# The Scottish Third Sector Tracker Pulse 2 (Autumn 2026) **Public service reform and the voluntary sector** ## Introduction This paper summarises findings from focus groups conducted by DJS Research with members of the Scottish third sector tracker panel on the 8th and 10th of September 2026. The groups explored third sector organisations’ experiences of public service delivery and their hopes for public service reform. The twelve participants represented a range of Scottish voluntary organisations, including organisations supporting carers and older people, community hubs, disability support, employability, rural inclusion, youth and education, and culture and community activities. Across the discussions, participants saw the voluntary sector as an important part of the wider public service landscape, but felt its contribution was not consistently recognised or supported. They generally welcomed the aims of prevention, partnership and community empowerment, while questioning whether current funding, commissioning and decision-making practices could deliver them. **Methodology** The focus groups explored participants’ experiences of working with public services, the contribution of voluntary and community organisations, and what they wanted public service reform to achieve. The online focus groups took place on the 8th and 10th of September 2026, with twelve participants in total. Participants were recruited by email from organisations on the Scottish third sector tracker panel. Each session lasted around 45–60 minutes and was facilitated by a trained DJS Research facilitator, with a second researcher taking notes. SCVO and DJS Research developed the topic guide and shared it with participants in advance. DJS Research provided SCVO with notes, transcripts and recordings. We analysed the material thematically and summarise the main themes and findings in this paper. Identifying information has been removed to protect confidentiality. This is a qualitative summary of participants’ views, not a representative survey of the Scottish voluntary sector. The findings offer insights from these discussions but do not show how common each view is across the sector. **Summary** Participants saw the voluntary sector as an essential part of public services, bringing local knowledge, trusted relationships and a focus on prevention. However, they felt this contribution was not always recognised or supported. Short-term funding, complex commissioning and limited opportunities to influence decisions were seen as barriers to effective partnership. They called for reform that puts communities at its centre, shares power more fairly with voluntary organisations and values long-term outcomes rather than short-term savings. They also stressed that policy ambitions must lead to practical change for people and communities, with the sector properly resourced to contribute. **Key findings** * The voluntary sector contributes to prevention, early intervention, connection and community infrastructure – not just the delivery of services. * Partnership is often stronger at an individual relationship level than at a system level; bureaucracy, risk aversion, silos and staff turnover all undermine it. * Short-term and inadequate funding make services and organisations vulnerable, even as expectations of what they will deliver continue to grow. * Reform should give communities and frontline organisations meaningful influence, not simply consult them after key decisions have effectively been made. * A place-based approach must recognise rural poverty, transport barriers and the different costs and conditions of delivering services across Scotland. * Public service reform cannot expect the sector to take on more responsibility without addressing the funding, workforce and capacity needed to deliver it. * Successful reform should be judged by changes in people’s experience and outcomes – not by consultations or reports alone. * * * **The voluntary sector plays a key role in public services** Across the groups, participants described voluntary organisations as providing support that complements statutory services, fills gaps in provision and helps people before their needs escalate. This work spans formal commissioned services and less visible community activity such as carers’ respite, social and lunch clubs, community hubs, disability support, employability, youth activities, arts and culture, and local wellbeing initiatives. Participants emphasised that the value of this work cannot always be captured by counting service contacts or putting a price on individual activities. One participant described how a community hub can provide a base for different groups and make activities affordable. Social clubs help people stay connected and can offer families an informal point of contact for advice or support. Culture, heritage and the arts were also described as contributing to belonging, hope and participation in community life. “More roads you build, the more traffic you get. More community spaces you build, more community you get. And putting the price on, putting a value on that is hard…” A recurring frustration was the gap between public bodies stated appreciation of the sector and how they treat it in practice. Participants felt voluntary organisations were sometimes treated as an add-on or a convenient source of delivery capacity, rather than as partners with expertise and shared goals. Participants described the voluntary sector’s role in identifying emerging needs as an ‘early-warning system’. Organisations that are close to communities can spot problems early, before they become more visible or costly for public services. **Prevention is happening across the sector, but it is not always recognised as such** Prevention and early intervention were among the clearest areas of common ground. Participants gave practical examples of organisations helping to reduce isolation, support carers, connect people with advice, maintain independence and address concerns before they develop into crises. Examples included carers’ respite, community-based wellbeing activities, support groups, and community-led employability and support partnerships. Participants said their work can reduce pressure on health, social care and other public services – for example, by helping people stay socially connected, potentially preventing needs from escalating, or supporting transitions between services. However, they felt commissioners and public bodies did not always recognise this work as prevention, meaning successful projects were not always sustained or expanded. “If we can take an adult with additional support needs or a young person \[and\] engage with them at school and have a ten-year plan that involves education and involves \[…\] building their independence \[…\] surely that investment over 10 years is better than having that person in an endless cycle of services for \[…\] 30, 40, 50 years, however long they live for.” One participant argued that solutions already exist, but that barriers are preventing them from being put into practice. Participants argue that public service reform should recognise prevention as a broad contribution to wellbeing and resilience, not only as an intervention expected to deliver immediate, easily attributed savings. Participants wanted public bodies to take evidence of impact seriously and find ways to continue effective approaches beyond pilot funding. As one participant put it, short-lived projects can cause “a terrible cruelty” when people come to rely on a service and it then disappears. **Relationships matter, but are often undermined by the system** Participants described mixed experiences of working with councils, NHS bodies, schools and other public organisations. Some had built helpful relationships with individual councillors or staff, but these could be undermined by slow processes, staff turnover, poor communication, jargon, changing priorities and policies that did not keep pace with local needs. Participants repeatedly questioned whether consultation leads to influence or action. Communities and organisations may be asked for their views without seeing decisions change. As one participant put it, “it’s consultation, not engagement”. Others described consultations that seemed to confirm decisions already made, leaving people frustrated and less willing to take part in future. “There’s an awful lot of consultation, you know, that our community, certainly sort of disabled people, they’re consulted almost weekly about some damn thing, but it’s consultation, not engagement. \[…\] What did you do with the information that you got from these people? You just parked it in a filing cabinet somewhere and nothing happened.” Participants also said bureaucracy and risk aversion constrained improvement. Approval processes could delay community initiatives even where there was local support. Rigid referral pathways and repeated assessments could make services harder to navigate, while frontline staff sometimes lacked the flexibility or financial control to respond to people’s circumstances. Participants wanted fewer silos, clearer communication and more discretion for staff and community partners. The issue was not simply a need for better relationships. Participants called for changes to how systems operate: public bodies should be accountable for implementing their own policies, decisions should be made closer to communities where appropriate, and consultation should lead to visible outcomes and implementation. One participant described a “massive implementation gap” between policy ambition and practice. “Yet again, the intent is there, that the words say more community-based services, more people helped at home, and all of that nice stuff. But the reality is it will be centralisation \[…\] what is said in policy and in legislation time and time again doesn’t get implemented.” Participants also described partnerships that worked well when different services came together around local needs. One participant described a weekly meeting involving a GP, physiotherapists, social work and the carer centre. The group discussed the people they supported and agreed who was best placed to visit, rather than sending several services separately. The participant said this worked because partners were treated as equals, although that was not always their experience of wider health-led initiatives. “We’ve got a frailty project, it’s called, and it’s run by the local GP, and we meet every Wednesday, and that’s with physios and GP, social work, the carer centre, and we discuss all our clients or patients, and then we decide who’s the best person to go out \[…\] rather than loads of people going in at the same time. \[…\] The work we do with local GPs is fantastic \[…\] and we are treated as equals, you know, in that meeting.” **Funding and commissioning are not supporting sustainable partnerships** Funding was a major concern. Participants described short-term project funding, insecure contracts and rates that did not cover the real cost of delivery. Some contracts covered ‘contact time’ without adequately recognising salaries, management, premises and other overheads, i.e. core costs. One participant said a commissioning arrangement effectively paid organisations “on a zero-contract budget”, leaving them unable to cover the full costs of employing staff and delivering services sustainably. “It just doesn’t cover costs, and it’s getting increasingly remote from what your actual cost is to what rate you’re receiving. They talk about partnership, but they don’t understand partnership. They don’t understand what a true partnership really is. \[…\] There doesn’t seem to be any understanding of the cost of infrastructure or overhead.” The way funding is accessed can also create barriers. Participants described repeated applications and box-ticking that took time away from delivery. Some smaller organisations had never been offered a public-sector contract; others worried that contracts could transfer risk to organisations without the capacity to absorb it. They called for longer-term, more predictable funding, core support and practical help with bids and financial planning. “It’s sort of a few pages I have to give them every year, as opposed \[to\] the sort of 93 pages I always seem to have to give any council initiative. \[…\] I don’t want to spend my time doing paperwork. I want to spend my time helping the kids.” Participants also raised the importance of protecting funding intended for specific purposes, including dedicated support for carers, so that it is not absorbed into wider budgets before reaching services. They expressed concern that voluntary services can be among the first to face cuts, even where they help statutory services meet their responsibilities or avoid greater costs elsewhere. Participants also questioned the focus on the lowest immediate cost rather than longer-term value. One described how conflicting priorities across finance and contracts teams could lead to poor decisions, with disputes over small sums sometimes costing more than they saved. “It doesn’t deliver what’s best value for anybody. It just delivers at lowest cost, and lowest cost isn’t, isn’t the best value. \[…\] There’s too much focus on cost, completely the bottom-line cost, not on what’s valuable. \[…\] They’ll argue with you about pennies. \[…\] And the cost of argument about those pennies is costing them more money than it would if they just let it go through.” These funding pressures also affect the workforce. Organisations described difficulties funding secure posts, meeting rising employment costs, recruiting and retaining staff, and competing with public-sector employers. Participants linked ‘underfunding’ to burnout and reduced capacity to support volunteers and service users. They warned against reform that expects the voluntary sector to do more without funding the people and infrastructure needed to sustain delivery. One participant described the risk of transferring more responsibility to organisations without providing additional support, “We are stretched to absolute breaking point. In fact, some of it’s broken and we’ve patched it back together with glue and chewing gum. \[…\] We’re running on an absolute knife edge.” **Local knowledge should shape services** Participants saw local knowledge, trust and flexibility as strengths of voluntary organisations. They argued that services work better when they respond to people’s circumstances rather than expecting people to fit rigid systems. They wanted beneficiaries, community organisations and frontline workers to help design services and decide how resources are used. These issues were particularly important in rural and remote communities. Participants challenged assumptions that rural areas are necessarily more affluent, pointing to poverty outside the Central Belt, long travel distances, limited transport and centralised services. They also felt that some funding criteria and geographic allocations disadvantaged rural organisations or made funding effectively inaccessible. Reform needs to reflect local circumstances rather than apply uniform approaches that may work better in some places than others. One participant described a woman living in Braemar who had to travel to Aberdeen for a weekly appointment. Without a car, she had to make the journey by several buses, with a wait in Banchory, turning a single appointment into a day-long trip. Participants also warned that digital transformation should not mean digital-only access. Older people and others may need face-to-face contact, telephone support or information in non-digital formats. Services should preserve these options rather than create new barriers. “There must be that—there is a phone number that you can call, there is a person that you can stand in front of and speak to." **What participants want public service reform to deliver** Participants wanted reform to change how power is shared, improve partnerships and create better conditions for delivery – not simply restructure public bodies. Participants wanted: * Recognition of the voluntary sector as a partner in the wider public service landscape, with a clear role and parity of esteem. * Stable, adequate and longer-term funding that covers the full costs of delivery, including core capacity, staffing, premises and maintenance. * Commissioning and funding processes that are proportionate and accessible to small and volunteer-led organisations, with practical support where needed. * Greater local flexibility and autonomy for frontline public-sector staff and community partners, alongside clear accountability for decisions and outcomes. * Meaningful participation by beneficiaries and communities, with evidence that consultation has influenced decisions and led to change. * A stronger focus on prevention, including the role of community connection, culture, and local infrastructure. * Public spending decisions that consider longer-term value and outcomes, rather than lowest immediate cost. * Reform designed around local experiences, including rural deprivation, transport and geography, and continued non-digital routes to support. * A willingness to learn from successful third sector-led and community-based approaches, and sustain or expand them where they work. **Conclusions** Participants shared a consistent message: voluntary organisations are already helping people, strengthening communities and contributing to prevention, often with limited resources and alongside public services. They saw the sector as an essential part of how support is delivered and how communities stay connected and resilient – not as an optional extra. They were concerned that public service reform could continue to rely on voluntary organisations without addressing the barriers to effective partnership: inadequate and short-term funding, onerous processes and limited local influence. They wanted public bodies to trust local knowledge, fund the work properly and show how people’s contributions had influenced decisions. Progress should be judged by practical changes: whether local partners can make decisions together; whether consultation changes decisions; whether funding covers the real costs of delivery; whether people can access support without going online; and whether public bodies consider long-term value, not just immediate costs. These focus on what changes for people and communities. --- ## About SCVO SCVO (Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations) is the national membership organisation for Scotland's voluntary sector. Our role is to champion the role of voluntary organisations in Scotland and to support them to do work that has a positive impact. SCVO supports members and the wider voluntary sector with all aspects of setting up and running a voluntary organisation. SCVO represents the needs and concerns of the voluntary sector to the Scottish government in Holyrood and UK government and Westminster. Through our learning and events programme SCVO offers training and development opportunities to the sector. Members access an extensive membership benefits package including specialist, in-depth, 1-to-1 guidance from our Information Services team and from professional service partners. Access to exclusive membership networks (including comms, employers, governance and policy) supports members to grow their connections, stay up to date, exchange ideas and views with peers, and learn through tailored learning opportunities. SCVO members enjoy free access to Funding Scotland Premium to stay on top of funding opportunities to support their organisation’s financial resilience. Discounts and savings on SCVO products and services (including our HR service, managed IT support, payroll service and events and training) and partner offers provide members with support to allow them to focus on delivering their organisation’s goals. Further SCVO products and services include [extensive digital support](https://scvo.scot/support/digital), a climate action resource [Growing Climate Confidence](https://climateconfident.scot), a voluntary sector publication [Third Force News](https://tfn.scot) and a voluntary sector jobs and recruitment service [Goodmoves](https://goodmoves.org). For more information on SCVO membership, visit [SCVO membership](https://scvo.scot/membership)