Using money in the social system in a different way

It used to be the case, when there was public  funding around, that organisations used to write a plan, get some money and employ someone to do the work. This was fine in simple delivery jobs, but a lot of the later jobs were about coordination. And partnerships. And leverage. And it was always difficult to get these things done from a single post. Hence job shares and co-responsibility for roles etc, but all fairly clunky. 

With a lot of service redesign work this kind of work is more needed than ever. But I'm pretty convinced that it can't be done by the "in house post" model. It's neat, and easy to account for but there are just too many variables out of one persons hands. Then there is the added complication of paid workers asking citizens or volunteers to be more work (under the banner of coproduction or other good things), and the blurred line between paid staff working with and asking volunteers/community to do the delivery work.

So the WHAT is probably right, but not the HOW. So what are the alternatives?

1. Shared money across orgs which increase current posts
2. Increased delivery funds but not to fund post costs
3. Increase slush funds for volunteers/community 
4. Primes and subcontractor model
5. CVS or other holding funds (thanks @gethynwilliams)
6. Run a small grants programme
7. Do something else?

 

I have worked for a large funder and I know the costs associated with some of this stuff, so I would err on the side of low accountability in formal terms but more emphasis on reflective practice long term. 

 

But all this seems fairly clunky. Thoughts?