Competition and contracts in the voluntary sector: exploring the implications for homelessness service providers in Southampton

Abstract

This study explores the impacts of contractual government funding and competitive tendering on voluntary organisations (VOs) providing homelessness services in Southampton, UK. Although service quality has arguably improved, the interview data suggest that implementing competitive tendering within the voluntary sector is not unproblematic. Three key issues are discussed: changing demands for expertise, increasing job insecurity, and tensions between competition and cooperation among VOs. The article argues that if VOs are to retain the distinctive qualities for which politicians have lauded them, procurement and monitoring procedures must be carefully attuned to the social relations and practices of the voluntary sector.

Inquiry into funding and delivery of programs to reduce homelessness

“…One unintentional consequence of the constrained availability of government funding is the competition this can engender among not-for-profit organisations, particularly when administered through competitive tendering processes (Buckingham 2009). This can potentially be to the detriment of the sector if it reduces collaboration.…”

Knowledge, knowledge mobilisation and the third sector

“…This is based on various claims: for example that TSOs are organised and run based on values (Alcock, 2010), that they provide an independent voice (Alcock 2013), or that they are in touch with the needs of those who use their services in a way that is implicitly special, perhaps even unique, and as such out of reach of other types of organisation (Miller 2013, Buckingham 2009). …”

Negotiating Interactions in State–Voluntary Sector Relationships: Competitive and Collaborative Agency in an Experiential Workshop

“…However, factors identified earlier as inhibiting good cross-sector relationships persist and continue to dominate the funding environment for voluntary and community providers (Milbourne 2009). These include: unrealistic expectations by statutory organizations; transfer of untenable risks; poor communications; local competition for funds; inappropriate performance measures; and mistrust of larger agencies (Kimberlee 2002;Milbourne et al 2003;Buckingham 2009). Yet, there is a pervasive philosophy that 'rational and transparent' practices are in operation, which will improve delivery of services among non-profit providers (Shaw and Allen 2006, p. 211).…”

“…Our analysis of this event signals a need to challenge assumptions about dominant operational behaviours, if we are to address the implications of winners and losers from this context. As this workshop and research critical of the mindset embedded in commissioning processes (Buckingham 2009;Milbourne 2009) indicate, bidders who have become proficient in articulating a managerial discourse-that is, proficient sector 'boundary-crossers'-are more likely to become incorporated as insiders and emerge as winners. In contrast, organizations concentrating on their core values and activities (often smaller, community-based agencies) remain outsiders in an apparently inhospitable organizational environment in which they may well be losers and ultimately fail to survive.…”