The merger of two of Manchester's oldest and largest HIV charities was announced earlier this year. Then, in April it was unexpectedly announced that the merger was off. What went wrong? Edwin J Bernard travelled to Manchester to find out
 Michelle Reid, George House Trust Director: "A merger is inevitable" |
Forced by drastic cuts in funding, two of Greater Manchester's oldest HIV charities, Body Positive North West (BPNW) and George House Trust (GHT), along with three others - Barnardos, the Black Health Agency and the Lesbian and Gay Foundation - created an HIV Partnership in 2002. We welcomed the February 2003 announcement of a merger between GHT and BPNW as the way forward. The engagement was not to last long, however. In April, the BPNW Board voted 8-1 against a merger, creating confusion and much fallout. What happened, and what does it mean for the future of HIV services?
BPNW Board member Phil Greenham explains that while there had been an agreement in principle, both their Chief Exec, Ian Jeffery, and GHT's Chief Exec, Michelle Reid, had pushed for the merger too quickly. "The legal machinery was setting the pace and we had no details of the merger until March," says Reid. The BPNW Board had "full and frank discussion" of the pros and cons, and decided to wait and see how the newly formed HIV Partnership would work before risking losing their identity within the larger, slicker GHT.
With no prior working history it was felt they were running before they could walk. "You put BPNW and GHT together at a point when they haven't been bedfellows for a very long time and there's a good chance that they do not identify with or understand each other," explains Greenham. "You might have high level agreement at Chief Exec level, but not in the hearts and minds of users and frontline workers."
The history of non-cooperation between both agencies had created a huge amount of suspicion and mistrust. The moment the proposed merger was announced, gossip and rumour ran riot. Was it a take-over of BPNW by GHT ? Whose jobs would go? Which services would suffer? How could an HIV Partnership work with one mega-agency and three smaller ones? GHT's Reid still believes the merger would have worked well: "This was to be a merging of two organisations, using the strengths of both agencies, for the better provision of services to HIV positive people."
Was it a GHT take-over? "It is an inescapable fact that GHT is the larger organisation, with a larger financial turnover and client base, " she says. "This is the only basis for the assumption that GHT was mounting a 'take-over'."
Outsiders might think that the BPNW Board have shot themselves in the foot by voting against the merger. But an optimistic Greenham feels the glass is "half full", despite the resignation and departure of both Chief Executive Ian Jeffery and Information & Training Officer, Chris Morley, which she calls "really sad." There are no immediate plans to replace Jeffery; instead the Board will be involved in the day-to-day running of BPNW.
Since Manchester's HIV demographics now include a significant number of heterosexuals, particularly from Africa - including a visible minority of asylum-seekers who also need the most urgent support - BPNW want to make the most of the HIV Partnership. "We've got a robust Board of Trustees and an ongoing solid financial base, so our immediate future is really secure," says Greenham. "I see it as really positive for the long-term future."
With the merger off for now, could Manchester's five member HIV Partnership offer an alternative model to a THT-style monopoly for funding-starved HIV organisations in other parts of the UK?
Reid believes a merger is inevitable: "It is my firm belief that North West commissioners will not want to carry on funding two major HIV voluntary agencies in the future," she says. Greenham acknowledges that a merger may still happen, and says the Board has not ruled one out: "I know that any future proposed merger is something that the Board would all look at seriously."
Watch this space....
