Financial assessment and implications of the four main options The results of the financial assessment of the options are: Assessment Outsourcing Remodelled CIC LATC criteria provision Will make the Limited scope to Social Enterprises have proven savings but could make required (SE) have proven track record of Ability to make lose significant savings without record of becoming more savings and control over reducing services becoming more efficient and be sustainable services efficient and reducing costs reducing costs 3rd Party services SE’s are free to LATCs are free to Ability to providers are free cannot trade freely trade trade and develop to trade new services Contract is only BoP in full control Asset locks BoP has full mechanism for of all aspects of prevent BoP from control of the Co BoP. Would not these services enjoying all and can direct BoP can share in additional additional profits. reserves to where benefit from profits Control is not it decides, but profits guaranteed Corporation Tax may reduce full availability Any savings Will not deliver Any savings Any /profits not all for savings /profits not all for savings/profits Summary BoP BoP and control for BoP Summary appraisal The acceptability of each of the options considered has been summarised in the table below from our complete analysis which is provided in Section 9. Option 1 Outsource of provision to the market: – Whilst in theory this option has the potential to maintain or improve quality and is Viable but accessible to private funders and DP service with providers may misjudge capacity and/or Quality significant capability and ability to maintain quality in Qualitative risks achieving their cost models. Current market assessment analysis identifies risks relating to quality in complex provision. Viable but Outsourcing typically achieves the lowest Cost with of services. However, providers will
Financial assessment and implications of the four main options The results of the financial assessment of the options are: Assessment criteria Outsourcing Remodelled provision CIC LATC Ability to make savings and be sustainable Will make the savings but could lose significant control over services Limited scope to make required savings without reducing services Social Enterprises (SE) have proven record of becoming more efficient and reducing costs have proven track record of becoming more efficient and reducing costs Ability to and develop new services 3rd Party providers are free to trade services cannot trade freely SE’s are free to trade LATCs are free to trade BoP can benefit from profits Contract is only mechanism for BoP. Would not share in additional profits BoP in full control of all aspects of these services Asset locks prevent BoP from enjoying all additional profits. Control is not guaranteed BoP has full control of the Co and can direct reserves to where it decides, but Corporation Tax may reduce full availability Summary Any savings /profits not all for BoP Will not deliver savings Any savings /profits not all for BoP Any savings/profits and control for BoP Summary appraisal The acceptability of each of the options considered has been summarised in the table below from our complete analysis which is provided in Section 9. Option 1 – Outsource of provision to the market: Qualitative assessment Quality Viable but with significant risks Whilst in theory this option has the potential to maintain or improve quality and is accessible to private funders and DP service providers may misjudge capacity and/or capability and ability to maintain quality in achieving their cost models. Current market analysis identifies risks relating to quality in complex provision. Cost Viable but with Outsourcing typically achieves the lowest of services. However, providers will
att22183.docx