COVID-19 Interview – David Chantler OBE, Chair of YSS

These have changed with time and I expect they will continue to do so. Initially YSS were quick to respond, certainly for a face to face service user facing organisation. 

We, thanks to the management, moved most contact online and found ways to deliver services virtually. We were able to use staff to cover where we had a short fall of volunteers, although with the changes to offending patterns that particular service was under less pressure than usual. 

I think we learnt how much could be done in different ways and that learning is transferable, I.e. the pandemic has been a “disruptor” and whilst it in no way makes it worthwhile there are always things to be learnt from having assumptions challenged. 

I’d possibly go a bit further and say that we might have stumbled upon some ways in which service delivery might be improved, particularly in a rural area. 

One example was a young boy who was far more receptive on a video call than he would ever have been in a one to one office interview situation and we have seen similar things when engaging with young carers. This was paralleled in the back office functions where I think overall we were surprised how well working from home worked out and that we could operate with a virtual head office.

With time, I do think some of the less tangible benefits of being in the same place at the same time are coming to the fore. 

For instance, Zoom Trustees meetings work fine at a transactional level, the Business gets done. I have introduced a Trustees WhatsApp group to try to provide a forum for the more informal business where links get made and insights shared. 

I believe there are similar effects on Head Office, and whereas I would have said a few weeks ago let’s save money by doing without the bricks and mortar, I'm not so sure now.

We already are, or rather looking at how much of our core purpose can be achieved and in what fields. We may need to narrow our focus. 

At the moment if feels as if Covid is distorting grant making decisions and may affect commissioning decisions as they come around. I am old enough to remember when HIV contributed, arguably to investing in drugs services rather than alcohol services, and I think there could be a similar distortion as a result of this. 

We have already seen major funders shift the emphasis of their funding and if this continues there will be major implications for the sector. We are also aware that the cost of paying for good things like the furloughing scheme, which for the sake of clarity we have not used, will have an impact, probably negative on the total amount of funding available as well as the priorities being affected. 

On the other hand the storm may blow over and mine will be seen to have been an overly negative assessment.

I am am sorry that this doesn’t help the discussion, but candidly I have no idea. 

I don’t pretend to understand the political environment at the moment, and it could go in a number of different directions. If the assurances that we are not heading back to Austerity are to be believed, a whole set of options open up for the sector in clearing up the mess. 

If we return to a more conventional conservative approach, will the sector benefit as the public sector is squeezed? 

If there is a new squeeze will anyone dare to make it in the NHS, meaning other areas will be hit even harder. 

If we apply your questions to every other part of the economy, what is the social environment we will be working in? 

More in the gig economy, greater uncertainty and anxiety, higher levels of unemployment becoming the new normal. 

Perhaps we will just bounce back very quickly, perhaps a greater sense of interdependence will emerge and the role of the voluntary sector in organising that will be enhanced. Then again perhaps the new dawn of altruism will be shorter lived than we might like to think or that it will develop and organise itself on loser, web based models.

I really think the jury is out.