Voluntary organisations: from Cinderella to white knight?
BMJ 2000; 320 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7232.392 (Published 12 February 2000) Cite this as: BMJ 2000;320:392
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
EDITOR - Crombie and Coid's thought provoking editorial on voluntary
organisations raised the question 'should voluntary organisations be
involved in planning and implementing policy ...'. In Scotland they have
had
such an involvement for at least the last 4 years in the field of mental
health.
In 1996 the Scottish Office set up a Mental Health Reference Group to
comment on early drafts of the Framework for Mental Health Services in
Scotland, that was finally published in 1997. This external reference
group is multi-agency, including NHS, social work and housing, users of
mental
health services and the people who care for them, and the voluntary
sector. Thus the voluntary sector organisations were able to shape policy.
The Framework set out a joint, co-ordinated planning process for the next
2 planning cycles (6 years). Joint Commissioning Teams (JCTs)in each
Health Board area in Scotland include representatives from the health
board, NHS,
local authority and other providers, service users, carers and the
voluntary sector. In fact, in the Scottish Borders JCT over half of the
membership of this local planning group is made up of users, carers and
the voluntary sector.
This is a time-consuming exercise, but it is producing examples of real
partnership and co-ordinated work in planning and delivering services. The
Reference Group has continued to meet to take forward the Framework
agenda.
Thus the voluntary sector is already fully engaged in planning and
implementing policy in Scotland.
Ian Pullen
Chairman, Mental Health Reference Group,
Hutlyburn House, Melrose, Roxburghshire
Ref: Framework for Mental Health Services in Scotland (1997)
Edinburgh: the Scottish Office
Competing interests: No competing interests
Editor
Crombie and Coid make some very valid observations in their article
'Voluntary organisations: from Cinderella to white knight?' The question
of integrating them into the NHS however sends shivers down my back.
How
can we play our role in influencing policy and priorities from within a
professionally led system? Good working relationships are
needed, but from a position of autonomy.
I see too an important omission. Users and carers who play an active
part in voluntary organisations are a valuable resource. People with long
-term conditions, in particular, are highly motivated to contribute to
health care: to their own; helping other people affected by similar
conditions through self help groups and helplines; as tutors on self
management courses; and through helping improve the quality of services
from a user's perspective. This is yet another reason for valuing
voluntary organisations.
Judy Wilson
Director
The Long-term Medical Conditions Alliance
Competing interests: No competing interests
The effectiveness of voluntary organisations
EDITOR - It was gratifying to see in the Editorial by Crombie and
Coid (1) that 'the enormous potential of the voluntary sector' was
recognised. The authors suggest that 'some initiative is required'.
That initiative actually began in 1978, as the Association for Research in
the Voluntary and Community Sector (ARVAC). ARVAC has core funding from
the Home Office (as well as project funding from a range of other sources
like the National Lottery) and brings together in a unique national
resource the researchers and research 'users' from a wide spectrum of
voluntary organisations. Both large and small agencies are represented,
with a substantial proportion of these contributing to health through
service provision, advocacy or social capital developments.
Evidence of
effectiveness is a central concern to most community and voluntary
agencies, dependent on short-term grants and public donations, exactly as
it is to the NHS. As well as providing research advice, information and
brokerage schemes to build up capacity and research partnerships, ARVAC
offers conferences like 'Research & Evaluation: practice in the
Community sector' (on Wednesday 22 March 2000 in the London Voluntary
Sector Resource Centre) with help from the Economic & Social Research
Council, Community Development Foundation, Charities Evalution Service and
other bodies. Within the London Region, we are fortunate that the London
Boroughs fund ARVAC to provide an outreach service to support small
charities in designing evaluations of their
impact. The implications for improving Health Action Zone partnerships in
the metropolis are clear.
ARVAC,
60 Highbury Grove,
London
N5 2AG,
Woody Caan,
Research and Development education & training
facilitator,
NHS Executive London,
40 Eastbourne Terrace, London W2 3QR.
Personal interest: I was elected as the NHS representative to the
Board of ARVAC.
1 Crombie IK, Coid DR. Voluntary organisations: from Cinderella to
white knight ? BMJ 2000; 320: 392-393.
Competing interests: No competing interests