clearway 74 hi-res

8/3/2019 Clearway 74 Hi-Res

1/16

CLEARWAY

PublicSectorReform

what it is and what it means

Issue74 Summer2010

Urban

Forumsonline

magazine


2/16

2HOUSEKEEPING

Welcome to the

new look ClearwayYou dont need me to tell you, dear

reader, that Urban Forum has gone

online with its house magazine,

Clearway.

The clues are there. Firstly, you will haveread of our impending online-ness in lastissues Board Papers and secondly, you willhave received an email with the link tothis shiny new version!

Why are we doing this well, its anenvironmental move, obviously and itwill save us a few quid!

But we also want to embrace the onlineworld just a little more (if you haventsigned up to our Twitter @urbanforum andFacebook services, why not?). Youll findthat we can do some things in this onlineversion that was impossible in the printedversion. For instance, all the links in thisdocument are fully functional, meaningyou can go straight to the linked pagewithout fuss, and email Urban Forumdirect.

We have other plans to improve thecontent and interactivity of ourinformation service and of course, we

will still be producing printed reports andguides, like our fabulous new Guide toCommunity Resilience (see specialintroductory price on page 15).

But for now, we would be grateful foryour feedback on this new look issue.Send it to me by [email protected]

Tony HillmanCommunications Manager

Iam happy to start theseBoard Papers with somegood news. After a nailbiting few months wehave had a positive result

from our applications to bothBarrow Cadbury Trust for pilotingwork on community rights in

Dudley and the Tudor Trust forresilience research in Manchesterand Salford. This goes someway toreinstating more normaloperations and you will be kept upto date on these projects throughfurther articles in Clearway.

Trustees are trying to supportstaff as much as they can, but itis staff who are left to jugglefundraising alongside the workwe are already committed to

deliver, with the additionalchallenge of reduced staffcapacity. All Trustees areimpressed with the commitmentand continued high standard ofwork produced by Urban ForumStaff Team and I thank them onbehalf of members and trustees.

There are still ongoing discussionswith a number of other fundersand continued development ofproposals for new projects.

At our next Board meeting wewill be discussing a paper on howwe create, maintain and sustainan Active Board. Some of theissues raised were to ensure subgroups were fully supported,develop pen pictures of Trusteeskills and experience, an internalCommunities of Practicediscussion board and trustees touse their local intelligence to

develop new partnerships andpotential projects as well asrecruit new members.

Alongside this we are looking todevelop an organisational penpicture or one page profile topromote the Urban Forumsuccinctly to potential partners

and funders when we opendialogue with them. There isongoing work in relation toorganisational collaboration andprogress in our work withdifferent local authorities.

Toby has reported on thecontinuing debate in respect ofthe different models for theCommunity OrganisersProgramme and I recommend youaccess his blog and follow the

links therein to get a feel andunderstanding of futuredirections as well inform yourown preferred model.

Staff continue to raise our profileby speaking at various eventsabout the issues current to thesector at the moment such as BigSociety and Localism as well aslooking at ways to improvecontact and knowledge of ourmembership which willcontribute to our businessdevelopment work.

Members will soon be receivingtheir copy of the Resilience Guidewhich has now been publishedand we hope you will recommendthis to other organisations toensure that we not only reach awide audience but that we alsomaximise our sales.

BoardPapers

with Urban Forum Trustee,

Jeanette Harold

Public Sector Reform

Go to page 4


3/16

3

WhitehallWatch

Department for Communities& Local Government

Over at DCLG recent press attention has beenon Eric Pickles climbdown over forcing localauthorities to do weekly bin collections. Cueendless jokes about rubbish ministers. Theissue is important symbolically in the defining

the relationship between central and localgovernment in relation to localism. But ofmore practical significance is the progress ofthe Localism Bill, which is currently beingconsidered by the House of Lords. Eric Pickleshas put forward 237 Amendments to the Bill,along with another 30 from the Oppositionand backbenches. The Bill is expected tobecome law by the end of the year, thoughwith so many proposed amendments, thingsmay become bogged down and the timetablecould slip. It seems increasingly likely that

the Bill will come into effect in the Autumnof 2012 and not the Spring, as had previouslybeen expected.

Of probably as much importance to VCSgroups as the Bill itself, is the regulation(yup, more red tape) that will accompany it setting out how the new Community Rightswill be implemented. The recently endedconsultation elicited around 200 responses(to each) and officials are now collating theseto enable Ministers to formulate their plans.

One of the DCLG officials working on the

Community Rights, Charles Woodd, wasawarded an OBE in the recent BirthdayHonours List. Charles, who will be retiring inthe Summer, moved from the VCS intogovernment to work on civil renewal(remember that?), active communities,community empowerment and most recentlylocalism and Big Society. Our congratulationsgo to Charles, who has been a strong andunerring advocate for the sector withingovernment for a number of years.

Financial Times columnist, James Crabtree, recentlysuggested that Steve Hilton, the Prime Ministers brainstrust will soon be on his way out. Following Nat Weisrecent decision to stand down from his role, this wouldleave David Cameron without two of the leading figuresbehind the Big Society idea. Maybe the PM will bethinking about bringing a suitable Big Society architect

into the fold? If so, can we expect a move into Whitehallfor Red Tory author, Phillip Blond? Perhaps not.

Changes to Big Society promoters?

OfficeforCivil SocietyIt appears as ifthelongawaitedCommunity First programme that willprovidesmall grants to local groups (notwholly dissimilarto Grassroots Grants though youwont hearit describedlikethat in Whitehall!) is finally onits way.Weunderstandthat OCShas appointeda

deliverypartnerfortheprogrammeanditwillbe launched shortly.

AnotherOCSprogramme, to train5,000Community Organisers, has beenthesubject offierce to-ing andfro-ingbetweenCabinet Office,Treasury and HMRC. Thestickingpoint appearstobe how to treattaxand benefits ofcommunity organisers inthe programme. Weunderstandthings aremore orless resolved and the programmecan begininearnest.

OCShas beenholding discussion withits

StrategicPartners onwork programmes tosupport keyBig Society priorities. Giventhatthe applicationprocessrequired fairlydetailedplanstobesubmitted, onewonders what has happenedto theseasleadand contributingpartners arerequiredtodevelopjointplans? Thesewere clearly notinthe original fundingapplicationswhich weresubmitted.Anotherexample ofunnecessarybureaucratic burdenon charities perhaps?

The government has made no secret ofits desire to strip away statebureaucracy that impedes business andcharities. Weve had barrier busters, acutting red tape taskforce and the RedTape Challenge which puts a specificsector or industry in the spotlight to askcitizens for ideas on cutting unnecessaryregulation.

Topics such as food and drink and retailhave previously come under the redtape spotlight, but this months focus is,somewhat surprisingly, the Equality Act the legislation that protects minoritiesfrom discrimination. Not only is this theonly Act of Parliament to be considered,its also subject to international lawsuch as the Human Rights Convention,which makes asking whether it should bescrapped something of a hypotheticalquestion.

There has been a predictably strongreaction on the Red Tape Challengewebsite with nearly 6,000 commentsposted at the time of writing, the vastmajority (of those weve read) indefence of the Act. [By comparison, thenumber of comments on other topicsare; Pensions 22; Company Law 47;Health and Safety 279 andEnvironment 975].

RedTapetrouble

Meanwhileoverat

HerMajestys

Revenue&Customs

(HMRC),thefit

andproperpersonstestrecommends

Charitiestake

appropriate steps

toensurethat

anyonebeing

appointedasa

trusteeissuitable

todoso.This

means more

regulation to

complywith,in

additiontoforms

thathaveto be

submittedto

CompaniesHouse

and totheCharity

Commission.

HMRCsaysitwill

workcloselywith

charityregulators,

thoughseemingly

notcloselyenough

tojoinuptheir

regulatory

proceduresto

reducetheburden

oncharities

though?

Thegovernment

seemstohavea

fairlyunusualtake

onwhatisand

whatisntredtape

bythelookofit.


4/16

4

PublicSector Reform

With the Open Public

Services White Paper

now published, Urban

Forum looks at the

issues surrounding

this contentious issue

and gives you some

useful background.Lets start with a look

at the White Paper

The government haspublished its Open PublicServices White Paper,setting out its policy

framework for how it wants publicservices to be owned, delivered andfunded in the future.

Some of the measures outlined arealready underway (Free Schools,Academies Act 2010), some are beingtaken forward in legislation alreadybeing debated in Parliament (theHealth and Social Care Bill and theLocalism Bill), and some will besubject to further development andconsultation.

The main features of the WhitePaper proposals are:

n Contracting out of public servicesto be the norm the only exceptionsbeing core policing, the military, thejudiciary and national intelligence.

n More commissioned services to bepaid for by results.

n Individual services (e.g. health,social care, education etc.) to moveto a personal budget system withindividuals purchasing services froma choice of providers.

n Neighbourhood services (e.g.parks, museums, sports facilities,parking, community centres etc.) to

be provided by communityorganisations, organised andcommissioned by neighbourhoodlevel councils.

The delay in publishing the WhitePaper has been widely attributed tothe level of opposition to proposalson health, and some commentatorsthink the government has sloweddown the pace of the change. TheOpen Public Services White Papersays that the governmentacknowledges the limits of a puremarket approach. Not withstandingthis qualification, the Open PublicServices White Paper is based on abelief in ability of the market todrive standards up and costs down.

The government says thatreorganising how public services aredelivered will save money, withcompeting providers finding new waysto cut costs and increase efficiency.

Critics say that cost savings aretranslated into profits which does notbenefit the taxpayer or service userssuch as the 35 million netted by

the directors of the ill-fatedSouthern Cross care homes and thatnew mechanisms to bring in privatecapital through PFI, have provedhugely costly to the public purse inthe long term and brought limited

benefits in the short term.

The paper says that quality willincrease as providers compete forservice users, with servicesincreasingly being paid for on a perhead basis. Responding to oppositionto NHS reforms, the proposalsemphasise the role of government inscrutinising providers and settingstandards. They give incentives tolocal authorities to improve localhealth services by giving authoritiesa block grant based on local healthoutcomes.

Critics have asked how localauthorities and regulators, alreadystretched, are going to scrutinise,monitor, inspect and set standardswith far more providers and farfewer resources. They have alsopointed to a possible conflictbetween the role of localgovernment in holding providers to

account and maintaining standards,and its role in ensuring freecompetition.

Many, including Urban Forum, havehighlighted areas where the reformsrisk exacerbating inequality. This riskis explicitly acknowledged in theWhite Paper. It addresses concernsexpressed by many VCS organisationinvolved in service provision that

Open for businessOpen Public Services White Paper


5/16

5PUBLIC SECTOR REFORM

providers could have a perverseincentive to provide services to those inless need or more likely to show positiveoutcomes. The White Paper claims thiswill be prevented by regulation, whichsays providers can only select their client

group if the selection advantages thedisadvantages and insists on equality ofaccess - for example a new schoolsadmissions code to be enforced by thelocal authority. The Paper also points towhere it is proposed to give extraresources to the most disadvantaged,providing incentives to providers toprioritise targeted help such as thePupil Premium, which provides additionalfunds to schools when they admitchildren from the poorest families.

Critics highlight the risk, withneighbourhood services being devolvedto communities, of those communitiesalready better resourced and moreaffluent being able to benefit themselvesat the expense of those less resourced,and less affluent. The government hassaid that additional support services forcommunities to access information,advice and funding will address this.

Open Public Services suggests publicservices will be accountable to service

users and residents in two ways. First,through democratic structures andinvolvement, strengthening the existingpowers of local councillors, and creatingnew democratic structures and ways inwhich service users can be involved inservices such as the Health andWellbeing Boards, support for serviceuser-run services, such as TenantManagement Organisations. And second,through consumer power - with service

users able to vote with their feet andmove to new providers if they arentsatisfied. The government also says itwill strengthen the ability of serviceusers and taxpayers to hold providers toaccount, by requiring publication of

consumer feedback, and data onperformance and outcomes.

Critics of the proposals say thatoutsourcing weakens democraticaccountability; that diversification tomany more providers makes the job ofcouncillors in holding providers toaccount even harder; that involvingservice users and communities in servicestakes time and money and wont happenwithout more resources; and that theexperience of service users having to

navigate their way through variousproviders, contractually linked indifferent ways, gives them less controlover services, not more. They also pointto fact that while the government isfairly clear on the data that publicservices should be publishing, they arenot so clear on whether or how they willmake the same requirements of privateand VCS companies to publish records onspending and performance. Thegovernment says that this is somethingthat they are going to look at further.

The mixed reaction to the White Paper isnot just to proposed changes, but thedirection of travel of successivegovernments. Open Pubic Servicesoutlines an approach that the paperitself makes clear is a continuation ofpolicies of previous Labouradministrations - the personalisationagenda, the growth of outsourcing, thecreation of new autonomous public

bodies like Academies and NHS Trusts,Private Finance Initiatives in schools,hospitals, transport, the fire service. Thepaper states that whilst the approach isnot new, its systematic application toevery area of public service is aqualitative change.

Whilst there may be (in practice if not inrhetoric) a high degree of agreement onthis between the main political parties,the same consensus cannot be seenamongst the general public. According toa Mori poll carried out in 2009, we arefairly evenly split between those whowant a society that emphasises socialcollective provision of welfare and thosewho want a society where individuals are

encouraged to look after themselves.

Inevitably public opinion on this is goingto be a concern for the government.According to a leak from CBI, somewithin the Coalition are concerned aboutthe political acceptability of a rise in

outsourcing. And recently, the Archbishopof Canterbury questioned thegovernments democratic mandate inrelation to public service reform.

Read more about the White Paper byaccessing our full policy briefing andblogs from Toby Blume and Head of

Policy and Research, Rachel Newton.


6/16

6PUBLIC SECTOR COMMISSIONING


Commissioning is used to mean the process wherebyfunders, usually statutory authorities, pay for servicesfrom organisations, mostly through contracts. Manyvoluntary sector activities that used to be funded

through grants are now commissioned.

Voluntary sector organisations compete with each other and theprivate sector to get the contract. For a local service, anorganisation based in that community could be competing with anational or international organisation. Whereas with grant fundingthe organisation could put forward a proposal to deliver a service

based on need it had identified, with commissioning the statutoryauthority decides what it wants the service to be and specifiesresources available, outcomes expected and often, how the serviceor activity should be delivered. The most important considerationin comparing different possible providers for a commissionedservice is usually cost.

This process began in the 1980s and was intended to make deliveryof public services operate more like a market place. The currentgovernment intends to accelerate further the process ofprivatisation of public services through initiatives like the freeschools model and GP commissioning in the NHS. Its Open PublicServices white paper expresses its vision for virtually all public

services to be open to delivery by the voluntary and communitysector and the private sector.

The push towards privatisation of public services is not because thisdelivers the best service or the best value for money. The TUCreports that research by economists at Imperial College showsthat, following the introduction of competition in the NHS in the1990s, under a system that allowed hospitals to negotiate prices,there was a fall in clinical quality. The policy is the result of thegovernments ideological commitment to market principles and oflobbying from companies who stand to gain.

In the commissioning model, a service will be funded if it fits thepriorities of the commissioners. Brand new or innovative work is toohigh risk for a market-based system and too hard to cost andevaluate. While grants supported the principle behind anorganisations existence, sometimes providing core funding for officeand staffing without specifying activities, commissioning is project-specific. The loss of support for the broader philosophyof an organisation can mean the loss of its ability torespond flexibly to changing local needs.

The rigid monitoring of most commissioned

services and the growing practice of payment byresults discourages holistic or preventativeservices which have less clear or immediateoutcomes. Long term thinking and planning areimpossible because contracts are short with noguarantee of renewal and government prioritiesand funding systems are always changing.

A defining feature of voluntary sectororganisations is their ability to act as anexternal point of pressure to hold thestate and the market to account. Themore they get drawn into delivering

public services, the less they will beable to question and comment ongovernment policy and to actindependently from it. The BaringFoundations submission to theprevious governments Inquiry onCommissioning Public Services fromthe Third Sector said thatcommissioning forms a significant threatto the sectors independence.

What is commissioning?What is

commissioning p6

Commissioning and

the VCS p7

Who has the

winning ticket? p9

10 things you need

to know about socialenterprises p10

Accountaability

Rules p11

Councillors ready

for the challenge

p12

What price

democracy p13

Voluntary Actionunder threat p14

Bridging the

Mismatch p15


7/16

7PUBLIC SECTOR COMMISSIONING


Commisioningand the VCS

The voluntary and communitysector (VCS) has providedservices of all sorts for thepublic for centuries, but in

the last 20 years this has increasinglymeant charities (along with privatebusinesses) running services previouslyrun by the State as part of theirstatutory responsibilities.

In the last few years the funding that theVCS gets from the State has increasedrapidly, now accounting for over a third(36%) of all of the sectors funding. Asgrant funding has been in decline, thisincrease is accounted for in the rise ofcontract funding through commissioning.

n In the five years between 2000/1 to2006/7 statutory funding of the VCSincreased by 43%, from 8.4bn to 12bn.

n The proportion paid as contractfunding increased in this time by 105%from 3.8bn to 7.8bn, and rose again to9.1bn by 2007/8.

n The proportion of this money that wasreceived as grants during this perioddeclined by nearly one tenth (4.6bn in

The last twenty years

TheCoalition nowwants to see furtherexpansion inthe roleplayedbyboththeVCSand theprivatesectorin publicservices, opening up contracting tovirtually all areasofpublicservice.DavidCameron, February2011

2000/1 down to 4.2bn 2006/7 andreduced further by 2007/8 to 3.7bn).

The experience in the sector of state

funding is uneven. Three quarters of

charities do not get any funding fromstatutory sources. Of those that do, most(16% of charities) tend to be heavilyreliant on it, with 16% of all generalcharities, typically the large nationalcharities, getting 75% of their fundingfrom the state.

Contracting out to VCS organisations

started in earnest in the early 1990s,and was mainly concentrated in socialcare and health, prompted by the NHSand Community Care Act 1990. The

process speeded up from 1997 onwardsto move into all areas of welfare andhousing. Today the services provided bythe VCS which are most reliant on publiccontract funding are employment andtraining, law and advocacy, education,housing and social services.

When Labour came into power in 1997 itsought to increase the proportion of theVCS involved in public service delivery,

focusing on building capacity (such asthe Futurebuilders programme) and onimproving commissioning to meet theneeds of the sector, leading todevelopments such as intelligentcommissioning practices and theCompact.

In opposition, the Conservatives arguedthat the sector had become too emeshedwith the public sector (becoming a minipublic sector). They put forwardproposals to reduce bureaucracy and

perceived state interference, longerterm contracts based on outcomes, andgoing beyond full cost recovery tosuggest financial returns on public work,and payment on results.

From 2008 both Labour and theConservatives became interested in theidea of social enterprises taking overareas of public service, in the form ofmutual organisations of employees, andin 2008 the Right to Request wasintroduced in the NHS enabling this.

Taking forward ideas on outcome-basedcontracts, and mutualism, the Coalitionis now seeking to open up new areas ofpublic service, introducing this as adefault position for all elements ofpublic services, barring the judiciary andthe security forces.

Whether this trend in the last 20 yearshas been a good or a bad thing either forthe sector, or for service users, has been

subject to much discussion and researchfrom the early 1990s onwards.

Discussions have tended to concentrateon two broad areas, the role of thesector in relation to the state, and theimpact on services.

The established selling point for the VCShas been that it is more creative; betterable to respond to the needs of serviceusers; able to do things that public sectorproviders cant do; and enjoying aqualitatively different relationship with

service users.So for many in the VCS changes in thelast 20 years have been an opportunity toexpand, to improve services, and at thesame time become more professional andaccountable to beneficiaries.

But there have also been worries in thesector about the impact of a contractculture, undermining independence,sidelining other activity previouslyintegral to mission (campaigning,advocacy and community action), and

creating a situation that has meantshifting goals and priorities to fit withnew funding.

Whilst the increase in public sectorcontracts has been significant for thesector, it is still only a tiny fraction (2%)of total statutory expenditure.

A far bigger change has been the amountof public expenditure spent on contractswith private outsourcing companies, with


8/16

8

the Treasury estimating that thepresent value of Private Finance

Initiatives (PFI) contracts alone accountfor 121.4bn.

In response to the growth of the privateoutsourcing business, some largercharities are seeking consortium betweenlarge charities and businesses, such asthe joint bid in 2008 by NACRO to runprisons with Group 4 Securicor. This trendis likely to continue, as too is charitiesbecoming subcontractors to big firms awidely anticipated development of thenew DWP Work Programme.

The statutory services that the VCS

provides happened in the context ofmajor systemic changes, not just in whodelivered public services, but how theywere delivered.

From the 1980s, an approach toorganising public services was adopted,termed new public management.Borrowed from big business in the UnitedStates, sometimes described as neo-Taylorism, or managerialism, theapproach divides up services intodifferent functions, with each functionrun seperately, working to contractspecifications underpinned by targets,pursuing efficiencies of scale, and

Some questions

posed for the VCSPublic service reform poses a numberof serious questions for the VCS aswe look to the future:

n Can the VCS influence publicservice reform so it delivers itspromises for communities? How does

it need to be different from previouspublic service reform?

n Can VCS organisations compete oncost for public service contracts

whilst maintaining integrity of visionand the sectors strengths and

values?

n Will a greater number of small,local VCS organisations deliver public

contracts, or will there be anexpansion of large national charities?

n What will a new relationshipbetween the VCS and business sectorlook like? Can we make it on termsgood for the VCS and beneficiaries?Will it just be large national charities

or smaller ones too?n Given the decline in grant funding,what are the implications for parts ofthe VCS that are not interested in, orappropriate to, deliver publicservices?

n Does delivering public serviceshave to mean compromisingindependence for VCS organisations?

reducing labour costs throughstandardisation.

For many this approach modernisedpublic services, ironing outinefficiencies, breaking up ossified,monolithic structures, bringing in choiceand fresh ideas. For others, the resulthas been less accountability, lessresponsiveness to service users,deskilling of those working in the frontline, with a focus on targets, efficienciesand outputs rather than actualoutcomes.

Social housing, homelessness services,advice services, and social work are justsome of the areas that this approach hasbeen a focus of discussion and debate,all areas now heavily populated by VCSproviders.

The Coalition has picked up on many ofthese themes in the new public sectorreform it proposes, talking about endingthe target culture, giving back power tofrontline workers, bringing servicescloser to communities, and encouragingcreativity and pluralism in how we meetsocietys needs.

Whilst the Coalitions solution is ashrinking of the state, it could be said(and many are) that the postbureacratic state proposed by theCoalition in fact draws heavily on themodel of service delivery that led to thetarget culture and all the problemsassociated with it.

PUBLIC SECTOR COMMISSIONING



9/16

9

I

n February, Prime Minister, David

Cameron, pledged to bring about acomplete transformation of publicservices to end the era of old-

fashioned, top-down, take-what-youre-given public services. The Open PublicServices White Paper promises a right forprivate sector and voluntary sector bodies tobid to run almost all public services.

Public sector reform is seen as a vital part ofthe governments Big Society agenda - givingservice users more control over the budgetsfor the services they receive, and

communities rights and responsibilities forlocal services. Whilst Cameron acknowledgesthat the State still has a role to play inensuring fair funding, fair competition, andfair access for all he stresses that theseresponsibilities must never become anexcuse for returning to central control.

However, in the run up to the publication ofOpen Public Services, there has been muchvocal opposition from people who see thereforms as a green light for privatecompanies to make big(ger) profits from

public services. Critics have argued thatlarge companies would use competitivepricing and commissioning to get in first andpush out smaller providers, includingcharities and social enterprises. Financialjournalist Ben Laurence, in a Channel 4Dispatches programme, found that the bigoutsourcing companies already accountedfor 79 billion of state expenditure everyyear. The programme highlighted concernsthat executives were getting rich on

taxpayers money and that workers'

conditions, pay and pensions are worsenedby outsourcing public services and was

featured in the Daily Mail

Speculation of a split in Cabinet over how todeliver public service reform was fuelled by areport from the Unite union. It claimed thatthe Conservatives wanted the market to bethe driver, whilst the Liberal Democratsprioritized more local control by taxpayers. Inaddition to this reports emerged that theTreasury had reservations about the spendingconsequences of outsourcing services.

The White Paper, originally due to bepublished in Autumn 2010 was delayed.

Things took an unexpected turn. Notesmarked strictly confidential from theConfederation of Business Industry (CBI) ofmeetings between Cabinet Office Minister,Francis Maude, and the CBI's DirectorGeneral were leaked. The notes suggestedthe government was scaling back plans tooutsource to the private sector in favour ofcharities, social enterprises and employeeowned mutual organisations.

The leak claimed that "wholesaleoutsourcing" would be politically

"unpalatable" and private sector

involvement would be limited to joint

ventures with not-for-profit groups.

So it seemed at that time that maybe theCabinet Office no longer believed it was asimple choice between state provision oroutsourcing to the private sector both ofwhich some saw as symptomatic of a control

from the centre mentality. Opening uppublic services to SMEs (small and medium-sized enterprises), employee co-operatives,voluntary organisations and social enterpriseswas seen as the way to create moreinnovative and localised services, whilstincreasing efficiency and reducing costs.

Reaction to this news varied. Ian Mulheirn,Director of the Social Market Foundation,suggested voluntary organisations are notequipped to bear the financial risksinvolved, especially where payment-by-results models require substantial up-frontinvestment. He envisages a return tocentral control of public services if thenot-for-profits cant handle it.

Former Labour Minister, Hazel Blears warnedthat this policy could be a halfway house

to privatisation and said that she feared ifsocial enterprises are unable to deliver,private sector firms will be quick to step in.

So now the long awaited Open PublicServices White Paper has been published,what does it say? Whilst the devil may be inthe detail of plans to be drawn up by each

department from November, on the face ofit, the White Paper suggests no suchlimitations on the role of the private sector.There are messages within it encouragingVCS organisations, public sector mutuals andlocal small and medium sized businesses tobid for public service contracts. But there isnothing yet to suggest this will be backed upwith regulation, and the eligibility criteriato take over our public services seems firmlyset to be any qualified provider.

THE COMMISSIONING DEBATE


Who hasthe

winning

ticket in

the public

services

lottery?

Insteadofhaving tojustifywhyitmakessensetointroducecompetitioninindividual publicservices asweare nowdoingwithschoolsandintheNHSthe statewill have tojustifywhyitshould everoperate a monopoly.PrimeMinister,DavidCameron


10/16

10PUBLIC SECTOR COMISSIONING

No one really knows what

they are but everyone

loves them so how are

social enterprises

managing to put the

pizzazz into biz!

1What are socialenterprises?A social enterprise is abusiness that not onlytrades to make a profit

but puts social orenvironmental objectivesequal to financial ones.

2Give me someexamplesSome of the morecelebrated examplesinclude Jamie Oliver'sFifteen youth-trainingrestaurant empire, DivineFair Trade chocolate,

Cafdirect fair-tradecoffee company, the EdenProject and The Big Issue.

3What is the history ofsocial enterprise?Whilst the pioneers ofsocial enterprise can betraced back as far as the1840s (the RochdalePioneers setting up a

workers cooperative),there has been aresurgence of socialenterprise in the UK sincearound the late 1990sincluding co-operatives,community enterprises andenterprising voluntaryorganisations.

4

How many arethere and what do

they contribute?

There are over 62,000social enterprises in theUK contributing over24bn to the economy andemploying approximately800,000 people.

5What is the genderbalance of socialenterprises?

Social Enterprises have

more women in seniorpositions and are twice asconfident of future growthas typical SMEs. 41.1% ofall board members arewomen, compared to just11.7% of board members inFTSE 100 companies and4.9% in AIM-listedcompanies.

6What is the SocialEnterpriseCoalition and what isits role?

The Social EnterpriseCoalition is the UK'snational body for socialenterprise and wasestablished in 2002. TheCoalition represents awide range of socialenterprises, umbrellabodies and networks, witha combined membershipreaching more than 10,000social enterprises.

7What is the SocialEnterprise Markall about?

The Social Enterprise Markis a brand to help peoplerecognise socialenterprises and feel rest

assured that at least 50%of their profits are beingput into social orenvironmental causes.

8How are socialenterprises faringin the currenteconomic climate?

56% of social enterprises inthe UK have shown growth

through the downturn,compared to 28% of SMEs.

9In which economicsectors do socialenterprises work?

Social enterprises operatein almost every industry inthe UK, from health andsocial care to renewableenergy, from retail torecycling, from

employment to sport, fromhousing to education.According to a DTI surveyin 2005, health and socialcare services is the largestcategory of tradingactivity for socialenterprises as it was theprincipal trading incomesource for 33% ofrespondents, followed byeducation at 15%.

10What is thepublics opinionof social enterprise?

A 2007 YouGov poll foundthat 60% of the Britishpublic would prefer theirlocal services to be run bya social enterprise insteadof government, privatebusinesses or charity.

POPse burst into the world on Monday 9th May,2011 and promptly disappeared again on Friday13th May, 2011! Why? Well, in the spirit of itsname POPse (Pop up social enterprise) it was athink tank only ever destined to arrive, conquerand take off, leaving a legacy of energy and

robust analysis of social enterprise policy andpractice through think pieces, pamphlets and itsweb-blog.

The aim of POPse? To explode some of the mythsand policy bubbles in social enterprise thinking.

Below are 10 of our favourite ones!

1. There is nothing more tedious than a socialenterprise definition debate (apart from two of

them)

2. Choose legal structure after getting clarity onmission, activities, financing, governance (form

follows function)

3. Its estimated that that there are as manysocial enterprise support agencies as there are

actual social enterprises!

4. It is possible to go to a social enterprise

conference or seminar every working day of theyear

5. Financial management matters; you need to

know your way round a P&L and cashflow

6. Social entrepreneurs work has a rippleeffect: mobilising and inspiring others to get

involved

7. There is an over-supply of loan financealready, with not enough organisations fit, able

or willing to take it

8. There are many social impact measurementtools, with more in common than they care to

admit

9. slacktivisim: you cant really solve orchange much from your desktop

10. For niche in the market, read need in thecommunity (and vice versa)

10thingsyoushouldknowabout...

Social Enterprises


11/16

11ACCOUNTABILITY ARTICLE


Everyone agrees that accountabilityis a good thing. But it meansdifferent things to differentpeople, and how to make it work

in practice without imposing bureaucraticburdens is often unclear. The Centre forPublic Scrutiny (CfPS), a national charitywhich promotes and supports scrutiny andaccountability in government and public

services, has developed a new framework forhelping organisations think aboutaccountability and how it can help themtransform what they do and how they work.

In developing our new approach we at CfPSfirst sought to define more clearly whataccountability means and why it isimportant. Our 2010 research,Accountability Works, argued that there aredifferent kinds of accountability:

n Through the ballot box

n Through regulation and inspection

n Through the operation of markets andconsumer choice

n Through individual complaints and redressmechanisms

n Through transparency and the media

n Through scrutiny by non-executives.

These are all important in different ways andour argument is that they need to operate asa web of accountability, each playing their

part in ensuring that those who spend publicmoney are accountable for the outcomesthey deliver. We also believe thataccountability needs to be seen alongsidetransparency and involvement, as the threepillars supporting an effective democracy. Inother words, elections alone are not enough,and nor is greater transparency publishingmore data about spending or better

involvement of service-users and citizens: weneed all three to work effectively.

We are now piloting a new framework,calledAccountability Works for You, to helporganisations assess their ownaccountability, transparency andinvolvement arrangements. It involves a fivestep, flexible approach that can be used ona self-assessment basis or with externalchallenge and support.

We think that the framework offers manybenefits, from enhancing public trust byenabling organisations to improve theirgovernance and demonstrating that theyhave done so, to delivering better servicesthat are more responsive to clients andcustomers. The organisations with whom wehave been piloting the framework agreeabout its value, its practicality and mostimportantly that accountability is notabout structure and process, it is aboutculture and transformation:

Using this framework has helped us to thinkcompletely differently about accountability.Were now in a position to demonstrate howcentral it is to value for money andorganisational change

Accountability Works for You has helped toground in practical reality what could havebeen quite vague discussions about theimportance of transparency and openness in

our organisation

CfPS has launched the framework and is intalks with the Department of Health aboutusing it to embed effective accountability inthe new health service commissioningarrangements. We also think it has value forvoluntary and community sector (VCS)organisations, and our Trustees have decidedto use the framework to evaluate CfPSs owngovernance and accountability arrangements.CfPS trustee, Jim Clifford, says:

Using Accountability Works for You is agreat way for CfPS to learn about thisframework, live our own values of opennessand good governance, and ascertain thevalue that CfPS gets from its trustees andother stakeholder groups . . .

As VCS organisations shift from holdingpublic services to account to deliveringmore of those services themselves,questions of accountability go to the heartof what they do.

We would be happy to

hear from any

voluntary or

community group who

may be going through

transformational

change in services orstructure, or which just

wants to improve its

accountability, to see if

Accountability Works

for You can help them

through the change.

Visit our website for

more information, or

email Jessica direct

Accountabilityisa goodthing.Webelieve itshould point tothepeoplewho actuallyuseandpayforpublicservices.

DCLGEssentialGuidetoDecentralisationandtheLocalismBill

Accountability rules

by Jessica Crowe

Executive Director, CfPS


12/16

12

Government reforms to publicservices, initiatives to establishthe Big Society, localism and cutsto public spending . . . we allknow that these are becoming areality.

But what do these changes meanfor local councillors? What is theplace for local representativedemocracy and the role of local

councillors in this context?Councillors importance cannotbe overlooked, particularly intimes of significant changes inthe ways that councils deliverservices and work with localpeople.

Urban Forums recent report,Local Democracy Revisited: The

changing role of local councillorsinvestigates how new governmentinitiatives, particularlysurrounding the Localism Bill andBig Society, are changing howcouncillors do their job and therole they play in theircommunities. Given the scale ofcuts to public spending andchanges to public services,councillors can and should play amitigating role in helping theircommunities to weather

the storm.

Urban Forum ran a series ofworkshops for councillors in theEast Midlands throughout autumn2010 on empowering localcommunities, and the reportcompiles findings and interviewsfrom these events.

Throughout the workshops welooked at how councillors cancontribute to the agendassurrounding working withcommunities, changes to localdemocracy, community rights,and planning reforms. UrbanForum discussed the need to lookat scrutiny and commissioningand procurement so that changesbenefit all communities, andcommunities can hold serviceproviders to account.

Councillors are a vital part of athriving local community, andLocal Democracy Revisited

illustrates the ways in which theycan utilise their role to providedemocratic accountability andrepresentation to localisminitiatives and diversification ofpublic service delivery. Whilst wefound that some councillors areapprehensive about some changes

that are being introduced, theyare also open to new ways ofworking under localism, and sawpublic service reforms aspotentially offering newopportunities for both councillorsand local people.

We explored with councillors theimplications of the CommunityRight to Challenge, which will

give local people the opportunityto register an interest in biddingto take over running a localservice. Many of the councillorspresent recognised that theirability to act as a link betweencommunities and the innerworkings of local governmentcould be a key ingredient forsuccessful community bids forservices.

Community rights will have

particular salience for parishcouncillors, many of whomattended our workshops, asparish councils will be one of thetypes of organisations eligible toexpress an interest in taking overservices.

The Open Public Services WhitePaper has been published now,and in it the government

recognises the growingimportance of the role of localcouncillors in holding adiversified set of providers toaccount, ensuring minimumstandards are met and ensuringequality of access. It proposesstrengthening councillorsscrutiny powers, and wideningthese to cover overview of NHS

providers. It tasks localgovernment with improving localhealth outcomes, with fundinglinked to improvements and Itputs local authorities in charge ofensuring schools operate in linewith a Schools Admissions Code.

Overall, Urban Forums work inthe East Midlands showed there ismuch scope and willingnessamong councillors to rise to thechallenges posed by the localism

agenda and public servicereform. It illustrated a growingawareness of how critical thisrole will be in supporting anequitable take up of newopportunities by communities,and providing the democraticaccountability and strategicleadership necessary if publicservice reform is going to deliverbenefits for all communities.

Councillors ready to rise to the challenge

URBAN FORUM REPORTS


Find out more

about the

report here


13/16

13ACCOUNTABILITY ARTICLE


Democracy is themissing dimensionof public servicereform. Although

the Government has takenwelcome steps to increaseaccess to information, localdecision-making and new powersfor citizens, these measures willlargely benefit people whoalready have the confidence,

connections and resources touse them. If the Governmentreally wants citizens to takemore power and responsibility, itneeds to do more to promote anactive and inclusive democracy.Here the Government has takenone small step forward, throughthe community organisertraining programme, and two bigtwo steps back, by downgradingcitizenship education in schoolsand abolishing the Duty toPromote Democracy.

Practical politics the art ofcollective decision-making,which includes campaigning - isone of the most important skillsanyone can learn. Aristotlecalled it the master science,because politics sets prioritiesbetween everything else. Ifpeople dont know how to take

part effectively, they will be leftout, because their voices aresimply not heard when decisionsare made.

For the public, local decisionsmatter most: what is provided,where & how makes a massivedifference to peoples quality oflife. Badly designed housingestates with no amenities oremployment blight peoples

lives, while poor but integratedareas let people (?) flourish. Theshape of an area and howservices work together are allthe result of political decisions,usually over decades butsometimes short bursts ofactivity send an area down hillor lift it up.

How each service (care home,park, prison or school) is runalso matters. Where staff are

open, responsive andaccountable, outcomes areusually better. This is democracyof a different kind, that inBritain is embedded in thecooperative movement, socialenterprise and self-help groups.

But central government createsthe system conditions for localand service-level decision-

making. Its rules and fundingregimes govern wider social andeconomic conditions as well asthe scope for local action.National politics determine theextent to which local action isbased on cooperation,competition, corruption orcoercion, for example. Ifnational planning laws protectthe green belt, for example, will

be difficult for local people tobuild homes or set up businesseson it. If national policy promoteslocal autonomy and competitionbetween schools, it is muchharder for them to cooperate.

Having a voice, therefore,matters at every level of publicservice, not just as a serviceuser, but also in deciding therules and system conditionsunder which they run.

Public service reform over thepast 50 years would probablyhave been much better if thepublic had had more say in theprocess. We can all think oflocal and national exampleswhere politicians got it wrong:the great tower-block buildingspree of the 1950s and 60s,umpteen NHS reorganisations,

rail privatisation, nuclearenergy, the Public FinanceInitiative and many of thetarget-driven, top-downambitions of the lastgovernment. Today we can alsosee grand plans that are likely torun into the sand or fail todeliver because some minordecision has massive unintendedconsequences.

Decision-making about ourcollective affairs - the job ofweaving the future as Platocalled it is difficult. In ademocracy the future is ourjoint responsibility, as equalcitizens. Whatever happens wewill pay for it, through our taxesand the kind of society thosedecisions create.

The better-off can afford tofund lobbyists, campaigners,

parties, politicians or thinktanks to pursue their interests.They can also use their politicalskill and contacts to makeothers pay for their mistakes.

The majority should at veryleast be able to learn how tocampaign and take part inpolitics effectively. Bettercampaigning helps society make

What place democracy in public service reform?

by Titus Alexander

Convenor of Democracy

Matters and Head of

Policy & Research atNovas Scarman

[email protected]


14/16

14

better decisions, solve problemsand increase opportunities forpeople to lead better lives. It

strengthens democracy andenables people to get theirneeds met.

Democracy means little ifpeople do not have theconfidence, skills, knowledge orpower to use opportunities toinfluence things that matter tothem. Relatively few peopletake part in politics and almosthalf the adult population do notvote, even less in local

elections. Less than two percent of people belong topolitical parties.

Many people do not take partbecause they feel powerless.Most people are not apathetic;they care about many things.But it is often hard to have a sayabout what happens at work, letalone your neighbourhood,health centre or school. Thetown hall is remote and

Parliament on another planet.

We pay a high price for the lowlevel of political participationand ability. It is possible thatthe financial crisis, costly warsin Afghanistan and Iraq, as wellas local disasters such as anti-social behaviour and the harddrugs industry, could have beenavoided if more people had

been more politically effective.At very least, citizens wouldknow that there always are

many alternatives anddemocracy is about debate,decision-making and takingresponsibility for the society welive in.

We need to make the case forpractical political education todifferent funders democraticservices of the local authority,health trusts and other publicservices which need active,informed and engaged citizensto do their job well. The threemain parties all supportedpublic funding of practicalpolitical education andcampaign training at the launchof Campaigning is OK!, a guideto resources for campaigntraining and support, in theHouse of Commons in July. Butwe also need to make the caseto local businesses, communityfoundations, social enterprises,trades unions and, above all, tocitizens, so that they supportprovision through local andnational taxes as well as fees orsubscriptions. We need toremember that the cooperativeand trade union movementswere created and sustained bythe subscriptions of workingpeople, not state funding.

The coalition government seeksto change the relationshipbetween citizens and the state.

It wants citizens to lead fromthe bottom-up, organising totake power over their servicesand building a stronger societythat can stand up to both themarket as well as the state.Many disagree. Local collegeshave a responsibility to enablepeople to understand whatshappening and influence thepowers that shape their lives.We have a particular

responsibility to the poor,marginalised and disadvantagedwho do not have the access topower and influence, to helpthem use their own voices andnot to speak for them.

Ten years from now, every townand district should have a livelydemocracy hub, accessibleonline as well as through everylocal college, agency andcommunity group, to help

people learn how to have aneffective voice, so that takingpart in politics at any level from neighbourhood groups tothe global movement againstclimate change is as easy andas common as shopping.

The master science ofpractical politics should have acentral place in any community.

ACCOUNTABILITY ARTICLE


Voluntary

action under threat:what privatisation means for charities

and community groups

The National Coalition for Independent Action (NCIA) is anetwork of individuals and organisations who believe thereis a need to defend independent voluntary and communityactivity.

With the publication of the Open Public Services WhitePaper, NCIA has published four documents providing ananalysis of the governments policy, presenting the dangersit sees this posing to voluntary action. It argues thatprivatisation is not delivering new or needed services butabout making profit out of existing services, whilst otherservices are cut entirely. It makes the case thatcommissioning and privatisation leads to fragmentation ofservices, and reduced accountability to residents andservice users.

NCIA is critical of some voluntary sector organisations who,by entering into competition to deliver services, whichNICA believes has contributed to the furthering of thisagenda, failing to recognise that, although they themselvesare not the private sector, they are still helping to turncommunity provision into a market place. It suggests thatin taking on contracts, many of these organisations havesurrendered their autonomy, sacrificed the authenticity oftheir relationships with their staff and their users andblunted their campaigning role. See links below

Full policy paperTen page summary paperFour page leaflet: privatisationFour page leaflet: big society


15/16

15

Public service reform, the localism agendaand cuts in public spending bring bigchallenges for public bodies andcommunities.

With the introduction of the CommunityRights to buy, build and challenge and newopportunities for communities to engage inneighbourhood planning there is the

potential in every neighbourhood forstronger partnership working betweencommunities and local authorities and otherpublic bodies. However, there is also thepotential for increased conflict, especiallywithin a context of dwindling resources.

n How can public agencies build andmaintain positive communication andrelationships with local communities at atime of major changes in public services?

n How can local residents themselvescontribute to making communication and

engagement work better for the benefit oftheir own communities?

Urban Forums National EmpowermentPartnership funded project Bridging theMismatch ran programmes with several EastMidlands authorities aimed at buildingbetter relationships between active citizensand public bodies around service delivery.The programme had three key elements:

1. Identifying local residents as

communication champions to facilitatebetter communication in their owncommunities and create a sounding boardto work with the authority in a practical,solution-focused way

2. A short programme of workshops to hearboth sides of the story and identifycommon ground that can be built upon and

any mismatch that needs to beaddressed.

3. The development of a jointly agreedaction plan setting out how both sides cantake responsibility for improving how theywork together in future.

Evidence gathered demonstrates thatsignificant benefits can come throughproviding citizens, officers and electedmembers with a space for honest reflectionand creative thinking around the processes ofcommunication and engagement. Thedevelopment of communication championsand sounding boards met with significantsuccess in Boston, Ashfield and Lincolnshirewith all three authorities showing awillingness to continue with them beyond thelifetime of the project. We feel that there isa great deal of untapped potential ininvolving local people as the agents ofcommunication rather than just the audiencethat public bodies are trying to reach.

URBAN FORUM REPORTS


Bridging the

Mismatch

Tofindoutmoreabout the

reportclickhere

The Urban Forum Guide To Community Resilience is aninvaluable resource for any community.

With the era of austerity upon us and the public spending cutsbringing greater challenges, this handy guide, which has expertcontributions from many organisations, is a timely, practical wayto strengthen your community and make the best use of its assets.

We're offering this invaluable Guide, which offers a score or moreof practical ways to strengthen your community, at a specialintroductory price of 7.95. There are extra discounts for bulkpurchases and for Urban Forum members.

There are sections on Local Food Schemes, Timebanking, AssetMapping, Local Exchange Trading Scheme (LETS, Co-operatives,Community Resilience Task Force, Community Led Planning,

Renewable Energy, Community Asset Transfer, Community LandBanks, Community Land Trusts, Meanwhile Projects - Use ofAssets, Local Currencies, Local Enterprise, CommunityDevelopment Finance, Credit Unions, Crowdfunding SocialVentures, Social Impact Bonds, Charitable Bonds - Blended ValueInvestment, Local Multiplier3 (LM3)and Community Shares.

We hope you'll agree that the Urban Forum Guide to CommunityResilience is essential as a tool for beginning to strengthen yourcommunity.

Find out more and order your copies here.


16/16

Urban Forum

33 Corsham StreetLondon N1 6DRTel 020 7253 4816Fax 020 7253 4817Email [email protected] us on Twitter @urbanforumFollow us on Facebook

All Urban Forum publications are designed by Tony Hillman.

Views expressed in Urban Clearway are personal and mayor may not be the view of the organisation.

Urban Forum is the operating name of Diverse Cities. Company limited by

guarantee. reg. No. 3418682 England registered as above. Charity Reg. No.

1096131

www.urbanforum.org.uk

Find out more at

clearway 74 hi-res

Documents