Agenda item

(1)      The Chairman of the Select Committee welcomed Diane Aslett, Development Officer, Age UKs in Kent Consortium, accompanied by two Consortium Managers; Nigel Vian, CEO, Age UK North West Kent and Gillian Shepherd Coates, CEO, Age UK Sevenoaks and Tonbridge to the meeting.

 

(2)      They had received questions and themes that the Select Committee were investigating in preparation for the meeting.  A copy of their response was included in the papers and considered by the Select Committee.

 

(3)      Age UKs in Kent Consortium encouraged by the positive engagement with KCC on building the joint commissioning offer.  Each of the Age UKs in Kent are independent charities with affiliation to Age UK, the national charity, through a Brand Partner Agreement only.

 

(4)      However, there are a number of issues for consideration. Firstly, poor communication.  Age UK NWK won a contract potentially worth £415,000 in March 2012 and to date no progress had been made since the original bid. Verbally they had received word that the funding was suddenly no longer available although they understood that attempts were being made to source alternative funding. After twelve months they were still waiting for official written communication on what had happened to the contract and whether they are going to have to bid again.  Tendering was an expensive process for organisations.  The market needed confidence in the bid process. This contract required multiple stakeholders’ cooperation and dependencies. It later transpired that still no arrangements had been made with the Health Service in the NWK area/CCG to organise the referral route. Without the full commitment of the health service to organise processes, resources and procedures for service referrals then even if the money was available the Health Service would not be in a place to proceed now.  Age UK NWK and the bid related subcontractors that were committed to providing the service locally were left hanging.  There was no certainty of whether the funding would ever become available for the contract. 

 

(5)      There was now more performance management requirements within tenders, contracts and grants to be cost effective.  Contracts in principle were now outcome focused whereas in the past they were based on quantitative data for which staff spent a lot of time monitoring facts and figures for reports rather than ensuring that outcomes were delivered. Future tenders needed more emphasis on measuring outcomes not just outputs.

 

(6)      AGE UKs in Kent Consortium were proud of the Advocacy contract with KCC and this had proved to be a great success with high levels of collaborative working across agencies to meet the grant agreement.

 

(7)      Since the new KCC Commissioning Team had beenin place there had been a dramatic change and Age UKs in Kent Consortium wanted to commend them for their high levels of engagement and honesty.  Monthly meetings were held, they worked on the joint older peoples  ‘offer’ specification together using the Age UKs in Kent Consortium networks to seek consistency throughout the county.

 

(8)      However, as yet they did not have a definitive picture of the future contracting arrangements. Debates have been had about grant v contract. The Consortium needed to settle outstanding issues with KCC soon to enable them to gear their organisations for future models of delivery and support. E.g.:

 

Ø  How would the Consortium bid for a contract?

Ø  Can a Consortium put in a tender for a grant or would it need to elect one of its Members and then subcontract.  Who would own the contract?

Ø  How does the Consortium bid against commercial companies?

Ø  Are there restrictions on a Consortium?

Ø  What was the risk to the Trustees?

Ø  What was the impact of TUPE?

 

(9)      The national charity Age UK was supportive and backed the Consortium’s initiative.  Age UKs in Kent Consortium was unique in what it had achieved so far. KCC had already praised this development where up to now KCC which had been dealing with 16 Age Concerns and 12 Age UKs – previously 30 Age Concerns all competed with each other – all needing to be supported by KCC through complex and costly administration processes. The Consortium offered KCC a well organised and streamlined approach with a single point of contact for the county with significant proven reach to the Kent community.  The cost of establishing the Consortium did not come free and would be a barrier for small or medium agencies if following suit. To date all costs related to developing the consortia had been met by the individual Age UKs in Kent  involved.

 

(10)   Large contracts required different structures and governance to the smaller grant based processes.  If these contracts were awarded to large (UK) providers the local knowledge may be lost.

 

Question – Age UK in Kent forming consortia and being business savvy. But, how do we protect the “heart of gold” reputation of the third sector?

 

(11)   The consortium are members of independent organisations who continue to share the same ethos and meet their charity objects – whilst there had been a significant change in business approach, this should not change the individual charities acting in the best interests of the public they serve.  There was confidence that the Consortium was geared to bid for a wider range of contracts and faced the future as opposed the past when not all Age Concerns were viable.

 

(12)   The Consortium gives the opportunity to win larger grants/contracts and for smaller providers within the Consortium to be offered some level of protection and survival. Those choosing not to collaborate risk disappearing literally overnight if grants are finally revoked and contracts/grants are no longer awarded to them.

 

Question – Does KCC have overlap or underlap – are our specifications clear about service boundaries?

 

(13)   The person should always be in the centre and we all work to ensure they get the right services that they need – either provided or signposted.

 

(14)   The role of the 6 lead Age UKs in Kent (Consortium) was to liaise with other services and to know what was happening in the local communities.  A wide range of services were offered in the different stages of the clients needs.

 

(15)   Where possible Age UKs in Kent were trying to reduce their reliance on KCC provided incomes through grants and contracts. The 6 Age UKs in Kent Consortium were commissioners of their own services to meet local need as well as contractors and suppliers. (Age UK NWK recently merged 4 Age Concerns  and has reduced its dependency on KCC grant income to below 40%.  Age UK Sevenoaks and Tonbridge had a 35% dependency).  Those with high dependencies on the income via grant were placing themselves at high risk in the event of further grant cuts, contract realignment or wholesale withdrawal of funding.

 

(16)   Charities were becoming much more diverse in the services they offered with a wider portfolio of funding streams via different charging mechanisms.  Those services were either free or subsidised (grant funded)  or  chargeable on a full cost recovery basis.  Need to do this or charities position is becomes tenuous if reliant on high percentages of  grant funding. Charities could best identify gaps in services in their local communities.

 

(17)    “Mission creep” is becoming of greater concern as funding stream dwindle and change. Generic commissioning encourages collaboration and partnership working. For example Age UKs in Kent winning a pilot grant to set up a generic Befriending Scheme. The Consortium considered that it had strength in its existing offer and could look at wider solutions through collaborating with other organisations for generic contracts.

 

Question – what were the costs of setting up the consortia?

 

(18)   The cost of initially setting up the Consortium are £12k to date.  In part due to the need for professional expertise for the memorandum and other contractual issues. To set up the Consortium meant dealing with 27 charities which was not easy.  A steering group was set up to develop a criterion which identified who was eligible.  All 6 Age UKs met the core criteria.  But there was also now a wider network of potential subcontractors.  The Development Worker ensures Consortium working – her costs are shared by the individual charities. Will need an additional post of Monitoring Officer to keep track of the contracts.

 

(19)   Kent Business and the SE  Portal and the actual tender documents are not set up for the new emerging consortium organisations to bid. KCC had been advised of the inflexibility of the on-line portal formatting and core questions. The Consortium struggled to adapt the portals to the way the organisation was constituted.

 

Question – can you talk more about the issues of ethos within consortium arrangements?

 

(20)   The consortium operates a due diligence test which all organisations must pass to join.  The test resulted in only six of the twenty seven currently fit to join.  The consortium also needs to ensure their own subcontracting arrangements were robust and clear to ensure risk avoidance, due diligence and security.

 

Question – What are the benefits / dis-benefits of contracts vs grants?

 

(21)   When considering the merits of contracts over grants - the context should be the benefits to clients, a contract can be a better mechanism when truly outcome based with improved performance monitoring and performance management raising the quality and standards of the service. 

 

(22)   Sustainability, namely the length of contracts could be an issue. If too short organisations are going to question building infrastructures that may only have a short-life. Whilst Day Opportunities grants have been rolled forward there remains major uncertainty about futures, particularly when nothing is known after 2015. This makes strategic planning very difficult. Longer contracts, geared to performance would make better sense - length of 3-5 years seems sensible for commissioner and provider.

 

Question –what can members do to help?

 

(23)   Members of the Council could improve Commissioning by:

Ø  publishing contract timetables twelve months in advance – i.e. the timescale and  the contracts going to tender

Ø  provide more clarity –know what you want, be consistent in your purpose.

Ø  involvement in the process especially governance and member oversight.

Ø  Challenge your commissioning officers to better explain their thinking.

Ø  Challenge your Cabinet members who will be making the key decisions about future commissioning models

 

Question – are you looking for commissioners with on the ground knowledge / local engagement / communication?

 

24. Yes - better monitoring, communication and engagement.

 

Question - what types of funding - very closely monitored grants or unit commissioning? 

 

25.  KCC have to consider if grant funding enables charities to seek additional funding streams – for example for every £1.00 KCC gave, matched by  £4.00 value provided by the charity.

 

(24)   The Chairman and Members thanked Diane Aslett, Nigel Vian, and Gillian Shepherd Coates, for attending the meeting