Rosemary Suttill makes some interesting points. There are indeed many positiveaspects to voluntary sector action in the UK - especially in the field of
social welfare. However, I come back to my initial point here - is the
voluntary sector a suitable alternative to state welfare? This is not a
question of state = bad and voluntary sector = good but a proper analysis of
strengths and weaknesses. Dr Patricia Ware and I have discussed such issues in
a recent paper from which I will now quote - reference to this is given at the
bottom of the page.
... Let us come back to the issue of quality. The voluntary sector is often
praised for giving better quality care. This may imply that staff or volunteers
in the voluntary sector are more committed than professional workers in a state
system, and can offer a more personal service. Maria Brenton's discussion on
this in the mid 1980s considers it debatable to assume that low pay,
traditionally associated with voluntary sector organisations, guarantees
personal commitment to a welfare service. As Baldock and Ungerson point out,
the idea that paying less means that more work will be undertaken with a more
willing and loving spirit, seems to be an argument only applied to the least
well paid occupations within the health and welfare system:
"It is impossible to imagine persuading the medical profession that a reduced
income means that they will provide better quality of care because they will be
working for love rather than for money"
Studies of volunteer motivations suggest that people in voluntary agencies may
have chosen to work there to gain other benefits than monetary payment. It is
suggested that they are prepared to sacrifice good pay for other benefits such
as self-actualisation, more freedom in the workplace, and working with people
of like mind.
It may be that the voluntary organisation being smaller in scale can offer
a more personal touch. This might be due to the size of the operation as much
as to the voluntary nature of the enterprise. The gain in friendliness may be
set against the unequal distribution of services. A statutory service aims to
provide a comprehensive universal service to those in need. The voluntary
sector does not have this burden of responsibility. The smaller and more
personal an organisation is, the more difficult it may be to complain or
criticise the service. This may have implications for the accountability of the
organisation.
Some commentators suggest that voluntary schemes pursue quantity rather
than quality, noting a lack of emphasis on assessing where help is best used.
This might lead to a greater number of client contacts but with less
identifiable focus. This is sometimes encouraged by managerial specifications
and performance indicators, where it is easier to measure quantity than
quality. Ferlie et al., also note that voluntary schemes lacked interest in
accountability mechanisms. Out of the 28 schemes in his study, only four had
any monitoring system and none had any arrangement of audit or review of
services. Croft and Beresford's research also showed that only 45 per cent of
the organisations in their survey had a policy on consumer participation. This
does not suggest that maintaining a high quality of services, or consumer
satisfaction, is always a systematic pursuit.
For a fuller discussion see P.Ware and M.Todd, 'The Voluntary Sector', in
Issues in Social Policy, (eds) G.Taylor, M.Todd and R.Sykes, Sheffield:
Sheffield Hallam University Press, Tel 0114 225 4702, #3.00 + #1 p&p.
Malcolm Todd
Lecturer in Sociology
School of Social Science and Law
Sheffield Hallam University
Collegiate Crescent Campus
Sheffield
S10 2BP
Tel: 0114 225 2425
Fax: 0114 225 2430
E.mail: [log in to unmask]
|