|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Guest Editor
Neil Lampert,
PR & Communications Manager for the Probation Association
Content
|
|
Welcome to the Winter edition of our news bulletin.
This issue has a probation focus and our Guest Editor is Neil Lampert, PR & Communications Manager for the Probation Association. which is the national employers' organisation working with and on behalf of Probation Boards and Trusts in England and Wales.
For more infomation please see their website www.probationassociation.co.uk |
|
We at the Academy are busy putting together a business plan for 2010/11 and we hope to be able to share our strategy with you in the next bulletin.
In the meantime, we are delighted to announce that the Academy has co-opted 4 new members to the Executive Group who each bring valuable commissioning knowledge and experience to assist the Academy as it moves forward into a new phase.
The new Executive Group members are:-
David Keegan, Legal Services Commission – David has also taken up the post of Vice Chair for the Academy
Tony Challinor, Commissioning & Competitions, Ministry of Justice
|
Peter Johnston, Procurement Development, West Yorkshire Probation
Louise Woodford, Strategic Planning & Performance, Ministry of Justice
For a full list of Executive Group members please see the back page of this bulletin and for more information please visit our website www.academyforjusticecommis
sioning.org.uk
As always we welcome any feedback on our website or services. Please email your comments to our new email address:- Academy@noms.gsi.gov.uk
Warm Regards,
| |
|
Editor's Comment
Thank you to our Guest Editor for this issue, Neil Lampert, PR & Communications Manager for the Probation Service |
Neil Lampert,
PR & Communications Manager for the Probation Association
trusts is likely to change this thinking, not least because trusts will have the opportunity to stimulate third sector markets as a means to create services more responsive to local need. Christine believes that building formal contractual ties with other organisations will seem increasingly attractive as a way of building capacity, but also points out that the small size of probation budgets may prove a real obstacle to wide-scale commissioning across the service.
The third probation featured article provides space for three probation chairs and one trust chief executive to talk candidly about their views and experiences of commissioning.
I would like to thank the Academy for this opportunity to shine a spotlight on probation and I hope that all the articles in this edition provide you with food for thought.
Neil Lampert, PR & Communications Manager for the Probation Association
www.probationassociation.co.uk
|
|
I am delighted to act as Guest Editor for the Winter edition of the Academy’s Commissioning Bulletin and to bring a probation focus to proceedings.
The need to innovate and challenge the status quo were themes of the autumn edition and they are also a prominent feature of the first article in this edition, written by procurement specialist Ian Clarke.
Ian is one the lead consultants working on the Probation Association’s Trust Development project which has played a significant role in the success of the Probation Trust Programme.
Around 75% of all boards participated and formal feedback confirmed that the project had an overwhelmingly positive impact on trust application work and preparation for panel interviews (and wider board development issues).
In his article, Ian states his concern that over regulation can stifle commissioning and that there has to be flexibility with the system to cope with sudden and unexpected changes in demand.
|
He argues that commissioning cannot deliver improved and more efficient services without commissioners themselves having an understanding of the forces that drive external changes which can, in turn, affect service delivery.
To achieve success, he says that commissioners must undergo proper training and develop the necessary vision and confidence to facilitate innovation and challenge orthodox thinking and practices.
Many in probation have traditionally been sceptical of the potential benefits of commissioning and Christine Lawrie, Chief Executive of the Probation Association, provides some of the back story as to why this should be.
She also goes on to suggest that the advent of semi-autonomous probation |
Commissioning in a Chaotic Market
|
Commissioners therefore have to think beyond the commissioning cycle, asking themselves what level of flexibility is needed from the service to manage market instability and then what would be the best way to deliver that service, should they be able to start from a blank piece of paper?
When discussing my approach with academics and commercial experts, there is a suggestion that I am taking to narrow an interpretation of the commissioning cycle and that the strategic needs analysis and planning elements do in fact cover innovation and flexibility. There is also often lively
debate on whether the market is in fact chaotic or just “predictably fluid”, however there is general agreement that the level of commissioning capabilities and competencies in the public sector is mixed and often Commissioners have not had the experience or training to identify market dynamics or to take the necessary actions to put in place contingencies to manage them.
In conclusion, and this is where I become challenging, commissioning is not just a process for identifying the best way to deliver public services. It requires Commissioners to have an understanding of a series of dynamic external elements that can influence the way services are delivered. This understanding will in turn have an influence on the commissioning cycle helping to make informed decisions for service delivery based on market stability, innovation, flexibility, need and affordability. To achieve this Commissioners not only needs to be properly trained but should also have the ability to think holistically and challenge the status quo which often accompanies a process orientated culture. This form of thinking will help reshape traditional delivery models and put commissioning at the heart of the organisation.
Ian Clarke
Excaliber Procurement Services
www.excalprocure.com |
|
I have often been accused of being a maverick and radical thinker, always suggesting and testing new ways of doing things which, whilst occasionally being uncomfortable for senior managers who don’t like change, has often led to significant improvements in service delivery for the organisation. But maverick and radical are not terms that I generally associate myself with, preferring to think I challenge established process in order to facilitate those big changes needed to ensure continued improvement and development of services in the public sector.
Regulation and legislation by their nature take the public sector down a management path that is heavily process orientated and bureaucratic. The EU procurement regulations are a typical example of process led legislation designed to ensure that the tax payer is getting value for money. However the process itself often incurs significant procurement and administration costs and there is now an increasing debate that the rules themselves restrict innovation and flexibility leading to poor procurement practices.
Unless we are careful, commissioning is in danger of following a similar path, becoming a series of processes that need to be followed to achieve a desired outcome. I have already seen organisations instructing their Commissioners to only follow the public sector “best practice” guidelines in the Cabinet Office document 'Partnership in Public Services'. This provides a generalised commission cycle based on:
· Undertaking a strategic needs assessment
· Prioritizing outcomes
· Planning and designing services
· Reviewing options
· Considering sourcing mechanisms
· Considering delivery mechanisms
· Processes for monitoring and reviewing services
Whilst these guidelines are welcome
|
and well intentioned, designed to ensure that Commissioners consider not only the service itself but also the wider impact on stakeholders, they do tend to lead commissioners to follow a process which often misses the opportunity to innovate.
A fundamental weakness in the approach adopted by public sector Commissioners (and generally when designing public services) is that there is an assumption that the market in which the Commissioners operate is stable or at in the worst case predictable. The current financial crisis, the recent threat of Swine Flu and even the coming general election all demonstrate that the market is in fact chaotic and very dynamic, influenced by unforeseen external events, public trends and political decisions. The urgent need for the NHS to cater for a potential flu pandemic, MoD equipment issues to meet the demands of the conflict in Afghanistan and the need by the MoJ to react quickly to manage prison population pressures are all evidence that external factors have a significant impact on public services. As the public’s expectations and demands for good and effective government grow and globalisation continues to influence political thinking, these situations are likely to become more common place putting pressure on Commissioners to ensure that services have enough flexibility to meet sudden changes in demand.
For processes to operate effectively they need stability so the current approach to commissioning is at odds with a chaotic and unstable market model, however innovation can be a Commissioners friend and is generally well placed to help deliver the flexibility needed to better manage any market turbulence. |
Commissioning
deserves a rehabilitation |
Christine Lawrie
Chief Executive
Probation Association
Probation boards and trusts commission services but are also commissioned themselves. Their contractual relationship with NOMS is established in principle, although most probation commentators consider it will be some time before a fully-fledged commissioner/provider relationship is in place at national level.
However, probation is first and foremost a local service and areas have well-developed links with organisations in the public, private and not-for-profit sectors. These are not necessarily commissioning based: they may for example be built around pooled funding or be non-financial partnerships. Some areas are successful at income generation without formal commissioning having taken place. However, selling services within a formal contractual framework must increasingly be attractive to trusts as a means of building capacity and a stronger organisation through a broader customer base. The Offender Management Act says “a probation trust has the power to do anything … to facilitate …. the achievement of its purposes….” and there is scope to strengthen our organisations and our role in local communities through formal business relationships with others.
The Government’s “localism” agenda, represented for probation by our imminent inclusion as Responsible Authorities in Crime & Disorder Reduction Partnerships and potentially partners in Local Authority scrutiny arrangements, will provide a boost to the development of probation as a locally commissioned service.
Commissioning deserves to be rehabilitated as one mechanism by which probation trusts can build strong, efficient and effective organisations.
Christine Lawrie
Chief Executive
 |
|
As a result of the Carter Report in 2003, the earliest versions of the Offender Management Bill promoted a market driven probation environment in which everyone, including trusts, would compete to provide “probation services” commissioned by NOMS. Such a fragmented approach was rightly criticised, but one consequence was that commissioning as a function was included in the general condemnation.
Commissioning was already regarded with some caution in probation and this was partly due to a view of it coming from the world of commerce, remote from probation’s values, culture and skills base. There was also a perception that it was synonymous with privatisation and would erode probation’s identity and distinctiveness as a public sector organisation.
More recently, with the advent of trusts, and the recruitment of board and trust members with experience of other occupational sectors, the possibilities and advantages of commissioning services have been revisited. Some probation areas favour a relatively traditional approach, regarding commissioning as a process for procuring supplementary or specialised provision whilst leaving core business intact for probation staff to deliver. Others take a more radical stance, and foresee a future in which a probation trust is little more than a commissioning centre, or hub, contracting for services from the most appropriate provider with no ideological commitment to favour one sector above another. Yet others have an open mind and are still considering how far to go along the commissioning route.
There are two main inhibitors to a more widespread use of commissioning in the probation service:-
The first is budget size. Even some of the largest probation areas have budgets of little more than £20 million. Unless they embrace the “hub” model (and its full development |
is some years away) most areas will always have very small amounts of money to
deploy on commissioning. Commissioning may simply not be cost-effective unless carried out regionally, and that is not often possible or desirable.
The second is mindset. The probation service has historically prided itself on its ethos of service to the community by public servants who have a personal commitment to offender rehabilitation and protection of the public. Even some of those who embrace the principle that others can provide aspects of probation core work equally as well as, or even better than probation staff, nevertheless recoil from a vision of deconstructed probation provision. They want a tangible, identifiable service engaging directly with its users and stakeholders, and find the idea of arms length core services provided by others a step too far.
Nevertheless, although the development of commissioning by the probation service is still at an early stage, it is now firmly on the agenda and probation areas will continue to explore how it might best be applied in our sector. A recent report by independent consultants for the Probation Association / NOMS sponsored Practical Governance Project (available to download here: http://www.probationassociatio
n.co.uk/media/4197/gap%20analysis%20report%202009%20final.pdf) suggested that while capacity for commissioning is currently limited, there is a particular role for trusts to support and stimulate the third sector market, and this is likely to strike a chord with probation as a means of meeting local need in a way empathetic with probation culture. |
|
Commissioning in Probation - the view from the top is still unclear |
|
The extent to which commissioning should be introduced across probation and how well it will assist in meeting local needs is still a matter of debate among probation chairs and chief officers/executives.
Here three chairs and one chief executive give their personal views:-
Sebert Cox
Sebert Cox, Chair of Durham Board: “Until it is fully tested we won’t know, whether commissioning will deliver improvements to the ways we tackle re-offending, provide interventions and offender management services.
“It is clear, though, that we will need to develop capacity within trusts in order to embrace this new environment and ensure commissioning can deliver high quality services, effective outcomes and savings.
“Our challenge is to provide a range of services, informed by those who will deliver them, that provide value for the local community and meet the needs of our principal customer – the courts.”
Linda Bloomfield, Chair of Merseyside Trust: “To fully become an effective commissioning organisation we need to develop:
· An open mind with no preconceived ideas about how services should be designed and delivered Systems to ensure the continual review of all services
· Skills in needs analysis, strategic planning, procurement, market management and outcome review
· Systems putting Local Delivery Unit leaders and their partners at the heart of the commissioning process
To help us get it right there are some wider issues for probation and NOMS to consider together to create a shared vision for delivering outcomes:
· Commissioning must be at the lowest possible level if it is to meet needs and maximise the economies and reflect trusts’ Responsible Authority status |
· Commissioning should be objective and free from politically determined outcomes
· NOMS must address the fact that trusts suffer the consequences of expensive and poor quality services procured at national level.
How will national, regional and locally commissioned services fit together to make a coherent whole, avoiding duplication in the commissioning infrastructure which sucks scarce resources from service delivery into process?”
Alan Harrison, Chair of West Midlands Board: “If Probation Trusts have the autonomy which we could reasonably expect, one of the first decisions of a trust board should be: What is our core business? What is it that others can do better than us?
“We should be making our own commissioning decisions. If someone else can do a better job or do something more effectively at less cost then consideration should be given to commissioning them to deliver the service. It shouldn’t be necessary for NOMS to have to point out that we should be looking at ‘this’ or ‘that’ service to commission.
“When commissioning and contestability was first raised there was an assumption that probation would lose out to other partners and organisations. But why should we assume that someone else can provide a service at which we are well experienced, more effectively or at better value?”
Heather Munro
Heather Munro, Vice-Chair, Probation Chiefs Association and Chief Executive, Leicestershire and Rutland Probation Trust: “Heading one of the first wave Probation Trusts, I am now entering my fourth year of working to a formal contract. It has been both an interesting and frustrating experience working within an immature commissioning environment.
“An important learning point for a local Trust is how to become a really good provider as in the past I don’t think we necessarily saw ourselves in this way. For me this means not only ensuring delivering quality but also being innovative.
“To be the provider of choice we have certainly become much more business focused and clear about what we deliver and what it costs. We must |
have good relationships with our contractor, ensuring that they know if problems are developing and what we are doing about them.
“There have been frustrations along the way and perhaps the biggest limitation was having to bid to become a “second wave” Trust when it was clear that we were an excellent provider. The work between NOMS and the first wave Trusts to develop a contract that seemed to fit the new world of commissioning was ditched and a new contract developed that seemed more akin to the old service level agreements (SLAs).
“A cause of real concern has been the slow movement to commissioning which reflects local need. We have been negotiating contracts around targets that were nationally determined, often based on “doing more than last year.
These did not necessarily match changes in local circumstances such as the courts making fewer unpaid work orders, or more Domestic Violence requirements, nor our share of the national budget.
“This year I am hopeful that our local knowledge about the need for, say, more alcohol treatment orders but fewer programmes, will be reflected in the target setting. If commissioning against offending related need does not become a reality, we could find ourselves at best wasting scarce resources and at worst actually make it more likely for offenders to continue offending.
“My final gripe is about the way the performance targets can also drive local activity in sometimes perverse directions. Proper outcome based commissioning would change the weight given to these sorts of targets. The main question we should be asking and upon which we should be measured would be different: - Are we really reducing reoffending?”
Views on this subject within probation may be diverse but one thing is clear: commissioning has the potential to deliver more efficient probation services that are more responsive to local need.
http://www.probation.homeo
ffice.gov.uk/output/page6.asp |
| Getting More from Commissioning Budgets |
Ken Cole, Director, SPS
Consultancy
· A subtle attempt to renegotiate contracts / rates
· Something you do with every supplier / provider
· A way of getting suppliers / providers to improve their performance
· Something you do on your own
· A new fad from the private sector
It requires a concept known as ‘supplier arbitrage’ which allows commissioners to engage with providers on a new basis. The SRD project being undertaken with Care UK and Veolia in London and funded by the London RIEP, Capital Ambition, is setting the standards as to what can be achieved. For most providers, their profit margin is crucial, and will be defended vigorously. However, cost reduction and sharing is a different matter. Both commissioners and providers have an incentive to do this, particularly when it detracts from achieving the desired outcomes. Once the basics are understood, commissioners can start to look at their budgets in a new light.
Some commissioners will argue against this approach, however given the challenges facing public finances they would do well to consider all options. Budgets are only going one way in the coming years and it is not up.
Ken Cole
SPS Consultancy
www.sps-consultancy.co.uk |
|
All serious financial commentators agree that regardless of which Party forms the next Government, the UK public sector faces one of the biggest cash squeezes in over 30 years. The UK budget deficit is currently running at £178,000,000,000 and measures will need to be taken to reduce it in the term of the next Parliament. It appears that some areas of spend might be ‘ring fenced’, but the details of how this will work are unknown. A stand still budget or CPI indexed one will equate to a reduction in areas where demand is rising faster than the market can respond.
Commissioners can respond in two ways to such challenges. They can either seek the simplistic approach by cutting service levels or they could look at more innovative ways to optimize budgets and change outcomes. Achieving successful outcomes can make a major difference as to how future budgets are set. The CBI Report, Raising the Bars commented that “reducing the 65% re-offending rate by just 10% would save over £1 billion”. The support for all political Parties for the Total Place concept suggests that focussing on outcomes and redefining |
service delivery models will play a far greater part in determining how future budgets are allocated.
There is ample evidence to suggest that commissioning budgets can be much better used by simply being smarter in the way markets, providers and procurement issues are approached. The ability to know your relative position of influence in relation to your provider(s) is crucial to success. Intelligent use of the Supply Positioning and Supplier Preferencing techniques provides a starting point. The outcomes will help commissioners define the most appropriate strategies that need to be deployed in removing costs and more importantly allocating resources. Simply seeking to deploy crude methods of aggregated competitive tendering will achieve little, and arguably increase costs in some areas.
However, it is the use of Supplier Relationship Development that is likely to prove the most fruitful in the coming years. In simple terms, SRD is defined as ‘the process of improving existing contracts for the mutual benefit of both suppliers and customers’. Although this may sound easy, it requires the use of publicly available intelligence in such a way that has never been done before. SRD is certainly not:
· Contracts Management by another name
|
| Commissioning Development Programme Launch |
children’s services have identified as good commissioning.
The Commissioning Support Programme is sponsored by the Department of Health and Department for Children, Schools and Families
You can find out more about the development programme and download the materials at:
http://www.commissioning
support.org.uk/events--training/csp-events--training/development-programme.aspx
|
|
As part of its learning and development offer, the Commissioning Support Programme is running a development programme on commissioning in children’s services. This is designed to give a wide range of stakeholders a thorough understanding of the characteristics of effective commissioning.
It will comprise 18 modules, grouped in the following three areas of commissioning:
· commissioning governance and framework
· commissioning activity
|
· commissioning capacity and competence
The development programme will also look at practical steps involved to achieve effective commissioning that will contribute to better outcomes for children, young people and their families.
The structure and content of the programme is aligned with the Commissioning Support Programme’s document Achieving Better Outcomes: Commissioning in Children’s Services. This document is based on what commissioners and others working in |
|
Classified Ad |
|
Bigger results, smaller resources
How innovation and investing for outcomes will achieve more
23 - 25 February 2010 at Latimer Place, Buckinghamshire
Residential Course
The public sector resource squeeze is on. Regardless of forthcoming changes in national and local government, one thing is clear – there will be cuts in public sector investment.
Paradoxically the demands from service users and local communities are increasing, and we are being told to extend the choice agenda across all areas of delivery. The need to commission more innovatively in order to deliver better outcomes is becoming all the more pressing.
Most management courses tell you what you should do but rarely show you how. We know that people need something more tangible and practical to help secure success in these current economic times.
Please note places are limited so early reservation is advised.
If you require any further information please contact Bernadette Bruton on bernadette.bruton@publicinnovation.org.uk or call on 0207 922 7822.
|
|
The Academy For Justice Commissioning
Monthly Evening Seminars
These events are free and open for anyone to attend and provide important context for
our work as commissioners & providers, open up networks of contacts and promote the
role of the Academy amongst participants from other sectors.
Please note that places are limited at these Seminars and are offered on a first come first served basis
To book your place please contact the Academy via email: academy@noms.gsi.gov.uk
Winter / Spring Programme
Wednesday, 17 February
"How many lawyers does it take to change a light bulb?"
Evening Seminar in Manchester featuring
Hugh Barrett
Executive Director, Commissioning, Legal Services Commission
For the last 60 years, Legal Aid has been a key part of the Welfare State and for the first 40 years of its life it was run by lawyers. LSC has managed Legal Aid for the past 10 years and over the last five years they have been working towards a commissioning approach in securing legal services.
In this free to attend seminar Hugh will look briefly at history and review where the Legal Services Commission (LSC) is today, before looking ahead to future developments in LSC’s remit to commission approximately £2 billion of legal services.
LSC runs the legal aid scheme in England and Wales and works in partnership with solicitors and not-for-profit organisations to provide information, advice and legal representation to people in need.
Venue: Hilton Manchester Deansgate, Manchester |
|
Tuesday, 23 March
Evening Seminar in London featuring
UNISON & CBI
Ben Priestly, National Officer for Police & Probation, UNISON
Rob Allen, Policy Advisor, CBI
In this seminar UNISON and CBI will give their views on government commissioning in general.
UNISON is Britain and Europe's biggest public sector union with more than 1.3 million members. Their members are people working in the public services, for private contractors providing public services and in the essential utilities.
CBI are the premier lobbying organisation for UK business on national and international issues and work with the UK government, international legislators and policy-makers to help UK businesses compete effectively.
Venue: Jolly Hotel St Ermin's. SW1 |
Wednesday, 21 April
Evening Seminar in London featuring
Serco
together with
Turning Point & Catch 22
In this seminar Serco, together with Turning Point and Catch 22 will share their commissioning experiences.
Serco has grown to become one of the world's leading service and outsourcing companies. They work to help governments improve services across many areas of public life, from justice to healthcare, education to defence.
Turning Point is the UK's leading social care organisation and provides services for people with complex needs.
Catch22 is a national charity that works with young people who find themselves in difficult situations.
Venue: St Stephens Club SW1
|
|
The Academy for Justice Commissioning seeks to source and promote excellence in justice commissioning.
By setting standards and raising commissioner capability we will support the transformation of justice services to enable improved effectiveness and increased public confidence in the justice system. |
|
Delegate feedback from recent
Academy Seminars
'Interesting and informative'
'Thought provoking presentation - and a useful debate afterwards'
'The subject matter was interesting and relevant and attendees were of a high calibre'
'A good opportunity to network and hear some thought provoking views'
'The presentation stimulated excellent questions and debate, particularly around Public and Private sector providers working in partnership together'
The Academy Executive Group members are:
Trevor Williams, NOMS East of England (Chair)
David Keegan, Legal Services Commission (Vice Chair)
Christine Lawrie, Probation Association
David Griffiths, Criminal Justice Group, MoJ
John Graham, HR Learning & Development, NOMS
Louise Woodford, Strategic Planning & Performance, MoJ
Michelle Jarman-Howe, HMPS
Patsy Northern, Estates Business Transformation, MoJ
Peter Hewitt-Penfold, Legal Services Commission
Peter Johnston, West Yorkshire Probation
Richard Heys, Criminal Justice Group, MoJ
Sarah Acikgoz, Legal Services Commission
Stephen Shaljean-Tilley, National School of Government
Tony Challinor, Commissioning & Competitions, NOMS
Contributions and feedback are most welcome.
If you are interested in submitting comments,
relevant information or an article for inclusion in a future edition please contact us at
academy@noms.gsi.gov.uk |
“The Academy provides an invaluable opportunity for those involved in commissioning to come together and share thoughts and experiences. Such networking opportunities are rare and the Academy is to be congratulated for this important initiative”.
Alan Cave
Department of Work and Pensions
April 2009 |
|
Past Seminar Topics
What Does Economics add to Decision Making
The Winners Curse – Structuring Procurement
Challenging Delivery Models
Lessons Learnt on Regional / Local Commissioning in Children’s Services
Spotting a Quality Supplier
Developing Community led Approaches to Designing & Delivering Services
World Class Commissioning to Improve Health Outcomes
Sharing Commissioning Experiences
Developing Commissioning Skills
Leadership across Public Services
Managing Competition
Third Sector Commissioning: the reality
Three Myths & The Magnificent Seven
DWP Commissioning Strategy
The Future Commissioning System
Lessons from the Ombudsman’s Investigations
The Challenges of Collaborative Leadership
Investing in Outcomes
International Research Study of Public Procurement
Lord Carter of Coles
Getting more from Commissioning Budgets
If you would like a summary of any of these
presentations, please visit our website
www.academyforjusticecommissioning.org.uk
or contact Janet via email:
academy@noms.gsi.gov.uk | |
|
|
|
|
|
|