Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T06:28:59.969Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 March 2012

HEATHER BUCKINGHAM
HEATHER BUCKINGHAM*
Affiliation:
Lee Abbey, Lynton, North Devon, EX35 6JJ email: heatherbuckingham@hotmail.co.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 41 , Issue 3 , July 2012 , pp. 569 - 589
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alcock, P. and Scott, D. (2007), ‘Voluntary and community sector welfare’, in Powell, M. (ed.), Understanding the Mixed Economy of Welfare, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Billis, D. (2010), ‘From welfare bureaucracies to welfare hybrids’, in Billis, D. (ed.), Hybrid Organisations and the Third Sector, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bode, I. (2006), ‘Disorganised welfare mixes: voluntary agencies and new governance regimes in Western Europe’, Journal of European Social Policy, 16: 4, 346–59.Google Scholar
Buckingham, H. (2009), ‘Competition and contracts in the voluntary sector: exploring the implications for homelessness service providers in Southampton’, Policy and Politics, 37: 2, 235–54.Google Scholar
Buckingham, H. (2011), ‘Hybridity, diversity and the division of labour in the third sector: what can we learn from homelessness organisations in the UK?’, Voluntary Sector Review, 2: 2, 157–75.Google Scholar
Butler, P. (2011), ‘Charity cuts: the “avoidable destruction” of homelessness services’, The Guardian, 15 July.Google Scholar
Braithwaite, C. (1938), The Voluntary Citizen: An Enquiry into the Place of Philanthropy in the Community, London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Chew, C. and Osborne, S. P. (2009), ‘Exploring strategic positioning in the UK charitable sector: emerging evidence from charitable organisations that provide public services’, British Journal of Management, 20: 90–105.Google Scholar
Cloke, P., Johnsen, S. and May, J. (2005), ‘Exploring ethos? Discourses of “charity” in the provision of emergency services for homeless people’, Environment and Planning A, 37: 3, 385–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cloke, P., Johnsen, S. and May, J. (2007), ‘Ethical citizenship? Volunteers and the ethics of providing services for homeless people’, Geoforum, 38: 6, 1089–101.Google Scholar
Cloutier-Fisher, D. and Skinner, M. W. (2006), ‘Levelling the playing field? Exploring the implications of managed competition for voluntary sector providers of long-term care in small town Ontario’, Health and Place, 12: 1, 97–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conradson, D. (2002), ‘Negotiating value-based tension: voluntary welfare provision in Christchurch, New Zealand: Summary research findings’, http://www.geog.soton.ac.uk/school/staff/profiles/djc/VWP.pdf.Google Scholar
Crang, M. (2005), ‘Analysing qualitative materials’, in Flowerdew, R. and Martin, D. (eds.), Methods in Human Geography, Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Cunningham, I. and Nickson, D. (2009), ‘A gathering storm? Procurement, re-tendering and the voluntary sector social care workforce’, http://www.strath.ac.uk/media/departments/hrm/pdfs/hrm-pdf-scer/SCER.pdf.Google Scholar
Ebaugh, H. R., Chafetz, J. S. and Pipes, P. (2005), ‘Funding good works: funding sources of faith-based social service coalitions’, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34: 4, 448–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Parliament (2004), Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the Coordination of Procedures for the Award of Public Works Contracts, Public Supply Contracts and Public Service Contracts, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:134:0114:0240:EN:PDF.Google Scholar
Evers, A. (1995), ‘Part of the welfare mix: the third sector as an intermediate area’, Voluntas, 6: 2, 159–82.Google Scholar
Evers, A. (2005), ‘Mixed welfare systems and hybrid organizations: changes in the governance and provision of social services’, International Journal of Public Administration, 28: 9, 737–48.Google Scholar
Fear, H. and Barnett, P. (2003), ‘Holding fast: the experience of collaboration in a competitive environment’, Health Promotion International, 18: 1, 5–14.Google Scholar
Fyfe, N. R. and Milligan, C. (2003), ‘Space, citizenship, and voluntarism: critical reflections on the voluntary welfare sector in Glasgow’, Environment and Planning A, 35: 11, 2069–86.Google Scholar
Hampshire Supporting People (2006), Strategic Review of Homelessness Services, 2005–06: County Implementation Plan, http://www3.hants.gov.uk/strat-review_homeless-cip-05-7.doc.Google Scholar
Harris, M., Halfpenny, P. and Rochester, C. (2003), ‘A social policy role for faith-based organisations? Lessons from the UK Jewish voluntary sector’, Journal of Social Policy, 32: 93–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugh, H. and Kitson, M. (2007), ‘The Third Way and the third sector: New Labour's economic policy and the social economy’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 31: 6, 973–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnsen, S., Cloke, P. and May, J. (2005), ‘Day centres for homeless people: spaces of care or fear?’, Social and Cultural Geography, 6: 6, 787–811.Google Scholar
Kendall, J. (2003), The Voluntary Sector, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Knight, B. (1993), Voluntary Action, 2nd edition, London: Centris.Google Scholar
Lake, R. W. and Newman, K. (2002), ‘Differential citizenship in the shadow state’, Geo Journal, 58: 109–120.Google Scholar
Larner, W. and Butler, M. (2005), ‘Governmentalities of local partnerships: the rise of a “partnering state” in New Zealand’, Studies in Political Economy, 75: 85–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ling, T. (2000), ‘Unpacking partnership: the case of healthcare’, in Clarke, D., Gerwirtz, S. and McLaughlin, E. (eds.), New Managerialism, New Welfare?, London: Sage.Google Scholar
May, J., Cloke, P. and Johnsen, S. (2005), ‘Re-phasing neoliberalism: New Labour and Britain's crisis of street homelessness’, Antipode, 37: 4, 703–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, K. (2004), ‘Towards a modernized voluntary and community sector?’, Public Management Review, 6: 4, 555–62.Google Scholar
Milbourne, L. (2009), ‘Remodelling the third sector: advancing collaboration or competition in community-based initiatives’, Journal of Social Policy, 38: 2, 277–97.Google Scholar
Milligan, C. (2007), ‘Geographies of voluntarism: mapping the terrain’, Geography Compass, 1: 2, 183–99.Google Scholar
Milligan, C. and Fyfe, N. R. (2004), ‘Putting the voluntary sector in its place: geographical perspectives on voluntary activity and social welfare in Glasgow’, Journal of Social Policy, 33: 73–93.Google Scholar
Milligan, C. and Fyfe, N. R. (2005), ‘Preserving space for volunteers: exploring the links between voluntary welfare organisations, volunteering and citizenship’, Urban Studies, 42: 3, 417–33.Google Scholar
Morris, D. (2000), ‘Charities in the contract culture: survival of the largest?’, Legal Studies, 20: 3, 409–27.Google Scholar
Mullins, D. and Murie, A. (2006), Housing Policy in the UK, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Najam, A. (2000), ‘The four-Cs of third sector-government relations: cooperation, confrontation, complementarity, and co-optation’, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 10: 4, 375–93.Google Scholar
Osborne, S. P. and McLaughlin, K. (2004), ‘The cross-cutting review of the voluntary sector: where next for local government–voluntary sector relationships?’, Regional Studies, 38: 5, 573–82.Google Scholar
Ramesh, R. (2011), ‘Charities fight for survival as funds slashed’, The Guardian, 2 August.Google Scholar
Riseborough, M. (2006), ‘Housing, social care and supporting people’, in Mullins, D. and Murie, A. (eds.) Housing Policy in the UK, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Southampton Supporting People (2005), Supporting People in Southampton: Five Year Strategy 2005–2010 (Final Draft), http://www.spkweb.org.uk/Your_local_area/GOSE/Southampton/Strategy_and_policies/5+Year+Strategy+-+Final+Draft.htm.Google Scholar
Stewart, H. (2011), ‘Work programme leaves charities fearful for their future’, The Observer, 11 September.Google Scholar
Young, D. R. (2000), ‘Alternative models of government–nonprofit sector relations: theoretical and international perspectives’, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29: 1, 149–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar