Working together for sustainbility:

5 Collaborative Models for Voluntary

and Community Sector Organisations

delivering early intervention mental

health services for children and young

people explored

Written and developed by Elaine Willis, Associate for

FPM.

Published by BOND and YoungMinds.

Published under a Creative Commons License.

© Crown Copyright, 2013.

2

Contents Page

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 3

Model 1 – Consortia .............................................................................................................. 8

Model 2: Partnerships ......................................................................................................... 14

Model 3 - Legal mutual structures - co-operatives, collectives and associations ................. 19

Model 4 - Social franchises ................................................................................................. 26

Model 5 - Prime contractor and supplier (sub-contractor) model ......................................... 30

Appendix – Overview of resources ...................................................................................... 36

3

Introduction

BOND is a Consortium led by YoungMinds, the leading expert in the field of children and

young people’s mental health. The BOND Consortium members include the following

leaders in the field: Youth Access and Place2Be who bring a strong track record of VCS

delivery of mental health services in the community and in schools across England, with

evidence based models of effective practice and outcomes, quality assurance, networking

and commissioning. The Mental Health Foundation and EBPU (Evidence Based Practice

Unit) provide unrivalled expertise in research on the provision of mental health services, data

collection, quality standards, outcomes for CAMHS, and accreditation. FPM brings a ten

year history and proven record of capacity building across VCS organisations working with

children and young people. YoungMinds has also assembled a specialist team of CAMHS

commissioning experts including Lisa Williams and online CAMH service support providers

Cernis. The partnership is advised by The Afiya Trust which brings its expertise, networks

and knowledge of BME communities.

This resource has two audiences:

Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS) organisations which have decided to collaborate

with others in order to provide early intervention mental health services to children and

young people. They may want to do this through tendering for public service contracts and/or

by accessing other funds (grants, social investment, earned income etc)

Public service commissioners and procurers (particularly those in the NHS, Health and

Well Being Boards and in Schools) whose role it is to create and manage markets within

which services are commissioned and so design and purchase such services from the VCS

and others

First and foremost, VCS organisations need to be clear about purpose or mission in working

collaboratively. What is it that you want to achieve by working with others? Once you have

established this think about which collaborative structures best suit your goals. Structure in

and of itself does not create a better business. But the right structure can support and make

it more likely that you will succeed in your collaborations to benefit children and young

people.

The purpose of the resource

The resource lays out the different collaborative structures which are available to VCS

service organisations and indicates their relative advantages and disadvantages, provides

live examples, references any technical or legal considerations which need to be taken into

account, and signposts further detailed resources to help with choices. The resource also

indicates, where possible, the relative use and function of these structures in the

commissioning of services.

The structures are:

Model 1 Consortia

Model 2 Partnerships

4

Model 3 Legal mutual structures - co-operatives, collectives and associations

Model 4 Social franchises

Model 5 Prime contractor and supplier/s

There is an additional document which is a collection of all the resources for all models to be

found at on the BOND website.

The nature of the local market

The intentions of commissioners vary from locality to locality. They will be influenced by the

local political and economic context. It is best not to assume you know what these are but to

research local commissioning approaches or talk to commissioners themselves.

Commissioning approaches have two dimensions: the first is the desire to develop

competition with the expectation that this will drive down costs and raise quality. The second

is the desire to bring social value to local communities (ie support the provision of services

by local VCS organisations because they bring added social value to their communities

which external providers may not). However, social value sometimes gets conflated with

best value so that this too is seen ultimately as a cost-saving device. Social value is not yet

well developed or driving commissioning but has the potential to do so. This is supported by

the Social Value Act (2012) which makes it a duty for public authorities to “have regard to

economic, social and environmental well-being in connection with public services contracts;

and for connected purposes”.

The diagram below illustrates on a matrix the different approaches commissioners may take

depending on whether they want to build social value and improve quality through

collaboration, or reduce costs and improve quality through competition. The tight/loose axis

indicates the various collaborative structures which can be used to deliver services within

these approaches. Since the Coalition government came to power wherever commissioners

stand on the horizontal axis, the approaches have tended to favour tighter structures.

5

Understanding the market you are operating in is vital if you are not to find yourself in a

position where cuts are the outcome of your winning service contracts. It is important that

your collaborative endeavour to create its own political position in the locality so that you

work from a position of influence.

Choosing collaborative structures

The choice of collaborative structure will be informed by:

The values which underpin your mission

The relationships you want to have and nurture with professional peers and young

people themselves

The early intervention mental health services to children and young people which you

currently and would like to provide in future (see diagram below)

The type of business model you want to adopt (from the local and informal to the

product and market driven business) and the ambition you have

The level and means of engagement you want from your stakeholders

The local market and the `whole system’ within which your service provision sits with

other providers

Local commissioning priorities and frameworks (local authority, NHS and schools)

It is helpful to have an understanding of where your early intervention mental health services

for children and young people (existing and proposed) sit in the tiers of provision in the

service continuum. This will help you to assess the nature of the collaboration – with whom,

for what benefit, and to whom? It will also help you begin to map gaps in service, services

which could add value to your offer, continuity for service users and value to your direct and

indirect purchasers.

6

The service ‘tiers’ model

Tier 4

Tier 3

SPECIALIST

SERVICES

Tier 2 / TARGETED

Tier 1 / UNIVERSAL

NHS

£ MH funding?

LA

Some

schools

Other

Where, who , how, when?

Mental

health

expertise

Service ‘tiers’1 4

Access

?

It is worth noting that the distribution of resources is heavily skewed towards the higher tiers.

So the early intervention services get proportionately very little money despite the

overwhelming evidence that early intervention can save very expensive tier 3 and 4 services

from being needed later on. BOND’s argument is that better organised VCS provision

(including collaborative arrangements explored in this resource) will put the VCS in a

7

stronger position to work with commissioners to secure resources for early intervention

mental health services for children and young people.

Managing risk

All collaborations involve risk but some collaborative structures involve more risk than

others. It is critical to know your Board of Trustees/Directors appetite for and attitude to risk.

The Charity Commission’s publication CC26 (see below) details the strategic and investment

risk which has to be taken into account. The Institute of Risk Management has publications

which can help your risk profile.

Resources

Measuring and Commissioning Outcomes and Social Value (Public Services): Explaining the terms 'social value' and 'outcomes' and how these are measured and purchased through commissioning and procurement. http://www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/psd/commissioning/social_value2#outcomes

Local Government Association (July 2012) Commissioning for better local services. http://www.local.gov.uk/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=846cdbeb-b1c5-4042-ac2a-887fcf58c2b8&groupId=10171

Expert round up: flexible commissioning in public services (8 December 2012) http://www.guardian.co.uk/local-government-network/2012/dec/08/local-government-experts-flexible-commissioning/print

The Charity Commission (June 2010) CC26 Charities and Risk Management. http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Publications/cc26.aspx

Institute of Risk Management http://www.theirm.org/

Department for Communities (September 2011) Best Value Statutory Guidance. www.communities.gov.uk

Ajay Bhuttae (4 February 2013) What will the Social Value Act mean for social enterprise? Guardian Professional – Social Enterprise Network https://socialenterprise.guardian.co.uk/en/articles/social-enterprise-network/2013/feb/04/social-value-act-social-enterprises?CMP=EMCSOCEML657

8

Model 1 – Consortia

A consortium is a group of organisations which has agreed to work together to achieve an

agreed purpose. The group sets rules for who is a member, how they will work together and

what they will do jointly etc. This will appear as a governing document (or constitution) for

the consortium. It may adopt a variety of structures.

In this resource we are concerned with consortia of voluntary and community y organisations

which may form to enable them to win contracts and grants for early intervention mental

health services for children and young people.

When used?

When commissioners and providers can see that there is a collaborative advantage in coming together i.e. a service objective can be met which no one organisation could fulfil on its own and each provider is able to achieve its own objectives better than it could alone. (Institute for Voluntary Action Research definition)

Types of consortium

Lead agency consortium – where one agency has lead the development of the tender together with the other consortium members, and has won the contract. It enters into sub-contract arrangements with the consortium members and together they deliver the services. The lead agency is generally larger with a good track record of service delivery and has financial resilience. The lead agency holds the contract on behalf of the consortium (and is responsible for its management and delivery).

Lead agency consortium

Commissioner Lead agency

9

Hub and spoke consortium – where the hub has been created as a `special purpose vehicle’ often referred to as a `super contractor’. It is equally and jointly owned by its member organisations. The hub has a board of directors elected at the AGM who are representatives of the consortium membership. They hold the responsibility for hub operations on behalf of the wider membership. The “hub” consortium company holds the contract on behalf of the members of the consortium. This risk is spread across the whole consortium as the members are the owners of the hub. The hub may employ staff to win bids and to manage the allocation of delivery to the member organisations but does not deliver the services itself. See Collaborate to compete for more detail

Hub and spoke consortium

Commissioner

Consortium

Company

To get best results...

On the commissioning side: Commissioners involve consortia or partnerships in

commissioning process from the start so that they start from a position of strength

Allow enough time to build the consortium and relationships with key players so that the consortium can diversify if and when needed

Take the distinctive value of VCS providers into account not just the bottom line

Contracts which last longer than 12 months can help the partnership build its expertise and confidence

Commissioners who are top down can put pressure on the `accountable’ member to make decisions which can then put pressure on the whole consortium because other members feel

10

they are not being engaged. The best commissioners will bring different members together for different purposes albeit through the services of the accountable member.

On the VCS providers side:

VCS providers have trustees who are not risk adverse and can see potential for growth, distinctive value and reputational advantage

VCS providers manage any potential mission drift created by consortium or partnership involvement

Strong leadership by the VCS lead body helps it to be proactive in co-designing and tendering for contracts and in sorting out any difficulties along the way

Early on determine the costs of bidding, revenue sharing and pricing. These must be recouped through contracts won.

Agree the ground rules for dealing with conflict Ensure bids cover corporate overheads e.g. finance and IT Give consideration to branding: if this is too strong, members’

own branding may be diminished. If too weak, then it is harder to track who has benefitted from the work of the consortium. Consortia which present a blizzard of logos and brands may confuse.

If the language of tenders makes it look as though the tender is aimed at the private sector – then it probably is! Do not waste energy and resources on bidding for work which is clearly not designed for VCS delivery. Instead spend time on persuading commissioners that there Commissioning model could be different.

Advantages Ability to pioneer and improve services – can lead to creative and innovative ways of working

More efficient use of resources and knowledge sharing Better co-ordination of activities Stronger, more united voice and strategic approach to need

which can ultimately result in better services to beneficiaries A closer vantage point to and understanding of service users Can enable providers to come together to work on a larger scale

and over a wider geographical area than would otherwise be possible

Can lead to cost savings May be able to take risks that one organisation alone might find

too challenging as the risk is shared Continuity of working even if a partner leaves Small local consortium can deliver high social value by improving

the local economy, bringing resources in to local areas, preventing wastage and duplication, delivering swift referral within a seamless process because they include specialist as well as generic providers, seeing value in supporting communities of interest i.e. mental health and investing in them.

Disadvantages Differences in values and culture between members can cause friction

Consortia can be expensive and time consuming to create and

11

run Agreements about money can creep in and destabilise

relationships Leadership can be contested Invisible tensions within VCS providers and localities between

collaboration and competition If setting up a new legal body – takes time to complete process;

no track record of service delivery, no financial history and no reserves to show commissioners

High dependency on good communication and openness and honesty between members

Tendency to compromise when things get difficult rather than tackle issues head on

Technical and legal considerations

Commissioners need to decide whether their procurement procedures ask them to evaluate hub members individually or collectively. Individual evaluations could exclude smaller providers.

Commissioners may need to waive PQQ requirements about track record and trading history to enable newly formed hubs to bid for work

Obtain your commissioner’s sample PQQ (Pre-Qualification Questionnaire) and use this to build your audit tool

Due diligence processes have legal implications – check how to carry out the most effective and efficient due diligence by referring to NCVO’s publication

Trustees and directors of consortium members need to be clear about the risks involved in signing up to a consortium. Do you become liable for the failures of other members of the consortium? Is your organisation allowed by its governing document to join a consortium – if so on what grounds? How can risks be managed?

Consortia - Steps to make it happen

The following steps are offered as a guide, detail of which is laid out in the following

publications together with templates for action plans:

Action Plan Template: Developing a Lead Agency Consortium

Action Template: Developing a hub and spoke consortium

Step Lead agency consortium Hub and spoke consortium

1 Identify potential partners Identify potential partners

2 Hold a first meeting Hold a first meeting

3 Prepare board report for all partner boards to consider

Prepare board report for all partner boards to consider

4 Form consortium working group Form consortium working group

12

5 Prepare to conduct `due diligence’ or develop and implement membership application procedures

Potential members’ audit and action plan. Each potential member should carry out an audit to demonstrate their governance, business and operational standing in key areas.

6 Prepare second board report (which summarises what is proposed in step 5)

Develop a consortium business plan

7 Conduct due diligence exercise and prepare third board report which summarises due diligence findings and recommends (or not) whether to proceed with the consortium

Membership application process

8 Consortium agreement or memorandum of understanding

Business branding

9 Develop a consortium business plan Register for legal incorporation to reduce liabilities for directors and trustees with either the Charity Commission, Companies House or CIC Regulator depending on the structure of the consortium hum

10 Market your offer and develop tender alerts

Investment applications to build, develop and operate the consortium

11 Agree procedures for co-developing tenders which should be based on those of the lead agency and adjusted as appropriate for the consortium

Manage the internal competition though use of hub protocols, memorandum of understanding or consortium agreement

12 Manage the contract using a contract management team whose role and tasks should be agreed by the consortium

Develop a marketing strategy and materials

13 Develop tender alert systems

14 Make the hub contract-ready – return to step 5 and test whether the hub itself is able to pass the audit

15 Establish procedures for co-developing tenders

16 Manage the contract using a contract management team whose role and tasks should be agreed by the consortium/ partnership

13

Resources

Reshenia Consulting (November 2010)A bridge between two worlds: A study of support and development organisations and intelligent commissioning. Sheffield: NAVCA www.assets.navcadevelopmentserver.co.uk/existing/NR/rdonlyres/4f0fdfa8-3013-473b-b6b3-cd258c11e70c/0/aicreportsinglepages.pdf

NCVO (2006) Due Diligence Demystified: What it is and how you manage it. London: NCVO www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/products-services/publications/due-diligence-demystified-what-it-how-you-manage-it

NCVO (2012) Contract Notices: Finding Invitations to Tender (Public Services). London: NCVO www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/commissioning/procurement/contract_advertisement

Curtis, I. (October 2011) Collaborate to compete: Developing consortia to deliver contracts. London: NCVO

Collaboration Benefits CIC (October 2012) Action Plan Template: Developing a lead agency consortium. London: NCVO www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/sites/default/files/ncvo_hub_and_spoke_development_document_a.pdf

Collaboration Benefits CIC (October 2012) Action Template: Developing a hub and spoke consortium. London: NCVO www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/sites/default/files/ncvo_hub_and_spoke_development_document_a.pdf

Fleming, J. et al for Participation Works (2010) How to use a consortium-working approach. London: NCB

Social Enterprise London (2003) Consortium model for childcare social enterprises. London: Social Enterprise London

Cabinet Office (2009) Working in a consortium – Summary guide: A guide for third sector organisations involved in public service delivery. London: Cabinet Office, Office of the |Third sector

Ford, K. (October 2012) A Return to Ancient Truths: Tips for commissioners on providing services for young people through consortia of local voluntary organisations. London: Community Matters

NCVO Collaborative Working Unit (July 2006) Joint working agreements: Developing agreements between voluntary or community organisations. London: NCVO www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/sites/default/files/Joint_working_agreements.pdf

Participation Works (2010 ) How to use a consortium working approach. http://www.participationworks.org.uk/resources/how-to-use-a-consortium-working-approach

ALDCS (2012) Future Models For Youth. A Review of London Boroughs’ Youth provision in London, April - August 2012. http://www.partnershipforyounglondon.org.uk/data/files/Youthwork/future_models_for_youth_final_oct_20121.pdf

14

Model 2: Partnerships

The term partnership is sometimes used interchangeably with consortium. In this resource

we take a partnership to mean a looser relationship between two or more organisations

where they agree to work together towards an agreed purpose. Here we focus on

partnerships which enable the partners to bid for contracts for services to provide early

intervention mental health support services for children and young people.

When used?

When commissioners and providers can see that there is a collaborative advantage in coming together i.e. a service objective can be met which no one organisation could fulfil on its own and each provider is able to achieve its own objectives better than it could alone. (Institute for Voluntary Action research definition)

Types of partnership

'Financial sheltering' of smaller specialist organisations by a larger provider in which the larger provider provides the necessary capital and/or in-kind support to enable smaller organisations to deliver specialist areas of a contract for which they are the most suited frontline organisations. The financial shelter organisation usually has a contract which spells out this role. The commissioner may contract with the smaller consortium members separately or work through the financial shelter organisation.

Financial shelter partnership

Commissioner

Financial shelter Voluntary Organisaiton

Smaller voluntary

organisations

supported by the

financial shelter

Value- added partnership – a smaller scale version of the

lead body consortium (see model 1) where 2 or 3 delivery partners come together under a joint working agreement. It is lower risk and can be either a partnership of equals or adopt a lead body model. One member of the partnership will have to hold the contract on behalf of all.

15

To get best results...

In addition to those detailed for consortia: `Financial sheltering’

Success is very much dependent on the integrity of the relationship between the partners, the ability of the smaller organisation to maintain and enhance the quality of its unique work, and the ability of the lead agency to quality manage the delivery.

The smaller organisations need capacity building to enable them to deliver within the contract. This needs to be carefully planned and costed.

Value-added partnership

In a small partnership of 2 or 3 arrangements need to be clear but not over-bureaucratic where this is for one contract and is only part of the providers whole work. Where the aim is to grow the partnership with existing partners and may be with new ones more formal arrangements might be needed from the outset.

Always have frank discussions about hopes and fears for the work and the management of risk. Discuss `what if’ scenarios before they become real life scenarios – in this way the partnership will be better prepared to act collaboratively in the interest of the whole contract.

Examples

Financial sheltering Barnado’s and NACRO (more detail to come) Value added provider partnership Communities Living Sustainably – Groundwork UK Learning Partnership funded by the Big Lottery Fund. http://www.communitieslivingsustainably.org.uk/about/

Advantages All those detailed for consortia plus: Maintains niche services delivered by small providers but

which are essential to the end user Sharing of complementary skills and experience Makes use of the capacity and experience of larger (often

national voluntary organisations) for the benefit of smaller local ones.

Helps larger organisation to become more locally focused

Disadvantages All those detailed for consortia plus: Informal arrangements between partners may drift into a

lack of clarity regarding responsibilities and accountability Commissioners may be risk averse when it comes to more

informal arrangements unless partners can demonstrate robust arrangements for accountability and project management

Technical and legal considerations

Arrangements without a formal constitution will always require one organisation to hold and be accountable for the contract.

16

Always seek legal and financial advice about arrangements. Loose arrangements may carry with them joint and several liability – which means any of the partners might be liable for debts or damages arising out of the activities of any other the other partners.

Check VAT issues Trustees need to ensure that their organisation acts legally

and that professional advice is sought where appropriate Trustees need to oversee partnership decision-making and

make the most effective use of funds

Partnerships - Steps to make it happen

Step Financial sheltering partnership

1 Agree with commissioners that there is a need and value in developing this model

2 Identify potential partners

3 Hold a first meeting. Agree purpose and value of the partnership and broadly how you want it to operate

4 Prepare board report for all partner boards to consider

5 Form partnership working group

6 Prepare to conduct `due diligence’ or develop and implement membership application procedures

7 Prepare second board report (which summarises what is proposed in step 6)

8 Conduct due diligence exercise and prepare third board report which summarises due diligence findings and recommends (or not) whether to proceed with the partnership

9 Partnership agreement or memorandum of understanding

10 Develop a partnership business plan

11 Market your offer and develop tender alerts

12 Agree procedures for co-developing tenders which should be based on those of the lead agency and adjusted as appropriate for the partnership

13 Manage the contract using a contract manager whose role and tasks should be agreed by the partnership

17

Partnerships - Steps to create a loose partnership

Step A local `loose’ partnership

1 Identify potential partners whose mission `match’ the intended goals of the partnership. It helps if potential partners’ activities are coterminous with the same local authority or NHS structures

2 Hold a first meeting and determine whether the partnership will be a network (where members can come in and out without disruption. Networks are primarily there to share knowledge and ideas, and meet new people with whom they might form a more involved partnership), or a co-operation (all parties understand where they have shared interest and concerns. They share information about their current work and, based on this mutual understanding, they agree to cooperate with each other), or collaboration (in which case this It involves not just sharing ideas, but being influenced by the views of other agencies, and agreeing to work together with some shared goals.

3 Depending on the answer to 2 develop a networking Terms of reference, or a framework agreement for co-operation or collaboration. These can all be stages to forming a more formal partnership where due diligence then comes into play (see above).

4 Agree which partner will have leadership of the partnership (in some partnership this will rotate but this can considerably weaken the potential long term success of the partnership as not all members can provide leadership in the way that the partnership requires), and determine that leadership function.

5 Review the performance of the partnership on a regular basis in line with its terms of reference or framework agreement. Assess whether it is timely to add members to the partnership, make it a more formal partnership or terminate the partnership as it has fulfilled its function and there are no further gains to be achieved.

Resources

Reshenia Consulting (November 2010) A bridge between two worlds: A study of support and development organisations and intelligent commissioning. Sheffield: NAVCA www.assets.navcadevelopmentserver.co.uk/existing/NR/rdonlyres/4f0fdfa8-3013-473b-b6b3-cd258c11e70c/0/aicreportsinglepages.pdf

NCVO (2006) Due Diligence Demystified: What it is and how you manage it. London: NCVO www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/products-services/publications/due-diligence-demystified-what-it-how-you-manage-it

NCVO (2012) Contract Notices: Finding Invitations to Tender (Public Services). London: NCVO www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/commissioning/procurement/contract_advertisement

Ford, K. (October 2012) A Return to Ancient Truths: Tips for commissioners on providing

18

services for young people through consortia of local voluntary organisations. London: Community Matters

NCVO Collaborative Working Unit (July 2006) Joint working agreements: Developing agreements between voluntary or community organisations. London: NCVO www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/sites/default/files/Joint_working_agreements.pdf

Kail, A. and Abercrombie, R. (2013) Collaborating for Impact: Working in partnership to boost growth and improve outcomes. London: New Philanthropy Capital and Impetus Trust. https://www.thinknpc.org/publications/collaborating-for-impact/

ALDCS (2012) Future Models For Youth. A Review of London Boroughs’ Youth provision in London, April - August 2012. http://www.partnershipforyounglondon.org.uk/data/files/Youthwork/future_models_for_youth_final_oct_20121.pdf

19

Model 3 - Legal mutual structures - co-operatives,

collectives and associations

“Mutuality provides a different way of doing business, a different way of funding

business and a different way of owning business...It is a mechanism for providing

services, not for delivering a profit” (Cliff Mills, mutuo).

When used?

A `mutual’ is a business owned by its customers or its employees, or a combination of the two, or by a range of stakeholders with an interest in what it does. Mutual organisations which provide essential services are set up and run so that those involved can participate and have a say. Their constitutions require them to be democratically accountable to their members. Mutuals exist for the benefit of their members. This can have a narrow form (Cooperatives) in which the members are the sole beneficiaries, and a wider form in which the benefit is for the general public/community (Community Benefit Mutuals). The nature of the benefit to members is a key factor in deciding what legal form to adopt in setting up any mutual venture. Forms of mutual organisations existed prior to the formation of the welfare state and informed the public ethos which has set the tone since for public services. In the last 10 years the ideas associated with mutuality have undergone a renaissance:

views of what a membership can achieve have progressed new ideas about delivering competent governance within

the context of a representative democratic structure have emerged and

new mechanisms to secure a commitment by those involved to the public good have been developed.

Today, mutual organisations are owned by constituencies of users and staff and local communities, permanently committed to carrying on business in the public or community interest, and run by professionally competent executives who are held to account within a representative structure which drives efficiency and success in the public interest. Mutuals can be innovative, flexible and scalable, and free of unnecessary constraints. They are suited to the `localism’ agenda.

Types of mutual society

The different types of mutual business operate in different ways but the underlying reason for their existence – self help – is the common theme. Mutuals include:

20

Cooperatives – which are member owned and for member benefit. The members may be employees,– creating worker co-ops, or employee owned businesses. The latter need not be run on cooperative lines. Cooperatives are not generally able to be registered as charities. Community Benefit Societies – member owned but for wider community benefit. These are exempt charities and will be able to register as charities under recent legislation (but not yet in force)

To get best results in respect of collaboration across the system...

Mutuals involved in delivering early intervention mental health support services need to demonstrate: Competent governance - balancing competence with accountability The running of any business requires a degree of business competence, and the governance arrangements need to make credible provision to give adequate assurance of such competence. The `competent’ part of business management must be located within governance arrangements which subject those managers to oversight and accountability Wide-ranging Membership A range of constituencies of interest in the membership ensures the mutual draws on a range of views to inform its work (see Community Benefit Societies above) The other model is for a worker cooperative which only needs to be accountable to its own members. Elected Representation A wider range of interests is represented at board or strategic level. This provides for a carefully constructed balance of different voices at a representative level. For example, this may include young people, professional staff who work with young people in different capacities and people from the local community. Public or community purpose This may be through a mutual’s corporate form eg public benefit corporation or community benefit society or their constitutional commitment to community or public benefit. Mutuals need to be seen to be different from others which exist or trade for private benefit.

General examples

NHS Foundation Trusts are modelled on traditional mutual organisations. A new kind of corporate entity known as `public benefit corporations’, they were created via health legislation. Members include patients, the public and staff, they have a representative body known as a board of governors and they are run by a board of executive and non-executive directors.

Football Supporter Trusts support a new movement of football fans who have a say over how their professional football club is run and in some cases, this has led tom outright ownership of the club

21

Community Housing Mutuals allow for tenants to be members which allows them to have a say about the housing stock in which they live.

Modern day mutuals can be found running local authority leisure services; Sure start children’s centres, out of hours GP services. Different memberships apply (e.g. in NHS related services it is staff who are members) but all employ a professional executive which is appointed and can be removed by the representative board drawn from a range of different interests.

Durham has set up a young people led and owned mutual on an estate with support from commissioners and local community multi-stakeholders

There are no known mutuals working in early intervention mental health

Examples relevant to young people and mental health

Rochdale Boroughwide Housing is in the process of creating a mutual co-operative. Although this is a type of stock transfer, it is a transfer with a big difference because the members of the association will be made up of staff and tenants – 400 staff and 1,800 tenants have already come forward to take up membership. The Good Mental Health Cooperative (founded 2006) is a social enterprise which promotes emotional health and mental wellbeing through a range of workshops, programmes and activities. Using an innovative framework called the 5Cs, The Good Mental Health Cooperative teaches people the skills to work towards good mental health, no matter where their starting point. http://wayfinderassociates.co.uk Santé Refugee Mental Health Access Project – a lifeline for vulnerable migrants at times of great change “Co-operative values play a crucial role as they equalize the positions we all have and give value to the beneficiaries who have skills which are often overlooked. The co-operative model allows beneficiaries to shape the project to their own needs and skills and regain independence after a long period of dependence on the Immigration Process. It represents release from bondage and a beginning to a new life.” Ruth Appleton, Co-ordinator of Santé Refugee Mental Health Access Project http://www.santeproject.org.uk/

Advantages

Mutuals Can be made up of organisational members – and so the

form can be relevant to consortia as discussed in Model 1 provide an alternative business model to traditional

companies and a mechanism for providing services in the community or public interest. They are attractive to those motivated by values and relationships rather than growth.

provide a new way to connect young people, professionals and the state – providing long term social value

provide a vehicle through which young people’s and community initiatives, enterprises and ideas can be

22

supported and developed help the drive for increased business efficiency based on

local accountability enable people to take control of service design and delivery help people to connect the cost of service provision with

that of the service itself (this is often lacking in traditionally run public services)

are easy to commission as they are embedded within the local community

enable investment to go to communities and develop capacity as benefits and outcomes are shared with members

Disadvantages Takes time to get buy-in from stakeholders and where they exist they have not been long established and therefore it is difficult to assess the benefits

Appears complex and can be hard to get support Requires consensus building in an aggressive market

environment Potential domination by one interest group – but this can

be counteracted by the right forum within the mutual structure through which a variety of voices can be heard

Technical and legal considerations

Factors which influence the choice of structure for a mutual are: • Risks and liabilities: more complex services entailing a variety of risks would generally need to adopt an incorporated structure which provides a legal entity to hold, manage and protect the organisation’s assets, employ people, enter into contracts, leases and raise finance. • Flexibility as to how the organisation operates, and how its governance, management and membership is organised. • Regulation: some structures are subject to greater regulation and more formal reporting requirements (e.g. the need to file annual returns and accounts which can be accessed by the general public). • Tax exemptions: some structures allow the mutual to take advantage of tax exemptions. This is generally confined to mutuals that are acting for community benefit There are incorporated and unincorporated vehicles for mutuals. Generally, if the organisation employs staff, enters into many contracts and or is responsible for a range of activities which carry significant risks, the incorporated options are likely to be most relevant. Incorporated options are: Co-operative (not charitable) or community benefit society (exempt charities) –both used to be Industrial and Provident

23

Societie (IPS). Under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Act (2010) IPS have been renamed and are now classified in two ways: • Co-operative Societies. This is a membership society that exists for the benefit of its members and can demonstrate that it is a bona fide co-operative (by adhering to the co-operative principles). Membership could for example comprise entirely the mutual’s employees – a worker’s co-operative. Co-operatives are barred by law from distributing profits or surpluses to people other than their members. • Community Benefit Societies. Such a society pursues a wider public good, rather than just its members' interests. It cannot distribute profits to members. Membership is generally open to all persons able to use their services and willing to accept the responsibilities of membership, subject to limited qualifying criteria. Limited companies are companies in which the liability of the members or subscribers of the company is limited to what they have invested or guaranteed to the company. Limited companies may be limited by shares or by guarantee. And the former of these, a limited company limited by shares, may be further divided into public companies and private companies. Who may become a member of a private limited company is restricted by law and by the company's rules. In contrast anyone may buy shares in a public limited company. Community Interest Companies (CICS) are limited companies, with special additional features, created for the use of people who want to conduct a business or other activity for community benefit, and not purely for private advantage. This is achieved by a "community interest test" and "asset lock", which ensure that the CIC is established for community purposes and the assets and profits are dedicated to these purposes. Registration of a company as a CIC has to be approved by the Regulator who also has a continuing monitoring and enforcement role. Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs) are governed by the Limited Liability Partnership Act 2000. Limited Liability Partnership is a corporate body and is legally independent of its members in comparison to a normal Partnership, where legal existence is dependent upon its members. UK LLP members are not responsible for each other’s actions and Limited Liability Partnership UK members cannot lose more than they invest, unless fraudulent trading or personal neglect is suspected. Charitable Incorporated Organisations (CIOs) are a new type of charitable company, brought into being by the Charities Act 2006. CIOs are designed to be a more efficient way to run a charitable venture. CIOs should be easier and quicker to incorporate and run than standard charitable companies, owing to the fact that their

24

regulation is not as complicated or onerous.

Each has different advantages depending on how the service provider wants to organise its business. Each has different arrangements for managing liabilities. The unincorporated option, an Association, is a group of individuals who have come together to pursue a shared goal. This might be for the benefit of its members or for wider public benefit. The unincorporated association should have a constitution or rules that govern its behaviour. For a mutual the rules would have to conform to the principles of cooperatives: i.e. the mutual is ‘owned’ collectively by the membership, there is a democratic voting system in place and stakeholders can play an appropriate role. Association structure is high risk if running a significant trading enterprise. Details of all the above can be found in the Information Sheet: Legal structures for mutuals in the resources section.

Resources

Mills, C. (July 2010) From public to mutual services. London: mutuo

Ford, K. (2010) Information Sheet: Legal structures for social enterprise at a glance http://www.youngminds.org.uk/assets/0000/6640/Apr2011_Legal_Structures__nterprise__L0011954_-1.pdf

Social Firms UK, Legal Structures for Social Enterprises at a glance http://www.socialfirmsuk.co.uk/resources/library/legal-structures-social-enterprises-glance

http://www.se2partnership.co.uk/social-enterprise.asp?p=77

Charity Commission (2012) Charitable Incorporated Organisation (CIO) www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Start_up_a_charity/Do_I_need_to_register/CIOs/default.aspx

The Co-operative Enterprise Hub has been set up by The Cooperative as a one-stop shop for free advice, training and access to finance for new and existing co-operatives. Services are delivered free of charge throughout the UK by experienced co-operative development advisers.www.co-operative.coop/enterprisehub/About-the-hub/

Swarbrick, G. (October 2011) Social Housing: Made mutual. London: Mutuo. www.mutuo.co.uk

Mills, C. and Brophy, C. (October 2011) Community Health services: Made mutual. London:

25

mutuo. www.mutuo.co.uk

(October 2011) Mutual Business Detector: How to decide which public services could be mutuals. www.mutuo.co.uk

26

Model 4 - Social franchises

“Social franchising is the use of a commercial franchising approach to replicate and

share proven organisational models for greater social impact” Social Franchising

Manual

When used?

“Franchising is first and foremost a way of transferring knowledge and experience from one successful enterprise to another. The franchisor gives the franchisee the right – but also the obligation – to operate a business according to the franchisor’s concept. The franchisee, for a fee, may use the franchisor’s name and trademark, know-how, business methods and techniques, way of working and other rights. The enterprise receives support and training, and (not least) the further development of the concept. Social Franchising Although social franchising is like commercial franchising, it is significantly different. The social franchise is normally set up not to maximise profits, but to enable people to work together and share ideas. The founder is driven by a social goal, such as the employment of disabled people, the democratisation of the economy or tackling climate change. As such the social franchise has a social purpose and is often owned by its social franchise members but it is also a business that makes profits. Without these profits, it could not survive and grow and meet its social aims. A social franchise can help local groups to win contracts where the franchisor has developed all the necessary systems, procedures etc for the local franchise holder to meet commissioners’ requirements. It overcomes the barrier of each local group having to invent and develop its own systems from scratch. A community and federation Founders of social franchises recognise that local ownership is important to create dynamic, entrepreneurial organisations that are responsive to local needs. A social franchise combines both local ownership and the creation of economies of scale that enable more effective enterprises to be developed.” http://www.socialfranchising.coop/what-is-social-franchising

Types of social franchise

To be a social franchise both the social franchisor and franchisees must be social enterprises (ie businesses that trade and have a social purpose) and there should be:

1. An organisation that replicates a social enterprise business model – the social franchisor.

2. At least one independent social franchisee that has been replicated by the social franchisor.

3. A common brand under which the social franchisees operate.

4. An interchange of knowledge between members.

27

There are considerable variations in the way social franchises operate. Some have a very clearly defined business format that is replicated whilst for others the business format is looser. Many social franchises are owned cooperatively by the social franchises and normally the social franchisees pay the social franchisor a fee for their support, but neither is a defining feature. However, in all models franchisor always enters into an agreement with the franchisee that regulates rights and obligations. Different forms of social economy organisations, for example charities and foundations, which get most of their income from grants also use a social franchising approach.

To get best results... The social franchise model may suit specialist voluntary organisations that operate on a small scale locally but exist in many different locations. The model is a way for these organisations t o collaborate so that each one does not have to go through the pain and cost of establishing all the business processes associated with doing their work. Follow these key principles:

1. Adopt suitable sectors of the economy to colonise 2. Replicate a successful and proven business and social

enterprise model 3. Inject quality business support, financial backing, time &

money 4. Pick people and organisations – find the ‘entrepreneurial

manager’ 5. Identify the key components of replication (geography,

brand, systems, product, and approach). Define the social franchise offer.

6. Constantly and clearly communicate the clarity of relationship and have the ability to enshrine and ensure mutuality

7. Create social franchise businesses where increase in size is of mutual benefit to the franchisor and the franchisees

Consider these issues (adapted from Together we are stronger: A guide to social franchising for social enterprise):

1. Commercial franchises generally restrict access intellectual property (IP) to protect the interests of the franchisor and franchisees. But is it ethical to do this for enterprises created to help disadvantaged people or meet social goals? Might there be advantage in following the Open Source movement and making IP freely available?

2. All social franchises have a social purpose, but should they be owned mutually by the social franchisees?

3. How to ensure quality and that one bad apple does not unduly affect the whole social franchise?

28

4. Venture development; which means supporting a social franchisee to establish free of charge and then taking a share of the income it generates, is essential if a social franchise is to be market driven. But is such an approach ethical or practical? How much profit can be taken out of a social enterprise and is this enough to truly pay back the social franchisor for their investment of time and resources?

Cultural barriers need to be overcome including suspicion of, or even disdain for, commercial practices as well as resistance to systematic replication in a culture where the new is often seen as more desirable and attractive!

General examples

Care & Share Associates Limited (est 2005) (CASA) has set up five social franchises based on the award winning Sunderland Home Care Associates employee owned care model.

Examples relevant to young people and mental health

Success4All c.i.c.(est 2006) runs Learning Hubs in schools, community centres and libraries in deprived areas of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. It provides one-to-one study/befriending support, skills workshops, clubs & summer schools. The Hubs & Clubs are run by young people for young people by engaging their intellect, talents & skills and training them to become peer tutor/befrienders or club leaders. http://success4all.moonfruit.com/ My Time (est 2011) Social Franchise is a registered CIC providing a replicable model of intercultural service user managed professional community mental health services including psychiatry, psychological therapies, counselling and support. The My Time Franchise model enables service users and mental health professionals to establish an accredited quality psychological therapy and mental well-being support service in their geographic area. http://www.mytime.org.uk/

Advantages

Promotes proven solutions in a `ready made’ package Helps mobilise otherwise in-entrepreneurial people into the

frontline of social delivery Provides access to new sources of capital ie social

investment income

Disadvantages Demands a higher degree of involvement from the parent organisation than any other form of replication

Has higher costs, in terms of the time, effort and even money that the parent organisation spends on the exercise;

The eventual success or failure of the exercise will reflect on the parent organisation too as there will be a common identity between the two.

Carries a risk, both in terms of resources committed and to the reputations of those involved.

Technical and legal considerations

There are different approaches to replication and scaling of businesses of which social franchising is one. These range from

29

the most flexible to the one with greatest control:

Dissemination Partnership Licensing Social Franchising Joint Ventures Wholly-owned by central organisation

Steps to make it happen: Commissioners/Service providers

Step Activity

1 Consider different forms of replication: choose most applicable to your

organisation

2 Go through replication readiness exercise

3 Raise funding or set aside money to invest in infrastructure / staff time

4 Address / strengthen any weak or “unready‟ areas

5 Prepare necessary documents (operations manual, franchise agreement,

trademarks, fee structure)

6 Select 1-2 pilot / test franchisees, using due diligence and criteria

7 Provide initial training and (cultural) induction to franchisees

8 Support (test) franchises in all aspects of operations in line with obligations,

communicating constantly

9 Assure quality of test franchises, and evaluate impact / success

10 Learn, improve and repeat 6-9 with more franchises

Resources

Temple, N. Et al (2011) Social Franchising Manual. London: Social Enterprise Coalition http://www.socialenterprise.org.uk/uploads/files/2011/11/social_franchising_manual.pdf

Richardson, K. And Turnbull, G. (2008) Together we are stronger: A guide to social franchising for social enterprise. South Shields:INSPIRE Development Partnership

North-East Social Enterprise Partnership http://www.nesep.co.uk/

30

Model 5 - Prime contractor and supplier (sub-contractor)

model

“A prime (or main) contractor is the business which has a contract with the owner of

a project or job and has the fulfil responsibility for its completion. This contractor

undertakes to perform a complete contract and may employ (and manage) one or

more subcontractors to carry out specific parts of the contract.”

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/prime-contractor.html

When used?

The prime contractor and supplier model is best used when a purchaser wants to award a contract `of scale’ for services which require a variety of competence and capability or when a provider wants to tender for a contract which requires skills which they lack and would be better provided by other suppliers. This has tended to be driven by cost efficiency rather than by social value. Commissioners may also use the approach to require larger prime contractors to include smaller SMEs, social enterprises and charities in their supply chain (as is the case for the Youth Contract and the Work Programme)

Prime and sub contractors

Commissioner

Sub

Sub

Sub Sub

Sub

Prime

Main types of prime contractor - supplier models

The difference is defined in part by

The nature of the contract The number of suppliers and length of the supply chain The relationships involved – existing or new suppliers

Of the following two types, the second is more likely to appeal to local service organisations though the former may appeal to an infrastructure body:

31

Managing agent prime contractors deliver no services themselves but manage suppliers to deliver the whole contract (sometimes called a triage model). The managing agent provides efficient project and cost management but contracts with specialists to provide the services themselves. Delivery agent prime contractors delivers those services it wants to deliver and sub-contracts services it cannot, or chose not to deliver, to others. The prime contractor here may be in competition with parts of its supply chain. It does however know and understand the services it has been contracted to deliver.

To get best results...

The prime contractor

bears responsibility for the reliability and maintainability of the whole system, and should ensure that the supplier or subcontractor is capable of producing the desired levels of reliability and maintainability.

should negotiate terms with the subcontractor such that the subcontractor’s reliability, progress and achievement, can be monitored and can show the purchaser the steps taken to confirm the delivery of the contract, as well as, produce evidence to support their claim.

should state the requirements completely and unambiguously, and include all environmental, operational and maintenance factors. It is essential that all of the relevant information concerning the operation and deployment of the intended equipment or system is made available to the supplier or subcontractor.

The prime contractor will need to ensure that it is in a state of readiness when completing the Pre-Qualification Questionnaire for tenders and at this stage may want to also be assured that potential suppliers are also in this position. Suppliers

Ensure you have a sustainable business model which is not just about financials

Create your niche alongside other delivery partners and look to build long term success

Prime contractor /supplier arrangements will need :

Statements of the minimum standards of service required Codes of Conduct which define the relationship between

prime contractor and suppliers eg Merlin Standard (Work Programme) which is “the standard of behaviour to which prime providers are expected to adhere in their relationship with their subcontractors. It is designed to encourage excellence in supply chain management by prime providers, to ensure fair treatment of sub-contractors and development of healthy high performing supply chains.”

32

Examples

Work programme – Department for Work and pensions http://www.dwp.gov.uk/policy/welfare-reform/the-work-programme/

Youth contract – Department for Work and Pensions. http://www.dwp.gov.uk/youth-contract/key-initiatives/

National Citizen Service – Department for Education. http://www.ncsyes.co.uk/

Advantages For prime contractors: Provides opportunity to demonstrate leadership and

competence in the area of both contract management and specific services

Enables growth in reputation if successful By winning contracts of scale and complexity prime

contractors show they are mature players in the market-place and are able to handle both scale and complexity

providers who understand the marketplace and understand the economic behavioural drivers of this new contracting model can greatly benefit.

For suppliers: Suppliers can deliver what they are good at without having to

take responsibility and risk for the whole contract Major risk is borne by the prime contractor unless pushed

down the supply chain by the sub-contracting terms whereby risk can be passed on to smaller or specialist suppliers

high performing subcontractor may find itself in huge demand from a range of lead contractors in the market and increasingly be able to negotiate improved terms with prime contractors

May get support from prime contractor to function well within the supply chain

For commissioners:

Delivers a large and technically complex service efficiently Clarity on deliverables and performance needed A supplier model can ensure that the end user has more

choice in the services they are able to access because of the diverse competence and capability of the different suppliers

Risks involved in supply chain are delegated to the prime contractor

Disadvantages For prime contractors: High reliance on prime contractor management competence High risk capacity and management Requires an investment in the management of both the

contract and individual suppliers Requires high investment of resources and staff time at the

`front end’ in order to win a contract Can be a highly bureaucratic way of delivering a service to a `formula’ Takes a long time to fashion and mobilise the process with

suppliers including lots of different agreements

33

Standards of delivery come at a cost both to acquire and maintain

For suppliers:

Suppliers may deliver to different standards Suppliers may be driven into delivering their service in ways

which meet the contract rather than their own preferred practice. In the long term this can result in mission drift.

smaller and specialist providers can find negotiating with prime contractors difficult, either because the price being quoted is too low, or is expected to work with a wider range of clients than they were set up to do, therefore incurring greater costs.

The model can adversely affect the ability of some sub-contractors to remain solvent due to the lag in payment times and price reductions implemented during the term of the contract.

Suppliers may be squeezed financially – particularly if they are reliant on the contract. The prime contractor can pass down risks to suppliers who may not be in a position to manage them.

For commissioners: Over time use of the prime contractor model can reduce the

number and range of suppliers in an area thus reducing choice for service users in the longer term

The sub contracting of suppliers to a third party ie prime contractor is not always a satisfactory experience. Some commissioners prefer to sub contract directly to suppliers through an open tendering process. Commissioners can either use detailed specifications for procurement purposes or outline specifications whereby the detailed specification is co-created with suppliers later.

There is some research beginning to emerge which shows that this model is least able to deliver services to those who are hardest to help because, in general, they need a mix of services for longer which does not always fit the pricing of the contract

This model combined with outcome based payments is not the best for service innovation at the local level

Scaling up services in this way can result in diseconomies of scale. More appropriate is to encourage widespread, high quality local responses to the bigger service challenges.(see NESTA discussion paper Mass Localism)

There is some evidence to show that this model mitigates against suppliers going for rapid delivery as they are concerned to get the volume of delivery known before taking the risk.

Commissioners have less direct control over ensuring quality

For service users: Where a number of suppliers are used which provide linking

34

services, transitions between each service may not always be effective resulting in breaks in continuity of service

Technical and legal considerations

Contracts of this kind should always be bid for and undertaken only after the best legal and financial advice.

Contracting of this scale involves risk in legally defined ways as well as in governance and management terms

Steps to make it happen as a prime contractor

Step

1 You need to be confident that your organisation has the scale, track record and financial robustness to compete in this market. Demonstrate that you have a track record working in the field of mental health, young people or contracting for a number of years. Produce references which impress! To become a prime contractor for the first time you may have to demonstrate that you have played a supplier role to another recognised prime contractor. In this way you can demonstrate delivery and that you know the system. Your annual turnover will generally need to be more than four times the highest value of the contracts you are bidding for.

2 (Possibly) Establish a contracting business (separate from the main business to protect its liabilities and assets)

3 Build relationships with suppliers – this can be through advertisement, website or direct approaches. The stronger these relationships the more likely your arrangements are to succeed.

4 Be aware of the public service regulations which apply to your particular service business – take legal advice if necessary on both finances and contracts

5 Register with relevant framework contracts as a potential government contractor

6 Develop a robust business model so that you are sure you can secure cash flow, pay your suppliers and cover your costs. In contracting with government, you often have to show and account for your costs as well as your price. Your organisation will need to be able to manage substantial delays between carrying out work and being paid for it- especially on payment by results contracts.

7 Identify key the suppliers most relevant to specific contracts. Work with them in developing your bids – use their expertise and experience

8 Ensure that you have the systems and processes and people in place to manage the contract and supply chain, and that these are properly costed

9 Develop sophisticated risk management systems to ensure your organisaiton does not become exposed

35

Resources

ERSA, ACEVO, and NCVO (2012) Perfect Partners – strengthening relationships within employment services supply chains. http://ersa.org.uk/publications-resources/resources-industry?page=1

Office of Government Commerce (2006) Supply chain management in public procurement – a guide http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110822131357/http:/www.ogc.gov.uk/documents/SupplyChainManagementGuide.pdf

Griffiths, J. (2010) London Skills and Employment Board: The Impact of Commissioning Models in London. London: Rocket Science Lab

Bunt, L. and Harris, M (2010) Discussion Paper - Mass Localism: A way to help small communities solve big social challenges. London: NESTA

http://locality.org.uk/

36

Appendix – Overview of resources

General

Measuring and Commissioning Outcomes and Social Value (Public Services): Explaining the terms 'social value' and 'outcomes' and how these are measured and purchased through commissioning and procurement. http://www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/psd/commissioning/social_value2#outcomes

Local Government Association (July 2012) Commissioning for better local services. http://www.local.gov.uk/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=846cdbeb-b1c5-4042-ac2a-887fcf58c2b8&groupId=10171

Expert round up: flexible commissioning in public services (8 December 2012) http://www.guardian.co.uk/local-government-network/2012/dec/08/local-government-experts-flexible-commissioning/print

The Charity Commission (June 2010) CC26 Charities and Risk Management. http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Publications/cc26.aspx

Institute of Risk Management http://www.theirm.org/

Department for Communities (September 2011) Best Value Statutory Guidance. www.communities.gov.uk

Ajay Bhuttae (4 February 2013) What will the Social Value Act mean for social enterprise? Guardian Professional – Social Enterprise Network https://socialenterprise.guardian.co.uk/en/articles/social-enterprise-network/2013/feb/04/social-value-act-social-enterprises?CMP=EMCSOCEML657

Charity Commission (September 2009) Choosing to Collaborate: Helping you Succeed http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Library/colltoolkit.pdf

NICVA (April 2012) A Practical Guide to Collaborative Working http://www.collaborationni.org/sites/default/files/A%20Practical%20Guide%20to%20Collaboration.pdf

Acevo (2010) Collaborative Working Models For Winning Public Service Contracts http://www.acevo.org.uk/document.doc?id=1338

Model 1 – Consortia and Model 2 partnerships

Reshenia Consulting (November 2010) A bridge between two worlds: A study of support and development organisations and intelligent commissioning. Sheffield: NAVCA www.assets.navcadevelopmentserver.co.uk/existing/NR/rdonlyres/4f0fdfa8-3013-473b-b6b3-cd258c11e70c/0/aicreportsinglepages.pdf

NCVO (2006) Due Diligence Demystified: What it is and how you manage it. London: NCVO www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/products-services/publications/due-diligence-demystified-what-it-how-you-manage-it

37

NCVO (2012) Contract Notices: Finding Invitations to Tender (Public Services). London: NCVO www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/commissioning/procurement/contract_advertisement

Curtis, I. (October 2011) Collaborate to compete: Developing consortia to deliver contracts. London: NCVO

Collaboration Benefits CIC (October 2012) Action Plan Template: Developing a lead agency consortium. London: NCVO www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/sites/default/files/ncvo_hub_and_spoke_development_document_a.pdf

Collaboration Benefits CIC (October 2012) Action Template: Developing a hub and spoke consortium. London: NCVO www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/sites/default/files/ncvo_hub_and_spoke_development_document_a.pdf

Fleming, J. et al for Participation Works (2010) How to use a consortium-working approach. London: NCB

Social Enterprise London (2003) Consortium model for childcare social enterprises. London: Social Enterprise London

Cabinet Office (2009) Working in a consortium – Summary guide: A guide for third sector organisations involved in public service delivery. London: Cabinet Office, Office of the Third sector

Ford, K. (October 2012) A Return to Ancient Truths: Tips for commissioners on providing services for young people through consortia of local voluntary organisations. London: Community Matters

NCVO Collaborative Working Unit (July 2006) Joint working agreements: Developing agreements between voluntary or community organisations. London: NCVO www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/sites/default/files/Joint_working_agreements.pdf

Kail, A. and Abercrombie, R. (2013) Collaborating for Impact: Working in partnership to boost growth and improve outcomes. London: New Philanthropy Capital and Impetus Trust. https://www.thinknpc.org/publications/collaborating-for-impact/

Participation Works (2010 ) How to use a consortium working approach. http://www.participationworks.org.uk/resources/how-to-use-a-consortium-working-approach

ALDCS (2012) Future Models For Youth. A Review of London Boroughs’ Youth provision in London, April - August 2012. http://www.partnershipforyounglondon.org.uk/data/files/Youthwork/future_models_for_youth_final_oct_20121.pdf

IVAR (2012) Thinking About Merger (3rd edition) http://www.ivar.org.uk/publications/mergers/thinking-about-merger

38

Model 3 - Legal mutual structures - co-operative s, collectives and

associations

Mills, C. (July 2010) From public to mutual services. London: mutuo

Ford, K. (2010) Information Sheet: Legal structures for mutuals. http://www.youngminds.org.uk/assets/0000/6640/Apr2011_Legal_Structures__nterprise__L0011954_-1.pdf

Ford, K. (2010) Information Sheet: The Co-operative principles.

Charity Commission (2012) Charitable Incorporated Organisation (CIO) www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Start_up_a_charity/Do_I_need_to_register/CIOs/default.aspx

The Co-operative Enterprise Hub has been set up by The Cooperative as a one-stop shop for free advice, training and access to finance for new and existing co-operatives. Services are delivered free of charge throughout the UK by experienced co-operative development advisers.www.co-operative.coop/enterprisehub/About-the-hub/

Swarbrick, G. (October 2011) Social Housing: Made mutual. London: Mutuo. www.mutuo.co.uk

Mills, C. and Brophy, C. (October 2011) Community Health services: Made mutual. London: mutuo. www.mutuo.co.uk

(October 2011) Mutual Business Detector: How to decide which public services could be mutuals. www.mutuo.co.uk

Model 4 - Social Franchises

Temple, N. Et al (2011) Social Franchising Manual. London: Social Enterprise Coalition

Richardson, K. And Turnbull, G. (2008) Together we are stronger: A guide to social franchising for social enterprise. South Shields: INSPIRE Development Partnership

North-East Social Enterprise Partnership http://www.nesep.co.uk/

Model 5 – Prime contractor and supplier (sub-contractor) model

Griffiths, J. (2010) London Skills and Employment Board: The Impact of Commissioning Models in London. London: Rocket Science Lab

Bunt, L. and Harris, M (2010) Discussion Paper - Mass Localism: A way to help small communities solve big social challenges. London: NESTA

http://locality.org.uk/