Time and trust: key learning from the Covenant process

The Covenant which launched in July at Westminster is the starting point for an improved relationship between  the UK government and the voluntary sector.  As many others have noted, the publication of a document is only the beginning of the hard work needed to change relationships and ways of working (read more about that in Anna Fowlie's blog).

Although there is lots still to do, the publication of the Covenant is the culmination of many months of pretty hard graft to get us to the point we’re at, and as a member of the voluntary sector group working on the Covenant I wanted to pause briefly to reflect on the process. 

As Scotland is now the only part of the UK that doesn’t have a formalised agreement with government on how we work together, I have framed my thoughts in terms of learning points which might help if and when we find ourselves in a similar process here. 

My key takeaways are:

• Take lots of time at the start of the process to build shared expectations and trust
• Make sure the right people are in the room
• Little things matter – making sure that the process is ‘walking the talk’ of partnership working will make a significant contribution to the culture of collaboration you are seeking to build.

Purpose
At the outset of any partnership process, time needs to be committed to jointly understanding what all partners are trying to achieve.  It is crucial to understand from everyone’s perspective 1) what the problem is that we are trying to fix, and 2) the context in which we are currently operating, including how that might impact on what we’re trying to achieve.

It’s also important to define and agree a shared level of aspiration: are we developing best practice, or minimum standards, and will the end product be practical or theoretical?  Feedback that SCVO received from the sector earlier this year suggests that most voluntary organisations would have little time for another set of high level principles in Scotland, and would want any future work to really focus in on things that would make a practical difference.

These early discussions will take time, but my experience would suggest that it will be time well spent.  Not only will it ensure that expectations are understood and, if necessary, managed, but the time spent in honest discussion of these issues will help to develop trust between partners.  Any process of developing a partnership agreement must ‘walk the talk’ and be carried out in a way that reflects the spirit of partnership we are trying to achieve.  And that takes time and trust by the bucket load.  If we’re going to do something like this, please let’s invest the time in doing it properly.

Power
Power dynamics will always be present in partnerships, particularly with governments, and these should be recognised upfront.

Measures such as having co-chairs of the development process could help to mitigate some of the power imbalance, and clarity about who ‘owns’ the process of developing an agreement is vital.  If there are limits to any one partner’s influence on the process, we shouldn’t pretend all partners are equal. 

Last but not least, don’t assume that power dynamics only exist between government and the voluntary sector – the dynamics within government and within the sector can also exert themselves.  A key decision for government is which part of government takes lead responsibility for the work – if the warm words about it applying to all parts of government are to taken seriously, situating it with a central team around the PM/FM gives a stronger signal than asking a team or department with responsibility for the sector to lead.

People
Have all the key people in the room from the start!

Part of the process of jointly clarifying expectations should include which parts of government are covered by any agreement.  The Covenant covers national and local government, but without local government in the room while the agreement was being developed, it feels like an uphill struggle to make this real.  Nothing about us without us.

The Covenant process also saw DCMS working with one voluntary sector group and a separate group of civil servants.  While having all of those people in one room (or on one call) would have been quite unwieldy, I do wonder whether it might have made the process easier than having a go-between. 

From the government side I think it’s also important to consider who from the machinery of government needs to be involved – if lawyers will need to sign any agreement off, would it be useful for them to be in the room to listen to the discussions and advise as we go?

From the voluntary sector side, it’s vital, as ever, to clarify whether there is an expectation for vol orgs to speak on behalf of a particular part of the sector.  If that is the case, they need time to consult with colleagues between meetings, and meeting papers need to be shareable.

Process
Actions speak louder than words, so it is really important that the process of developing a partnership agreement follows best practice in partnership working.  As much as possible, partners should also seek to follow good partnership working practice outside the process, to avoid undermining what is being developed.

A good process might include the following:

• Agreeing a timeline for the project at the outset.  If that timeline needs to change, make sure everyone understand why.  Give yourselves more time than you think you need – building up initial trust takes time, and if you are up against a tight political deadline at the end of the work, it’s harder to make sure everyone has their say.
• Acknowledging, and if at all possible resourcing, the time commitment that those involved in developing the agreement are being asked to give
• Giving lots of notice of meetings so that people can have them in their diaries Not scheduling or changing meetings last minute.  Not meeting on Fridays when lots of people don’t work.
• Circulating papers well in advance so that people have time to think; asking for feedback in real time to ideas that people have just been presented with doesn’t elicit the best results
• Providing clear information about who’s involved in developing the agreement and why, and how those not involved in meetings can have their say
• Communicating regularly  about what’s happening in the development process to stakeholders across the sector and across government – no perception that things are happening in a ‘black box’
• Making sure the big issues have been understood and agreed before getting bogged down in the backwards and forwards of drafting
• Having one agreed place for shared documents, that allows collaboration online; multiple versions of documents circulating by email are hard to keep track of
• Building in time to ‘user test’ your final ideas with people that haven’t been involved in developing it, so that you understand how it might land

The suggestions that I’m starting to make about how a process in Scotland might look are daunting.  It’s a lot.  I think there will be pushback.  But if we are really serious about partnership, then my experience of this process, and my similar reflections from the Strengthening Collaboration process back in 2022, tell me this is what we should aspire to.  They are only my thoughts, of course, and in the spirit of collaboration and partnership remain open to different views, including on the practical questions of how easy/difficult this might be to achieve.  Working towards a partnership agreement will involve lots of these conversations over the coming months and years – if you’d like to start that conversation now, drop me a note at Kirsten.hogg@scvo.scot and let me know your thoughts.