SNAP Review Findings & Recommendations Paper for HACT

Transcription

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SNAP Review Findings & Recommendations Paper for HACT Background The SNAP Consortium is a group of six organisations, set up to jointly run Floating Support and gateway services across Suffolk. The six organisations differ significantly in size, type and geographical remit and in order to promote equality amongst members, set up a complex structure of mixed staff teams and management to ensure shared ownership and responsibilities. The SNAP Consortium and Project Boards are committed to continuous improvement and have recognised that governance and delivery can be improved. There is a genuine desire and commitment to run a first rate service and it is on that premise that the SNAP Board took the decision to hold a review after only 6 months of operating services. It acknowledges that running a consortium of this size and type is unique, ground breaking and potentially difficult to manage. It thanks HACT for providing financial support to look at this and the opportunity to share its learning with others and Karen Powell for undertaking the review. It also thanks all staff and stakeholders who provided vital information and feedback. Feedback Views about the services provided were generally positive, with useful suggestions for practical improvements particularly to ensure full use is made of members skills and expertise. Most difficulties arose from the need to improve clarity and communication between Consortium Board members and from the Consortium and Project Boards to their stakeholders. Learning Consider which organisation will take on the Lead Contract role and responsibilities and how these will be delivered Identify what support functions are required and what should they look like (specifications, frameworks and processes) Agree how disputes will be dealt with, including how disagreements, difficulties and concerns will be raised (consider behaviours as part of setting this out) Ensure there is clear designation of delegated roles, responsibilities and authorities across organisations Ensure all decisions are taken clearly either consensus or a majority decision that is then upheld by the full membership Separate Consortium Board (strategic link between members) and Project Board (operational overview) work and responsibilities to avoid confusion Set up working groups and delegations to drive work forward for the Board to take decisions All delegation by the Board to individual members, groups and staff must be clear Ensure all Consortium members are involved in all decisions at Board level Allow Board decisions to run for an agreed period before review as a learning experience Make space for the Board and/or its delegated representatives to meet without staff where this is appropriate Use the knowledge and specialisms of member organisations to full effect Use all available support and expertise (e.g. visits to other similar services, close working with the Supporting People team etc) Set out protocols for responsibility and information exchange between day-to-day management and employer management functions if provided through different routes Set out internal and external communication protocols and goals SNAP Review Findings & Recommendations final Page 1 of 8

2 Introduction The SNAP Consortium was set up in 2007 as a response to a large tendering plan in Suffolk for Supporting People funded Floating Support services and the setting up of an assessment and referral service as a gateway into Floating Support services, known as CARA (Central Access Referral Assessment). This review was commissioned by the SNAP Consortium, acknowledging that running a consortium of this size was unique, ground breaking and potentially difficult to manage. The review received grant funding from HACT, which has an interest in supporting partnerships that include small and specialist providers. The brief for the review was to: 1. Review service delivery effectiveness and systems, with a focus on how several organisation s systems have been integrated 2. Review partner positions inclusive of learning to date and future expectations, including unforeseen difficulties, learning from disagreements, changes to the balance of the organisations and improvements/benefits to the rest of the organisation from involvement in this consortium (with specific reference to small/specialist organisations) 3. Review short, medium and long term service objectives, specifically addressing joint working and communication initiatives 4. Make recommendations for the further development of the consortium and/or similar large/small partnerships 5. Make some comparisons with other consortium models that have been developed and in operation Drivers for the SNAP Consortium members included: Survival of organisations for the small providers and of services for the small and some other providers (protect/survive) Growth (over the longer term stabilise/grow) Innovation making the best use of the multi-skilled capability across all members a positive response to a challenging situation Synergy a bright new hope / partnership+ Began as reactive and became proactive An act of defiance resisting the trend towards large monopolistic (?) solo providers and the consequent lack of diversity and choice for the service users Getting a foothold in Floating Support service delivery (for some providers) Aiming for something that was better than what went before Learning and sharing benchmarking at its best Aiming for the highest common factor the best of all participants Focusing on service users The make-up of the Consortium is: Anglia Care Trust (ACT) a small, local service provider with experience of Floating Support dependent on Suffolk SP funding and heavily dependent on Suffolk County Council funding in general EPIC Trust part of the Circle Anglia group, with a limited presence in Suffolk, but experience of delivering Floating Support services and of working in partnership with other service providers Family Action (formerly Family Welfare Association) a national organisation focused on family services and adult mental health services with limited Floating Support experience, but a significant presence in Suffolk SNAP Review Findings & Recommendations final Page 2 of 8

3 Ipswich Housing Action Group (IHAG) a small, local service provider with 22 years experience of Floating Support and dependent on Suffolk Supporting People funding for approximately 40% of their income Orwell Housing Association a regional housing association with limited experience of nonaccommodation support services, keen to grow expertise in this field Together: Working for Wellbeing a national organisation focused on mental health services with limited Floating Support experience, but a significant presence in Suffolk The construction of the Consortium is radical. There is one Board representative from each of the participating organisations. Finance, Service/Office Administration and IT services have been purchased from the Lead Contractor (Orwell Housing Association) and staff from all member organisations are co-located in two offices (one in Ipswich, one in Bury St Edmunds). Staff are in delivery teams which are mixed in terms of employer, with each of the SNAP members employing a Team Leader (with the exception of the Lead Contractor, which employs the Service Manager who co-ordinates the Team Leaders on a day-to-day basis). This format means that communication, supervision, training, all aspects of service delivery and the performance of the individual organisations is very much reliant on the functionality of the Consortium as a group. The complexity of this model was chosen because of the strong links it would require and the equality it assumes for all members. However, due to the complexity of this structure, it has proved difficult to anticipate in advance all the issues that this would create, so a key part of this review has been to consider how best to facilitate this construct now that it has been tested in practice and a number of issues have been identified. 1 Review of service delivery effectiveness and systems Systems and procedures were read and observed in practice and in file. A Focus Group of Floating Support service users was held, interviews with two CARA service users were held and there were surveys of referring agencies, interviews with the only other Floating Support provider (who receives the CARA service from the SNAP Consortium) and interviews with operational and strategic links in the Suffolk Supporting People Team. Overall feedback from service users was very positive, with some suggestions for improvement, (excluding current CARA service users who had no suggestions for improvement and expressed high satisfaction with services received). Service users with previous experience of receiving floating support and other support services were very positive about the quality of support received from the SNAP Consortium with the overwhelming feedback that they felt support was holistic, personalised and can-do. Supporting People feedback was that there were no concerns about service delivery, though they felt it did not yet reflect the highest denominator of the six members. Information reporting had been a gap and was now resolved. Supporting People were keen to see improvements in communication outside the SNAP Consortium, including improvements to promotional information (e.g. leaflets etc) and a stronger demonstration that the strengths of each of the 6 member organisations were being fully utilised, as this was one of the most attractive elements of the Consortium. The bringing together of six organisations into one did not necessarily lead to the best systems from each organisation being used for the amalgamated service. In some cases this was impractical and new systems and procedures had to be put in place. The expertise available within the SNAP Review Findings & Recommendations final Page 3 of 8

4 Consortium has not yet been fully utilised in terms of new systems and procedures or information collection. The main reasons this has not been achieved are: Insufficient clarity from the Board about who should have what responsibilities (within the Board and in terms of delegation from the Board) Recruitment of and delegation to someone from outside the supported housing sector as the Service Manager without appropriately swift and detailed induction about the sector and its practices Insufficient confidence within the staff team to share knowledge and experience in formal ways (informal sharing was observed on several occasions and with considerable benefit) Insufficient use of other available support and expertise (e.g. closer working with the Supporting People team etc) Feedback was invited from a large selection of referral organisations and from Flagship, as the only other organisation to receive the CARA service from SNAP and the only other provider of Floating Support services for Suffolk. Feedback about the CARA service was generally positive, with responses being that it was friendly, helpful and timely, though there was a suggestion that information, advice and signposting at the point of contact could be improved. There was also interest in developing closer contact and reporting systems, improving feedback to stakeholders about progress for service users following referral. Observation confirmed that there is much standardised office practice in place and most activities are undertaken in confidence, however there are differences in approach to support work, risk assessment and management, information collection etc that have caused some confusion amongst staff. Useful areas for review and possible improvement include: a. Make administrative support more effective particularly information collection/collation b. Improve internal and external communication by setting clear processes/responsibilities c. Improve promotional information d. Update and redesign the website e. Use the knowledge and specialisms of member organisations more effectively f. Improve consistency of risk assessment/management and empowerment approaches g. Improve use of IT, including guidance for filling in workbooks h. Resolve and progress further training for all staff i. Senior Management Team to have more time to team-build and problem-solve together j. Identify responsibility and accountability between Senior Team members and the Board k. Set out a clear action plan focused on service objectives l. Ensure assessment work is done in the most effective way m. Set out a protocol for the use of s n. Resolve confusion between service and employer management roles and responsibilities especially in regard to supervision both by the employer and the Service Manager 2 Review of partner positions inclusive of learning to date and future expectations SNAP Board members were individually interviewed and an Away Day for the whole Board was facilitated by the consultant to consider how the Board could improve its joint effectiveness. Other organisational staff involved in the SNAP Consortium services were also interviewed. The Board overall identified that its best joint work was achieved up to and including the first week of the service going operational. Board members felt that they benefited from working together SNAP Review Findings & Recommendations final Page 4 of 8

5 and that finding out about different organisations ways of working was useful not just for the SNAP services, but also for how to improve/develop other areas of service delivery. All members increased their networking to some extent and, in some cases, substantially on the back of their involvement in the Consortium. The branding of the service and it being understood as a coherent service had been successfully achieved to the extent that many external organisations and service users were completely focused on SNAP as opposed to the constituent consortium members. The two national organisations in the group (Together: Working for Wellbeing and Family Action,) have identified this type of joint work as potentially beneficial to them for other services. They have a specialist role which can result in them being excluded from larger tenders that have a more generic focus. This is a way of protecting their specialist delivery within a partnership framework. The regional housing association (Orwell HA) has benefited from an increase in expertise in nonaccommodation based support services and will use this to inform future development. EPIC Trust, an organisation based across London, East Anglia and neighbouring areas, has used this as a learning exercise and has actively participated in partnership working (including Consortium work) following its involvement in SNAP, though the same complexity of model has not been used. The two small, local service providers (IHAG and ACT) have managed to maintain an important foot hold with the Supporting People programme in Suffolk but they are also exposed to the greatest reputaional risk. All parties recognise that individually they would not have been able to be successful at tender and that winning the tender was an immediate benefit in itself. All the partners have struggled with the complexity of the chosen model and this has been demonstrated in a variety of ways. Most difficulties can be traced to insufficient clarity between Consortium members about: Services to be hosted or delivered by the Lead Contractor (e.g. Finance, IT etc) Roles of, and support to, key staff posts (e.g. Service Manager and Team Leaders) Protocols for responsibility and information exchange between the day-to-day management and the employer management functions Further specifications for work, delegation of task leads, policies, authorities and clear and final joint (SNAP Board) decisions that could be reflected in operational practice were what staff felt would support the effective operation of the SNAP Consortium s work. All partners felt that significant learning was achieved prior to the service going live. Organisations had taken a lot of learning on board about how to set up a Consortium, different forms of partnership, legal agreements and implications of joint working etc. The other main areas of corporate learning were different for each organisation, depending on their existing service experience, connections, networks etc. All felt that partnership working had positive implications, but that involvement in any future partnerships would be undertaken recognising the significant work that this requires. For IHAG and ACT, involvement in the Consortium has added significantly to the workload of the senior staff in both organisations, though significant staff time has been given by other members. For IHAG and ACT the SNAP services are of proportionately greater financial and strategic value and risk than to the other members. It was felt that this can mean that more time and effort is made available from these organisations to the Consortium at the highest staff level because of SNAP Review Findings & Recommendations final Page 5 of 8

6 the relative importance to the member organisation. It is also more practical for their senior managers to be involved from these organisations as there are fewer divisions in level and operational remit and the office locations are close-by. Both organisations would approach future partnerships with caution, but would not rule them out as an option. They would take lessons learned from the SNAP Consortium and set out clearer boundaries about shared expectations and protocols at an earlier stage. IHAG and ACT have both looked internally at the corporate investment they have had to make in terms of staff time and are still considering their corporate position on what boundaries they would draw up in the future. Ways the Board has agreed to take matters forward for the SNAP Consortium are: a. Provide frameworks, specifications and processes that support service delivery and joint work, instead of dealing with individual issues b. Reduce traffic, increase good quality discussion and ensure that debate leads to a decision that is clearly delegated and upheld by the full Board c. Revise protocols so that there is more discussion (e.g. working meetings or phone calls) achieving clarification so that s are used to catch up, confirm or drive things forward not for endless debate d. Make the Board the decision-making vehicle work and debate of detail can be done in sub groups that are set up with specific remits and including all the appropriate representatives e. All delegation by the Board to individual members, groups and staff must be clear, including budgetary delegations f. Timetable work so that it is done in draft form, sent out for comment, comments are included/debate held and then a good (as much as possible, final) draft is submitted to the Board for decision g. Ensure the Board makes decisions if there is not consensus, a vote must be held and the result must be binding on all Board members h. Set up an Annual Plan i. Set up a Risk Assessment and Management Plan for SNAP (Consortium and Project Boards) j. Allow Board decisions to run for at least 6 months before review so that they can be used as a learning experience k. Make space for the Board and/or its delegated representatives to meet without SNAP staff where this is appropriate (e.g. Consortium Board meetings) 3 Review short, medium and long term service objectives, specifically addressing joint working and communication initiatives Short-term objectives: Achieve immediate improvements to communication and shared systems as outlined Strengthen the role of the Consortium Board and Project Board as different vehicles with different remits Ensure actions reflect the service objectives Avoid getting caught up with organisational differences and seeing them as negative, but instead focus on joint problem-solving Medium to long-term objectives: Strengthen continuous learning initiatives across the partnership Improve information collection about performance and need in order to influence strategic review and planning Set out a review programme for processes, systems and protocols Strengthen service user and other stakeholder feedback into the service SNAP Review Findings & Recommendations final Page 6 of 8

7 Maintain honesty and clarity between partners Make the partnership fit to compete for future contracts Build on existing practice to create innovative solutions and approaches Establish SNAP as a market leader locally and nationally Maintain the diversity of service provision in Suffolk 4 Make recommendations for the further development of the consortium and/or similar large/small partnerships The SNAP Consortium is well placed to improve its currently-contracted services and to extend the services it delivers once it addresses day to day functionality through communication and systems improvements. For any organisations considering this type of partnership, identifying ways of separating roles, functions and responsibilities clearly (particularly if there are possibilities for a conflict between day to day management and employment responsibilities) is crucial. Protocols regarding communication and behaviours are also important, as getting these right can make the resolution of any disagreements much easier. Key learning points are: Consider which organisation will take on the Lead Contract role and responsibilities and how these will be delivered Identify what support functions are required and what should they look like (specifications, frameworks and processes) Agree how disputes will be dealt with, including how disagreements, difficulties and concerns will be raised (consider behaviours as part of setting this out) Ensure there is clear designation of delegated roles, responsibilities and authorities across organisations Ensure all decisions are taken clearly either consensus or a majority decision that is then upheld by the full membership Separate Consortium Board (strategic link between members) and Project Board (operational overview) work and responsibilities to avoid confusion Set up working groups and delegations to drive work forward for the Board to take decisions All delegation by the Board to individual members, groups and staff must be clear Ensure all Consortium members are involved in all decisions at Board level Allow Board decisions to run for an agreed period before review as a learning experience Make space for the Board and/or its delegated representatives to meet without staff where this is appropriate Use the knowledge and specialisms of member organisations to full effect Use all available support and expertise (e.g. visits to other similar services, close working with the Supporting People team etc) Set out protocols for responsibility and information exchange between day-to-day management and employer management functions if provided through different routes Set out internal and external communication protocols and goals 5 Make some comparisons with other consortium models that have been developed and in operation No other models of working were identified that operated as mixed teams/shared delivery models as per the SNAP Consortium. SNAP Review Findings & Recommendations final Page 7 of 8

8 In Doncaster, a group of small agencies formed a partnership to secure a better deal as subcontractors to a larger provider. Difficulties experienced relate much more to negotiating the details of the subcontract and have much less focus on any concerns between the partners of the consortium. Due to this, the learning is very different, with the main concerns between members of the Doncaster consortium being setting out agreed requirements as part of any subcontract and finding a lead contracting partner that fulfilled these shared requirements. No substantive comparison was possible. 6 Summary The main difficulties presented to the SNAP Consortium have been a direct result of working in a very complex way, where integration of staff teams and service delivery mechanisms has been a core commitment. This has been difficult to achieve for a group of six organisations and many partnerships would not choose a model that incorporates this level of complexity. However the benefits of such a way of working can be profound and significant because it: increases the exchange of ideas and good practice maintains each organisation's expertise and specialist knowledge maintains diversity by ensuring a variety of organisations survive in the sector not least the smaller ones with local and specialist cultures has increased scope to create a service which is the product of he highest common factor rather than the lowest removes disagreement between one organisation s style and performance as opposed to another s, as all providers are equally culpable and responsible for the shared results. Service delivery is not causing any concern to the funders, stakeholders or service users, however sensible suggestions for improvement have been made and are being considered. The SNAP Board is undertaking a number of actions (set out in a separate Action Plan) in order to improve their joint working and this will be shared with the SNAP Senior Management Team. Ongoing communication, liaison and promotional work is being addressed as part of the SNAP Action Plan. The original aims, ideals and agreements set out by the SNAP Consortium are being revisited. Overall the Consortium Board has reinforced its commitment to provide clear and constructive leadership to both the project and the Project Board. For other possible partnerships, the main lesson learnt is to provide more structure to joint working initiatives particularly to ensure that service specifications and communication protocols are set out at the earliest opportunity and responsibilities and authorities are absolutely clear. SNAP Review Findings & Recommendations final Page 8 of 8