Leslie Huckfield asks for your understanding and patience while this and other postings on this site are updated and developed. This is happening right now and will be completed soon.
This posting concerns the incredible behaviour of NCVO – the National Culling of Voluntary Organisations – over the past 30 years, which has contributed to:
- unprecedented numbers of voluntary and community organisations becoming more dependent on fast shrinking public funding, thus rendering them subservient and forced to bid for contract funding for carrying out central and local government policies
- support for New Labour and Coalition Government policies, including the Compact, Flexible New Deal, the Work Programme and Transforming Rehabilitation – so that voluntary and community organisations are left to beg for crumbs from the table of private prime contractors
- support for New Labour and Coalition Government policies to replace public with private funding through social investment as a futile response to austerity – funding which is irrelevant and inaccessible for most organisations paying NCVO subscriptions
- closure and withdrawal of services delivered by many voluntary and community organisations which used to play a vital role in supporting local communities
Foremost in criticising NCVO’s role in all of this has been the Independence Panel for the Voluntary Sector. But NCVO has now solved that problem by buying the Independence Panel.
The Independence Panel for the Voluntary Sector has surely now lost all credibility through taking NCVO money.
Huckfield is reminded of that great 1930 Laurel and Hardy film classic Another Fine Mess (1). But after their escape from that tunnel riding two unicyles, Stan Laurel and Ollie Hardy went on to make many more great films – which is more that can be said of many previous NCVO members, which have been forced to close.
NCVO Buys Out its Biggest Critics
On Wednesday 11 February 2015, Third Sector carried this story by Andy Ricketts Sir Stuart Etherington announces NCVO offer of £100k for new Baring Foundation panel (2). The carefully crafted Etherington statement said:
“In the same way that the Deakin report was a creature of its time and its recommendations marked a turning point in the history of the voluntary sector, I hope this commission will enable the sector to shape its own future”
“Such an endeavour needs to be properly resourced and we are pleased to be offering £100,000 to support the work of this important commission.”
“Some key areas for a commission to consider, which will strengthen independence, are how to strengthen the sector’s independent mission and identity and the sector’s voice in a modern democracy… a new funding model for the sector that works for organisations that currently rely on state funding, including smaller organisations; and how to strengthen independent regulation.”
“Another Fine Mess” – what Stuart Etherington didn’t say
Stuart Etherington’s two very significant omissions are described in detail below:
- It was NCVO which set up the Deakin Commission, which reported in 1996 and led to the Compact, under which voluntary and community sector become subservient to central and local government. Emma Carmel and Jenny Horlock labelled this Instituting the ‘Third Sector’ as a Governable Terrain (3):
(p167)“Indeed, we pointed out that while the third sector is instituted as a governable, and thus a public, realm, its accountability, procedures and activities as a public service provider remain a matter for technocratic evaluation by state actors, rather than a matter for political debate and contestation”
In other words, the voluntary sector had become an arm of the state. Since under the Compact it was NCVO which got voluntary and community organisations into this mess, Stuart Etherington’s words are standing history on its head.
- The Independence Panel of the Voluntary Sector, previously funded by the Baring Foundation – as shown in detail below – directly and indirectly has been among NCVO’s strongest critics.
This posting therefore seeks to jog NCVO’s memory about its own history.
The Independence Panel for the Voluntary Sector and NCVO
These extracts from four Annual Reports from the Independence Panel show why NCVO has spent £100,000 to silence its critics.
(p27)“There is a danger that parts of the voluntary sector which deliver public services could in effect become not for profit businesses, virtually interchangeable with the private sector”
(referring to events in Canada)“Independence once enjoyed by mutual aid and religious organisations has evolved into a complex, embedded relationship with government in which the nonprofit and voluntary sector primarily strives to achieve a productive interdependent partnership rather than an independent or civil society relationship”.
(p43)“The NCVO and ACEVO were clear in evidence that they actively campaigned on behalf of the sector without fear or favour and were unaffected by receiving state funding. …. They also argued that influence behind the scenes could sometimes be more effective“.
(p43)“… leading infrastructure bodies came under attack from within the sector when they wrote as ‘charity leaders’ to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury on 19th October 2012 saying that they ‘were looking forward to working with you to build a more sustainable economic future for our country, by stimulating growth and tackling the deficit’. The letter was seen by some as placing the voluntary sector at the disposal of the government machine”.
(p43)“We also believe that infrastructure bodies could do even more than just question practices that threaten the independence of the sector – for example by launching judicial reviews of contractual terms which reduce independence”.
(p44)“The Panel’s view is that, under the last few governments, the trend has been for state bodies to manage relationships with the voluntary sector through markets. Current procurement and contract practices lead the government to treat the sectors as interchangeable because they are in competition”
(p14)“As one of our members, Professor Nicholas Deakin puts it, ‘The voluntary sector risks declining over the next ten years into a mere instrument of a shrunken state, voiceless and toothless, unless it seizes the agenda and creates its own vision.'”
(p43)David Robinson, founder of Community Links “described how, for different reasons, civil society has been losing its voice in recent years. .. Instead of defending its right to challenge poor business practices such as failure to pay the Living Wage, the voluntary sector’s response was largely to argue that it is a supporter of the private sector. The relationship to government, he argued, has become one of subservience“
In this Final Report on page 7, the Panel identifies six challenges to the independence of the voluntary sector. In the Panel’s assessment, everything “continues to get worse”. This is strong implied criticism of the failure of third sector organisations like NCVO..
The 1978 Wolfenden Report – NCVO Hires a “Management Guru”
NCVO’s history shows its complicity and willing participation in nearly thirty years of central government endeavours to make voluntary and community organisations subservient and more like businesses, so that they can tender to deliver public services cheaply.
The 1978 Report of the Wolfenden Committee on The Future of Voluntary Organisations (8) foreshadowed the rise of a range of third sector intermediary organisations as policy influencers. Brandsen et al in Third Sector Policy Communities in Europe: a comparison of the UK, the Netherlands and Sweden (9) describe Wolfenden’s Report as “a turning point in a number of senses”,including its “justification for strengthening a horizontal policy architecture centred on the idea of ‘intermediary bodies’ at the local and national levels”.
NCVO’s response to this was to hire a “management guru” to turn voluntary and community organisations into businesses. Colin Rochester in 2013 described this process in Rediscovering Voluntary Action: The Beat of a Different Drum (10):
(p49)“As early in the process as 1981, the report of a working party on ‘Improving Effectiveness in Voluntary Organisation’, set up by NCVO and chaired by the management ‘guru’ Charles Handy, pointed to the need for the sector to embrace some of the management practices of business and led to the establishment by NCVO of a Management Development Unit (National Council for Voluntary Organisations, 1981).
In 1993, Barry Knight’s detailed analysis in Voluntary Action, the Centris Report (11) describes this further:
(p46)“The Handy Working Party of 1981, which put management firmly on the agenda, was titled ‘Improving Effectiveness in Voluntary Organisations'”
Voluntary Action, the Centris Report (11) responded to NCVO themes by suggesting that the voluntary sector might be split into a “first force” of service providers and a “third force”, mainly of advocacy groups. This restructuring theme became mood music for Conservatives and New Labour.
NCVO, the Deakin Commission and the Compact
In 1994, NCVO once more took the lead by setting up a Voluntary Sector Commission under Professor Nicholas Deakin. The central recommendation of Meeting the Challenge of Change: Voluntary Action into the 21st Century: Report of the Commission on the Future of the Voluntary Sector in England (12) was that there should be a formal concordat between the voluntary sector and government. But to be fair to Deakin, he did not envisage the subservient relationship which then developed.
Though the Conservative Government was not keen on a concordat, in 1997 the Labour Party’s Building the Future Together: Labour’s Policies for Partnership between Government and the Voluntary Sector (13) called for a Compact – a new relationship with the voluntary and community sector. The History of the Compact (14) shows rapid progress in this new relationship, in which NCVO was soon reduced to a junior partner:
- 1997 Conference of leading sector umbrella bodies backs NCVO’s proposal for a Compact Working Group on Government Relations (set up as Compact Working Group, now renamed Compact Voice)
- 1998 Compact agreed and launched
- 2000 Funding Code published (revised 2005 as Funding and Procurement Code)
- 2000 Local Compact Guidelines published (revised as Local Compact Implementation Workbook, 2006)
- 2001 Volunteering Code published (revised 2005)
- 2003 Community Groups Code published
In September 2002 the Treasury in its Cross Cutting Review: The Role of the Voluntary and Community Sector in Service Delivery (15) set out the terms on which it was prepared to engage with voluntary and community organisations:
(p5)“This review of the role of the VCS in service delivery set the strategic framework for the discussions in this year’s spending review. Its overall objective was to explore how central and local government can work more effectively with the sector to deliver high quality services, so that where the sector wishes to engage in service delivery, it is able to do so effectively”
In effect, central government said to NCVO members “You can take it or leave it”!
No wonder that by 2004, Kate McLaughlin in Towards a ‘Modernised’ Voluntary and Community Sector (16) was again writing about a “bifurcation of the sector”, in similar vein to Voluntary Action, the Centris Report (11):
(p562)“one ‘modernized’ sector dependent upon substantial public money and dedicated to the production of ‘world class’ public services and one non-institutionalised sector dependent upon primarily voluntary income and working at the margins of public service delivery and in the sphere of civil society”
Her forecast proved accurate. In March 2005 in his Consultation Document Strengthening Partnerships: Next Steps for Compact: The Relationship between the Government and the Voluntary and Community Sector (17) Charles Clarke as Home Secretary sought a two tier Compact:
(p6)“Opting into the commitments in Compact Plus would entitle organisations to display a new kitemark on their publicity material (similar to the Investors in People standard), and achieving Compact Plus would need to reflect the work and processes involved in reaching this standard”
But because of the May 2005 General Election, the Compact’s Annual Meeting with Ministers was delayed until November 2005 and Charles Clarke’s attention was diverted elsewhere.
For 25 years NCVO had tried hard to refashion voluntary and community organisations as businesses. But now New Labour wanted brand names and kitemarks as well!
NCVO was probably saved by the May 2005 General Election and Charles Clarke’s attention being diverted by foreign prisoners in British jails and his ultimate dismissal.
NCVO won’t welcome being reminded of all this by anyone.
December 2008 – NCVO Supports Foundations for the Work Programme
In December 2008 New Labour laid the foundations for the development and operation of the current Work Programme in James Purnell’s White Paper Raising Expectations and Increasing Support: Reforming Welfare for the Future (18)
(p46)The DWP Commissioning Strategy “opens the way for larger, longer contracts with providers rewarded for their success in helping more people into sustained work; where customers receive a more personalised and flexible service; and where delivery of employment support is integrated into local services”
There was widespread recognition from third sector organisations that this opened the door wide to large private sector providers. So it should have been obvious to NCVO that the rules of the game had changed.
In July 2008, before James Purnell’s Raising Expectations White Paper (18) the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations (ACEVO) set up a Third Sector Task Force. Welfare to Work Reform: The Third Sector’s Role: Third Sector Taskforce Final Report (19) was published in February 2009. The Task Force, on which NCVO was represented by its experienced Policy Director, Liz Atkins, recognised that the private sector would play a dominant role:
(p5)“This follows publication of the Freud report (20), the outcome of which is a new prime contractor model, in which each successful prime will operate in a large geographical area with a big population. It is already clear that most of these prime contractors will come from the private sector and that they in turn will be looking for sub-contractors with a strong, effective and consistent delivery capability.”
For New Labour in March 2007 David Freud’s Report Reducing Dependency, Increasing Opportunity: Options for the Future of Welfare to Work (20) provided the foundations for Flexible New Deal in 2009, which the Coalition easily transposed into the Work Programme. His Report on page 107 even points to Universal Credit!
But instead of challenging any of this, the Third Sector Taskforce Final Report (19) including NCVO, pinned its hopes on getting funding from the proposed Social Investment Bank:
(p6)“..it will be essential that the later recommendation in this report re the Social Investment Bank is implemented quickly, as few Third Sector organisations will be able to afford the substantial cash outlay needed to take part in programmes which only produce income 12–18 months later”.
(p6)“The scale of the new contracts and the “reward” mechanism for providers will create a greater opportunity than ever before for the third sector to support prime contractors in the delivery of public services”.
So the Task Force, including NCVO, offered support for the private prime contractor model – despite considerable evidence presented about third sector difficulties, as shown in the Third Sector Taskforce Final Report (19):
(p11)“According to the ACEVO survey, just 13% of respondent TSOs have a dedicated contracting team…”
All this meant that under the Work Programme there was little NCVO could do, except to seek improvement in the terms and conditions under which private primes might subcontract to voluntary and community organisations.
Huckfield pointed out this diminished role of third sector subcontractors at the mercy of private sector primes to Stuart Etherington when he addressed a meeting of West Midlands Charities in Birmingham on Friday 28 October 2011.
Huckfield was not involved when NCVO in April 2013 published the NCVO and Serco Joint Code of Practice. (21)
As shown above, under the Compact NCVO allowed the Government to become the puppet master. Under the Work Programme NCVO allowed private prime contractors to become the puppet masters. NCVO won’t enjoy being reminded of all this.
NCVO Supports all the Coalition Government’s Big Policies
On December 07 2010 the Coalition Government’s Office for Civil Society published its Modernising Commissioning Green Paper (22). Page 9 emphasised fundamental changes:
- Introducing payment by results across public services
- Setting proportions of specific services that should be delivered by independent providers, including civil society organisations
The NCVO Green Paper Response : Modernising Commissioning: Increasing the role of Charities, Social Enterprises, Mutuals and Cooperatives in Public Service Delivery (23) said in its Executive Summary:
(p2)“It is likely that a shift toward a payment by results model would exacerbate these problems if decisive action is not taken. The Big Society Bank is a part of the solution to that problem”
Against this mighty onslaught from Government, NCVO’s response mainly focuses on measurement of outcomes, transfer of assets, sharing risk and making markets more accessible to third sector organisations.
The December 2010 Modernising Commissioning Green Paper (22) paved the way for massive private investment foreshadowed in the Cabinet Office paper “Growing the Social Investment Market (24). The Government’s vision was clear:
(p17)“We do not underestimate the degree of challenge, or the timescale required to realise our vision. But the opportunity is large. UK charitable investment and endowment assets alone account for nearly £95bn. If just 5% of these assets, 0.5% of institutionally managed assets and 5% of retail investments in UK ISAs were attracted to social investment, that would unlock around £10bn of new finance capacity.”
The Cabinet Office Open Public Services White Paper in July 2011 (25) also represented a major policy shift, with its strong presumption in favour of commissioning:
(p40)“The Government’s policies challenge the traditional approach to finance in each of the public, private, and voluntary, community and social enterprise (VCSE) sectors. For example, payment by results requires capital investment to cover both cash flow before payments are made and the risk that the anticipated results will not be achieved”
For NCVO on July 11 2011, Stuart Etherington made an initial response to the Open Public Services White Paper, which included:
“Access to finance and cash flow is another major barrier denying voluntary organisations from taking on a greater role in service delivery. The Big Society Bank is a positive step towards remedying this, but will not be able to provide finance to the whole sector.
Though NCVO may have recognised difficulties through payment by results systems in the Open Public Services White Paper (25), it did not opppose its thrust or basic principles.
NCVO followed the same course oh Social Investment Tax Relief. In response to the Government’s proposals on Social Investment Tax Relief (26) NCVO up a Working Group which produced the NCVO Commission on Tax Incentives for Social Investment: Analysis and Recommendations (27)in January 2012:
(p22)“the Government should consider how equity or equity-like investment made directly into enterprises established for community or social benefit should be eligible for Community Investment Tax Relief (CITR)”
As in its response to major Government proposals above, NCVO once more sought to encourage more social investment by private investors in third sector activities.
NCVO’s Belated Awakening on Social Investment
After its continuing advocacy of Big Society Capital and social investment, NCVO is belatedly beginning to accept that this doesn’t work. In a posting on September 17 2014, G8 Social Investment: What do you need to know? (28), Andrew O’Brien, NCVO Senior Policy Officer wrote:
“Many voluntary organisations are not investment-ready either because they lack the skills/experience to be able to factor social investment into their plans or they lack the capacity and time to consider it”.
The ACEVO Task Force Report (19), the NCVO Green Paper Response Modernising Commissioning: Increasing the role of Charities, Social Enterprises, Mutuals and Cooperatives in Public Service Delivery (23) and the NCVO response to Open Public Services White Paper (25) all pin their hopes on social investment and Big Society Capital.
Despite its constant advocacy and support for social investment, NCVO at last seems to have awoken to the reality that social investment may not be the answer!
There is mounting evidence, including the May 2014 Big Society Capital’s Social Investment: From Ambition to Action: Annual Review, Report and Accounts 2013 (29):
(p41)“…. 19 investments with a value of £47.9mn have been signed and £13.1mn has been drawn down. Big Society Capital’s expectation is that the average investment will typically take between 3 and 6 years to fully draw down.”
Huckfield’s previous posting 2015-a Year for Killing Social Enterprise, Coops and Mutuals carries much more evidence about social investment not working.
A combination of Modernising Commissioning Green Paper (22), Growing the Social Investment Market (24) and the Open Public Services White Paper (24) sought fundamentally to change the delivery of public services – in many ways to the detriment of NCVO members.
Surely NCVO and other third sector infrastructure organisations could have made joint submissions outlining the serious doubts and concerns of the third sector, instead of accepting the role of private prime contractors and pinning hopes on a policy of social investment which doesn’t work?
No wonder that Independence under Threat: The Voluntary Sector in 2013: The Panel’s Second Annual Assessment (5) recommended:
(p43)“launching judicial reviews of contractual terms which reduce independence”.
Huckfield knows from so many anecdotes and discussions that large numbers of those paying NCVO subscriptions feel cheated and poorly represented. Here’s hoping that thousands of them will either cease paying their dues or at least make it clear that £100,000 could be better spent representing the genuine aspirations of members rather than buying off critics.
If this doesn’t happen, there is every prospect that the new Panel – however it styles itself – will become a mouthpiece to amplify NCVO’s ongoing litany of supine complicity and tame subservience to the Government of the day.
Huckfield apologises that some of the following are references to subscription academic journals. If readers can’t access any of these, please use the Contact Form on this site. Thank you.
(1)James Parrott (Director);Laurel,Stan;Hardy,Oliver. Another Fine Mess 1930 (You Tube) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZfg9rk_9iQ
(2) Ricketts,Andy. Sir Stuart Etherington announces NCVO offer of £100k for new Baring Foundation panel. Third Sector, Tuesday 17 February 2015. http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/sir-stuart-etherington-announces-ncvo-offer-100k-new-baring-foundation-panel/infrastructure/article/1333459
(3) Carmel,Emma; Harlock,Jenny. Instituting the ‘Third Sector’ as a Governable Terrain: Partnership, Procurement and Performance in the UK Policy and Politics, 2008, 36, No 2, March 11 2009 http://www.ingentaconnect.com.gcu.idm.oclc.org/content/tpp/pap/2008/00000036/00000002/art00001
(4) Panel on the Independence of the Voluntary Sector. Protecting Independence: the Voluntary Sector in 2012, Baring Foundation, London, January 2012 http://baringfoundation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/ProtectingIVS2012.pdf
(5)Panel on the Independence of the Voluntary Sector. Independence Under Threat: The Voluntary Sector In 2013. The Panel’s Second Annual Assessment. Baring Foundation, London. http://www.independencepanel.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Independence-Under-Threat_webV.pdf
(6) Panel on the Independence of the Voluntary Sector. Independence Undervalued: The Voluntary Sector in 2014, Third Annual Assessment, Baring Foundation, London http://www.independencepanel.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Independence-undervaluedfinalPDF-copy.pdf;
(7) Panel on the Independence of the Voluntary Sector. An Independent Mission: The Voluntary Sector in 2015: The Panel’s Fourth and Final Annual Assessment
Independence Panel, 2015, Baring Foundation, London http://www.baringfoundation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/IP-Mission.pdf
(8)Wolfenden, John. The Future of Voluntary Organisations. Report of the Wolfenden Committee. Croom Helm 1978 http://archiveshub.ac.uk/data/gb237-coll-256
(9) Brandsen,Taco; Kendall,Jeremy; Nordfelt,Marie; Olson,Lars Erik. Third Sector Policy Communities in Europe: a comparison of the UK, the Netherlands and Sweden. May 2008, Catholic University of Leuven, Louven https://www.econbiz.de/Record/third-sector-policy-communities-in-europe-a-comparison-of-the-uk-the-netherlands-and-sweden-brandsen-taco/10003950146
(10) Rochester,Colin. Rediscovering Voluntary Action:The Beat of a Different Drum 2013, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke http://www.palgraveconnect.com.gcu.idm.oclc.org/pc/doifinder/10.1057/9781137029461
(11) Knight,Barry. Voluntary Action: The Centris Report, 1993, 1-309, Centris, Newcastle http://www.centris.org.uk/publications.php
(12) Deakin,Nicholas. Meeting the Challenge of Change: Voluntary Action into the 21st Century: Report of the Commission on the Future of the Voluntary Sector in England. National Council for Voluntary Organisations, 1996, NCVO, London
(13) Labour Party. Building the Future Together: Labour’s Policies for Partnership between Government and the Voluntary Sector,1997 Labour Party, London
(14) History of the Compact. The National Archives 2008 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110314111751/http:/www.thecompact.org.uk/information/100018/100212/history_of_the_compact/
(15) HM Treasury. The Role of the Voluntary and Community Sector in Service Delivery: A Cross Cutting Review, September 2002, 1-52, HM Treasury, London http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130129110402/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/CCRVolSec02.pdf
(16) McLaughlin,Kate. Towards a ‘modernized’ voluntary and community sector? Public Management Review, 2004, 6, 4, 555-562, Taylor & Francis London http://www-tandfonline-com.gcu.idm.oclc.org/doi/pdf/10.1080/1471903042000303337
(17) Home Office. Strengthening Partnerships: Next Steps for Compact. The Relationship between the Government and the Voluntary and Community Sector Home Office Consultation Paper, 2005, March 2005, March 2005, 1-56, Home Office, London http://www.oneeastmidlands.org.uk/sites/default/files/library/StrengtheningPartnership-NextStepsForCompact.pdf
(18)Department for Work and Pensions. Raising Expectations and Increasing Ssupport: Reforming Welfare for the Future December 2008, Department for Work and Pensions, London http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130128102031/http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/fullversion.pdf
(19) ACEVO Third Sector Taskforce. Welfare to Work Reform: The Third Sector’s Role Third Sector Task Force Report February 04 2009, ACEVO, London. http://www.acevo.org/document.doc?id=42
(20) Freud,David; Department of Work and Pensions. Reducing Dependency, Increasing Opportunity: Options for the Future of Welfare to Work. An Independent Report to the Department for Work and Pensions 2007, Department of Work and Pensions, London http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130128102031/http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/welfarereview.pdf
(21) NCVO; Serco. NCVO and Serco Launch Code of Practice to Raise Standards NCVO and Serco, London, April 11 2013. https://www.ncvo.org.uk/about-us/media-centre/press-releases/335-ncvo-and-serco-launch-code-of-practice-to-raise-standards
(22) Cabinet Office. Modernising Commissioning: Increasing the Role of Charities, Social Enterprises, Mutuals and Cooperatives in Public Service Delivery 2010, Cabinet Office, London https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78924/commissioning-green-paper.pdf
(23)NCVO. Green Paper Submission: Modernising Commissioning: Increasing the Role of Charities, Social Enterprises, Mutuals and Cooperatives in Public Service Delivery.NCVO Consultation Response, December 2010, NCVO, London. http://www.huckfield.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/10-NCVO-Response-Modernising-Commissioning-Dec.pdf
(24) Cabinet Office. Growing the Social Investment Market: A Vision and Strategy 2011, p 17, Cabinet Office, London https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/growing-the-social-investment-market-a-vision-and-strategy
(25) Cabinet Office. Open Plan Public Services July 2011 Cabinet Office, London https://www.gov.uk/government/upload.s/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/255288/OpenPublicServices-WhitePaper.pdf
(26) Cabinet Office. Social Investment Tax Relief September 8 2014 Cabinet Office, London https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/social-investment-tax-relief
(27) NCVO. NCVO Commission on Tax Incentives for Social Investment. Analysis and Recommendations. January 2012. http://www.ncvo.org.uk/images/documents/practical_support/public_services/ncvo_commission_on_tax_incentives_for_social_investment.pdf
(28) O’Brien,Andrew. G8 Social Investment R: What do you need to know? NCVO September 17, 2014 http://blogs.ncvo.org.uk/2014/09/17/g8-social-investment-report-what-do-you-need-to-know/
(29) Big Society Capital. Social Investment: From Ambition to Action: Annual Review and Accounts 2013 May 2014, Big Society Capital, London http://www.bigsocietycapital.com/sites/default/files/BSC_AR_2013.pdf