There is a real fear of speaking out about commissioning

By , Tuesday, 10 July 2012, 4 Comments

Last month, I spoke about how my organisation had lost out on a contract following ‘extremely bad commissioning’ by the local probation trust.

Since then I’ve been approached by a number of charities who have cited similar experiences of extremely bad commissioning. Birmingham Settlement’s experience is clearly not an isolated case. Commissioners putting ‘cost over client’ and not understanding the services they commission is not such a rare circumstance.

There is also a growing trend of national charities who think it acceptable to “take out” locally-based organisations and “asset strip” their staff, because they want the market place for themselves – behaviour many of us find unacceptable.

But there is real fear about speaking out.

One of the main problems is the reluctance of commissioners to admit they’ve got something wrong. Public bodies rarely admit to mistakes and if challenged, they tend to embark on long and costly legal battles. Local organisations fear to speak out because they often need to negotiate with those public bodies again.

The main issue here isn’t about us losing a contract. It’s about the depersonalisation and erosion of services that focus on the needs of real people; charities up and down the country working with, and in the heart of communities will die or be partly subsumed by large, impersonal nationals geared up for multi-million pound contracts concerned with numbers, not people.

Those nationals will cherry-pick the competitive (successful) elements of organisations who need those parts to generate innovation and income to subsidise and sustain the key work they don’t get funded for. The added value that settlements and similar organisations bring through local knowledge, skills and understanding built up over years will be lost, along with the innovation and enterprising spirit that has seen the establishment of so many good things.

We need to make our voices heard – and it can work. If enough of us keep hammering on the door, eventually someone will hear – we work with people, not numbers. Remember the bigger picture, highlight your case and fight your corner – isn’t it our role to challenge?

Martin Holcombe is chief executive of the Birmingham Settlement

  • Bruce Bennett

    I have total sympathy and agreement with Martin’s points of view. This is not an isolated incident and I also aware of other circumstances where ‘national’s’ have come in with a slicker and cheaper package, but have not been able to deliver on the ground.
    This situations comes about because the professional bid writers are detached from service delivery and do not have to actually deliver the programmes. Their reward is in winning the contracts; it is down to others to endeavour to deliver the impossible! On the other side of the fence the Commissioners are rewarded by cost savings. However, in the outrun, Martin is quite correct, this does not lead to ‘best value’ but the exact opposite.
    It is therefore in everyone’s best interest that ‘Compact’ is made a legally binding and with proper safeguards, and an independent body is established to arbitrate in such matters. In this way we will achieve both real cost savings and better services.

    • A Smith

      I agree.. and this from someone with a lucrative sideline in freelance bid writing!

  • Wally Harbert

    Every system of public administration has its downside. During my early career public services were run by government or local government and, occasionally, by grant aided charities. I thought that worked well but it was decided to outsource public services to create competition in the belief that this would be more effective and cheaper.

    As Martin indicates, the result is a free-for-all in which organisations are pitched against one another. Moreover, dissatisfied consumers are liable to receive a standard product instead of one designed specifically for them and are uncertain whether failures are the fault of commissioners or contractors. The consumer’s position is weakened while that of the commissioner is strengthened.

    Once they accept the Queen’s shilling, charities can be held responsible for public service failures. What is more, their voice can be muffled. In these circumstances there is every reason for them to refrain from competing for contracts and return to their original role of filling gaps and campaigning for better services.

    Sometimes, the only way forward is to go back to first principles.

    P.S. I have fond memories of the Birmingham Settlement. I was a resident there nearly 60 years ago.

  • Mark Atkinson

    Bad commissioning is something all charities have to be aware of be they small, medium or large. A few nationals may well also engage in dubious practice but by and large my belief is that they have no negative intent and are simply seeking to fulfil the needs of their service users via am imperfect model. I can promise you that the bigger charities frequently get bitten either by the unrealistic expectations of commissioners; the gusto of their own sales team who have massive targets, or simply through poorly negotiated contracts which aren’t properly scrutinised pre signing. The big charities may have more staff and they may proportionally deliver more contracts but the majority of them are small fry. Together they make a considerable sum but there are not that many £multi-million tenders floating around. For the really big stuff the larger charities are increasingly recognising the need to work in partnership and the smarter ones are engaging in MOU’s / bidding blocks with other organisations to give themselves a head start when these opportunities do arise.

Latest jobs Jobs web feed