Reshaping Floating Support in Lancashire

1
(No Transcript)
2
Reshaping Floating Support in Lancashire

• Context
• Current Services
• Commissioning issues
• Developing a Commissioning Strategy
• Process
• Options
• The Plan
• Moving it forward
• Capacity building for providers
• Procurement Process
• Questions for Organisations

3
Context Current Provision

• 56 Floating Supporting services
• About 3.4 million pre Option Appraisal, perhaps
  3.1 million after OA
• About 30 Providers inc. largish RSLs, some
  council services, and many smallish, local
  voluntary organisations
• Service capacity varies from 2 people to 70
  people (200 if we include OP)
• Over 1041 units of service delivered

4
Context Commissioning Issues

• Variable quality and performance among the
  existing floating support services
• At its best, floating support is making a huge
  difference to the lives of vulnerable people
• some really great work,
• much thats really good,
• But some services are of more doubtful value e.g.
• SP funding may be being used for ineligible
  activities,
• The services are not being provided to full
  capacity,
• Or their local profile is so low that key
  partners (and presumably service users) do not
  know they exist
• Performance focuses on inputs / outputs whereas
  it should focus on outcomes for individuals
• The geographical distribution is unfair
• Very few or even no units / services / providers
  operating in some areas
• Several providers operating in some districts,
  sometimes offering much the same service
• Few providers active in the more rural areas, or
  in smaller market towns

5
Context Commissioning Issues

• The splits by client group are unfair and
  unhelpful
• Few or no specialist services for some groups
  across the county
• Sometimes several services across a district for
  a specific user group competing for business
• Forces users or referral agencies to
  compartmentalise their needs
• But some people fall through the gaps between
  services
• Disproportionately low take up of services by
  people from BME communities
• Provision by tenure is unfair
• Many services (esp. those provided by RSLs) only
  available and / or publicised to tenants of a
  particular landlord
• Overwhelmingly recipients are tenants in the
  social housing sector
• Few service users are in private rented sector or
  are owner occupiers

6
Context Commissioning Issues

• The tasks undertaken are unfair and unhelpful
• In most cases SP eligibility criteria is being
  followed by providers but is the balance of
  tasks reasonable?
• Are the support plans always clear about outcomes
  as opposed to inputs?
• Should some tasks be funded by other streams eg
  community care, housing managing charges etc
• The prices charged to the SP Programme are unfair
• Cost models for review revealed a wide range of
  unit prices, hourly rates for support,
  overheads, average hours rarely an explicit
  link to complexity of need or intensity of
  support required,
• Reviews and subsequent price and capacity
  amendments to contracts have brought greater
  consistency but may risk providers being more
  selective about with whom and where they operate

7
Context Commissioning Issues

• Marketing and / or publicity about floating
  support sketchy
• Stakeholders and service users dont understand
  the services
• Central access points needed, or fewer access
  points so service users and stakeholders can
  easily refer into services
• Commissioning Body, local councillors and ODPM
  are unsure what they are getting for their money
• National Context
• SP funding has reduced and may continue to do so
  in future years
• Cannot assume more money will come to fill the
  gaps
• ODPM struggling to justify levels of SP budget to
  the Treasury
• All SP Partnerships need to develop a performance
  framework which enables providers to demonstrate
  the outcomes they achieve with vulnerable
  individuals and communiites
• Gershon agenda through more effective procurement
  of services
• Need to achieve value for money
• Need to find efficiency savings

8
Developing and implementing a Commissioning
Strategy for floating support the theory

• Understand needs
• Map supply
• Identify the gap in volume, type or location of
  services
• Then develop a commissioning plan to
• Commission new services to fill gaps
• Decommission some / all existing services which
  dont meet need
• Reshape existing services to better reflect needs
• Ensure available SP budget over a 3 5 year
  timescale matches the costs of the services
  commissioned and contracted for

9
Developing a Commissioning Strategy Process

• Lancashire SP Stakeholder Day November 2005,
  workshop on Reshaping floating support covered
  much of the material of this presentation and
  started to engage interest of providers and
  partners
• Reviews of floating support all completed and a
  12 month contract offered to providers whilst
  options for future shape of floating support
  services developed
• Service Design Team (SDT) for Homelessness and
  Young People charged with recommending a
  commissioning plan for floating support in
  Lancashire
• SDT consists of representatives from statutory
  partners, SP Team and service users, chaired by
  Clive Thomasson, Commissioning Body rep for
  Pendle Borough Council
• Several meetings held over several months, have
  resulted in a paper to Commissioning Body which
  was endorsed at its meeting on 12 May 2006

10
Developing a Commissioning Plan the Options

• Do nothing or do something?
• Accepted that reshaping of floating support had
  to occur
• Spend less, spend more or spend the same?
• No conclusive answer, but CB is committed to the
  floating support model and would like to invest
  more
• Generic or specialist floating support services?
• Contracts will be generic covering all short
  term groups but will require providers to
  demonstrate in-house capacity and competency in
  working with whole range of service users or to
  sub contract to other specialist or local
  organisations

11
Developing a Commissioning Plan the Options

• Geographical scope of contracts options
  considered inc. 12 covering 12 districts, 3 to go
  with 3 new PCT and current sub-regional groups, 1
  countywide or variable arrangements depending on
  views of statutory partners or providers?
• 3 PCT areas agreed
• East Lancashire (Burnley, Rossendale, Hyndburn,
  Pendle, Ribble Valley)
• North Lancashire (Lancaster, Fylde, Wyre)
• South Lancashire (Preston, Chorley, South Ribble
  and West Lancs)

12
Developing a Commissioning Plan the Options

• Procurement options open tender or negotiate
  with existing providers?
• Open tender process to comply with LCC
  procurement rules, competing for 3 largish
  contracts (each worth approx 1 million)
• Encourage bids from any SP accredited
  organisations inc. single providers (who may or
  may not sub contract to others) or from consortia
• Likely to be fixed price contracts with
  considerations of best value used to award
  contracts
• Likely to insist on awarding contracts to 3
  different providers

13
Developing a Commissioning Plan the Options

• Needs and funding what should be the allocation
  of funding per contract to reflect variations in
  level of needs across Lancashire?
• Broadly by population, possibly with year by year
  adjustments between contract prices / volumes
  based on difference in patterns of demand
• Deprivation, needs indices, existing supply of
  services all relevant but introduce too much
  short term political and technical complexity
  into the decision

14
Moving it Forward

• Capacity Building for providers
• SITRA magazine articles available at provider
  forums
• SITRA membership
• SP Team has commissioned SITRA workshop sessions
  dates to be announced at provider forums, but
  aimed particularly at small providers
• National Housing Federation event?
• Use your existing networks and contacts

15
Moving it Forward

• Procurement Process
• Check out the SP K-Web for what other
  authorities have done Cornwall is a good guide
  to what is likely to happen here
• Send in your accreditation evidence and get
  accredited without it you will not be allowed
  at the starting line
• Watch out for further announcements in June 2006
  inc. an advert
• (Very draft) Timetable is
• Advert June 2006
• Long list of accredited organisations August
  2006
• Clarification Process August / September 2006
• Tender against final specification end October
  2006
• Decision making process November December 2006
• Decisions communicated late Dec / early January
  2007
• Commencements of new contracts from June 2007

16
Moving it Forward

• Actions / Decisions for organisations
• Is floating support is core business for your
  organisation?
• How flexible is your organisation in terms of
  user groups, geographic coverage, willingness to
  work with other organisations?
• Consult your management board and trustees
• Book places for manager and for your Chairperson
  on SITRA events
• Consider what further training and preparation
  your organisation might want to undertake in
  advance of the formal start of the process
• Talk to other organisations work out which ones
  you might want to work with as partners and which
  ones are your potential competitors
• Ensure your keep to any formal timetables for
  submissions etc LCC procurement rules grant
  little if any flexibility concerning these

17
SITRA Events

• Dates
• 4 July 2006 New Fylde Housing, Lytham
• 5 July 2006 Shield Room, Civic Centre, Leyland
• 6 July 2006 Colne Town Hall
• 11 July 2006 Committee Room A County Hall,
  Preston
• Likely to be 10am start and 4pm finish