Driving Improvement and Efficiency in Culture Services Joint Portfolio Holders and Directors of Culture Network Meeting – 15th February 2011

Driving Improvement and Efficiency in Culture Services

Joint Portfolio Holders and Directors of Culture Network Meeting – 15th February 2011

Sheffield15th February 2011

1. Welcome and Introductions

Project supported by:

2. Structure of the WorkshopSession 1: 3. Overview of the Driving Improvement & Efficiency in Culture Services project

4. Challenges and Opportunities facing Culture Services

5. Service innovation and new models of delivery

6. Questions

Session 2: 7. Emerging examples of practice

8. Practical considerations

9. Leading the change

10. Questions

Next Steps and Close

Session 1

3. Driving Improvement & Efficiency in Culture Services project

Project Remit:

To drive the improvement and efficiency agenda;

To increase understanding and demonstration of the value of culture services;

To identify long term improvements in culture services and cost reductions;

To research and share good practice and solutions for long-term improvements; and

To identify quick wins, long-term improvements and opportunities for joined-up service delivery.


Exploring:

Establishing shared museum services

Establishing shared library services

Establishing shared arts services

Establishing or extending a leisure trust


Progress: Update consultation with councils on their priorities and

aspirations for culture services Research on national emerging practice and models Workshop for councils held in January 2011 Bespoke assignments with a number of councils, including:

- East Riding (shared museum services)- Calderdale (sport and active recreation)- Yorkshire Libraries and Information (shared library services)

Trust workshop to be held on 17th March 2011 Sharing good practice

4. Challenges & Opportunities facing Culture Services

‘Local government is faced with making sense of deep contradictions: more freedom to make choices but

less real scope to do so; greater financial flexibility but a central objective to freeze council tax; strengthened

localism but a drive to work across boundaries…

Councils are being given new responsibilities and a more complex strategic role at the same time as being

forced to find huge savings and innovative ways of maintaining frontline services’.

Adrian Bradley, the Leisure Review, October 2010

The Landscape in Yorkshire and Humber Awaiting confirmation of budgets

Ongoing feasibility studies and service reviews

Benchmarking practice

CAA red flags:- Health inequalities- Outcomes for children and young people- Earnings


Redefining the role of customers/users

Devolution to councils

Dismantling of national performance framework

Reshaping NDPB funding and support

Opportunity for local political and managerial leadership

Technology and changing consumer behaviour


Collaborative working Contribution of the sector to priority outcomes

through commissioning both internal and external. - Public Health White Paper / Health and Wellbeing Boards

- Schools White Paper / Curriculum reform

- Welfare Reform White Paper

- Economic Development/ Local Enterprise Partnerships

- Big Society / Localism Bill / Community Budgeting

New models of service delivery and innovation


Collaborative Working Sharing skills and expertise across councils

Sharing skills and expertise within councils (cross-portfolio working)

Opportunities:- Cross boundary programming- Cross boundary marketing and promotion- Cross boundary audience development


Benefits of Collaborative Working Shared services that are centred around customer needs

and the customer journey

Shared services reduce duplicated spend on infrastructure and offer economies of scale

Shared services can be more streamlined and efficient to manage on a day to day basis

Shared services enable staff to work more effectively

Shared service can help to protect frontline delivery


Commissioning Income generation / Budget cuts

Culture services facilitating efficiency savings for other services

- Avoidable customer contact- Asset / Estate strategy- Signposting to services / user targeting- Learning and skills outcomes (e.g. adult literacy, NEETS)- Social inclusion / cohesion outcomes- Social care outcomes


What are the models?

What do we mean by sharing?

Who can we share delivery with?

What are the potential benefits?

Are there current examples?


Existing Sector Practice? Outsourcing of leisure services to private sector or Trusts

Shift of arts facilities to Trusts

Libraries, museums, arts development and sports development in-house


What are the models? In-house local authority managed services

Partially externalised service

Fully externalised service

Hybrid model

Independent voluntary trust

Worker co-operatives

Shared service model


What are the models? In-house local authority managed services

Partially externalised service- some aspects of a service are contracted out to a private contractor or trust (e.g. single arts venue or leisure centre)

Fully externalised service- all culture and sport provision is transferred to a private contractor or trust at one go. This can include buildings and assets as well as services such as sports development and arts development.


What are the models? Hybrid model- formation of a trust who then partially or

fully contract out the service to an external management company for an agreed contract period.

Independent voluntary trust- similar to partially/fully externalised service but may focus on managing and delivering services and projects rather than a building

Worker co-operatives (emerging)- existing staff take control of a facility or service through a leasehold arrangement or a full scale asset transfer.


What do we mean by sharing? Two or more councils jointly running or managing culture

or leisure services together

Can be delivered in two ways:- Informal: two services are independent but there is joint working

and some sort of partnership framework or agreement

- Formal: single service serving two or more different councils

Approach can be service specific (i.e. just arts or museum service)

Potential to develop much quicker and cheaper than developing a new leisure trust


Who can we share delivery with? Local Councils (not restricted to immediate neighbours)

Private contractor or Trust

Community and voluntary sector organisations

Volunteers


What are the potential benefits? Reduction in operating costs Protection of frontline services Improvement in service standards and delivery of outcomes Sharing risk (e.g. investment, procurement & employment) Scale of cuts necessitate more fundamental review of

service delivery model- shared service delivery provides an alternative approach

Some benefits will take longer to realise


6. Questions?

Session 2

Existing council practice Contracting out

- Street services and environmental management- HR- Fleet management

Commissioning third sector organisations to deliver youth provision/services

Joint Director of Public Health (PCT & Local Authority)

Shared procurement

7. Existing and Emerging practice

Emerging examples outside the Culture sector ‘Commissioning Council’- Charnwood District Council

Transfer to ‘service delivery vehicle’- Selby District Council

Full integration- Adur District Council & Worthing Borough Council

- Shared Chief Executive, Senior Management and Service Teams

Service integration- London Boroughs of Westminster, Kensington & Chelsea, Hammersmith & Fulham

- Includes environmental, family and children’s services and planning


Culture and Sport sector examples SPINE Project (Library)- sharing IT, bibliographic

Services and technical functions

Greenwich Leisure Limited (Leisure)- partnership with 13 London Boroughs, Epsom & Ewell Borough Council and Reading Borough Council

Tees Valley Unitary Authorities exploring a single museums structure

ARTS CONNECT- Regional Shared Arts in Wales


SPINE Project- Shared Library Service The seven partner councils in East of England are

Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Norfolk, Southend, Suffolk and Thurrock.

The vision is that by sharing services, current and future partners will be able to improve the efficiency of service delivery by reducing costs whilst maintaining or improving standards of service to the customer.

Total budget baseline for SPINE partnership is £76.8 million (2010/11 budget figures)

Resources fund for books and information materials has been taken out of scope for all the options (£10million).


SPINE Project- Shared Library Service The appraisal assesses each of the options against a set

of critical success factors as follows:- Releasing the maximum savings - requires the potential to achieve

at least 25% savings over 3 years.

- Achievable with in time scale – if not established by 1st April 2011 then any agreement must be sufficiently advanced that it will deliver significant savings over the next 3 years.

- Satisfy legal and statutory requirements.- Manageable risks.

- Transferable and scalable to other authorities.

- Attractive to all stakeholders.


SPINE Project- Options Appraisal Option 1-Sharing of back office and support functions. This option

covers the smallest % of the overall budget in terms of its scope, with a lead authority acting as a host which provides identified services to the other partners. The case for this option suggests that there is a good return on investment. Option provides a 71% saving on the budget for services which are in scope, equating to 4% of the total budget over a four year period.

Option 2- Creation of a single library service (Separate legal entity). The option sees sharing of all services, including the frontline operational delivery, but excludes corporate and indirect costs. A 14% saving on the budget for services which are in scope is predicted.


SPINE Project- Options Appraisal Option 3-Creation of a single library service (Separate legal entity).

Corporate and support costs are included. This option covers the largest portion of the overall budget. Significant savings identified from corporate and support costs amounting to £11 million. Concerns about the administrative and financial implications for the wider organisations in which library services sit and the political appetite for this option given the implications for corporate services. A 26% saving on the baseline budget is predicted for this option over four years.

Preferred Option 1-Sharing of back office and support functions. Estimated cashable saving of £0.8 – £1.5 million over 4 years across 5 SPINE partners (Hertfordshire and Norfolk withdrew). However represents a starting point.


ARTS CONNECT- Scope 8 Unitary Authorities arts services

Covers population of 951,281

9 theatres and 2 craft centre galleries

Arts Development Officers

80 FTEs

Gross Expenditure £5.2m


ARTS CONNECT- Current Status Partners’ in principle commitment

Agreed efficiency target of 10%

Established net baseline of £3.2m

Development of Business Case


ARTS CONNECT- Benefits Improved arts provision for users

Wider arts officer experience

Avoids duplication

No more competition

Economies of scale


ARTS CONNECT- Issues Change of emphasis and new way of working

Efficiency targets

Timescales

Governance structures

HR


Other Examples? Numerous examples of culture supporting corporate or

other service priorities

Specific examples of supporting target audiences- Children and Young People- Older age groups- Disadvantaged communities- Disability groups

Opportunities to do these collaboratively? Shared programming Appointing lead council for specialist services


Where do I find out more? Communities of Practice, www.communities.idea.gov.uk

MLA Research and Evidence database, http://research.mla.gov.uk/case-studies/

Arts Council case studies, www.artscouncil.org.uk/browse/?content=casestudy

Yorkshire and Humber Improvement and Efficiency Partnership, www.yohrspace.org.uk/

From each other…..



8. Practical considerations Maintain a focus on customers / users

To date shared services has tended to focus on back office functions as opposed to frontline

Be realistic about timescales

Be realistic about the budgets

Embrace innovation and pilot approaches

Recognise the need for ‘harmonisation’

Requires political and managerial buy-in

Share the vision with staff

What is required? Recognition of the pressures and decision making

challenges facing senior elected members;

An understanding that 30% cuts cannot be achieved through trimming;

A structured change management programme;

An understanding of the outlook, skills and expectations of staff working in culture services;

Wider local authority understanding of the importance of social capital and the contribution made by culture;

A need to continue to build officer and member trust across boundaries in order to underpin improved cooperation.

9. Leading the change

10. Questions?

11. Next Steps

Scoping projects with a selection of councils to explore shared service models

Production of guidance documents

Trust Workshop on 17th March in Doncaster

Sharing of practice, skills and expertise across the region

Other?

Contact DetailsAndy Parkinson Colin MitchellERS Transforming CultureMilburn House 1 Ayton Court, Bedlington, Dean Street NorthumberlandNewcastle upon Tyne NE22 6NSNE1 1LE

Tel: 0191 244 6103 Tel: 01670 827598 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] www.ers.org.uk www.transformingculture.co.uk

Documents

Driving Improvement and Efficiency in Culture Services Joint Portfolio Holders and Directors of Culture Network Meeting – 15th February 2011