Proposed Changes to Voluntary and Community …politics.leics.gov.uk/documents/s98325/6 Appendix...

Proposed Changes to

Voluntary and Community

Sector Support Outcomes from the consultation

Joelle Bradly

December 2014

Research and Insight Team

Leicestershire County Council

107

Proposed Changes to Voluntary and Community Sector Support

December 2014 2

Joelle Bradly

Research Manager

Research & Insight Team

Strategy, Partnerships & Communities Branch

Chief Executive’s Department


County Hall, Glenfield

Leicester LE3 8RA

Tel 0116 305 5883

Email [email protected]

Produced by the Research and Insight Team at Leicestershire County Council.

Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information

contained within this report, Leicestershire County Council cannot be held

responsible for any errors or omission relating to the data contained within the

report.

108


December 2014 3

1. Introduction and methodology

2. Engagement

3. Questionnaire

o Prioritising services on the most vulnerable children and families

o Prioritising targeted services over universal services

o Taking a centralised more streamlined countywide approach to

commissioning

o Aspiration for wider transformational change

o Mitigating impacts of proposed changes on children and families

o Other options for making savings

o Any other comments

4. Conclusions

Appendices

1. Questionnaire

2. List of Codes

3. List of Respondents

109


December 2014 4

Chapter 1: Introduction & Methodology

Introduction

During 2013 Leicestershire County Council announced that it was facing its biggest

ever financial challenge. The council needs to save £120 million by 2018/19 and

transform services in order to achieve this.

Children and Family Services need to save over £13 million from its £59 million

budget over the next four years. Last year, the council consulted widely about how it

should respond to this challenge. Based on the feedback to this consultation, the

council aims to prioritise, as far as possible, services for vulnerable people

Children and Family Services currently spend £3.25million on buying support from

the Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS). The proposal is to save at least £800,000

by working differently.

The proposal is to:

• Work with partners to jointly produce plans that minimise the risk of creating the

wrong type of services.

• Signpost and redirect families to other support where appropriate, and work with

communities to enable them to secure funds from alternative sources.

• Engage with schools as commissioners of services for children and families – they

will play a major role in the new ways of working.

• Shift to one, centralised and more efficient commissioning and procurement

approach that will reduce costs for both commissioners and providers. Specifications

for contracts will be developed that focus on measuring improved lives for children

young people and their families.

• Work creatively with partners to eliminate duplication and inefficiency in our

commissioning and look to align commissioning activity where possible.

Overview of the process

The council has consulted with stakeholders on the new proposed approach to

change as outlined above. This feedback has been used to develop an assessment

tool which will enable the Children and Family Services to make decisions about the

support bought from the voluntary and community sector.

A key element of the consultation were the engagement events held with partners

and stakeholders. Between August and November, 7 engagement events were held,

delivering a presentation outlining the proposals and then attendees were asked for

their views about what they saw as the risks to the organisations and the risks to

children, young people and their families. In addition they were asked about the

110


December 2014 5

opportunities to work differently together in the future. The feedback has been

recorded and summarised it as part of this report

In addition to the engagement events organised by the County Council, Council

officers were invited to events run by Voluntary Action Leicester. The presentation

was taken to the District Forums in Oadby and Wigston and Melton and the

feedback has been included in the consultation responses.

A survey on the proposed changes was also made available on the council website

from 22nd

September 2014. This was accompanied by the presentation which set out

the proposals in more detail, a list of frequently asked questions and feedback from

the engagement events.

The survey asked for views on whether respondents agreed with the proposed

approach. It also asked respondents what could be done to mitigate any negative

impacts of changes and whether there were other ideas for making the savings

required. (See Appendix 1 for the full questionnaire).

The consultation closed on the 30th November 2014 (a ten week fieldwork window).

This report presents the findings of that survey.

Response Rate

Between August and November, 60 partners and staff attended the engagement

events. During the ten week consultation window, 102 respondents completed the

survey.

Respondent Profile

Chart 1 shows the roles in which respondents were completing the survey

(respondents could select as many options as were applicable, therefore the

percentages add to more than 100).

111


December 2014 6

The largest group of stakeholders represented in the survey were those employed by

a VCS organisation (38%) although members of the public also represented 31% of

respondents.

A full list of the organisations who completed the survey can be found in Appendix 3.

112


December 2014 7

Chapter 2: Engagement

The following activities took place to engage with partners and providers.

ID Date Type Target

Audience Summary

1 29th Aug

2014 Meeting

Partners, District and

Borough Councils,

CCG's, LCC departments

Presentation and feedback

2 2nd Sept

2014 Meeting VCS providers


3 4th Sept

2014 Meeting

independent/ private sector

providers


4 9th Sept

2014 Meeting

Partners, District and

Borough Councils, VCS providers and

LCC departments


5 25th Sept

2014

Housing Partnership

Board Hinckley BC offices

Housing Providers

Presentation and minutes

6 8th Oct 2014

Letter All VCS

providers

7 9th Oct 2014

Housing Related Support provider

Forum

Housing and support

providers

Advised of consultation and encouraged to respond

8 9th Oct 2014

Meeting District / Borough Councils

Presentation paper

9 17th Oct

2014 Letter

All VCS providers

10 28th Oct

2014

Consultation event Blaby

District Council open to all


11 29th Oct

2014

Consultation VAL District Forum

Brocks Hill Oadby open to all


113


December 2014 8

12 29th Oct

2014

Consultation event Ibstock

Palace open to all


13 4th Nov

2014

Consultation event Waltham on the Wolds

open to all Presentation and feedback

14 5th Nov

2014

Consultation. VAL District

Forum Melton Borough Council

Offices

open to all Presentation and feedback

15 14th Nov

2014

Leicestershire Family Voice

Forum

Parent and carers of disabled

children/YP

Consultation information and reminder provided

16 18th Nov

2014

Reminder letter plus easy read

presentation and questions for service users plus FAQ's

All VCS providers and stakeholders

Letter

17 19th Nov

2014

Information requested

Strategic Plan and community

strategy

All VCS providers and stakeholders

Letter

18 25th Nov

2014

Voluntary Action Leicester

CYP & Family Forum

VCS providers Reminder to complete consultation

Notes were taken at each engagement event, which were then read and coded to

identify all the different types of comments made. These were then grouped into

themes. The themes broadly responded to three main questions. Comments can also

be attributed to different types of partners or providers.

Detailed Analysis

This section looks at each of the questions and the themes in detail. Themes could

be linked back to three main questions. These are outlined below.

Question 1. What are the risks of reducing voluntary and community sector

provision or the expected impact?

Theme: Will not address local needs or the needs of specific groups

114


December 2014 9

Key stakeholders, contracted VCS services and other private or public sector

providers were concerned that the impact on children and families of reducing VCS

provision would be that local needs would not be addressed. Comments from VCS

contracted services suggested that there would not be the flexibility to meet

demands and some vulnerable families’ needs would go unmet. Comments from

private and other public sector providers also highlighted specific vulnerable groups

such as teenagers and children with Special Education Needs (SEN).

Theme: Unintended consequences

Comments from VCS contracted services suggested that they felt there was a risk

that the long term view would not being considered or softer social impacts. There

were also comments that there is a risk that there would be unintended

consequences of cutting services for family members, for example parent carers.

Theme: Families lose support they trust

Comments from VCS contracted services included concerns about losing the

relationship and trust they have with families, and that families may be reluctant to

engage with other services.

Theme: Missed opportunity for early intervention and prevention

Comments from key stakeholders and VCS contracted services included concerns

about families’ issues escalating without early intervention or support.

Theme: Inequality across localities

Comments from key stakeholders and VCS contracted services highlighted concerns

about the risk of inequality of access to some services across the districts (for

example, domestic abuse services and training)

Theme: Losing skills and local knowledge in the sector

Comments from VCS contracted services raised concerns about losing skills and

expertise in the sector and the risk of big organisations coming in without local

knowledge or understanding of what works. They felt that cuts would impact on the

quality of services, particularly if the value of volunteers was not accounted for.

Theme: Increase expectations and pressure on VCS sector

Comments from key stakeholders included concerns that VCS may not adapt to the

new environment and some organisations would no longer be viable, compromising

the development of capacity building work. VCS contracted services were also

concerned about losing smaller organisations and the cost of change.

115


December 2014 10

Theme: Wider impact on services

Comments from key stakeholders and VCS contacted services expressed concerns

about the wider risks of cost shunting, making things worse resulting in higher costs,

firefighting and increased demand on other services.

Question 2. How can negative impacts be minimised?

Theme: Holistic, person centered, family model

Comments from all groups suggested a person and family centered approach to

commissioning structures and processes in order to minimize negative impacts.

Comments from key stakeholders recommended building on the Supporting

Leicestershire Families approach, addressing needs at an earlier stage and on a wider

scale. Private and other public sector providers stated that there needed to be a far

more holistic approach to adult facing services and the service interventions should

be designed around needs of the children and families, not services. However,

comments from VCS contracted services also warned that, while they needed to

respond flexibly to needs, it could be dangerous to lose service models that were not

person centered and community based models also needed to be considered.

Theme: Understanding needs, early triggers and demand

All groups highlighted the importance of an evidence-based approach to

commissioning and mitigating risks. Key stakeholders suggested using what we know

to understand future demand, particularly regarding life events that require

proactive collaboration of service provision. VCS contracted services also suggested

mapping back from crisis’s to identify early triggers and clarity on what the

community needs. Early recognition of parental mental health was also considered

key. Testing budget reductions against demand was also suggested as well as

understanding the wider impact of other service changes (e.g. Leicestershire Welfare

Provision, Adults & Communities review)

Theme: Understanding what works

All stakeholders highlighted the importance of understanding what progress means

for children and families and what works, to ensure current successful services were

not lost and investment can be put into services that make a difference.

Theme: Effective performance management and information sharing

Comments from key stakeholders included building an evidence base and sharing

information on families. VCS contracted services suggested that there should be

consistent tools to measure impact and outcomes, with one contract monitoring

116


December 2014 11

system across the county. They also raised question about what happened to the

evidence they collect and whether it makes a difference.

Theme: Asset mapping and capacity building

Understanding capacity was considered important, particularly from VCS contracted

services who suggest mapping services and assets and identifying what they are and

can be used for, so that services can be designed to reflect the gaps. They also

suggest building capacity in the community, empowering the voluntary sector to do

more and developing creative options to invest in voluntary work.

Theme: Community involvement

Comments from VCS contracted services suggest that they are keen to ensure that

service user’s voices were heard, particularly children and young people, and that

communities were able to influence the commissioning process, that outcomes were

agreed with them and they were given choices and alternatives.

Theme: Communication of change to families

VCS contracted services were also keen that change was communicated effectively

to communities to manage anxieties and that families were given time to adapt to

change.

Theme: Income generation

Ideas for income generation were also suggested. Key stakeholders mentioned

alternative funding streams for voluntary sector and VCS contracted services

highlighted opportunities such as charging, match funding by private sectors and

being more business focused.

Theme: Streamlining

Ideas were suggested for streamlining and reducing bureaucracy such as reducing

duplication, shared posts, reducing paperwork, ensuring processes are

proportionate, effective and efficient.

Theme: Support for VCS

Support for VCS staff was suggested including training and workforce development,

and peer learning and knowledge sharing. The value of mentors and volunteers was

felt important to recognise.

Question 3. How can we work together to shape and commission services?

Theme: A new approach and do things differently

117


December 2014 12

There was an appetite across sectors to do things differently and take a more

strategic approach to commissioning. Key stakeholders suggested exploring capacity

to deliver services in a different way and that a needs-led analysis should inform the

strategic direction. VCS contracted services highlighted the need for a different

model to address the level and scale of need. It was felt that currently spend did not

match outcomes and there was a need to spend more wisely.

Theme: Integrated commissioning across systems

All groups were positive about a more integrated approach to commissioning across

the system where decisions were joined up, with an agreed focus and set of

outcomes, implementing pooled budgets and integrated community teams. VCS

contracted services suggested looking as systems as a whole with interdependencies,

risks and savings to partners understood and managed.

Theme: Coordinate county wide and local needs

VCS contracted services were also keen to address the balance between a locality

model and co-ordination across the county (e.g. around thresholds, minimum

standards). They suggested centralised commissioning with a centralised overview

but a focus on local needs.

Theme: Opportunities for collaboration

All groups mentioned the importance of working together. VCS contracted services

were keen that they were encouraged and enabled to form their own partnerships

including subcontracting, collaborative bids and consortiums. Other partnerships

suggested including building on hubs, joining up counseling services and

emotional/mental health support. Some services suggested sharing resources such

as training or technical solutions. Communication between VCS and statutory

services was also considered key, as well understanding links with Leicester City.

Theme: Strengthen partnerships with health and schools

It was felt that partnerships should particularly work across health and schools. Key

stakeholders suggested that schools and GPs were untapped resources and work

was needed to wrap around or increase capacity to schools. VCS contracted services

also highlighted the roles of health visitors and schools in championing Early Help

and strategic commissioning, and the importance of leaders who could work across

agencies. Key stakeholders were keen that Childrens Centre networks and schools

were part of governance structures.

Theme: Transparency

118


December 2014 13

Transparency and clarity was felt to be important in working together and

establishing priorities so that staff and partners were able to engage and challenge.

Theme: Balance timescales and long term vision

Concerns raised by VCS contracted services were around the importance of having a

long term vision, rather than lots of ongoing changes or ‘quick fixes’. Key

stakeholders were also concerned about timescales and political influence.

Summary

In summary, the main themes by question were:

Q1. What are the risks of reducing voluntary and community sector

provision or the expected impact?

• Not address local needs and needs of specific groups

• Unintended consequences

• Families lose support they trust

• Missed opportunity for early intervention and prevention

• Inequality across localities

• Losing skills and local knowledge in the sector

• Increase expectations and pressure on the sector

• Wider impact on services

Q2. How can negative impacts be minimised?

• Holistic approach, person centered, family model

• Understanding needs, early triggers and demand

• Understanding what works

• Effective performance management and information sharing

• Asset mapping and capacity building

• Community involvement

• Communication of change to families

• Income generation

• Streamlining

• Support for VCS

Q3. How can we work together to shape and commission services?

• A new approach and do things differently

• Integrated commissioning across systems

• Coordinate county wide and local needs

119


December 2014 14

• Opportunities for collaboration

• Strengthen partnerships with health and schools

• Transparency

• Balance timescales and long term vision

120


December 2014 15

Chapter 3: Questionnaire The following sections provide an analysis of the questionnaire responses.

Prioritising services on the most vulnerable children and families Headline analysis (Q1a)

Respondents were asked ‘To what extent do you agree or disagree that we should

prioritise our services on the most vulnerable children and families’?

The vast majority of respondents agreed that the council should prioritise services on

the most vulnerable with 77% agreeing and 12% disagreeing with this proposal.

Open comments (Q1b)

Respondents were then asked why they said this. In total, 72 comments were

received for this question. A coding frame containing 13 different codes was

developed by the Research and Insight Team with a view to quantifying and

analysing the responses received for this question. Where a respondent raised more

than one point of view each point of view was assigned to one of the 13 codes

created. In all, a total of 86 points of view were assigned to the 13 codes and the full

list of codes can be found in Appendix 2.

Analysis of top codes

Table 1 below shows the top 9 codes which accounted for 95 percent of all points

made.

Table 1. Top 9 codes – Why do you say this? (To what extent do you agree or

disagree that we should prioritise our services on the most vulnerable children and

families)

121


December 2014 16

The top 4 codes, which account for 78 percent of all points made, are explored in

more detail below.

1. ‘Vulnerable are those most in need and prioritising them will lead to better

outcomes ‘ (28)

A number of respondents agreed that the focus should be on the most vulnerable

children and families. Many felt that these families needed help most and had the

least support, therefore opportunities to improve outcomes by focusing on those

most in need were greater.

‘They are the people who most need the help and lack the skills, knowledge

and confidence to make informed decisions about their own and their family's

lifestyle.’

‘I strongly agree that you should prioritise services for the most vulnerable

children and families. It is vital that they get access to support and services in

order to cope and get the best care etc for them.’

‘I feel that this group will have better outcomes if focused on’

122


December 2014 17

2. ‘Agree but also need to ensure families at risk are prevented from becoming

vulnerable’ (22)

Many respondents agreed with the proposal to prioritise those most at risk, however

they were concerned that focussing services on the most vulnerable may result in

other children or families slipping through the net or that opportunities for early

intervention would be lost. Many suggested that only reacting to crisis was more

expensive that prevention work and would lead to increased demand.

‘It is obvious that we need to safeguard our most vulnerable children and

families but if there is no or substantially less preventative work, then more

children and families will become more vulnerable hence ultimately costing

the council more as there are potentially more children on Child Protection

Plans.’

‘Vulnerable families require support, however I believe that if priority is only

focused in this area other families who require support and are unable to

receive it will then become vulnerable/or missed.’

‘I agree fully that we should prioritise our services on children and families,

however, by only prioritising the most vulnerable children and families,

families with less complex needs will no longer receive support and it is very

difficult to gauge how many of these families will then become more

vulnerable. Often early intervention can avoid later difficulties for children

and families’

3. Disagree as this means responding to crisis rather than intervening earlier

(9)

Respondents were concerned that focussing services on the most vulnerable may

result in other children or families slipping through the net or that opportunities for

early intervention would be lost. Many suggested that only reacting to crisis was

more expensive than prevention work and would lead to increased demand.

‘Working only with the most vulnerable is crisis management. Moreover it

implicitly accepts negative consequences for children as they will only be

perceived as the most vulnerable after they have already suffered harm’

‘It's important to ensure that children and families have access to services

which would prevent/reduce the chance of them becoming the most

123


December 2014 18

vulnerable, when they reach that threshold issues and concerns have already

become embedded. I appreciate that the limited resources need to be

targetted, but there are children and families who may not reach crisis point if

they are supported at an earlier point.’

‘We need to provide universal and targeted services, otherwise you end up

fire fighting and using all resources on a small number of families.’

‘Support and service ought to be available to all children, reaching those

families before they become vulnerable or need additional support and

services.’

4. ‘Relies on definition of vulnerable/definition would be helpful’ (8)

A number of respondents highlighted the importance of having a definition of

vulnerability and raised concerns about how vulnerability would be defined.

‘The problem may be in defining who are the most vulnerable, and narrowing

further the criteria for statutory support.’

‘It would be helpful to have a more definite definition of what is meant by the

most vulnerable children and families. We would ask the question, vulnerable to

what? Diminished life chances, poor outcomes, family breakdown etc.’

‘I accept that you should concentrate on the most vulnerable children but the

question is who are the most vulnerable children.’

Summary

On the whole there was strong support for prioritising services on the most

vulnerable children and families. Many respondents felt that this would ensure that

those with the greatest need would receive support and this would lead to better

outcomes. A number of respondents also noted that as well as these services it was

important that early intervention support was available to avoid escalation of issues.

124


December 2014 19

Prioritising targeted services over universal services

Headline analysis (Q2)


prioritise targeted services over universal services?’

The majority of respondents agreed that the council should prioritise targeted

services over universal services with 64% agreeing and 18% disagreeing with this

proposal.

Open comments (Q2b)










made.


disagree that we should prioritise targeted services over universal services?’)

125


December 2014 20


more detail below.

1. ‘Services should be targeted to those most in need’ (22)

Many respondents agreed with the prioritisation of targeted services over universal

services because their needs were greater.

‘Agree totally. Services should be targeted at those in need or who may be at

risk. Emergency provisions also need to be in place.’

‘Finance is limited and so needs to be focused rather than scattered’

‘You shouldn't cut either but obviously targeted is by definition more

important.’

2. ‘Agree targeted services are important but universal services are still

needed to identify, support and signpost/fill gaps’ (16)

Respondents often felt that while targeted services were important, universal

services still had a key role in identifying those in need of support and signposting

them to targeted services. This was felt to be more important in the present climate

of cuts to ensure families did not slip though the net.

126


December 2014 21

‘Targeted support is necessary however I believe that some universal services

should remain as all families no matter what their status or circumstances are

entitled to some services. Having some universal services that targeted

families attend can and have proven to have positive outcomes for all.’

‘I agree that targeted interventions are essential but for those that will not

receive targeted support they must rely on support elsewhere, such as

universal services. Therefore, consideration needs to be given to appropriate

funding and infrastructure to support and maintain universal and community-

based support to fill the gaps left by more targeted support for those most at

need.’

‘Targeted services obviously need to occur, but withdrawal of universal

services will delay detection and intervention and thus increase the demand

for targeted services in the long run.’

3. ‘Other vulnerable people will miss out on support as criteria gets tighter,

leading to increased demand’ (7)

Some respondents expressed concerns about the tightening criteria for those who

can receive targeted support and often noted that this would lead to increased

demand.

‘By targeting services to only specific groups or needs you will be missing out

helping lots of others who often have more than one need’

‘The danger is that the target criteria becomes so tight that the differences

made are relatively small within the total population of those who could

benefit from support’

Summary

Most respondents agreed with prioritising targeted services over universal services

as this would ensure there was support for the most vulnerable. However, many

respondents also felt that universal services had a role in identifying families and

reducing demand.

127


December 2014 22

Taking a centralised more streamlined countywide approach to commissioning Headline analysis (Q3)


take a centralised more streamlined countywide approach to commissioning (rather

than on a locality basis)’

The majority of respondents disagreed that the council should take a centralised

more streamlined countywide approach to commissioning (rather than on a locality

basis) with 35% agreeing and 54% disagreeing with this proposal.

Open comments (Q3b)










made.

128


December 2014 23


disagree that we should take a centralised more streamlined countywide approach

to commissioning (rather than on a locality basis)’)


more detail below.

1. ‘Disagree as different areas have different needs’ (18)

A common concern regarding centralised commissioning was that it would not be

able to respond to the fact that different areas had different needs.

‘Each area has different needs and we need to be respond to these needs

more specifically’

‘Leicestershire is a very large county and localities have their own different

needs which is why those required services have developed where they are

needed’

‘Because there are often huge local factors that are not county wide but can

get overlooked in the one size fits all’

2. ‘Disagree as locality based services are best placed to deal with local needs

(18)

129


December 2014 24

There was a concern that centralised commissioning would mean a loss of local

services and many noted that local services were able to respond better to local

needs

‘The needs of vulnerable people are undoubtedly best met by support which is

locally based. Countrywide services tend to be increasingly anonymous and

cannot respond effectively to issues arising from local problems.’

‘Keeping the services localised creates stronger relationships between the

locality agencies ensuring more effective service provision to help more

vulnerable families.’

‘I can see that there are benefits to a countywide service but there is a

significant benefit to locality based services.’

3. ‘Centralised approach is more efficient and strategic’ (15)

Many respondents commented that a centralised approach to commissioning was

more efficient, would lead to less duplication and was a more strategic approach.

‘It’s more cost effective. It rationalises and regulates services. There is equity

for the commissioned service and they are removed from the local 'politics

and personalities'

‘I agree that where there is duplication this should be reduced, by having a

country wide approach there may be a consistency to service specification

which ensures that children have the same life opportunities nationwide

rather than a post code lottery’

‘It should be a fairer system for everyone in the county and that can only

happen if it is one system’

4. ‘People working in localities should be involved in commissioning decisions’

(12)

Many respondents felt that those working in the local area had a better

understanding of the needs and were better placed to respond to them.

‘Workers within the localities know best which problems need addressing and

which services therefore need commissioning.’

130


December 2014 25

‘Locallised funding is done by people who know the area they are dealing

with, and what needs and strengths there are. Centralised relies too much on

statistics and general over view of an area’

‘Locality based commissioning improves communication and joined up

working. It is more responsive to needs and can target support more

effectively.’

Summary

The majority of respondents stated that they disagreed with centralised

commissioning. Of those who disagreed the most common concern was that

different areas had different needs. There was also a concern that local services

would be lost but that they were felt to be best placed to respond to local needs.

Many also commented that those working in areas had a better understanding of

needs and should be involved in commissioning decisions. It was felt that a

centralised function would be too removed from localities to understand local needs

and what was important.

However, there was also often an acknowledgment that a centralised approach to

commissioning was fairer and more efficient, leading to reduced duplication and a

more strategic approach. Respondents often felt consistency in terms of the

commissioning process across the county would be more cost effective, while

ensuring that services can demonstrate they are delivering positive outcomes.

131


December 2014 26

Aspiration for wider transformational change Headline analysis (Q4a)

Respondents were asked ‘To what extent do you agree or disagree with our

aspiration for wider transformational change?’

The majority of respondents agreed with the aspiration for wider transformation

with 50% agreeing and 19% disagreeing with this proposal.

Open comments (Q4b)










made.

132


December 2014 27


disagree with our aspiration for wider transformational change?’)


more detail below.

1. ‘Change is needed for service improvement and better greater partnership

working‘ (13)

Respondents often agreed that change was needed in order to improve services and

partnership working.

‘Think change and doing things differently is essential for the future of health

and social care’

‘Working better and more closely with key partners in Health, Police, and

Education is essential for whole family approaches, and whole community

approaches’

‘I agree that services need to be more integrated, person centered and

holistic’

2. ‘What does transformation mean?’ (8)

133


December 2014 28

There was a concern among a number of respondents that there was a lack of clarity

around what was meant by transformation.

‘Who could possibly understand what you mean by wider transformational

change since transformation simply means change according to the Collins

English Dictionary.’

‘The council has an obvious need to change its approach in light of its budget

position. An 'aspiration for transformational change' is however a vague and

largely directionless phrase without expanding on the detail.’

‘What is wider transformational change?! This should be explained here with

the question.’

3. ‘Agree that wider change in needed in order to meet savings target’ (8)

Respondents also felt that wider transformation was needed through reducing waste

and increase efficiencies, in order to meet the savings target.

‘Transformational change will be necessary in order to secure the savings needed

over the next 4 years.’

‘I think that money does need to be saved, and so sacrifices will need to be made in

order to do so.’

‘Anything that can improve efficiency for children’s services should be considered’

4. ‘Invest instead in the structure we already have’ (6)

Of those who did disagree the most common comment was that the current

structure should be invested in instead with an understanding of what currently

works

‘Why change something that is already working? Why not invest in the

structure we already have.’

‘Why spend more money on change when the current provision works well -

with few exceptions. As always limited funds should be spent making existing

provision more effective rather than re-inventing the wheel. Experience

shows this does not lead to improvement.’

134


December 2014 29

5. Agree with wider transformation but don’t lose sight of local needs (6)

While most respondents agreed with wider transformation there was also a concern

that local needs would be lost and that people would be left without support.

‘I can understand that changes need to be made in order to save on costs etc. I

just hope that everything is taken into consideration and areas that are in most

need/demand are not going to lose out as this could jeporadise future resources.’

‘Need to ensure, where possible, that families are not 'lost' and local needs and

difficulties are not overlooked.’

‘The aspiration is nice but with the cuts you plan, people are going to be left

without help’

Summary

Most respondents felt that there was a need for wider transformation, either due to

the need to improve services and partnerships working, or in order to meet the

required savings. There was however some concern about what transformation

would mean and that it was important local needs were not lost. Some also felt that

it would be better to invest in the current structure which was working well.

135


December 2014 30

Mitigating impacts of proposed changes on children and families Open comments (Q4c)

Respondents were asked ‘How could we mitigate any impact of our proposed changes on

children and families and ensure the best possible outcomes?’ In total, 83 comments were









made.

Table 4. Top 13 codes – Why do you say this? (How could we mitigate any impact

of our proposed changes on children and families and ensure the best possible

outcomes’)

136


December 2014 31


more detail below.

1. ‘Don't cut services, instead provide what is needed or lobby cuts’ (12)

A number of respondents felt that services should not be cut and that providing

what is needed was the only way to mitigate negative impacts.

‘Lobby against government cuts. Cut bureaucracy, don't cut frontline staff but

give them extra hours for coordination, partnership working, streamline

highly paid managers.’

‘Prioritise alternative expenditure reductions’

‘Ensure that in the interest of savings, and at the interest of hitting the targets

involved with savings, you aren't cutting off vital funds that children and

families require to get by’

2. ‘Be transparent and clear, open and honest and use language people

understand’ (10)

Many respondents felt that negative impacts could be mitigated by being clear and

transparent.

‘Make it clear what is happening in a language that the man on the street can

understand. Too often agencies hide behind a cloak of vagueness and, like this

survey, don’t use the clearest, everyday language’

‘Have a consistent approach to any changes and keep people informed on

how the changes may impact them. Be transparent...no one likes surprises

when it could affect the level of support that is on offer.’

‘By planning well ahead and in stages; by using all forms of media in briefing;

ensure the local agencies or localities are doubly aware’

3. Keep services local so they can respond to local needs (9)

Some respondents commented that it was important to keep local services as they

were able to respond better to local needs. There was a concern that families would

no longer have access to local support.

137


December 2014 32

‘By not centralising services and keeping it more locality based. Changes are

not helpful for vulnerable families’.

‘Vulnerable and sensitive families do not like change and we are likely to lose

their trust. They prefer to work within the environment in which they live.’

‘By remaining as a local response to local need which is in the best interest of

the children’.

4. ‘Invest more in the VCS’ (8)

Some respondents felt that negative impacts could be mitigated by investing in the

VCS more.

‘The best way of mitigating their impact is to continue to invest in voluntary

sector services which provide added value due to their income from other

revenue streams and use of volunteers.’

‘Get rid of services that you provide in house and commission services from

the voluntary sector or external organisations, where you have more control

over the contract.’

‘Working more with voluntary sector agencies and ensuring that key services

for vulnerable children and families are bolstered and protected.’

5. ‘Assess the risks and explore what the impacts might be’ (7)

Some respondents suggested exploring what the impacts of the cuts would be,

particularly the impact on other services and risks to families.

‘The impact of greater demand on universal services, and the difficulties that

will be faced by those professionals who no longer have their usual referral

route will need to be considered in advance.’

‘Ensure any new commissioning includes thorough risk assessments’

‘I don't think you can minimise the impact of such deep cuts. However

identifying targeted services which would have the most positive widespread

impact on a family would seem to be the best use of resources’

138


December 2014 33

6. ‘Consult on changes first before decisions are made’ (7)

Consulting on changes before decisions were made was felt to be important in order

to understand and respond to potential negative impacts.

‘Consult on these changes before they actually happen. Eg. Where are the

savings going to affect? Changes to what services specifically?’

‘Real consultation, including listening to the views of families’

‘Include services outside of LCC (including VCS) in working in consultative

groups to make recommendations on how savings and transformational

changes might be made by LCC and its partners.’

Summary

In order to mitigate negative impacts the most common suggestions were to be

open and honest, or to continue to provide the services that are needed. Keeping

services local and investing in the voluntary sector were also considered. Assessing

potential risks and consulting with families was also felt to be helpful in mitigating

negative impacts.

139


December 2014 34

Other options for making savings Open comments (Q4d)

Respondents were asked ‘Are there other options for making our savings that we

could consider?’ In total, 63 comments were received for this question. A coding

frame containing 20 different codes was developed by the Research and Insight

Team with a view to quantifying and analysing the responses received for this

question. Where a respondent raised more than one point of view each point of view

was assigned to one of the 20 codes created. In all, a total of 79 points of view were

assigned to the 20 codes and the full list of codes can be found in Appendix 2.



made.

Table 5. Top 12 codes – Why do you say this? (Are there other options for making

our savings that we could consider?’)


more detail below.

1. ‘Utilise VCS and give them more responsibility’ (14)

140


December 2014 35

Many respondents felt that giving more responsibility to the VCS was an option for

making savings

‘Utilise the Voluntary sector. Build on good work and enable and empower

organisations to take on bigger responsibilities’

‘Looking further down the line maybe to consider commissioning the

Voluntary sector to commission the whole of the service, with the ability and

partnership links to bring in statutory expertise as when required.’

‘Voluntary sector can be a cost effective and quality alternative to the

majority of functions, consider this and start from a level playing field’

‘Voluntary sector organisations are good value for money as many have the

necessary infrastructure in place and are backed up by the valuable

contributions made by volunteers’

2. ‘Challenge cuts to keep services on the ground’ (14)

Many respondents felt that other areas should be cut first to ensure that front line

services were protected.

‘Restructure from the top down as it is possible that duplication of some

roles/responsibilities are evident. Look at savings on the day to day running of

facilities etc. If this is resolved then hopefully more money will be available

for ground workers.’

‘Save money on the commissioning/tendering process and salaries of

management rather than frontline.’

‘Look at cutting more senior employees and keeping the frontline workers.’

3. ‘Scrutinise internal spend and duplication to same extent in line with VCS’

(9)

There was a concern that VCS were being scrutinised in isolation to other services

and that there was a need for other efficiency in other services to also be assessed.

141


December 2014 36

‘Put restrictions onto local spending budgets and scrutinise internally to the

same extent that grant applications are screened (who is reviewing what is

essential, necessary or just 'nice'?)’

‘Currently there is a lot of cross project working and duplication within the

County Council. Consideration should be given to reducing duplication and

number of separate teams with similar remits within the council’

‘Perhaps considering the VCS in isolation is not the right approach’

4. ‘Review and assess all funding allocations’ (7)

Other comments suggested that funding should be assessed and reviewed to

ensure that they were providing what was needed.

‘Every current payment should be reviewed to ensure that the allocation of

funds is fair and based on proper assessment’.

‘Look at what previous results have been achieved by the agencies you are

currently supporting to ensure these are being spent appropriately and have

proven track records with case studies’

Summary

Other options for making savings included cutting in other areas to keep services on

the ground, or giving more responsibility to the voluntary sector. There was also a

suggestion that VCS funding should not be scrutinised in isolation, and internal spend

should be assessed to avoid duplication.

142


December 2014 37

Any other comments Open comments (Q4e)

Respondents were asked ‘Do you have any other comments?’ In total, 45 comments

were received for this question. A coding frame containing 19 different codes was








made.

Table 6. Top 14 codes – Any other comments


more detail below.

1. ‘Volunteers are good investment and should be value. They provide over

and above what is paid for’ (12)

143


December 2014 38

The majority of additional comments made reference to the value of the VCS and the

importance of acknowledging the value they provide in meeting community needs.

‘The voluntary sector have an army of experience and although it costs to

fund the agencies to organise them, the hours that are then provided for free

must outweigh the initial cost.’

‘Voluntary and Community Sector organisations are to be valued for the skill

set they have and proven track record of the positive difference they can help

families make in their lives. Voluntary is not free, they are able to deliver

professional cost effective services.’

‘VCS organisations are the best value investment the Council can make -

because they can source other funding and develop initiatives which often go

on to prove the best answer to a community need.’

2. ‘Develop early interventions and prevention approaches to avoid crisis’ (6)

A number of respondents highlighted the importance of early intervention and

prevention in avoiding families reaching crisis.

‘It is essential to maintain emergency and crisis services primarily but also

develop early interventions to avoid familes and children reaching crisis’

‘It is a well known fact that preventative work, and early intervention have

positive impacts on outcomes for children and families. The more of this that

is lost through cuts to the voluntary services the more higher end child

protection cases will result in the future.’

‘Look for a whole family model and join up services....as early as possibly

rather than at crisis point.’

3. ‘Ensure consultation is accessible’ (5)

Some respondents were concerned that the consultation was not accessible,

particularly in terms of the language used.

‘The wording on this consultation is not very user friendly for the likes of parents

and carers who are very professional at caring for their children & families with

special needs, but whose literacy levels are not at university or professional level.’

144


December 2014 39

‘This consultation is worded at quite a high level - I have completed it and am a

working man aged 47 and I didn’t find it straightforward or easy to understand. ‘

Summary

When asked if respondents had any other comments the majority of comments

referred to the value that VCS could bring and the fact that they provide over and

above what they are paid for. Other comments highlighted the important of early

intervention and prevention to avoid demand on high cost services. There was also a

concern that the consultation was not accessible.

145


December 2014 40

Chapter 4: Conclusions

The consultation and engagement events were able to explore a number of key

areas around the proposals. There was strong agreement around the need to

prioritise services for vulnerable children and families and focusing on targeted over

universal services. There was also agreement with the need for wider

transformational change.

However, there were number of concerns, also picked up in the engagement events,

around understanding local needs and being able to respond early enough to

prevent crisis. This was a particular concern in response to the proposal around

centralised commissioning as respondents felt that local services and knowledge

would be lost.

Suggestions included developing clear early intervention approaches and utilising the

voluntary sector and universal services in local areas within this approach. There

was felt to be a need to join up across departments to ensure that decisions took

into account the whole system, and avoided duplication, rather than reviewing VCS

in isolation. Many felt that it was important to review current spend through

understanding the impact of current provision and what was working, assessing risks

of cuts and consulting with families, before decisions were made. The VCS were also

keen to highlight the value of their sector, often providing over and above what they

were paid for.

There were some concerns about ensuring transparency and honesty in the process,

and that messages were delivered in a way that could be understood, so that both

families and providers could be involved in the process and also prepare for change.

Opportunities were highlighted through the consultation and engagement events

such as income generation, more collaboration and having a more strategic and

efficient approach to commissioning. Involvement of the community and VCS in

terms of understanding needs and local capacity, and then influencing service

design, was also highlighted as key to strategic commissioning

146


December 2014 41

Appendix 1

Questionnaire

147


December 2014 42

148


December 2014 43

149


December 2014 44

Appendix 2

All Codes

1a To what extent do you agree

or disagree that we should

prioritise our services on the

most vulnerable children and

families?

Number

Vulnerable are in most need/avoid cost

shunting/will lead to better outcomes

28

Agree but also need to intervene earlier/before

crisis/families at risk can slip through net

22

Disagree because need to intervene earlier 9

Relies on definition of vulnerable/definition

would be helpful

8

Consider deprived

neighbourhoods/disabilities/family

members/isolated families

5

Everyone should have access to help when

needed

3

Some families may be overloaded if definition

too strict

3

Isn't this current model 2

Universal services benefit the largest number

(everyone) and needs can be picked up

2

Agree, but VCS should be valued and

supported/can’t rely on just unpaid volunteers

1

Agree, but referral mechanisms important 1

Disagree, need to include health, schools and

adults

1

Cannot respond with tick box 1

2b To what extent do you agree or

disagree that we should prioritise

targeted services over universal

services?

Number

Services should be targeted to those most in need 22

150


December 2014 45

Agree but universal services are needed to identify,

support and signpost/fill gaps/reduce demand

16

Other vulnerable people will miss out on support as

criteria gets tighter leading to increased demand

7

Agree, but specific groups or hidden needs need more

support

5

Disagree, because universal services are needed to

reduce demand

4

Universal services reach more people 3

Some services too generous/a lot is spent on a small

number

3

Agree, but other vulnerable people will miss out 2

Need to aim to enable change not just manage risk 2

See Question 1 2

Agree, but others also currently benefit from groups 1

Reduce highly paid executives 1


disagree that we should take a

centralised more streamlined

countywide approach to

commissioning (rather than on a

locality basis)

Number

Disagree as different areas have different needs and

strengths/pockets of isolation

18

Disagree as locality based services are best placed to deal

with local needs

18

Centralised commissioning is more efficient/fair/

strategic/reduces duplication

15

People in area understand local area and should be

involved in commissioning decisions

12

Agree but don't lose sight of local needs/small pockets of

need/local support groups

10

151


December 2014 46

Support smaller services to bid 3

Monitor local services to avoid duplication 2

LCC could be more effective 2

VCS already access national funding 2

Makes sense but worry small community groups will be

lost

2

Disagree, saving money rather than focusing on future 1

Avoid duplication in application process 1

Incorporate measures for improved outcomes 1

Needs to be joined up 1

Understand impact of cuts 1

Will it save money without reducing services? 1


disagree with our aspiration for wider

transformational change?

Number

Change/service improvement/greater partnership working is

needed

13

Agree, efficiencies /control needed/reduce waste 8

What does it mean/not clear/vague 8

Agree, but ensure local needs are not lost 6

Invest in the structure we already have/what's working 6

Agree, but understand wider impact of VCS cuts and their

role

4

Will it actually save money? 4

Not thought through/will not work/short term thinking/make

more use of joining up

4

Don't cut services for children/families 4

152


December 2014 47

Consult with and listen to families 3

Asses what is needed and who is best to provide it/agencies

should prove their worth

2

Agree, but stat services also duplicate 1

Agree, give more support to children with disabilities 1

Fine so long as services are improved and quality not reduced 1

Won’t stop rewarding bad behaviour 1

4c How could we mitigate any impact of

our proposed changes on children and

families and ensure the best possible

outcomes?

Number

Don't cut services/provide what is needed/cut elsewhere not

frontline services

12

Be transparent and clear/open and honest/use language

people understand

10

Keep it local/local response to need/keep local points of

contact

9

Utlise the VCS/work more with VCS/can meet needs at lower

cost e.g. SLF/get rid of in house services

8

Explore what/where the impact will be/assess risks 7

Consult on changes first before decisions are made 7

Empower families and communities to help

themselves/address dependency

6

Ensure support is available for wider criteria/less visible issues 5

Invest early on/address causes rather than symptoms 5

Allow time for services to withdraw/give as much notice as

possible

3

Ongoing monitoring/focus on quality services what works 3

Provide longer contracts to ensure continuity/stability 3

Treat people as individuals/protect children 3

Work together/involve VCS in shaping and commissioning

services

2

153


December 2014 48

Encourage partnerships not competition 2

Ensure best value for money/efficiencies 2

Focus on direct contact with children and families 2

Prioritise preferred existing contracts/ consider proven track

record

2

Involve the community/encourage more people to volunteer 2

Don’t expect community based response to fill gaps 1

Encourage families to contribute eg charges of volunteers 1

4d Are there other options for making our

savings that we could consider? Number

Challenge cuts to keep services on the ground/Cut elsewhere 14

Utilise VCS and give more responsibility/support volunteers 14

Scrutinise internal spend/inefficiencies/poor services/ duplication

to same extent

9

Review/assess all funding allocations to ensure fairness / impact

and remove duplication

7

Joint commissioning with other agencies 5

Keep the variation of services but reduce spend 5

Prevention is important /more cost effective 5

Charge for activities or services e.g. in children's centres to help

with running costs

4

Cannot always access alternative funding 2

Don't cut services for vulnerable families/YP 2

Invest and build capacity 2

More emphasis on co-production 2

154


December 2014 49

Commission all services externally to avoid conflict of interest 1

Join up youth services 1

Make contracts longer term 1

Promote contraception 1

Reduce paperwork /unnecessary monitoring 1

Share resources eg buildings /community transport 1

Use in house trainers rather than consultants 1

Work with VCS to access alternative funding 1

4e Do you have any other comments? Number

Volunteers are good investment/should be valued/provide over and

above what is paid for

12

Develop early interventions/prevention work to avoid crisis 6

Ensure consultation is accessible (language/sight loss) 5

Supported accommodation is needed for vulnerable Young People 4

Clarify priorities for commissioning/processes/be transparent 3

Evaluate impact of cuts 3

Many families cannot afford preschool 3

Simplify commissioning process/reduce administrative demands 3

Empower families/focus on strengths/every family is different 2

Ignore politics and do right thing/fresh ideas 2

Smaller community groups will suffer 2

Align children’s and adults services to ease transition 1

Contracts include grants 1

155


December 2014 50

Focus on provider who demonstrate outcomes 1

Glebe house is a lifeline 1

Need local services for local people 1

Need more local services for ASD 1

Spend less on leaflets and websites 1

Support collaboration 1

156


December 2014 51

Appendix 3

Organisations that have responded to the questionnaire

Barnardo's

Barwell Youth Cafe

Catch22

Centre for Fun and Families Ltd

Charnwood Borough Council

Charnwood CAB

Charnwood Citizens Advice Bureau

Children and Families Service Volunteer

CIC Service

Citizens Advice Bureau

Commissioned services for Sure Start Hinckley and Bosworth (Sole

Trader)

Community Health and Learning Foundation

Durban House

EMH Homes

Enable

Family Action

First Hand First Aid

Glebe House

Hinckley Homeless Group

Home-Start Blaby District Oadby & Wigston

Home-Start Charnwood

Home-Start North West Leicestershire

Home-Start South Leicestershire

Lawrence house

LeicesterShire Citizens Advice Bureau


Living Without Abuse

Loughborough Foyer, NCHA

Mair Health Ltd

Menphys Limited

Papworth Trust

Parent Carer Council & Leicestershire Autistic Society

Passion

Soft touch arts

Sorrel Youth Cafe

Surestart

The Baca Project

Vista

Westfield Community Development Association

Youth Shelter

157


December 2014 52

About the Research and Insight Team

The Research and Insight Team is based in the Strategy, Partnerships and

Communities Branch of the Chief Executive’s Department of Leicestershire County

Council. We carry out a broad spectrum of work on wide-ranging topics using a

variety of skills and techniques.

Our clients include a range of partner organisations as well as county council service

departments. Local communities and Councillors are also key users of the team’s

work. We also collaborate with a diverse set of partner organisations, locally and

further afield, to deliver new and innovative research and insight. Examples include

the GiCentre at City University, London on data visualisation and the Centre for

Social Action at DeMontfort University on research into social capital.

The work of the team can be summarised into six broad areas:

Data visualisation and analytics - the team use a range of software packages,

including Tableau and Excel to produce fast and effective analysis of data to support

service delivery.

Customer insight - a deep truth based on an understanding of customer behaviour,

experiences and attitudes and their needs from a service.

Evaluation - using Social Return on Investment (SROI) to put financial values on the

important impacts of a project, organization or programme as identified by

stakeholders.

Facts and figures - simple profiles either by geography or theme.

Strategic assessments - generally to summarise the existing evidence available

highlighting any emerging evidence and potential gaps.

Consultation and primary research - using primary research techniques, including

surveys and focus group to collect and interpret insight from residents, service users,

staff and other stakeholders.

Commissioning research and insight - procuring and project managing research and

insight from external agencies and suppliers.

For more information on how the team can offer support your department or

organisation, please contact the team on the details below.


Strategy, Partnerships & Communities



County Hall

Glenfield

Leicester

LE3 8RA

[email protected]

www.lsr-online.org

158


December 2014 53


Strategy, Partnerships & Communities



County Hall

Glenfield

Leicester

LE3 8RA

[email protected]

www.lsr-online.org

159

160

This page is intentionally left blank

Proposed Changes to Voluntary and Community …politics.leics.gov.uk/documents/s98325/6 Appendix...

Documents

Transcript of Proposed Changes to Voluntary and Community …politics.leics.gov.uk/documents/s98325/6 Appendix...