Cross-sector partnership and human services in Australian states and territories: Reflections on a mutable relationship

Abstract

Under Australia's federal system subnational governments fund the delivery of a wide range of public services. In particular, state and territory governments have increasingly looked to the non-profit sector to deliver human services under contract. Over time, the contracting regimes employed by public sector commissioners have taken on more ‘relational’ characteristics, accompanied by a gradual softening of public sector resistance to non-profit sector input into policy development. Nevertheless, the Australian non-profit sector is fragmented and, although policy capacity within the sector has undoubtedly matured, it is also unevenly distributed. Almost two decades of contracting has left its mark on organisational culture. There are fears within the non-profit sector that it is organisations with the largest ‘market share’ that gain a seat at the policy table.

Introduction

“…Over the past 15 years all Australian jurisdictions have outsourced significant shares of human services delivery to NFP organisationsusually via competitive contracting and tendering or, more recently, via experimental instruments such as social benefit bonds (Butcher and Dalton 2014;KPMG 2014;Gilchrist and Wilkins 2016). Along the way, each jurisdiction has wrestled with the tensions inherent in managing a diverse portfolio of NFP service providers with diverse values, organisational cultures, operating environments and capabilities (Butcher 2015).…”

“…It is also recognised that each of these policy domains has its own history of institutional relationships, organisational cultures and foundation myths. It is, however, in the human services domain that governments have vigorously pursued policy innovations aimed at enlisting NFP organisations as quasi-agents of mandated service delivery-owing largely to the size of government expenditures in this area (Butcher and Dalton 2014;Davidson 2011).…”

The constraints on voluntary sector voice in a period of continued austerity

“…Research shows variation in voluntary sector voice internationally (Chaves et al 2004, Salamon et al 2008, Silverman and Patterson 2011, Schmid et al 2008, Neumayr et al 2014, and heightened tensions between civil society, state regulatory and commercialising tendencies following recession (Evers and Laville 2004, Anheier 2014, Evans and Shields 2014, Butcher and Dalton 2014, Laforest 2013, Acheson and Laforest 2012. For example, Laforest (2013) note that, though different countries have followed different paths, they have faced tough decisions in response to global shifts in policy agendas and fiscal deficits which lead to greater complexity in organisational forms, regulatory and funding arrangements which may affect the ability to express critical voice.…”

Living with HIV in regional Queensland: social ties, care and support in managing a long-term complex chronic illness

“…dental care, not covered) and choice of private coverage [90]. Australia is a federal state where responsibilities of national and sub-national governments are constitutionally defined [91]. The importance of primary health care (PHC) and of universal access to care is recognized in Australia and in the last 20 years there has been a concentrated effort to improve the operations and service integration within the PHC sector [90].…”

“…The importance of primary health care (PHC) and of universal access to care is recognized in Australia and in the last 20 years there has been a concentrated effort to improve the operations and service integration within the PHC sector [90]. In the name of greater efficiency and independence, increasingly states/territories and their not-for-profit local partners (NGOs) have been tasked with managing and funding public services [91,92]. This devolution of functions and responsibilities has however been a complex process.…”