Practice examples
A good example of the use of an outcomes based wellbeing framework to improve public services is Scotland National Performance Framework and the development of a shared assessment process for the care of older people in Dundee provides a practice based example of service design based around purpose and customer focus rather than top down targets.
Alternatives to ‘traditional’ commissioning and contracting models (Copy)
A range of alternatives have been put forward by various parties to address the challenges associated with public service delivery in the 21st Century. These emphasise collaboration, people and/or place centred approaches, shared outcomes, a shift toward small scale and local services and co-production with service users. They include Place-based Commissioning and Alliance Contracting.
Barriers to change
There are many reasons why a shift toward more collaborative commissioning models is difficult these include misaligned targets and incentives, evidence gaps and rigid regulation.
Shared outcomes
Revolving Doors Agency, Collaborate and others identify that shared outcomes are likely to be important in enabling and incentivising more holistic and collaborative commissioning.
Relevant leadership theories
‘You must be the change you wish to see in the world’. This memorable phrase is often attributed to Ghandi. In fact there is no evidence he actually said this, although he did say something similar: ‘If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. … We need not wait to see what others do.’ The importance of leading by example is recognised in many leadership theories.
Practice examples
Examples of moves toward more collaborative commissioning and contracting in practice include Children England’s Declaration of Interdependence; Sheffield Cubed and All Together Better Sunderland.
Asset-based approaches
Asset based approaches recognise and build on the existing strengths within communities, and start with what is valued most to those living in that community.
Problems and needs
Traditional approaches to community development come from a perspective of a community’s problems and needs, which only exacerbates issues they are facing.
Vertical models
Traditional approaches to community development have developed as vertical models of intervention, and are becoming increasingly expensive and unsustainable.
Beyond community development
Asset based approaches have relevance outside of community development.
Benefits of asset-based models
Asset based approaches have far reaching benefits for individuals and communities, and society more broadly.
Person-centred approaches
Asset based approaches put people and communities at the centre of services, focusing on their needs and aspirations. This person-centred approach is gathering traction across public services.
Barriers to asset-based development
Current structures and ways of working act as barriers to successful asset based community development, as do the challenges of ensuring meaningful inclusive participation and evaluating and measuring the impact of asset based approaches.
Examples of asset-based development
Examples of asset based community development in action include: Croydon ABCD Pilot Project; Link Up, Inspiring Scotland; and valuing nurses as assets: The Buurtzorg care model.
Other factors in wider social change
Of course changing ourselves is not the whole story, and wider social change requires a combination of factors.
Distributed leadership models work
Traditional assumptions that the best leadership requires ‘born leaders’ with exceptional charismatic and heroic qualities still persist, but much modern evidence places a greater emphasis on context and suggests that distributed leadership models, where far more people participate in leadership roles, are most effective.
The voluntary sector needs to change itself
The voluntary sector could be leading the way, but first it needs to change itself.
The case for strong relationships
Modern scientists increasingly recognise that human beings are hard wired to connect with others but some social scientists believe that so-called human capital has been declining and there is evidence that it is lower in relatively deprived communities in the UK. There is for example an epidemic of loneliness affecting older people. Good relationships are particularly important for people facing complex difficulties, are valued in interactions with services by the public and there is also evidence that they are good for staff. More widely, there is evidence that they improve service outcomes in some areas. Relationships between service professionals and sectors also matter. "Resourceful communities," where relationships between organisations and individuals are strong, bring wider social benefits.
Barriers and how to address them
There are many barriers to change and ways to address them. In the delivery of services, there can be a tension between the wish to form strong relationships and other pressures, including the need to ration services, sometimes to challenge the lifestyles of those served and to work within constrained resources. The development of strong relationships can also be perceived as unprofessional. Lack of good measurement is also a barrier to change: current management practices and service contracts tend to focus on quantitative measures.
Defining strong relationships
According to Community Links, good relationships are marked by understanding, collaboration, commitment, communication between all parties - and empowerment and time. Policy makers and others have been for some time talking of "relational services" or the "relational state", "personalisation", "co-production" or "person-centred care" but these terms are often about involving individuals in helping to tailor services better to their needs and are not necessarily the same as putting the quality of relationships at their heart.