Showing posts with label in-house. Show all posts
Showing posts with label in-house. Show all posts

Thursday 29 August 2019

Brent moves towards paying London Living Wage to care workers but rejects moving to in-house provision

The Community and  Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee will consider a report LINK on September 4th outlining the issues facing the provision of child and adult social care in the borough. The Council wishes to fund private providers sufficiently to pay their workers the London Living Wage, wants them to move away from zero hours contracts (unless workers prefer them) and comply with Unison's Care Charter. To do this they want to introduce a 'patch model' with fewer providers in particular areas so that there is improved performance and better quality relationships with care recipients as well as support some specialist care providers.

The change will be costly with Adult Social Care costing £10million more if the changes are implemented in 2020-21. The report rejects bringing Social Care in-house (the Council running the service) on grounds of viability and risk.

Key extracts from the report:

Paying the London Living Wage

The current cost model allows for providers to pay at or above the National Living Wage, which is £8.21 per hour, but does not enable them to pay London Living Wage, which is £10.55 per hour. Therefore, there are clear cost implications to the Council in paying at London Living Wage levels.
The Council has a clear commitment to paying LLW where possible, and no one would argue this is not the right thing to do. However, it is worth noting that there is no evidence, locally or nationally, that paying care workers above NLW has any impact on the quality of care. Regardless, discussion at PCG and at CMT has concluded that the Council will offer LLW as part of the new homecare model. The debate therefore is how quickly this can be delivered.
Within Adult Social Care we have a strong record of price control, although expenditure has increased year on year due to increases in complexity of packages and hours of homecare clients are receiving. However, both the external price analysis and intelligence from our own commissioning function has indicated that Brent now pays one of the lowest hourly rate in North West London. Other boroughs that have re-commissioned services are paying in the region of £18 per hour. The combination of a lack of available home care workers (The Institute of Public Policy Research estimates that nationally the industry will need 400,000 additional carers by 2028) and the fact that Brent is now one of the lowest paying boroughs in NW London have both contributed to the need to review our existing model to ensure the market remains sustainable in the future.
Ending Zero Hours Contracts 
Currently 38% of care workers in Brent work on zero-hours contracts. To mandate that providers don’t use zero-hours contracts and instead offer minimum-hours contracts would inevitably have an impact on the way that they are able to organise their staff rotas to deliver care. There are peaks in the demand for homecare services. Unsurprisingly they are in the morning, lunchtime and evenings. Providers don’t want to have to pay care workers when they aren’t delivering care; the council doesn’t want to pay providers more than is necessary to deliver quality services.
Through discussion with providers, we are also clear that the biggest incentive for a reduction in the use of inappropriate zero-hours contracts will be being able to offer providers a guaranteed level of hours and funding. This can be achieved through reducing the number of providers and implementing a patch based model. This would give providers a clear and consistent number of hours to work with so that they can plan their workforce requirements accordingly. The more confident the council can be in guaranteeing hours of work, the easier it will be for providers to plan their rotas and not have to fill in gaps in provision with zero-hours workers.
However, it is known that in some instances, zero-hours contracts are the preferred option of homecare workers. Our aim is that where workers would prefer a standard contract and a guaranteed minimum number of hours, this is available to them, but that we allow providers the flexibility to offer other contractual mechanism such as zero-hours contracts, or casual and short term contracts where appropriate (for example for when individuals wish to work during term time only, or to cover extended leave or maternity cover)
Providing Social Care In-house 
Consideration has been given as to whether homecare services could be brought back in house. The challenges of doing this would be considerable. Firstly, the cost of an in-house service has been modelled, focusing on staff costs alone (not including other overheads, such as premises, equipment, etc). Officers estimate than the annual cost of an in-house homecare service for Adult Social Care only would be £34.4m per year by 2023/24, compared to £27.9m, which is the modelled cost of a commissioned service including LLW. More work would need to be done to model the costs of a Children’s service, but it is likely to be more expensive than a commissioned service.
The modelling is based on needing 750 carers, 50 supervisors and 14 additional managers (Team Leaders up to a Head of Service) which is an extremely conservative estimate of the staffing required. Staffing ratios would need to be considered – the service has been modelled on the basis of 1 supervisor to 15 staff. Officers have also assumed that staff would be working on permanent contracts, and there would be no use of zero hours’ contracts.
There are a number of factors that make in-house homecare services more expensive than services commissioned from external providers. It needs to be recognised that many homecare providers are working with few overheads and little organisational infrastructure. It is not uncommon for smaller providers to be led by a manager / owner, who will perform a number of roles within the organisation, and also directly deliver care when needed. The flexibility that this gives providers can’t be replicated if the service was to be brought back in-house.
Providers are also able to manage their workforce so that they are not working during parts of the day when demand for homecare is much lower. There are peaks in demand in the morning, lunchtime and evening, with little demand between times. Whilst providers use zero-hours’ contracts to help manage this (and it’s agreed we want to reduce their use), the council would not have this option. Therefore, an in-house service would be paying for staff at times when they would not be working to full capacity, adding to the cost of services. 
Market sustainability would be an issue if Brent was reliant on one, in-house provider and would bring into question our ability to meet our Care Act requirements with regard to market sustainability and choice. There would also be considerable risk in having one provider, and whether we could ensure we could manage the various issues that arise when delivering homecare, such as safeguarding issues, quality management and workforce considerations and customer satisfaction.
Given that homecare services have been commissioned from other providers in recent years, the council has no experience in managing a homecare service. This expertise would need to be brought in to ensure that services were run in line with rules and regulations, (for instance, the service would need to be CQC registered before care could be delivered) as well as ensuring it was as efficient as possible, making best use of staff time and resources. At this stage, progressing this option is not recommended.
The report argues that the proposed changes would meet Unison's Care Charter but these claims rest on successful re-procurement and will need to be probed at the Scrutiny meeting.

Unison Care Charter

-->
-->
-->

Friday 29 June 2018

UNISON - 'It is time to re-build Barnet Council & start process of bringing services back in-house'

Today Barnet Council have published a financial report detailing three options for the two Capita contracts in Barnet LINK

The options are as follows:

  1. Maintain the status quo in relation to the CSG and DRS contracts;
  2. Re-shape the contracts to better align service delivery to the council and Capita’s strengths and priorities, within the context of the existing contractual structure; and
  3. Bring the partnership to an end, and either bring services back in house or re-procure them.
The senior officers preferred option is Option 2.

They have identified the following services to be brought back into Council control

CSG (Customer Support Group)

  • Finance and Accounting (excluding transactional services provided from the Darlington shared service centre)
  • Estates (Property Services, Building Services and Facilities Management)
  • Strategic HR
  • Safety, Health and Welfare
  • Insight
  • Social Care Direct
Re (Regional Enterprise Ltd)

  • Regeneration Commissioning (including commissioning the Brent Cross programme)
  • Highways
  • Economic Skills and Development
  • Cemetery and Crematorium
  • Strategic Planning
John Burgess, Branch Secretary of Barnet UNISON, said:

I could say we, told you so, and we did. However the Council is in a financially critical situation and now is not the time to for rhetoric. It is time to start rebuilding our Council. I welcome the report going to Policy and Resources Committee on Thursday 19 July 2018.
However, Barnet UNISON will be supporting option 3 with qualifications. We support bringing the partnership to an end, and beginning the process of bringing services back in house. It is simply not feasible to contain to peddle the Commissioning Council model. Pragmatism driven by the financial crisis has to mean that the Council needs to include in their business case a major restructuring of senior management across the Council including the Barnet Group. The Commissioning restructure 2012 is not fit for purpose. The Council need to look at how services best fit including those within the Barnet Group. There must not be a silo approach to insourcing. 
NOTES FROM BARNET UNISON

Footnote: On 26 June 2017 Capita share price was 705.50 now six months later the share price closed today at 202.09 which represents a 72% drop in their share price over a six month period.
On Wednesday 31 January, 2018 the Capita share price opened up at 347 and closed at 182.50 which represents a 47.53% fall in share price.

Links.
Damning report into EasyCouncil, Outsourcing including forward by John McDonnell
http://www.barnetunison.me.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Barnet-UNISON-Capita-report-2018.pdf
Below are three short video messages from Dexter Whitfield on his report.
Dexter Whitfield on campaigning against outsourcing
https://youtu.be/zDt8VKKQ-Vs
Dexter Whitfield on outsourcing failures
https://youtu.be/IiD17Pt7OwY
Dexter Whitfield on true costs of Barnet easyCouncil
https://youtu.be/V0SytYCj1HA


Sunday 7 January 2018

Procurement to be brought back 'in house' after joint service fails to deliver the goods

The Brent Cabinet will be asked to approve a proposal to bring procurement back in-house after a joint service with Harrow failed to deliver the envisaged benefits. A shared service with Harrow and Buckinghamshire was first discussed in January 2016 and at the time I noted the lack of clarity in the proposals LINK.  Officers claimed that a joint service would save Brent £272,000 in 2016-17.

Buckinghamshire dropped out and in  September 2016 Brent Tuped staff over to the joint Harrow-Brent  service followed by Brent Housing Partnership staff just over a year later in October 2017. Now less than 18 months after the first transfers they will be transferred back to Brent.

The Officers' report LINK recognise that this doesn't look good:
Reputational damage: To end the Shared Service so early into its life could potentially be seen as a failure by a range of stakeholders and potentially cause some reputational damage although this should be mitigated by getting member level approval for the dissolution.
The report suggests that the recent resignation of the Harrow Divisional Director of Procurement and Contracts gives an opportunity to review whether to continue the Shared Service and recognises that a decision to end it is best done before the arrangement between the two boroughs becomes more entwined and complex - a case of 'get out now before it's too late!'

The report states:
We are now just over 1 year into the Shared Service and a number of difficulties have been identified. At present Brent requires a level of service that is beyond the resourcing initially envisaged by the parties and available within the funds contributed to the Share Service following the restructure.

In addition it has proved difficult to recruit to many posts in the shared structure and continuity has been difficult to maintain. This has put additional pressure on the Shared Service and levels if service and satisfaction are therefore below what some service areas are expecting.
Reading beyond the mild civil service language it is clear that the joint service was just not paying people enough. Rather than the savings first envisaged it looks likely that costs will increase:
Despite a lengthy recruitment exercise, the ability of the Shared Service to recruit appropriately skilled and experienced staff into a number of vacancies has proved to be challenging. The poor recruitment results are thought to be in the main due to the salaries on offer being £5k below the market average together with a buoyant London jobs market for those individuals.

The regeneration/development area is significantly under-resourced. Although the Shared Service has flexed some resources to support this area. This is barely adequate and not sustainable in the long term. Consideration therefore needs to be given to interim resource(s) to support Capital projects (funded by the Capital programme) over and above the business as usual resourcing requirement.
The report states that for the Shared Serviced to meet these short-comings there would need to be a Head of Procurement dedicated to Brent and a rise of approximately £5k for each of the non-management grades totalling an additional annual contribution of £150,000.

The report is notably vague about the costs of leaving the Shared Service:
Should Brent leave the Shared Service the financial implications would need to be developed as the new organisational structure is designed. Initial  estimates however envisage that it would be of similar magnitude to remaining in the Shared Service.

Any increase in budget will have to be offset by a saving elsewhere in the department, the Council (sic) including greater achievement of procurement savings.
If the original proposal to enter a Shared Service lacked clarity then it appears that the proposal to leave has similar shortcomings, particularly on the financial implications. Can the Cabinet make a decision on the basis of this flawed report?





Tuesday 11 April 2017

'In-house' management of council housing favoured in Brent Council survey - Full Council debate April 20th

There will be a Special Brent Full Council meeting on Thursday April 20th, 7pm Civic Centre, to consider the outcome of the survey of council tenants and leaseholders on options for the future management of council housing in the borough.

2,937 residents responded to the survey (26% return) to consider the options:
a. Continue with Brent Hoising Partnership on a reformed basis
b. Bring the service back in-house under direct control of the council
c. Enter into partnership with another organisation to provide the service
49.1% of respondents supported option b with 55.6% of lease holders and 47.3% of tenants in favour.

After debate at Full Council the proposal to bring the service in-house will go to Cabineton Monday April 24th.

The decision will be made against the background of a deficit in the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) and further 'savings' and 'transformation' will be necessary:

  1. The Housing Revenue Account (HRA) budget is £56.1m and is used for the management and maintenance of the HRA stock and for the repayment of the HRA debt. The HRA is a ring fenced account. The BHP Management Fee for the current year is £7.5m. This fee is for managing and maintaining the HRA properties on behalf of the Council. Core management costs, including this fee are £12.5m per annum.
  2. 12.2  The Housing and Planning Act 2016 will have a significant impact on Brent’s Council housing and its financial position in coming years. The implications for which are continuously being reviewed with more comprehensive analysis to follow once the details are published by Government.
  3. 12.3  Based on current assumptions and changes in the Housing and Planning Act,
    an efficiency savings target of circa £3.6m would be required to balance the HRA if the current assumptions on changes materialise.

  4. 12.4  The savings to the HRA upon the initial implementation of the in-house housing management service are estimated to be £1m pa. These are provisional figures and will be refined as planning for the implementation of the selected option is progressed.
  5. 12.5  The decision to bring the housing management service in-house alone is not sufficient to cover the gap without wider transformation. This, then, reinforces the need for further transformation in the service.
I hope councillors will explore what 'transformation' could involve when they debate the proposal.

AGENDA For Ful Council Meeting

Background:


The Council owns almost 11,500 homes, mostly flats on small and medium-sized estates, with around 7,700 tenants and 3,700 leaseholders. Around 43,000 people live in these homes - over 1 in 8 of Brent’s population. Around a third of tenants are over 60, 4% have a disability and 8% have a vulnerability of some kind. The Council is responsible for management and maintenance services and has delegated these to BHP since 2002, under a Management Agreement. BHP is a company with a Board of 13 people comprising residents, Councillors and independent persons with an independent chair. BHP provides all landlord services, directly or through contracts, including:
Tenancy Management – e.g. lettings, rent collection, resident engagement,
Right to Buy and the oversight of two Tenant Management Organisations.
Leaseholder Management – e.g. service charges and major works.
     Property services – e.g. estate management, repairs and major works
    Development services – the delivery of a new-build programme on existing estates

Tuesday 8 November 2016

Brent Council recommended to bring housing management in-house


BHP's King's Drive Estate, Wembley
Brent Council is set to bring its housing management back in house if a recommendation going before Cabinet is approved. The issue brought tenants and leaseholders out in force at a recent Scrutiny Committee LINK.

They were determined to make the case for tenant involvement in any new arrangement and that any in-house arrangement be superior to that which existed before housing management was allocated to Brent Housing Partnership (BHP), an arms-length organisation.

Three options were considered - an enhanced BHP, in-house and a partnership arrangement. 

The report states:

In light of the evaluation it is concluded that the In-house option offers the best prospect of achieving the service transformation to deliver high-quality services at significantly reduced costs, benefitting from the Council’s wider experience in doing so in recent years. Accordingly, this report recommends to Cabinet that the In-house option be the preferred option. If agreed consultation will then be undertaken with all tenants and leaseholders and the results of this will be reported to Cabinet for a final decision.
2. Recommendations
That Cabinet:
 2.1  Agree that the preferred option for future housing management service provision to the Council’s tenants and leaseholders is Option 2, an In-house service, subject to consultation;
2.2  Authorise officers to undertake consultation with Council tenants and leaseholders on the preferred option as set out in paragraph 2.1 and to then provide a further report to Cabinet on the responses to that consultation to inform a final decision on future housing management service arrangements.
 2.3  Instructs officers to report further on appropriate arrangements to provide for effective oversight and scrutiny by members and residents of the housing management service should the final decision be that the service be provided in-house.
 

Thursday 20 October 2016

Tenants demand 'If BHP goes its replacement must be better and include tenants representation'




Brent Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee met last night to discuss options for a new housing management system system in the borough which will go to Cabinet on Monday. LINK

The meeting was extremely well attended by Brent Housing Partnership tenants and lease holders. At least two of the options would mean the end of BHP which is an ALMO (arms length management organisation) and semi-independent from Brent Council.

Tenants were forthright in stating that any return to an in-house housing management service would have to be much better than that which existed in Brent before BHP was formed.

Strong contributions to the discussion were made by Cllrs Conneely and Nerva but there may have been others as I arrived late from the Planning Committee which met at the same time.

In the current Brent Cabinet structure an in-house service would be monitored and overseen by an operational director and the lead member for housing.

This was felt to be be unsatisfactory given that lack of accountabulity and monitoring  contributed to BHP's current difficulties.

The first strong recommendation  from Scrutiny therefore was that if housing management is brought in-house there has to be a formalised, housing specific, oversight/scrutiny/sub-committee made up of councillots and residents represenattives of all types of tenure (eg tenants, leaseholders) preferably elected and with clear links with other levels of residents association.

A further recommendation was that if the in-house option was chosen that there should be complete transparency regarding the HRA (Housing Revenue Account) and it should be ring-fenced. 

Thirdly a much better and effective communications strategy needs to be put in place.

Lastly. if Cabinet opts for a joint venture any contract must come back to Scrutiny before being agreed.
 

Monday 5 August 2013

Why services are better in public hands - the need for a Public Service Users Bill


The We Own It campaign LINK  will launch their report on the need for a Public Service Users Bill on Monday. The Bill would promote and protect high quality and accountable public services.

They list the benefits of public ownership:

1. You use it

Meeting your needs – whether that's at the doctors' surgery or at the post office – should mean giving you time, attention and care. Public ownership makes it easier for staff to take the time that’s needed rather than squeezing services to boost profits. This means that when public services are in public hands, they tend to be better run. Local authorities across the UK are bringing services in-house to improve their quality and value for money.

2. You pay for it

Public services are something we all pay for, and we all use. Public ownership means your money is better spent, both locally and nationally. Money can be reinvested into services to improve them, instead of subsidising the profits of private companies. Savings are also made because services are integrated and there is no need to manage contracts. Publicly run East Coast rail has saved the taxpayer £600 million and if water was in public hands, household water bills would be around £80 a year cheaper.

3. You have a say in it 

When public services are run by local or national government, it's easier for you to know who to turn to when you want to complain, and to have your say in how you want services to be improved. The public sector must make data available to you and respond to Freedom Of Information requests (unlike the private sector). Public ownership also means it's possible for the whole of society to decide on a goal (for example, a long term energy policy) and achieve it efficiently. Most people want public services to be provided publicly and almost all of us want a say in how they are run.

4. You share it 

Public services are something we all share. When services are owned by all of us, it's easier for staff to work with service users and community groups to improve them. This can and should involve imaginative ways to keep making them better. In the 21st century, public services should be about people, not profit. Public ownership can sometimes involve the voluntary sector, social enterprises and cooperatives where that's the right solution, and where there are safeguards in place to protect public assets.

5. Examples all over the world show that it works better

In the UK, despite the current drive to privatise, many local authorities are bringing services in-house to boost satisfaction and save money. Across Europe, public ownership is making a comeback. For example, the water in Paris is now owned and controlled by the city, and in Germany energy is being generated locally by publicly owned utilities. In the US, a fifth of all previously outsourced services have been brought back in-house.

The Bill would ensure:

Public ownership would be the default for public services

1. Public ownership would be prioritised as the default option that is looked at first, before contracting out (supported by 60% of the public). Local and national government would always explore best practice public ownership, before turning to private companies.

2. There would always be a realistic, thorough in-house bid from the public sector whenever a public service – local or national - is put out to tender (supported by 80% of the public).

3. The public would be consulted before any service is privatised or outsourced (supported by 79% of the public).

4. Organisations with a social purpose – the public sector and genuine cooperatives, mutuals, charities and social enterprises – would be prioritised in the tendering process (supported by 57% of the public).

Private companies running public services would be held to account

1. The public would have a ‘right to recall’ private companies who are doing a bad job (supported by 88% of the public).

2. Private companies running public services would be transparent about their performance and financial data - as in the public sector (supported by 88% of the public).

3. Private companies running public services would be subject to Freedom Of Information legislation - as in the public sector (48% of the public mistakenly believe this is already the case).

4. The public would be properly consulted about the services they receive through public service contracts.