Debra Allcock Tyler: IT IS worth knowing that government has been sub-contracting public services to charities for decades. So why is this a problem now? The Government is having a pretty tough time financing public services and is attacked daily for its underperformance. It is also aware that privatisation has offloaded accountability for a host of underfunded and ailing public services. Now we blame poor standards on fat-cat businessmen rather than politicians. Better still, government and regulators can rush to our sides and join the struggle, a proper Robin Hood moment for the masses — genius! We are now entering a new era of “ de-publicisation” and charities are increasingly caught up in this.
This Government needs a few tricks to balance the books. One trick is competitive tendering for short-term contracts. This drives down costs, shifts the liability to the contractor and does it all without ceding control. For charities this means that prices for delivering public services are driven below their true cost. More interested in the cause than the contract they sign, they often quote artificially low overheads, effectively trading profit for passion, but the result can be that they use their own resources (including your donations) to pick up the tab.
Price isn’t all that makes charities appealing. This is a beleaguered Government and, in the eyes of the public, charities do good things and good things make for good news.
Politicians will tell you that they are “removing artificial barriers” to charities’ rights to compete for contracts and that they’re doing their best to protect charities by lengthening contract terms and promising to pay their full costs. But this doesn’t happen.
Is it fair to suggest that this trend is driven by a desire to plunder the sector’s resources? Perhaps not. But charities are delivering public services on the cheap. There is a widening chasm between rhetoric and reality.
Advertisement
Missing from this debate is public involvement. Without this, how can we say which public services ought to be delivered solely by the state and what government should be accountable for in the polling station?
Our overriding purpose and passion is to support those we aim to help. We are independently run, driven by our own individual values and ethos — something that we do not compromise. We are not accountable to shareholders, nor political masters; only to those we aim to help, and this makes us different.
Third sector organisations have a lot to offer when it comes to public service delivery: years of experience working in local communities; flexibility; a personalised approach; as well as not being a statutory body. This enables us to engage with groups and individuals that statutory providers find difficult.
We are also innovative. The third sector can play a central role in devising ways of helping those who are socially excluded. For example, it is third sector organisations, such as NCH, who pioneered the delivery of intensive support programmes to help families stay together and prevent children being taken into care. And there are many more examples.
Our decisions are not based on cost cutting to win contracts, but on what we, through our knowledge and experience, see as necessary to do the job. On many occasions we have walked away from potential work because of the risks attached to insufficient funds. At NCH our raison d’être is the protection and support of vulnerable children and we would never compromise this.
Advertisement
The third sector should not be seen as an alternative provider on the basis of cost. We should be recognised for the quality services we provide, and where there is common ground with government and other partners we must look to bring together our resources and experience to meet our shared goals. This is something that none of us should be ashamed of. It is, after all, the real point.
Clare Tickell is a board member of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations