The challenges of ‘mapping’ the voluntary sector at a local level are well documented (Soteri-Proctor and Smith, 2003; Pharoah and Williamson, 2008; Mohan, 2012) and the problems associated with trying to identify a comprehensive list of voluntary sector welfare organisations in Merseyside became apparent very early during the research. An important aspect of the problem is the contested definition of a voluntary or ‘third’ ‘sector’ (Alcock, 2010a). Since many local organisations are not registered as charities, they do not appear on the Charity Commission Register or its searchable database12. The Commission’s website allows searches for specific charities if the exact name or charity number is known, but does not allow the user to generate a full and reliable list of, say, all charities within a particular geographical location. Alternative sources of information about local voluntary sector organisations are the local Councils for Voluntary Services (or equivalent organisations), of which there are five in the Merseyside area13. Furthermore, there are many voluntary organisations that, for a variety of reasons, are not in contact with either the Charity Commission or local umbrella bodies likes Councils for Voluntary Services, and as a result are ‘below the radar’ in terms of appearing on local lists of voluntary sector groups (McCabe et al., 2010).
Even where lists of voluntary organisations or charities exist, a further challenge is presented in identifying the trustees of a particular organisation. As discussed in Chapter 1, for the purposes of this research I use NCVO’s definition of ‘voluntary organisation’ that refers to all registered charities but excluding those controlled by government, independent schools, faith groups, housing associations and trade
12 Charities with an income of under £5,000 do not appear on the Register of Charities (Mohan, 2012).
13
The main local infrastructure organisations are: Liverpool Charity and Voluntary Services; Sefton Council for Voluntary Service (CVS); Wirral CVS; Knowsley CVS; and Halton and St Helens CVS (the latter was formed in 2010 following a merger of St Helens CVS and Halton CVS).
associations (see Clark et al., 2012: 17). As such I use the Charity Commission definition of a charity trustee14 (albeit acknowledging the alternative terms many individuals in the role use, such as Management Committee members or board members) to select research participants. It was, therefore, not possible to construct a sampling frame of all charity trustees within Merseyside, due to the constraints of not being able to conduct a comprehensive search of the Charity Commission Register by geographical location, and not being able to identify named trustees for all welfare charities within the area in a way that was totally reliable and up to date.
As a result of the issues in defining and identifying the local voluntary sector, and the individuals volunteering as trustees within voluntary sector agencies, the selection of research participants was determined by a number of approaches that aimed to target volunteer trustees directly. This kind of purposive sampling enabled the recruitment of research participants who were trustees, but also allowed the widening of the range of the sample by ensuring that it contained instances of ‘infrequent types’ (Weiss, 1994: 23). For example, I made specific attempts to identify and recruit for interview some younger trustees, in light of evidence that only 0.5% of trustees are aged 18-24 (Charity Commission, 2010: 3). In a similar way, participants with differing lengths of service in the role, different roles on the board of trustees, and volunteering in different types of voluntary sector organisation were recruited to the study. The research arises within the context of the increasing involvement of voluntary sector organisations in welfare delivery and developments that have seen a greater role for charities in the provision of public services. The individuals who were recruited for interview were, therefore, deliberately drawn from organisations focused on welfare
14 “Charity trustees are the people who serve on the governing body of a charity. They may be known as trustees, directors, board members, governors or committee members. Charity trustees are responsible for the general control and management of the administration of a charity” (Charity Commission, 2008a: B2)
provision, broadly defined. In order to reflect the diversity of the sector, participants were sought from a mix of charities, in terms of size and the kinds of services provided. However, given evidence that small charities may be disproportionately affected by policy shifts and reforms within the wider sector (Audit Commission, 2007; Charity Commission, 2007; Clark et al., 2010; Clifford and Backus, 2010) as examined in Chapter 3, specific efforts were made to target participants from smaller organisations during the interview recruitment process.
The primary methods used to recruit participants included direct phone calls to charities (in which I asked to be put in touch with trustees) and circulating an advert aimed at trustees via a number of different networks including local volunteer bureaux and voluntary sector umbrella bodies. As well as current trustees, two research participants were ex-trustees who responded to the advert, offering to share their experiences of the trustee role while reflecting on the reasons that they had resigned. Snowball sampling techniques were also used to identify potential research participants, both trustees and staff members, based on the recommendations of those working and volunteering in the local sector. A number of other studies focussing on participants who volunteer have successfully employed purposive sampling methods, including snowball techniques. Lie and Barnes’ (2007: 231) study of older volunteers purposely sampled interviewees to include three specific groups of participants, allowing them to gather the views of current volunteers, former volunteers and service users. Similarly, Yeung (2004: 27) employed purposive sampling to seek “information rich cases” in her study of the motivations of volunteers in Finnish churches. A snowball recruitment method was also used as one of two methods in a study of nonprofit health and social care volunteers in Ireland, allowing researchers to interview volunteers in two indepth case studies (MacNeela, 2008). Snowballing methods have also been selected to reach “hidden populations”, for example in research into drug users, offenders or other marginalised or stigmatised groups (Atkinson and Flint, 2001; van Meter, 1990). While charity trustees may not form a
stigmatised population, their sometimes infrequent and distanced contact with their own organisations can mean that, to an extent, trustees constitute a ‘hard-to-reach’ or ‘distant’ group. Atkinson and Flint (2001) cite an example of snowballing techniques being used to access elite groups as well as the marginalised, and consider the method to be particularly useful where respondents are few in number. A number of other advantages to the method have been highlighted by Noy (2008), who argues that snowballing forces the researcher to relinquish a certain amount of control and can empower participants. He suggests that by paying attention to the sampling process itself, as well as to the interview data, researchers can take an ethnographic approach to snowballing and gain insights into the groups they are studying and the networks and links between participants (ibid.). Obviously, snowballing methods of participant recruitment have their disadvantages, and a frequently cited concern is their potential lack of representativeness and the extent to which generalizations can be made (Atkinson and Flint, 2001; Denscombe, 2002). As stated, in order to mitigate the impact of this within the research, different categories of participants were recruited (e.g. differing levels of experience, organisational activity and personal backgrounds) and a level of detail about the participants and the selection process are included within the thesis – see also Appendices D, E and F (Denscombe, 2002). Furthermore, my research makes reference to other studies into issues affecting trustees that has been undertaken using different methodologies (such as quantitative surveys into trustee recruitment and training), in the spirit of what Williams (2000: 222) refers to as “an openness to the adoption of alternative strategies to improve the representativeness of research, and ... a willingness to admit the limitations of one’s research”.
In summary, the final sample of trustee participants consisted of 25 interviewees (this included three participants who were ex-trustees). The group was mixed in terms of ‘race’, sex and age (see Table 1). They included trustees with varying lengths of volunteering service in their organisations, ranging from over ten years to less than one year’s
experience. Approximately half of the sample occupied an ‘honorary role’ such as Chair, Vice-Chair, Secretary or Treasurer; the rest fulfilled standard trustee roles. The organisations they volunteered for were registered charities in Merseyside, and ranged in size from those with a turnover of less than £40,000 to those with annual turnovers of over £20M. At the smaller end of the range some charities were run solely by volunteers and some had a very small number of paid staff. In the biggest organisations, the organisations employed significant numbers of paid staff, including senior staff who managed the day-to-day operations on behalf of the trustees. Definitions of charity size are contested. The Small Charities Coalition (2011) defines a “small” charity as one having an income of less than £1 million per year. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations (Clark et al., 2010) categorises those charities with an annual income of under £100,000 as small (and those with under £10,000 per annum as “micro”). The Charity Commission (2011) defines small charities as those with an income under £250,000 per annum. Using income levels as an indicator is problematic as a small organisation’s income can fluctuate significantly from year to year as a consequence of funding received. In addition, contracts or grants received may be restricted funds for a specific short-term project. Furthermore, using income levels as a means of defining charity size does not necessarily reflect the numbers of staff or volunteers within the organisation, the scale and impact of its work, or its degree of influence. Nevertheless, income levels remain the most commonly used method of defining charity size. If the NCVO definition of small charity is adopted (less than £100,000), six participants in this study were from small charities (five trustees and one staff member) – the remainder being from larger organisations.
The types of work carried out by the organisations included a wide variety of social care and welfare activities, including advice, advocacy, education, grant-making, housing provision and service provision. They worked with diverse groups of service users including children, the elderly, women, refugees, disabled people and black and minority ethic
(BME) groups (see Table 2). A summary of the individual participants is included in Appendices D, E and F.
Table 1: Characteristics of research participants (Trustees and Staff)
Trustees Senior Staff
Sex Male 13 5 Female 12 5 Age15 18-2416 2 0 25-29 0 0 30-39 5 2 40-49 9 2 Over 50 9 6 ‘Race / ethnicity’17
Self-identified as ‘ethnic minority’ 5 1
Other 20 9
Role
Chair 8 n/a
Other honorary role18 4 n/a
‘Standard’ trustee role 10 n/a
Ex-trustee19 3 n/a
Chief Executive Officer20 n/a 8
Deputy Chief Executive Officer n/a 2
15
Although research participants were not directly asked to disclose their age, many disclosed their age in the course of the interview. Where they did not, figures are based on an estimate of their approximate age. The age of participants was particularly relevant in the case of ‘trustee’ interviewees, given a reported lack of diversity among trustees. 0.5% of trustees are aged 18-24 and over two thirds of trustees are aged 50 or over (Charity Commission, 2010).
16 The Charity Commission defines a “young trustee” as someone aged 18-24 17 Although participants were not directly asked to disclose their ‘race’ or ‘ethnic background’, specific efforts were made to recruit trustees of Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) organisations. This figure refers to the number of participants who chose to disclose their ‘ethnic status’ as ‘BME’ during interviews.
18 This includes trustees who act as Vice-Chair, Treasurer or Secretary in addition to their ‘standard’ trustee duties.
19
Cases where the participant had resigned or retired from their role 20
Or equivalent. In some charities the most senior paid role was known by another title, such as “Manager” or “Coordinator”
Table 2: Characteristics of participants’ organisations
Trustees21 Senior Staff
Organisation Classification Social Services Health 16 4 5 1 Advocacy 4 3
Development and Housing 3 1
Education and Research 3 1
Primary Beneficiaries of Organisation
General public / multiple groups 13 4
Children and young people 6 0
Refugees and asylum seekers 4 0
Defined ethnic group 2 2
People with disabilities 2 1
Women 2 0
Families 1 1
Elderly 0 2