Collaborative working practices:- a commissioning challenge

1. Collaborative working practices:- a commissioning challenge Dr Clive Sellick, School of Social Work and Psychology, University of East Anglia

2. Commissioning Support Programme Outcomes and Efficiency: Commissioning for Looked After ChildrenOctober 2010 • Commissioning Support Programme Outcomes and Efficiency: Commissioning for Looked After ChildrenOctober 2010:4 ‘establishing procurement frameworks and regional commissioning (and) better relationships with providers’ • A study of 6 local authorities and 6 IFPs of the commissioning and provision of long-term and permanent fostering placements • (Sellick, C, ‘Commissioning permanent fostering placements from external providers: an exploration of current policy and practice’, British Journal of Social Work, Advance Access published October, 5, 2010) • Each of these authorities was in a regional or sub-regional commissioning consortium using framework arrangements with tiered lists of pre-qualified providers. All of the commissioning staff I interviewed were social work trained.

3. ‘Relational Contracting’ • ‘a shared identity and common value system; mutual dependence and trust; risk-sharing; a presumption of the incompleteness of contract; a commitment to managing the contractual relationships; and finally, open and extensive communication’ (Petrie and Wilson, 1999:183). • Many examples of this from an earlier study of inter-sector contracting arrangements which emerged from interviews with staff from LAs and IFPs in four parts of England between October 2004 and March 2005 • Sellick, C. (2006) Opportunities and risks: models of good practice in commissioning foster care. British Journal of Social Work, 36, 8, 345-1359 • Sellick, C. (2006) Relational contracting between local authorities and independent fostering providers: lessons in conducting business for child welfare managers, Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 28, 2 109-122

4. Working together to deliver foster placements: LAs LA Commissioner 2004: • “What we are looking at is working comfortably in partnership rather than on a formal service level agreement, block purchasing or whatever. We want a partner provider who is interested in those children for whom we struggle to find placements. If we do things jointly it adds moral value and it’s not done in competition. I think there might be a future where the independent provider can exist without being a threat to the local authority. Together we might drum up more business and our market share might be preserved.” LA Commissioner 2009: • “There are fewer disruptions amongst IFPs because they can afford to provide better support. They can better prepare their foster carers because they require us to provide full information which they share with their carers. They can make informed choices about which children to accept ----- You do get value for money from private IFPs which are extremely business-like in their approach.”

5. Working together to deliver foster placements: IFPs IFP managers 2010 • “We’ve won the quality battle but the question is always ‘can you do a discount?’ If you buy cheap all the time there will be consequences of disruptions and increased costs at a later stage.” • “LA commissioners use time in placement to determine costs and seek discounts irrespective of the plan for the child or the nature of the current work because they are not social work trained” • “Once in a consortium we can’t talk to the LA (social work staff) anymore and that’s in stark contrast with the LAs in our area who are outside it where we continue to have regular, productive and helpful meetings” • “Efficiency savings in one LA has led to social workers approaching our foster carers to try to bring them in-house by threatening to have the children removed. There have also been times when foster carers have felt coerced that if they didn’t accept special guardianship the LA would make alternative arrangements for the child”

6. The Challenge? • Establishing, or re-establishing, collaboration which is open and honest, responsive and effective • Ensuring, whenever possible, that decisions are made at the lowest levels in respect of children’s needs by social work qualified practitioners with knowledge of quality related to positive child outcomes as well as the importance of value for money • Placing the needs of the child at the heart of all decisions • Encouraging communication between LAs and IFPs at all levels – horizontally and vertically