In the "Open Public Services" White Paper, the Government makes much of the contribution that the third sector - traditional charities, community and voluntary bodies and social enterprises - can and should make to public service delivery.
Of course, the irony is that as a consequence of its public expenditure cuts, many of these very same organisations are facing dire prospects of closure or attempting to provide under-funded services. As to what can be done, I see no benefit either for the sector or for localism in the Government issuing guidance, instructions or even exhalations to local government and others to protect expenditure to the third sector. However, it is vital that local authorities and other public agencies do not wilfully damage the sector (and thus their own communities) in their attempts to balance their own budgets.
Undoubtedly the third sector can and will grow in significance as a provider of public services normally commissioned and procured by the public sector. And as more services are purchased by individual users through direct payments, personalised budgets and self-funding arrangements - so third sector organisations will have new markets in which to operate. In order to play this increasingly expanding role, the sector requires access to affordable capital, investment to underpin expansion and the transition to new business models (for example from single public sector contracts to personalised "retail" provision), advice and expert assistance. It will also want to develop new delivery partnerships with the private as well as the public sector. But above all, it will require adequate levels of revenue funding to cover costs including the cost of capital and borrowing and investment for growth.
These approaches will be appropriate for many third sector organisations especially large-scale service providers. However, for many organisations in the community sector, these approaches are not just alien but probably inappropriate.
The fact is that many voluntary and community organisations have become the heart of local communities. They provide voice and representation to and for communities - and on many occasions, they are the only voice for very marginalised members of those communities. They advocate and campaign on behalf of individuals, households and communities. They provide and offer capacity to the communities of which they are a part, within which they function and whom they serve. For many such organisations, there is simply no appetite or interest in contracting with the public sector to provide services on behalf of the state. They are not equipped to do this; would see it as compromising their independence and voice; and indeed, their role is simply not traditional public service delivery in the way that is described in "Open Public Services". Rather, their added value and indeed their service and activity outcomes are based on what the community wants and needs - not what commissioners may or might determine.
For all that, they are no less important and relevant than larger service contracting third sector organisations. In fact, at a local level, one could argue that they are far more important. It is important therefore, as it talks about the "Big Society" and neighbourhood empowerment, that the Government does not fail smaller community organisations. And local authorities must not fail them either. And indeed larger third sector organisations can offer support to, engagement with and opportunities to collaborate with community organisations.
Some of these bodies would never wish to receive public money. However, many do and will wish to be able to access both grants and appropriate small scale contracts where the output and outcome is negotiated between funder and the supplying organisation rather than it being imposed by the commissioner and more likely the procurer. They will wish and should be enabled to contribute to local strategic commissioning activities and decisions. They should be able to have affordable use of local public assets and premises (and in some cases to be able to use the "community right to buy" entitlement) and to collectively provided support services They should able to use the "right to supply challenge" in such a way that is possible within their limited resources and where the ensuing procurement opportunity is within their grasp.
In some cases, smaller community organisations will wish and feel able to seek repayable loans to develop their capacity and offers to their local communities, beneficiaries and members. Funds like the Adventure Capital Fund [declaration of interest: I am a trustee of ACF] and Community Builders have amply demonstrated that for many such organisations, this is workable and prudent approach. With that in mind, a raft of more focused financing schemes are needed and should be facilitated by Government and local authorities.
Community budgeting and the focus on long term preventative benefits (as exemplified by the Graham Allen Report) - and the introduction of new forms of social investment including social impact bonds could provide opportunities for some community organisations. But long term payment by results and expensive bidding processes tend to be unassailable barriers. For too many and for the reasons already stated in this article, these kinds of contracting and funding arrangements are just wrong and inappropriate.
When we speak of the retail sector, most of us easily differentiate between Tesco's and the local corner shop - we don't have to be prompted to draw the distinction. So why is it that Government, some national third sector bodies and spokespeople 'assume' that the third sector is homogeneous and principally made up of large contracting bodies, with the other smaller community groups side-lined as less important, if not irrelevant?
This blinkered and patronising attitude must change - developing sustainable communities and addressing desperate needs requires both full acknowledgement and creative support for these groups.