Strengthening Partnerships Consultation
Credit: RE-ACT
In July, the Government published their Resilience Action Plan, setting out the strategic approach they intend to take to increase the UK's resilience against the risks we face. Coinciding with this was the announcement of a consultation on strengthening partnerships between Voluntary, Community and Faith Sector (VCFS) organisations and Category 1 emergency responders, such as the emergency services.
With the consultation closing on Tuesday 16 September, the VCS Emergencies Partnership is encouraging partners to respond. The EP will be making our own submission, but we believe that our colleagues in Government know what we have to say - we’ve discussed it a lot over the years – and what they need to hear now is volume, scale and lived experience – they need to hear from you.
What are the Government asking?
There are two main themes; feedback on the current approach to VCFS engagement and the potential impact of introducing a legal duty for partnership working.
The current approach: The consultation asks organisations to reflect on how well engagement is working right now. What benefits does it bring, what barriers exist, and how frequent and effective is collaboration? It also asks about resource availability, adequacy of financial support, and the estimated annual cost of current engagement.
If the legislation changes: The consultation explores how a legal duty would work in practice. It asks about the challenges of implementation, expected impacts on staffing and budgets, and whether organisations could realistically absorb the costs. It also seeks views on capacity to engage in joint initiatives and the time investment required.
Many of our partners will have their own individual views, but we have highlighted some key points that we hope will help you build your response.
Legislation alone won’t drive meaningful change.
Whilst a potential change in legislation is positive, practical and cultural shifts are needed across emergency planning to ensure this is not just symbolic. Building relationships takes time, resources, and tailored approaches for different types of organisations and so specific skills, capacity, knowledge and mutual understanding will be needed on all sides to meaningfully strengthen these partnerships. Category 1 responders must also be supported to better understand the depth and breadth of the VCFS landscape, with their systems and processes made more accessible and inclusive to VCFS organisations.
The current system isn’t designed for inclusive collaboration - Resilience structures should be redesigned to be mutually beneficial.
The Institute of Civil Protection and Emergency Management (ICPEM) have submitted an excellent response to the consultation, highlighting that current resilience systems are predominantly top-down, complex and command and control led. They explain that national policy, whilst well-intentioned, is often aspirational rather than actionable, and that funding for relationship and networked knowledge building is insufficient. We need a community anchored, more inclusive model of resilience building that empowers local communities, giving them formal roles, training and shared leadership in emergency planning, response and recovery. This shift would enable relationships to prosper.
Collective approaches are essential to demonstrate the sustainability and impact of these plans.
If every organisation responds with individual funding demands, the proposal may be dismissed outright as unsustainable. To be taken seriously, we must seek a coordinated, realistic approach; one that emphasises shared infrastructure, networked expertise and pooled resources. We must advocate for systems that enable collective access to support, coordination and leadership, rather than duplicating efforts. Both the VCFS and Local Resilience Forums (LRFs) will require resources to make this work, so we need to demonstrate how partnership working can be efficient, scalable, and impactful, if investment happens creatively.
Be pragmatic about capacity and resourcing - what do you need to participate meaningfully, and could it be achieved through collaboration with others?
Prioritising particular benefits can unlock broader improvements.
The consultation asks respondents to prioritise five benefits from a list of twelve, all of which are desirable. You will have your preferences, but we suggest considering which of these may unlock something else.
We believe that - open and clear two-way communication channels (1), increased opportunities for engagement (2), targeted training and exercising (3), more open sharing of data and community knowledge (4) and funding for joint initiatives (5) - unlocks everything else.
These create the conditions for greater transparency and accountability, trust, and effective collaboration - ultimately leading to a positive impact in the way we respond and recover.
Let’s be real - This isn’t every police officer connecting directly with every faith leader and charity.
Many Category 1 responders believe they are effectively engaging with the VCFS, but this engagement is often limited to emergency response charities. This excludes groups who hold key cultural understanding, trust and influence, as well as the physical infrastructure to support emergency preparedness, response, recovery and societal resilience. Whilst it is not necessary for every Category 1 responder to connect with every VCFS organisation, nor is it appropriate for Category 1 responders to assume engagement with the sector will be carried out by LRFs or Local Authorities. Instead, there is a collective responsibility to expand our curiosity, better understand the landscape and the networks of trust that can help strengthen our connections.
What happens next?
We expect to hear findings from the consultation and a way forward by the end of December 2025.
Any questions, comments or suggestions to highlight in the VCS Emergencies Partnership submission, please send to info@vcsep.org.uk.