Jemma's saved pages [5]

Personalisation, the concept of coproducing services and placing more power in the hands of service users, is in the DNA of many Black and Minority Ethnic voluntary and community sector organisations (BME VCOs). Services have often developed in direct response to the needs of BME communities where these have not been met by mainstream services. Personalisation could therefore provide huge opportunities for BME VCOs to sell their services and to champion an approach where cultural, religious and linguistic needs are met. There is however a risk that the pace of change and uncertainties about how the personalisation agenda will be rolled out may leave BME VCOs behind.

Barriers for the BME voluntary and community sector Many BME VCOs are still struggling to make inroads into block contracting (see Procurement practice) and some may be unaware of the personalisation agenda. With the changing nature of delivery and new legislation, service providers may be unclear over their responsibilities in complying with Equality legislation and there is a risk that where there are specialist providers other providers may not see equality as a priority. Local authorities and Local Strategic Partnerships will have a key role in shaping the personalisation agenda at a local level. It will be important for BME VCOs to have a voice at decision making tables but this has been limited in existing mechanisms (see BME representation in LSPs research).

Personalisation and BME communities Some of the key tools being used to personalise services are likely to pose challenges both for BME communities and BME VCOs. Amongst BME communities there has historically been a low take up of personalised budgets. BME VCOs could have a key role to play in ensuring service users are aware of their options and have appropriate support to use their budgets. They could act as an advocate for service users, for example, where users have taken on unwanted responsibilities or need a route to redress. There is a risk that many BME VCOs will close due to the impact of Procurement practices, the shift away from specialised services (see Meeting Community Needs) and other factors which will reduce supply and choice for services users.

Working differently? Whilst BME VCOs may be used to meeting service user needs, the personalisation agenda is likely to mean working in different ways. A lack of capacity in organisations, particularly around ICT, finance systems and staffing, may limit the ability of BME VCOs to engage in the personalisation agenda without additional funding. The role of local authorities in market-shaping and pump-priming could be a key support mechanism. Marketing of services will become more important, requiring new skills and a culture shift in many organisations. It will be increasingly important for BME VCOs providing services to ensure visibility with the local authority to ensure they are ‘on the list’ that professionals, such as social workers, refer service users to.

The shift of decision making to a more local level has a significant impact on BME voluntary and community organisations (VCOs), most of which operate at a local level. Policy positions that would previously have been set out by national Government are increasingly being set out at a local level. For instance, in Community and Local Government’s (CLG) response to the Cohesion Guidance for Funders Consultation they concluded that:

It is clear that there is often a delicate call to be made about single group funding. Based on the evidence we have received, we consider that it is only local leaders who can properly understand the context, assess the local circumstances, and be in a position to make a truly informed choice. Therefore we have concluded that guidelines from central government are not the way forward.

Whilst this approach provides an opportunity for decisions to take into account the local situation, some BME VCOs fear that the lack of a clear national steer could send out confused messages to local decision makers. There is also concern that with less direction from national government, disparities in how effectively race equality is promoted and race inequality tackled may emerge between local areas.

To a large extent the success of decision making at a local level will depend on how well local decision makers are able to engage with all communities. Many BME VCOs are led by local residents and often enjoy the trust and confidence of communities that others consider hard to reach. This gives them a strong insight into the needs and barriers faced by the communities they work with.

Despite this BME VCOs have historically faced barriers to effective engagement with local decision makers. For example, some BME VCOs have reported that generic VCOs sit on LSPs but do not reflect their views and concerns, and research (BTEG and Urban Forum, 2007, Participation and Local Strategic Partnerships) has found that less than one third (32%) of LSPs had set aside places for representatives from ethnic minorities. However new mechanisms for local engagement, such as the Duty to Involve, which requires Local Authorities to inform, consult and involve local citizens in decision making (see Urban Forum Quick Guide), may provide new opportunities for BME VCOs to influence policy.

Of the 17,000 organisations that make up the BME voluntary and community sector (VCS), 53% receive their funding from statutory sources (central government (49%); local government (26%); health authority (16%); and EU (9%)). This dependence on Government funding for many organisations means that the impact of public sector cuts is likely to be significant for the BME VCS (see Bridge the Gap: What is known about the BME Third Sector in England, 2007, Voice4Change England).

Research by MiNet, (The Economic Downturn and the Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) Third Sector) focusing on London, found that funding cuts have already been widespread across the VCS as a result of the recession and that this has impacted significantly on London’s specialist services. The report found ‘widespread concern that even if funding is maintained for the third sector it will not reach local BAME groups and will be received by larger organisations that are not connected with the needs of London’s BAME communities’. In addition BME voluntary and community organisations (VCOs) may find themselves responding to the fallout of public service spending cuts if cuts reduce access to services or create a new need for services amongst the communities they work with. MiNet’s research found that despite cuts in funding, BME VCOs were experiencing high increases in the need for their services and that organisations were having to introduce new areas of work such as unemployment counselling and jobs skills training.

The impact of public spending costs is likely to lead to an increased number of BME VCOs closing down. Some may continue to function on a reduced basis, depending on volunteer support. Others may disappear completely. With reduced budgets, Local Authorities may try and improve efficiency by awarded contracts to larger providers that can demonstrate ‘value for money’. This will disadvantage the smaller, more specialised providers that characterise the BME VCS.

However Voice4Change England research (Stories of Resilience) has also identified that faced with public spending cuts, BME VCOs have developed resilience by: improving efficiency, reducing waste, re-structuring staffing, and increasing the engagement of volunteers. Others have formed consortia and partnerships to spread risks and resources and to benefit from economies of scale. There has also been a trend for community led initiatives, with a greater focus on re-cycling and drawing income streams from trading in existing and new markets.

Further reading: see Policy Studies Institute and Voice4Change England research on Cohesion in Bradford: disadvantage, solidarity and recession

Many Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) voluntary and community organisations (VCOs) meet the needs of BME communities by providing community specific services. However, under the policy shift away from diversity and multiculturalism this role has been challenged.

For example, Cohesion Guidance for Funders published in 2008 by Communities and Local Government was based on the premise that funders award single group funds as ‘the exception rather than the rule’ as recommended by the Commission on Integration and Cohesion’s report Our Shared Future. Although these proposals were withdrawn, following campaigning from BME and other equality VCOs, specialist service providers working with targeted communities are increasingly being asked to reach all communities.

A move away from the provision of specialist services could lead to a marginalisation of communities as cultural, religious and linguistic (ethnic, cultural and religious diversity) needs are not met. Some BME VCOs may broaden their services to meet the needs of all communities but for others this may not make best use of their expertise and may challenge their charitable and/or organisational objectives. Others may work collaboratively with other organisations to deliver services in partnership, with each organisation drawing on their organisational expertise (Collaborative working).

It is also likely that in the current environment specialist service providers will need to demonstrate clearly the need for their service (expectations of evidence). There is a risk that the weight of higher accountability will fall more heavily on specialist service providers, including BME VCOs, to justify their existence, than on mainstream service providers to demonstrate how they are reaching all communities.

In the past, Black and Minority Ethnic voluntary and community sector organisations (VCOs) have typically relied on grant funding to support the delivery of services to diverse communities. However in the shift towards commissioning many have found it increasingly difficult to generate income as grant funding is gradually reduced and is replaced by competitive commissioning processes.

Like many small organisations, BME VCOs face barriers to procurement and commissioning around capacity, knowledge and skills. However research has also shown some distinct concerns including:

· Limited understanding of the BME voluntary and community sector (VCS) and the communities it works with by commissioners.

· Institutional racism within public sector organisations.

· Perceived lack of trust amongst commissioners of BME VCOs (trust in charities)

· Lack of engagement with the early stages of the commissioning process.

Some contracts also require organisations to work with all communities rather than specific target groups. Many BME VCOs feel that this fails to recognise the role and value of targeted services and challenges their independence to set their own mission and objectives. It can be seen as part of a wider policy shift away from diversity and multiculturalism towards integration and cohesion (Policies on multiculturalism and social cohesion).

BME VCOs may see opportunities to work with other equality and wider VCOs or to provide advice on service delivery. The importance of equality has been recognised for instance in the Equalities day training as part of the National Programme for Third Sector Commissioning. In areas where equality is further embedded into commissioning and procurement processes we may see an increase in BME VCOs winning contracts. Where this does not take place we are likely to see increasing numbers of BME VCOs closing as sources of income dry up. Other BME VCOs may form consortia with other VCOs and private sector organisations to bid for contracts collaboratively (Collaborative working). The success of these for the BME VCS may depend on the extent to which their engagement is meaningful and not just a tick box exercise.