cooperation and collaboration in newham july 2013

7/27/2019 Cooperation and Collaboration in Newham July 2013

1/29

Cooperation and Collaboration:

A report on challenges facing Newham'svoluntary, community and faith sectors

Kevin Blowe | Newham Voluntary Sector Consortium

July 2013


2/29

COOPERATION AND COLLABORATION IN NEWHAM NVSC

FOREWORD: PAUL LESLIE, CHAIR OF NVSC

It gives me great pleasure to present this important report, which sets out the findings ofthe Newham Voluntary Sector Consortium (NVSC) Cooperation and Collaboration Surveyconducted in May and June 2013.

Over many years, NVSC's board and staff have worked with colleagues in the voluntary,community and faith (VCF) sectors to establish an equal place for our organisations withinthe various strategic decision making tables in Newham. We have attended numerousmeetings, forums and consultations in pursuit of a level playing field to articulate ourservice offer, our aims and objectives and our needs. Often there has been very littleforward momentum to show for the considerable amount of time expendedSomething has to change. This report is timely in suggesting local not-for-profit

organisations need to strengthen the relationships between each other, through greatercollaboration and closer cooperation, if we are ever to increase the influence we havewithin local decision-making. Key to its findings are the results of the survey, whichindicate a willingness amongst local groups to explore involvement in networks as a way ofimproving service delivery and strengthening our voice. The survey also offers usefulindicators about potential obstacles to greater participation that we need to collectivelyovercome.

The research for this report also sought the opinions of a number of the organisations wehave worked closely with over the years and inevitably, some have been fairly challenging.NVSC's funding position has been uncertain for some time and it has often been difficult to

meet all the expectations of a large and diverse not-for-profit sector. However, I welcomethe feedback from critical friends, although we may disagree about what was alwaysrealistically achievable, because it helps us to change the way we work in the future.

This feedback is also, hopefully, just the start of the wider discussion about futurecooperation and collaboration within the voluntary, community and faith groups. It wasalways impossible to speak to everyone when conducting research but ideally this reportwill kick-start an on-going debate about how we build a stronger and more sustainablesector.

I believe that through engaging in a process of open and transparent cooperative working

and through employing the principle of Kaizen (continuous improvement), the sector canensure its own future: working to its strengths, learning from its areas of weakness,recognising and preparing for possible threats and grasping the many opportunities thatmay appear on the horizon.NVSC has always sought to support the sector and to champion the work we do, I amconfident this report will enable the sector to continue that work in the short and long term.

Paul LeslieChair, Newham Voluntary Sector Consortium

2


3/29


BACKGROUND

From April 2013, Newham Voluntary Sector Consortium (NVSC) had no secured fundingand was unable to offer the services it had offered in the past. However, NVSC's Board ofTrustees recognised it was still important for Newhams voluntary, community and faithgroups to find ways to articulate the needs of the people we work with. As austeritydeepens, it has become even more vital.

The Board therefore decided to use its limited reserves to try and map out a new approachfor the not-for-profit sector in the borough, based on greater cooperation and collaborationbetween local groups. This would seek to examine the potential for developing newnetworks and partnerships that pool knowledge and skills to influence the way decisionsare made locally.

NVSC employed Kevin Blowe to explore whether local groups are interested in

participating in networks that are specific to their area of work, what new networks theywant to see developed and how they should meet and communicate.

There are two elements to this initial mapping exercise: an online survey and a series ofinterviews with local infrastructure organisations.

This report includes

Summary and recommendations for further action 4

A summary of the results of the Cooperation and Collaboration Survey 5An overview of interviews with local infrastructure organisations 8

Considerations for NVSC's Board 14

Considerations for local infrastructure organisations 17

Appendix 1 Cooperation and Collaboration Survey data 19

Appendix 2 Existing Networks and Forums in Newham 24

Appendix 3 Voluntary Sector Infrastructure Partnership Draft Terms of Reference 27

Appendix 4 NVSC's Charter for Effective Networks in Newham 28

3


4/29


SUMMARY / RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER ACTION

Supporting networks

1. Groups that had participated in networks found the experience a positive one, but alsotold us that insufficient time to attend meetings is a major obstacle to participation.Local infrastructure organisations, including NVSC, should seek to make the case forcloser cooperation and greater collaboration and persuade local groups thatparticipating in a network or forum is a good investment of time and energy, especiallywhen the alternative is more intense competition for limited funding and resources (seeChanging the narrative about the future of Newham's not-for-profit sector, page17)

2. There has been insufficient information about networks in the borough. NVSC needs toaddress this by actively promoting the networks set out in Appendix 2 (page 24)

3. Groups told us they are most likely to participate in networks with others who sharetheir interests, that have a work programme focusing on the needs of service users,that are well-organised and that provide opportunities to learn and share. NVSC shouldtherefore champion - and local infrastructure organisations should support the'Charter for Effective Networks in Newham' set out in Appendix 4 (page 28-29)

4. NVSC should examine in more depth the survey data indicating scope for thedevelopment of new collaborative networks in Newham and discuss with localinfrastructure organisations whether they have the capacity to facilitate new networks(page 7-8)

5. Local infrastructure organisations should consider giving a greater commitmentinternally to supporting networks and examine models of good practice to cover thecosts of doing so (page (18)

Clarifying NVSC's role in new structures

6. NVSC needs to position itself as the facilitator for local cooperation and collaborationwithin Newhams not-for-profit sector effectively the network of networks (page 14)

7. NVSC should also discuss the potential role of a 'think-tank' for the not-for-profit sectorin the borough with its local infrastructure partners (page 15)

8. NVSC's board needs to discuss what 'membership' of the organisation means in thecurrent climate (page 16)

Clarifying the role of local infrastructure organisations

9. Local infrastructure groups should consider the draft terms-of-reference for the new'Voluntary Sector Infrastructure Partnership' set out in Appendix 3 (page 27)

10.Local infrastructure organisations should clarify the status of quarterly meetingsinvolving a number of larger voluntary groups and Newham council's ExecutiveDirector for Strategic Commissioning and Communities (page 18)

4


5/29


THE COOPERATION AND COLLABORATION SURVEY

The starting point for gathering data on the prospects for greater cooperation andcollaboration was a belief that it is difficult to complain the voice of the not-for-profit sectoris ignored when collectively the sector is unclear what we want to articulate or who is bestable to represent these messages. It was also based on an assumption that the sector hasmany voices, not one and that those with shared interests and specialist expertiseworking together in networks and forums offer the most credible voices and the mostinformed messages.

It was therefore vital to understand what networks, if any, local groups had alreadyparticipated in and what new networks they wanted to see developed to better articulatetheir voices. We wanted to know if local groups were prepared to work more closelytogether, share their ideas and experiences and participate in networks that try to makethe most of the sector's increasingly limited resources.

An online survey was launched on 7 May 2013 and remained open until the end of June.This asked staff, trustees, management committee members and volunteers of localgroups for their views on:

how voluntary, community and faith groups in Newham cooperate with each other

whether it is possible to develop new collaborative networks of local groups

what obstacles stand in the way of effective partnerships and

how survey participants thought a successful collaboration might work.

In total, there were 87 responses. The questionnaire and detailed information on the

responses to it can be found in Appendix 1, but what the survey results told us was:

Experience of collaboration within networks is overwhelmingly positive

Working with other organisations within networks or forums in Newham has been apositive personal experience for a clear majority of people who responded, with 74%describing it as either 'very positive' or 'mostly positive'.

Cooperation and collaboration is not just about joint funding bids

Survey participants were given a choice of twelve factors likely to contribute to successfulcollaboration between not-for-profit groups in Newham and asked to identify the ones theyfelt were most important. Overall, respondents felt that most were valuable but whenasked what they believed were 'very important' contributing factors to successfulcollaboration, the top three priorities for survey participants were:

Focus on needs of service users (82.35%)

Sharing information (74%)

Shared interests (72.55%)

When both 'very important' and 'fairly important' responses are aggregated, the top three

priorities were as follows:

5


6/29


Sharing information (98%)

Focus on needs of service users (96.08%)

Participation of decision-makers (96.08%)

Perhaps surprisingly, 'developing shared funding bids' was seen as 'very important' by only36.73% of respondents and was the lowest of the aggregated responses. This was alsothe contributor to successful collaboration that gathered the most 'not at all important'responses (12.24%)

Other factors identified by respondents themselves also focused on the quality of servicedelivery: on a need for groups to work together to develop a long-term strategicperspective on their area of work and to support each other rather than competing witheach other, regardless of their size. One suggested that this meant articulating a socialchange agenda that rises above the protection of [individual] interests. Several felt thatcloser collaboration should also seek to encourage more recognition from statutory sector

bodies of the value for the work done by not-for-profit groups and our contribution to thelocal 'civic space'.

The responses suggest that Newham's not-for-profit groups are more likely to lookfavourably at collaborative networks that have a strong focus on addressing specific needsof local people and that involve groups with a shared interest in tackling these needs. Theywant networks that encourage greater sharing of information but they also want action from people within these networks who are able to make decisions. This could potentiallyinclude decision-makers from statutory bodies, although almost 90% feel it is importantthat networks are led by not-for-profit groups.

The obstacles to closer cooperation and greater collaboration are more complex

The top three 'very important' obstacles to successful collaboration were:

There is a lack of information about networks (50%)

We have insufficient time to attend meetings (44.9%)

Networks are led by council / NHS rather than not-for-profit groups (36.1%)

When both 'very important' and 'fairly important' responses are aggregated, the priority ofobstacles is as follows:

We have insufficient time to attend meetings (87.76%)

There is a lack of information about networks (85.42%)

Meetings are held at times we cannot attend (75%)

A significant proportion (60.8%) strongly rejected the idea that other organisations mightjust want to steal our ideas or that poorly facilitated meetings was a issue of concern.

It would appear instead that a lack of sector led collaborative networks or knowledge oftheir existence, coupled with increasing pressures on time and less flexibility about thetimings of meetings, are the major obstacles to closer cooperation and collaboration.

6


7/29


Local groups want well organised 'learning networks' that also provide a voice

When asked for factors that were most likely to influence a group's decision to participatein a network or forum, there was broad agreement on the importance of clarity, effective

organisation and opportunities to learn from others. The top three 'very important'responses were

Knowing what a network or forum's work programme is (79.59%)

The network has a named point of contact (75.51%)

The network is developing a shared voice in our area of interest (75%)

When both 'very important' and 'fairly important' responses are aggregated, the priority ofpotentially positive influences was as follows:

We can learn from other groups who share our interests (95.92%)

The network is developing a shared voice in our area of interest (95.83%)

Knowing what a network or forum's work programme is (93.88%)

There was also strong support for groups using their experience to help lobby for betterservice delivery (89.79%) and to help develop good practice guidance (87.75%). What isperhaps more surprising is that, in spite of raising concerns about insufficient time toattend meetings, there was less support for networks holding discussions by e-mail, withonly 64.59% saying it was an important factor. Groups remain overwhelming positive aboutface to face contact, with 94% of survey respondents saying it was either very or fairlyimportant.

There is scope for the development of new collaborative networks in Newham

Survey participants were asked if they might consider participating in new networks orforums with other groups who shared an interest in a number of specialist areas. Thenumber of responses is set out in the table on page 7 (overleaf). The current, fairly limitednumber of networks and forums for not-for-profit organisations in Newham are set out inAppendix 2 and cover a number of the popular responses such as children & youngpeople and health & social care, suggesting that existing networks are capable ofattracting new members.

Our survey also indicates that in the majority of areas of shared interest, there aresufficient groups that could collaborate more closely if structures exist to facilitate this: insome areas, particularly advocacy, education, employment and social enterprisedevelopment, there may be scope for creating new networks relatively quickly.

With the benefit of hindsight, 'community development' would have benefited from tighterdefinition within the survey it potentially includes, training, skill-sharing, capacity-buildingof groups and community organising. NVSC will explore this further with the groups whoresponded but it does support indicators of a wider interest within the sector, in theabsence of statutory sector financial aid, for collaborating to build our own 'infrastructure'services.

7


8/29


IF NEW NETWORKS OR FORUMS WERE DEVELOPED IN ANY OF THE FOLLOWINGSPECIALISMS, PLEASE INDICATE THE AREAS OF INTEREST YOU MIGHTCONSIDER PARTICIPATING IN

8


9/29


INTERVIEWS WITH LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE

ORGANISATIONS

From April to June 2013, in parallel with the Cooperation & Collaboration Survey, Kevin

Blowe also spoke with key staff in a total of 17 local organisations. In conducting theseinterviews, a less rigid definition of what normally constitutes 'infrastructure organisations'in Newham has shaped decisions about the people NVSC has spoken to. In the past,infrastructure organisations have been seen as those providing services aimed specificallyat other not-for-profit groups such as capacity building or training. However, we havechosen to seek the views of a wider range of local groups who are also concerned morebroadly with place-making the assets, inspiration and potential for making Newhamscommunities sustainable.These organisations are predominantly but not exclusively larger, funded charities whohave a long history of providing services in the borough. They have the potential to play an

important local leadership role, not by speaking on behalf of the entire not-for-profit sectorbut by providing an important body of knowledge about the needs of local people. Theycan also provide much needed stability, especially at a time when, as one interviewee putit, the sector is becoming "ragged around the edges".

Broadly, we wanted to find out what infrastructure organisations want from NVSC, how theidea of a network of networks can complement their own activities and whether aspects ofthis approach is best developed by them rather than NVSC because it builds on theirexisting strengths.

The views expressed provide a snapshot of opinion they do not represent a consensuswithin the sector as a whole.

LESSONS FROM THE PAST

The majority of interviewees Kevin spoke with from infrastructure organisations wanted tocomment on NVSC's recent history. A number expressed concerns about NVSC's loss ofinfluence as an effective consortium not simply with the local council, with whom the not-for-profit sector as a whole has a mixed and often strained relationship anyway, but withthe sector itself. A number spoke of NVSC losing its connectedness with the wider sectorand with their own infrastructure organisations, which resulted in it having less and less

relevance to their work. Several interviewees suggested that NVSC as a 'brand' was nowso diminished that any rejuvenated umbrella body would need to change its name as wellas its structures.

On the issue of providing a voice for the sector, one interviewee suggested that NVSC hadgradually become just another organisation within the sector rather than functioningeffectively as an umbrella body. Another said that it often seemed to articulate its own viewon issues rather than gathering feedback or developing sufficient opportunities for groupsto express collective opinions. It was suggested that, during the period when it was easierfor people to give their time to attend meetings, more priority should have been given toplanning, holding and promoting meetings that brought organisations together and were

constructive, relevant and therefore more sustainable.

9


10/29


Several interviewees also suggested that NVSC had tended to place too great a focus onwhat the council was doing (or more often, what it had failed to do) on issues that were notalways the priority of the majority of local groups. This meant that it was often reacting tothe council's agendas rather than setting its own. More than one interviewee added thatNVSC's critique of the council's approach to the not-for-profit sector did not always

recognise that many infrastructure groups have managed to build some workable, if attimes frustrating, relationships with individual council officers below senior managementlevel.

However, others argued that NVSC had repeatedly been placed in an impossible position:asked to take a stand on issues affecting the sector, only to find that too many groupswere unwilling to say anything publicly themselves. One interviewee argued it wasunrealistic of groups to expect NVSC to speak for them if the sector wasn't prepared toback up and support its umbrella body in return.

In addition, a number of interviewees argued that as commissioning, through contracts,

has become the main way that voluntary groups receive funds from statutory bodies, it hasled to more competition, not greater co-operation, between them. The vast majority of localgroups have been sidelined altogether as the process tends to pick the best bidders,rather than the best providers. One interviewee felt that NVSC had played an importantrole in trying to influence the way commissioning was initially introduced and while thecouncil's approach was still a major disappointment, it could have been far worse.However, as the not-for-profit sector had fragmented and its voice and infrastructure hadweakened, others argued that commissioning risked turning the small number of groupsthat benefit from it into little more than sub-contractors, who were even less likely to speakpublicly about issues of concern.

LESSONS FOR THE FUTURE

The Consortium Model

The consortium model emerged because of specific circumstances in Newham. During1998-1999, the council held a Commission on the Voluntary Sector and in November2000, CSC Regeneration and Research Consultants published a feasibility study paid forby the council on the establishment of a voluntary sector umbrella body. This offered threeoptions and recommended a traditional CVS. This was rejected by existing infrastructureorganisations who felt that the level of consultation was inadequate, that too great a weight

had been given to the views of council officers and too large an emphasis had been placedon council priorities: for example, the study recommended a Community Forums SupportOfficer but not a post to develop partnerships within the sector itself.

Infrastructure organisations instead recommended setting up a consortium that would actas the first point of contact for voluntary, community and faith groups seeking advice andsupport and that would signpost them to local infrastructure support services. It would alsoact as a referral point for local statutory bodies like the council and the NHS who wanted toengage with organisations that reflected the views and needs of local communities.

This proposed model coincided with new central government inward investment that was

part of its National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal and that created local

10


11/29


Community Empowerment Networks (CENs) and borough-level Local StrategicPartnerships. It meant that the council would not need to fund a new umbrella body fromits existing resources and, as a result, Newham Voluntary Sector Consortium wastherefore established in 2001 as the CEN for Newham.

Over a decade later, several interviewees argued that NVSC had drifted too far from thisfounding consortium model and saw itself as a traditional CVS, which had damaged itsrelationships with infrastructure organisations. One said this had made NVSC a'competitor for funding for activities that were better suited to consortium memberorganisations, rather than a facilitator of other infrastructure organisations. Another saidthat in doing so, NVSC had not done enough to try and protect consortium members.

One interviewee said that any future plans for a revived umbrella body in Newham neededto think through and embrace the way a strong consortium is important for the particularcircumstances of the borough. A genuine consortium, it was argued, can encourageinfrastructure organisations to collaborate more closely and can prevent a local council

that is deeply sceptical about the value of voluntary action from pushing around a singleCVS type organisation.

Interviewees who had experience of umbrella bodies in east London boroughs other thanNewham were largely critical: either questioning the effectiveness of their service deliveryas the major provider of capacity building or their willingness to provide local groups withan robust, independent voice. One praised the structures of one east London CVS thatwas organised divisionally (i.e. had sub-forums on particular local issues) but said it wastoo cosy with and extremely reluctant to challenge the local council that provided themajority of its funding. This interviewee added it would be good for Newham to provide amarker for others in east London to follow by having an umbrella body that was strong onsocial justice rather than just on service delivery.

The Need for New Structures

There was a very positive response to the proposal to develop networks and forumsaround issues that local groups are most passionate about, as long as these have clearobjectives. It was felt that new and existing forums or networks should concentrate on howcloser cooperation could 'add value' to their existing work rather than focus solely on newfunding. This would involve

looking at ways to collectively promote their work to local people sharing knowledge about how to overcome problems or obstacles

encouraging referrals and

developing good practice.

Interviewees agreed that networks and forums should be more than 'talking shops' (whichwere seen as a poor use of limited time) but should each try to develop a collaborativework programme.

In the course of one discussion, an interviewee started to sketch out on paper some ideasfor a structure that reflects how different networks, forums and partnerships might interact

with each other and with local statutory agencies such as the council and NHS services.

11


12/29


This is an expanded version of those ideas (checking with the interviewee after we met):

More than one interviewee suggested that forums and networks might organisegeographically rather than focus on a particular issue, as long as this wasn't artificial but

brought groups together around genuine local concerns: it would depend upon theparticular strength of the sector in a particular area. One interviewee said that communitycentres would play a key facilitating role in this type of forum as they often provide themain 'physical' infrastructure for not-for-profit groups within a locality. However, they urgedcaution against creating networks that simply mirrored the council's Community Hubs, thedividing lines for which seemed, it was argued, to represent an administrative conveniencerather than encompassing a recognised and cohesive geographic area.

One community group who responded by e-mail with additional comments to the Surveyadded that they hoped to see networks building that really are ultra-local, not centred inStratford or similar, adding that a sense of agency [is] build out of networks of

relationships and these networks have often taken years to build. I'd like to NVSC or aforum/network built that is really about genuine localism, which supports work that growsfrom the ground upwards.

The Need for a 'Voice'

It was suggested by several interviewees that one of the reasons local groups looked toNVSC to voice its concerns but were reluctant to back up and support it was a fear thatindividually, they might be 'punished' by the council for doing so. The council's antagonismtowards any form of dissent was a reoccurring theme.

One said that even if groups receive no council funding, many feel very vulnerable when

12


13/29


they try to take a stand because seeking out potential allies comes from effectivenetworking, which has diminished significantly in recent years. In addition, another argued,the sector has lost much of its experience and many of the skills necessary for effectivelobbying and campaigning. This in turn has meant that new migrant communities, areflection of the highly transient nature of the borough, have had few people to help them

learn how to lobby or even how to navigate the complexities of contact with localgovernment.

A number of interviewees said that factors such as these mean groups still need astrategic collective voice (some went further and said the sector needs a political voice)to coordinate lobbying and representation efforts.

The Role of Faith Groups

Feedback from infrastructure organisations on the role of faith groups has been limited butpotentially important. Previously, the faith sector was one of NVSC's success stories: in

2005, it had a Faith Sector Worker and its Faith Conference was attended by around 370people from different faith traditions.

Now, one interviewee suggested, the Christian part of the faith sector is no longer ascohesive and perceptions that its participants are more likely to take part in forms ofcommunity service than others is perhaps misplaced. It was argued that as austerity hashit, working hours are longer and job insecurity is greater, many now see their church moreas a place of quiet reflection rather than a vehicle for social justice. Many churches areactively proselytising in their local communities but individual members of congregationsare just as likely to give their time to voluntary or community groups as a means ofcommunity service as to channel their energies in this direction through their church.

However, NVSC has subsequently brought together leaders from a number of faith groupsto begin to develop a 'Faith Action on Poverty & Social Justice' network. It would appearthat the possibility of faith groups collaborating around a specific shared interest ifencouraged and facilitated is no different than the potential for other not-for-profitorganisations.

13


14/29


CONSIDERATIONS FOR NVSC'S BOARD

NVSC as the network of networks

The diagram on page 12 showing potential relationships between groups, networks andstatutory bodies includes infrastructure organisations but not NVSC specifically. However,NVSC needs a clear role in order to avoid concerns raised in the past about it becomingjust another organisation within the sector. One potential element of this role wasidentified during interviews with local infrastructure organisations and in the survey findingsexpressing the lack of information about existing networks.

It seems clear that there is no interest locally in setting up a traditional CVS but NewhamVoluntary Sector Consortium is best placed to become the facilitator for local cooperationand collaboration within Newhams not-for-profit sector effectively the network ofnetworks with particular responsibility for:

Encouraging infrastructure organisations to collaborate more closely by specificallyfacilitating (and participating in) an Infrastructure Partnership that has a clear remit.

Working with other local infrastructure organisations to facilitate the creation of newcollaborative networks involving groups with shared specialist interests.

Promoting new and existing networks within the not-for-profit sector locally.

Facilitating linkages between different networks and forums and encouraging them toexplore ways that they can collectively work together

Championing, in response to broad agreement on the need for networks todemonstrate clarity, effective organisation and opportunities to learn from others, aCharter for Effective Networks (see Appendix 4)

NVSC could also develop a role as think-tank for Newhams not-for-profit sector

Implicit in the positive support for developing networks and forums around issues that localgroups are most passionate about is that they will become the voice for not-for-profitorganisations in their specialist field and that both within and beyond the sector locally,we will all need to adapt to the idea of many voices, rather than just one. However,interviews with local infrastructure organisations suggest that a borough-level strategicvoice remains important for the issues that potentially affect the not-for-profit sector as awhole and these are not necessarily the ones emerging from or driven by statutorybodies like the local council.

Current meetings involving infrastructure groups in Newham, which this reportsrecommends are formalised into a Voluntary Sector Infrastructure Partnership (see nextsection), are able to provide a degree of strategic thinking but primarily on thedevelopment of infrastructure support within the borough. This is where NVSC's positionas a membership-based umbrella body becomes crucial.

Even larger local infrastructure organisations can struggle to stay on top of changing policyand practice affecting voluntary, community and faith organisations, especially as their ownresources shrink. From the involvement of local groups in neighbourhood planning to newdevelopments in peer-to-peer learning or ways to demonstrate the impact of the sectors

14


15/29


work, there is a need for an organisation that can research, sift and promote informationon new government policy or examples of good practice that could be adopted locally.NVSC could potentially adopt a role as a 'think-tank' for the not-for-profit sector in theborough something that local infrastructure organisations would find particularly helpful.

As part of this area of work, NVSC is the best placed organisation to promote the intrinsicvalue of voluntary action in Newham, by coordinating local research on the impactNewhams not-for-profit sector makes, working in collaboration with other infrastructureorganisations, new local academic players such as UCL and Birkbeck and, potentially, withcooperation from the private sector.

This approach would also offer a clear focus for half-yearly or annual Sector Gatherings,bringing together members of all the different networks and forums and providing thestrategic collective voice and constructive, relevant meetings that so many intervieweessaid they wanted.

Greater clarity in future fundraising

Adopting the roles of both 'network of networks' and 'think -tank' for the not-for-profit sectorin Newham would provide some clarity to future fundraising efforts. NVSC would need toemploy a Network Coordinator, on at least three days a week, to cover the range ofresponsibilities outlined above. The following is therefore a revised version of the potentialrelationships diagram from page 11. The rectangle represents the network of networksfacilitated by an NVSC-employed Network Coordinator:

15


16/29


NVSC needs to settle the question of membership

With its current limited resources, NVSC is able to promote the benefits of closercooperation and collaboration and facilitate the creation of new networks, at least in the

short term, but it is unable to provide the kind of support services it once offered to localnot-for-profit groups. Realistically, this is unlikely to change in the near future there islimited funding for one-to-one capacity building and external funders are unlikely to fundservices they suggest should be supported by local councils.

This means that, with all groups financially stretched, the majority are extremely unlikely topay to become members of NVSC without something clear and tangible in return, even ifthey are supportive of the new direction that we have advocated over recent months.

However, the building blocks of a 'network of networks' remain individual voluntary,community and faith organisations. In a borough where the not-for-profit sector is

experiencing considerable upheaval, there is a strong case for groups to formally joinNVSC for free or a nominal sum and, by doing so, consciously choosing to participatein the cooperative approach to organising that NVSC advocates.

Not every group will want to there are a number who will have no wish to work moreclosely with others, either because they are based in Newham but their work is national orinternational, because they are small and self-sufficient, or because greater collaborationis not a priority. Neither would participation in one of the specialist networks becomeconditional on membership. What joining NVSC would provide, however, is:

updates and information about new developments that affect not-for-profit groups

updates on research, government policy and examples of emerging good practice

opportunities to debate and shape, through sector meetings and the annual SectorGathering, the collective 'voice' of the not-for-profit sector as a whole on borough-wide issues

signposting to collaboration networks

information about other opportunities to work together.

NVSC membership would therefore reflect a general commitment by an organisation tosee how they might cooperate and collaborate more closely with others for the benefit oftheir service users or their client group.

This does represent a shift for NVSC but one that fits with the idea of many voices,rather than just one in the future, we will exist to support our members tocooperate more closely together, not to represent them.

16


17/29


CONSIDERATIONS FOR LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE

ORGANISATIONS

Changing the narrative about the future of Newham's not-for-profit sector

In promoting the language of cooperation and collaboration, this report is in part attemptingto shift debate away from the often gloomy predictions about the uncertain future ofNewham's not-for-profit sector. Instead, it argues that taking one of the core values ofcharitable and voluntary action working together to improve the lives of local people and applying it more vigorously as organisations to the relationships between each otherhas the potential to improve services, save costs, attract new funding and increase thesustainability of our activities.

Furthermore, cooperation and collaboration within the not-for-profit sector itself improvesthe chance of changing the often difficult relationship with statutory bodies like the local

council. Networks and forums that offer informed opinion and specialist expertise are morelikely to to be recognised as a credible 'voice' and an important consultation target. Moreimportantly, they may also begin to develop a form of 'co-production', with statutory sectorofficers and not-for-profit sector staff or volunteers working together as equals and jointlyproducing effective services and improving outcomes. As our interviews found, there arealready a small number of examples of this kind of relationship emerging that involvecouncil officers below senior management level.

On its own, however, NVSC cannot hope to persuade local groups it is worth investingtime and energy into working more closely together in networks. Our survey may haveshown that experiences of collaborative networks had been overwhelmingly positive, but ithas also told us that insufficient time to attend meetings is a major obstacle toparticipation. As funding has shrunk, time pressures have only increased and it isunderstandable that taking part in a network becomes a reduced priority (or is delegated tosomeone without the authority to take decisions), even though the 94% of groups told usthey favour face to face contact over e-mail.

Convincing groups that, in the current climate, de-prioritising cooperation andinvolvement in collaboration networks is in fact a mistake will require a collectiveand sustained effort by every local infrastructure organisation. It means shifting thenarrative about what a sustainable future for the sector might look like and highlighting

what the alternative involves more intense competition for limited funding and resourcesbetween increasingly isolated groups that duplicate each others work and are largelyignored by the statutory sector.

Infrastructure organisations can play an important leadership role in supportingcooperation and collaboration

Groups told us they want to participate in well-organised networks with a named contactand work programmes offering opportunities to learn from each other, lobby for betterservice delivery and develop good practice. This does, however, require considerablecoordination and facilitation and that means an investment in time (and therefore salary

costs) by whoever takes on the responsibility to 'lead' a network. The existing networks

17


18/29


and forums in the borough in Appendix 2 show that many infrastructure organisations arealready taking on this leadership role, but once again, there is always the temptation to de-prioritise this area of work in favour of more immediate time demands.

Local infrastructure organisations may want to consider giving a greater

commitment internally to supporting networks. In order to do so, they may want tobuild an element of this role into their future fundraising or look at the experience of theNewham ESOL Exchange, which has managed to attract statutory funding for a one-day aweek post by successfully making the case that the benefits far outweigh costs of around8000 a year.

Infrastructure organisations need to clarify their own collective role

'Many voices rather than one' inevitably involves a more complex relationship with localstatutory bodies and local infrastructure organisations need to collectively explain theirown role as the voice that champions greater investment in second-tier support services.

The informal network of groups that includes NVSC, Aston-Mansfield, the Forum for Healthand Wellbeing, Community Links and the Renewal Programme has already agreed toadopt a more formal structure. To assist this process, Appendix 3 sets out a draft terms-of-reference for the new 'Voluntary Sector Infrastructure Partnership' that includes aclear remit to develop capacity-building support for local groups and a pro-active approachto engagement with statutory bodies.

There is also a need to clarify the status of quarterly meetings involving a number of largervoluntary groups and Newham council's Executive Director for Strategic Commissioningand Communities. These meetings were a product of the former Local StrategicPartnership structures and were therefore coordinated by NVSC. Invited attendees havevaried from meeting to meeting. However, now that the LSP no longer exists, it wouldseem logical to formalise future meetings so that they are between council officers andVoluntary Sector Infrastructure Partnership members, with an agenda focusing specificallyon discussions on investment in infrastructure support, the coordination of capacity-building and issues of mutual concern and interest (such as the development of a newCompact, for example).

Clarification of this kind will help council officers to understand that periodic meetings witha selected number of organisations is no substitute for engagement with the growingnumber of specialist collaborative networks.

If NVSC did not exist, local infrastructure organisations would need to invent it

NVSC's future remains as uncertain as the rest of the sector and it has no funding from thestart of 2014. However, some form of umbrella body that signposts groups to infrastructuresupport services and that supports, promotes and facilitates linkages between differentnetworks and forums is a valuable asset to the not-for-profit sector in the borough onethat local infrastructure organisations would need to create if greater cooperation andcollaboration is to have a realistic chance of success. Rather than starting from scratch,however, local infrastructure organisations should seriously consider supporting the newroles for NVSC set out on pages 14 and 15 and if NVSC is successful in fundraising for a

Network Coordinator, consider joining NVSC's board.

18


19/29

19


20/29


21/29


Please indicate what you believe is MOST IMPORTANT to successful collaborationbetween not for profit groups in Newham

21


22/29


23/29


24/29


Appendix 2

Existing Networks and Forums in Newham

Equalities and Diversity Network Contact:

Debbie BuckleyHarold Road Community [email protected] or

Prity Patel-BediaCommunity Development WorkerNewham Monitoring Project

Tel: 020 8470 8333

[email protected]

A network that emerged from the formerCommunity Cohesion Forum and bringstogether voluntary, community and faithsector groups with a shared interest inpromoting equal access to services andequal opportunity for local people toinfluence local services; and promoting andcelebrating diversity, human rights andmutual understanding.

Faith Action on Poverty & Social Justice Contact:

Paul ChelliahOperations ManagerTrinity Community Centre

Tel: 020 8472 8947

[email protected]

A new network that aims to bring faithorganisations in Newham together todebate, share information and find ways foract collaboratively on issues of poverty and

social justice.

Newham Advice Forum Contact:

Jude SimmonsHead of Early ActionCommunity Links

Tel: 020 7473 9665

[email protected]

A network that brings together adviceproviders based in Newham who give legaladvice to people on a range of issues,including welfare benefits, housing, debt,immigration, community care, domestic

violence.

Newham Community Centre ManagersForum

Contact:

Caroline RouseAssistant General ManagerAston-Mansfield

Tel: 020 8536 [email protected]

A network representing key staff in a numberof the boroughs voluntary sector led ormanaged community buildings. It was set upin 2006.

24


25/29


Newham Community DevelopmentPartnership

Contact:

Kelley Webb-MartinDirectorNu Social Health Health Organisation(NUSHO)

Tel: 020 3130 0789

[email protected]

A network that brings together front-linecommunity development workersfrom

organisations working in Newham.

Newham ESOL Exchange Contact:

Anne CrispCommunity Development WorkerAston-Mansfield Community InvolvementUnit

Tel: 020 8536 3822

[email protected]

A network that aims to co-ordinate andimprove English for Speakers of Other

Languages (ESOL) classes in the borough.

Newham Health and Social Care Network Contact:

Sahdia WarraichDirectorThe Forum for Health and Wellbeing

Tel: 020 7473 9519

[email protected]

A new network that brings togethervoluntary, community and faith sector groupsto improve the quality and effectiveness ofhealth and social care provision in Newham.It seeks to influence and negotiate withhealth and social care providers andcommissioners to ensure their consultativeand involvement mechanisms are effectivein responding to the changing needs of localpeople.

Newham Mental Health Providers Forum Contact:

Michelle Kabia

Chief Executive OfficerMind in Tower Hamlets and Newham

Tel: 020 7510 1081/[email protected]

A network for representatives fromorganisations providing services for peoplewith mental health problems, promotingcommunication, sharing information andgood practice.

25


26/29


Newham Refugees and Migrants Forum Interim contact is via:

Prity Patel-BediaCommunity Development WorkerNewham Monitoring Project

Tel: 020 8470 8333E-mail: [email protected]

The umbrella network representing refugeeand migrant community organisations in theborough.

Newham Youth Providers Partnership Contact:

John Connor (Chair)Assistant General ManagerAston-Mansfield


Paul LeslieThe Renewal Programme

020 8472 [email protected]

Kristian BridgeNew Choices for Youth

020 8471 [email protected]

A network seeking to provide strategicdirection to the development of youthservices in Newham, to ensure that theseservices are properly planned andcoordinated

Transform Newham Contact:

Matthew PorterTransform NewhamLatimer HallCleves RoadLondon E6 1QF


A network of over 100 churches, ministries,Christian sports ministries and socialenterprises in Newham.

26


27/29


Appendix 3

Voluntary Sector Infrastructure PartnershipDraft Terms of Reference

AIMS

1. The Voluntary Sector Infrastructure Partnership will work to coordinate the activitiesof voluntary sector, second-tier 'local infrastructure organisations' to supportvoluntary and community groups, faith groups and social enterprises to achievetheir aims, by:

working alongside and supporting other local not-for-profit networks, forumspartnerships

facilitating and coordinating capacity-building support for local groups

developing a pro-active approach to engagement with statutory bodies onissues of concern and interest to the not-for-profit sector.

2. The Voluntary Sector Infrastructure Partnership will seek to influence and negotiatewith statutory bodies to invest in the development of infrastructure support for thenot-for-profit sector.

3. The Voluntary Sector Infrastructure Partnership will work to improvecommunication, good practice and collaborative working between localinfrastructure organisations.

OBJECTIVES

1. To act as the forum for local infrastructure organisations to collectively worktogether to develop and expand infrastructure support aimed at the not-for-profitsector in Newham.

2. To work collaboratively with other external networks, forums and partnerships tofacilitate and support their development.

3. To coordinate local capacity building activities in order to avoid duplication.4. To meet regularly with the Newham council and other statutory bodies to share

issues of common interest or concern and to lobby for investment in infrastructuresupport aimed specifically at the not-for-profit sector.

5. To assist other local networks, forums and partnerships to communicate anddisseminate information, including good practice and changes to government policy,to voluntary, community and faith sector groups and social enterprises.

MEMBERSHIP

The Voluntary Sector Infrastructure Partnership's membership is open to second-tier 'localinfrastructure organisations' who share an interest in providing services aimed specificallyat other voluntary, community and faith groups and to other partner organisations fromwithin the not-for-profit sector who are concerned more broadly with place-making theassets, inspiration and potential for making Newhams communities more sustainable.

27


28/29


Appendix 4

NVSC's Charter for Effective Networks in Newham

New networks will seek to identify a clear purpose for bringing groups together by

Defining the issue or problem they are seeking to tackle

Envisaging what a successful outcome might look like

Identifying a joint work programme that encourages cooperation and collaborationbetween partners

Developing a Terms of Reference.

New networks will check what other forums or alliances exist by

Checking to see whether other organisations are undertaking similar collaborativework.

Checking to see whether a similar network has existed previously.

Asking groups who have worked in the area of interest about the history, challengesand obstacles the network may encounter.

New networks will start with a small core group

Three to five people can be enough to begin with. It is better to capture theenthusiasm of these people and use that to attract others to join you.

New networks will determine how long your network will need to operate by

Recognise that it may be easier to get commitment for a defined period fromseveral months to a year than for an indefinite period.

You will need to be able to accommodate changes of personnel, so incorporateorientation and hand-over processes.

Networks will clearly establish whom they need to work with by

Identifying potential members with the relevant skills and experience

Checking that members have the necessary authority to act at the level the networkrequires such as, the ability to take decisions about personnel or budgets.

Networks will identify the resources they need to support their work programme by

Recognising that in order to operate effectively, networks need venues, a workprogramme and administration which all have cost implications.

Drawing up a budget and making sure that securing resources is one of thenetwork's priorities.

Identifying internal and external champions to help the network achieve its goals.

28


29/29


On-going networks will review their work annually by

Scheduling an annual evaluation and review to check that the people andprocesses are still appropriate for the network's purpose as expressed in the Terms

of Reference. Revising, if necessary, the networks Terms of Reference.

Networks will hold effective meetings by

Establishing processes and procedures that reflect members work preferences

Enabling sufficient structure to ensure members feel that the time spent isproductive.

Focusing on a work programme with shared goals that are based on cooperationand collaboration to address the issues or problems the network is seeking to tackle

Selecting a chair or facilitator who will inspire and engage the group as partners in aclimate of openness and respect that helps to build trust.

Avoiding discussion that does not lead to resolution or agreement to proceed toaction.

Making use of NVSCs Guidance on Effective Facilitation.

Networks will develop shared learning by

Providing opportunities for self-development, learning and reflection in thenetworking process.

Networks will embrace the principles of cooperation and collaboration by

Avoiding the reliance on a single individual to drive or co-ordinate them andensuring that members have ownership of the network

Ensuring that larger or more powerful partners do not dominate

Countering attempts by those with strong personalities or egos to redefine thenetwork's agenda or work programme.

cooperation and collaboration in newham july 2013

Documents