The commissioner’s perspective: the lived realities of commissioning children’s preventative services in England and the role of discretion

Abstract

Commissioning remains the dominant process by which England’s state and third sector financial relationships are managed, attracting much criticism and debate. In response, the Civil Society Strategy (HM Government 2018) has called for a renewed focus on collaborative commissioning arrangements. However, the absence of much comment on commissioners suggests we have not paid enough attention to the role of the individuals who manage these processes. Semi-structured interviews with 15 commissioners, responsible for children’s preventative services, provide new empirical evidence exploring commissioners’ lived experiences. Drawing on the notion of vertical discretion, which is an individual’s freedom from external control, versus horizontal discretion, which is an individual’s freedom for decision making, this article explores the space for commissioners’ individual discretion within the commissioning process. Findings highlight that greater consideration of the role discretion has in commissioning processes can add some insight into how more collaborative commissioning arrangements may be achieved at a local level.

Donations or statutory funding? Exploring the funding of historical childhood sexual abuse support services in England and Wales

“…Access to CSA support services is influenced by the level of funding, commissioning, and the referral pathways. Commissioning dominates the financial relationships between the state and third sector (Body, 2019), nonetheless little literature exists on the impact on the CSA sector. However, the commissioning of mental health services from voluntary sector organisations has been studied (Miller and Rees, 2014;Rees et al, 2016;Newbigging et al, 2020).…”

“…Others point to the fact that it is a 'highly relational activity' (Rees et al, 2016) determined by individual practices and personal relationships. Body (2019) argues that commissioners themselves are disparaging of inflexible processes and often use their discretion when commissioning services.…”