This is partly because experience suggests structural change has anegative impact on the voluntary sector, at least in the short-term, assome provision is decommissioned to redirect resources towards newobjectives. Funding is in any case insufficient for a smooth transition,intensifying the pressures on emerging children's trusts.
When youth offending teams were established, funding was withdrawn fromthe voluntary sector to help finance them. Months later some of theteams approached the same voluntary agencies to commission new services,but by then the capacity to deliver had been lost.
There are some fears that the same pattern may reoccur. Would thismatter?
I think it would, not only for the people who lost their jobs, but morebroadly if it led to high-quality services disappearing.
The voluntary sector deserves funding to deliver services only if andwhen best placed to do so. At heart, most voluntary organisations acceptthis. They want a "fair crack of the whip" or a "level playing field"'supported by equitable and transparent processes proportionate to thescale of the contract.
We need cross-sector agreement about what a level playing fieldmeans.
We need the right balance between collaboration and competition, whilerecognising that children's services are becoming more complex andchallenging.
New delivery models seem set to emerge, with more focus onindividualised payments. GP practice and school commissioning are inprospect, as well as regional commissioning.
Lots of questions need answering. How can these different commissioningmodels fit together? How do we balance quality, affordability andsustainability?
What is the role of the voluntary sector in this new world and how, inparticular, can we ensure small local voluntary agencies survive? Ifthey don't, our children's services will be much the poorer.
