Commissioning for Change

Last week's National Young People's Commissioning Forum, at the Emirates stadium in London, provided an opportunity for the voluntary sector and local Government and other commissioning bodies to share ideas about how to improve the commissioning process.

For those not familiar with the language of the 'third sector' (i.e. neither commercial nor state), 'commissioning' is the term used for the acquisition of services from charities and voluntary organisations by the State. One of the presentations posed the question 'What is Commissioning?', offering a choice of answers including 'The same as procurement!', and indicating that it is far from widely understood, even in this sector.

In essence, when services are 'commissioned', as opposed to 'purchased', the service provider should play a much more active part in the specification of how the service should be delivered, and should be viewed more as a partner in delivery than simply as a 'supplier'.

This is somewhat akin to the 'partnership' models that are often trumpeted by commercial organisations when they are launched, and then quietly forgotten when the good intentions have turned to bickering. There were, however, success stories among the tales of challenges and problems. In particular, one council's Children and Youth Services department talked of the excellent relationship that they had established with a third-sector service provider, developing through honest and fair-minded dialogue that enabled them to work through the inevitable upsets.

The chairperson, Fran Pollard of Catch22, did an excellent job of steering us through the debate about what made good commissioning happen, and how to avoid the pitfalls that had claimed some projects. The breakout groups, a central focus of the forum, provided ample spirited feedback.

It was clear that although none of the third sector participants wanted to alienate potential clients, there were some strong feelings about the way the sector has been treated in the past.

We at Devant have seen many examples of onerous contracts, such as those requiring the provider to give extensive indemnities, where the contract value will barely cover the cost of delivery (assuming all goes perfectly to plan). This sort of indemnity is regularly rejected by commercial entities that stand to make a significant margin on a project, on the basis that it is an unfair allocation of risk. So how does that stack up with the 'commissioning' approach being encouraged by Government?

Not well, it appears.

It seems that although the third sector may suffer occasionally from being too nice to speak out, it is finally finding its voice. Let's hope Government is listening.