Must local delivery mean local governance?

In the current climate of funding cuts, one of the discussions we pick up is whether services can be delivered over a wider area making better use of resources. On the one hand it is argued that shrinking resources can mean that there is not sufficient funding left at a local level to deliver a basic service to the necessary quality. On the other, people will argue that delivery across a wider area loses the local ownership that ensures that the service is embedded in the local community and reflects its needs.

A key issue here is whether “locally responsive” means “locally managed”.  Is it possible to deliver a service across a county which has local access points, staff with local knowledge and effective local engagement with governance? There are examples where this is happening and it would be interesting to study what impact this has had on local perceptions of service delivery and engagement.

Mergers and Acquisitions

With membership of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), we have access to the guides and toolkits they produce. They have a good extensive toolkit which helps organisations look at the mergers and acquisitions process from the initial consideration through to long term integration. Although it builds on private sector experience it has some really good exercises to help;

• Understand the key aspects of any integration process and participant’s roles and  responsibilities.
• Develop a solid long-term integration plan covering all people-related processes.
• Build communication principles to ensure an engaging communication plan.
• Implement ‘ready-to-use’ tools measuring integration progress, employee engagement and employer brand impact.

If you’d like to know more let us know.

Stakeholder roles and change

We’ve come across a lot of situations recently where groups of voluntary organisations are responding to a funder that wants to make cuts and wants a simpler model for provision.

These can be complex situations involving a number of different stakeholders. There is the funder, the delivery organisations, their users and sometimes a network worker. These situations are never easy, often painful and the contribution each stakeholder makes and who takes leadership seem to be major issues.

Is it possible to identify the contribution each stakeholder should make to provide a process that makes change easier? For example;

Representatives from each of the stakeholder groups meet to discuss context, values/principles that should underpin any new arrangement and the desired outcomes.

The funder makes it clear what envelope of funding is available and sets out the previously established values, principle and outcomes it is looking for in a bid.

Delivery organisations are invited to generate proposals against the funding envelope and the principles/values/outcome. There must be input from trustees and there does not need to be consensus between organisations.

Funder decides which model it wants to invest in.

Such an approach gives every stakeholder input appropriate to their relationship to the process. For example, it is for the funder to decide how much it wants to spend and on what. Equally current providers and users will have much to contribute on what should underpin the service. Furthermore it provides freedom for providers to develop a proposal with like minded organisations and not be restricted by the need for consensus that sometimes paralyses the sector in decision making.

Red Cross, an example of successful voluntary sector provision

Interesting evaluation of the Red Cross “Care in the Home” schemes. It is available to view on the NHS Evidence –commissioning site, at

http://www.library.nhs.uk/commissioning/ViewResource.aspx?resID=330627&tabID=289

It shows how such a voluntary sector scheme can help reduce admissions to hospital and help people to return home more quickly. It also identifies savings to the commissioner in cash terms.

What to think about the "Big Society"?

David Cameron has another go at pushing the “Big Society” and we are now promised a White Paper that will set out how a new “presumption” will be put in place that will enable private sector bodies, charities and voluntary organisations to run public services.

There is little doubt that even without the cuts, the state would have struggled to meet the challenges that society will face in the future. For example just one challenge is the ageing population. People are going to live longer and make up a significantly higher proportion of the population; by 2050 it is estimated that 53% of the population will be in retirement as opposed to 25% now. An increasingly ageing population is likely to generate greater support needs; it is estimated that the prevalence of dementia is 1 in 5 for people over 80 as opposed to 1 in 20 between 70 and 79. At the same time projections suggest that there will be an increase in single person households and a reduction in family support structures.

At the other end of the spectrum we have more young people than ever out of work and society is dealing with an ever increasing number of disaffected young people.

The spending cuts will create their own challenges as we begin to see increasing numbers of people from the public sector losing their jobs. This may be particularly difficult for older workers who might find it more difficult to gain new employment in other sectors. Debt advice, family and health support services are likely to be under increased demand.  

Society will have to look at lateral new approaches to meet these challenges particularly as we now have significant cuts to public sector funds. These approaches will have to give a greater role to voluntary and community groups and the wider community.

But will the “Big Society” provide the framework for these new approaches? My particular focus here is on the potential contribution of voluntary and community groups.

One of the great strengths of voluntary and community groups is the diversity of contribution they make. Increasingly there are organisations that can take on and deliver services previously undertaken by the state. There are also many organisations that complement state provision. Often small in size, such groups might offer services such as befriending, self help, counselling and community transport. Many of these groups arise from individuals that have identified a gap in provision and often they bring fresh innovative approaches. Finally there are organisations that campaign and provide advocacy to support the most vulnerable people in society.

My worry is that the structure for a modern voluntary and community sector under the “Big Society” seems to be built on two foundations, the opportunity to win tenders to deliver public services and the ability to follow an enterprise model and become self financing after initial investment. This is a vision that some in the sector itself have helped to generate. For many groups it just doesn’t fit. The complexity and size of tenders makes it difficult for smaller organisations to bid and putting together a consortium bid is not easy. The services of some organisations also don’t fit a tendering culture and nor do they lend themselves to social enterprise approach. Many people who set up groups have no desire to become business people.

The press comment on the “Big Society” focuses on a radical re-engineering of the public sector. However I think we will also see a continued a re-engineering of the voluntary and community sector. Public service commissioning opportunities will see a growth in the reach and activities of large national voluntary groups and newly generated social enterprises responding to market opportunities. As public sector funds reduce and grant aid disappears many of the smaller groups offering complementary services will disappear because they don’t fit the funding models. We will lose innovation, we will lose the types of organisations that can provide to people struggling in the current economic climate and we will lose the voices campaigning for the most vulnerable. Ironically I also think we will lose people who want to make a contribution. Most importantly we will lose the diversity of the sector which has been such a strength.

There are potential advantages to promoting voluntary sector delivery of public services and to support for social enterprises. However this shouldn’t be the whole package and at the expense of other important contributions provided by the voluntary sector. Indeed I would argue that it is the wider voluntary sector that best engages individuals in the way the “Big Society seeks to do. Failure to support the breadth of the sector could significantly reduce the chance of the concept working.

So what needs to be done? I think we must;

• Recognise the diversity and breadth of contribution that voluntary and community groups make
• Look at how this diversity can help to meet future challenges
• Invest in this diversity recognising that a range of funding mechanisms will be required including grant aid and that risks will need to be taken
• Identify what can be done to support high quality smaller organisations so that they can engage in the opportunities to deliver aspects of public services, (for example, identification of opportunities, support with consortia bids, national/local partnerships, reducing the bureaucratic costs and time etc).

The “Big Society” rightly identifies that wider society will need to do more to meet future challenge and that the voluntary sector can play a role in this, however it falls some way short of providing the environment to make this happen.