How traditional funding would ruin something good

I've been doing some work looking at how we support people who experience domestic violence or abuse, and how we might improve that support.  

During this work, I've gotten to know a fantastic local place that helps women who've broken free of domestic abuse to stay free.  Don't take my word for how great it is – here's what some of the women I spoke with there said about it:

• "Of all the services I've dealt with, this is the only one that works."
• "You are actually helped and understood.  They treat you as a person as a whole."
• "It's welcoming, and you are listened to.  It's like a family working together."
• "When you experience domestic abuse and leave the relationship, you don't know what you don't know.  They take you through it one step at a time.  They help with all the applications."
• "You get peer-to-peer support.  It's compassionate, and survivor led."
• "It's informal.  There's lots to be said for a cup of tea and a chat."
• "They pull out every stop for the children.  They helped get my child diagnosed for ADHD."

They don't turn people away because of thresholds.  No one completes an assessment form.  They don't work to targets, KPIs, or other metrics.  They build relationships with people, understand what really matters to them, and support them in achieving what matters.  The support is 'bespoke-by-default', responding to each person as an individual.  They have a network of friends and volunteers on hand with all sorts of skills – a handyperson, locksmith, experts on the law, housing, immigration, benefits, etc.  The support isn't time limited, and some of the women have been coming for years.  Many turn their experiences in to 'gifts' they can support their peers with, or have become volunteers themselves.

They've created a safe, welcoming, compassionate, and supportive atmosphere.  There's a real sense of community among the women – at times I struggled to work out who were volunteers or paid workers, and who weren't.   

And it works!  In five years none of the women they've supported have returned to the abusive relationship. 

How might traditional funding ruin it?

In my naivety, I asked one of the people who runs it "Do you get any funding – from the council or health or anyone else?"  The answer was a resounding "No".  The place is funded unconditionally by a charitable organisation, through local donations, and through the work of its friends and volunteers.  

I started to speculate on how this place might be ruined if they were commissioned or funded in the traditional and prevailing way.

• Traditional commissioning starts from an assumption that competitive markets work for public services, giving greater choice and efficiency.  To understand why this assumption is so flawed, read this book chapter from Kathy Evans, Chief Executive of Children England.  
• This means, in practice, the focus is on price.  To compete and compare on price, the service needs to be specified.
• Specification means a standardised service response.  This is where things really start to go wrong.  People are people shaped – they don't fit in to neat little boxes.  A standardised response cannot cope with the huge variety of people's need.  As Mark Smith writes in his blog, "[Standardisation] takes away an opportunity to apply judgement and nuance, borne from experience and an appraisal of what matters to whomever needs help"
• Once you standardise you have functional specialisms or silos.  Each service or provider is commissioned to only do specific things, and therefore won't do others.  The people who come to that service are looked at and labelled through the lens of whatever that service is commissioned to do.  Then they're referred or 'sign-posted' to the next service, who repeats the process again. 
• When providers are commissioned only to do certain things, they introduce thresholds or assessment criteria – essentially gate-keeping.  The thinking here is there's only a scarce resource available, so you need to ration what you do.  
• But, when people get turned away (or referred, or sign-posted), it means they either present elsewhere in the system, or come back later when their needs are higher.  Thresholds can be a false economy, as when people get worse they are more expensive to support.  
• Instead of building trust and relationships with their partners, commissioners and funders are typically interested in accountability (which is a nicer way of saying management by fear).  It means providers becomes concerned with external approval, which undermines intrinsic motivation and responsible practice.   
• To hold providers to account, commissioners use monitoring and performance management.  They ask for detailed information about how workers are spending their time, what activities they're doing, or if they are working to the standard.  A damaging example is 'time and task' commissioning in homecare services.  
• Another way to hold people to account is by setting numerical targets.  I've written about the problems with targets in a previous post.  They change the focus from doing the right thing to making the numbers look good, even if that means doing the wrong thing.  
• The undesirable effects of targets can be made even worse by payment by results.  They are a way to financially reward providers for producing data about targets, and not for helping the people they exist to help.  

Imagine what the place I visited might look like if it were commissioned in the traditional way?  What would it be like for the women who go there?  What would it be like for the staff and volunteers?  Would it be any more efficient?

Why do we fund and commission in this way?

As business writer Aaron Dignan puts it, "The way we work is broken.  It was invented 100 years ago on a factory floor for a world that no longer exists".  Commissioning is a symptom of these outdated ways of working, grounded in mass-production and 'Taylorism', which results in treating people as though they are parts in a production line.

In the 1980s, public services started to embrace what was subsequently called New Public Management.  This meant running public services as though they were private sector organisations, being more 'business-like', treating citizens as customers, and attempting to use competitive markets to reduce costs.   This led to policies like Compulsory Competitive Tendering (CCT), later replaced by Best Value, which are is still with us today.  

What are the alternatives?

There are many folks who know much more than me about how to improve funding and commissioning practices.

My go-to person for this is usually Toby Lowe.  He's an academic, who's previously been a provider of commissioned services, and has done loads of research in to this area with voluntary and public sector organisations. With his colleague Dawn Plimmer, he's put all of this into a brilliant report called Exploring the new world: Practical insights for funding, commissioning, and managing in complexity.  You can watch him speaking about it in this 13 minute video.

Andy Brogan, co-founder of Easier Inc, has recently written an accessible 'how' to report.  It gives lots of insight and helpful advice on how to put what he calls 'Commissioning 2.0' in to practice.

Jo Gibson from Vanguard has been doing some great work in this area too.  You can watch one of her students speaking about how they changed the way they commissioned homecare services in this 20 minute talk.  Jo is co-hosting a one-day commissioning event in London on 5 May 2020 which is worth checking out.

Over to you...

Do you work for a an organisation that provides commissioned or funded services?  How accurately  does what I've written here reflect your world?

Likewise, if you're at an organisation that commissions or funds services, are you still doing it in a traditional way, or have you started to look at some of the alternatives?

I'd love to read your thoughts in a comment below.  And please do feel free to share this with anyone who might be interested.  

Review: Beyond Command and Control (in people-centred services)

"Paul's life fell off the rails.  Over a period of 10 months, he was subject to 179 activity records by public servants, involving 91 staff from 20 different teams.  He experienced 12 assessments and 11 referrals, leading to six hospital admissions with total stays of 81 days, while staff generated seven support plans.  At no time did anyone spend time with Paul to understand what mattered and what 'success' might mean to him."

This is from the people-centred services chapter of John Seddon's new book, Beyond Command and Control.  It sums up much of what I've found when looking at these types of services.

I'm already a fan of John's writing, and have read many of his other books.  It was one of John's books that first got me thinking differently about improving services.

I've kindly been sent an advanced copy of the book.  Rather than covering all of it, I'm going to attempt to review the chapter on 'people-centred services', as it's an area I've worked with in local government.

What are people-centred services?

This is a term John uses to describe services that respond when "people's lives fall off the rails in a variety of ways". For example, services such as social care, domestic abuse, and homelessness are some people-centred services I've worked with.

They differ to transactional services as they usually require a relationship with the person first, in order to understand them and their situation.  How an organisation responds to "can I book a squash court" should be different to its response to "I'm struggling with my debt and my health".

Sadly, as John describes in this chapter, we too often see a transactional response when a people-centred one is needed, causing all sorts of things to go wrong.

What's wrong with the current design of these services?

The chapter highlights many of the problems with the prevailing "command and control" approach to designing and managing people-centred services.  Here are some of them.

• Targets. I've written about the problems with targets before. They're often set by politicians, hide the truth, and lead to sub-optimisation: "the time taken to get 'on target' is actually a reflection of the time it took public-sector managers' ingenuity to work out how to at least appear to be on target by gaming the system". 

In the example of care assessments, meeting targets "simply covers up the terrible truth: the extraordinary time it takes people to get through the red tape, mind-boggling number of people involved, the forms, assessments, reminders..." 

• Functional specialisms.  If you approach a council for help you "may be seen by a dozen or more people" each "considering your needs through their own specialist lens". 

I've seen this myself.  People get assessed and referred all over the place – like in a game of pass the parcel.  Each professional is only allowed to do their 'bit'.  All the activity going on here costs so much money, without really helping anyone.

• Standardisation.  A one size fits all approach which means "services inevitably fail to match the variety of people's needs, providing some things that don't help and others that go further than necessary".  Care services are commissioned on a "time and task" basis, meaning you get "30 minutes regardless of whether 10 or 40 might be better".  

This two minute video powerfully highlights many of the problems with this approach.  

• Managing demand. Or as John puts it "rationing by another name: limiting services, finding excuses to turn people away".  This is done in the name of reducing cost.  But when people's needs don't meet the criteria, they are left for the condition to get worse, meaning they cost more to support later.  

This was backed up recently by some superb research by Dr Rick Hood and colleagues.  It found children "screened out" of social care services are more likely to re-enter the system later on, with more complicated (and therefore costly) problems.  This is an example of failure demand, an important term originally coined by John in previous books.  

*            *            *

The chapter also explains a number of other flaws with typical people-centred services, including budget management, cost-cutting, commissioning, and a belief in market forces.  

Is there a better way?

Yes.  John describes a more effective design.  It starts with understanding demand and doing only the work that's of value to the citizen.  This consists of understanding the citizen and their need in context, helping them establish what a good life would look like for them, discovering what they can do for themselves to live a good life, and lastly looking at what support they may need from elsewhere.  

By focusing on doing only this, and cutting out the forms, signposting, remote assessment, rationing, standardised assessments, etc: "Lives get put back on rails... costs of services provided fall dramatically... and... as individuals and families are straightened out... overall demand begins to fall away".  

There are examples of where this has been achieved from a number of places, including a county council, a Swedish municipality, and some encouraging work done in Wales between a commissioner and care provider.  

In summary

This is an important read for anyone who works with people-centred services, or is concerned about increasing costs and demand in the public sector.  

It gives a crystal clear account of the problems with the current command and control design, valuable insights in to why that design is flawed, and demonstrates an alternative that's better for citizens, better for people working with citizens, and one that greatly reduces costs and demand.  

For a perspective of other parts of the book – especially the chapter on Agile – I highly recommend reading this review from Bob Marshall.

You can find more about the book, including how to order it, here.

9 things to avoid doing when studying demand

The people at Vanguard have written a lot about studying demand in services.  Why you should do it, how you should do it, etc.  They even invented the term 'failure demand' – so I'm not going to repeat what they say here.  For a short introduction to studying demand, I recommend this one minute read from Simon Pickthall.

Instead, I'm going to share a few things I've learned that are not helpful to do when you study demand.  I've either witnessed everything in the list below, or made the mistakes myself. 

1. Do all the studying yourself.  As mentioned in a previous post, the main purpose of studying a service isn't for analysis.  It's to help people unlearn and relearn.  The best way for them to do this is by studying the service from the customer's perspective.  And studying demand is a great place to start.   

I made this mistake more recently than I would have liked.  The demand analysis became just another slide in a PowerPoint presentation.   It lost all it's impact, and definitely didn't change anyone's thinking about the service.

2. Guess what the demands are.  Get a bunch of managers together in a room.  Do some 'brainstorming' and –  based on opinions –  identify the most common type of failure demand.  Put these in spreadsheet, with actions, due dates, etc, against each type of failure demand.

Or, decide the most common types of demand in advance.  Make them in to a tick sheet, and give it to the people who receive the demand to fill in.  

Studying a service is all about learning and discovery – it's not about trying to have all the answers.

3. Use existing data.  Run a report from your CRM, using categories already defined by the consultants who implemented the CRM.  This is similar to the previous point, where you shouldn't assume in advance you know what the customer is calling about.  The difference here is you've paid someone else to do the guessing for you. 

4. Be constrained by the existing rules.  I was once with a team listening to demand for council housing repairs.  One of the most frequent demands – particularly around midday each day – was "are you still coming to today's appointment?"  The appointment was for a tradesperson to arrive at their home and carry out a repair. 

The existing appointment slot was 8am to 1pm.  For this reason, most of the team initially felt this can't be a failure demand.  The resident was calling during their appointment slot, not afterwards, so surely we've done nothing wrong?
 
They were viewing this demand through the lens of the existing organisational system, and all it's constraints.  Yes, no person has done anything wrong.  But the system could be improved to stop this demand happening in the first place.  For example, you could shorten the appointment slot.  Or, as some councils have done, ask the resident when they want you do carry out the repair, and turn up then. 

5. Don't involve the people who receive demand.  When you're sitting with them listening to demand, don't explain why your there or what you're doing.  Don't show them what you're writing down. 

It's important to show your findings to the people who receive the demand.  It removes some of the mystery about what you and your team are up to.  It's also an ideal way to validate your findings – show it to them and ask them if this looks like a 'normal' day.  Listen to what they say about it. 

6. Fear failure demand.  Look for excuses to categorise everything as value demand, for fear it will look bad or demotivate staff if you find too much failure demand.  If this happens, it starts to give you some clues about the organisational culture.  

7. Ignore the type of service you are studying.  I've made the mistake a couple of times of studying demand in a people-centred service in exactly the same way I would in a transactional service.   I've learned from this mistake now, and it's something I plan to write about in a future post.  

8. Gather too much data.  I've had people on my team before who were concerned they needed to collect data on thousands upon thousands of demands.  Yes, you need to be somewhat scientific.  But not to the extent of randomised controlled trial or anything else that requires similarly high levels or rigor. 

When have you studied enough demand?  When the people you're working with have learned what they need to learn, and when the demand has become predictable.  This means you're no longer seeing types of demand you haven't seen before. 

9.  Do nothing else.  I've seen demand analysis be treated as a one-off exercise, done in isolation.   There may sometimes be value in doing this, but you're missing out on a fantastic opportunity to improve the service if you do nothing else.

It's important to next find out how the service responds to value demand, and does what matters for the customer.  You'll then want to learn why the service responds in the way it does.  

*                                                  *                                                  *

How about you?  Have you done or seen any of these mistakes?  Are there any others you've seen that aren't covered here?  Please feel free to comment below, or share this with someone who might be curious.