WP5 : First results for France
Brussels, October 12th 2015
Francesca
Presenter(s)’
Petrella, Nadine
affiliation(s)
Richez-Battesti
with the collaboration of Julien
Maisonnasse and Nicolas Meunier
Outline of the presentation
The third sector at a glance
Key barriers and how to get over ?
Key findings
Key findings per policy field
 Social services
 Culture
 Sport
Case studies
Policy recommendations
Measuring impact. Enhancing visibility.
The Third sector at a glance (1)
Third sector in France = data on Social and Solidarity Economy (SSE)
New law adopted in July 2014 : a major step toward recognition (will
include some social enterprises)
SSE : main characteristics (2011)
 10% of total employment (2,3 millions of paid workers)
 A large majority of associations :
•
•
•
•
84% are associations (78% of employment within SSE)
12% are cooperatives (13% of SSE employment)
3% are mutual organizations (6% of SSE employment)
1% are foundations (3% of SSE employment)
 A large majority of very small organizations (64% have less than 5 jobs) and
only 1% of very large ones (250 jobs or more)
 Between 11 to 14 millions of volunteers (that represent 1 072 000 FTE),
most of them in sport and culture
Measuring impact. Enhancing visibility.
The Third sector at a glance (2)
A dynamic sector in terms of job creation :
 Between 2008-2011, job creation of 1,4% (-0,2% in the whole
economy)
An issue of transmission of the project and a need to
“replace” volunteers within the governance structure
(generational renewal)
A need to increase job quality : by comparison with the rest
of the economy :




Less full-time contracts
Less long-term contracts
More short-term contracts and unstable jobs
Older workers (nearly 30% have more than 50 years)
The renewal of the workforce is another real issue
 But higher overall job satisfaction and higher wage equity
Measuring impact. Enhancing visibility.
The Third sector at a glance (3)
The third sector by chosen policy fields :
Social services :
 SSE : 62% of employment in this field (mainly associations : 96% of SSE
providers, 95% of employment)
 The main activity field for associations : 47% of associations are in social
services
Culture (performing arts) :
 SSE : 27% of employment in this field (mainly associations : 99,4% of SSE
providers, 96% of employment)
 6th activity field for associations
Sport (and leisure activities) :
 SSE : 54% of employment in this field (mainly associations : 99,9% of SSE
providers, 99,8% of employment)
 5th activity field for associations
=> TSO’s are mainly associations in these three selected fields
Measuring impact. Enhancing visibility.
Key barriers and how to get over ?
Legal environment
 A major step toward recognition by the recent law
 Administrative and legislative massive tome and complexity
Subsector infrastructure
 Differences between activity fields
 Need for more adequate and coherent support
 Need to strengthen the lobbying forces
Governance
 To rebuild a bicephalous governance and renew the board towards a more competence-based
and strategic one
 Need for training for the volunteers and for decision –making tools
 Transmission of the project is a real issue
 Introduction of new committees to enlarge participation
Personnel (Human resources)





A lot of pressure on the director who need to be “rare bird”
No problem of recruitment but high turnover
Employment conditions are improving but there is still some progress to be made
Managing volunteers and paid workers is not always easy
Generational renewal
Measuring impact. Enhancing visibility.
Key barriers and how to get over ? (2)
Finances
 Main tendency : reduction and diversification of public funds (tendering
processes), need to mobilize other types of resources but no miracle solution
 One solution ? Organizational change : different forms of cooperation and
concentration to reduce costs
Institutional facilities
 Difficult to give a general picture given the great heterogeneity
Image
 Not well visible for the general public
 Negative image (lack of professionalism, a thorn in the side) but slowly
changing
Inter-organizational linkages
 “Coopetition” : from cooperation to hard competition (sometimes)
 With the private commercial sector : end of the « ideological war »
 With the public authorities : considered as service providers, need to reinforce
the links with public policies at different governance levels
Measuring impact. Enhancing visibility.
Key findings
TSO’s in the 3 selected policy fields :


A large majority of associations, although innovative cases use another legal form (scop, scic,
association of employers to share resources in common)
A large proportion of small organizations although there is a trend toward pooling, sharing and
concentration
A changing environment at the source of many barriers :



A legislative and administrative environment more and more complex
A more competitive environment
The decrease and transformation of public funds
A lot of common barriers :





governance : re-build a bicephalous governance, competences of the board and of the director at
stake
human resources management and generational renewal
finances : need for more diversification
Image : need to build a more positive one
Inter-organizational linkages : monitor cooperation processes and rebuild partnership with public
authorities
But differences in the degree of structuration of the sector (social services and sport
well structured by contrast with culture)
The existence of organizational innovations to overcome these barriers
Measuring impact. Enhancing visibility.
Key findings per policy field :
Social services
First activity field of the SSE and of associations







62% of employment in SSE
95% of employment in SSE are in associations
Associations are the major employer in this field
33 000 SSE organizations with paid workers
717 000 FTE in SSE in 2011
Mainly women (74% of workers)
Less full-time and long-term contracts than in the rest of the economy
Includes :
 Help for disabled and dependent persons (adults and children) : home care and
lodgings (ex. health care facilities, nursing homes, shelters )
 Child care services
 Work integration organizations
 Other social services for persons in need
Measuring impact. Enhancing visibility.
Social services : major barriers
Legal environment
 Well defined environment at the legislative level
 Evolution towards more participation of users and to more tendering processes
Subsector infrastructure
 Sector well structured : a lot of umbrella organizations, a lot of support is proposed but
 Lack of coherence and visibility
 Need to adapt support to the evolution of the environment : need for decision-making tools
Governance
 Bicephalous governance not easy to deal with : given the complexity of the environment,
growing gap between volunteers of the board and the director : need for a more « strategic
and competence-based board »
 Need for a generational renewal of volunteers in the boards
 Need to associate, at least partially, the employees
 The place of users is often highlighted (some participation is required by law)
Personnel (Human resources)
 Hard task to be a director : need to be a hero, who keeps his social values and mission and
combines them with technical and managerial skills, a lot of pressure on them
 Human resources management is not yet an issue for many associations that do not assume
their « employer’s function » - things are changing slowly…
 No problem in recruitment but high turnover (not a lot of carrier perspective)
 Management of paid work and volunteers not always easy
Measuring impact. Enhancing visibility.
Social services : major barriers
Finances
 A major barrier for associations : key issue : how to diversify their financial resources ?
 Two main trends in public funds:
• a decrease of public subsidies
• a transformation of public financing sources : more diversity (State, Region, municipalities and
different services within the administration) and more tendering processes.
 Market resources : limited given the nature of the users
 Reliance on volunteer resources : limited by the need to professionalize
 Sponsoring and philanthropy : very little importance by now, only for one-shot projects, could not be
the miracle solution, need time and competences
Institutional facilities
 Large variety of situations
 General tendency towards cooperation and concentration (mergers) to reduce costs
 Associations do not have access to funds to invest into new technologies and innovations (by
contrast with commercial enterprises)
Image
 TSO’s are little known, not visible by the general public, they don’t make any difference
 Negative image by public authorities but it is slowly changing
Inter-organizational linkages
 Cooperation between associations is strongly recommended by public authorities although there are
competing for public markets : coopetition
 With private companies : barriers are breaking down
 With public authorities : associations are considered as services providers that answer to the public
demand, loss of innovative capacity, very little co-building of public policies
Measuring impact. Enhancing visibility.
Key findings per policy field :
Culture
A very diversified sector : focus on cultural associations in performing arts
A major field in the third sector : Culture = 6th activity sector within TSO’s
in 2011.
Main characteristics of the sector (2011) :
 267 000 cultural associations (only 13% of them have at least one paid
worker), average size is 5 employees per association : very small associations
 169 000 FTE paid workers (9,4% of employment within associations).
 Less workers in long term contracts (30%) than the average of associations
(47%); more short-term and unstable contracts (occasional workers) than the
average : 40% against 22%
 Higher level of education : 65% of employees have a diploma of higher
education (min bac+2), only 41% in the associative sector in general.
 189000 FTE of volunteers, 20% of volunteers in associations in France
 Less dependency from public funds (40% of their budget) than associations on
average (49%)
Measuring impact. Enhancing visibility.
Culture : major barriers
Subsector infrastructure :
 Lack of structuration of cultural TSO’s : need for coordination and reinforcing
lobbying and representativeness of this sector
 Need for technical support (project engineering) : large use of a public tool
(dispositif local d’accompagnement)
 Need to strengthen the link between cultural TSO’s and the rest of the third
sector
Governance :
 Given the growing complexity of the environment, need to build a new internal
governance, more strategic and more professionalized => training for volunteers
?
 Need to reinforce the collective dynamic within cultural associations (the artist
used to be alone)
 Need to create new committees to strengthen participation of users
Personnel (Human resources) :
 Difficulty to manage a diversity of employment contracts and forms : qualified
work, subsidized low-skilled jobs, civic service contracts, occasional workers,
 High turnover within the teams, lack of job security, low wages
Measuring impact. Enhancing visibility.
Culture : major barriers
Finances
 Need to diversify financing resources while making cultural activities
accessible to all in a social inclusion and education perspective
 Multiplication of public sources of financing : very high administrative load
 Difficulty to get European funds
 Difficulty to get sponsorship (especially for small associations)
Institutional facilities
 Not a major issue, in general organizations are well off
 Some delays as far as the use of digital technologies are concerned
Image
 Need to increase visibility : cultural TSO’s are not known by the general public
Inter-organizational linkages
 “Coopetition” between cultural TSO’s
 Opening toward partnership with private commercial enterprises
 Need to be considered as partners of public policy not only to be expected to
answer to tendering processes and execute public orders
Measuring impact. Enhancing visibility.
Key findings per policy field :
Sport
A difficulty to estimate the number of sportive associations
 Globally, there were in 2012 at least 210 000 associations of 3 types :
• Associative clubs (165 000), 100 federations (umbrella organisations)
• Associations whose main activity is sport (10 000)
• Associations whose secondary activity is sport (min 35 000)
 31 000 associations have at least one paid worker (20% of employer’s associations)
 80 000 paid workers, (around 60 000 FTE), 4,5% of total employment by associations
 80% of employer’s associations have less than 3 paid workers
Data for sport and leisure activities (2011):
 SSE : 78% of providers
 SSE : 54% of employment
 5th activity field of SSE
 associations : 99,9% of SSE providers and 99,8% of the SSE employment
 Less long-term contracts and less full-time jobs (46%)
 A majority of men and young employees (more than 50% are less than 40 years old) :
passion of the sport is a strong motivation
Measuring impact. Enhancing visibility.
Sport : major barriers
Subsector infrastructure
 A very well structured sector (vertically and horizontally) : every association is
affiliated to a departmental committee which is part of a regional committee ;
each municipality has a local representative for sports but greats inequalities
 Umbrella organizations can provide support but this information is not well
diffused among associations
 Sports facilities at disposal from municipalities (various degrees)
Governance
 Bicephalous governance : not always easy !
 Need for training for the directors given the context
Personnel (human resources)
 The director has to be polyvalent but is not often trained to manage workers
 Management of volunteers and paid workers sometimes difficult
 Need for training of both volunteers and paid workers given the administrative
and juridical complexity of this sector
 No major problem of recruitment, except in some rural or remote areas but
high turnover rate
Measuring impact. Enhancing visibility.
Sport : major barriers
Finances
 Need for diversification of resources (difficult to achieve) :
• Public resources are decreasing (great effort via the CNDS – centre national de développement
du sport – in the last 5 years to give public resources for the development of sport accessible
to all and anchored in territorial policies, public funds to create skilled and long-term jobs)
• Sponsoring is not always easy to get and is linked to the good results of the club or the media
coverage (competition between club)
• Increasing membership fees : limited solution if sport wants to be accessible to all
Institutional facilities
 Large variety of situations : some sports need heavy investments while other don’t
 large dependency to local policies since municipalities are the major provider of sports facilities
 Need for sharing and pooling resources : the development of employers’ associations, to group
some tasks and share paid workers, some tools are provided by the regional committee of sport
Image
 Biased image by the reputation of large and successful clubs such as football clubs
 Image of the sportsman as passionate
 These images hide what is really done by sport associations at the territorial level in terms of social
link and social development
Inter-organizational linkages
 Rivalry between sports makes difficult to develop a transversal territorial project
 Entry of private commercial enterprises in some activity : kite surf, canoe, nature expeditions…
 Strong relationships between associations and local public authorities
Measuring impact. Enhancing visibility.
Case studies
Social services
 Association of family home care services (Valréas) : family care, child care and care
for the elderly, created in 1964, around 100 employees;
 Calme (Nice), clinic (against alcoholism therapy), cooperative (scop), created in
1981, 33 employees;
 La Varappe (Aubagne), WISE, Work integration and environment, 150 FTE, 1500
employees in integration (interim) accounting for 300 FTE;
Culture
 Les Têtes de l’Art (Marseille), artistic mediation association : engineering
participatory art projects, engineering and mutualisation platform, to pool and
share resources; to foster networks and partnership between cultural, social,
educational and economic actors coming from the same territory, created in 1996,
12 paid workers.
 Illusion Macadam (Montpellier) cooperative (collective interest cooperative SCIC), engineering of cultural support, 23 FTE, 34 members, created in 2001
Sport
 Sport Objectif Plus (Manosque), association, created in 1991, to consolidate
employment in sport and in associations in general, 7 employees, 12 directors in
the board
Measuring impact. Enhancing visibility.
Policy recommendations :first
propositions
Give more value and visibility to the impact of TSO’s in terms of
employment, social inclusion, social cohesion and territorial and
economical development,
To simplify administrative processes (toward a unique file for
subsidies per public authority) and to decompartmentalize
between health and care services
Need to support infrastructure and develop engineering and
consulting :
 Support umbrella organizations to reinforce their representation and
support mission
 Provide training to both volunteers and directors (strategic
management, HRM, accounting, law)
 Support cooperation, pooling and sharing processes
 Foster the development of territorial projects
Measuring impact. Enhancing visibility.
Thank you for your attention.
www.thirdsectorimpact.eu · participate@thirdsectorimpact.eu