Commissioners support mergers and collaborations 4

Governance | Vibeka Mair | 2 Aug 2010

Research from Capacitybuilders shows the majority of public service commissioners would like to see more mergers and greater collaboration between organisations that provide support and advice to civil society groups.

157 public commissioners were surveyed for the report on Learning from Mergers.

It found that many commissioners were supportive of mergers, although it was seen as a riskier option than collaboration.

The report found commissioners think mergers can deliver a positive impact across a range of areas including simpler funding relationships and easier engagement with the voluntary and community sector.

Furthermore, a recent report from Capacitybuilders on the impact of the economic downturn on the voluntary sector found over half of charities considered responding with a merger or a partnership.

However, only 5 per cent had completed a merger in the last two years, and 18 per cent had abandoned attempted mergers before completion.

It identified barriers to mergers as: fears of takeover or loss of identity amongst staff and trustees; concerns around loss of local presence and a negative impact on frontline organisations; getting a thorough understanding of each organisation’s financial position and; dealing with difficulties such as pension liabilities.

Directory: Capacitybuilders

Place a comment

Mike Allen
Chief Officer
Stafford District Voluntary Services
5 Aug 2010

Turkeys voting for Xmas...
We're a local support & development organisation and work closely in consortium with other infrastructure support.
As long as local delivery is prioritised and any collaborative work or merger provides MORE & BETTER services for local civil society organisations, then we'd be up for such a move.
But a merged organisation has to be MORE effective and efficient, not just convenient for commissioners, for politicians.
Merger has been on our lips for several years but the real fear is with us Chief Officers, as we seemingly vote for our own demise.

[Reply]

Jay Kennedy
Head of Policy
Directory of Social Change
4 Aug 2010

Of course commissioners want mergers and collaboration - dealing with fewer organisations makes their job easier. That doesn't mean it's a good thing!

Bureaucratic institutions find it easier to deal with other institutions which are similar to themselves. The fact that the voluntary sector does not have a unifying corporate identity which would make relationships more manageable for commissioners is a strength, not a fault.

The only time we should consider merging is if it's in the best interests of our beneficiaries - not because it suits commissioners or any other funders!

[Reply]

Gordon Hunter
Director
Lincolnshire Community Foundation
2 Aug 2010

Consider the equation: less money + greater need + more volunteering = big society. It doesn’t work. Not even if you add mergers (or even social enterprise). And who’s promoting mergers?

Unsurprisingly, the commissioners - naturally, they would rather fund one large infrastructure body than twelve small ones – and Capacity Builders - they spent £7 million on modernisation grants to fund streamlining and mergers; so, they’ve created their own market.

Rather than dilute local communities, we should be nurturing them: local community banks managed by local people, making grants (not loans) to local grassroots groups.

[Reply]

Terry Ndee
Associate Director, Trusts & Foundations
University of Cambridge Development Office
2 Aug 2010

I agree with the report that merger is very important to the UK charity sector and that benefits of merger and collaborations could be very positive to organisational aims and objectives.

[Reply]

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.