Vital voluntarism: how can we repay the charities and community groups who have been responding on the ground?
The charity and community sector is something that policy types often fail to realise even exists. It is a ‘nice’ but slightly peripheral part of the body politic that sits somewhere between the private and state sector, a sort of residual, a sector that tries to mop up some of the things that the state and private sector do not do. On the right, there is often deep distrust of it if it is anything more than small and local, or cultural and non-threatening. On the left, while trade unions and co-ops are generally welcomed, there is often a suspicion that charities should not be there and would not be if we could just make the state that bit bigger and a bit more all-encompassing.
The coronavirus crisis – in its speed, universality and depth – has revealed what those of us who work in the sector have always known: voluntary efforts are a crucial guarantor of a decent society and indeed a strong and fair economy. There is now surely no serious politician, on right or left, who is anything but admiring of the way charities and local groups – already established or new ones that have sprung up – are supporting our NHS and our care workers; helping those under stress; getting food to those isolated; and looking after those trapped at home in abusive relationships. The voluntary sector has done that with its finances all over the place, not least as fundraising – often very reliant on events – and other income streams have dried up. Meanwhile, government schemes aimed at supporting the private sector have played themselves out very awkwardly for the non-profits, either being irrelevant (what foodbank or homeless shelter wants to furlough front line staff?) or impossible (try getting a loan from a bank if you are a charity or community organisation!).
Whenever there is a major crisis like this, many things emerge and many things – both bad and good – are discovered.
The bad
On the negative side we will undoubtedly have lost some good organisations at national and especially local level; the ones that will survive are not necessarily the ones we in some sense needed most or the ones that were best managed. The charity and community sector does not tend to work like that. In addition, many of the worst-hit charities and community organisations will be the ones serving communities also worst hit by the crisis. Those on lower incomes, BAME communities, those who are frail, older or vulnerable in other ways will have all seen indispensable organisations go under.
Many organisations that survive will have been ravaged, have lost staff, have had to stop doing many good things they did in the past. Reserves – that charities are criticised if they have too much of – will be virtually gone. Risk aversion on finance will rise up the agenda of all trustee boards. And grant income will be too scarce: independent charitable foundations and grant makers thankfully pushed a lot of cash out fast and will be depleted as charities come asking for non-coronavirus funding. And all this will be added to when post the crisis we are likely to have severe economic problems. While the recent Office of Budget Responsibility forecast was horrific, it suggested good news in the form of a fast bounce back. That feels optimistic to say the least.
The good
But many good things have emerged in the sector in this period as people focused on need, on getting things done (and getting them done fast) and on adapting in a way that would take decades in the charitable sector in normal times. A proverbial rocket was put up a sector that was struggling and some of that has been for the good.
We have seen collaboration across the sector in ways so rarely seen as the real focus on the urgent beneficiary need trumped any other consideration. We at NPC have heard from groups saying that in their geographic area the working together of different charities, funders and the local council has been better than ever before. Foundations have made some good attempts to coordinate more and to move faster and philanthropists have tried to understand how best to help – something NPC has encouraged. Some funders even used data and shared it (often via 360 giving and now through more easily accessible data). Big charities have supported smaller ones, breaking down some of the usual suspicion and unhelpful hostility between the two.
Alongside this we have seen tremendous innovation and agility with new things being tried and adapted as we went along in response to real time user feedback and other evaluations. Equally profoundly, charities have had to quickly assess what mattered in what they did and what did not, who was vital and who was not.
The lockdown has also created a breakthrough in the use of digital technology that has been mostly to the good for a sector that historically struggles to understand, embrace and secure funding in this area. This is not just about endless Zoom or Teams meetings between staff but trying to see how technology can be used to help all sorts of people and how to use it to identify emerging needs and organise ourselves towards them. And, crucial for a sector that cares about the vulnerable, it’s prompted some hard questions about what to do with those who don’t have or can’t manage the technology.
Volunteering has seen a massive surge both locally to mutual aid organisations, food banks and other local charities, and to the national NHS scheme. Charities have had to learn fast some of the things that many had forgotten – how to absorb, organise and utilise volunteers. Kirsty McNeill’s essay touches on one idea for more of that in the future.
Partly due to volunteering and partly due to the need for support from the charity sector, we have seen a different and better relationship with the public sector – especially the NHS. Cooperation has been in vogue, rather than seeing life as a struggle, often through the confrontational means of bidding for contracts.
A mirror up to society
One other interesting thing about the crisis is the issues it has highlighted. What people really value and what really matters has come into better focus. Our interconnections and relationships, something that lies at the heart of what so many charities try to do – and is often sadly absent from the ways the state delivers services – has been highlighted.
So too has been the exposure of how unequal our society is and how many are vulnerable – again a passion of so many in civil society. While many have tweeted away about their gardens and zoomed from their spare room or study, others have no outside space, no rooms in which they can be alone. And while all classes and ethnicities have been hit, the burden of deaths has been on those with previously underlying conditions as well as doing jobs that expose them. The burden is disproportionately on the poor and people who are marginalised by discrimination and existing inequalities.
None of this is to suggest that the charity and community sector is perfect. It has many flaws. It is incredibly uneven in quality; is not universal; relies on often pretty random funding flows; it is active where it ‘chooses’ to be so, not necessarily where the need is greatest. It is no substitute at all for the state but, at its best, is a key partner to it as well as playing its own independent role.
Some in the sector hope that this crisis has allowed the policy community to see at last that the charity sector really does matter – although others have taken the fact that the sector secured ‘only’ £750m as a special package as a sign policymakers still don’t care or get it.
Three versions of the future
How might it all play out post crisis? I can imagine three futures.
It is unlikely that the sector can fully go back to exactly how it was before the crisis – the economic pressures will be, and already are, too much and many charities are likely to fail. The focus on frontline coronavirus response charities will inevitably skew the sector too. But even with this in mind, there are still 3 scenarios.
The first is back largely to the status quo before the crisis. The power of the old order pulls us back towards it. Government puts the sector back in its box and the public, while pleased it existed during the crisis, pulls back from the civil action they had embraced, just as they did post the volunteering boom of the 2012 Olympics. Charities retreat to caring about themselves, many of the good things go and independent funders go back to their old ways of less core funding and doing their own thing.
The second is a radical change in the relationship with the state and public services at all levels and in the way charities and funders behave. Governments want to be a good partner and so instead of struggling with the role of charities, now understand the critical role they will play in rebuilding society after the economic downturn and proactively 'build' the sector into their vision and plans for the future prosperity and 'levelling up' of this country – rather than a 'nice to have'. At local level the power of community action is seen as a massive plus by council leaders, not just an annoying and messy threat. Meanwhile, the public are now up for trying to address the challenges that so many charities have been going on about for ages and with attitudes to public spending changed for good. Within the sector we see built out of the wreckage new collaborations, purposeful mergers and new partnerships as charities embrace the opportunity to rethink how they are formed and how they can best deliver on their missions. Nobody wants to go back to the old, slow, cautious ways. Pace, innovation, being closer to the communities we serve all take off.
The third is that we get a mixed world. Government likes what the sector did to help in some areas so takes it seriously here and there – like in mental health – but generally goes back to seeing it as a nice frill, but totally dispensable. Some local councils get it and harness the energy and new relationships that emerged through the crisis, but most hunker down as finance is tight and partnership is difficult. Within the sector itself, some go back, some move on – we end up with a much more varied sector. Funders are not sure whether to still fund the older approaches or bet on the new: some want to continue to collaborate, others pull back remembering how difficult it is.
The determinants as to which future we get are of course a lot about the appetite of the charities and funders for embracing the opportunity for real change and progress. Will they be cautious and stay in their respective safe places or will they be bold, and take risks?
But they are also about the attitude of policy makers and government at national, city region and local level as to explicitly recognising the voluntary and community sector as crucial to our future prosperity and our wellbeing.
This breakthrough of recognition is the key. Once secured there are many things that can be done (see Corry and Stoker for some ideas). We might even have realised that many of these charities are vital to underpin and support the public and public services and look for new models of funding that, while respecting and maintaining their independence, stop forcing them to rely for basic funding on charity events and to survive on their reserves; matched funded endowments for instance and guaranteed long term grant agreements in some areas.
Our national and economic recovery will depend on the choices of our political leaders, the commitment of staff in our public services and the dynamism and productivity of our businesses and workers of course, but we should not discount the role of all those working in the space beyond the market and the state for a better and more rewarding life for us all. In the design of the recovery we have a chance not only to repay the debt we owe to this vital sector for how it helped during the crisis, but to raise it up to its proper place in our lives. It’s one we must take.