Imagine if you will that you’re running a volunteer brokerage scheme. You’re funded by a statutory authority to place individuals into volunteering opportunities. You’re paid on a per head basis, so you submit monthly invoices for those volunteers placed. You’re also able to claim for your volunteer’s travel and subsistence, up to a set amount, and this also goes on your monthly invoice. Payment is fairly simple, the local authority takes it on trust that your claims are legit, occasionally they might query something but you’re always able to justify your costs. Now imagine that after a few years of operating on this basis, the statutory authority decides to audit you. They send in a team of pencil pushers that go through your claims for the last three years and, lo and behold, their investigation throws up a number of anomalies. You’ve been double claiming for a number of volunteers, you’ve claimed for travel and subsistence where there are no corresponding receipts, and some of the volunteers claimed for have died or since moved on; the amount after three years runs into thousands. Your excuses are lame, it was an oversight, it was the volunteer’s fault, the finance officer had a breakdown, but the fact is you’ve made claims on public money for costs that were either inflated or in some cases did not even exist. Naughty, naughty.
So what would happen if this were true? Well I imagine the authority in question would come down on you like a ton of bricks. Chances are your trustee board would fire you, as the responsible officer, for gross misconduct and your organisation (and possibly you depending on what you did with the money) would probably be sued and steps taken to recover the funds. The charity may even have to be closed down, and at the very least it would be prevented from running similar projects in the future. All a big mess, but at least those involved would have been punished and steps taken to prevent this from happening again. And rightly so. This is public money and theft of this kind is theft against us all and needs to be dealt with.
So as I was watching Sir John Butterfield, the Conservative MP for Bournmouth West, try and justify to Kirsty Young the other night why it was fine for him to use his MP’s expenses to fund a number of building extensions to his ‘second home’ in Woking, including one to accommodate his servants quarters, I couldn’t help but think why is he, along with the many other MPs who have made similar outlandish claims, not being prosecuted let alone still allowed to keep his job? And why do this in the first place? £65k is a more than decent salary for a public servant that gets almost half the year off and only manages a small team of people.
I’m incensed by the whole MP expenses debacle. In a climate where everyone is having to tighten their belts, where businesses and third sector groups are having to cut back or close down, it sickens me to see public servants abuse their position in such a blatant way. The fact that they were not technically breaking the rules in some cases simply does not wash with me. Even if the expenses office passed their claims the fact was they were claiming for things that were clearly not justifiable in their line of work and they must have known this. As the fictional example above demonstrates, if this were in any other area of publicly funded life, those concerned would be removed from their jobs pretty quickly and no amount of ‘I made a mistake’ or ‘it was an accounting error’ would make any difference. Such statements just smack of incompetence and reiterate the justification for their swift removal.
Given that many voluntary projects cannot even afford to pay basic expenses for volunteers and those that do will often come under close scrutiny by their funders to ensure they are spending only what is absolutely necessary, not to mention the DWP constantly on the lookout for a reason to cut benefits for unemployed volunteers, this whole debacle smacks of double standards from the powers that be who impose such heavy sanctions on the rest of us. For me the biggest crime of all is the aftermath it will bring of increased voter apathy and the real risk that extremist parties will make significant gains as the populace seeks to place their vote elsewhere.
Perhaps those MPs that have been caught with their trousers down should forgo their summer recess and be made to do some community service? Given how the government is looking to introduce enforced service for teenagers this seems the least they could do and would set a positive example. I reckon a day’s service for every misclaimed pound should do the trick, who knows we could end up with a whole new national ‘force for good’, all we need is a good catchy name, ideas anyone?
Posted by Jamie Thomas
Friday 29 May 2009
Friday 15 May 2009
The Compact – Without Teeth It Can’t Bite the Hands that Feed Us
It’s been an interesting few weeks in the volunteering world. We’ve seen the government announce that all teenagers will be made to ‘serve’ their community – I'm still wondering what will happen to those young people that fail to show up or complete the programme? I have visions of voluntary sector ASBOs, with young people painting community centres dressed in fluorescent clothing so we can all point and laugh at them, along with a national network of ‘vPressGangs’ funded to scour the streets for truants! In addition we’ve also heard that volunteering organisations have had their arms twisted to rush through the new DWP volunteer programme for the unemployed, despite its obvious flaws.
What particularly interested me about the latter was that a ‘senior source who preferred not to be named’ described the process of negotiating the DWP scheme as ‘having a gun held to the head’. One can only assume that the source quoted desired anonymity for fear of having their participation revoked by funders for daring to criticise them in public. And understandably so, for even in this day and age – more than a decade since the Compact, the Government’s holy grail of third sector relations was launched – it appears we are still working in an environment where charities and voluntary organisations feel unable to challenge statutory funders for fear of having their proverbial throats cut.
Following my last blog entry ('vDaft') I received a lot of emails from organisations across the country thanking me for speaking out on this issue. The strength of feeling and apparent pent up frustration from both large and small organisations, who seem unable to speak publicly about their experiences of this funder both shocked and saddened me.
But they're not alone. Talking to a regional infrastructure body recently I was told how members were increasingly being forced to maintain levels of service despite ongoing cuts, from local authority funders who were clearly abusing their position and effectively gagging charities who felt unable to speak out for fear of losing all of their funding. Faced with the choice of no funding or having something that at least keeps your doors open, it’s no surprise that many organisations will opt for the latter and just quietly get on with it.
I also spoke to a national charity who informed me of a disagreement they’d had with a government body were they'd questioned the way a funded programme was being delivered. The intention was to try and shift the focus of the project to ensure it had the best potential success, but their pleas fell on deaf earss and the subsequent row saw their funding being cut when it came up for review – of course the funder in question refused to admit that their decision had anything to do with said disagreement. The charity quite rightly referred the matter to the Compact Commission – and as I understand their case has since sat with them without any further action.
I was one of the many people that applauded the Compact when it was first announced. Aside from the somewhat ambiguous name – ‘Small and densely packed’ is a definition that springs to mind, although I suspect they were leaning towards ‘To form or make close by union’ – I considered the concept sound even though the first document appeared a tad vague. But most of the intentions were well meant, not least providing an outlet for the third sector to seek recourse should they face unfair treatment by a statutory funder. Surely this above all should be the cornerstone to such an initiative? After all where else can we go for help when funders decide to go bad? Not to the variety of infrastructure and membership bodies that exist as most of them are in the same boat, often totally reliant on government funds and therefore not in a position to challenge government with confidence on behalf of their constituents.
What is apparent is that many local authorities are actively using the Compact as a model by which to engage with and involve the third sector in the planning and development of services. This is of course a good thing and there is evidence that links observance to the Compact's code with a more active third sector. But without having the ability to formally chastise funders that decide to abuse their positions it is really no more than a voluntary code of conduct to which statutory authorities can ultimately opt out of should they wish. We need more than this. Maybe we should introduce an eBay style ‘star rating’ mechanism on the forthcoming grants portal that the Office of Third Sector is building. At least fundees could be warned by others about particular funders and grant managers and have some idea of what they might be getting themselves into!
With the recent announcement that the Compact will not receive any statutory powers to enforce its code, it seems unlikely that the third sector can rely upon it in the longer term to take action on their behalf in real times of need. Although I’m all for keeping bureaucracy to a minimum I think this decision is short sighted. We’ve all seen how voluntary codes can be ignored – the banks are a case in point – and I believe we must have a Compact that has the teeth to bite back on our behalf when we need it to.
Jamie Thomas is CEO of Red Foundation and writes in a personal capacity
What particularly interested me about the latter was that a ‘senior source who preferred not to be named’ described the process of negotiating the DWP scheme as ‘having a gun held to the head’. One can only assume that the source quoted desired anonymity for fear of having their participation revoked by funders for daring to criticise them in public. And understandably so, for even in this day and age – more than a decade since the Compact, the Government’s holy grail of third sector relations was launched – it appears we are still working in an environment where charities and voluntary organisations feel unable to challenge statutory funders for fear of having their proverbial throats cut.
Following my last blog entry ('vDaft') I received a lot of emails from organisations across the country thanking me for speaking out on this issue. The strength of feeling and apparent pent up frustration from both large and small organisations, who seem unable to speak publicly about their experiences of this funder both shocked and saddened me.
But they're not alone. Talking to a regional infrastructure body recently I was told how members were increasingly being forced to maintain levels of service despite ongoing cuts, from local authority funders who were clearly abusing their position and effectively gagging charities who felt unable to speak out for fear of losing all of their funding. Faced with the choice of no funding or having something that at least keeps your doors open, it’s no surprise that many organisations will opt for the latter and just quietly get on with it.
I also spoke to a national charity who informed me of a disagreement they’d had with a government body were they'd questioned the way a funded programme was being delivered. The intention was to try and shift the focus of the project to ensure it had the best potential success, but their pleas fell on deaf earss and the subsequent row saw their funding being cut when it came up for review – of course the funder in question refused to admit that their decision had anything to do with said disagreement. The charity quite rightly referred the matter to the Compact Commission – and as I understand their case has since sat with them without any further action.
I was one of the many people that applauded the Compact when it was first announced. Aside from the somewhat ambiguous name – ‘Small and densely packed’ is a definition that springs to mind, although I suspect they were leaning towards ‘To form or make close by union’ – I considered the concept sound even though the first document appeared a tad vague. But most of the intentions were well meant, not least providing an outlet for the third sector to seek recourse should they face unfair treatment by a statutory funder. Surely this above all should be the cornerstone to such an initiative? After all where else can we go for help when funders decide to go bad? Not to the variety of infrastructure and membership bodies that exist as most of them are in the same boat, often totally reliant on government funds and therefore not in a position to challenge government with confidence on behalf of their constituents.
What is apparent is that many local authorities are actively using the Compact as a model by which to engage with and involve the third sector in the planning and development of services. This is of course a good thing and there is evidence that links observance to the Compact's code with a more active third sector. But without having the ability to formally chastise funders that decide to abuse their positions it is really no more than a voluntary code of conduct to which statutory authorities can ultimately opt out of should they wish. We need more than this. Maybe we should introduce an eBay style ‘star rating’ mechanism on the forthcoming grants portal that the Office of Third Sector is building. At least fundees could be warned by others about particular funders and grant managers and have some idea of what they might be getting themselves into!
With the recent announcement that the Compact will not receive any statutory powers to enforce its code, it seems unlikely that the third sector can rely upon it in the longer term to take action on their behalf in real times of need. Although I’m all for keeping bureaucracy to a minimum I think this decision is short sighted. We’ve all seen how voluntary codes can be ignored – the banks are a case in point – and I believe we must have a Compact that has the teeth to bite back on our behalf when we need it to.
Jamie Thomas is CEO of Red Foundation and writes in a personal capacity
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
