and behaviours, and whether, how and why they survive, change and/or thrive over time (Macmillan et al., 2013; Taylor et al., 2014) The paper highlights examples of threats to third sector independence of purpose, voice and action. TSOs may compromise their brand to continue to secure contract income. Others may be more facing difficulty adapting to government requirements (Buckingham, ‘cautious’, 2012: 579). The ability for organisations to influence government thinking may be limited by a lack of core funding and independence of action can be stifled by commissioning processes that do not give service providers a voice. Competitive tendering can also reduce the willingness of TSOs to share ideas (Smyth, 1997; Bredgaard and Larsen, 2008; Shutes and Taylor, 2014). Questions can be raised as to whether this will result in a homogeneity of solutions and lack of innovation because of a lack of support for core organisational capacity that supports relationship building with government, as well as the reduced voice of TSOs in service design. Nonetheless, this paper also highlights strategies undertaken to remain independent and distinctive. TSOs have reflected and taken strategic action and positioning to manage both opportunities and challenges. Organisations are not simply succumbing to threats to independence but are responding creatively to them. TSOs are aware of mission drift and the threat this poses to independence. Indeed, the mission-market tension experienced is a key feature of the sector (Sanders 2015). They have taken stock of their organisational values and purpose, and sought to remain aligned with these; even if it means that funding opportunities may be lost (although this may only be an option for those with power’). Some ‘financial have sought a diverse resource base to reduce dependency. TSOs have also engaged with the PSP model where they co-design and deliver public services alongside public and private
and behaviours, and whether, how and why they survive, change and/or thrive over time (Macmillan et al., 2013; Taylor et al., 2014) The paper highlights examples of threats to third sector independence of purpose, voice and action. TSOs may compromise their brand to continue to secure contract income. Others may be more ‘cautious’, facing difficulty adapting to government requirements (Buckingham, 2012: 579). The ability for organisations to influence government thinking may be limited by a lack of core funding and independence of action can be stifled by commissioning processes that do not give service providers a voice. Competitive tendering can also reduce the willingness of TSOs to share ideas (Smyth, 1997; Bredgaard and Larsen, 2008; Shutes and Taylor, 2014). Questions can be raised as to whether this will result in a homogeneity of solutions and lack of innovation because of a lack of support for core organisational capacity that supports relationship building with government, as well as the reduced voice of TSOs in service design. Nonetheless, this paper also highlights strategies undertaken to remain independent and distinctive. TSOs have reflected and taken strategic action and positioning to manage both opportunities and challenges. Organisations are not simply succumbing to threats to independence but are responding creatively to them. TSOs are aware of mission drift and the threat this poses to independence. Indeed, the mission-market tension experienced is a key feature of the sector (Sanders 2015). They have taken stock of their organisational values and purpose, and sought to remain aligned with these; even if it means that funding opportunities may be lost (although this may only be an option for those with ‘financial power’). Some have sought a diverse resource base to reduce dependency. TSOs have also engaged with the PSP model where they co-design and deliver public services alongside public and private