 It therefore seems that, despite the United Kingdom compacts having very similar origins, especially in their roots in the Labour Party's commitment to developing close links with the sector, they have developed in different ways. This may partly be explained by the new government structures set up following devolution. Whether these differences will be so apparent in the future is debatable. As more comparative research is undertaken there may be a tendency, as in other areas of policy, for good practices to be replicated thereby reducing the diversity that currently exists. Differences are also apparent between the compacts when the codes of practice are considered in greater detail.

CODES OF PRACTICE

3.42 As Table 3.1 shows, all of the compacts have codes of practice, albeit these vary in number and in the extent to which they are written as partnership documents or guidance for government departments and agencies. Table 3.2 looks in more detail at the codes. It can be seen that:-

• 7 categories of code have been identified, albeit that there may be a degree of overlap in the content of some of these;
• all compacts have produced guidance on funding, reflecting the importance of this element of the sector-government relationship as seen by both parties;
• the next most frequent type of guidance covers consultation between the sector and government, followed by volunteering;
• Only 1 compact, that in England, has produced guidance on relations with ethnic groups. This is perhaps surprising given that there are substantial ethnic communities in other areas, for example parts of Canada and Scotland. Whilst the Executive has undertaken a review of Ethnic Minority Funding, and has resourced the setting up of an umbrella organisation for ethnic minority voluntary groups, none of this activity has been undertaken under the Compact "badge"; and
• England, has produced, with Scotland, the most codes and is shortly to publish another dealing with community groups.

Table 3.2 Codes of Practice Produced by the Various National Compacts

3.43 What the Table does not show is the relationship between the codes and the compact document. At times this is asymmetrical. For example the Scottish codes only deal with part of the sector-government relationship as defined in the formal compact document (Paragraph 3.31).

LESSONS TO BE LEARNT?

3.44 Are there any lessons that the Scottish compact can learn from experience elsewhere? There would seem to be a number:-

• The good practice guides would reflect more accurately the spirit of the compact (and indeed the formal compact document) if they dealt with the obligations and commitments of the sector as well as government. At the moment responsibilities of each party are dealt with in different sets of documentation: one produced by the Executive, the other by SCVO. This seems likely to fragment the Compact's impact. Producing one set of documentation, to which the Executive and SCVO are signatories, might help to widen ownership of the compact and stop it being seen solely as a mechanism for making government change the way it operates;
• At the moment there is little that is specific that can be monitored in so far as the good practice guides contain no targets and there are no time scales attached to the various commitments that they cover. The Compact is then, perhaps, seen as a monolithic "block" in which everything is of equal importance. The danger with this type of perception is that limited progress is then made in implementation on any front. Accordingly, having an action plan (ideally produced on an annual basis), which contains specific commitments, timescales and clearly identifies the parties who are responsible for delivery would not only provide something specific that could be monitored but would also, perhaps, make the compact more tangible and the implementation process manageable;
• Consideration should be given to introducing the type of detailed departmental commitments that characterise the Northern Irish compact. One advantage of this is that it would widen the ownership of the compact as every department then has specific actions that they are publicly committed to and for which they can be held accountable;
• Related to this, allocating specific responsibility for Compact implementation to a senior departmental official, as is suggested by the Treasury, would help the Compact to begin to permeate more deeply into government and would begin the process of mainstreaming. Similar arrangements could also be made for the various agencies and NDPBs that are covered by the agreement;
• If there were to be an action plan then this should be linked to the annual review process. The review would then be able to deal with something more tangible than was the case for the 2000-01 document; and
• Finally there may be merit in considering setting up the type of structures that exist in England and Wales for bringing the sector together with politicians to discuss the compact and the government-sector interface. This needs to be under the compact banner. This would raise the profile of the compact, in the eyes of the sector and government departments and agencies, and would be a clear indication that it had high level political commitment. It might be possible to do this by rebadging or restructuring existing forums.

3.45 These lessons essentially relate to processes and structures that are needed to assist implementation and therefore make the Compact more effective. However measuring effectiveness requires the formulation of a far more detailed monitoring and evaluation framework than currently exists. Accordingly this is considered in the next Chapter.

« Previous | Contents | Next »