Third Sector v Public Sector – the Funding Quagmire and a Welcome Debate

Colin TurbettMay’s publication by Common Weal’s Care Reform Group of Welfare to Charity has triggered a welcome debate within the Third Sector in Scotland about its role and interface with national and local government. The paper argued that the growth of the Third Sector did not reflect an increase in its campaigning role, or its purpose in bringing together local community voices, or even its role in filling very specialised gaps in public services – all traditional tasks very much supported by Common Weal – but rather reflected its new purpose as a tool of central government. This, the paper described, arose from competitive bidding for directly funded government pots of money whose purpose was to be seen to meet certain manifesto and policy commitments. The process, it was argued, had contributed to the diminishment of local government, and in relation to social work services, had negated their role in promoting social welfare – a function given to them under the terms of the 1968 Social Work (Scotland) Act.Third Force News, the monthly online newsletter of the Scottish Council of Voluntary Organisations (SCVO), has initiated a debate around these issues that was started with a piece by this writer, followed in August with a response from its chief executive, Anna Fowlie, and continued with contributions from two Third Sector representatives in September. Whilst this is in progress the SCVO are organising a live debate around the issues in Edinburgh on November 7th (not yet confirmed, so watch for details).In recent months Scottish Government have renewed their commitment to bringing forward the Bill for the National Care Service (NCS) for its second reading. Whilst the recently published Programme for Government said no more than this, those involved in the sector will know that a reinvigorated process of co-design has continued, which lead civil servants contend will shape the new service. Noteworthy here that criticisms from Common Weal and others that co-design initially involved only selected individuals with “lived experience” excluding the lived experience of the workforce, seems to have been at least partially corrected (see our Ready to Fail paper published this year). However, it remains to be seen whether this is around already determined aspects of the NCS, like the proposed National Social Work Agency, or whether there really is opportunity to address other important and broader issues. These include the role of the profiteering private sector which the trade unions (and Common Weal) believe should be abolished, and about governance and organisation. The Verity House Agreement reached between government and CoSLA (the local government employers organisation) this Summer has at least brought Council’s back to the table, but the devil, as always, is in the detail, which is absent.It seems clear that the Scottish Government minister principally responsible for the NCS, Maree Todd, whose background is in Health and who, unlike her predecessor, has never been a councillor in local government, likes the Third Sector, and is suspicious of Councils. That does not bode well. As we outlined in our blueprint, Caring for All, for an NCS worthy of the name that would take a proper place alongside the NHS, local councils are the right place for administering community based and shaped local services such as social care and social work. They are far from perfect as representative democratic organs, and when they are underfunded, it should be no surprise that money allocated quickly disappears into the myriad responsibilities they still carry. That is not a good reason to by-pass them when it comes to social work and social care. Indeed, when it comes to the preventative tasks associated with the promotion of social welfare, they are ideally placed to engage with local communities and deliver what is needed.The Third Sector, with its insecurities, hierarchies, absence of democratic accountability, and poor terms and conditions for lower grades of staff, is not the place for sustainable and properly funded services. If local government needs review of the shape it took through the Tory gerrymandering reform of the mid 1990s, then that should be brought into the frame, rather than the pragmatic practice of inviting funding bids direct from central government. The practice of outsourcing social care support services by local government should be included in such a review.The debate around these issues must focus on these central questions rather than simply countering criticism by showcasing examples of Third Sector excellence. These exist and can involve high levels of community control and engagement, as well as professional expertise. As stated at the outset of this piece, we in the Common Weal Care Reform Group are fully behind the place, development, and sustainability of such organisations: they should not, however, substitute for properly funded and democratically accountable public sector services. Our worry is that there is now such an industry around funding mechanisms, described to us as “bonkers” by one of the lead players, that it will take considerable effort to change such processes. The NCS proposals could involve such opportunity.Colin Turbett is a retired social worker, writer on social work matters and a member of Common Weal's Care Reform Group.