Sometimes referred to as the “sick man” of Europe, Scotland has the lowest life expectancy in Western Europe and is experiencing widening health inequalities between the most and least deprived. In response, the Scottish government enacted the Community Empowerment Act (2015) to promote collaboration between charities and the government with the assumption that it would lead to more tailored public services ultimately reducing inequalities. To see if the CEA could do this successfully, this project seeks to gauge if charities currently have the capacity to meet their goals and provide public services as desired by the government.
A survey was disseminated to SURF members to identify charities perception of their capacity. In addition, 11 interviews were conducted to identify drivers and hinderances of charities capacity.
Key Takeaways
The survey gathered a total of 35 responses across Scotland. Financial constraints were selected by most, 26 of 35 respondents, as a key challenge. This was followed by inadequate personnel and limited time to implement new projects, indicating charities may be unlikely to provide services to the extent to Scottish government wishes. Conversely, community support was selected by 28 respondents as a key asset, followed by staff capacity, highlighting multiple variables play into successful charities. Coordinating work internally was deemed easier than driving changes internally and collaborating with other organisations, highlighting that maintaining day-to-day activities is easier than expanding organisations.
Only 4 respondents indicated ‘definitely’ feeling supported by political leaders; this support was associated with successfully meeting the organisation’s goals, highlighting how political support can help charities and the need for the government to listen to charities needs.
Interview findings presented a more comprehensive image of the challenges organisations faced. Nine of the 11 interviewees indicated that they were missing staff capacity, primarily attributed to declining populations in rural areas, volunteer fatigue, and limited funding to hire staff. Low salaries were attributed to the quality of employees, with a participant emphasising that “when you’re being realistic with the salaries that you’re paying, experience and expertise are never going to be at the level that it maybe would be in other sectors.”
Attracting sufficient, and qualified, board members remains a challenge. In already understaffed organisations, board members bear the brunt of workload and high levels of responsibility, making volunteering less appealing.
Setting goals to monitor progress was presented as advantageous, especially for small organisations. Additionally, expert knowledge, defined as having an individual(s) involved with the organisation who possess knowledge on a topic that goes beyond the scope of the charity, was highlighted as essential by 9 interviewees. Although expert knowledge enables charities to meet their goals and carry out tasks effectively, it is not a result of government policy or support, indicating that the government needs to support charities with less knowledge of the benefits of the CEA to be equally informed.
Interviews also touched on the role of the broader political environment and government support, or lack thereof. Ten interviewees highlight the cumbersome nature of bureaucratic processes. Government funding applications were described as longer and more complex without a significant advantage in comparison to other funders. It is clear that small charities invest significant staff capacity in applications, limiting time working on projects and delivery. Understaffed charities occasionally rely on board members without previous experience for support. Beyond applications, the constant reporting is perceived as a lack of trust by the government, and specific desired outcomes limit what organisations can and cannot do; as such, the government retains some level of agenda-setting power.
Integral to the CEA is a push for collaboration between organisations and with the government. However, interviewees expressed frustration, stating that “when you actually try and work with government, they are phenomenally siloed,” adding that if they “want everybody to work together, [they] need to set the example.” Highlighting a mismatch between the promotion of the CEA and charities experiences.
What does this mean for inequality in Scotland?
A level of discontent amongst charities was identified, highlighted through key challenges such as limited funding, complex applications, and inadequate staffing. If the government wants to rely on charities to increase service provision, they must provide addition support so all charities can navigate public administration regardless of their size or prior knowledge. Without this support, the CEA will be unable to reduce inequalities through service provisions. More intentional efforts need to be made to engage with charities, and meet them where they are, taking into account their challenges and local context, especially in rural and remote areas. A one size fits all approach is unsuited and runs the risk of being disproportionally advantageous for communities with more resources and know-how.
It should be noted that these findings may not be generalisable given who was interviewed. Interacting with leading staff members from various organisations may paint a different image than speaking to junior staff, volunteers, or patrons. Moreover, organisations with the time to partake in this research may benefit from more support or staff capacity than the average Scottish charities.
Download the full dissertation HERE
