Presented as a Literature review to The Nottingham Trent University as part of The CCETSW approved Diploma in Social Work, in July 1999, by Mark Scorfield : 48% -

References

Introduction

The voluntary sector has always had an important part to play in leading and implementing innovative ideas within personal social services.The Modernising Social Services white paper (1999) sets out key issues that should be taken into account in establishing effective partnerships between the voluntary sector and social services which will be implemented via a national compact of relations. In this assignment , I intend to examine and discuss important issues from across the years that have influenced partnerships between statutory and voluntary agencies and question the applicability of theory and governmental guidelines within todays social services rhetoric of 'Best Value'. As a practical example of effective partnership, I will review european implementation of direct payments to service users with disabilities in comparison with recent developments in the U.K. following The Direct Payments Act (1996).

I will begin by presenting a brief history drawn from Deakin (1995)

It is arguable that the post-war role of the voluntary sector has always been supplementary state provision. In 1945 as part of the Nuffield Social Reconstruction Survey, G.D.H. Cole envisaged the voluntary sector rising in parallel with state formations: a professional democratic voluntarism in childcare,family welfare,youth-work,adult education , advice and information,shared with the state via the bridge of casework. Though the voluntary sector was held in regard during wartime efforts, it became marginalised under new legislation of The National Assistance Act and the NHS Act (both 1948). Its role thus developed in distinct and unique areas from the state. In the formation of the new welfare state, the voluntary sector was championed by Herbert Morrison as:

"The pioneers that point the way and the critics who keep us up to mark"

(Deakin,1995,p43)

A report from Beveridge in 1948: "Voluntary action", suggested an independent minister-guardian to allocate money to the voluntary sector "where departmental interest is unlikely" and legislation to combat discrimination of friendly societies whose money had been withdrawn. He argued:

"The business motive is a good servant but a bad master and a society that gives itself up to the dominance of the business motive is a bad society...we do not put first things first in putting ourselves first"

(Beveridge,1948, in Deakin,1995,p322). This report was buried, though Beveridge was credited by some as a liberal collectivist looking for a 'buffer-zone' between the state and market where voluntary action can take place.

Between the forties and sixties , the voluntary sector existed as a junior partner to the state. During the sixties it expanded as:

"the direct outcome of startling deficiencies in existing services",e.g. for commonwealth immigrants. It was at this time that new partnership policies grew , notably the Aves committee of 1969 which recomended an agency to promote voluntary action. Thus , in tandem with the Seebohm report(1968) which impelled the creation of local authority social service departments in 1970, the Voluntary Services Unit was set up, in 1972 as a result of pressure from both The Seebohm report and the Aves commitee.

In 1978 , the Wolfenden Commitee identified informal,state,commercial and voluntary areas as being vitally important for the future. Similarly to Beveridges report thirty years earlier(his concept of a buffer-zone), they argued:

"In the space between the loosely structured informal system and the more strictly organised statutory system,people can use the medium of the voluntary organisation to join with others in devising means to meet their own needs or those of others they wish to help"

(The wolfenden Commitee,1978 inDeakin,1995,p54)

Wolfenden criticised the statutory sector for its monopolistic buerocracy and diminished acountability and advocated coordination of the voluntary sector through direct funding of local developmental agencies. But,political crises of the time after the oil-price shock and the following recession, coupled with a steady rise in unemployment, lead to further cuts. In 1979, Gladstone(National Council Voluntary Organisations) argued for 'trickle up' politics: encouraging formation of a community sector with self help and community development groups,mutual aid , cooperatives etc. , a "radical welfare pluralism" which would operate as a 'third' way not operated by the state or business.There was a successful pilot scheme. It was thus some thirty years after Beveridge's initial vision that organised local community action groups began under an independant umbrella organisation.

Cuts continued throughout the eighties under a Conservative administration. The voluntary sector indirectly benefited from municipilist socialist authorities,notably the Greater London Council.. Voluntary organisations were funded with pre-conditions attached,e.g. on employment policy. Black and other minority groups benefitted from these schemes .I will consider further the process of ideological selectivity in defining the boundaries that the voluntary sector operates within today.

With capping and the introduction of the Audit Commmision , several organisations folded. New emphases was placed on managerialism , market values and individual responsibility. In 1987,the contract culture began to develop with attitudes evolving in paralell with a dependency culture ethos from the thatcher administration.

"To the extent that there has been a consistent theme in government attitudes towards the voluntary sector it has been the utility of voluntary provision in reducing the costs of provision - 'value for money' , in 1980's terms"

(Deakin,1995,p64)

The findings of the Wolfenden Comitee in 1978 were that councils with a higher proportion of labour councillors and in inner city areas made better use of the voluntary sector. This was also apparent in municipalist socialist authorities of the eighties.More recently, in a survey of local authority payments to the voluntary sector in 1995-1996 , Mocroft(1997) found particularly that:

"Frequently representatives of the black and ethnic minority voluntary sector claim that the sector is relatively under-funded; perhaps this is reflected in the appparent lack of attention to the issues that these responses[from 58% response rate of all local authorities] reveal" (Mocroft,I.,1997,p50)

Leech and Wilson(1998) have carried out research comparable to The Wolfenden commitees findings, using a sample of 22 local authorities(LA) and found that LA's are increasingly attentive to the potential contribution of voluntary groups to their own objectives:

"Local Authorities are now approaching relationships with the voluntary sector in a more contractual way. This does not sit happily with small voluntary groups and the traditional voluntary sector roles of advocacy research and campaigning"

(Leach,S.&Wilson,D.,1998,p14)

They categorise differences in attitude of local authorities in three broad camps:

Instrumentalist/value for money : the voluntary sector are additional 'agencies' to be drawn upon offering a cheaper alternative to local authority services Participative democratic ethos: a value in the existence of the organisation with the service being secondary to the local authority. These councils value community representation and development. Traditionalist/incremental : support given to organisation by history or precedence with funding arbitrated yearly dependent on take-up and local authority budget Their research confirms that there still remains a significant difference in spending per head, in terms of the political control of the council; with Labour and Liberal councils mostly in the high-medium expenditure brackets(£12 per head) and Conservative councils in low expenditure brackets.(£4 per head) They surmise that spending can be in reflection of 'helpful and unhelpful groups'. There are numerous points to be made at this juncture that are relevant to today's world and are confirmed by other research in the area.

Firstly , the distinction between the role of the voluntary sector (VOLSEC) and statutory provision. The Volsec now largely comprises organisations of the people.In other words, care by the community.These form 67% of today's charities, referred to now as Community Sector Organisations(CSO) (Rochester,1997,p263). Rochester echoes Morrisons early conception in arguing that the best community benefit of these organisations is as:

"advocates,intermediaries,sources of ideas and consultees" (Ibid,1997,p266). Although the volsec comprises much more, e.g., the larger organisations co-opted as part of a mixed economy of care, I intend to focus mainly on the role of CSOs in this assignment.

In the past,Rochester argues, political consultation measures have not included these organisations.(though this is to be addressed in todays compact of relations by a unique code of practice for C.S.O.)

The state, by comparison, comprises organisations for the people and care in the community . Beresford (1999) , addressing the need for user involvement in implementation of the white paper(1999), argues that paternalism ,control and the dependency perspective have dominated social services provision in the past.

In this examination of historical development, political bias in allocation of funding is startingly apparent. The main question that arises, is how independent can organisations be that are dependent on funding from the statutory sector? NCVO point to:

"Difficulties...experienced when a local voluntary organisation criticises the polices and practices of the local authority from which it receives the funds"

(NCVO,1981,p35)

The direct ideological selectivity of Greater London Council in the eighties is an open example of how local politics can impinge positively for CSOs, as the bias in implementation measures was for social gain i.e, a participative democratic approach and thus care by the community.

Political selectivity still exists now, as Leech and Wilson(1998) have argued, though it is not so clearly visible and is targeted via more prudent grant giving than in the past and via service level agreements that regulate volsec functions.

When new partnership legislation and policy reaches service level, it's implementation can be blurred. Marsh and Fisher(1992) , examining a task-centred approach to partnership between workers and users in area teams, found a 'We Do All That Allready' (DATA effect) which contributes to resistance to change. They do not pathologise workers , rather show via a research pilot, the objective measurement scales that a task-centred approach offers .

In teams where this 'yardstick' for development is visible , change is quicker, more likely and more easily accepted. Connely (1990),arguing for race on the agenda in the voluntary sector, corroborates this view:

"One of the clearest lessons of local authority experience over the past decade is that what is decided at policy levels may end there, may never be reflected in day-to-day functioning unless attention is paid to details of implementation"

(Connely,N,1990,p43)

I will now examine new policy in a little more depth , considering practical solutions within todays climate.

What is Best Value?

Best Value(BV) is defined by the Modernising Social Services White Paper(1999) as:

" a duty to deliver services to clear standards - covering both quality and cost - by the most effective, economic and efficient means available. The aim of the Best Value process is to secure continuous improvements in performance, and to deliver services which bear comparison to the best."

(White Paper,1999,para 7.14)

Considering this whilst I did my reading , I decided to examine each and every article for themes of both value and quality. By value , I am referring solely to monetary cost and by quality to the quality of service for the user as measured by their involvement and/or satisfaction.

I question the marriage of 'effective' with 'economic' in providing a quality approach; given the history of the volsec as 'value for money'. Research into the applicability of BV in other areas of the public sector supports this potential dichotomy:

"Value sets relating to equality, equity, fairness, citizenship and community need to be prioritised and weighted alongside the private sector justification for lean supply[or other strategy] of increased profit and market advantage.This requires reconsideration of policies,for example...of the community(poor,disabled,elderly): and of procedures relating to the local democratic input to the ordering of values and criteria"

(Erridge,A. & Murray,J.,1998,p83)

They thus argue for a justice component alongside market values.

Fletcher argues that the difficulty of BV lies in the assignation of worth (Value) of one service over another.The policy is strong on 'what' rather than 'how':

"In the end these are political decisions. 'do you want a school, a hospital, a day-centre? This is what it will cost.but you must decide if the benefits outweigh other things. There are no tidy equations to give you cash/benefit comparisons"

(Fletcher,K.,1998,p1)

The lean supply strategy is motivated by Kaizen , a Japanese term for perfect quality. Quality notions in the manufacturing industry, where the ideas originate, relate solely to the quality of product.Thus, they are questionable in the human services , as human relationships are dynamic not static. Hall(1989) feels:

"The further you get from actual private indiustry that makes and sells and gets anything out of the market , the more self-righteous becomes the use of the term 'value for money'"

(Hall,1989,p6)

It is a sentiment I agree with. However , given the Conservative spending plans that this government has inherited , it is a concept that we will have to work with akin to other areas of the public sector. A positive aspect of BV is the consultation possible between LA's as a result of non-competitiive tendering. An online debate is currently taking place at http://www.labvie.co.uk .

The key points highlighted by limited research in this area with regard to social services and BV , are an acknowledgment of:

a necessary user involvement in the implementation of the services a necessary tangible measurement scheme that reflects the needs of local people. Thus, as BV is a combination of instrumentalist and participative democratic notions(see leech and wilson(1998),above), partnerships between local community sector organisations and local authorities may be a way of realising this. Beresford,himself a mental health service user, supports this trickle up perspective:

"Quality standards must not be tied up to provider goals and ways of thinking"

(Bersesford,P.,1999,p23)

Addressing the balance of power

In examining key issues for developing partnership practice in social services , Marsh and fisher(1992):

"Question the status of a 'diagnostic' judgement compared to a 'negotiated' one"

(Ibid ,1992 , p55) .

They found that the former were rated as more 'professional' than the latter , though the latter is just as difficult to acheive.

They argue that good intent should be married with practice outcome measures. Emphases placed on a user-involvement that is readily measurable,they found, leads to further good practice as outcomes are visible by workers.

The practice thus becomes self-sustaining as the community demands equal services to those of their peers. Marsh and Fisher argue for a process of experimentation, refination and experimentation in eliciting user-response to professional actions:

"The process of becoming more partnership orientated is one of progressive approximation to an ideal that is constantly changing"

(Ibid,1992,p59)

It is through this process that social services can meet the actual needs of a community rather than the perceived needs. In order to test the effectiveness of change, they suggest:

"practitioners asking each others' clients for their views (so as to avoid obliging the clients to be 'nice' to their worker),asking external bodies to poll clients or organising meetings of users to listen to their accounts"

(Ibid,1992,p58)

The voluntary sector has a strong role to play in acting as an external 'judge' of social services actions. A certain level of independence is essential in ensuring rights and needs are met. Action research as part of a community care rights project found that independence was greatly valued by service users , partly as users were:

"worried about the negative consequences of complaining about their current services" .

(Coombs,M.,1998,p2 of 7)

It also served to meet the needs of less-assertive users , by preparing them with the information they needed to challenge local service decisions:

"I needed advice on the best way of handling negotiations with the social services over the costs of care. I was helped by being encouraged to be assertive and by having the right facts on which to be assertive"

(in Coombs,M.,1998,p5 of 7)

Alternative organisational models

Inter-disciplinary work , like that of LABVIE (mentioned above) may be another key to success as the voluntary sector undulates and evolves under the pressure of new legislation.

Davies (1994) takes the radical view that the volsec should be regulated by a care corporation which would operate like the housing corporation.She argues that, currently, housing and care packages are sometimes confused due to poor communication. A separate care corporation could liase with the housing corporation. The pro , she argues , is that by ringfencing money related to care ; the role of the volsec as:

"advocate,info-service,befriending agency,constructive critic and pilot of new approaches to services"

(Davies,A.,1994,p2 of 5)

as recognised through history and by the Griffiths report (1988), would be protected.

This kind of relative independence is visible in some european volsec schemes.I shall now examine the community sector approach to Direct Payments in Sweden in contrast with British Direct Payments.

European direct payments schemes function and are regulated by community cooperative groups.STIL , the Stockholm Cooperative for Independent Living argue that:

"Disabled people as consumers of ...public monopoly services have had very little control over which persons are to work for them,at what times and how the tasks are to be carried out. Due to the hierarchical structure and professional orientation of the staff the system cannot respond to individual users needs...women often have to accept assistance by men with bathing and menstrual care"

(Ratzka,1999,p1 of 5)

STIL became established as a cooperative company run by disabled people,their key functions are:

integral role modelling training for payment receivers in employment,organisation and administration peer training and support Direct payments are available in Sweden for those under 65 and who need more than 20 hours of assistance per week: "The amount of the individual users budget to be used for personal assistance is solely based on the number of hours needed and not on the income of a person or the family"

(Ratzka,1999,p2 of 5)

A similar organisation JAG (swedish for 'I') exists for people with learning disabilities, with appointed deputies who are usually family members, coordinating services on their behalf.

By contrast , the direct payments scheme in the U.K. has up till recently relied on third party arrangments to faciltiate direct payments , e.g. self operated care schemes. With the provision of the Direct Payments Act (1996) , payments can be made to the user direct. However , service users as employers hold responsibilities to their employees e.g. on insurance and must maintain stringent records to be accountable to social services. As this is in it's early days , the same types of support networks , as extant in europe are not yet present.

The provision of our community care law and the vestige of 'perverse incentives' means that:

"authorities [are compelled] to contract a percentage of services to the independent sector...they are not user controlled"

(Ratzka,1996,p5 of 10)

British representation at a european seminar on personal assistance , hosted by STIL, commented on the flaws in the new Direct Payments system:

"administrative costs [aren't] covered, there are no set amounts (some payments are very small) and the law is permissive, not mandatory: local authorities are allowed to offer direct payments , but are not compelled to"

(Ratzka,1996,p5 of 10)

Social workers carry out the assessment of hours needed in this country. Regionally, authorities differ in assessments:

"our quality of life is determined by other peoples judgements. We keep having to make the quality/quantity compromise.We have no real entitlements"

(Ratzka,1996,p5 of 10)

Conclusions

These debates of quantity/quality, value/quality are essential to recognise and be realistic about, given the more paternalistic way in which our statutory sector has developed in the u.k. and the dependency perspective; with the stigma this brings , attached to welfare recipients.

The sheer swathes of virgin new legislation make it difficult to yet perceive the whole , however as Beveridge famously commented:

"where there's a will , there's a way"

(Beveridge,anon)

Given lessons from the past of policy that has been blurred by implementation and the direct effect of political bias on real decisions that affect peoples lives, I think it is essential to begin thinking now of the future implications of The White Paper (1999) and Best Value for both workers in social services and service users.Learning from europe and the success of the cooperative ,STIL , I think that cso's could have an important part to play in the development of partnerships related to 'actual' needs. Streeck and Schmitter argue that:

"The achilles heel of community action is that it lacks authoritative means to mobilize resources above and beyond what can be obtained on a voluntary basis."

(Streeck,W.&Schmitter,P.,1998,p238)

New legislation, the first since Community Care , relating to the voluntary sector may provide these means.

The compact of relations between government and the voluntary and community sector in England (1998) will be regulated by codes of conduct. Notably , black organisations and the community sector have independent codes reflecting their distinct needs. Para 12 states that csos will continue to develop relations with local government.

Effective partnerships must listen to and value users , the community sector coalition would seem to be in the right place to assist with 'democratic input' of values as part of BV and to work with social services in local schemes for implementing Direct Payments.