Annual Sector Report 2007

Annual Sector Report
2007
A report reflecting voluntary and community sector
perspectives on the Compact
Presented at the Compact Annual Review Meeting

13th December 2007
Stefan Simanowitz
Contents
1. Executive summary / recommendations
2. Purpose and methodology
3. Introduction
4. Compact awareness and implementation

4.1 Mind the gap
4.2 A level of scepticism
4.3 Impact of the Compact
4.4 Lack of reporting of non-compliance
5. Relationships with government

5.1 An improving relationship
5.2 A coded description for conflict
5.3 An unequal partnership
5.4 The funding relationship
5.5 Local Compacts
5.6 Independence
6. Barriers to use of the Compact

6.1 Under-resourcing
6.2 Is the Compact lacking teeth?
7. Recommendations
8. Conclusions
Annexes
Annex 1. Compact Advocacy Programme Annual Report
Annex 2. Focus Group Findings Report
Annex 3. Report on Focus Group Verification Workshop
2
1. Executive summary
This report attempts to synthesize a number of pieces of research

exploring voluntary sector organisations’ views on the impact of the Compact.
It is based on findings of:
• an independent focus group exercise commissioned by Compact
Voice
• a focus group verification workshop report
• an annual report by Compact Advocacy Programme
• regular meetings of Compact Voice and continued dialogue with the
sector throughout the year
• a rapid evidence assessment of relevant Compact literature (2002
-2007)
Key findings and recommendations:
• Implementation – need to tackle the gap between rhetoric and

practice; the voluntary and community sector being provided with the
tools and training and support to challenge breaches of the Compact.
Government need support in ensuring the Compact is embedded in all
aspects of work with the sector. Specifically;
o Clarity on how the Compact can be applied to EU funding;
o Further Compact promotion and implementation across non-
departmental public bodies;
o Improved guidance for legal departments about how to write
Compact-compliant contracts for the voluntary sector;
o Compact-compliant guidance for central government
programmes which are implemented locally, including issues
such as full cost recovery;
o Improved guidance and support for local authorities on their
implementation of key Compact commitments which have a
major effect on the local voluntary sector such as 3-months’
notice when ending funding;
o Improved consultation processes which make clear what
decisions have already been taken and what questions are
being asked as well as providing accurate feedback and
ensuring responses are taken into account in final decisions;
o Further resources for sharing of best practice and learning
across central and local government regarding the Compact and
relationships with the voluntary sector.
• Awareness raising – Significant promotional work in both sectors to

tackle the persistent lack of awareness of the Compact. Promote the
Compact and provide education and training for partners of both sides
of the relationship. Comprehensive, targeted, promotional campaigns
that would increase appreciation and understanding of the Compact
3
and what is and what it can do to make things better for both parties in
the relationship.
• Local Compact resourcing – need for proper funding to ensure Local

Compact implementation. An exploration of how this would work in
practice is needed.
• Research – a programme of research; a body of work breaking down

what works in order to share good practice; research with local
authorities to understand where the Compact fits within a local political
environment that will be dominated by the LAA.
• Joining-up - policy should be checked against the Compact to ensure

that it complies with the National or Local Compact and makes
meaningful reference to it. A stronger link is needed between local and
national public bodies to ensure they work together to uphold Compact
commitments.
• Positive relationships – the Compact needs to be regarded as a

mechanism for maintaining and enhancing relationships. Positive ways
of working should be embedded on both sides of the relationship.
Needs to be a clear understanding that this is an agreement of mutual
benefit, as much in government’s interest as the sector.
Key questions for discussion
1) Is there enough in the action plan about raising awareness? Are we doing
enough to support people on the frontline of this relationship for example,
legal teams, commissioners, voluntary sector trustees, contract managers in
the sector, policy officers in local public bodies and departments, procurement
officers?
2) How is the local and national government relationship working? What do

we all need to do to improve this?
3) How could we facilitate there being more funding for Local Compacts?
2. Purpose and methodology

This year, Compact Voice are presenting an Annual Sector Report to the
Compact Review meeting. This differs from the Annual Sector Survey that has
been presented in previous years and offers a range of sector views and
experience. The report examines sector research done over the last five years
as well as drawing on primary research undertaken by National Compact
Voice, Local Compact Voice and the Compact Advocacy Programme.
Compact Voice’s direct consultation with the sector took the form of a series
of focus groups across the UK.
It is important to recognise that the voluntary and community sector is diverse

and not a homogenous sector. Whilst this report talks about “the sector” it
4
attempts to reflect the range of sector perspectives and abjures a prescriptive
“one-size fits all” approach.
3. Introduction
As the national Compact on Relations between Government and the

Voluntary and Community Sector in England enters its tenth year, this report
attempts to highlight Compact issues and challenges from the perspective of
the sector. Whilst there is an increasing amount of research being done on the
voluntary and community sector, little direct research has been done on the
voluntary and community sector’s experience of the Compact.
Whilst there have been many positive changes to the relationship over the
past decade problems persist and new issues arise as the policy landscape
changes. Whilst the Compact has retained both its symbolic and practical
importance and remains central to improving the relationship between the
partners, there is clearly still a distance to travel. A gap remains between the
universally endorsed principles of the Compact and their practical application
on the ground. Evidence from the sector suggests awareness of the Compact
on both sides of the relationship is low, Compact compliance is patchy and
effective Compact implementation at local and national level is yet to be fully
realised. Despite the fact that the Compact is overwhelming endorsed by the
sector there is a reluctance among voluntary organisations to make explicit
use of it in tackling problems. Although the service offered by the Compact
Advocacy Programme is increasingly seen as an effective means of enforcing
Compact compliance, no Compact breach has so far been referred to the
Compact mediation service or the Ombudsman.
Whilst some of the Compact’s initial momentum might have been lost, and
some of the optimism with which it was greeted might have faded, the
Compact’s potency remains intact. As William Plowden says “what is at issue
here is an attempt to change the culture of government/voluntary sector
relationships. This is bound to take time. In the next few years, the circular
relationship…must become positive, not negative.”1
4 Compact awareness and implementation
Lack of awareness of the Compact on both sides of the relationship,

combined with the wilful disregard for its requirements, is a key barrier to
effective Compact implementation. Whilst issues of Compact awareness,
compliance and implementation are deeply intertwined and not always easy to
unpick, but it is important to attempt to do so.
4.1 Mind the gap
1
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly; 32; 415, 2003
William Plowden
5
The focus group exercise revealed an almost unanimous endorsement of the
Compact as a “good idea in principle” but found, in practice, lack of
awareness and poor implementation have opened a potentially damaging
“credibility gap”. The findings of the report were discussed in a verification
workshop in which participants echoed their support for the Compact as a
concept and described the gap variously as one “between where we are and
where we believe we should be", between “rhetoric and practice” and between
“fantasy and reality”.
This concept of a gap or disconnect in implementation and expectation is also

reflected in previous research into the Compact. Indeed, what is striking about
the themes that emerge from the focus group is how closely they mirror the
issues and concerns that have been repeatedly expressed in reports and
studies over the past five years.
As far back as 2002, the Treasury cross-cutting review revealed a

“remarkable consensus of opinion that the Compact is ‘a good thing’". The
review found that the concept of the Compact was “universally supported” and
that there was “little support for radical changes to the Compact, its abolition
or the view that its provisions should have a new statutory basis.” The review
however also found consensus around the main problems with the Compact,
namely “lack of awareness and ineffective implementation.” 2
The challenge of implementation was picked up as the key issue in David

Carrington’s 2002 report. Whilst much of the framework of the Compact was
in place, he argued that its implementation at all levels, was patchy and
implementation had to be achieved in order to “close the gap between
Compact enthusiasts and sceptics” and to prevent a loss of momentum to
allow the Compact to become “yesterdays initiative”.3
An unpublished NCVO study in 2004 exploring national organisations’ views

on the impact of the Compact, asked the question “Has the Compact Gone
Cold?” It found a general view that the Compact had been successful in
establishing principles and recognition of the role and contribution of the
voluntary and community sector, but that its success in influencing actual
practice was limited. It found that this was in part due to lack of awareness
among the sector of what the Compact was supposed to achieve and how the
Compact could be practically applied to enable organisations deal with
specific problems.4
4.2 A level of scepticism
There is clearly some scepticism within the voluntary and community sector
as to the Compact’s usefulness. The experience described by a focus
participant of “hollow laughs” and “blank stares” when trying to raise issues of
2
The role of the voluntary and community sector in service delivery: A cross
cutting review, HM Treasury, 2002
3
The Compact – The challenge of implementation, Carrington 2002
4
Has the Compact gone cold? Summary of research findings. Jean Barclay
Compact Working Group. unpublished, 2004
6
Compact compliance with government combined with the lack of
accountability for breaches of the Compact has led to frustration. An Audit
Commission study in 2007 found that some commissioners and smaller
voluntary organisations had never heard of their local Compact.5 The focus
group report found that even where the local authorities know about the
Compact, they often chose to ignore it. It also suggests that the failure of local
authorities to comply with the Compact is not necessarily about malice but
lack of understanding or external pressures with local authorities, faced with
numerous competing targets.
Within the voluntary and community sector the government’s 2003/4 State of
the Sector Panel, suggests that 70 percent of the 3,600 members were aware
of the Compact (up 5 percent from the preceding year). This figure drops to
under 50 percent among smaller organisations (less that £10K)6. Since 89
percent of the sector has an income of less than £100,000 small organisations
experience of the Compact is of particular relevance.7 A 2007 online
questionnaire for Third Sector magazine found that only 22 percent of
respondents thought the Compact has had or will have a positive impact on
their charity 28 percent of respondents thought that Local Compacts have had
or will have a positive impact on their charity.8
The fact that Compact compliance is not monitored and there are no obvious
of enforcement measures or remedies when a breach occurs goes some way
to explain the lack of reporting of Compact non-compliance revealed in the
focus group report. However, the reluctance among voluntary and community
sector groups to challenge a local authority over breaches of the Compact
also results from a fear of jeopardising future funding. This fear described in
the focus group report as a “wall of silence”. One focus group participant said
that even where the independence of the sector is talked about and
acknowledged, the fear remains that bringing up the Compact might sour
relationships. This raises issues about independence and the way in which
public service contracting can compromise sector independence which are
explored later in the report.
5 Relationships with the government
5.1 An improving relationship
Between 2001 and 2006, Compact Voice, formerly the Compact Working
Group, recorded a steady improvement in the relationship between the
5
Hearts and Minds: Commissioning from the Voluntary Sector, Audit
Commission, 2007
6
OTS State of the Sector Panel – 2002/3, 2003/4 www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk
7
The UK Voluntary Sector Almanac 2007, NCVO
8
The state of the sector, nfpSynergy, 2007
7
voluntary and community sector and the government. A 2004 study found that
many of the organisations noted that in lots of ways they had good
relationships with government, particularly at national level. Significantly, none
of the organisations attributed this to the Compact.9 A 2007 Directory of Social
Change survey which found that only 18 percent of respondents felt the
relationship between government and the sector is getting better. Nearly half
of respondents felt it was getting worse. It was not clear whether those who
felt the relationship was improving, felt that this had anything to do with the
Compact has played. A significant number of people who left comments felt
either that the Compact was a total failure or that statutory bodies routinely
ignored it in their dealings with the sector, and that it ‘needed more teeth’ to be
effective.10
The 2007 Third Sector Review finds that “there is strong support for the
Compact within the sector and a desire for better partnership working with all
levels of Government, but more is needed to make sure that its principles are
consistently adhered to by the public bodies to which it applies.”
5.2 A coded description for conflict
For many, the Compact has come to be seen by both partners as a tool for
the sector to use to challenge government. Rather than regarding it as a
positive means of partnership working and mutual cooperation the Compact is
increasingly seen in negative or adversarial terms. The government often see
it as “just another thing they have to comply with” and the sector see it as “a
weapon last resort”. The focus group exercise suggests there is an apparent
division within the sector between those who feel the Compact should be
more about partnership and the relationship, and those who feel it should
concentrate more on compliance and enforcement.
It is not helpful to see the debate as one framed in terms of "government bad -
voluntary and community sector good". Both sides have the responsibility to
make the Compact work and a “them and us” approach is counter-productive.
The public sector can become wary in its relationship with the voluntary sector
where organisations they engage with point out the failures of the statutory
sector whilst not admitting their own faults and there is a need for the sector to
recognise their part in a failure to implement the Compact and codes.
5.3 An unequal partnership

The relationship between the voluntary and community sector and the
government is inevitably one of power imbalance, as one side has all the
funding and decision making power. It was suggested that this has
implications for the Compact’s credibility as a ‘mutually beneficial agreement
between partners’.
9
10
Is the relationship between the government and the sector getting better,
getting worse, or still the same?, Directory of Social Change, 2007
8
However a power imbalance does not have to be problematic as a partnership
is not necessarily a relationship of equals. The challenge for the Compact is
not about creating equal partners but about treating partners equally.
5.4 The funding relationship
Nowhere is the conflict between the voluntary sector and the government
more acute than around issues of funding. The focus group exercise
suggested that the Compact had not significantly improved the funding
situation for voluntary and community groups and that other drivers, such as
price, targets and treasury guidance, were more relevant in determining the
funding relationships. This is supported by a 2007 Barings Commission study
that finds only 7 percent of respondents felt they could make better use of the
Compact in negotiating with government funders.11 However, another 2007
survey found there was recognition of the Compact as a useful tool for
encouraging a move to three year funding. 12
Conflicts around funding can have a detrimental effect on the confidence and
trust built through other aspects of partnership working. Indeed, a 2004 survey
found that the spirit of cooperation and trust between partners “was often lost
when it came to funding relationships, with the relationship reverting to one of
grant maker and supplicant. Civil servants in charge of commissioning or
procurement tended to be less aware of the Compact’s codes of good
practice.” 13
There is widespread concern within the sector as to how the changing nature
of commissioning and contracting might negatively affect the nature of the
relationship between statutory funders and local voluntary and community
organisations. There is also a desire for the Compact to take a more
prominent role in helping manage these tensions.
Whilst large organisations appeared to be able to adapt to the changing

funding environment and very small organisations with only voluntary incomes
are not particularly affected, it is the small and medium sized organisation
appear to face increasing difficulties..
A 2007 National Audit Office survey found evidence in to suggest a

“disconnect between central government commitments to more effective
partnerships with charities, and the reality of their local funding relationships.
Central government had not managed to embed commitments such as full
cost recovery and longer term funding in local authorities”.14
5.5 Local Compacts

11
Sources of strength, Baring Foundation , 2007
12
False economy? The costs of contracting and workforce insecurity in the
voluntary sector, Unison, 2006
13
14
Public Funding of Large National Charities, National Audit Office, 2007
9
The national vision on the Compact has not been replicated on a local level.
Local Compacts are often not merely under-resourced but, in many cases,
completely un-resourced.It was suggested in the focus group workshop that
central government has devolved its Compact leadership role to local
authorities. This is done in the name of respecting the autonomy of local
authorities, but in reality means that the Compact is not properly implemented
locally. Local authorities are not under any compulsion to deliver and can
therefore abscond from their responsibilities, or think that part-funding a
Compact post is sufficient to fulfil their responsibilities.
Local Compacts not being resourced is the major reason why they have little
chance of succeeding and that what impact they have falls far short of their
potential value to all partners. The publication of Local Compacts covering
virtually every area of England fulfils the commitment in the Compact for it to
be adopted and adapted locally. With most of the sector working at local level
and with local public bodies being their key relationship with the state, the
success of the whole Compact depends in large part on whether Local
Compacts are working to make a difference to outcomes.
The sector has not been slow coming forward in the last year in putting up
Compact Champions to help make their Local Compact work but their support
and training depend on resources which are often not made available. Very
few areas have Compact officers working in the sector and even some of
these posts have been lost in the last year. There is a correlation between
areas with high performing Compacts and those that resource them. The
longer Local Compacts are on the shelf for lack of resourcing the harder it has
proved to bring them into operation, not least because the confidence and
support secured in the development stage tends to evaporate, and the job of
explaining the Compact has to be done again.
The negative impact is most severe on small, BME and faith groups and
public body staff at operational level who are largely excluded from access to
and use of their Local Compact, along with partnerships which should be
using their Local Compact as a governance tool. For most of the country, the
idea of securing wins from their Compact or engaging in a Compact way of
working together with public bodies is unrealistic because capacity is too over-
stretched to allow time to be given to taking forward their Local Compact.
Local sectors want but have yet to hear a national message on Local
Compact resourcing, discussion around this is long overdue and Local
Strategic Partnerships should consider the need for it and keep the issue
under regular review.
5.6 Independence
Compact Voice’s report on local sector independence showed that the sector
is experiencing a range of independence problems and suggests that the
misunderstanding independence is part of a bigger problem of local public
10
bodies not understanding the sector.15 This was echoed in the focus group
exercise.
“The commissioning relationship creates a paradox: the third sector is viewed

by government as an important partner, but organisations feel unable to
influence government when they believe change will result in poorer services
to the people they support. Threats to independence are being felt across the
sector.”
Sources of strength
The Charity Commission found in a 2007 survey found that only 26 percent of
charities that deliver public services agreed completely that they are free to
make decisions without pressure to conform to the wishes of funders, as
against 48 percent of all charities. Stand and deliver 2007
A 2006 IVAR found that there were significant tensions and contradictions
between public services delivery and the civil renewal role of community
organisations, and that the move from grants to competitive tendering and
contracts was threatening the independence and mission of many multi-
purpose community organisations.
However this spirit was often lost when it came to funding relationships, with
the relationship reverting to one of grant maker and supplicant. Civil servants
in charge of commissioning or procurement tended to be less aware of the
Compact’s codes of good practice. In addition, working relationships were
perceived to be less good at the level of local authorities.
6. Barriers to Compact use
6.1 Under-resourcing
Participants felt that under resourced implementation of the Compact had little
chance of succeeding. Whilst Local Compacts have been published
throughout the country, they have not been sufficiently resourced and very few
Compact workers have been employed.
6.2 Is the Compact "lacking teeth"?
A recurring refrain from the voluntary and community sector is that the
Compact is “lacking teeth”. The lack of government accountability for
Compact non-compliance and the lack of enforcement measures to tackle
breaches are regularly cited as a weakness of the Compact. Those calling for
the “legal powers” however, are often doing so as a result of frustration in and
do not recognise that the Compact already has some force under public law.
As the work of the Compact Advocacy Programme and NAVCA/Public Law
projects demonstrate, the sector can be empowered through use of the
Compact and public law principles. The Compact can create a legitimate
Stronger independence, Stronger relationships, Better outcomes , Compact
15
Voice, 2007
11
expectation among public bodies to adhere to the procedure that has been
agreed. If, for example, a public body has agreed under the Compact to
consult for 12 weeks with the voluntary sector over particular issues, and they
fail to do so, this may render any decision then taken by the body unlawful. A
legitimate expectation would be more likely to exist if a public body had
specifically signed up to the Compact, but even a commitment from central
government might be sufficient to create such a legitimate expectation.
The Compact and codes have been endorsed by central government as

documents that should be adopted by all central government bodies, they
have the weight of guidance. If a public body fails to take guidance into
account when making a decision their decision might be rendered unlawful.
Whilst the has yet to be a test case which establishes the precise legal status
of Compact commitments, it is likely that there will be one soon. Indeed, two
recent cases have already hinted at the likely result of any such case. In the
High Court, Judge David Mackie QC stated that the Compact was “more than
a wish list” it was “a commitment of intent”. He went on to say that local
authorities should consider the Compact when making decisions and treat
Compact requirements as yardsticks for deciding what was reasonable.16
In the other case, Judge Oliver-Jones QC asserted in a draft reserve
judgement, that terms in the Compact had a real prospect of being viewed as an
implied contractual terms. Although the Funding Code itself “is not, and cannot
be, a contractual document…it is more than merely arguable that the
substance of the Code is capable of being incorporated into the particular
contract by necessary implication.”17
Despite having some legal force, it is important not to lose sight of the fact
that the Compact is a value-driven document that invokes a mutual process of
developing, maintaining and enhancing relationships. Ideally it should not be
about penalising or punishing but about managing ambiguities and learning
how to work together in a better way.
Recommendations

practice; the voluntary and community sector being provided with the
tools and training and support to challenge breaches of the Compact.
Government need support in ensuring the Compact is embedded in all
aspects of work with the sector. Specifically;
16
Berry v Cumbria County Council [2007]
17
LSC v Kids in Communication Ltd [2007]
12
o Compact-compliant guidance for central government
programmes which are implemented locally, including issues
such as full cost recovery;
implementation of key Compact commitments which have a
major effect on the local voluntary sector such as 3-months’
notice when ending funding;
o Improved consultation processes which make clear what
decisions have already been taken and what questions are
being asked as well as providing accurate feedback and
ensuring responses are taken into account in final decisions;
o Further resources for sharing of best practice and learning
across central and local government regarding the Compact and
• Awareness raising – Significant promotional work in both sectors to

tackle the persistent lack of awareness of the Compact. Promote the
Compact and provide education and training for partners of both sides
of the relationship. Comprehensive, targeted, promotional campaigns
that would increase appreciation and understanding of the Compact
and what is and what it can do to make things better for both parties in
the relationship.

Compact implementation. An exploration of how this would work in
practice is needed.
• Research – a programme of research; a body of work breaking down

what works in order to share good practice; research with local
authorities to understand where the Compact fits within a local political
environment that will be dominated by the LAA.
• Joining-up - policy should be checked against the Compact to ensure

meaningful reference to it. Much stronger link between local and
national public bodies to ensure they work together to uphold Compact
commitments.
• Positive relationships – the Compact needs to be regarded as a

of working should be embedded on both sides of the relationship.
Needs to be clear understanding this is an agreement of mutual
benefit, as much in government’s interest as the sector.
Conclusion
13
Overall there has been development and improvement in the relationship
between government and the sector. The profile and investment in the
Compact over the last year has been significant and wholly welcome. The
sector now has its own Minister and a new Commission for the Compact
taking strides to improve the relationship. The sector feedback does highlight
however the ongoing gap between the relationship outlined in the Compact
and the reality of the every day experience. The key point much of our
findings is that voluntary organisations are not specifically interested in the
Compact and making it work – but they are interested in making their
relationships with government work. The main message Compact Voice
draws from this research is that its time to get the Compact, as it is,
implemented. The main solution to this is getting key people in both
sectors aware of and using the Compact.
14
Annex 1
Compact Advocacy Programme

November 2006 - 2007
The Compact Advocacy Programme has in the past year actively supported
and campaigned on behalf of voluntary and community organisations in cases
where the Compact has been breached. There are two strands to the
programme, local and national, which relate to the type of public bodies
involved in the cases. As well as giving advice and support to individual
organisations about the Compact and how they can use it in their work, the
programme also takes on cases and actively works to reach solutions that are
Compact-compliant and satisfactory to both parties.
In the past year the programme has handled 80 cases involving more than £3
million. Several of the cases have been on behalf of more than one
organisation and the results achieved will therefore have wide ranging effects.
This year the programme has seen an increase in new local cases. The
national cases tend to go on over longer periods but the issues raised are
very similar in both strands.
All information in this report is taken from the programme’s own work. The
data should not be seen as statistically significant. It is representative of the
cases handled by the programme rather than necessarily representative of
the whole sector’s experience.
Overall caseload
80 cases and 37 enquiries over Nov 06-Nov 07
62% of cases are with local statutory bodies
38% are with national statutory bodies
89% had a Funding and Procurement code breach∗

34% had a Consultation code breach
11% had a BME code breach
9% had breaches of the Compact (overarching document)
4% had a Community groups code breach
Headline findings
• There has been an ongoing increase in cases with a funding breach over
the past three years of the programme’s work and now almost all cases
involve a funding issue of some kind. In the earlier years of the programme,
there were more cases which were based only on consultation code
breaches or issues for BME or community groups.
• The number of breaches of the consultation code had dropped slightly but
then rose again this year. The cases this year suggest concerns about the
lack of open and meaningful consultation processes. This means
consultations which make clear what decisions have already been taken

Many cases have breaches of more than one code and are therefore counted in each
relevant category.
15
and what questions are being asked as well as providing accurate
feedback and ensuring responses are taken into account in final decisions.
In previous years there had been more focus on the 12 week minimum time
period. This issue seems to be especially prevalent at a local level. (There
were consultation breaches in 48% of local cases versus 12% of national
cases.)
Percentage of cases breaching each code
100%
90%
80%
70% 2004
60% 2005
50%
40% 2006
30% 2007
20%
10%
0%
The Compact
Consultation
Volunteering
Procurement
Funding and
Community
BME
and Policy
Appraisal
Groups
For detailed statistics on previous years of the programme, please see Appendix A.
• Over the past year, the percentage split between local and national cases
has reversed. The local programme was only launched in 2005 but it has
grown rapidly during this time. This trend appears to be continuing and may
reflect the devolution agenda where organisations have more relationships
with local statutory bodies as well as the changes with local authorities’
shift away from grants and towards commissioning.
Percentage of local and national cases
100%
90%
80%
70%
60% Local
50%
40% National
30%
20%
10%
0%
2004 2005 2006 2007
Year
• The number of cases handled by the programme overall has increased

significantly, up from only 26 in 2005-6 to 80 in 2006-7.
• National programme: In national cases, a key theme is complicated
contract arrangements involving several different public bodies on different
levels, that leave both the funding body and the voluntary organisation
16
unsure of if the Compact applies. Another key theme is overburdensome
and disproportionate monitoring arrangements, often blamed on EU
regulation but sometimes added at a UK level.
• Local programme: In local cases, key themes are the lack of awareness of
the Compact and guidance from central government which does not
promote Compact-compliant working. There are also concerns about the
independence of the voluntary sector manifested in the sector’s fear of
challenging its statutory funders as well as non-Compact compliant
contracts and application forms which interfere with organisations’ internal
management.
Recommendations
• Significant promotional work in both sectors to tackle the persistent lack of
awareness of the Compact;
• Focus on implementation of the Compact across government including:
o Compact-compliant guidance for central government programmes
which are implemented locally, including issues such as full cost
recovery;
implementation of key Compact commitments which have a major
effect on the local voluntary sector, such as 3-months’ notice when
ending funding;
o Improved consultation processes which make clear what decisions
have already been taken and what questions are being asked as well
as providing accurate feedback and ensuring responses are taken
into account in final decisions;
o Further resources for sharing of best practice and learning across
central and local government regarding the Compact and
17
Local Advocacy Programme
Cases
50 different local cases and 22 local enquiries handled over Nov 06-Nov 07
46 cases had a Funding and Procurement code breach (92%)
24 had a Consultation code breach (48%)
5 had a breach of the overarching Compact clause on independence (10%)
5 had a BME code breach (10%)
Targets
39 cases with local authorities (78%)
9 cases with PCTs (18%)
2 cases with prisons/probation services (4%)
1 case with a Government Office (2%)
Breaches
Top breaches in order are:
1) Ending funding without 3-months’ notice or without giving reasons why
2) Not consulting the sector on issues likely to affect it
3) Not being sensitive to the effect on organisations of changes to their
funding
4) Lack of open and meaningful consultation, making clear what decisions
have been made and what can still be influenced
5) Not involving the sector in programme design
6) Lack of full-cost recovery
7) Not trying to discuss and resolve performance issues before ending
funding
8) Proportionate monitoring requirements
9) Appropriate balance and handling of risk
Local Funding Code Breaches 2006-7
Number of cases
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Overarching principles
Partners hips principles
Programme des ign
Promote widely, enough time to respond
Clear and access ible forms
Ask for relevant info on applications
Full-cos t recovery
Section
Timely notification on applications

Sensitive to changes
Managing ris k
Focus on outcomes
Advance payment
Longer-term funding
Payment on time
Proportionate monitoring
Joined-up monitoring, only necess ary info
3-months' notice, give reas ons
Performance management
Cases only Cases and enquiries
18
Themes in the Local Advocacy Programme
The main reason local cases appear to occur is a lack of awareness of the
Compact, its benefits for both sides and how to implement it. In the context of
the financial and other pressures on local authorities and PCTs, this lack of
awareness has serious consequences for voluntary organisations and the
people they serve. It seems commissioners and other officers could often be
better trained to understand the sector and the Compact and how it can help
them in their work.
The most comment breach locally is of funding being cut without proper
notice and reasons given. This has included examples of some very poor
practice – a council officer announcing on local radio that the local CVS would
not get further funding and a small BME group being told in June that their
PCT funding had been ended in April. It also often links with a consultation
breach where a consultation or impact assessment should have been done
before major funding cuts were made.
There is also a smaller pattern with central government programmes which
involve local agencies in funding the voluntary sector but do not promote
Compact compliance in their guidance. As noted by the Commission for the
Compact in their recent report on government funding, central government
programmes could improve guidance on issues such as full cost recovery to
increase clarity for those administering these programmes. This could bring
significant gains in Compact-compliance at a local level.
Finally, the independence of the voluntary sector is also a real concern
across the local cases. This issue manifests itself in different ways which are
explored more fully in Compact Voice’s report on this topic in July 2007.
However, a key issue seen by the Advocacy Programme is a pervasive fear,
whether real or inferred, that challenging a local statutory partner will result in
funding being ended. There have also been various instances of public bodies
trying to assert control over the internal workings of voluntary organisations.
While government and its agencies must ensure that public money is spent
appropriately, there may be tensions where this creates a risk averse culture,
often with input from legal teams, which leads to voluntary groups being
pushed to sign onerous and intrusive contracts which are not Compact-
compliant or to give information on application forms which is beyond that
required of public or private bodies. Although independence is currently a key
issue in 10% of the local cases, it is a persistent theme in enquiries and the
fear of challenging is prevalent across most cases.
19
National Advocacy Programme
30 different national cases and 15 enquiries handled over Nov 06-Nov 07

25 had a Funding and Procurement code breach (83%)
3 had Consultation code breaches (12%)
4 had a BME code breach (13%)
4 cases have been concerning EU funds (13%)
9 cases have been going on for more than a year (36%)
Targets
16 cases with Government departments, widely spread between them
• 4 cases are with the Home Office
• 4 cases are with the Department for Education and Skills, now the
Department for Children, Schools and Families
11 cases with non-departmental government bodies
• 3 cases are with the Big Lottery Fund
• 3 cases are with the Learning and Skills Council
1 case with a Regional Development Agency
1 case with a Government Office
Breaches
Top breaches in order are:
1) Not giving timely notifications on applications
2) Not paying in advance
3) Not awarding full cost recovery
4) On shared fourth place were the following breaches: Not giving enough
time to respond, lack of clear and accessible forms and information, not
managing risk well, and lack of longer term funding
National Funding Breaches
Performance management
3-months' notice, give reasons
Joined-up monitoring, only necessary
Proportionate monitoring
Effective monitoring
Payment on time
Longer-term funding
Advance payment
Focus on outcomes
Managing risk
Sensitive to changes
Timely notification on applications
Full-cost recovery
Ask for relevant info on applications
Clear and accessible forms
Promote widely, enough time to respond
Programme design
Sustained and long term capability
Partnerships principles
Overarching principles
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Cases only Cases and enquiries
20
Themes in the National Advocacy Programme
A third of all national cases are on behalf of more than one organisation,
adding complexity and, usually, length to the case, but also making the effects
more far reaching. One case has been going since early 2006 and has
involved over 20 different organisations, covering numerous breaches and
complaints.
The most common breaches are of the funding code. 83% of all cases
include one or more funding breaches. The most common complaints are
around timing; either around late payments or application timelines. Timelines
are frequently short, which puts small organisations at a disadvantage and
which hinders partnership working and consortia building. Government
timelines, connected to the spending reviews, Treasury announcements etc
are sometimes putting departments in difficult situations where there is simply
not enough time to be Compact compliant. In these situations better
communication would be welcomed, rather than simply passing on the tight
deadlines and short timescales to the voluntary organisations.
Government departments, regional bodies and NDGB are often passing
on overburdensome and disproportionate reporting and monitoring
requirements from the EU to voluntary organisations, and refusing to take a
more flexible approach, blaming EU regulation. There is still a lot of confusion
around what requirements are imposed at what stage and where to challenge
them. One case has shown significant regional differences in how monitoring
and reporting requirements are imposed, despite the funding coming from the
same pot. There is also evidence of where organisations have experienced
Compact breaches but assume that the Compact does not apply to EU funds.
It is therefore a priority to get further clarity and progress around the issues of
EU funding.
An overarching theme in most cases is poor communication. There are
often significant delays before letters and phone calls are answered and a
lack of easily accessible information regarding new policies, funding
programmes etc.
There has been a shift away from complaints of short consultation to
complaints about the meaningfulness of consultation.
Non-departmental government bodies are appearing to be less aware of
the Compact than Government departments and some targeted by the
programme believe the Compact does not apply to them.
21
APPENDIX A
Statistics from the Compact Advocacy Programme (2004-7)
2007
89% breaches of Funding & Procurement code
34% breaches of Consultation & Policy Appraisal code
11% breaches of Black & Minority-Ethnic Organisations code
4% breaches of Community Groups code
9% breaches of the Compact (overarching document)
62% Local cases

38% National cases
80 cases overall
2006
4% breaches of Volunteering code
68% National cases

32% Local cases
26 cases overall
2005
3% breaches of Volunteering code
64% of cases were breaches of the National Compact with 86% involving
Government departments and 14% NDPBs.
Of the 36% of cases involving Local Compacts, 92% involved local authorities
whilst 8% concerned Government Offices.
23 cases overall
2004
86% concerning Government departments and 14% concerning NDPBs

(at this time there was only a National Compact Advocacy Programme)
15 cases overall
22
“The Compact is like gym membership.
There's no point having one unless you use it”
an indication of the range of the experiences and opinions

from people within voluntary and community organisations
which have significant income from government agencies
a report from 6 focus for Compact Voice
presented at a public meeting in London, 08 November 2007
23
List of contents:
Executive summary
1.) Introduction
2.) Purpose
3.) Methodology
4.) Findings
• Endorsement
• Credibility gap
• Looking ahead
5.) Discussion and conclusions
6.) Recommendations for the design and framing of future research
Acknowledgement
As the facilitator I am indebted to all the practitioners who took part in the
focus groups. I would like to thank them for making the time in their busy
professional lives to contribute to the study, for drawing on their expert
knowledge and relevant experience and for approaching the discussion with
such openness and frankness. I have learned a great deal from them and
hope I have been able to communicate that understanding to a wider
audience by means of this report.
24
Executive summary
“The Compact is like gym membership. There's no point having one unless
you use it”. Like gym membership it was signed up to with the best intentions
and with great expectations. Nine years on since its launch this study confirms
that the document has certainly retained its tremendous “symbolic” and much
of its “practical importance”.
The most striking finding of the focus groups was the almost universal
endorsement of the Compact as a “good idea in principle” and that “it’s better
to have it than not have it”. The Compact appeared to have lost nothing of its
symbolic strength as participants felt that it would “be an amazingly powerful
political statement” to walk away from the commitment expressed in it. Some
participants of the focus groups also stated that they can “make the Compact
work for [them]” and provided examples of the Compact’s practical
importance, such as its role in the development of good practice.
However, the great expectations of some, like with gym membership, do not
seem to have been met and while differences to the “Relationships between
Government and the Voluntary and Community Sector” have been made they
were experienced as both positive and negative.
The participants described experiences in which the expectations associated

with the Compact have opened a potentially very damaging credibility gap.
Participants were clear that the ‘endorsement by government’ has not led to
wide spread compliance with the undertakings of the Compact by local
authorities and other government funded bodies and they indicated that
significant parts of the Voluntary and Community Sector might be disengaged
from, or disappointed with, the ‘consultation process’.k
The participants also anticipate that their expectations of and experiences

with the Compact are likely to be affected by the changing environment where
there might, for example, be a shift away from ‘what can the government do
for the voluntary sector’ to ‘what can the voluntary sector do for the
government’, a shift also “towards commissioning, markets and contracts”.
This may in turn affect both the Compacts practical and symbolic importance.
Six focus groups could not provide a comprehensive range of the experiences
of the voluntary and community sector but they have provided some insights.
Yet, this study clearly indicated that we cannot continue to treat as one sector
what is not a single entity but needs to be defined much more effectively. Even
given the restrictions of its methodology the evidence of this project is that in
terms of Compact use it was dealing mostly with organisations with significant
government income and or infrastructure organisations and that other
organisations might either not know or not want to know or have neither time
nor money to engage. This would need to be investigated by further studies,
however, as absence of evidence is, as we know, not evidence of absence.
25
1.) Introduction
This report is prepared for Compact Voice and will be presented to a

public meeting 08 November 2007.
Compact Voice will be presenting an Annual Sector Report to the

Compact Annual Meeting in December.
The Annual Sector Report will aim to give an overview of the

relationship between the sector and the government as framed by the
Compact highlighting gaps in knowledge and priorities for the future.
One part of the Annual Sector Report will be the findings of six focus
groups organised to collect the experiences of representatives from
diverse voluntary and community sector organisations contained in this
report.
This report is solely prepared to become part of the Annual Sector

Report and therefore does not contain a background section on the
Compact at this stage and was not edited for publication.
2.) Purpose
The main purpose of the focus groups was to obtain from

representatives of diverse voluntary sector organizations:
• their experiences of Compact use
• their views on how their independence has been affected by

Compact
• their views on how their funding has been affected by Compact.
• a check-list of the issues that may need to be addressed to make

Compact usage better.
This was to provide an indication of the range of the sector’s

experience and opinion with regard to the Compact and to provide
contextual information for the overall report. Furthermore it should
provide a checklist of issues for the design and framing of future
research.
26
3.) Methodology
For this project Compact Voice engaged an independent researcher to

facilitate six focus groups and present their findings impartially.
Compact Voice administered the invitations to the focus groups. An

initial “call to all voluntary organisations” went out “snowballing” through
networks and infrastructure organisations and was also placed on a
number of Websites such as the Commission for the Compact's
website www.thecompact.org.uk. Everyone who is “involved in a
community or voluntary organisation” was invited. Compact Voice
reported that about half the eventual participants responded to this call
and that the remaining participants agreed to attend after having been
directly contacted trying to ensure as wide a range of organisations
with differing objectives.
6 meetings in three locations (London, Birmingham, Manchester) were

held and 46 respondents took part.
Given the methodology of asking participants to attend meetings in

working hours it is perhaps unsurprising that almost all participants
were professionals in the voluntary and community sector with only one
volunteer attending. However, this does not fully explain the low take
up of the original invitation.
Approximately 35% of the respondents’ organisations had income of

over £ 1 million, a further 45% income of over £100.000, less than 5%
had income of under £100.000 with the remaining 15% not known.
Once the largest organisation was excluded because its income

distorted the figures significantly it was established that the participants’
organisations from which figures had been made available had an
average of approximately £ 500.000 income from “financial relations
with government”.
We must set the above against the sectors overall figures of roughly
1% with income over £1 million, approximately 10% with income over
£100,000, and 89% with income of less than £ 100.000. This does also
not include the unregistered or uncharted voluntary and community
sector. It is obvious that the participants of the workshops do not reflect
the composition of the sector as a whole.
(http://www.ncvo-
vol.org.uk/uploadedFiles/NCVO/Research/AlmanacSummary2006.pdf)
Just under 70% of participants’ organisations are in receipt of

government money and less than 5% said they don’t receive any with
the remaining 25% unknown.
Participants described 14 categories of objectives for their

organisations: Black and Minority Ethnic Groups, Children and Young
27
People, Community, Disability, Education and Training, Environment,
Families, Health, Homelessness, Infrastructure, International, Older
People, Refugees and Displace People, Sport.
Approximately 20% of participants described their knowledge of the

Compact as advanced, 30% as intermediate, 30% as very little, 10%
as non existent with the remaining 10 percent not known.
The workshops therefore can sensibly claim to have captured a good

indication of the range of experiences and opinions with regard to the
Compact from mostly professionals within voluntary and community
organisations which have significant income from government
agencies. From this still extremely diverse section of the Voluntary and
Community Sector, participants came representing a remarkably wide
range of backgrounds, yet this could still not cover the full range and
one notable absence, for example, were representatives from faith
groups.
28
4.) Findings
While almost universally backing the idea of a Compact the participants

identified a number of problems with it and pointed to some of the
possible ways forward. The findings of the focus groups will therefore
be divided in three distinct sections: endorsement, credibility gap,
looking ahead.
4.1) Endorsement
There was an overwhelming endorsement of the Compact as a good

idea. 45 out of 46 participants felt that the Compact was a good idea
although this was often qualified as “yes, in principle” or “theoretically”.
There was also a very strong feeling that it was better to have the
Compact than not to have it. The prospect of not having the Compact
raised serious concerns:
“the act of taking it away would actually be an amazingly

powerful political statement” and “however ineffective, it’s
important that it’s there”
Five types of examples of positive experiences with the Compact were

given: places where participants felt the Compact was having a positive
impact on the “Relations between the Government and the Voluntary
and Community Sector”, places where the Compact has made partial
positive contributions, examples of using the Compact as a last resort,
places where developing the local Compact in itself was seen as
helpful and positive and places where participants saw the Compact as
a driver behind the scenes.
Some participants enthusiastically reported from places where they felt

the Compact was having a positive impact on working relationships:
“We knew what was wrong and what kind of things we wanted
to put in place, and that partnership agreement was about how
can we improve services to service users, not about how can I
in the voluntary sector get more money … or save my project
from closing if it’s not operating effectively. Or from the local
authority’s point of view it’s not how can we bully the voluntary
sector … it was a real hands on heart, how do we work together
to improve services for the service users and that’s the starting
point, which is common ground for all of us. … and we make
the Compact work for us in that respect. So it’s not target driven
it’s relationship driven.”
“in terms of making sure that transitional funding was there…

they made some really tough decisions, but it’s taken two years
for them to get to the position where they actually can
commission stuff; they’ve done it properly, it’s all above board,
29
they’ve gone through a process that’s been well thought out and
well structured, and involved the voluntary sector in planning…
so they’ve been very good, a very good example of where it’s
worked very well, and how it’s involved everybody, and it’s done
all…it’s ticked all the boxes.”
Other participants told of partial successes:
“I presume that the Compact has got some influence …that [the]
level of openness in that consultation is better now than it has
been previously.”
“I think the BME Compact code has enabled a voice to be

created in certain areas… where BME groups have been able to
sit alongside the usual suspects and make their voice heard“
“and full cost recovery would not be on the agenda if it hadn’t

been for the Compact.”
Some participants retold experiences where they successfully

challenged actions of government agencies using either the Compact
in their argument or Compact advocacy services on their behalf.
“we were occupying a building that we had secured … to

convert …into premises for our organisation with disabled
access etc for our users and our staff, and it was on a 10 year
lease and normally leases are supposed to be renewable;
however, … our lease [became] non renewable, therefore we
had to remove ourselves from the building, and at that point it
was a case of, end of your lease, bye bye. However, by bringing
in … the Compact…not in its entirety but in fact that the
principles, the concept that we had invested this amount of
money, time, effort on the organisation and that … our services
were valued enough… for the local PCT and for the local health
authority and the local council to be able to help us back trying
to get alternative accommodation premises, … the Compact
came into play, not in its word but in principle, that they would
then do something to help us as a voluntary sector organisation
to be able to retain our services and to be able to carry on doing
our work.”
“…there were numerous changes throughout the delivery of the

contract, way after the contract had been signed, you know,
changes to evidence standards and what we were expected to
collect in terms of evidence, so I’m talking about 12 months into
a two year contract, so we just got to the point where … it was
unsustainable; so we called in the services of the Compact
advocacy team, and they supported us…”
30
In some areas the process of negotiating the local Compact was seen
as helpful even if it didn’t actually achieve change.
“the process of developing the Compact was very, very positive

for a lot of organisations”
“When people were developing the Compact they said it was

great, we were having these discussions, we’re negotiating
these things. Then we produced it and it stopped being so good
and it just started gathering dust. But actually people felt they
made progress during the discussion.”
One participant explained how he knew that a particular local authority

was better to work with but not why and that only recently he
discovered that it might be the Compact which is driving this.
“it’s something that is driving [the local authority]… they really do

support and want to work with community sector, third sector
organisations.”… “but I’ve never known [the Compact] was there
until I went on the website this morning”.
It became clear that the participants who were all from the Voluntary
and Community Sector did not feel that their counterparts in
government were universally in favour of the Compact.
“government departments … just consider it a thorn in their

side” and “just wish it would go away”
31
4.2) Credibility gap
Important themes which consistently emerged were those of the

ignorance of or of the ignoring of the Compact, the lack of reporting of
compliance and non compliance and issues arising from the authority
of the Compact.
The most prevalent experience of participants appeared to be of

instances when those who according to the “undertakings by
government” in the Compact were supposed to apply key principles
such “simplicity and proportionality” and “consistency and co-
ordination” did not do so. Most but not all instances appeared to involve
funding.
“they are playing cat and mouse with the funding”
“They had the money, we made the successes, we proved, we

made the outcomes and it was all independently evaluated etc.
it comes to saying, right okay it’s achieved what it should do, it’s
saved, now you need to invest. They didn’t want to know.”
“if … conflicting with the powers that be, you can tear your
Compact up”
It was felt the Compact was either not known or being ignored.
“there’s been … stunned silence in the room about what is this

Compact”
“every single PCT is signed up to the Compact and we’re saying

we support it and yet the people on the ground that I deal with at
a commissioning level haven’t heard of it”
Voluntary and Community Sector Organisations felt that they cannot

afford to change this situation:
“you’re running late on a delivery of a project, you’ve been

offered … a price very late; there is an imperative to get things
moving very quickly, the last thing you can afford to do is spend
the time educating local authority officers about the Compact”
The Compact also appeared to be not well known in the Voluntary and
Community Sector which has an undertaking of promoting “effective
relationships with Government”. Where it was known, participants
reported that they had sometimes heard rather negative references to
it.
32
“in most cases, they [50 small community organisations] were
pretty unaware of the existence of the Compact”
“you’ve got a code that’s dedicated to BME groups, yet those …

don’t know about the Compact”
“I’ve heard the phrase, it’s not worth the paper it’s written on,
used, if I’m honest”
During the first meeting there was a call for “breaking the silence about
lack of compliance”. This became particularly pertinent as several
participants in later meetings reported instances, including receiving ill
concealed threats, when Voluntary and Community Sector
organisations would not wish to confront local authorities for fear of the
consequences.
“to make the Compact case we needed one of them to put their
heads above the parapet and take on a public case. No one
wanted to do that because it would jeopardise the whole future
funding relationship”
“…you do not bite the hand that feeds you…”
“and they don’t fund anybody that criticises them. That’s been
said. I was there when it was said.”
On the other hand participants were also disappointed that there did
not appear to be an effective way of reporting and rewarding
compliance and they expressed their sympathy for hard stretched local
authorities.
“I did have some sympathy with local authorities, because it

seemed to me … central Government were saying to them, well
we want you to go and have this very mature relationship with
the voluntary sector over here, but we’re not going to treat you
like that… we’re still going to have a very tight grasp on your
finances, we’re still going to dictate targets to you”
“we don’t know whether the Compact has caused these

outcomes, all these changes”
“I can’t see what the carrot is at the moment for those who are
sort of sandwiched in the middle having to do the contracts and
the negotiations, not having enough time”
33
A strong theme emerged relating to how the Compact receives its
authority. This applied both to the endorsement by Government and
“the voluntary and community sector itself through its consultation
process”. Participants often felt that the government’s endorsement
was insufficient
“if Government’s going to make fantastic policy at the high level

and they’re just expected to somehow … fall down through the
system and replicate it’s fantastic vision, that just isn’t reality.”
and that the “consultation process” might be flawed.
“The Compact, ha, you’ll get hollow laughs and blank stares.
Because the fact is that they [voluntary sector organisation] feel
it’s not made any difference, they’re not being listened to;
they’re being heard but not listened to.”
“there are key players which can also be called the usual
suspects who are operating at this strategic level because they
have the capacity and the resources to operate at this strategic
level … and they are working very effectively at that level,
sometimes creating great glossy PDFs and downloads and
whole new organisations, but there are smaller organisations
who don’t have the resources to be able to operate strategically,
who are not accessing all this kind of glossy information and not
attending launches …, who have no idea about what it really
means at that kind of level, because it’s all operating up here”
Participants also reported disappointment at instances where the

implementation has got stuck or led to little:
“the … Compact Group has not met for the last 18 months to
two years. It does not have a Compact Officer”!
“Okay maybe the local authority has a Compact somewhere

hidden in the cupboard but it’s not using it, nobody knows that
it’s there”
It should be noted that participants did not seem to have a shared

understanding of the Compact and that there are at least two
prominent concepts, the “Compact as a guide to partnership working”
“the Compact is a value driven document” “It is about everybody

trying to work together and find solutions locally”
and the “Compact as a rulebook”

“If you know that nobody will control you than why have a
driving licence”
34
4.3) Looking ahead
In this section a number of issues are listed which participants raised.

They each have their subheadings
a) Participants felt that under resourced implementation of the

Compact had little chance of succeeding.
“This is a much bigger job than they realised”
They looked specifically at resource for training,

marketing/information and office backfill:
“there’s a huge [need in] training and awareness, because it

doesn’t matter which sector you’re actually talking about or talk
to … there’s gaps.” “the chap said to me, where on earth do we
go for training on the Compact? “
“it’s very, very difficult to disseminate this information to the real

people at the end who are trying … the potential beneficiaries”
“It’s either writing a funding bid or dealing with a client or going

to one of these meetings, and quite frankly when there’s a lack
of trust … you’ve got to really think, do I keep my staff in a job
and write a bid or do I go to one of those meetings, which is
really not going to bring out anything because it’s not going to
protect the organisation and the clients we serve, and that has
been one of the problems, there’s a lack of like funding and
support”.
“So there’s a constant struggle as well between voluntary sector

having a bigger engagement with their local strategic partners
and at the end of the day, you know having the time and
expertise to get on with their day job as well.”
b) The changes to the environment appeared more powerful

drivers than the Compact. In particular participants were
concerned about commissioning and markets.
“I’m very concerned about how the changing nature of

commissioning and contracting over the next few months, plus
this business about local area agreements and the lack of
opportunity to influence those, direct opportunity, is going to
change the nature of the relationship and the trust etc, between
statutory funders and local and voluntary organisations, and I’d
like to input into any kind of discussion and review on how the
Compact can ease that, that process, but I’m not familiar with
how it currently does”
35
It was felt that the biggest drivers are: “price”, “targets”,
“treasury guidance”
There is a move “towards commissioning. markets and

contracts” “the Compact is not helping to manage this”
c) Participants raised concerns about the use of local Compacts
“I think one of the biggest challenges is where Compact is being

defined differently, in other different geographical areas, … it
shouldn’t look like a service level agreement between a local
authority, and I think that’s causing a big problem in that it’s
giving a lot of people a different understanding of what Compact
can actually do.”
“actually the inconsistency between the Compacts that are

drawn up in different areas does create problems, particularly
for those agencies that are working across with different local
agencies, so how can more consistency be achieved then?”
“it’s virtually impossible to get any form … of pattern between all

[local authorities]”
36
5.) Discussion and conclusions
The strong endorsement of the idea of the Compact by the participants

of these workshops has to be qualified as it comes mostly from groups
with a significant income from government. We do not know from these
focus groups what the numerically much larger section of the Voluntary
and Community Sector with much less income thinks about the
Compact or what their experiences are.
The 4 questions this series of focus groups set out to answer were:
Participants’ experiences of Compact use
While the experiences have clearly been very mixed from

enthusiastically positive to despondently negative the overall
impression is one that “it’s not quite baking yet” and “the train is moving
slowly out of the station”. After nine years the impact of the Compact
seems limited. The fact that most participants, even the enthusiastic
ones, recognised the symptoms of the credibility gap must give cause
for concern. This not withstanding, where the Compact is working
overtly or behind the scenes its presence has been positively
experienced and in any case “however ineffective, it’s important that
it’s there” .
Participants’ views on how their independence has been affected

by the Compact
When asked about this participants often appeared to veer back

towards funding issues straight away. While this was never actually
articulated during the groups the fact that organisations seem to shy
away from challenging local authorities for fear of losing funding or
simply upsetting their relationship with the funders is of course directly
relevant. If a wall of silence were to be confirmed this would need to be
seen as a very important indication that the Compact is not delivering
on one of its core shared principles “Voluntary and community
organisations are entitled to campaign within the law in order to
advance their aims”. Other than that there was probably a feeling that it
was up to the organisations to protect their independence rather than
for the Compact to protect it.
Participants’ views on how their funding has been affected by the

Compact.
The discussions of the Compact were mostly in regard of funding and it

appears that the impact of the Compact was mostly felt there. Overall it
seemed that participants did not associate the Compact with a
significant improvement in their funding situation. In fact other drivers
appeared much more relevant. In this situation very large organisations
appeared to be able to adapt in the market environment while the very
37
small organisations with only voluntary incomes don’t seem particularly
affected.
“the ones that are funded entirely by bring and buys, raffles etc,
that have been going for 50 years, run by mother, daughter, etc,
will continue, because nothing rocks their boat, they just carry
on … the absolute bedrock for local communities”
However, the small and medium sized organisation appear to face

increasing difficulty despite the Compact
“It’s the ones in the middle that have had one or two contracts,
that have had grants, for no apparent reason for 20 years, who
suddenly won’t have grants anymore, who haven’t got the
infrastructural ability to go for a contract.”
A check-list of the issues that may need to be addressed to make

Compact usage better.
The participants’ replies to this might be summed up in two categories:

‘clarification of expectations’ and ‘availability of resources’.
With regard to clarification, participants needed to know if

“endorsement by government” would actually mean a mandatory
requirement of all levels of government to subscribe and act on “the
undertakings by government”. They needed to know whether the
Compact was “getting teeth” or not. They could then engage with the
Compact with the appropriate expectations.
There is a great challenge as well to all parts of the Voluntary and

Community Sector to clarify its structure and the means of participation
in the “consultation process”. This clarification is needed as otherwise
the Compact would not be working even where it is implemented
because it treats as one what isn’t a single entity.
With regard to the availability of resources participants were quite clear

that an undertaking like taking a policy right from the top through all
levels of government right to the delivering individuals would take
greater resources than were currently provided. They appeared also
clear that not all parts of the Voluntary and Community Sector could be
expected to engage as they “are not funded to take part in
consultations”.
38
Conclusions
The participants of these focus groups describe a situation where the

Compact stands at a critical junction. After nine years at least a part of
the Voluntary and Community Sector has had a chance to experience
its effects on their work, their independence and their funding. While
they clearly feel it is needed they found it wanting in a number of
crucial areas. They felt that the Compact is currently being undermined
by a credibility gap. The gap is between the undertakings stated in the
Compact and their daily experiences. If the gap was left unaddressed it
would inevitably widen and eventually lead to disengagement as each
new negative experience is destroying trust. Just like walking away
from the Compact this would probably be seen as a strong political
statement by the government. Even if the existence of the Compact
helps to challenge what is perceived as bad practice it is “not really a
success” if you have to fight for it.
The participants of the focus groups, all from the voluntary and
community sector, are aware and seemed accepting of the fact that
there is not an equal relationship of partners in the Compact “there’s a
total imbalance of power between one side and the other side.” yet
they seem to be prepared to put their trust into the agreement and to
make a “leap of faith”.
If what can be expected of the Compact can be clarified and resources

provided for its implementation people will not turn their backs on it:
Because to some “the gap between where we are and where

we believe we should be is so big for us that we have felt it
necessary to look at other tools, which actually have more an
impact.”
will not see it as shorthand for conflict
“rightly or wrongly, is that Compact has become kind of a

shortcut, coded description for conflict”
and trust can be built.
Real progress appears to have been made and many people have put
their hearts and minds into the implementation of the Compact. The
partners to the Compact now need to ensure that the efforts that are
being made are not leading to the kind of disappointment still being
experienced.
39
6.) Recommendations for the design and framing of future research
a.) Clarify, in future research, which part of the Voluntary and

Community Sector and which organisational forms within that
part are being investigated, as it is extremely unlikely that any
project will be able to reflect on “the sector” as a whole.
b.) Undertake research which is designed to capture an indication

of the range of the experiences and opinions with regard to the
Compact in some parts of the sector not captured by this report,
for example, small voluntary and community organisations, both
registered and not registered as charities, with income of less
than £10.000 and no income from government agencies. Given
the concerns about the consultation process such research
should not be undertaken using infrastructure organisations.
Such research should be designed in a way that does enable
the participation of volunteers and therefore not require
participants to expend time during working hours and also not
require them to travel significant distances.
c.) Urgently investigate the existence of a wall of silence regarding

the reporting or challenging of unfair practices.
d.) Provide a publicly accessible evidence base of where the

Compact is seen to work or not to work using for example the
suggestion of a participant that “a big UK voluntary
[organisation] can map the UK with hot spots of really good
commissioning and appalling commissioning”.
40
Annex 3
Report of the Focus Group Verification Workshop
Executive Summary
On 8th November, a workshop was held in London at which the findings of the
Compact Voice’s focus group exercise were presented and discussed among
sector representatives, practitioners and academics. The aim of the
verification workshop was to get feedback on the findings of the focus group
exercise. The workshop explored whether the findings resonated with
participants and whether they reflect the range of the sector’s experiences
and perspectives. It also provided an opportunity for participants to voice
concerns on issues which they felt had been omitted and to challenge
anything in the report which they felt was inaccurate or misleading.
As with the focus groups, there was no unanimity or universal experience

among the workshop participants, but crucially there was a feeling that the
findings of the focus group report broadly reflected their own experience. In
the course of the workshop, participants were split into three fall-out groups.
Each fallout group was asked to highlight priorities for improving the
effectiveness of the Compact.

practice;
• Awareness raising – need to promote the Compact and provide

education and training for partners of both sides of the relationship;

Compact implementation
• Research – a number of research priorities were identified, principally

the need for research into the experience of smaller community
organisations; the need for mapping research to assess levels of
knowledge about the Compact; and the need to undertake some
research with local authorities to understand where the Compact fits
within a local political environment that will be dominated by the LAA.
• Joining-up / Proofing - policy should be Compact proofed to ensure

meaningful reference to it so that the Compact and Local Compacts
are functionally linked with new initiatives and programmes
• Positive relationship – the Compact needs to be regarded as a

of working between partners should be embedded on both sides of the
relationship.
41
• Compact as good business – Compact compliance should be
celebrated as being in the best interest and to the benefit of both
partners to comply.
1. Methodology
The workshop involved 34 participants. These representatives included

people who had participated in the original focus group exercise (8), sector
practitioners (13), academics (3), members of the Compact Commission (5),
and members of Compact Voice (6). Invitations to the workshop were sent to
all those who had participated in the focus groups along with a copy of the
report soliciting their comments on its content. An open invitation to the
workshop was posted on sector websites and included in sector newsletters
and updates. Individual invitations to the workshop were widely disseminated
by Compact Voice.
At the verification workshop, participants were given a copy of the focus group
report. The findings were then presented by the focus group facilitator, Jurgen
Grotz. After the presentation, the group was divided into three fall-out groups
for more in depth discussions about the findings. Each fall-out group was
asked to present three key issues in a final plenary discussion (see key
findings above). These, and other issues, were discussed in the wider group
and are reflected in this document. The comments of focus group participants
who were unable to attend the workshop are also taken into account in this
report.
It is recognised that those most likely to attend the focus group workshop, and
the focus groups themselves, will be people who have a certain level of
knowledge of and interest in the Compact. They are also likely to attach the
greater importance to the Compact. This will inevitably affect the range of
views
expressed.
The purpose of the focus group exercise was to hear the voice of the
voluntary and community sector and therefore only addresses one side of a
partnerships perceptions. It is beyond the remit of Compact Voice to
undertake research into the public sector but Compact Voice would welcome
such complimentary research.
2. Main themes
2.1 Endorsement
The participants echoed the findings of the report in endorsing the Compact
as crucial to improving relations between the government and the voluntary
and community sector. All the participants felt that the Compact was a good
thing and all three fall-out groups cited examples where the Compact has
made positive contributions to this relationship. There was recognition of the
fact that the Compact acts as a driver behind the scenes and may be
42
responsible for many positive changes to the relationship which are not
necessarily attributed to the Compact.
Research needs to be done to understand why the Compact works well in

some areas and not so well in others. The findings need to be disseminated.
Examples of where the Compact is working well are often down to good
individual relationships between people working for voluntary/community
organisations and commissioners/local government officers. Participants
pointed out that the Compact is in essence about personal relationships as
well as relationships between the sectors.
2.2 Credibility Gap
The ‘gap’ described in the report, was something that resonated among the
participants. One participant described the gap as being “between where we
are and where we believe we should be", another described it as “a gap
between rhetoric and practice” whilst another, described it in more negative
terms as a gap between “fantasy and reality”.
However it is described, the gap identified here is that of the failure of proper
implementation of the Compact which in turn has impacted on its perceived
credibility. The reasons for this gap are identified in the focus group report as:
1) ignorance of the Compact; 2) the ignoring of the Compact; 3) the lack of
reporting of compliance; 4) lack of reporting of non-compliance. A fifth issue,
identified in the report involving “issues arising from the authority of the
Compact”, was not widely discussed in the workshop.
2.3 'Ignorance of the Compact' and 'ignoring the Compact'
Lack of awareness of the Compact on both sides of the relationship,

combined with the wilful disregard for its requirements, was seen as the key
barrier to effective Compact implementation. Indeed, the workshop discussion
demonstrated how issues of Compact awareness, compliance and
implementation are deeply intertwined and not always easy to unpick.
The failure of local public bodies to comply with the Compact was not always
seen as being about malice but lack of understanding or external pressures.
Local authorities, faced with numerous competing targets, sometimes chose
not to regard the Compact compliance as a priority. One participant described
her experience in which local authorities were either ignorant of the Compact
or deliberately chose not to comply with it.
Many in the voluntary and community sector are unaware of the Compact and
how it can be used. One participant described her experience of having
worked for a small mental health organisation in which no one knew about the
Compact. She felt that, whilst the Compact may be known in larger voluntary
and community organisations, this knowledge is not filtering down.
There is clearly some scepticism within the voluntary and community sector
43
as to the Compact’s usefulness. The experience of “hollow laughs” and “blank
stares” when trying to raise issues of Compact compliance with government
officials resonated within the workshop. The lack of government accountability
for breaches of the Compact is reflected in the fact Compact compliance is
not monitored. This lack of monitoring also means that that there is no
effective way of reporting and rewarding Compact compliance.
The reluctance among voluntary and community sector groups to challenge a

local pubic body over breaches of the Compact for fear of jeopardising future
funding is described in the focus group report as a “wall of silence”. This was
recognised by workshop participants who pointed out that even where the
independence of the sector is talked about and acknowledged, the fear
remains that bringing up the Compact might sour relationships.
Reluctance to challenge Compact breaches out of fear of affecting funding

raises issues about independence and the way in which public service
contracting can compromise sector independence.
2.5 A coded description for conflict?
Many participants recognised the fact that, for many, the Compact has come
to be seen by both partners as a tool for the sector to use to challenge
government. Rather than regarding it as a positive means of partnership
working and mutual cooperation the Compact is increasingly seen in negative
or adversarial terms. The government often see it as “just another thing they
have to comply with” and the sector see it as “a weapon last resort”. There
was a division among the workshop participants, echoing that of the focus
group participants, between those who felt the Compact should be more
about partnership and the relationship, and those who felt it should
concentrate more on compliance and enforcement. Whilst the need for
compliance was recognised, there was a general feeling within the workshop
that the Compact should be “more about carrot and less about stick”.
A number of participants warned against allowing the debate to become

framed in terms of "government bad - voluntary and community sector good".
Both sides have the responsibility to make the Compact work and a “them and
us” approach is counter-productive. The public sector can become wary in its
relationship with the voluntary sector where organisations they engage with
point out the failures of the statutory sector whilst not admitting their own
faults. The voluntary and community sector needs to acknowledge and
recognise their part in a failure to implement the Compact and codes. Where
statutory partners fail to deliver the voluntary sector should be wary of
allowing disillusion or disengagement to take hold.
Some participants questioned the Government’s commitment to the Compact

and it was suggested that there is a deeper policy contradiction within the
44
government’s attitude. On one hand it was suggested that the government
want a good relationship with the sector but if that relationship becomes to
close it might act as a constraint on the market. Other participants challenged
this view, arguing that not only was there no contradiction between Compact
principles and an effective business model, but that the Compact makes
“good business sense” for both partners.
2.6 Is the Compact "lacking teeth"?
An issued raised in the focus groups and discussed in the workshop was the
lack of government accountability for Compact non-compliance and the lack
of enforcement measures to tackle breaches. The issue of the legal status of
the Compact was discussed in the fall-out groups and there was a division
between those that felt that it should be made legally binding and those who
felt that this would not necessarily strengthen the Compact. This division of
opinion mirrors that in the focus groups between those who saw the Compact
as a rulebook and those who saw it more as a guide to partnership working.
It was pointed out that in public law the Compact creates a legitimate
expectation among public bodies to adhere to the procedure that has been
agreed. If, for example, a public body has agreed under the Compact to
consult for 12 weeks with the voluntary sector over particular issues, and they
fail to do so, this may render any decision then taken by the body unlawful. A
legitimate expectation would be more likely to exist if a public body had
specifically signed up to the Compact, but even a commitment from central
government might be sufficient to create such a legitimate expectation.
It was also argued that as the Compact and codes have been endorsed by
central government as documents that should be followed by all central
government bodies, they have the weight of guidance. If a public body fails to
take guidance into account when making a decision their decision might be
rendered unlawful. A test case requires an organisation to "put their head
above the parapet" but it is clear that most organisations are afraid to do so in
case it should jeopardise their future funding relationship.
The level of compliance that the Compact requires by law might well be
resolved through the decisions in the courts. However, one participant
suggested an interim solution whereby a clause could be included in every
contract and funding/grant agreement signed between local authorities and
the sector guaranteeing Compact compliance. This could be combined with
the introduction of some form of inspectorate.
2.7 Joining up / Compact proofing
There was a feeling in the workshop that the Compact needs to be properly
applied in a joined-up way. Draft policy papers or documents should be
45
Compact proofed to ensure that they comply with the National or Local
Compact and make meaningful reference to it.
A need was also expressed to assess the Compact’s role in terms of voluntary
and community sector participation on Local Strategic Partnerships and Local
Area Agreements. Currently the Department for Communities and Local
Government is seen to be driving forward the LSP/LAA agenda while the
Office of the Third Sector is driving forward the Compact, but the two do not
seem to very well joined-up by government. As more of the sector’s funding
will come through LSP/LAA’s in future, this issue is likely to become
increasingly importance.
The old LAA system required a Statement of Community Involvement. This

was a good place to mention the links with the Local Compact and endorse
the application of Compact principles. Even though in the interests of localism
the Statement is no longer mandatory, it was felt that the government should
encourage local partners to consider retaining and developing such a
statement.
2.8 Local Compacts
The national vision on the Compact has not been replicated on a local level.
Local Compacts are often not merely under-resourced but, in many cases,
completely un-resourced. Under-resourced implementation of the Compact
was seen as having little chance of success.
One participant identified a gap between fantasy and reality within

government policy-making. Good policy made at a high level does not trickle
down through the system and get replicated at local level. It was suggested
that central government has devolved its Compact leadership role to local
authorities. This is done in the name of respecting the autonomy of local
authorities, but in reality means that the Compact is not properly implemented
locally. Local authorities are not under any compulsion to deliver and can
therefore abscond from their responsibilities, or think that part-funding a
Compact post is sufficient to fulfil their responsibilities. Whilst Local Compacts
have been published throughout the country, they have not been sufficiently
resourced and very few Compact workers have been employed.
One participant highlighted the tension between central and local government
where the role of local government can involve wearing a number of different
hats; commissioner, partnership facilitator, leader and provider. Whilst the
Compact can be a mechanism to diffuse some of these conflicts, the fact that
a tension exists needs to be acknowledged and taken into account when
constructing policy.
2.9 Small groups
The fact that only 5 percent of focus group participants came from
46
organisations with an income of under £100,000 whilst 89 percent of the
sector has an income of less than £100,000 raised questions about small
organisations experience of the Compact. If awareness of the Compact is low
among professionals, who are likely to have come across the Compact it in
their work, the lack of awareness in the sector as a whole is likely to be much
greater. If this is the case it will impact on the level of endorsement for the
Compact reflected in the focus group. As one participant put it “if you haven’t
heard of the Compact, who knows whether you would think it was a good idea
or not.”
The failure of the focus group exercise to reflect the views of many smaller
groups highlights a wider problem that very little research is being done into
the needs of smaller organisations. These smaller groups are not necessarily
“hard to reach” if the effort is made to reach them, but such research needs
financial and methodological commitment. One participant called for outreach
model to be applied in research in the same way is applied in service delivery.
The call for more research was not universally echoed with one participant
arguing that it is safe to assume that the situation for smaller organisations is
even worse than that for larger organisations. Rather than conducting more
research, she argued the need for action.
Much of the discussion in the focus groups and the workshop centred on
issues of commissioning, procurement, funding and contract issues. These
are usually most relevant to the larger, professionalised voluntary and
community organisations delivering services under contract. The views of
organisations active at a local or community level are likely to be very
different. These should be recognised as distinct from the larger,
professionally staffed agencies which are most visible.
2.10 BME engagement
As with the focus group exercise, much of the workshop discussion focused
on funding and procurement. Whilst this is unsurprising, participants pointed
out that there are four other Compact Codes. The need to engage with the
BME sector was expressed as something that was not clearly enough outlined
in the report. Despite the BME Code, BME groups continue to find it difficult to
engage in meaningful consultation, engagement and policy-making.
2.11 An unequal relationship

Much discussion centred on the fact that the relationship between the
voluntary and community sector and the government is inevitably one of
power imbalance, as one side has all the funding. It was suggested that this
has implications for the Compact’s credibility as a ‘mutually beneficial
agreement between partners’.
One participant compared the Compact to a football match between a

premiership side and a local pub team, where the premiership side shows up
when and where they wants to, get to ignore any decisions by the referee
which go against them, and any goals scored by the opposition can be ruled
47
out. “In this sort of situation” he asks “why should the pub team keep showing
up to play?”
However, another participant pointed out that a power imbalance does not
have to be a problem as a partnership is not necessarily a relationship of
equals. The challenge of the Compact is not to create equal partners but to
treat partners equally.
3 Recommendations
3.1 Awareness raising
Lack of awareness or ignorance of the Compact on both sides of the

relationship was regarded as a key barrier to effective implementation.
Recommendations included:
• a comprehensive, targeted, promotional campaign that would increase

appreciation and understanding of the Compact and what is and what it
can do to make things better for both parties in the relationship.
• the voluntary and community sector being provided with the tools and
training and support to challenge breaches of the Compact
• Need for partners to engage with the Compact rather than just when
they have a problem.
3.2 Implementation
3.3 Compliance
• need for accountability if Compact is not used effectively.
• Acknowledging a systemic failure rather than blaming “a few bad

commissioners”. It is a corporate failing – policy framework needs to be
challenged
3.4 Research
• research into the experience of smaller community organisations (i.e.

with an annual income of under £100,000)
• need for mapping research to assess levels of knowledge about the

Compact at all levels, identify knowledge gaps and inform the future
research agenda
• need to collate case studies that look at which relationships are

working and why and which relationships are not working.
48
• need for in depth local studies to establish what works
• need to undertake some research with local authorities to understand

where the Compact fits within a local political environment that will be
dominated by the LAA.
• need for more effective dissemination and communication of existing

Compact research. The current evidence base is very fragmented and
as, a result, research often duplicated.
• Good practice examples provided to enable bad practice to be

challenged
49
50

Annual Sector Report 2007

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Annual Sector Report 2007

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Annual Sector Report

Presented at the Compact Annual Review Meeting

1. Executive summary / recommendations

2. Purpose and methodology

4. Compact awareness and implementation

5. Relationships with government

6. Barriers to use of the Compact

Annex 1. Compact Advocacy Programme Annual Report

Annex 2. Focus Group Findings Report

Annex 3. Report on Focus Group Verification Workshop

This report attempts to synthesize a number of pieces of research

Key findings and recommendations:

• Implementation – need to tackle the gap between rhetoric and

• Awareness raising – Significant promotional work in both sectors to

• Local Compact resourcing – need for proper funding to ensure Local

• Research – a programme of research; a body of work breaking down

• Joining-up - policy should be checked against the Compact to ensure

• Positive relationships – the Compact needs to be regarded as a

Key questions for discussion

2) How is the local and national government relationship working? What do

2. Purpose and methodology

It is important to recognise that the voluntary and community sector is diverse

As the national Compact on Relations between Government and the

4 Compact awareness and implementation

Lack of awareness of the Compact on both sides of the relationship,

4.1 Mind the gap

This concept of a gap or disconnect in implementation and expectation is also

As far back as 2002, the Treasury cross-cutting review revealed a

The challenge of implementation was picked up as the key issue in David

An unpublished NCVO study in 2004 exploring national organisations’ views

4.2 A level of scepticism

4.3 Lack of reporting of non-compliance

5 Relationships with the government

5.1 An improving relationship

5.2 A coded description for conflict

5.3 An unequal partnership

5.4 The funding relationship

Whilst large organisations appeared to be able to adapt to the changing

A 2007 National Audit Office survey found evidence in to suggest a

5.5 Local Compacts

“The commissioning relationship creates a paradox: the third sector is viewed

6. Barriers to Compact use

6.2 Is the Compact "lacking teeth"?

The Compact and codes have been endorsed by central government as

• Implementation – need to tackle the gap between rhetoric and

• Awareness raising – Significant promotional work in both sectors to

• Local Compact resourcing – need for proper funding to ensure Local

• Research – a programme of research; a body of work breaking down

• Joining-up - policy should be checked against the Compact to ensure

• Positive relationships – the Compact needs to be regarded as a

Compact Advocacy Programme

89% had a Funding and Procurement code breach∗

Percentage of cases breaching each code

Percentage of local and national cases

• The number of cases handled by the programme overall has increased

Local Funding Code Breaches 2006-7

Timely notification on applications

Cases only Cases and enquiries

30 different national cases and 15 enquiries handled over Nov 06-Nov 07

National Funding Breaches

Cases only Cases and enquiries

62% Local cases

68% National cases