In the second of four essays we explore current possible eco
systems in public realm funded process and services
Appreciation of these ‘components’ provides us with clarity
as to what we are trying to reform and new process / structures that can be
utilised in any transformational process.
This essay is still in draft format, when completed all the
essays will be published on the RnR Organisation web site.
These essays will influence the focus and activity of RnR Organisation
in the future.
To comment or discuss content please contact RnR.Organisation@gmail.com
____________________________________________________________________________
Words and images ©
2017
____________________________________________________________________________
Component
Two – The Ecosystem (Current and Possible)
INTRODUCTION
The first
part Current process provides a more
in-depth interpretation of the current decision making process, a basic outline
as to how service decisions are made and current ‘transformation’ activity
undertaken within this process.
This second
part begins to explore the possibilities of a different view. Expanding on the
principle of placing individuals, community activists (assets) at the core of
any service provision development by providing an introduction to the concept
of Asset Based Community Development
(ABCD). ABCD traditionally operates separately from statutory Deficit /
deficiency model provision, focusing on neighbourhood / community need. The
fundamental differences are outlined through Dan Duncans diagram and further
references are provided.
The final part explores constructs of a Possible Ecosystem
identifying two locally [Birmingham] designed models/initiatives to aid asset
based involvement in service provision, RnR Organisation’s Three Field Development and Poc Zero’s Ring of Confidence. We appreciate that these initiatives are
transferable to other areas, as well as acknowledging that other organisations
may have similar processes.
PART ONE Current Process
A Linear Process. (fig1) Expanding on
definitions expressed in component one, this part provides a wider exploration
of the current process of decision making and service development.
We view the
current process as linear in format, fiscally restricted and output driven. The
process is initiated through political policy which, in turn is turned into strategic
policy, strategic development and finally operational implementation, all
developed within fiscal constraints, public funding.
Delivery of
identified ‘programmes’ by non public sector organisations is undertaken
through a process of written tenders and commissioned work. Tender
specifications and commissioned activity is driven by data - this data
identifies the need, but is predominantly collated within public realm data
sets and is, therefore, often restricted data and silo focused.
(fig1)
Current Model, linear Process
Commissioning
is also fiscally restricted. Policy and process identify the amount of money
available to fund services identified through the data. The term ‘purchaser’ is used to describe functions within a
commissioning and tendering process, attracting ‘products’ or services through
tender applications, assessed against fiscal constraints and output
expectations.
This process
purports to encourage product development and innovation and, to this end, it
may use these terms within any documentation.
However, because of fiscal and output constraints, any new product or
innovation is either assimilated into the process, or fails to convince the
‘purchaser’
The linear
process delivers a “we deliver what we can afford” mentality with groups,
organisations or companies tendering against these measurements. New
‘products’, ‘innovative products’, have little chance of influencing
commissioning if they do not fulfil the criteria of the tender specification
which, in itself, is designed through restricted, institutionally based and
biased, data.
Transformation in ‘Current Process’ (fig2)
‘Transformational’
activity, within the current process, focuses
on the commissioning and tendering process.
There is a
greater emphasis on the ‘open market’, the term ‘market’ being used to describe
the ecosystem of external, non public sector organisations being involved in
provision through the tendering and commissioning process. Delivery and output
measures, and evaluation of providers entering this ‘market’ govern the
products that enter the ‘market’.
The process
assesses the form and structure of organisations who submit tenders, checking
their governance, due diligence, cash flow, ability, etc. Funders only contract
with regulated ‘incorporated bodies’ that fulfil due diligence tests within the
commissioning process.
While this
‘transformational’ process has the potential to widen participation in delivery,
community engagement through Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) Organisations,
is often restricted through due diligence rules, and the ‘deficiency’ view of
their capability to deliver.
The ‘ethos’
of the ‘transformation agenda’ is dominated by a reduction in public expenditure,
augmenting a “more bang for your bucks”
philosophy. VCSE engagement is drawn
towards a ‘Big Society’, ‘volunteering’/ community responsibility/management
process which posits replacing paid staff with unpaid volunteers.
While the
‘transformed’ current commissioning process has the facility to utilise other
processes e.g. co-production and co-design, and to view the impact of funding
on other agendas, community cohesion etc., the inability to view the community
as ‘assets’ and incorporate support into service development limits its true
transformational impact.
Fiscal
management remains centrally controlled at a national and local commissioning
level. Delivery outputs continue to be derived from restricted, organisational/institutional
gathered data. This continued use of restricted data curtails any wider benefit
that access to the widest range of data and information available might bring. The
current ‘transformed’ process retains the deficiency model and, while some acknowledgement
may be given to patient participation/stakeholder engagement, it is still within
the linear, fiscal driven, output focused deficiency model.
The current
process does not comply with any product development principles - it is not a
market, as the funders retain complete control over the fiscal structure,
quantity, circulation and therefore project/product delivery. Public realm
expenditure, within the current process ‘open market’ principle, has an
enormous impact, on other sectors of economic activity. This impact is neither
incorporated within the design of services nor managed strategically to support
any outcome / output process. This is explored in greater depth in wave impact, component 3,
Current public realm liaison with
‘community partners’
The ‘open
market’ principle within the current
process entails the development of a supply chain, partnership or community
development process within the commissioning and tendering process. This
process takes place within the deficiency model - it does not acknowledge the
skills within a community or target group that may aid some or all of its
objectives and outputs. Instead, ‘capacity building programmes’ are developed
and provided in order to ‘ensure’ that VCSE organisations or community groups
develop skills to be ‘efficient’ in delivering within the linear process.
(fig2)- Transformation in ‘Current Process’
Additional
community engagement is undertaken in the current
process through a variety of ‘customer’/patient, community liaison activities.
The majority of these practices, Housing Liaison Boards, Stakeholder experience consultations, ‘Expert
by Experience’ ‘Expert Patient’ activity, Ward Committees etc. are
professional-led consultation processes, following an organisational, service
or ‘medical’ model method of engagement.
Each of these processes treats the community participant as a recipient of
services only, with no cognisance given to any of their skills in their ‘real
life’ beyond the consultation process.
The terms
co-design/co-production are frequently used to describe wider participation in
the development of services but the terms of engagement are strictly within the
parameters of the funders. Organisation participation is couched in a
consultation process, and as mentioned above, development of community partners
is undertaken through ‘capacity building’, a deficiency model process, designed
by statutory organisational staff, that aims to enable VCSE organisations,
community groups or individuals to increase their ability and involvement in
public sector procurement.
The current
process, as well as the ‘transformed’ element, retains the deficiency model,
resolving issues identified through the closed data linear model. (ref#).
Participants in community participation activity are not seen as assets, but rather
are expected to ‘buy in’ to the linear model of decision making, fiscally
restricted and output driven.
PART TWO - Asset Based Community Development (ABCD),
People and communities
Individuals,
and therefore communities, are the core of public realm funded activities. The
majority of ‘welfare’ provision perceive such individuals, through their
restricted data, as having needs that need resolving, the ‘deficiency model’.
This section explores
a different default position for community engagement, that of ‘everyone is an
asset’
An ‘asset
based’ approach to communities, target groups etc can have a much greater
impact, acknowledging the skills and experiences of participants, identifying
learning and training needs, engaging in decision making utilising locally-sourced
data and intelligence, and accommodating these resources in a new decision-making
process could have a measurable impact on outputs and outcomes.
The welfare
element of public sector expenditure, health, care (and education) tend to
view, and therefore plan, services for ‘people and communities’ as those with
‘needs’, as only recipients or beneficiaries of services. Services are planned
within a deficit model, identifying ‘problems’ to be resolved and skills for
the programme participants to learn or acquire. Problems and issues are
identified through closed data analysis with services provided for individuals
by ‘professionals’
An ‘asset
based’ model, where communities play a more active role in the design and
delivery of services from which they and others will benefit, is potentially
far more productive, but this requires a paradigm shift for effective community
impact. Such a model provides an
opportunity for statutory services to be enriched and enhanced by acknowledging
and harnessing inherent and/or latent skills within communities. It changes a
deficit model, of resolving perceived ‘deficiencies and difficulties’ into an
asset based model, acknowledging the role that individuals and communities collectively
can play in designing, developing and delivering programmes to address mutually
agreed issues. (ref##)
As a point of
clarification we use the term ‘community’ to describe a common bond of
interest, issue, culture or geography. We acknowledge that such ‘communities’
are diverse in skills and engagement as they are broad in interest and culture.
They may be organised in ‘constituted groups’ (charities, incorporated
voluntary organisations etc.), faith based or unincorporated groups, etc. They
may wish to deliver services, be involved in the planning or just to support
people in their ‘community’. We believe that all individuals bring some skills,
knowledge and experience to any transformation, and that needs to be
acknowledged and utilised.
The paradigm
shift required by statutory organisations and institutions in modifying their approach
to identifying issues and designing an amelioration process requires
identification of difference, to the deficit model as well as to potential
system models to deliver such activity within.
The first
model is provided by Dan Duncan’s ‘ABCD, Toolkit’ - a practical manifestation
of Asset Based Community Development. The New Paradigm for Effective Community
Impact (ref3).
(ref3) New
paradigm for effective community impact, Dan Duncan
This table
provides a clear distinction between a Needs/Deficit
Based model, as delivered within the Current
Provision ‘linear’ model, and an Asset Based process. While this
approach is more often associated with community engagement provision, it is
not beyond the bounds of reason to believe that such principles can be
incorporated into a new design process for public realm services.
Two additional
articles provide more insight into the principles of Asset Based Community
Development
Part three of
this component outlines two potential models, Three Fields Development and Ring
of Confidence, of compartmentalising and clarifying the roles within a new
design process; which is itself outlined in Component 5 of this series.
Appreciating
the potential role of true asset based development is essential if the paradigm
shift required within a change to public realm systems thinking as part of a
transformation of service delivery is to be achieved. This appreciation must clarify
the role of ‘assets’ (community individuals) within service provision.
While the
‘assets’ will be unpaid volunteers, their role in any development should not
focus on the ‘free staff’ that may be available to a service with the potential
to fill gaps created by cuts to services. Neither should the emphasis on
community engagement focus on the role of community development staff, or staff
with a ‘community brief’, as in traditional public realm community engagement
programmes; which in themselves have focused on service delivery.
The emphasis
should be placed on the development or engagement of individuals who live in, or
have a connection to, a community of geography, interest or culture. The
process should utilise and acknowledge the skills and knowledge of the ‘assets’
in developing support and activities within communities, neighbourhoods/localities
playing an active role in service identification, design and delivery.
PART THREE - Three Fields Development / Ring of
Confidence
ABCD can be,
and often is, developed separate to statutory strategic, public realm, service
development. In order to facilitate ABCD within service development we have
provided an outline of two models that explore two structures that explore the
role of community constructively in the development design and implementation
of services, compartmentalising specific supports that encircle an individual
as they come into contact with support services.
Compartmentalisation
of services enables more specific categorisation of activities, enhancing
programme planning activity, clarifying the specific role, and constructive
role which assets and community organisations can play.
We
acknowledge that these two structures are local to our activity and that there
may have been other structures designed by other organisations in other areas.
In later components we identify baseline processes that should be adopted in
developing community engagement processes within an ABCD ethos.
Three field Development – The Three
Field process was outlined within a document published by RnR Organisation in
July 2015, http://www.rnrorganisation.co.uk/site/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/01-3-Field-Development-July-2015.pdf
The Three Fields (ref4).
Field One formal public sector
(statutory sector) intervention - including Health provision, Care, Local
Authority Services etc. These are developed and lead by ‘public sector’
professionals delivering statutory provision or essential services.
Field Two – the structured supply
chain, including activities and services that support statutory services.
Projects receive funding from a variety of sources, public realm as well as additional sources e.g. Big Lottery Fund,
charitable trusts etc.
·
Projects are delivered predominantly through VCSE
organisations.
·
Projects and organisations form part of the statutory
service supply chain and support
partners. Projects are not standardised or enveloped by legislation
[statutory provision] as are services in ‘Field One’.
·
Additional/external funding is however,
increasingly related to needs identified through public sector data and
delivered with agreed milestones and outcomes.
Field Three - community
activists and volunteer support, as individual assets, within community
organisations or service provision. Individuals are involved as volunteers,
providing support to beneficiaries of programmes, and they may also be
beneficiaries of a service, linked to and supported by a community focused service
provider.
Ring of Confidence(ref 5). - The Ring of Confidence
developed by Poc Zero acknowledges the ‘support’ surrounding an individual at
any particular time in their life. In diagram below, the blue circles denote
statutory services while the others denote community services.
At any
particular time an individual may receive support from a variety of services,
or they may receive none at all, but the services are considered to be
available.
Such services
and support will alter throughout the lifetime of an individual so while the
titles attached to the circles (components) within the ‘ring’ may change, the
relationship between the components and the support offered to or received by
the individuals will not change.
(ref4) The Three Field Model.
Ref 5 Ring of
Confidence . (Diagram to be added)
BOXES OF SUPPORT
Linking these two separate developments are what we call
boxes of support. These ‘boxes’ represent statutory and community support
identified in both the Three Field and the Ring of Confidence Models.
The boxes of support acknowledge and compartmentalise
support available to and /or required by individuals throughout their life or
at specific stages within their life. The boxes identify ‘cogs’ to the ‘components’
identified within the Ring of Confidence and a clarity to constituent parts of
each of the three fields.
The
‘boxes’ offer the basis of a ‘supply chain’ to be developed as part of a comprehensive ‘offer’ of support
to individual throughout their life. While the Three Field Model and ‘ Ring of
Confidence’ represent the nature of support
for individuals the ‘Boxes of Support’ identify specific elements of
that support, statutory, community, family or volunteer.
Boxes
outlined in fig 6 are not comprehensive but indicative of the type of support
that is available. The ‘Boxes of Support’ concept acknowledges that throughout
an individual’s life engagement and support with agencies and ‘communities’
differs therefore the content of the boxes changing or undertakes a different
role at different or specific stages.
It
is crucial, in any development or transformation provision the support to
individuals is the acknowledgement of the role of the ‘content’ of all the
boxes and the potential co-ordination of some of the boxes and an
acknowledgement of communication between the boxes supporting the individual.
(ref 6 Boxes of support ).
Words and images ©
2017 
