Had a discussion with a senior person from a NHS Trust. We talked about the pressures from above the statutory duties the top down government directives, funding pressures, MP interference and media monitoring. This tends to divert thinking from people and the real reason why you are their to deliver quality services to those who need them. The 'political imperative is always hovering over ones head', he said. He acknowledged that sometimes they forget about involving other people in decision making processes and those directing the pressure from above seemed to weigh their importance at the expense of others. I acknowledge that the political pressures on the voluntary sector were never really as extreme particularly for smaller more local charities and not the national ones. Although I understand the demands made upon him, I was perhaps a bit dismissive of the pressure that caused within his organisation. The collaboration we have can cause tension, yet we both agreed that this tension can be very creative.

I discussed the issue of service user engagement with the CEO of another local charity. His organisation is expert in co-production and has service users actively involved at all levels. My charity has struggled to get service users involved in organisational strategy and quality improvement, aside from a single service user representative on our Board of Trustees.

I thought I would be offered some hints and tips on how to improve our engagement. However, what came back from peer was the fact that any engagement is better than none at all. and that I should not be afraid to start very small in engaging service users in meaningful discussion and input.

Most of our service users are diverse across Kent and Medway, but we have around 80 who regularly attend a Training Centre at our main offices. The insight I gained that 'small is beautiful' has spurred me to speak to our Service User Trustee about spearheading an approach to Centre attendees. This has already generated ideas for service enhancements that we are putting into place.

I work for a grant making charity and had a discussion with a Trustee regarding risk and the nature of grants made.  The awards are primarily made for capital items.  If you fund the installation of new windows or purchase of a new mini-bus you can go round and see exactly what the funds granted have been used for, little risk.  A nice clean process.

However it is often difficult to monitor and follow the use of funds granted towards running costs and salaries and in addition if the recipient of the grant is not successful is obtaining additional funding once one grant has expired dire financial consequences can result.  The Trustee explained that over 15 years ago the organisation funded a support group for three years to a considerable extent but at the end of the period the group failed to get further funding and had to close.  Regrettably the group went to the press blaming the funder with headlines such as "charity slashes funding, 5 redundancies etc." 

I explained that I felt we were not serving a key sector "those in need", a key objective, and that many had suffered over the last 15 years because of the ruling.  A degree of movement was achieved in that the premises rental costs would be considered more favourably but salaries/wages would still be excluded. 

Week 3 – Activity 2

I got an opportunity to speak to a local councillor to discuss the disconnected range of services that our patrons were often not aware of.

At the point of registration by the council, there was no automatic announcement or dispatch of relevant information on what someone might be entitled to. The system was fragmented at best and not communicated at worst.

It was a really useful conversation and it stimulated a response which brought other council staff officers directly into our charity. They were able to hear first-hand accounts of challenges and omissions affecting our patrons.

The outcomes were positive and engaging. It was collaborative and furthermore, it was acknowledgement and recognition of different needs and how working together can bring about alternative solutions.

I spoke to one our more senior managers. I was interested to know her opinion on encouraging volunteers to take on and comply with the changes that the organisation implements. She came from the stand point that there is always a definite reason for these changes and they should be explained and then complying is not optional. This stand point has seen some of my longer term volunteers retiring but new ones who like the more structured defined way of working joining the team. I would like to see more time taken over decisions and those on the ground being more involved in the decisions but I also see how this would take a lot of time and effort and be extremely difficult to implement nationally.