3 ENHANCING PARTNERSHIP WITH
THE THIRD SECTOR
Introduction
45. As Andrew van Doorn of Hact reminded us in oral
evidence, "It is worth remembering that of the £1.55
billion [budget for Supporting People] a billion of that goes
into the Third Sector. So it is by far the largest provider within
the Supporting People framework […]."[49]
As we have already observed, Third Sector organisations often
identify the need for a service in the first place through their
in-depth knowledge and understanding of the client groups they
support. In recognition of this, the Supporting People Strategy
makes an important statement about the role of the Third Sector
in supporting vulnerable people:
The Third Sector has a long history of campaigning
for social change and of innovating and working creatively to
bring together the resources and services to make change happen.
Third Sector organisations have also proved themselves to be particularly
adept at working with disadvantaged and vulnerable people, in
disadvantaged areas and communities.[50]
Consequently, the Supporting People Strategy commits
the Government to "Minimis[ing] obstacles preventing good
quality providers from across public, private and Third Sector
organisations from competing fairly to deliver housing support
services".[51]
46. However, this commitment has not always been
met, particularly in lower-performing local authorities.[52]
The Audit Commission told us:
The evidence from inspections is mixed. There
are concerns, drawn from interviews in the third sector, that
their contribution is not recognised and we have found evidence
of this in the level of involvement afforded to third sector providers
in commissioning bodies and partnership working. There are some
local procurement practices that make it difficult for small providers
to tender and the insecurity over existing and future contracts
is undermining the viability of some services [...] Higher performing
administering local authorities are supporting small third sector
providers to compete successfully in tendering processes.[53]
Charles Fraser of St Mungo's backed up this view
of mixed performance, telling us "our experience is that
[the relationship with the Third Sector] is very good in some
boroughs and not very good in adjacent boroughs and it is that
randomness that is the problem".[54]
47. The evidence we received was clear that a vibrant
Third Sector is vital to the success of Supporting People services.
Hact's concerns at the prospect of the sector being destabilised
are therefore to be taken very seriously:
Once this social capital [in the third sector]
disappears, it is not easily replaced. SP needs smaller agencies
that engage local people and reach those that larger organisations
cannot.[55]
48. Our evidence reinforces the importance of
the contribution made by the Third Sector to the Supporting People
programme. The Third Sector has a major role both in delivering
services and in identifying the needs of vulnerable client groups
in the first place. The knowledge and expertise of the sector
has significantly contributed to the success of the programme
so far and it is crucial that it continue to be retained and exploited.
We consider some particular issues which Third Sector providers
face in tendering for Supporting People services below.
Competitive tendering
49. Many contracts to provide Supporting People services
are won through a system of competitive tendering. This approach
to procurement was raised by many witnesses as a major frustration
of the Supporting People regime, as we discuss in the following
paragraphs.
COST VERSUS QUALITY
50. Much of the evidence submitted to our inquiry
expressed a widely-held concern that Supporting People commissioners
are focusing too strongly on the cost of services at the expense
of quality. For example:
The most deep-rooted concerns that UNISON members
have about Supporting People arise from the particular system
of procurement and competition which is often used to allocate
work. Far too often, local authorities decide at a very early
stage to contract out a care service to an independent provider,
and then set up what can amount to a "reverse auction"
whereby the cheapest bid wins the contract. A graphic example
of this was given in a recent Panorama programme, where an online
auction was set up so that the authority can identify the organisation
that can carry out the service—satisfying whatever minimum
standards are laid down in the tender document—cheapest.[56]
51. Jane Keeper of Refuge compared "The search
for the cheapest possible contract"[57]
to the approach a local authority would take to letting "a
contract for pot holes or some other local authority service."[58]
The subsequent impact of competitive tendering on small, often
Third Sector, providers (and their clients) is considerable:
[Competitive tendering impacts on] small, community-based
care providers. Large organisations are much more able to compete
for and win Supporting People services—by contracting out
their own back-office functions, developing floating support services
over large geographical areas, and benefiting from economies of
scale. [...] the government's own equalities agenda is being harmed.
While the focus from government seems to be on the needs of local
communities, the result of low-cost competition for care services
is that specialist equalities groups rooted in communities will
struggle.[59]
There is therefore a risk that some small specialist
providers which have an excellent knowledge of clients' needs
and are able to provide high quality services will be pushed out
of the market as they do not have the capacity or skills to compete.
52. Fundamental to the effective procurement of Supporting
People services, in many witnesses' view, is the involvement of
providers and users in the procurement process from the very earliest
stages of commissioning, in order to benefit from their specialist
knowledge and understanding of what service users require. This
approach is in line with the Government's commitment under the
Compact to "[provide] wherever possible an opportunity for
the voluntary and community sector to contribute to programme
design".[60]
53. Most witnesses feared that, with increased pressure
on local authority budgets and the loss of the protection of the
Supporting People ringfence, the trend towards commissioning on
the basis of cost and without regard to quality or sustainability
would continue. This is despite the protections offered by the
Quality Assessment Framework which, despite no longer being a
mandatory requirement, was viewed by the majority of witnesses
as a major strength of the programme, as Look Ahead Housing and
Care described:
One of the real strengths of SP has been its
comprehensive and robust quality standards framework. […]
[Previously] there was no common framework against which quality
could be validated, [and so] commissioners may have found it more
difficult to differentiate accurately between those services
which were both cost competitive but also deliver high quality
services (i.e. genuine value for money) and those that just offered
the right price.[61]
54. We have already recommended that the Quality
Assessment Framework remain mandatory in the context of ensuring
continued service user involvement. We further recommend the QAF
should be retained to ensure quality considerations are always
made when commissioning services and to protect against any potential
loss of dedicated Supporting People commissioning and procurement
teams.
THE REAL COST OF COMPETITIVE TENDERING:
SHORT-TERM CONTRACT CULTURE
55. The National Housing Federation illustrated the
negative impacts of competitive tendering thus:
The commissioning, tendering and monitoring process
can create massive bureaucratic burdens for housing associations.
Our survey in 2008 revealed many providers were still on short-term
contracts. The demands of tendering for services every two or
three years requires our members to engage in a constant cycle
of evidence gathering, form-filling and box-ticking.[62]
The NHF's views were echoed by the majority of our
provider witnesses. Several examples of the real cost of competitive
tendering—both in financial and staffing terms—were
provided, stressing the fact that investment in administration
is taking much-needed money away from front-line services, as
the following examples demonstrate:
Competitive tendering […] can be labour
intensive and has sometimes resulted in unintended consequences
for local markets (e.g. Costs to providers in tendering are high.
A recent tendering exercise involved 12 staff for 15 days = c.
£20k payroll. Contract value of £950k. Assuming 10 providers
tender for service = £200k to procure a £950k service.[63]
Hact provided a similar example of a consortium bid
for a single bidding exercise costing £100,000. We were reminded
that this represented "£100,000 […] coming out
of the Third Sector that could be better used to support vulnerable
and marginalised people in their communities."[64]
56. UNISON, along with the union Unite, referred
to the specific impact this has on staff working for provider
organisations:
[There is] an embedded pattern of short-term
contracts, with organisations constantly bidding for work, but
rarely having much certainty about future work levels. As a result,
many staff are employed on short term contracts, and/or frequently
put on notice of redundancy. [...] this is simply an unacceptable
way to run a public service.[65]
It is therefore no surprise that provider organisations
such as St. Mungo's told us that "We think that a contract
should be for five to seven years, with market testing in between
but not endless competitive tendering."[66]
57. Local authorities' evidence acknowledged the
importance of offering three year funding arrangements to Third
Sector organisations, and we were made aware of many examples
of this happening on the ground. However, in common with several
other local authorities, Hampshire County Council was concerned
that, whilst it fully intends to continue with three year funding
arrangements, it may become more difficult to make the case for
continuing such practices given the uncertainty of their own funding
in the long term. This was a view supported by many local authority
witnesses:
Since the inception of SP Hampshire have always
issued three year contracts to all SP providers, and have paid
an inflation uplift in all years apart from 2004. This has been
achieved by developing three year financial strategies, and making
use of the ability to carry forward planned under spends from
one year to the next. Uncertainty regarding the levels of future
funding, and the forward period for which funding will be announced,
may lead to such practices being reviewed. Whilst it is recognised
that they have offered great stability to the third sector, this
has to be balanced by being affordable in the long term by the
authority, and being seen to be an acceptable risk.[67]
58. This uncertainty is contrary to the Supporting
People Strategy's expectation for local authorities to "Pass
on three year funding certainty to Third Sector providers, explicitly
including Supporting People contracts when appropriate".[68]
Sitra told us that already "in some cases lack of clarity
about future arrangements has led to short term contract extensions
which causes uncertainty for services users as well as providers."[69]
Whilst the impact of the lifting of the Supporting People ringfence
is unlikely to be felt immediately, many witnesses believed that,
as contracts expire or come up for renewal over the next couple
of years, the market could see new contracts being issued on shorter
terms. CLG told us that it did not expect a "big bang"[70]
approach to services available as at 1 April 2009 (with the lifting
of the ringfence), but it was unclear from its evidence how the
Department saw the future panning out beyond that.
59. Constant cycles of competitive tendering are
burdensome and expensive and this has a disproportionate impact
on Third Sector and smaller providers. The use of short-term contracts
to procure services should be avoided where possible by local
authorities: we make further recommendations about how this can
be achieved below. Meanwhile, however, the problem of the uncertainty
of funding, which is at the root of some of the short-termism
which has affected some Supporting People commissioning, needs
to be addressed both by individual local authorities and by CLG
itself. CLG's announcement of three-year funding settlements for
local authorities has been a welcome step: the benefits which
this has brought not only to the Supporting People programme but
across local authority services must not be lost as the financial
settlements for local authorities become tighter. Meanwhile local
authorities must continue to pass on the certainty of three-year
financial settlements to Third Sector providers, in line with
the Supporting People strategy.
EU PROCUREMENT RULES
60. In oral evidence, witnesses from the provider
sector expressed frustrations at local authorities and Supporting
People Commissioners using the 'excuse' of EU procurement rules
and regulations to limit flexibility in procurement practices:
"It is all about this thing called European procurement and
what you cannot do."[71]
One such barrier cited by St. Mungos was the claim that contracts
must be retendered every 3 years under current rules:
we are told there is a European and legal duty
on procurement to [competitively tender things every three years].
Well, I think that needs to be looked at, but we cannot get anybody
to undertake to look at it or to tell us who has got the levers
to change this.[72]
61. Interestingly, when we asked local authority
witnesses whether EU procurement rules posed a barrier to flexible
commissioning and procurement, none voiced such concerns and most
were able to provide examples of how thoughtful application of
these rules had led to effective and flexible practice. Evidence
from Hampshire and Westminster showed that three year contracts
were awarded (as opposed to longer contracts), not because of
restrictions in EU procurement rules, but so that strategic service
priorities could be adjusted to respond to identified need.
62. Supporting People services fall under the category
of 'Part B services' within UK regulations relating to contracts
for services. Whilst 'Part A' services require a full procurement
regime, a lighter regime applies to 'Part B' services. Full EU
competitive tendering procedures only apply to 'Part A' services
above a certain financial threshold. Local authority legal and
procurement departments decide how this regulation applies to
their own procurement. As Hampshire explained:
the view that the legal services arm of the county
has taken is that the new procurement regulations do not mean
you have to go out for competitive tendering every time a contract
comes to an end. The view is taken that all Supporting People
services fall under the part B schedule of the EU procurement
regulations, and as such, the responsibility on the local authority
is to ensure that there is an element of competition, but the
main requirement is that you achieve value for money.[73]
63. Local authorities such as Hampshire, Westminster,
and Bath and NE Somerset have taken advantage of the greater flexibility
in procuring 'Part B' services and now require only new providers
and any existing failing services to undertake a competitive tender
process. All other contracts are renewed every three years. Hampshire
claims that this approach has had no negative impact on value
for money, maintains a diversity of provision and choice for service
users and minimises the impact on Third Sector organisations.
In oral evidence Hampshire told us:
After our first round of competitive tendering,
we did some analysis between the benefits that we got from competitive
tendering and the benefits that we got from renewing contracts
with providers so long as they met acceptable standards, and we
found that competitive tendering gained us a 1 per cent improvement
in value for money, but negotiating with providers and awarding
them a long-term contract gave us a 4.8 per cent improvement in
value for money […] . We believe we have the evidence there
which demonstrates that you can meet the requirement of an element
of competition, which there is for all new services, but at the
same time working with providers, offering them that partnership,
so that they will commit and that they can see that we have a
long-term commitment in them developing and improving their services.[74]
64. However, not all local authorities appear to
behave in such an enlightened manner. During our visit to Thames
Reach, stakeholders from the Third Sector, the local authority
and the local primary care trust concurred that overly bureaucratic
tendering arrangements are often put in place to protect local
authorities against accusations of having insufficiently robust
and anti-competitive procurement practice. This view was reinforced
in written evidence from provider organisations such as Hyde Group,
which claimed that "local authorities almost always 'play
safe' and employ a full tendering exercise even for contracts
of small monetary value."[75]
65. Home Group explains the dilemma which some local
authorities feel they are confronted with, and offers a solution:
Local authorities tell us that they receive contradictory
advice on balancing support for the Third Sector with commissioning
that is open and fair to competitors from all sectors. We believe
that government should make a clear cross-departmental statement
on this, addressed to local authorities' legal and procurement
departments as well as supporting people managers, with an expectation
of changed behaviour as a result.[76]
66. In response, CLG told us that:
[CLG tries] to inform local authorities that
they can amend their standing orders against EU rules […]
When I have worked directly with some local authorities I have
found them to be risk-averse and have 100 or 150-page contracts.
We try to get samples of good, positive practice in the form of
contracts and send them out to other local authorities so they
can try to get their finance departments to say they can reduce
the size of the contract and its wording and have something that
is much more meaningful and has very clear outcomes for service
users.[77]
When we proposed to CLG that our evidence suggested
that there is quite a serious problem down at grass roots level,
the answer was a simple "Yes."[78]
67. The evidence clearly shows that local authorities
are all at different stages in developing flexible and appropriate
approaches to the commissioning and procurement of Supporting
People services. This is despite recommendations from as long
ago as 2004, in the review of the Supporting People programme
by Robson Rhodes, which concluded:
CBs [Commissioning Bodies] and AAs [Administering
Authorities] will need to embrace modern approaches to strategic
procurement, working with providers as valued supply partners
as well as putting in place measures to comply with EU requirements.
I believe there are real benefits to be gained from managing the
market. [CLG] should encourage research to develop good practice
criteria for how to manage the market with a view to securing
sustainable supply at a competitive rate. This research should
include consideration of how best to stimulate the voluntary and
community sector to provide local specialist services.[79]
68. In letting contracts for Supporting People
services, we believe that EU procurement rules are being used
by councils as an excuse for their own inertia and risk aversion.
It is clear to us that unambiguous guidance is needed to assist
local authorities in developing approaches to commissioning and
procurement which are legal, proportionate to the size of contracts
being let and focused on both cost and quality outcomes. This
is something CLG should prioritise. The Commission for the Compact
published guidance on grants, contracts and EU procurement rules
for Third sector organisations and public sector commissioners
in July 2009.[80]
We recommend that CLG take advantage of this opportunity to disseminate
best practice guidance and encourage greater consistency across
all local authority areas in approaches to commissioning and procurement.
JOINING UP COMMISSIONING AND PROCUREMENT
ACROSS LOCAL AUTHORITY BOUNDARIES
69. A major consequence of local authorities operating
different procurement practices is the impact on providers working
in more than one local authority area. These providers have had
to learn to 'skin the cat' of tendering and contract management
several different ways, as Rachel Byrne of Home Group explained
to us:
Stonham works in 100 different local authorities
and not one does their procurement in the same way, and if we
could have some sensible guidance on procurement it would help.[81]
The administrative burden for providers like Home
Group is therefore magnified to extreme proportions. Some local
authorities have attempted to address this by taking steps to
join up procurement practice, such as Cambridgeshire developing
a regional commissioning toolkit and guidance about the commissioning
process, and Southwark's use of procurement frameworks, as described
to us on our visit to Thames Reach.
THE VALUE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMME
70. In 2005, CLG initiated the Value Improvement
Pilot programme, inviting bids from administering authorities
to undertake projects which aimed to secure substantial efficiencies
through procurement, contracting and contract management of Supporting
People services and improve outcomes for service users. The pilot
programme realised significant levels of efficiencies and positive
effects for service users and, as a result, the Supporting People
Value Improvement Project (SPVIP) was established in 2007. The
work of the SPVIP was integrated into the delivery of the National
Improvement and Efficiency Strategy and delivery was passed to
Regional Improvement and Efficiency Partnerships (RIEPs).
71. Provider organisation Hyde Group was involved
in one of the SPVIPs and found it to be a valuable experience,
as outlined in written evidence:
Hyde was successful in winning a large Supporting
People funded floating support contract in Essex, one of the Value
Improvement Projects. We have found it an excellent experience,
marked by effective joint working and a genuine sense of partnership
which achieves the best outcomes for service users.[82]
However, evidence from Hampshire County Core Group
suggests that, whilst the SPVIP has achieved positive outcomes,
there is little evidence of its continuing impact:
Nationally the Value Improvement Programme
provided a clear focus for innovation and the dissemination of
good practice. We were disappointed that this was not developed
further by repeating the exercise.[83]
72. Several witnesses felt that RIEPs could do more
to disseminate the good practice learned from the SPVIPs. However,
Cllr Gareth Barnard of the Local Government Association pointed
out to us that "it is quite difficult to spread best practice
wider than those areas that undertook [the SPVIPs] because of
fitting together the different bureaucratic structures of councils."[84]
The Minister also reminded us that "RIEPs are a relatively
new innovation and they are still perhaps a little immature",[85]
adding, "We have probably not yet seen all the benefits that
we shall be able to get from them when it comes to understanding
the complexities and benefits of housing-related support."[86]
73. Some good procurement practice exists in effective
local authorities. That practice needs to be shared much more
proactively. With the uncertainty over future funding, we are
concerned about the threat to the providers—particularly
small and Third Sector providers—in lower performing local
authorities where commissioning and procurement practice is already
poor. Furthermore, even where there is good practice, the fact
that local authorities take different approaches to commissioning
and procurement can create a massive administrative and bureaucratic
burden for providers working across local authority boundaries.
74. The new Regional Improvement and Efficiency
Partnerships are the obvious vehicle for challenging poor and
inefficient procurement practice, as well as for coordinating
tendering and commissioning procedures across local authority
boundaries. However, at present their role is unclear in many
local authority areas. RIEPs need to be much more involved in
tackling poor and inefficient procurement practice, and in joining
up procurement practice across local authority boundaries. We
recommend that tackling the complexities of commissioning and
procurement with the Third Sector become a focus for the ongoing
work of RIEPs.
Capacity building in the Third
Sector
75. Given some of the complexities of commissioning
and contracting which we have described above, and the vital role
of small Third Sector providers in the provision of Supporting
People services, it is no surprise that many providers—particularly
those in the Third Sector—need help in order to compete
successfully for contracts. The importance of making such help
available is described by Unison:
[…] it is not the public sector's responsibility
to support the voluntary sector just for the sake of it because
that would defeat the purpose of it, but if commissioners wish
to get the best out of the voluntary sector and if they are saying
"This is what the Third Sector can do that we cannot do"
then they have to make sure the investment and the capacity building
are there to make sure it can do that […][87]
76. In order to assist Third Sector organisations
develop new skills and become an attractive business proposition
for commissioners, CLG has worked with national organisations
such as NHF, Hact and Sitra to support and build capacity in the
sector. Evidence to the committee confirmed the success of much
of this work.
77. A key focus of this capacity building work has
been supporting small Third Sector providers. One of the techniques
advocated in the Supporting People strategy to help such organisations
compete for contracts is the 'consortium approach' whereby one
organisation holds a main contract as an umbrella for others (including
smaller and specialist organisations).[88]
Hact is responsible for leading on much of this work, but seems
unsure of the real impact it makes:
For small organisations their future within the
SP programme can sometimes rely on developing collaborative approaches
to service delivery. This is clearly the case as local authorities
have sought to rationalise the numbers of contracts they hold
with providers. Rationalisation has benefits to commissioners
in delivering greater efficiencies, [but] whether this benefits
vulnerable people and communities remains to be seen.[89]
78. Several witnesses saw a role for commissioners
in aiding this capacity building, as Nigel Hamilton of Sitra told
us in his oral evidence:
We are beginning to work with the Office of the
Third Sector on their work to build capacity for small providers.
We are very concerned that skills in providing support may not
be the same as commercial skills and tender writing skills, so
we are able as an organisation to offer training, consultancy
and support, but in the wider world I think there needs to be
an understanding amongst commissioners that they need to work
with their local provider sector to build its capacity […][90]
However, Andrew van Doorn of Hact suggested that
commissioners may not be engaging with this agenda, stating that
at a recent Office of the Third Sector event focusing on building
capacity of commissioners, "Supporting People commissioners
were notable by their absence."[91]
79. There is evidence that local authorities have
recognised the need to assist Third Sector organisations develop
commissioning and procurement skills. For example, Bath and NE
Somerset, with its partners in the West of England sub-region,
has provided training for its providers on procurement, opening
this training up to the whole voluntary sector and not just those
currently providing Supporting People services. Whilst such initiatives
are positive, Rachel Byrne of Home Group warned us that "[…]
you cannot underestimate the pressure that is put on the Third
Sector in becoming experts in procurement"[92]
and agreed with Hact's stance that clear guidance is still required
from Government:
In 2007 the Audit Commission called for advice
from Government for commissioners on flexible procurement. This
is now overdue and should happen as a matter of priority.[93]
80. Capacity building on commissioning and procurement
in the Third Sector should continue, but we recommend that the
government focus its major energies on developing and issuing
clear guidance to local authorities on commissioning and procurement
and in joining up different local authorities' practices with
regards to procurement. These measures would significantly reduce
the burden on Third Sector providers.
The loss of Supporting People
teams and Commissioning Bodies in the commissioning and procurement
environment
81. A recent report by the Audit Commission, Supporting
People Programme 2005-2009, found that
a major success of the programme has been the
buy-in and involvement at a local level of many providers and
service users as well as public service partners. The existence
of dedicated council staff, provider and user forums and named
lead officers has given providers and users the ability to engage
with and influence local councils and their partners. It has allowed
targeted training and tailored support programmes. It has promoted
cross provider and cross area learning and innovation.[94]
82. The potential loss of dedicated Supporting People
teams and Commissioning Bodies within local authorities is regarded
as a serious risk to the future of Supporting People services.
This is viewed as a possible threat to partnership working and
the quality of services, as Sitra describes:
The expertise of SP teams is widely recognised,
as is their approach to holistic commissioning. They were generally
involved in the needs analysis and the development of SP Strategies.
In many areas they have been working to enhance the capacity and
diversity of the provider sector. […] There is considerable
concern that this expertise and knowledge will be dissipated if
Supporting People teams dissolve into more generic commissioning
teams.[95]
83. Gill Brown of Brighter Futures agreed with this
assessment and told us that "[…]local authorit[y] procurement
departments [...] seem to be a million miles away from partnership
working and an understanding of the Third Sector."[96]
Hyde Group also explained that "[…] where the local
authority's procurement department drive the exercise rather than
Supporting People, the specification can be quite mystifying as
they do not understand what they want to achieve."[97]
The domestic violence charity Refuge explained that a lack of
understanding of specialist services can also result in inappropriate
service specifications being developed, such as "imposing
male 'role-models' on women using domestic violence services."[98]
The need for commissioners to have specialist knowledge is therefore
paramount if the needs of clients are to be properly met.
84. Supporting People teams have undertaken a major
role in ensuring the quality of services in their specialised
approach to commissioning and monitoring of contracts. Many witnesses
believe that the effectiveness of this quality assurance role
would be diluted if services were commissioned through more central
procurement teams:
The core aim of the SP team is to oversee the
quality of the services provided (this is usually assessed by
the QAF). However, once the SP team ceases and commissioning and
monitoring moves into the realm of a larger department with more
responsibilities, the extent to which they can devote time to
monitoring quality will surely reduce.[99]
85. Concerns over the loss of Supporting People structures
appear to be well-founded. In a recent survey of its members,
Sitra reports 45% of respondents answering 'yes' to the question
"As a result of the ringfence removal, are there any planned
changes in commissioning and decision making structures within
your locality?"[100]
Following its appearance before the Committee, Sitra submitted
supplementary evidence showing that Supporting People teams were
being disbanded in Scotland since the lifting of the Supporting
People ringfence. The evidence shows that, within 3 months of
the ringfence being lifted, 5 of the 32 authorities had already
disbanded their Supporting People teams and no longer had anyone
identified with core responsibility for housing-related support.
Early evidence from a 2009 Sitra survey shows that this trend
is continuing.[101]
86. The Audit Commission's report Supporting People
Programme 2005-2009 concluded:
The ending of grant conditions means that councils
can, if they wish, dismantle their governance arrangements. Previously
excellent local authorities who had achieved a 4 star Comprehensive
Performance Assessment from the Audit Commission were able to
amend their governance arrangements for Supporting People, but
chose not to take up this option. Most local authorities currently
support the continuance of existing partnership based arrangements.
Commissioning Bodies may not work as effectively if in future
they lose ongoing responsibility for an identified housing related
support budget. Although there have been improvements in commissioning,
provider markets and commissioning skills are not mature enough
in all areas and sectors to be secure without any supporting framework.[102]
Later, it adds
The governance approach imposed though joint Commissioning
Bodies supported a cross cutting approach and helped link Supporting
People provision into wider strategies for relevant vulnerable
groups. We have found that better Commissioning Bodies are able
to work with a range of partners to make difficult decisions which
may have been delayed by individual agencies.[103]
87. In the evidence we heard, there was general
consensus amongst witnesses that the Supporting People decision-making
and delivery structures were so effective that they should be
considered as providing a blueprint for partnership working within
Local Area Agreements and other partnership arrangements. We therefore
see the potential loss of these structures not only as a risk,
but also a wasted opportunity to showcase and replicate good practice
in multi-agency partnership working across the board. We recommend
that local authorities retain Supporting People governance and
delivery structures (Teams and Commissioning Bodies). We also
recommend that the Government further promote these structures
more generally as models of good partnership working for local
authorities and their partners. The retention of these structures
will also assist in addressing the risks to service user involvement
which we discussed earlier in this Report.[104]
49 Q 61 Back
50
Communities and Local Government, Independence and Opportunity:
Our Strategy for Supporting People, June 2007, p 22. Back
51
Ibid, p 21. Back
52
From 2003 until March 2009, the Audit Commission carried out a
programme of inspections of all 150 Administering Local Authorities
(ALA) responsible for the Supporting People grant and associated
programme. As at March 2009, 55 of the 150 ALAs were rated either
'Good' or 'Excellent'.(Source: SP80, 15) Back
53
Ev 174 Back
54
Q 140 Back
55
Ev 178 Back
56
Ev 84 Back
57
Q 92 Back
58
Ibid. Back
59
Ev 85 Back
60
Commission for the Compact, Funding and Procurement Compact Code
of Good Practice, May 2000, p 2. Back
61
Ev 93 Back
62
Ev 184 Back
63
Ev 154 Back
64
Q 65 Back
65
Ev 84 Back
66
Q 119 [Mr Fraser] Back
67
Ev 155 Back
68
Communities and Local Government, Independence and Opportunity:
Our Strategy for Supporting People, June 2007, p 21. Back
69
Ev 200 Back
70
Ev 228 Back
71
Q 129 Back
72
Q 119 Back
73
Q 184 Back
74
Q 184 Back
75
Ev 121 Back
76
Ev 147 Back
77
Q 343 Back
78
Q 344 Back
79
RSM Robson Rhodes (for Office of the Deputy Prime Minister), Review
of the Supporting People Programme: Independent Report (January
2004), p 39. Back
80
Commission for the Compact, The Compact and Procurement Law: a
Guide to Frequently Asked Questions, July 2009. Back
81
Q 114 Back
82
Ev 121 Back
83
Ev 156 Back
84
Q 283 Back
85
Q 307 Back
86
Ibid. Back
87
Q 66 Back
88
Communities and Local Government, Independence and Opportunity:
Our Strategy for Supporting People, June 2007, p 23. Back
89
Ev 180 Back
90
Q 45 Back
91
Q 61 Back
92
Q 119 Back
93
Ev 178 Back
94
Audit Commission (for Communities and Local Government), Supporting
People Programme 2005-2009 (July 2009),
p 7. Back
95
Ev 199 Back
96
Q 128 Back
97
Ev 121 Back
98
Ev 138 Back
99
Ev 95 Back
100
Ev 199 Back
101
Ev 210 Back
102
Audit Commission (for Communities and Local Government), Supporting
People Programme 2005-2009 (July 2009),
p 9. Back
103
Audit Commission (for Communities and Local Government), Supporting
People Programme 2005-2009 (July 2009),
p 10. Back
104
See paras 33-35 Back
| 
