SUMMARY
Summary
Government is commissioning ever more public service delivery from organisations in the third sector—charities and other not-for-profit organisations, as well as social enterprises. In this report, our first since acquiring responsibility for scrutinising third sector policy, we have attempted to assess the impact of that policy approach. In particular, we have tried to look not just at the effect on government and on the sector, but more importantly the effect on service users and the public at large.
The central claim made by the Government, and by advocates of a greater role for the sector in service delivery, is that third sector organisations can deliver services in distinctive ways which will improve outcomes for service users. We were unable to corroborate that claim. Too much of the discussion is still hypothetical or anecdotal. Although we received a great volume of response to our call for evidence, much of it admitted that the evidence was simply not available by which to judge the merits of government policy.
As the initiator of a significant policy change, the onus is on the Government to demonstrate the evidence base supporting its actions. However, attempting to identify general distinctive characteristics of an entire sector is not necessarily the most constructive way forward. We suggest that the Government's priority ought to be understanding the needs of the users of particular services, and then working out what organisations might be best placed to meet those needs.
Our report calls for a vigorous mixed economy of provision, with all prospective service providers judged on their merits. However, commissioning should not mean a return to Compulsory Competitive Tendering, where cost savings were the principal driver. While any barriers to third sector participation ought to be removed, it is unrealistic ever to expect an entirely level playing field. Instead, therefore, getting the best out of commissioning will rely on commissioning authorities designing service specifications which play to the strengths of the best placed organisations. Commissioners—the people who decide on the contents and results of tender exercises—are the key to ensuring the right results.
We use the term "intelligent commissioning" to suggest a way forward. Our understanding of intelligent commissioning is that it should be based on a knowledge of potential providers and of desired outcomes, based on user needs. Intelligent commissioners should be able to make judgements such as whether contracts or grants are the right way to fund a service, how important price should be in determining who wins a contract, and whether there is scope for innovative methods of delivery. The persistence of perverse practices, like unnecessarily short-term contracts, suggests that a culture change is still needed if the potential benefits of commissioning are to be realised. We support the Government's moves to train key commissioners, and also call for more incentives to encourage talented people to work as commissioners.
Just as the potential benefits of commissioning are unproven, so too are many of the risks which were identified to us. We do not believe some of the more alarmist claims made, such as the suggestion that the sector's ability to campaign independently has been diminished. Nor do we believe that it is necessarily a problem that contractual funding is growing more quickly than grant funding. No third sector organisation has an inherent right to public money just because it does good work—the government is entitled to determine which organisations it wants to support, based on its understanding of what constitutes the public interest. In practice, government appears to recognise the importance of maintaining a healthy and diverse sector, although there are legitimate questions to be asked about the mechanisms used to achieve this, such as the Compact.
Nonetheless, there are risks to be addressed if policy is to continue to move in its current direction. Users' rights should not be affected by whether a service is provided directly by the State or contracted out. We identify in particular a need to extend the Human Rights Act and the Freedom of Information Act to cover all organisations providing public services. It is also essential that users are able to make complaints when service provision is inadequate. Meanwhile, there is also a challenge for commissioners in effectively monitoring service provision without insisting on overly onerous reporting requirements which waste time and resources that could be dedicated to helping people in need.
No policy, though, is without its challenges and its risks. We do not believe the risks we have identified are show-stoppers. This report sets out a number of improvements to be made to commissioning processes, but the general direction of government policy appears to us to be positive. Nonetheless, further steps along this path should be accompanied by the collection of much firmer evidence on the impact that third sector delivery is having. We might then be better placed to judge the potential benefits of third sector involvement in service delivery—and whether the rhetoric around transformation of public services is being matched by reality.
|
|
|
