A conference for Surrey’s Voluntary, Community and Faith Sector21 September 2016
Nick DaviesPublic Services Manager, NCVO
THE THIRD SECTOR ROLE REDEFINED
21 SEPTEMBER 2016
Nick Davies, Public Services Manager
UNDERSTANDING THE SECTOR
4
THE VOLUNTARY SECTOR’S ECONOMY IS DOMINATED BY LARGE CHARITIES, BUT MOST ORGANISATIONS ARE SMALL
Income band
Micro
< £10k
Small
£10-100k
Medium
£100k-£1m
Large
£1m-£10m
Major
£10-£100m
Super-major> £100m
Number of
organisations81,104 54,477 22,150 4,613 581 40
Annual
income £0.2bn £1.9bn £6.8bn £12.9bn £14.0bn £8.0bn
There are 162,965 voluntary organisations in the UK with an income of £43.8bn
Source: NCVO, TSRC, Charity Commission
THE VOLUNTARY SECTOR EMPLOYS 827,000 PEOPLENumber of employees in Tesco, the voluntary sector, and the NHS in 2015
Source: Labour Force Survey, Tesco, NHS
INCOME TRENDS
7
MOST SOURCES OF INCOME INCREASED IN 2013/14 Sources of voluntary sector income, 2000/01 to 2013/14 (£bn, 2013/14 prices)Source: NCVO, TSRC, Charity Commission
£19.4bn
£15.0bn
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Individual Government Voluntary sector
Investment Private sector National Lottery
MOST TYPES OF INCOME INCREASED IN 2013/14 Voluntary sector income type, 2000/01 to 2013/14 (£bn, 2013/14 prices)
Source: NCVO, TSRC, Charity Commission
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Voluntary Earned Investment
£16.6bn
£24.1bn
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Grants Contracts
GOVERNMENT INCOME HAS INCREASED SLIGHTLY BUT HAS NOT REACHED 2009/10 LEVELSGovernment income from grants and contracts, 2001/01 to 2013/14 (£bn, 2013/14 prices)
Source: NCVO, TSRC, Charity Commission
£12.2bn
£2.8bn
Latest planned real change
Original nominal spending plans, actual inflation
Original nominal spending plans, original inflation
Ch
ange
in R
DEL
sin
ce 2
01
0/1
1(£
bn
, 20
15
/16
pri
ces)
Source: IFS, 2015; OBR, 2010. 2014; ONS
• Government cuts frontloaded
within spending period.
• Small rise in RDEL in 2013/14.
GOVERNMENT SPENDING PATTERNS
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14
Minor Small Medium Large Major Super-major
THE RISE OF SUPER-MAJOR CHARITIESOverall income by income band, cumulative change, 2008/09 to 2013/14 (2008/09 = 100)Source: NCVO, TSRC, Charity Commission
DEMOGRAPHICS AND DEVOLUTION
13
15
BARNET: THE GRAPH OF DOOM
LET A THOUSAND FLOWERS BLOOM
The State(Public Agencies)
The Market(Private Firms)
The Community(Households,
Families)
Public
Private
VoluntarySector
Source: Evers & Laville, 2004
Tony OkotieCEO, Liverpool Charity and Voluntary Services
SUCCESSFUL PARTNERSHIPS
Some reflections from ‘Beyond Tomorrow’
• Funding:
– 27% respondents say income will decrease
– 54% say funding from statutory sources will decrease
– 28% say the value of contracts will decrease
– 66% of organisations feel they will face financial challenges in the future
• Need /demand:
– 68% say needs of beneficiaries will increase
Some reflections from ‘Beyond Tomorrow’
– 48% said they can’t find skilled trustees
– 7% of organisations believed at risk of closure in next 3 years
• Opportunities:
– 55% Increasing existing services
– 33% Increase range of services
Some reflections from ‘Beyond Tomorrow’
• Opportunities around joint working are identified by only 28% of respondents
“Sometimes we have to bid with charities that might, in other circumstances, be considered competitors”
“There is a sense that we are in competition with each other. It’s not a very charitable view!”
“We have over 70 informal plus 18 formal partnerships. That’s a lot of meetings”
“Although it’s hard to say, sometimes a cull of uncompetitive organisations could be better”
“Our charity doesn’t seem to fit with others – we offer quite a unique service”
“Collaboration is difficult because each organisation thinks they know best”
And now its time for cake…..
As the cake gets smaller (funding and resources) how do we ensure that as much of it as possible gets spent on beneficiaries / services?
Is collaboration and sharing an answer?
Understanding collaboration
Misinformation
=
Merger
Different forms of collaboration
INFORMAL FORMAL
Joint service delivery• Lead body
Mergers• Setting up new organisation
(both entities dissolve into it)
or• One organisation joins the
other
‘Encounters’• Networks / networking• Forums
Joint service delivery• Consortium
Joint service delivery• Partnership agreement
Sharing back office services
‘Encounters’• Loose partnerships
Some terms that people associate with the term
collaboration……
• Co-production
• Alliance
• Support
• Affiliation
• Joint Venture
• Merger
• Special Purpose Vehicle
• Teamwork
• Partnership
• Cooperation
• Mutual Aid
• Association
• Take over
• Relationship
• Consortium
13 challenges to collaboration
1. Time
2. Legalities (need to check if can work in partnership), Legal fees
3. May be driven by funders and not be providers themselves
4. No clarity on driver(s) for collaboration
5. Risks e.g. damage to reputation if it goes wrong
6. Getting buy in – from boards, staff, funders
7. Will it really deliver the desired outcome?
8. Organisational culture
9. Reduced independence and autonomy
10. Loss of identity
11. Performance management
12. Finding the right partner/organisation to collaborate with!
13. Data protection
16 benefits of collaboration1. Sharing of skills, knowledge, resources2. Reducing delivery overheads 3. Sharing best practice4. Sharing of risk5. Developing new or improved services6. Encouraging innovation7. Increasing organisational capacity8. Improving competitiveness9. Strengthening market position10. Promoting greater choice in services11. Improving provision for service users12. Enhancing organisational profile13. Enhancing customer service14. Creating long-lasting, fruitful partnerships15. Sharing expertise and learning across the sector16. Promoting sustainability
Formal and informal
Collaboration can be typified as informal or formal:
1.Informal
– e.g. networks, forums, loose partnerships
– ‘encounters’
Sharing of intelligence
No formal/legal agreement in place
Formal and informal
Collaboration can be typified as informal or formal:2. Formal
• Joint service delivery – lead body– One organisation leads on the contract, and delivers it in partnership with
others
• Joint service delivery - Consortium – Separate organisations work together to achieve a common aim, usually a
piece of work or contract. – A new legal organisation may be set up; but individual organisations
maintain their own identity and core business and are ‘members’ or partners.
– Formal agreement in place with clear roles on who is the lead body (organisation who bids for the work), and delivery agents
Formal and informal
Collaboration can be typified as informal or formal:
2. Formal
• Sharing Functions• where similar organisations link up to share:
• Processes e.g. HR, finances
• Resources e.g. office space
• Services e.g. expansion into new geographical area
– Formal agreement/contract in place
– Also known as clustering
Formal and informal
Collaboration can be typified as informal or formal:
2. Formal
• Merger
– Takes different forms….
– One or more organisations close and dissolve into an existing / another one
6 characteristics of successful collaboration
1. Acknowledgement of the need for partnership / collaboration
2. Clarity and realism of purpose3. Commitment and ownership4. Development and maintenance of trust5. Establishment of clear partnership / collaboration
arrangements6. Monitoring and review and organisational learning
Hudson and Hardy
7 ‘C’s of successful collaboration
1. Connection with purpose and people
2. Clarity of purpose
3. Congruency of mission, strategy and values
4. Creation of value
5. Communication between partners
6. Continual Learning
7. Commitment
Jon ClemoCEO, Community Action Norfolk
How to influence policy and create an equal partnership with the public sector?
- Thoughts rather than answers
Surrey
Population 1.085 mil
Area 1,663 km²
Norfolk
Population 857,900
Area 5,372 km²
80% population
3x Area
Bit of context…
“Partnership is the
suppression of mutual
hatred in the pursuit of
a funding opportunity” – head of housing, not in Norfolk or Surrey
Partnership ultimately
requires both sides to
want to make it work
• Six months of research and engagement
• Mark a transition
• Evidence base
• Legitimacy to what we were saying
• Build ownership & consensus for shared
action
Sector Led Plan - why?
Norfolk’s VCSE Sector
Norfolk’s VCSE Sector
Norfolk’s VCSE Sector
Norfolk’s VCSE Sector
Talk more accurately
about the different parts
of the sector
Who Challenge Why they matter
Local commissioned VCSE
service providers (BREAK, Age
UK Norfolk, Equal Lives)
• Challenging commissioning
environment
• Contracts that are loss making
or cross-subsidising
• Invest into Norfolk alongside
Public Sector
• Long-term committed to our
community
• Probably only viable long-term
public sector partners
Medium sized ‘non-pathway’
VCSE support organisations
(GYROS, Age Concern GY,
Centre 81, Seachange)
• Grant dependent & under
increasing pressure
• Sometimes lack of a
sustainable business model
• Provide the wrap around
services key in support & re-
ablement.
• Provide key prevention
services.
Community Led Services (local
village hall, car scheme, luncheon
club, drop-in café)
• Increasing demand
• Volunteer run and led with
limited capacity
• Increased role for community
service providers
• Make the biggest long-term
difference in prevention
• Commissioned – primarily public sector service delivery
• Community – local, volunteer run and led
• Campaigning – cause and advocacy focus for particular constituency
• Commissioning – use own resources (trading, investment, fundraising) to commission (or grant giving) themselves or others to deliver
The Four C’s
• Evidence base
• Accountability/ legitimacy
• Consensus/Shared goals/framework
• Consistency
• Right Interfaces & relationships
Foundations of sector strategic influencing
• Actually know what you are talking about
and be able to back it up
• Sector Led Plan
• Further mapping and research work
Evidence Base
• Can you ‘represent the sector’?
• Development of system leadership group
• Mixture of elected and appointed
• Lines of accountability and communication
• Hard
Accountability
• If you want to influence you need to know
• Need to align agenda’s to who you are seeking to influence
• Just having ‘upstream conversation’ doesn’t work
• Harder
• Current work around six engagement principles within the STP guidance and ‘5 asks’
Consensus/Shared goals/framework
• Even Harder
• Staying focused on a set of long-term
goals
• Following through alongside the day job
• Not repeating the same conversation
(unnecessarily)
Consistency
• Partnership and influence is always about personal relationships
• Building and maintaining these – Formal ‘partnerships’ – round the table
– Coffee chats – real work (and challenging alongside legitimacy/accountability
• Again deliver in spite of day job and personnel changes
Right Interfaces & relationships
• And we will
support
communities and
the VCSE sector
to do more
Ever recent public sector strategy…
• What is ‘more’?
• What support?
• And did anyone talk to communities and the sector about it…
‘Culture eats strategy for breakfast’
• Can’t traditionally strategically plan - too
complex
• Systems thinking & sector voice
• Get the alignment through shared culture
• Do the ‘right’ thing independently
• Two core cultural shifts
Collaboration & integration as
default
• What is in it for the sector?
• strategy>commissioning>delivery
• convince to support strategy outside a commissioning model
• Shared interest isn’t about public sector budget
• Challenge and an opportunity
Cultural Shift
What do we think our role should be?
VCSE identity in a new world
Identity
Jonathan Clemo
Chief Executive
01362 698216
Sector Led Plan
http://www.communityactionnorfolk.org.uk/sites/content/sect
or-led-plan
VCSE Systems Leadership Group
http://www.communityactionnorfolk.org.uk/sites/content/norf
olk-vcse-system-leadership-group
Helen AtkinsonStrategic Director for Adult Social Care and Public Health,
Surrey County Council
‘Beyond Tomorrow’ 21 09 2016
Devolution, Health and social care integration, BCF, STPs – what does this all
mean for the VCFS?
Helen AtkinsonStrategic Director of Adult Social Care
& Public Health
.
The context is well known...
What are we trying to achieve through health & social care
integration?
PurposeEnsuring health, social and community care commissioners and providers work together to design and deliver services centred around people, not organisational boundaries – commissioning and delivering sustainable services that provide public value.
Strategic aimTo close the health and wellbeing, care and quality, and sustainability and productivity gaps in Surrey by enabling people to stay well; enabling people to stay at home; and enabling people to return home sooner from hospital. The VCFS play a huge role in this so how can you engage?
Green spaces that I
can use
Lack of interesting activities in
winter
Poor local job
prospects
Poor street lighting and
uneven pathways
Recyclingfacilities
Soaring fuel bills and
poor insulation
Affordable transport
Spending time with my neighbours
What enhances my wellbeing
and health
What is detrimental to my wellbeing and health
Affordablehealthy
food
Removes perverse incentives from the system- one pays, another benefits
- creating / ‘shunting’ unnecessary demand
Removes duplication and waste
Align and complement, rather than compete (workforce, market)
Joined up, seamless services - right care: right place: right time
- improved resident experience and outcomes
Involvement enables us to influence changes to the ‘system’
– to encourage a place and population based approach (not
simply a focus on acute hospitals or medical models)
Health & social care integration –why? what are the benefits for the public sector and for the voluntary
sector?Legislation & national policy –
the H&SC Act 2012 / the Care Act 2014
The Council’s agreed policy –integration as an important part
of our approach
BCF
STPsICOs
Footprints
RoadmapsCCGs
PVT??
?
???
?
Health & social care integration –getting through the jargon!
STPs – Sustainability & Transformation Plans
Health & social care integration plans – BCF, STPs...?
Wider integration work
BCF - the Better Care Fund
1 Surrey plan - based on 6 CCG level plans 16/17 is year 2 of the programme Focus on frail elderly residents
Pooling funds - £73m in 16/17 (principally from NHS budgets)
Builds on the BCF – still based upon 6 CCG level plans
Scope goes beyond the BCF – includes significantly increasing pooled budgets from
both NHS and SCC – establish in ‘shadow’ form in 16/17, formally in 17/18
Each area is developing its own model of integrated care
5 year, place based NHS plans Focus on closing the ‘3 gaps’ – health &
wellbeing, care & quality, finance & efficiency Only way for the health and care system to
access to NHS transformation funding Larger planning ‘footprints’ – 3 in SurreyBCF and wider integration plans are part of
the STPs BUT still being led at a CCG level Initial plans due to be submitted to NHS
England by 30 June 2016
Health and social care integration- and the emerging Sustainability & Transformation Plans
H
H
H
HH
HH
H
H H
H
HBrighton & Sussex University Hospitals Trust East Sussex
Healthcare TrustWestern Sussex Hospitals Trust
Queen Victoria Hospital FT
Frimley Health FT
Surrey & Sussex Healthcare TrustH
Epsom & St Helier University Hospitals Trust
Ashford & St Peter’s Hospitals FT
Royal Surrey County Hospital FT
Surrey Heartlands
Sussex and east Surrey
Frimley Health 5 Year, place / population based plans (for
the first time in the NHS)
There are three STPs covering Surrey:
• Frimley Health• Sussex and East Surrey• Surrey Heartlands
NHS plans but...
...they provide an opportunity to
bring commissioners and providers together to
accelerate the transformation of services and
achieve better outcomes for our residents.
STPs provide an opportunity to work with
partners to reduce the demand pressure we
(and they) face – this is supported by the
inclusion of health and social care integration
and the elevated status that STPs give to
prevention.
Thank you
Q&A
Where does that leave us?
A Quick Summary
• VCFS is healthy, but under pressure
• We are needed more than ever
• There are opportunities to work together more• Do we want to take them?
• Funding is unlikely to improve• Some encouraging signs from SCC and others – eg Social Value Marketplace
and VFS input into service design
• Bidding for funds is hard and expensive
A Quick Summary
• What about other structures?
• Collaboration is good…• Under certain conditions
• Governance needs to be watertight• Proof is in the test, but late by then
• How to use Surrey’s support infrastructure?
• What don’t we know that we need to know?
What are we going to do about it?
• Over to you…
• Open discussion with notes taken for sharing
Things to think about…• Can anyone represent us all?
• Can we change to a culture of collaboration by default?
• Who drives it?• Board? Executive? Commissioners?
Service Users?
• Appetite for a “systems leaders group”
• Can we think beyond our current boundaries?
• Geography, beneficiaries, sub-sector?
• How can we better understand health and social care?
• How can health and social care be helped to understand us?
• Do we need to respond to recent negative PR?
• Finally:• What can we learn from today’s
speakers?
• What do we want to do differently when we get home?
Closing CommentsMichael Cannon, Chairman, Surrey Community Action
Thank You!
Top Related