voluntary sector organisations, especially registered charities, were founded generally, to meet an unmet need. they have constitutions setting out their aims and objectives, and the sector is extremely diverse. some organisations became involved in advice provision at various levels, as an _indirect_ means of acheiving their aims and objectives. the primary objective might be anti-poverty, or social justice, or overcoming disadvantage...
(LA's and i guess housing associations are in different positions to most vol.orgs, but there are plenty here can speak from those points of view.)
any organisation deciding to get involved with the DWP needs to consider carefully the impact on their primary aims and objectives, and how the organisation might be changed by it, as well as how it would work in partnership.
funding is the Achilles heel of the voluntary sector. reliance on core funding can kill off or enslave the 'vibrant' (adjectives are cheaper to give than grants) voluntary sector. the attraction of the voluntary sector for government is the idea that there are all those volunteers who do work for free. hah! okay, they may not be as ignorant as all that, but still, it's hard to dislodge ideas sometimes, and maybe some first impressions from the name stick...?
alternative office...what's that all about? really?
dating claims and verification sounds innocuous enough, and, as people have pointed out, it helps people out, and the voluntary sector likes helping people, it's what it exists for. and access to computer records would be jolly useful for welfare rights advisers, where is the harm...?
quid pro quo, as hannibal lector would say...
why is there this uneasy feeling that dating claims and verification could be just the thin end of the wedge?
the point of this debate, as far as i can see it, is to determine whether or not we should assist HMG in inserting the thin end of the wedge into our sensitive voluntary sector orifices...? i appreciate that not everyone sees it quite that same way.
'there is no wedge' might be one position. 'i'm not letting you put that wedge anywhere near me' might be another. 'there is no evidence any wedge exist and until presented with it (ouch!) i will assume it does not' - perhaps?
my position, at the present time, is that it is reasonable to assume there is a wedge, and any insertion of the thin end is dependant on being shown the size of the other end so that i can make an informed decision as to whether i think i would like it or not. and no hammers.
why reasonable? there's more going on than alternative offices...CAB piloting 'assisted self-help kiosks' for the DWP...its e-gov. involvement...the proposed hiving off of JC+ to the private and voluntary sector...the vision of central government as a commissioner of public services but not a provider...30,000 job cuts in the DWP...the need to consider the possibility that the voluntary sector could be harnessed to deliver public services under the lash of THE CONTRACT MANAGERS FROM HELL - the DWP!!! my informed opinion is that they would make the LSC, who i at times suspect of trying to kill me, look like mother teresa. if you know what i mean.
not forgetting that the unplugged gap in provision that alternative offices are filling, was a fait accomplit with a sham consultation.
so i think adverse inferences ARE justified, and the onus is on the authorities.
so far, so selfish - thinking about how we can best do our work, and what's best for our sector, which we think is valuable, (i'm speaking for myself and imagining some people agree with me, btw : ) - a sort of collective we rather than a royal we is intended ), and our jobs and our own survival chances, lets face it.
but there's more...tony bowman rightly asks questions about responsibilities, and there is also, for me at least, the suspicion that the 'ideas' have not been thought through beyond anything but a superficial level. the fact is that the social security system is a statutory scheme, and it is not nearly as simple as uninitiated policy peeps think, to abdicate legal responsibilities to any tom dick or harry on a compulsory work placement in a registered charity, or even give out access to confidential data.
the questions for responsible organisations is how damaging might it be to the wider interests of the public, for the statutory scheme to wither or hit the rocks. with the best will in the world, the voluntary sector cannot substitute for the statutory authorities in delivery of service as it is - we only ever see a fraction of the whole of the potential beneficiaries, and are resource limited. i hope i do not ever see a commissioner's decision along the lines of ' Mr. X stated that he had no idea he could have obtained advice on claiming from Upton on Piddle Haemmorhoid Action Centre and since he does not have haemmorrhoids, good cause is allowed.' oh i don't know.... : )
would we be collaborating with the demise of the scheme which grew out of voluntary self-help long before, and turn full circle, with needs again being most detrimentally unmet? do we want to keep smashing wheels for the 'fun' of re-inventing them>
no substitute, but change then? life is change, and it's not as if the current state of the system is so great it might not be the best thing for it...and the not- for -profit sector has a lot to contribute (as opposed to a lot to exploit).
but we're not children to believe in santa claus cos our parents told us to. we're adults and can behave as such.
i see no possibility of voluntary sector co-operation while the premise of entitlement is 'prove you're not scum'.
i think what bill says about the CAB really applies to the DWP trade unions, another story. i'm not up enough on CAB to want to comment, except that it has some very good people working for it... but bills very important point can be put to the test very soon, i should think...
but on mike's point no. 5 - i'm not at all convinced that this starts from the DWP at all, and think they are repeating what the sector has said to them. i don't think we should spread the rumour that it originates with the DWP, (i'll stand corrected if there is evidence), much less argue with it. independence is compromised by involvement in claims processing.
jj
|