Localism

Memorandum from the Princess Royal Trust for Carers and Crossroads Care (LOCO 085)

1. Introduction

The Princess Royal Trust for Carers and Crossroads Care welcome the opportunity to respond to the Communities and Local Government Committee Inquiry on Commissioning. Jointly, we make the following points and recommendations in our response:

· Councils need to use a variety of funding methods to ensure a range of services provided and service providers are available in the community

· Promote community engagement through commissioning of user/carer led groups

· Monitor performance for effective oversight

· Transparency is key to local accountability

2. Councils need to use a variety of funding methods to ensure a range of services provided and service providers are available in the community.

2.1 Local authorities have for many years funded other agencies to deliver local services and the networks of The Trust and Crossroads Care receive money in this way from local authorities. Two things are changing regarding this: firstly, more local authorities are doing this and doing so regarding more services; secondly, there is a shift from grant or contractual arrangements to an open tendering process to decide who will deliver the services on behalf of the council.

2.2 However, tendering can be a costly process for the local authority in terms of finance and resources. It also places extra costs on bidders who expend resources on being involved in the tendering process. Relying on full tendering processes can exclude local community groups and charities from being involved in delivering local services as they may not have the experience or resources necessary to be successful through a tendering process. The tendering process can often focus on organisational strength rather than records of successful delivery, which can favour national and commercial organisations.

2.3 It also appears that there are common misconceptions among many local authorities when European Unio n procurement laws apply which forces them to apply an open tendering process. We welcomed the Department of Health guidance on commissioning to Primary Care Trusts in December 2009 [1] , which encouraged the use of grants to commission self care support for people with long term conditions, and to develop low level community activity. They also advised that third sector organisations will have an increasingly important role to play and that grant funding fits the purpose of working in partnership to achieve objectives and is a good fit with commissioning for outcomes. We think that its message should be repeated and also aimed at local authorities as its lessons are relevant.

2.4 Benefits from opting for grant-funding are [2] :

· Providers have the flexibility to design activities to achieve outcomes; they are not tied to a service specification. It is a very good fit with commissioning for outcomes.

· The concept of a ‘conditional grant’ links the funding to the specific activity, but without small, local groups taking on the risks associated with delivering services under contract.

· Capacity building with local voluntary groups can progress during the life of the grant, whilst a contracting process would have had far less flexibility to work on capacity building during the process itself.

2.5 The process of grant making can still be a rigorous process that holds the provider to account for performance against outcomes and ensure necessary services are available for the local community. Bromley Carers’ Centre , a member of The Princess Royal Trust for Carers network, has been given a seven year contract to cover the core costs of running the Centre. This is being jointly funded by adult services, children services and the P rimary C are T rust . Contracts for specific services, such as respite, are being awarded on an annual basis.

2.6 Adult services, which brought the partners together, have cited Bromley Carers’ Centre as a strategic partner. The contract contains expectations on either side and the Carers’ Centre will be monitored against measures. The Council advised the following reasons influenced their decision to award negotiate such a contract without tendering:

· There were no other potential providers and the Carers’ Centre has successfully worked in partnership with the Council in the past

· The Carers’ Centre can bring added value through charitable fundraising and volunteering

· There was no specialist expertise on carers within the council and it would cost more to develop that ‘in-house’

· Carers are a group of people who will still be needing support long term into the future and will remain a feature of government policy so the council should invest in building capacity of organisations who will support them

3. Promote community engagement through commissioning of user/carer led groups

3.1 As described above, Whitehall departments should provide strong guidance outlining the benefits of alternative funding process to open tendering processes. Guidance could also be issued highlighting that whilst considering commissioning decisions, the following should be considered:

· Will funding a provider enable additional value to be gained enhancing the delivery of that service or other services that would be valued by local communities. For instance, funding from local authorities can allow local charities to raise additional funds for more services and engage with volunteers to use their skills and experience that otherwise would not be used.

· Will funding a provider enable local people to be involved in the design and delivery of services in their own area. This can help make services more responsive and give people more control of the services that they use in their own life.

4. Monitor performance for effective oversight

4.1 Local authorities should be monitored against performance indicators that measure a variety of desired outcomes for people in their communities and as communities as a whole. These should involve recording experiences of people in their communities and their opinions of services provided or commissioned by local authorities.

5. Transparency is key to local accountability

5.1 Accountability de pends on access to information thus transparency of funding received and how it is spent at a local level is needed for citizens and Parliamentarians to hold local decision makers to account. We accept arguments against ring-fencing but Parliamentary funding given to local authorities for specific areas should still be given in identifiable amounts which although are not ring-fenced means that local people and Parliamentarians can see how much each local authority has been given. Local authorities can then be asked how much of the indicative budget they have used with accompanying explanations for their decisions.

5.2 Currently the Carers Grant given to local authorities operates in this way. £256m was distributed amongst local authorities in England in 2010/11. The share of this received by each local authority was published bu t it was not ring-fenced allowing local authorities autonomy. Contrastingly, £150m was given over the financial years 2009-11 to the NHS to increase breaks for carers. However, what each Primary Care Trust (PCT) received was not published leading to huge confusion amongst politicians, primary care trusts and the public.

5.3 National and local politicians , and local people and carers’ charities found it impossible to get information from PCTs who advised that as they had not been given identifiable amounts then they did not have to say how much or what they were doing to support carers [3] . This was a case of money given by Parliament to local government but nobody knew how much each PCT received of the total amount nor what was done with the money. This made accountability for implementing the Government Carers’ Strategy impossible.

5.4 The following example may be extreme but does show the value of transparency in ensuring proper behaviour and holding people to account . In Uganda, diversion of education resources was reduced from 87% to 20% as a direct result of increased public information about the resources allocated to each school. [4]

The Princess Royal Trust for Carers and Crossroads Care are the two biggest providers of services for carers in the UK and work together at a national level to promote policies and guidance that will support carers.

The Princess Royal Trust for Carers (The Trust) is the largest provider of comprehensive carers support services in the UK. Through its network of 144 independently managed Carers’ Centres, 85 young carers’ services and interactive websites (www.carers.org and www.youngcarers.net), The Trust currently provides quality information, advice and support services to around 354,000 carers, including 20,000 young carers.

Each Carers’ Centre within the network is an independent charity in its own right, delivering a wide range of local support services to meet the needs of carers in their own communities. Each provides expertise specific to their particular area of the UK. Carers' Centres’ core services include:

· finding hidden carers via outreach in GP surgeries, hospital wards and schools;

· finding the right information for every carer, whatever their circumstances;

· making sure carers’ voices are listened to by local decision makers;

· supporting carers emotionally and practically throughout their caring journey;

· helping to make caring a positive experience by helping carers to share experiences and by ensuring access to breaks, education, training and employment

Crossroads Care is Britain’s leading provider of support for carers and the people they care for. We work with over 35,000 individuals and their families, helping carers make a life outside of caring. We employ over 5,000 trained professionals, providing flexible services to people of all ages and with a range of disabilities and health conditions. Crossroads Care is a network of approximately 100 independently managed Crossroads Care schemes that are each charities in their own right.

October 2010