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.