ARVAC Bulletin 98

Hoping for respect?

John Diamond looks at the issues surrounding accreditation and the voluntary sector

There is a conventional wisdom that we need to secure accreditation for all forms of training we develop and provide for individuals and community based organisations. Without accreditation, so the logic goes, the training provided lacks legitimacy for those who undertake it. In a sense securing accreditation for the programmes or courses we provide is seen as a necessary pre-condition in order to secure ‘respect’ and credibility with those who commission training. This article examines some of the arguments both for and against the need for accreditation.

The case for accreditation

A guarantee of quality
By gaining the recognition and approval of an external body those who commission training have one means of knowing that the providers they are working with have undergone a process of validation and approval. In a sense the ‘badge’ the training provider has secured acts as a short hand to say that our programme has undergone external scrutiny and has legitimacy. More importantly it is through the process of validation and approval that training providers have to identify (and justify) the skills and knowledge they are intending to address and to indicate how they will both deliver the programme and make a judgement about whether they participants have gained the skills and knowledge on offer. In essence the external validating agency provides a confidence statement about the quality of the programme.

A means of recognising and rewarding existing skills and knowledge held by individuals

For those who are already engaged with local activists and community based organisations there is an assumption that individuals already have a set of skills and local knowledge of their community(ies) or neighbourhood. In the current context the formal recognition of that skill set or knowledge base has the potential to offer alternative (and legitimate) routes into further education, training or employment. By going down the route of seeking accreditation for already existing activity or recognising the skills of local activists additional (or perhaps unintended) outcomes are possible. In particular, for those individuals who lack formal qualifications or who have been denied opportunities for achieving recognition for their skills the shift to accreditation provides a real benefit for a large number of people.

An opportunity for individuals to gain additional qualifications by building upon the credits they receive

The real value of gaining accreditation for community based training is that is opens up a range of potential routes for individuals. The ‘ladder of opportunity’ from basic skills through to degree study becomes a real option for some individuals who may not have thought of this route. Individuals can gain credit through formally delivered programmes and/or having their prior learning or experience credited. This additional benefit of accreditation shifts the focus from meeting the training needs of groups or organisations to those of individuals. It becomes possible, therefore, for individuals to build up a portfolio of credits which are ‘portable’ or ‘transferable’ and thus can enable them to think about further educational opportunities.

An opportunity for providers to assess funding
Despite the increasing complexity of funding systems the accreditation of training does enable providers to either enter into partnership with large scale agencies (further education colleges) or to have conversations with nationally recognised bodies (Open College Network). The consequences of these deliberations may result in training providers gaining a more secure financial base to their activities.

THE CASE AGAINST ACCREDITATION

A risk that accreditation leads to standardisation

The primary argument against accreditation is that it is axiomatic that all forms of validation and approval have a tendency both to being bureaucratic and to result in a standardisation of design and conception. By their very nature validating bodies are acting as regulating agencies. They require a level of detail (and so conformity) and information concerning programme design. In a sense this is understandable if national bodies are to give their seal of approval then they have to know that provision in Community A is comparable with Community B. The real risk is that providers ‘learn’ how to meet the needs of the validating agency and take their needs as their point of reference rather than the needs of local community organisations. From the perspective of local users the particular requirements of an accrediting body may be unknown or at least in the background. From the perspective of providers the danger is that these needs are in the foreground rather than the needs/expectations of those on the programme

As the funding needs of providers have increased this shift in focus represents a real risk. Rather than developing a programme through dialogue with local groups and, therefore, being able to shape it to meet very specific needs there is a risk that providers will take ‘off the shelf’ programmes which are already approved. This runs counter to an ethos and approach which is about devising training needs to meet local and expressed needs. It, also, runs the risk of producing a uniformity of approach rather than encouraging innovation and experimentation in design and delivery.

A loss of local autonomy and the shift towards professionalisation of community work practice

There are clear and evident tensions between those who advocate a model of community work practice which stresses the need to shift towards local participation and autonomy in decision making and, at the same, a recognition that large numbers of groups lack the capacity to exercise that choice in any meaningful way. The move towards accreditation has the potential to accentuate the gap and to increase that layer of individuals who are access to the ‘professional’ world of community and voluntary work practice. Knowing and understanding the world of accreditation is another knowledge gap between practitioners and local activists. Indeed, there is a perverse incentive on the part of providers and practitioners to ‘sell’ the idea of accreditation which may not be in the interests of local groups. This can be seen as yet another example of how professionals disempower local individuals and groups by their knowledge and needs which may not be made explicit or indeed form part of any conversation. In a sense the argument is that the values and norms of the accreditation process become the reference point for professionals rather than the value and needs of local activists and groups.

A danger that accrediting bodies act as gatekeepers

The needs and expectations of accrediting bodies are clear and explicit. They require providers or proposes of programmes to meet their defined criteria and to justify how their proposal will address their expectations. Through a process of submission, dialogue and approval their role is to ensure that any proposal comes up to their requirements. They have the power and authority to role in or role out proposals which they believe either do or do not meet their needs.

The reference point for accrediting bodies are not the proposers of programmes or the users of these courses but rather other accrediting bodies and national agencies approved by Government. The quality assurance process is, itself, designed to ensure conformity and agreed outcomes which can be measured, quantified and documented.

The process itself is ‘conservative’ rather than radical and empowering. Accrediting bodies provide legitimacy for providers (and funders) and therefore they have an explicit interest in ensuring that their badge of approval has currency in their terms which may not be the same thing for users or providers.

SUMMARY
This discussion is not intended to underestimate the need for training and staff development across the sector. The demands on the sector, which are explicit in the Government’s Change-Up programme, are clear. There is a real need for those of us involved in the sector to value the importance of training and to think creatively about how we meet the needs of local groups and local agencies. The point of this paper is to identify the risks we face and to value the potential which accreditation can offer. Whilst we may find ourselves involved in what appear to be contradictory decisions it is important that we remind ourselves why we think training is important and whose needs it can address.

Dr. John Diamond
Centre for Local Policy Studies
(diamondj@edgehill.ac.uk)