The Role That the Voluntary Sector Can Play in the Provision of Public Welfare Services

Trent Building, the University of Nottingham Introduction One of the providers of public welfare services is voluntary sector. Government and many communities demand their existence because it gives a significant contribution to the provision of the services and also affects the economy in certain degrees (Clark, McHugh & McKay, 2011, p37). This essay will assess the role that the voluntary sector can play in the provision of public welfare services. This essay is divided into three chapters. The first chapter discusses theories of welfare and welfare providers. The second chapter assesses the role of the voluntary sector. This chapter focusses on three roles of the voluntary sector. The last chapter is the conclusion. This essay concludes that voluntary sector has a crucial role to fill the gaps in the provision of public welfare services. Welfare Policy and Welfare Provider Welfare Policy According to Oxford dictionaries, the definition of welfare is “Statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need”. It can be understood as efforts to increase the quality of the provision of basic needs. From sociological approach, Walker in Greve (2008, p54) said that “the term welfare is used to refer to the goals of social security systems and measures of the performance of systems, schemes or programmes”. Greve concluded that the definition of welfare depends on the approaches and perspectives used (2008, p57). Finally, Lund (2002, p1) argued that welfare has many definitions, but all refer to public policy. Lund (2002, p1) mentioned several policy areas that are included in welfare namely, ‘education, health, ‘social’ housing, income security, and the personal social services’. One area that is covered by welfare is education. Lund said that economists in the past agreed on the state intervention to the provision of education (2002, p39). Smith (1776, p734, in Lund, 2002, p39) argued that the state intervention in education to change labours’ minds which concentrated on employment contract hopes to get a better position. One example of comprehensive health service is the National Health Service that was established in 1930 in the UK. At some certain degree, the service is free, ‘at primary care’, ‘provided by employees on full-time salaries’, and ‘in publicly funded health centres’ (Lund, 2002, p116). And finally, the main purpose of housing policy according to Hills (in CASE, 1998, p3) is an addition to social security and city development planning. The State Lund mentioned several actors that have a role in the welfare system. They are: ‘state, for-profit organisations, the voluntary sector, the family, and friends and neighbours’ (2002, p1). However, the family, friends, and neighbours can be included in the voluntary concept as Wilson (2000, p216) said that “desire to help others is constitutive of volunteering”. As an actor in providing welfare, the state is expected to translate the ‘common good’ into certain welfare programmes that are appropriate with the demands of the public (Lund, 2002, p1). The state roles in welfare system can be divided into two categories of intervention. The first is ‘primary intervention’. The government organises it in the economy and social life. It requires ‘direct interference’ to encourage public desired outcomes. It includes ‘economic intervention’, ‘the politic of representation’, and ‘regulation’ (Lund, 2002, p11). The second is ‘secondary intervention’ where the government use market mechanism and social and political approach to distributing resources. The sectors cover ‘education, health care, the personal social services and elements of housing’ (2002, p11). Private sector The main goal of the private organisation is to gain profit. However, there are tendencies from many private organisations to provide public services. Recent development in welfare service provision shows that ‘welfare actors’ form ‘interactive, mixed and intermeshed policy networks’ and ‘service systems’ (Evers & Laville, 2004, p3). Skelcher (2006, p349) said that before entering the new millennium, many governments had involved private actors in planning, organising and delivering service to the public. At that time, the main reason of the government was to meet requirements from international donor agency (Skelcher, 2006, p349). The next development shows that many countries adopt ‘public-private partnership’ as an answer to the reform in public sector management (Pollitt and Bouckaert in Skelcher, 2006, p350). Voluntary Sector Clark said that many experts argue that voluntary sector is competent to translate the needs of vulnerable people, supply service and develop remote areas, and recognise and prevent threats to the environment.  Also, they have an ability to mitigate discrimination by promoting good attitudes and practices (1993, p1). Billis and Glennerster added that voluntary sector organisation (VSO) emerges to provide public services where the market cannot completely fulfil, and the government might spend too much resource to provide it (1998, p82). Traditionally, VSO takes action based on ‘supply side’. It concentrates on providing services, implement development agendas, and cooperate with government agencies to deliver their programme (Clark, 1993, p2).  But later, they metamorphose to act based on the ‘demand side’. They help communities to voice their wants, bridge the communication between communities and official bodies, and assist poor people in getting and enhancing power (Clark, 1993, p2). Before, VSO was more financially independent of the state (Lewis, 2004, p171). They also concentrated on working their projects (Clark, 1993, p1). Recent development shows that VSO has achieved a significant position in providing services and as a potential option to supply employers (Lewis, 2004, p171). Organisational Characteristics of Welfare Voluntary Organisation (Milligan and Fyfe, 2005) Milligan and Fyfe divided voluntary sector organisation into two categories, ‘grass-roots model’ and ‘corporatist model’. Milligan & Fyfe (2005, p420) said that the first model relies on “ideas of mutuality, empathy and trust, with a focus on developing sharing, and caring organisational environments”. The structure of the organisations is non-hierarchical and stresses on the inclusive decision-making process.  Organisations in this model can be associated with the enhancement of citizen participation to develop their empowerment and actualization (Miligan & Fyfe, 2005, p420). On the other hand, the second model works in ‘the corporatist framework’. The orientation of this model is to develop and manage passive forms of the public who are the users of the services. In this model, services are provided by experienced volunteers and professional paid employees (Miligan & Fyfe, 2005, p420). Milligan and Fyfe argued that voluntary is crucial to promote active citizenship (2005, p418). Therefore, VSO requires commitment from the volunteers to give their effort and time (Wilson, 2000, p216). Furthermore, the interaction between the government and voluntary sector in providing the services, ““taking account of the key role the sector can play in strengthening civil society and building capacity in local communities” (HM Treasury, 2002, in Milligan and Fyfe, 2005, p418). The Role That the Voluntary Sector Can Play in the Provision of Public Welfare Services Development Assistant There are several roles that the voluntary sector organisation can deliver public welfare service.  The first role is ‘development assistant’. Here, the voluntary sector mainly assists government to provide services to the public. Clark (1993, p3), stated the reason why the voluntary sector has a significant part in this role. First, many of them show an ability to treat the poor people well. They also can go through unreachable areas, and find solutions to many problems that might be problematic for official agencies (Tendler, 1982 in Clark, 1993, p3). Finally, as an assistant for the government in the development programme, the voluntary organisation can promote accountability, transparency and participatory of the programme (Clark, 1993, p4). One sector that VSO can assist the government is education. Glewwe and Kremer found that most children in developing countries before the 1980s did not get a better education (2006, p948). Amongst the causes were a lack of basic equipment, teacher quality and availability, low incentives and little supervision. After the adoption of ‘Millennium Development Goals’ (MDGs), the countries began to change their education policy (2006, p948). The policy changing, therefore, is an opportunity to VSO to take part in providing education, especially for children in remote areas. Another sector that governments need voluntary sector to assist the programme is for the provision of health service. The responsibility to provide health care in most countries lies on the government. But due to the situation that the agenda and scope of health programme have increased, the government faces difficulties in providing the services (Buse & Waxman in Ullah, et al, 2006, 143). Research in South Africa found that the government prioritised to give “access to care, counselling and support” to patients with special treatment. However, there were obstacles such as limited capacity, costly and long treatment, and insufficient disease knowledge (Coovadia, 2000, p58). This situation can be a trigger for nongovernment organisations to take part as collaboration partner (Ullah, et. Al, 2006, 143). As ‘development assistant’, they can act as ‘aid agencies’. The roles of aid agencies are not only delivering money, materials, and service from donors, but they can also reduce some transactional cost (Martens, 2005, p643). Theoretically, direct distribution from a donor to a recipient avoids unintended costs (Martens, 2005, p645). As the voluntary sector organisations have experienced in delivering services in rural and remote areas (Hanlon, Rosenberg & Clasby, 2007, p344), the VSO can mediate the donors and the recipients in prioritising grants (Martens, 2005, p643). Martens gave an illustration that donors from foreign countries are a thousand miles away from the beneficiary. It seems impossible for them to make a direct contact (2005, p6490). Therefore VSO has a crucial role in building intermediation. The donors might use this reason to transfer their funds more effectively. Also, it might be valuable for people who suffer disadvantages from such, financial, personal, societal and community (Billis & Glennerster, 2005, p88), to get appropriate help from potential donors. Voluntary sector organisation can build collaboration with government to influence the development (Clark, 1991 in Clark, 1993, p2). Features in ‘collaboration’ between government and VSO are ‘information and resource sharing’, tight relationship with government, ‘joint action’, formal, and VSO contribution in ‘planning, policy and implementation’ (Coston, 1998, p362). The government can invite VSO to give advice in the policy process because they have more experiences with the poor (Coston, 1998, 375). It can help the government to prioritise development which involves the poor. For the VSO, they can get benefit by inviting government experts to give training about government programme (PACT, 1989, in Coston, 1998, 375). The collaboration can also involve private sectors to join. It is believed to provide significant benefits to the delivery of public services (Selden, Sowa & Sandfort, 2006, p414). Among the benefits are, preventing from duplication, promoting efficiency and effectiveness, enhancing coordination, reducing costs and increasing responsiveness (2006, p414). Another form of relationship between government and VSO is ‘co-production’. This term speaks about an arrangement where public produce services and focuses on gaining more participation from citizens in providing the public services (Brandsen, 2006, p498). In this term, VSO has the most important role in providing such services. It started with the assumption that the provision of services will be more effective if the potential receivers are actively involved in the process (2006, p498). By using this approach, the beneficiaries can get better treatment or services from the service ‘provider’ (2006, p498). Social Service Delivery The second role is ‘social service delivery’. The role of VSO in this term is providing social care in the community and at home’ (McCarty in Clark, McHugh & McKay, 2011, p12). It includes “child welfare, youth services and welfare, family services, services for the disabled, services for the elderly, self-help and other personal social services” (Jones, et al. 2015, p2065). VSO in developed countries may deliver those services better than underdeveloped countries as they are more organised and well structured. According to UK Voluntary Sector Workforce Almanac 2013, in 2011, there were 732,000 people work as volunteers. The workforce in the voluntary sector in 2011 slightly decreased compare to the workforce in 2010 with 765,000 people. The decrease was believed as an impact of the reduction in government spending (Clark, McHugh & McKay, 2011, p5). However, compared to the workforce in 2001 with 547,000 employees, the workforce in 2011 shows a significant increase (NCVO, 2013).  Largest Voluntary Sector Employment Occupation in the UK 2011 (Headcount, Thousand) (NCVO, 2013) The figure shows that in 2011, care assistants and home carers dominated the workforce in voluntary sector with 61,000 workers. The next categories were housing and welfare officers with 37,000 and other occupations. Care assistants and home carers are among the occupation that needs many volunteers. One service that is included here is old people carers. According to Pierson (2011, p213), the societies are rapidly ageing. The data from World Bank informs that old person is nearly 15% of total world population. Pierson added that many experts predicted that in 2030 the population of people aged sixty or over in developed countries would reach 25% (2011, p213). On the other hand, the state has other priorities that also consume most resources. It means that the state will have less money to tackle this problem. Clark, McHugh & McKay (2011, p3) added that government reduced the spending on the voluntary sector as the impact of the recession in the UK. From the illustration, voluntary sector might find alternatives to fund the programme or at least contribute to solving the problem. The category also includes childcare. The UK government divides ‘childcare market segmentation’ into two categories. The first is ‘group-based provision’. It includes private nurseries, voluntary nurseries, independent school nurseries, primary schools with nursery provision, and maintained nursery schools. The second is ‘home-based provision’ which only has ‘childminders’ service in the category (Department for Education, 2015, p6). Furthermore, the voluntary nurseries typically serve in a specific time. Some VSO offers holiday and ‘out of school’ care. Also, VSO may use public places in providing the service (2015, p6). Evers, Lewis & Riedel (2005, p201) argued that the implementation of child care in the UK is rather complicated because public, private and voluntary sector may propose proposals for ‘the new central-government funding’. Therefore, the majority of the voluntary sector in the UK is expected to be ‘self-sustaining’ as they are in a unique ‘market-model’ situation (Evers, Lewis & Riedel, 2005, p201). Advocacy Activity The last category in this paper is advocacy activity. VSO manage advocacy to change or affect government policies by gaining public participation to support their collective goals (Boris & Mosher-Williams, 1998; Jenkins, 1987; Reid, 1999 in Schmid, Bar & Nirel, 2008, p581). Furthermore, the goal of ‘advocacy activity’ is to promote fairness where everyone has same chances to realise their interests (Ezel,  2001, p5). Ezel also added that advocacy aims “ensure that programmes and services are accessible, effective, appropriate, flexible, comprehensive, adequate, and efficient” (2001, p5). Schmid, Bar & Nirel assumed that larger organisations with strong financial ability have bigger tendency to perform advocacy. Also, they are less intimidated by sanction if they involve in such issues (2008, p585). The role of VSO in advocacy activity will be effective if government support it through regulations. For instance, the UK government encourages in developing the role of VSO in embodying the interests from different groups. The government aims to support VSO in campaigning voices for individuals or groups that might be different with existing decisions (HM Treasury, 2007, p17). The role of VSO, therefore, is important because they can act as a tool to sound voices from individual and communities. It is the government policy that wants to develop the communities that have the ability to identify and describe their interest and their relationship with public bodies (2007,p17). The government realises that there are many organisations with various interests. To understand and accommodate diverse voices from such groups, the government discusses the interests by providing communication and consultation (2007, p19). Some issues that were discussed according to the report were climate change, faith and equality. CONCLUSION According to the explanation above, VSO has a crucial role in providing welfare services especially to fulfil the gap in service provision to ‘unreachable’ communities. It refers to several situations where the other service providers cannot provide service as good as VSO. VSO also have some benefits that make their actions more effective and efficient. Their interaction with vulnerable groups, communities in remote areas, disabled people, and the minority makes them experienced in delivering the services to those groups. Recent development in voluntary sector shows the promising results. VSO can collaborate with other service providers to achieve prioritised objectives. They can assist the government in the policy process, from the planning agenda to the implementation of the policy. Also, they have chances to influence the decision-making process. The partnership with the government is expected to deliver better services to the recipients. Therefore, their inputs are valuable for the government in providing welfare to the citizens. Furthermore, they can help some disadvantaged communities by giving advocacy so their voice can be heard and their needs can be fulfilled. VSO can take action to achieve the goals because they can promote trust, reciprocity co-operation and solidarity to the community (Bellah et al., in Milligan & Fyfe, 2005, p418). Voluntary sector also brings benefits in ‘social service delivery’. On the one hand, it helps the recipients to get better services from experienced workers. The services might be needed by a member of the community that experiences low-quality services. On the other hand, it employs many workers that might be a solution for the unemployment problem.   Recent developments and big attention to the voluntary sector will make the voluntary sector have a significant role in providing welfare services. As the voluntary sector has a big responsibility in providing services, they are expected to improve their quality in delivering the service. Bibliography Billis, D., & Glennerster, H. (1998). Human services and the voluntary sector: towards a theory of comparative advantage. Journal of Social Policy, 27(01), 79-98. Brandsen, T., & Pestoff, V. (2006). Co-production, the third sector and the delivery of public services: An introduction. Public management review, 8(4), 493-501. Centre for analysis of social exclusion (CASE), (1998). The state of Welfare retrieved 4 January 2016 from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/51406/1/plugin-CASEbrief5.pdf Clark, J. (1993). The state and the voluntary sector. Human Resources and Operations Policy Working Paper, (12). Clark, J., McHugh, J., & McKay, S. (2011). The UK voluntary sector workforce almanac 2011. Education, 97, 13. Coovadia, H. M. (2000). Access to voluntary counselling and testing for HIV in developing countries. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 918(1), 57-63. Coston, J. M. (1998). A model and typology of government-NGO relationships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 27(3), 358-382. Department for Education (2015). Review of childcare costs: the analytical report An economic assessment of the early education and childcare market and providers’ costs retrieved January 4, 2017, from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/479659/151124_Analytical_review_FINAL_VERSION.pdf Evers, A., & Laville, J. L. (Eds.). (2004). The third sector in Europe. Edward Elgar Publishing. Evers, A., Lewis, J., & Riedel, B. (2005). Developing child-care provision in England and Germany: problems of governance. Journal of European Social Policy, 15(3), 195-209. Ezell, M. (2001). Advocacy in the human services. Cengage Learning. Glewwe, P., & Kremer, M. (2006). Schools, teachers, and education outcomes in developing countries. Handbook of the Economics of Education, 2, 945-1017. Greve, B. (2008). What is welfare? Central European Journal of Public Policy, 2(1), 50-73. Hanlon, N., Rosenberg, M., & Clasby, R. (2007). Offloading social care responsibilities: recent experiences of local voluntary organisations in a remote urban centre in British Columbia, Canada. Health & social care in the community, 15(4), 343-351. HM Treasury (2007). The future role of the third sector in Social and Economic Regeneration: Final Report. Retrieved January 6, 2017 from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228900/7189.pdf.  Jones, G., Meegan, R., Kennett, P. and Croft, J. (2016). ‘The uneven impact of austerity on the voluntary and community sector: A tale of two cities’. Urban Studies: 53(10) 2064–2080. Lewis, J. (2004). The state and the third sector in modern welfare states: independence, instrumentality, partnership. The third sector in Europe, 169-187. Lund, B. (2002). Understanding state welfare: social justice or social exclusion? London: Sage Publications Ltd. Martens, B. (2005). Why do aid agencies exist? Development policy review, 23(6), 643-663. Milligan, C., & Fyfe, N. R. (2005). Preserving space for volunteers: exploring the links between voluntary welfare organisations, volunteering and citizenship. Urban Studies, 42(3), 417-433. National Council for Voluntary Organisations. (2013). UK Voluntary Sector Almanac 2013. Retrieved January 10, 2017 from, http://www.3rdsectorworkforce.org.uk/what-type-of-work-is-undertaken-in-the-voluntary-sector/. Pierson, C. (2006). Beyond the welfare state?: the new political economy of welfare. Cambridge: Polity Press. Reichardt, O., Kane, D., & Wilding, K. (2007). The UK Voluntary Sector Almanac: The state of the sector 2007. London: NCVO. Schmid, H., Bar, M., & Nirel, R. (2008). Advocacy Activities in Nonprofit Human Service Organizations Implications for Policy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37(4), 581-602. Selden, S. C., Sowa, J. E., & Sandfort, J. (2006). The impact of nonprofit collaboration in early child care and education on management and program outcomes. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 412-425. Skelcher, C. (2005). Public-private partnerships (pp. 347-370). New York: Oxford University Press. Ullah, A. Z., Newell, J. N., Ahmed, J. U., Hyder, M. K. A., & Islam, A. (2006). Government–NGO collaboration: the case of tuberculosis control in Bangladesh. Health policy and planning, 21(2), 143-155. Wilson, J. (2000). Volunteering. Annual review of sociology, 215-240.