Working Well Work and Health Programme

Working Well – Work and Health Programme

Questions from Attendees at Work and Health Consultation Event – 9th February 2017

1. One of the things picked up from the event on the national Work and Health Programme was that JCP are going to be directing clients to the W&H programme as a last resort and the expectation is that other things should be tried prior to the W&H Programme. How does this stand in Greater Manchester? (Kirsty McHugh - ERSA)

Our view in GM is that people should be supported by the Work and Health programme if it is determined as the right support for them at the right time.

This is where the local discussions with Jobcentre Plus (JCP) and explaining the benefits of the programme will help us to ensure the right people are on the Work and Health Programme. It is not a programme of last resort it is a programme of what is best at that time for the individual.

There are also early entry groups into the programme, those who we know are at greatest risk of becoming long term unemployed – it is for these people we know that if we can provide support early we can make a real difference and change their lives quicker.

The relationship with JCP locally is critical to making this happen; not just the relationship with commissioner and JCP but also the relationship between the provider and JCP.

1. Have you been looking at any TUPE implications here in Greater Manchester? (Kirsty McHugh - ERSA)

There is still an outstanding question around Work Choice TUPE and we are working closely with DWP and lawyers on this.

We are currently seeking TUPE information from current Providers and that it is our intention that TUPE information will be available at the earliest possible stage. This may be at the Initial Dialogue Stage

1. You talked about one of the principles of the programme being to sustain good employment. Please could you explain some more about what good employment might equal in terms of how that would be a measurable outcome? (George Selmer - Think Win Do)

The thing we are exploring here is earnings – it may be that the programme could be deemed a success if it supports a significant number of people off benefits into employment in national living wage jobs. In GM we are considering whether this in itself is enough or whether we should push for something greater than this.

It might be that we are considering a higher earnings threshold than the national programme, is just something we are considered - is one of the things we are considering

Learning from Working Well has shown that time invested in supporting an individual and employer to get the right job for that person has shown significant numbers are moving into jobs which meet resolution foundation definition of living wage (higher than national living wage) – we may want to push for something similar in this programme. This is still under consideration.

In relation to the sustained element - In Working Well we are tracking people for 12 months, so we are considering a sustained element, whether payment related or evaluation related. This is still to be worked through.

1. You talked about one of the elements of the grey box potentially being minimum service levels; could you give an example of what might be being explored in terms of MSLs? (George Selmer - Think Win Do)

We don’t want to stifle innovation, or on the other hand create a tick box programme –so we want to look at how we can define some of the principles. As an example this could include;

• Frequency of intervention for example – to be able to demonstrate you are seeing someone on a more regular basis if they require intensive support
• Quality of provision – how quick providers are to turn a referral into an appointment for example
• In each of the 10 areas of GM there are Local Integration Boards – we may stipule that this is a mechanism which has to be used

1. Will this programme include an extension of, or encompass the Working Well Talking Therapies pilot? (Lear Rothwell – Greater Manchester Mental Health)

We haven’t decided to commission bespoke Taking Therapies for this programme. Our starting point has been working with mental health commissioners through Greater Manchester Health and Social Care devolution to define a good mental health is ask and offer for this programme.

We would expect this to be part of your response in how you will create a good package of support for an individual.

1. There was a recently a market engagement event for Community into Health procured by Manchester City Council and North Manchester CCG. This seems to talk about a lot of the same things as have been described for the W&H Programme – are the two going to be completely separate or will that programme encompass some of Work and Health? (Lear Rothwell – Greater Manchester Mental Health)

This Work and Health Programme is a GM contract and only in Manchester. It will be the responsibility of the provider and the local integration boards to ensure that services work together to avoid duplication

1. What are your plans for the Working Well brand, and who owns the brand? (Rob Murdoch – Social Assistance Partnership)

GMCA own the brand and it is expected this programme will be the mainstreaming of Working Well.

1. Will there be indicative expectations of performance by category? (Rob Murdoch – Social Assistance Partnership)

No – There will be no indicative expectations of performance by category

1. How are consortia going to be treated in terms of the financial risk assessment? And for newer JVs, whose track record would then be looked at? (Kirsty McHugh - ERSA)

The Lead Bidder of a consortia should complete the Financial Template ( Question 6 Appendix A), with two years of accounts from all parties involved and any relevant parent companies being submitted. For a new Joint Venture, where two or more parties may be considered the Lead Bidder or have significant influence, then all parties would need to complete the Financial Template.

1. In terms of who will be accessing GM’s version of this programme, will all individuals have to have a health component as a barrier or is it a wider cohort of people? (Tracy Fishwick – Transform Lives)

1. When you talk about long term unemployed and mandatory, what exactly does this mean? Will those in the ESA support group be encapsulated here? (Tracy Fishwick – Transform Lives)

The primary beneficiaries of the programme will be people out of work due to ill health and disability. The national programme expects 75% and we expect something similar in GM. The ESA support group will sit within this as volunteers

Long term unemployed and early entry groups will be part of additional 25%.

Early entry groups could volunteer onto programme and therefore wouldn’t be mandatory.

1. How does a small organisation get on the radar of other suppliers who may want to partner with us to provide specialist support? (Alison Thwaite – Downs Syndrome Association)

We have shared all contact information and specialisms of those organisations that have wanted their contact details to be shared. We have also held a Supplier “Speed Dating” Session for Prime Contractors and Sub contractors to get share specialisms and progress partnership arrangements

1. How are you going to ensure a power balance between smaller and larger organisations in the supply chain? How will you make sure there is a realistic split of risk so it is not passed onto the small organisations? (Nigel Rose – MAC)

Having a sizable service fee element to the programme means smaller providers can safely be part of a supply chain. We want to ensure through social value and the commissioning process that there are mechanisms in place between prime providers and sub-contractors and will be working through this during the competitive dialogue process.

We will be willing to provide more information on this during the commissioning process.

1. Please could you explain what the funnelling process will be during procurement and what stages in the process deselection will take place?
2. Subject to there being a minimum of 5 eligible Organisations, the Council intends to invite a minimum of 5 Organisations and a maximum of 7 Organisations to participate in the initial Competitive Dialogue Stage.
3. All Organisations will be ranked in accordance with the scoring of their Supplier Selection Questionnaire. The 5 Organisations, whose Supplier Selection Questionnaire’s score highest, in accordance with the evaluation criteria stated, will be invited to participate in the initial Competitive Dialogue Stage.
4. The Council intends to invite up to a further 2 Organisations, where those Organisations score is within 2% of the score achieved by the Organisation ranked 5th.
5. In the event that the scores of two or more Organisations that are ranked after the 5th Organisation are tied, the Council shall invite such Organisations to participate in Competitive Dialogue, and therefore the total number of Organisations to be invited participate in Competitive Dialogue may exceed 7.
6. The Organisations that have been selected to participate in dialogue will be sent the initial Invitation to Participate in Dialogue and Invitation to Submit Outline Solutions documents.
7. There will be a formal evaluation of the Outline Submissions based upon the evaluation criteria set out in the Invitation to Submit Outline Solutions Document. It is anticipated (and the Councils reserve the right) that the number of solutions (and therefore bidders) may reduce as a result of the evaluation of the Outline Submissions. The Council anticipates that this may result in no more than three (3) bidders being taken through to the next dialogue phase.

In the event that 2 or more Bidders are tied, The Council will take through those Bidders accordingly

1. There will be a formal evaluation of the Detailed Submissions based upon the specified evaluation criteria. As a result of this evaluation, it is anticipated (and the Councils reserve the right) that the number of solutions (and therefore bidders) may reduce. The Councils anticipate that this may result in two (2) bidders being taken through to the next dialogue phase.

In the event that 2 or more Bidders are tied, The Council will take through those Bidders accordingly

1. Following the submission of Final Tenders, in order to ensure that they have a clear understanding of the terms of all Final Tenders, the Combined Authority may seek clarifications from bidders prior to the completion of the Final Tender evaluation process.

1. Is Greater Manchester planning to use the DWP umbrella framework?

Greater Manchester will not be using the DWP umbrella framework.

1. You mentioned there will be a local variation of the accelerator model which is a part of DWP programme – will this be a variation in how the accelerator will work or whether or not GM will have an accelerator? (Paul Drew – The Work Company)

We are currently working through how the funding model will operate and whether GM will use an accelerator model.

1. Greater Manchester’s Integrated Health and Social Care system is based on 12 neighbourhoods across GM, how do you envisage this programme working alongside the integrated services within each of the 12 neighbourhoods across GM?

For the Working Well Programme, in each of 10 Local Authority areas there is a Local Integration Board which pulls together key service providers for the entirety of Greater Manchester and it may well be that some of those deliver in specific neighbourhoods in GM, others may deliver across GM. There is a slightly different make up in each area and each is locally specific.

As part of Working Well we have identified who the key contacts are and what the role of the local integration board is – so this is one thing we may consider for the Work and Health Programme.

Broader work across GM may look at how we can influence the Health and Social Care Joint Commissioning Board which makes decisions on how services are being commissioned across GM.

Also at a locality level, as part of Health and Social Care integration each area has submitted a locality plan detailing the key priorities for that district and we want to make sure we are influencing these.

Our ambition is better coordination and alignment and, where possible, integration.

The local performance management through the local integration boards ensures that the local delivery model is suitable for each area and to make sure there is a sense of local ownership and devolved responsibility.