Memorandum from Remploy
SUMMARY
Remploy believes that third sector possesses
inherent advantages in the provision of certain public services,
based largely on the pool of specialist knowledge and proximity
to interest groups which cannot be matched by the Government.
Given the significant cost savings which third sector providers
can frequently provide to the public purse, we very much encourage
the Government to take steps to increase the scope for increasing
the contestability of public service provision, with the third
sector being able to compete on a level playing field.
ABOUT REMPLOY
— Remploy is the leading specialist
employment services group that focuses on enabling disabled people
to maximise their potential through gaining and retaining sustainable
employment.
— We enable individuals to maximise
their transferable skills, helping them be more employable and
to find sustainable employment with mainstream employers. Last
year, we helped over 4,300 disabled people and individuals with
a long term health condition, to obtain new jobs.
KEY QUESTIONS
1. What are the benefits of contestability
to the users of public services?
(b) Is loss of accountability a threat of
commissioning services? If so, how can this best be managed?
— Accountability should be managed
by the Commissioning department setting the outcomes and key performance
indicators required at the start of the tendering process.
— Monitoring processes should then
focus on the key performance indicators and outcomes required,
rather than operational detail, thus encouraging more opportunity
for innovation and greater choice for the service user.
2. Is the third sector more likely to provide
better public services than the state or the private sector?
(a) Is there evidence that where services
are provided by the third sector, that they are popular with those
that use them?
— Most service users simply want the
services that meet their needs and are less concerned about who
actually delivers them.
— As already stated, third sector organisations
already provide a range of services that meet needs of end users.
As a result there is a level of expertise in this group that doesn't
exist in the public or private sector, including advice and support
on independent living, advocacy and personal care.
— Given the origins of many third sector
organisations and the markets they work in, there is a recognition
and trust by and seen as close to this group.
(d) Is there evidence that contracting to
the third sector leads to greater scope in innovation in public
service delivery?
— If the organisation commissioning
the service promotes greater operational flexibility then there
is likely to be an increase in innovative solutions leading to
improved performance as more third sector organisations enter
the market.
— An example of how contracting out
to the third Sector encourages innovation is highlighted in the
"Healthy Minds" project in South Wales. Remploy manages
the project in partnership with the Public, Private and Voluntary
sector organisations and has created and delivered an intuitive,
programme—"Healthy Minds at Work", Healthy Minds
identifies and delivers preventative strategies on mental health
targeted at enabling more people to stay in work, through health
promotion and improved mental health outcomes involving job retention
services for employees, the unemployed and incapacity benefit
claimants. The programme has worked with over 200 people, so far
and achieved a 90% success rate, supporting employees in retaining
their job during 2006. Two recent examples are given below in
Appendix 1.
4. Does commissioning services from the third
sector have any benefits for the state?
(a) Does the state risk losing control of
service delivery in a way which might be damaging?
— Any perceived reduction in central
control over service delivery can be minimised through the stipulation
of mutually agreed standards and performance indicators. If the
assessment criteria are thus seen to be fair and rigorous, the
scope for concern could be safely minimised.
(b) What capacity will the state need to ensure
that it can be an intelligent customer of services?
— The state needs to improve its commissioning
expertise and avoid involvement in operational activity.
— Ensure, through the use of Key Performance
Indicators, the third sector is empowered to deliver and make
use of its existing expertise.
(d) How good is the state at managing bidding
processes and defining contractual obligations when commissioning
services?
— Previous examples have highlighted
this as an area of weakness for the state and needs improving.
5. What are the financial implications of
providing services through the third sector compared with directly
provided state services?
(a) Are services cheaper to provide?
— Competition should not focus on price
alone, rather value for money. As such, services provided by the
Third sector may not be cheaper, but through competition offer
improved value for money to both the service user and commissioner.
(b) Are there "hidden costs" such
as contract oversight?
— Yes, though all contracts have an
element of hidden costs including existing services provided by
the public sector.
(c) Are the benefits of the third sector participation
in public service provision so great that it is appropriate to
have financial rules which encourage this, or should the aim be
to have "competitive neutrality" between public, private
and voluntary sectors?
— The Freud review, commissioned by
government actively encouraged the greater use of private and
voluntary sector resources and expertise for harder-to-help benefit
claimants.
— There needs to be competitive neutrality
within the public sector, otherwise there wouldn't be a level
playing field.
6. Are the costs and benefits to the state
the same when commissioned from the third and private sectors?
— Smaller third sector organisations
may require more support, though be able to generate innovative
solutions.
— Allowing the third sector to deliver
more public services would benefit the user group as it would
bring the service users and service delivers closer together in
the market place.
|
