Day Conference Abstracts and Report

Abstracts

• Faith as Social Capital: Connecting or Dividing; Dr Rob Furbey (SHU: CVSR and Principal Lecturer, Faculty of Development & Society)
• Operating within Constraints: Successful Black Community Organisations and European Structural Funds in Liverpool and Manchester; Dr William Ackah (Birkbeck, University of London)
• Issues in Measurement of Performance of NGOs: Morrison Muleri (SHU CVSR PhD Student and Commonwealth Secretariat)
• Writing Critical Management Studies into the Voluntary Sector: Dr Helen Cameron (Oxford Brookes University) & Daniel King (University of Manchester)
• Trust Board Events: A Model from Empirical Evidence: Nick Croft (SHU CVSR PhD Student) 

Report from Gareth Morgan, event host

The VSSN day seminar at Sheffield on 17 May 2006 was hosted by the Sheffield Hallam University Centre for Voluntary Sector Research (CVSR) (an inter-faculty grouping, bringing together voluntary sector academics and researchers based in various part of the University).

Gareth Morgan (Director of the SHU CVSR) welcomed everyone and chaired the morning session. There were 36 people present for the day, which included five main papers, as outlined below.

The keynote paper was given by Rob Furbey, one of the core members of the CVSR and Principal Lecturer in Sociology at Sheffield Hallam. His session: Faith as Social Capital: Connecting or Dividing presented the findings of a recently completed study he had led, funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF), looking at the ways in which Faith communities contribute to social capital either positively (by bridging) or negatively (by dividing).

His conclusions, which can be read in detail in the JRF report with the same title (see http://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/details.asp?pubID=768) contained a broadly upbeat assessment of the role which faith communities contribute – not least through their buildings – but also highlighted significant challenges.

It was sometime since a VSSN seminar had included a paper specifically on faith-based voluntary organisations, and this provoked a good deal of lively discussion and questions – some of which were taken up further in the paper by Helen Cameron and Daniel King in the afternoon session.

William Ackah from Bickbeck, University of London, presented the next paper on Operating within Constraints: Successful Black Community Organisations and European Structural Funds in Liverpool and Manchester.

Based on work done for his PhD, William outlined a study which sought to explore how some black-led organisations had been substantially more successful than others in accessing the relatively complex European Structural Funds. He had chosen these funds as the basis of the study because there was no specific programme concerned with race issues, and hence black organisations had to fit their work into mainstream criteria for the programmes concerned. He noted that many mainstream policy networks dealing with ‘urban’ issues believe that black organisations have little to contribute outside of issues related to ‘race’.

His conclusion was broadly that the more successful organisations were those with good levels of organisation and strong sense of strategy and vision to engage with the structural funds. This led to a further lively series of questions, with many people arguing that these characteristics applied right across the voluntary and community sector to organisations which were successful in winning funding.

The morning ended with the VSSN Business Meeting led by Peter Halfpenny, Chair of VSSN (University of Manchester) The main issues were:

·     An update from Duncan Scott on the final arrangements for the next NCVO/VSSN Researching the Voluntary Sector Conference at the University of Warwick (13-14 September 2006).

·     A discussion on the longer term growth and sustainability of VSSN, introduced by Gareth Morgan in his capacity as VSSN Treasurer. He reported that the Steering Group felt that VSSN on a purely voluntary-led basis, and asked for members von the introduction of a subscription which might be the first step in securing the funding needed for a part-time VSSN executive officer (the membership had been consulted on this by e-mail). No formal vote was taken, but those who spoke were general supportive of this step.

A buffet lunch organised by the SHU Catering Services in an adjacent room provided extensive networking opportunities, and many who were at their first VSSN event were introduced to longer standing people in the Network.

The afternoon session was chaired by Angela Ellis-Paine (VSSN Secretary, based at the Institute of Volunteering Research, London). It began with a paper by Morrison Muleri a part-time PhD student with the SHU CVSR – based at the Commonwealth Secretariat, London) on Issues in Measurement of Performance of NGOs.

Morrison outlined his research which is concerned with how Northern NGOs (NNGOs) – e.g. overseas development charities – assess the financial management and performance of southern NGOs (SNGOs). He reported on fieldwork with eight SNGOs (four in Kenya and four in India) and three UK-based NNGOs which ranged across issues of governance, financial management, fraud, acceptance of “kickbacks” and similar issues.

The next paper was presented in the form of a dramatic dialogue between Helen Cameron (Oxford Brookes) and Daniel King (University of Manchester) on the subject Writing Critical Management Studies into the Voluntary Sector. Daniel and Helen had established a form of e-liaison under which Daniel’s insights from the field of critical management studies were applied to some specific scenarios Helen identified in the voluntary sector. Helen presented an account of a homeless man presenting at the Salvation Army church in Oxford, where she was on the door one Sunday, as an example of such a scenario, and Daniel offered a critical management discourse critique of this, highlighting the political issues involved from the dimensions of power, control and identity formation.

Most of those present were new to the field of critical management studies, and from the questions it seemed some were struggling a little to understand the full impact of this way of looking at the voluntary sector! But it provided a very stimulating alternative to the usual format of VSSN papers.

The final paper was by Nick Croft a full-time PhD student with the SHU CVSR who had moved into doctoral studies following early retirement from a career as a civil servant. Speaking on Trust Board Events: A Model from Empirical Evidence, Nick outlined his research on governance issues in voluntary sector healthcare organisations – focusing specifically on hospices – to look at the individual and collective dynamics in charity trusteeship. His initial phase of research involved an extended period as a “full participant” in a trustee role in the hospice sector, and he was now testing his theories in a second phase of in depth interviews with stakeholders in a number of other hospices – in both cases using ground theory as the main method of analysis.

Overall the day provided an insight into five quite separate angles of voluntary sector research but with many interesting links which emerged in questions. All five papers were comprehensively prepared with written papers or summaries provided on the day. Following the main seminar, the VSSN Steering Group (trustees) met.

The next VSSN seminar was confirmed for Wednesday 29 November 2006 at Glasgow Caledonian University.

Faith as Social Capital: Connecting or Dividing; Dr Rob Furbey (SHU: CVSR and Principal Lecturer, Faculty of Development & Society)

• How far is this faith in ‘Faith’ justified?
• How far should Faith communities comply with government?
• What can Faith organisations and their members contribute to building bridges and forging links beyond their own memberships?

• Faith communities contribute substantial and distinctive bridging and linking social capital. But they confront both external obstacles and the need for internal change and development.
• Living close to people of diverse Faiths is an increasingly common experience. Faith communities are developing local, regional and national frameworks which connect Faiths with each other and with secular organisations. But these contexts for engagement are not always visible or recognised so that their full potential for mutual understanding and community development is not realised.
• The physical capital of Faith buildings can be significant for the development of social capital. They are places where people can cross boundaries, meet others, share activities and build trust. But the use of Faith buildings can be a source of conflict and the use of premises for wider communal use may be constrained by their sacred status or poor amenity.
• Faith communities can be facilitative 'spaces' for building bridges and making links with others. They can form contexts for new forms of association; engender trust and confidence in shared community initiatives; and motivate particular approaches to questions of social justice, human dignity and human need. But power inequalities within Faith communities can also inhibit the development of social capital, particularly through the subordination of women and young people.
• The Faith contribution to social capital through participation in formal governance is substantial, although individual Faith organisations vary in their capacity and commitment. Faith groups often have distinctive priorities, timescales and styles of working and bring a critical voice to the table, informed and motivated by their beliefs and their commitment to particular neighbourhoods.
• Many Faith communities and their members contribute to social capital through participation in a wider public domain, beyond the structures of statutory governance. Faith, worship and the development of people within Faith organisations can foster qualities and skills essential for civic engagement. This external networking and action is usually undertaken by a relatively small number of Faith group members, but their achievements are often substantial.

Operating within Constraints: Successful Black Community Organisations and European Structural Funds in Liverpool and Manchester; Dr William Ackah (Birkbeck, University of London)

This paper identifies how a small group of black community organisations in Liverpool and Manchester were able to successfully access European Structural Funds in the programme period 1994-1999. In spite of very restrictive policy environments operating in both conurbations. (policy environments that were not conducive to black voluntary sector organisations) A few were able to navigate their way through the processes and successfully obtain the funding.

Success was due in part to the skills and commitment of the individuals working in the black organisations. Their dynamism it is argued has been underplayed in academic literature on ‘race’ and social policy/politics in Britain. Success was also due to the nature of the policy process and the networks that surrounded it in both cities, which it is argued, led to distorted relationships between some black voluntary sector organisations and some larger public and private sector providers of services.

The paper identifies amongst the key ingredients that can account for black success in the Structural Funds process as those of: knowledge of the process, partnership working, flexible use of racialised identities and having an appropriate client base. These factors in accounting for success operated in complex ways. With some groups demonstrating more agency and independence of action and thought in obtaining Structural Funds than others. >

In practical terms this meant that some black organisations, were pro-active in the policy environment, employing flexible identities, good negotiating skills and utilising good public documentation to convince decision makers to grant them Structural Funds. Whereas other organisations had weak organisational structures, poor negotiating skills, but had the right kind of clients using their services. This is what attracted larger partners in the form of colleges and training providers who wanted additional beneficiary numbers from deprived neighbourhoods and minority communities. They therefore assisted the smaller black organisations to access the funds.

The paper argues that the patterns identified in accounting for black success in relation to Structural Funds calls for a reassessment of how black organisations are viewed in some mainstream policy environments. It needs to be recognised that there is a wide range of black actor and activity in operation even in very restrictive policy environments. The diversity of black organisations is often obscured by policy environments, which equates black community and voluntary sector activity with issues of ‘race’ and racism. With many mainstream policy networks dealing with ‘urban’ issues believing that black organisations have little to contribute outside of issues related to ‘race’. The paper argues that this view of black organisations is monolithic and static and needs to be revised to account for differences within the black voluntary and community sector.

Issues in Measurement of Performance of NGOs: Morrison Muleri (SHU CVSR PhD Student and Commonwealth Secretariat)

Alleviation of poverty and distress has been at the forefront of priorities that have preoccupied NGOs all over the world for a long time. By its gigantic and cross cutting nature tackling the problem involves a multitude of stakeholders who form extensive coalitions across nations. Such complex coalitions give rise to new problems that have to be identified and remedied from time to time. In 1997 BOND (British Overseas NGOs for Development); the UK’s broadest network of voluntary organizations working in international development, commissioned a working group[1] to review relationship between Northern NGOs (NNGOs), Southern NGOs (SNGOs) and civil society. The Group’s terms of reference exposed plethora of difficult relationships (www.bond.org.uk/wgroups/civils/).

Such a state of affairs should be of concern. In 2002 The Economist estimated that NGOs have surpassed the World Bank in amount of funds disbursed. They, at the same time, now represent “…$1.1 trillion industry, employing 19 million fully paid employees and representing the world’s eighth largest economy” (John Hopkins, 1999). Examination of the sector’s complex maze of aid chain shows that NNGOs contribute about 90% of revenue to SNGOs. Consequently, NNGOs regularly measure performance of and rank SNGOs in the wider emerging market place of NGOs (Fowler, 1997).

Whereas many are alarmed by the social injustice poverty and suffering portend and are willing to play a positive part there are still teething problems in the conduit through which resources are channeled. This undermines impact on poverty. One of such channels (the taxpayer – government – aid agency – NNGO – SNGO – CBO – Beneficiaries) has grown rapidly in the past to top them all. With the first four parties therein situated in the North, NNGOs offer them important interface with Southern organizations. NNGOs have to select which SNGOs to fund and expectedly do so based on need and performance of such SNGOs.

This paper presents an ongoing research on the role of financial governance in NGO performance and impact on funder policies from the perspectives of UK based NNGOs that fund SNGOs in East Africa and South Asia. The paper presents the research design, methodology, analytical framework and interim findings from field research conducted in Kenya and India and a telephone survey conducted in the UK; and invites debates and contributions to strengthen work done and to inform the next stage of the research. The research is undertaken in partial fulfillment of PhD course of study through the Centre for Voluntary Sector Research (CVSR) of Sheffield Hallam University where the author is a fourth year student. It is expected that empirical findings from this research can help improve existing performance measurement frameworks.[2].

The research seeks to build on the work done by various researchers, academicians and practicing managers on various aspects of the charity sector. Many experts agree that by virtue of the tremendous growth of the voluntary sector more attention needs to be put into research into various problems that could hinder the sector from efficient delivery of services (NCVO, 2005; Baring Foundation, 2004; Morgan, 2002; Katz, 1999, Fowler, 1997; Wise, 1995; Friedman, 1980).

Findings from the field research highlight five key themes namely: sector regulation and board motivation; corruption and financial mismanagement; self regulation and accreditation; funding and inter-sectoral partnerships; and development of trust.

The research indicates that partnership between NNGOs and SNGOs is rather a misplaced concept and instead trust develops organically. There are key identifiable areas upon which NNGOs measure performance of SNGOs although the weighting of these issues varies. Similarly, SNGOs have adapted their own perception of performance and have progressed from self-regulatory systems to self-accreditation systems so as to eliminate “bogus” NGOs. Contexts and regulatory framework, though essential, are different and this is reflected in partnerships (between the 1st, 2nd and 3rd sector), funding, financial management and control and motivation for board service. The vice of corruption and financial mismanagement was detected in all the three countries although in varying forms and proportions. Whereas SNGOs in East Africa have a lot to learn from SNGOs in South Asia and both can learn a lot from NNGOs in the UK; such a benchmark UK situation is itself changing rapidly. Some of these are emerging challenges that the sector has to deal with in order to raise its game.

Writing Critical Management Studies into the Voluntary Sector: Dr Helen Cameron (Oxford Brookes University) & Daniel King (University of Manchester)

The Voluntary Community Sector (VCS) has emerged to be one of the new areas of political and social consensus within the UK. Both main political parties have recently stressed their support for the growth of the sector and the vitality of local capacity building. Voluntary sector therefore is almost universal acceptance as a “good thing”, a vehicle to produce a more equal, democratic and participative society. The VCS is widely seen as having a unique and almost unquestioned role in helping individuals and communities solve their own problems and producing a better society.

To help meet this need, the voluntary sector literature, within both practitioner and academic journals and government documentation, is increasingly stressing the need for the VCS to have better management practices and to become more accountable. This demand has been enhanced by the fact that the VCS now play a larger role in the delivery of services and is the recipient of substantially more funds leading to many to call for the professionalization of the sector.

The need for better management is therefore at the heart of the changes occurring within the VCS. As the VCO’s increasingly are required to bid for funds and demonstrate their efficiency and effectiveness, there is an implicit need for better organizational mechanism and processes. The voluntary sector has accepted and indeed welcomed this call to improve its management practices as it is believes it is a mechanism to be able to more effective tool to positively change the lives of its constituents.

The purpose of this paper is to question the implications of this shift of managerial discourse and to provide a space to critique the assumptions which underlie this move. Within both academic and practitioner literature management is widely treated as a merely functional or instrumental tool to achieve its ends. This paper will take a different perspective. The first half of this paper will write the concern of Critical Management Studies (CMS), a growing radical discipline within management and organizational theory, into the VCS literature. By viewing the concerns of the VCS through the lens of CMS, it will seek to question the underlying assumptions of this technical, rational, neutral and ultimately benign view of management. It will recast management within the voluntary sector as fundamentally a political practice involving power, control and identity formation. Moreover it will rethink quotidian practices such as form filling and fundraising not as benign instrumental practices but as processes which shape the very functioning of the organization. Ultimately this paper calls for the necessity of a sustained critical self-reflective practice, in which the management practices receive as much consideration as the service delivery.

The second half of this paper will reverse this approach and write the VCS into the concerns of CMS. Given the unique position that VCS studies occupies at the crossroads between practitioners, policy makers and academics, this paper will challenge the concerns many CMS scholars have increasingly have about being stuck in the ivory tower. This paper will therefore seek to explore the connections and disconnections between these two academic disciplines and provide a link between their mutual concerns.

Trust Board Events: A Model from Empirical Evidence: Nick Croft (SHU CVSR PhD Student) 

This is a working paper reporting on some elements of emergent theory from a three-year case study at a charitable hospice (‘Somers Park’). The study employed a grounded theory methodology and data collection relied heavily on participant observations from the perspective of the researcher’s position as a close insider. The case study is part of a wider study of non-clinical governance in voluntary sector healthcare. Emergent theory from the Somers Park case study is currently being further developed via case studies at a number of other organisations.

The board of trustees has a key role in ensuring the most effective and efficient running of the organisation and in safeguarding charitable funds. The Charity Commission provide clear guidelines on the respective roles of trustee and manager and there have been many published examples of best practice. A key factor is that a board of trustees is required to work together collectively and may delegate managerial tasks but still retain overall responsibility. However, the situation may appear far more complicated in practice. Whilst there are decisions and actions (events) distinctively appropriate for either managers or the board of trustees there is often a temptation for individual trustees to become too closely involved in management or operational issues. At the other extreme, there is a possibility of the board of trustees becoming marginalized in decision-making on key issues.

Findings and emergent theory from the Somers Park case study supplemented by prior and concurrent contextual experience enable production and development of a theoretical model to explain the potential and effectiveness of a board of trustees. These two principal elements of the model may be briefly explained as follows.

1. A board of trustees is not only made up of a number of individual trustees but is also a sum of their personal characteristics. The blend of this diverse set of characteristics establishes the maximum potential of the board of trustees at a particular point in time. This potential level of performance will vary over time and between different groups. However, this potential may not be achieved and in practice a trust board may perform at a lower level.
2. Within the board of trustees there is a possibility of group cohesion being distorted by informal groupings and uneven distributions of power and influence. Thus the effectiveness of a board is dependent on the extent to which these factors prevent them achieving their collective potential, limited as described above.

The model addresses the two elements above, identifying key parameters and discussing their effect. It also considers the effect of the management team that may serve to enhance or detract from trust board performance.

The paper positions this model in the context of the debate regarding public/voluntary sector healthcare service partnerships and suggests further work to be done on issues of internal control reflecting the distinctive nature of voluntary sector organisations.