As part of their Clore Social Leadership ‘Emerging Leaders’ programme, Gwendolyn Sterk, Sam Edom, Katie Potter, Becky Evans, Stephanie Woodrow and Claire Kofman reflect on the relationship between smaller charities and commissioners - and what can be done to improve conversations between the two.
For many leaders in the third sector, particularly those based within smaller communities providing frontline support and services, competitive commissioning processes can be a complex, uncertain and unequal space.
Smaller charities[1] are disproportionately impacted by inequalities inbuilt in commissioning regimes, further exacerbating and entrenching structural inequalities that impact the communities in which small charities are situated, for example institutional
racism.[2] At the same time, there has been much praise directed towards the value of small charities[3] in their ability to meet the needs of the communities in which they are formed and deliver support.
Evidence has also shown that Covid-19 has further exacerbated inequalities across communities, which has had a disproportionate impact on smaller charities. However, Covid-19 has also offered opportunities for small charities to be flexible and responsive
in meeting the needs of the communities they serve.
With the reality being both an inequitable struggle for small charities within commissioning structures but also an assertion and recognition of the vital work small charities do, that cannot be done by others, particularly at a time of crisis,
it seems vital that a space for dialogue is created to enable the positive work to prevail.
With this in mind, we set out to speak to both small charity leaders and commissioners to answer the question: “What are the barriers to facilitating open conversations between small charities and statutory commissioners, and how might they be overcome?”
To begin with, after considering the existing research in this area, we had conversations with people within both the social sector and with commissioners we knew to explore the issue further. We found there were four impacts on the ability to have open
conversations to consider - commissioning structures, Covid-19 and the cliff edge caused by short-term funding cycles, inequalities, and the lack of capacity within smaller charities.
Following on from these findings, we put together two different surveys - one for leaders in smaller charities, and one for commissioners. Although we had a reasonable response to the survey for leaders of smaller charities, we struggled to reach commissioners,
only receiving a few responses. However, the responses we did receive gave a good indication of the barriers to be overcome.
The Barriers
1. Commissioners can be hard to engage in discussion
Interestingly, and as mentioned previously, throughout our investigation of this question we have struggled to engage commissioners in even discussing the question, with a few notable exceptions (which we are very grateful to).
This may be due to commissioners wanting to maintain an aspect of independence from charities as we come from charities ourselves, or that the engagement routes utilised by charities are not the same spaces where commissioners can engage. But it seems
our experience is symptomatic of the difficulty of creating a dialogue between charities and commissioners. We struggled to identify informal spaces where commissioners engage in discussion, whereas charities were accessible to us via social media.
2. Inflexible systems imposed from above
The perceived inflexibility of procurement regulation and the belief that they implement an unbiased approach left commissioners acting in structures that did not allow for the values of small charities to be seen, or for engagement to happen within the
commissioning process that was not strictly controlled.
Stringent and inflexible approaches to commissioning regimes left commissioners distant from the impact small charities have on communities, prioritising cost over value for money. It was recognised that commissioners were themselves restricted by higher
level decision making and bureaucracy:
“Most of our commissioners see the need for change but change is blocked further up. Overall systems are inflexible and one size fits all. As a small charity, it feels like we're working in a system designed to get the cheapest deal on bulk buy toilet rolls.”
“In my experience commissioners usually genuinely want to listen and learn, however they often don't have much opportunity to change processes based on what they learn.”
3. Lack of understanding on the part of commissioners as to what small charities do, and often a lack of sympathy in their struggles
In our survey responses, commissioners spoke of the work smaller charities do as being innovative, agile, responsive to individual need, and embedded in the communities they serve.
However, 29% of the small charity leaders that responded to our survey said that they didn’t feel confident that commissioners understand the situation on the ground.
The commissioners recognised that small charities could struggle within the commissioning process, however their responses focused on what small charities could do to ‘fit in’ rather than thinking about how the system may reduce bureaucracy so that small
charities may equally participate:
“Bigger organisations are often more laissez faire with the frustrating bureaucracy, for example, late payments or disappearing professionals - maybe because of experience or a bigger financial cushion.”
“[Small charities should] make the commissioner's job easy.”
That being said, across both commissioners and small charities there was a desire to move towards better dialogue and talk about engagement that is meaningful.
So how might these barriers be overcome?
1. Develop a more flexible relationship
The response to Covid-19 demonstrated an opportunity for things to be different. Smaller charity leaders noted that there was greater recognition that they could respond in a needs-led manner, allowing for flexibility over KPIs and a greater recognition
that smaller charities could provide grassroots information and evidence to inform swift funding decisions. There was a recognition that smaller charities needed to lead on the adaptation of their provision at a time of crisis within the resources
provided:
“When commissioners have taken on board changes required as a result of Covid-19, they were very open to the changes that were needed to deliver the services, understood the changes needed and that we could deliver for the funds we had.”
It was clear from the survey that smaller charities believe they are more aware of the need and can respond better than larger charities or statutory services to community needs. This became a great advantage during Covid-19 and should be considered as
part of the process in building back better.
2. Come and see it
Most of the survey respondents had an open invitation to commissioners to come and see their work and meet the people whose lives were being changed.
One survey respondent highlighted a scheme called Transition Pilots. The scheme saw commissioners working alongside the smaller charity to try a new approach:
“The idea is that the commissioner meets with us every six weeks and begins to implement the learning into their commissioning process - a commitment to commission for people and not for problems.”
The charity noted that this was happening in three spaces at the moment, however was not currently a system-wide approach.
Advice to commissioners is to visit the smaller organisations at their base of operations and allow time to understand them in an informal setting. Ideally, commissioners would then have the autonomy to implement learning from these meetings into their
commissioning practices. If this isn’t possible, then at least a dialogue would be opened.
3. Take commissioners on the journey
Maintaining positive relationships with commissioners once they were successful in tenders was key for smaller charities: invite commissioners to review delivery, meet the people involved, and include service user feedback in any reporting. They noted
that ensuring commissioners understand the challenges along the way can be key to maintaining a dialogue.
This can be hard when commissioners change roles or who to report to changes frequently. Relationship building takes time, and small charities don’t have the resources to engage regularly. So it is vital that commissioners also recognise smaller charities
are exactly that and do not necessarily have lots of resources to attend multiple meetings. They should work in partnership with the organisation on equal terms, and that partnership shouldn’t depend on individuals from either side but be developed
across teams so that a key partner leaving or changing role does not derail the relationship.
4. Focus on delivering long-term change
Thinking longer term and recognising the struggles of smaller charities and the need for flexibility was key for smaller charities to feel able to have equitable discussions with commissioners:
“We had a conversation about the long-term nature of change and they adapted by recognising how hard it is/being more flexible with outcomes.”
This will require being open to challenge and new ideas. Commissioners will need to understand that smaller organisations can struggle to be stable on short rounds of funding, and that multi-year contracts will result in more consistent, higher quality
delivery.
5. Acknowledge that radical change is possible
The response to Covid-19 has shown that there can be different ways of commissioning work which can include simplified processes and allowances for the ways smaller charities work. Moving forward, it will be important for commissioners to consider wider
questions of inequality and who gets to be involved when it comes to commissioning processes, particularly around issues like race where research shows time and time again that Black and Minoritised community organisations are unable to access the
processes that larger organisations can:
“We need to take this argument back to the structure. The structure of funds, how they are set up. Who they are accountable to, where their accountabilities lie, what representation do they have of the community, do they look like the community and do they understand the lived experiences of the communities? A lot of those decision making boards can’t tick those boxes.”[4]
[1] Community based, local and/or target group specific, defined financially as under £2m turnover a year for the purposes of our survey
[2] https://www.ubele.org/booska-paper
[3] https://www.lloydsbankfoundation.org.uk/media/c2aphccs/the-value-of-small.pdf
[4] https://www.ubele.org/booska-paper
Blog Home
All Blogs
RSS
