Changing Responsibilities and Roles of the Voluntary and Community Sector in the Welfare Mix: A Review

Abstract

Many Western states have sought in recent years to harness the energies of voluntary agencies and charitable bodies in the provision of welfare (Brandsen and Pestoff, 2006; Milligan and Conradson, 2006; Haugh and Kitson, 2007). More than ever is expected of the Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS) in supporting people and communities, entering into partnerships with governments, and delivering public services (Lewis, 2005; Macmillan, 2010). The mainstreaming of the VCS has been associated with a push towards market reform and reducing state obligations for welfare provision (Amin, 2009). In some European states – for example, Germany and the Netherlands – a three-way mix of state, market and voluntary sector dates back to the nineteenth century (Brandsen and Pestoff, 2006). In the UK too, on which this review article focuses, the delivery of public services by voluntary organisations and charities is far from new, but over the past decade local government and health services, especially in England, have been required to step up their engagement with VCS organisations (VCSOs) (Alcock, 2009; Di Domencio et al., 2009; Macmillan, 2010). Commitment to this sector by the government under New Labour was signalled by the creation for England of the Office of the Third Sector within the Cabinet Office in 2006 and the associated appointment of the first dedicated Minister of the Third Sector, initially Ed Miliband MP. Working with charities, social enterprises and community and faith-based organisations appeals to politicians across the mainstream British political spectrum (Di Domencio et al., 2009; Alcock, 2010); the ‘Big Society’ agenda of the Coalition government elected in 2010 promises a continuation in this direction of travel, albeit in a new regime of reduced budgets, service cuts and demands of more for less.

Social Enterprise and Dis/identification

“…Policymakers in the new Conservative-led coalition government of 2010 continued to provide rhetorical support to social enterprise as part of its Big Society philosophy (Hogg & Baines, 2011). The early policies and rhetoric of the coalition government placed a particular emphasis on social enterprise as deliverers of public services.…”

“…For instance, social enterprise has been associated with advancing the "marketization" of the third sector (Hogg & Baines, 2011) and transforming third sector organizations into delivery agents of the state (Carmel & Harlock, 2008) while in the process undermining the democratic spirit of the third sector (Eikenberry, 2009).…”

Is the Asset Transfer of Public Leisure Facilities in England an Example of Associative Democracy?

“…Clearly a localist orientation to delivery meant that the associations were more in tune with local needs and, without local authority corporate plans, they could be more creative and flexible. Similarly, Hogg and Baines suggest that "the sector's capacity for innovation is one claim that underpins the case for more involvement in public services" [33] (p. 345). Likewise better control and the cutting of costs were evident, but necessary as users expect 'quality' and "value for money" [31] (p. 389).…”

Access to Philanthropic and Commercial Income Among Nonprofit Community Service Organisations

“…In recent years, however, reduced government funding has contributed to acute financial pressures among nonprofits, contributing to strong critique of the tendency for purchaser-provider models to undermine capacity to deliver high quality and independent services (Furneaux and Ryan 2014;ACOSS 2014;Cortis and Blaxland 2014). Like under the UK's 'Big Society' agenda (Centre for Social Justice 2014; Alcock et al 2012;Evans 2011;Hogg and Baines 2011), Australian nonprofits are being encouraged by governments to develop private resource models, including through social investment, private and corporate giving, and social enterprise, to complement or substitute for inadequate levels of public welfare spending and provision (Addis et al 2014;Eggers and Macmillan 2013;Zappala and Lyons 2008).…”