Charities 'pretend to support payment-by-results to please government'

Governance | Vibeka Mair | 4 Oct 2012

Large charities will publicly speak out in support of payment-by-results contracts to be seen to be responding to the coalition government, but in private say that they don’t work, warns Clive Martin, director of umbrella body Clinks.

Martin, whose organisation represents charities working within the criminal justice system, was giving evidence to the Panel on the Independence of the Voluntary sector yesterday. He said that more charities competing for government contracts and feeling free to speak out about conditions within those contracts did not create a “happy mix”.

When asked by the panel to give concrete examples, Martin said some of his larger members publicly speak out in support of payment-by-results to look dynamic, forward-thinking and responsive to government:

“They don’t want to look old-fashioned or not fit-for-purpose,” he said. “But privately at least six large members say they don’t believe it is a good model but they don’t want to speak out about it.

“One even said we should stop bringing up the issue as we have been saying too much.”

Martin said that as an infrastructure body, Clinks felt freer to speak up, although it too felt under some pressure not to question policy.

These comments were echoed by fellow infrastructure body NCVO, who also gave evidence at the session yesterday.

Ben Kernighan, deputy chief executive of NCVO, said that while it has always acted independently, its role as a strategic partner with the Cabinet Office meant that it sometimes felt anxious about speaking out.

The Panel on the Independence of the Voluntary Sector is chaired by Sir Roger Singleton, other members including Andrew Hind, editor of Charity Finance, Julia Unwin, chief executive of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Sir Nicholas Deakin.

The Baring Foundation has committed £99,000 over five years to the work, which will take an “annual snapshot” of the state of the sector’s independence, not just from government but from all stakeholders, such as corporate donors and pressures from local communities.

Comments

[Cancel] | Reply to:

Name *

Email *

Organisation

Job Title

Comments *

Verification *

* Please read our Community Standards

Close »

Community Standards

The civilsociety.co.uk community and comments board is intended as a platform for informed and civilised debate.

We hope to encourage a broad range of views, however, there are standards that we expect commentators to uphold. We reserve the right to delete or amend any comments that do not adhere to these standards.

We welcome:

Robust but respectful debate
Strongly held opinions
Intelligent relevant discussion
The sharing of relevant experiences
New participants

We will not publish:

Rude, threatening, offensive, obscene or abusive language, or links to such material
Links to commercial organisations or spam postings. The comments board is not an advertising platform
The posting of contact details for yourself or others
Comments intended for malicious purpose or mindless abuse
Comments purporting to be from another person or organisation under false pretences
Gratuitous criticism, commentary or self-promotion
Any material which breaches copyright or privacy laws, or could be considered libellous
The use of the comments board for the pursuit or extension of personal disputes

Be aware:

Views expressed on the comments board are left at users’ discretion and are in no way views held or supported by Civil Society Media
Comments left by others may not be accurate, do not rely on them as fact
You may be misunderstood - sarcasm and humour can easily be taken out of context, try to be clear

Please:

Enjoy the opportunity to express your opinion and respect the right of others to express theirs
Confine your remarks to issues rather than personalities

Together we can keep our community a polite, respectful and intelligent platform for discussion.