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

CONTACT

Nick.davies@ncvo.org.uk

020 7520 3174

19

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

jonathan.clemo@communityactionnorfolk.org.uk

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!