25 July 2008
Criticisms of lack of evidence about the third sector's role in public services are misplaced, says Stephen Bubb. The root of the problem is poor commissioning
The UK's public services industry leads the world, and that is in no small part due to the role the third sector plays in it. It is an industry that is no longer warped by conflicting ideologies; for most of us, what matters is what works. But it is still an industry that is sadly stunted by poor commissioning – and it is the third sector that suffers the most.
Two recent reports – one by the Commons public administration select committee and one by DeAnne Julius for the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform – have highlighted this issue.
The Berr review found clear benefits to using the third and private sectors to deliver public services, with lower costs and quality either maintained or improved. The report also underlined the 'potential for significant further growth', but stressed that such growth would require positive action from government: clear, long-term leadership and commitment, and much better commissioning practice. There is nothing terribly new in that, but it is refreshing nonetheless for the clarity of analysis and direction.
Then, responding to a more specific remit, there was the PASC's report into third sector provision of public services, Public services and the third sector: rhetoric and reality. It was an apt title. Much of the report was insightful and helpful, and based on hard reality. Sadly, however, it also trotted out some rather tired rhetoric.
First, the reality. The risks to the third sector of providing public services have been 'overplayed'. Some have suggested that by accepting contracts, organisations will simultaneously become bankrupt and exactly like large wealthy private companies. At the same time, we will lose our independence and abandon all sense of mission. The committee sensibly saw such 'alarmist claims' as 'some way off' the reality.
Perhaps most importantly, the central and final recommendation of the report was for more 'intelligent commissioning'. Government needs to understand the strengths of the sector better. There needs to be a 'culture change' in commissioning, and commissioners themselves need simultaneously to improve their skills. Bad practice, such as the use of short-term contracts, needs to be eradicated. Contracts need to be better designed – in conjunction with service users and possible providers – with greater clarity on the outcomes being sought, including any wider social benefits to be delivered by the service provider. More intelligent commissioning, the report concluded, would allow greater involvement of the third sector, with the potential for 'genuinely improved outcomes for the public'.
Those final words of the report will be music to the ears of third sector chief executives – even if it is rather familiar music. The Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations has long been arguing that there is massive potential in the third sector to help transform our public services, but that this potential is frustrated all too often by poor commissioning practice. The fact that a consensus is beginning to grow around that analysis is a welcome development.
Less welcome, however, is the rhetoric in the select committee's report. Sadly, it was this that made the most headlines. The newspapers and trade journals led with the claim that moves to involve the third sector more in public service provision were based on a lack of evidence, and that the potential the sector has to offer has been exaggerated.
There is no doubt that more research needs to be done. That is not to say that the evidence isn't there, but rather that thus far we have not put enough effort into looking for it. Strapped for cash, third sector organisations have carried out little research on the impact of their services, so there is no mass of evidence on the effectiveness of the sector as a whole.
Meanwhile, the government has been interested in the evidence, but not interested enough to do much about looking for it. Thankfully, that is now changing. The Office of the Third Sector, in association with the Economic and Social Research Council and the Barrow Cadbury Trust, have just commissioned a £10m Third Sector Research Centre. Acevo was involved in Birmingham and Southampton universities' winning bid to run the centre and we will help shape one of its priorities: research into the third sector's role in public service delivery, including the social and economic value and impact of its work.
But let us be clear what our starting point is. We do not start with 'no evidence'. Far from it. As the PASC recognised, there are areas where the evidence is already clear: in 2005/06, the Commission for Social Care Inspection found that in all areas of social care provision, voluntary sector providers outperformed competitors from other sectors. The National Consumer Council found that in employment services, the third sector beat rivals from other sectors in all core service factors.
Elsewhere, it might be difficult to compile a comparative spreadsheet for different sectors' ability to innovate or involve service users. After all, third sector organisations innovate in wildly different ways, from the needle exchanges organised by youth charity Rainer to the family support centres run by children's charity NCH. They involve service users in a wide variety of different ways, from Barnet Voice for Mental Health (run entirely by former mental health patients) to Turning Point (which helps local people carry out 'community audits' of local area needs and then plan their own ways of addressing them).
That kind of fantastic, imaginative variation makes it difficult to produce the kind of orderly comparative evidence the PASC would like. What it does do, however, is paint an enormously persuasive picture of the kind of potential that exists in the third sector. It is hard to squeeze into tables of quantifiable and comparable data but it is pretty obvious to anyone who gets close to it – including, visibly, the PASC chair during evidence sessions with third sector representatives.
So, where possible, we must improve our evidence base – and we will. But let's not make the compilation of data an excuse for inaction elsewhere. Public services are often criticised for being too cumbersome, inflexible, slow to innovate and risk-averse. But faced with the inspiring examples in the third sector, what do we do? Do we ask to take things more slowly, to spend time thinking whether it's sensible to talk about the third sector as an entity, to compile more evidence, perhaps to even have another investigative report to examine the issues?
No, we don't. This, if I might stereotype, would be a typically un-third sector response. And it is not good for anyone. It would be a great shame if we decided not to see the wood for examining ever-larger numbers of trees. The third sector works. It has huge potential to transform public services. We are not saying that all third sector organisations are better than all organisations in all other sectors and all services should therefore be transferred to them immediately. We are saying that there is immense potential in the third sector, and it is not being used. So let's do something about it.
Both the Berr review and the PASC report helpfully confirmed what needs to be done – commissioning needs to be improved. More training for commissioners, more awareness of the third sector's strengths and weaknesses, more consultation of the sector in designing contracts, better procurement practice in terms of risk allocation and greater and clearer focus on all the desired results. Get that right, and as the PASC report says, we will see 'genuinely improved outcomes for the public'.
Stephen Bubb is the chief executive of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations
PFjul2008
