POLICY PROFILE

A Camden Black and Minority Ethnic Alliance, Policy Publication

SPECIAL EDITION: Part 3 of 4 Part Series

Understanding Local Area Agreement
3. Project Commissioning

Summary

Service delivery planning is fundamental to the effective implementation of Local Area Agreement (LAA). Guidance does not, however, address this issue in any great detail, choosing instead to make only broad references to it. Nevertheless, because service delivery is such a key issue, for the VCS, coverage has been given to it, in this series of briefings.

The specific focus of this paper is the role of project commissioning in LAA. In particular, the point is made that:

□ Project commissioning will be the mechanism through which services are secured for the delivery of LAA objectives;
□ Good practice in project commissioning should be evidenced by fairness and transparency;
□ Organisations currently in receipt of funding streams, will be subject to the project commissioning process;
□ There is a clear relationship between project commissioning and other aspects of LAA framework and
□ The tight time-scales, for LAA sign off, mean that discussions on LAA project commissioning are likely to commence sooner rather than later

Background and Context

The effectiveness of service delivery will determine whether or not LAA outcomes are met. Choosing the right services and the best providers is therefore fundamental to ensuring the success of a LAA. For the VCS, service provision is a major area of concern because it is here that we expect to be able to make our greatest contribution to LAA.

Published guidance makes clear that the voluntary and community sector (VCS) must be fully engaged in all aspects of the development and delivery of local area agreement. In particular, guidance sets out that:

□ LAAs will ensure the involvement of relevant stakeholders including in particular the VCS and local people themselves in helping to identify shape and deliver services

□ The LAA should include a statement of the involvement of the VCS and local people in the design and delivery of the agreement (this should state how local people and the VCS have been informed, consulted and given the opportunity to participate in the LAA process and delivery of outcomes)

□ The involvement of the VCS and local people should cut across the four LAA priority themes

□ That capacity building (of the VCS) may be the means to achieving other outcomes or be an outcome in itself

It is abundantly clear therefore that the sector must be part of any discussions that inform how services will be provided through the LAA.

Main Issues

It is widely expected that the Camden will choose project commissioning (as opposed to tendering), as the mechanism to select providers to deliver services for LAA. This makes sense because many of the funds that can be pooled into the LAA, such as the Neighbourhood Renewal Funding and the Children's Fund already utilise project-commissioning models. It is important to note that once funding has been pooled, into the LAA, the Council and local partners become the decision making body, which decides what priorities LAA pooled funding should be spent on and what services need to be commissioned to deliver on those priorities.

It is not the purpose of this briefing to speculate as to which model (or models) Camden might use to commission services for the LAA. However, it is right to explore what is common and good practice in project commissioning and suggest how these principles might be applied within the LAA context. Details of this appear under the various sub headers below.

Monitoring and evaluation

Projects that are currently being resourced under any of the funding streams, eligible for LAA pooling, should already be subject to monitoring regimes. Some might even be subject to a final project evaluation (having come to the end of their life). The purpose of these regimes is to track project performance and judge success. In light of this, it is entirely plausible that in deciding whether or not a project should be re-commissioned, LAA partners are sure to consider how effectively it is being delivering or has delivered.

However, even here there are still potentially tricky issues. For example, a project could, have been unable to deliver against many of its stipulated outputs, yet the same project could have built trust and strong lines of communication, with a community that is difficult to access through mainstream services. Consideration would therefore need to be given to whether, in-spite of unsatisfactory performance, it might actually be better to re-commission the provider to ensure that the pathway to the target community remains open. Further capacity support could then be offered to the provider, to help them improve standards and meet their stipulated performance benchmarks.

Alignment to LAA priorities

In part two, of this series of briefings, ('unravelling the funding maze') reference was made to the principle of policy-led budgeting. This is a simple concept whereby funding for projects, or services, is decided on the basis of whether they are directly linked to the achievement of key priorities or objectives. It is entirely plausible that such an approach will also be adopted for LAA project commissioning. In theory, this may mean that a project, which has been successful and whose funding has been pooled into the LAA, could lose its funding, if it is judged that the priorities, against which it achieved success, are not the priorities for LAA.

Facilitating project diversification

It is plausible that where a project is not delivering services, that are directly aligned to LAA priorities or objectives, LAA partners may still decide to commission that organisation to provide services for the LAA. This decision may be based on the ability of that provider to diversify their service delivery to meet new priorities or it may be because the provider is geographically 'well placed' to provide the service.

Plugging service gaps

The priorities and outcomes framework for LAA means that it is plausible that new services will need to be commissioned for LAA. In such instances, LAA partners will need to decide where the service gaps are and what new projects need to be commissioned. An important point to make here is that there are many VCS providers operating at a one-person level and delivering excellent services. LAA needs to recognise the uniqueness of this type of provision, nurture it and not pressure such providers into taking on greater responsibility at the risk of losing their unique identify.

Promoting VCS development

LAA guidance is clear that the capacity building of the VCS could be a means to achieving an outcome or a specific outcome in itself. It is plausible therefore that some VCSOs could be commissioned with a view to helping grow and enhance their skills base. Similarly, VCS providers, that already have particular skills or expertise, could be commissioned to provide peer support to those with limited capacity.

Implications for CBMEA Members

It is important for members to note that the information contained in this briefing note suggests what would be a plausible approach to project commissioning in light of LAA. However, as mentioned, its is not clear what road Camden proposes to go down with respect to these arrangements.

It also needs to be emphasised that only projects, whose funding is pooled into the LAA, will be affected by LAA commissioning requirements. Funds that sit outside the LAA will continue to be commissioned within their existing commissioning framework. Thus far it is difficult to say which funding pots will be pooled into Camden's LAA, although, a list of funding streams, eligible for LAA pooling, is clearly set out in the Appendix, of part two of this series of briefings, mentioned above.

CBMEA members should bear in mind that, for projects to be in place by 1 April 2006 (the LAA commencement date) decisions on commissioning would need to have been taken by January or February 2006 at the latest. In light of this, Camden is sure to commence discussions, on LAA project commissioning, very shortly.

Support for CBMEA Members

CBMEA recognise the need to keep our members up to date with developments regarding this important issue. As such, we will be taking the following steps on your behalf:

□ Liase with LB Camden to discuss commissioning arrangements for LAA and raise some of the specific questions and suggestions set out in this briefing note

□ Seek to ensure that details regarding the project commissioning process (once these are known) are made available to CBMEA members

□ Address specific member queries, where we are able to do so directly and where we are unable to, we will raise these issues with Camden Council

Contacts

This policy briefing was prepared by:
Monica Olusola, Director of Camden BME Alliance (CBMEA)

For further information about this briefing, in particular, or CBMEA in general, our details are as follows:

Address:
44 Hampstead Road
London NW1 2PY

Tel: 020 7388 6030
Fax: 020 7388 6040

Email: director@cbmea.org.uk
Website: www.camdenbmealliance.org.uk

Sources

The following source documentation was used in the preparation of this briefing

1. Local Area Agreements Guidance - Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, June 2005

Revised on 12 Mar 2007