Capturing Diversity: A Typology of Third Sector Organisations’ Responses to Contracting Based on Empirical Evidence from Homelessness Services

Abstract

The impacts of government contracting on third sector organisations (TSOs) have attracted much discussion; however, the diversity of the organisations that comprise the third sector means that these impacts in fact vary considerably between TSOs. In order to better understand this complexity and to analyse and articulate TSOs' experiences more effectively, it is useful to think about different response types. Based on empirical evidence from a study of homelessness TSOs in two South East England local authorities, this paper presents a typology of organisational responses to contracting. The four types identified are: Comfortable Contractors, Compliant Contractors, Cautious Contractors, and Community-Based Non-Contractors. The varied experiences of these different types of organisation with regard to contracting are described in the paper and point to the need for greater precision and differentiation within academic debates, and in the formulation of social policy relating to the third sector.

Perspectives on responsibility in practice as revealed through food provisioning offers for rough sleepers

“…This example also stresses the potential marginalisation of non-commissioned voluntary sector providers, especially if they are acting independently of other organisations (Buckingham, 2012), and the potential consequences for their users.…”

Government–Nonprofit Cooperation: Anomaly or Necessity?

“…331-2). ''Vendorism,'' or the perennial pursuit of government contracts without much regard to the particular objective or any involvement in setting the policy being pursued (Kramer 1981, p. 153), is a particular concern with the government contracting tool and has attracted a large literature both in the American context and elsewhere (see, for example: Smith and Lipsky 1993;Smith 2010;Ascoli and Ranci 2002;Buckingham 2012). Aside from the loss of mission focus, concerns arise over a number of more concrete specific managerial challenges that contracts pose for nonprofits, including payment delays, cash-flow management, off-putting contract boilerplate, limited coverage of true costs, disputed payments, limited contractual time-horizons, contract close-out disputes, and contract renewal problems.…”

Public, Private or Neither? Analysing the publicness of health care social enterprises

“…Often defined as 'hybrid' organisations (Battilana and Lee, 2014;Billis, 2010), these organisations are seen as blurring the boundaries between the private, public and third sectors (Dart, 2004); as businesses with primarily social objectives whose surpluses are reinvested to address a social or environmental need (DTI, 2002;Department of Health, 2008). Governments have actively encouraged social enterprises to deliver public services on the grounds that they represent a means to achieving more innovative, cost-efficient and responsive public services (Fazzi, 2012;Buckingham, 2012;Dickinson et al, 2012).…”