Voluntary organisations have taken on a greater role in delivering public services and for some this is a key source of funding.

But these roles can raise dilemmas for organisations: can they deliver the level of service required for the money? And perhaps even more importantly, how comfortable are they with the terms on which they are asked to deliver that service?

Voluntary and community organisations can play a crucial role in both shaping and delivering public services that better meet the needs of individuals and communities. But they should be able to do so in ways that respect their independence and expertise. In recent weeks one particular issue has emerged — whether the sector should or should not take on more coercive roles.

Up to now this debate has focused on whether we should be involved in running prisons, as opposed to providing support and services to those in prison. But similar issues also arise in other areas. For example, organisations working with unemployed people may be asked to judge whether or not an individual should receive benefit.

It is not for me to say whether a charity should take on a particular contract. But charities must recognise that such decisions can be controversial and will therefore have wide repercussions.

Such decisions must be taken by trustees, not the chief executive or the management team alone. It is their responsibility to balance the benefits of taking on a contract against the risks that may be involved.

There are some key principles that should inform such decisions.

Firstly, trustees must consider the impact that such a decision will have on their independence: will it compromise their ability to pursue their mission, vision and values in the longer term if they take on such a controversial role?

Secondly, they should consider whether it would fundamentally change their relationship with government and, or, their beneficiaries — whether they are acting as agents of the state or as advocates for those they seek to help. Would it make it harder for them to speak out on behalf of prisoners or claimants, for example?

Thirdly, trustees need to be clear about the risk that this could present to their reputation: how it will be perceived by donors, supporters and the wider public.

As charities we need to be clear how far it is appropriate for us to take on the mantle of the state, particularly in relation to its coercive functions.

There is a world of difference between empowering someone and having power over them — between giving them the skills and the confidence that they need to find work or to turn away from a life of crime and having control over people whose liberty has been taken away.

It has been suggested that it is appropriate for us to take on these new roles because we have people’s trust and confidence. I would like to turn that argument around: we have people’s trust and confidence because we do not act coercively. And we risk that trust if we take on roles that change the very nature of our relationship to our clients and beneficiaries.

• Stuart Etherington is the chief executive of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations

Times Recommends

• Minister in talks with Saudis to protect creditors
• Premier Inn hits back in £29-a-room row
• Bankers hit back at 'populist' bonus supertax