significant retain any additional savings or income risks generated outside the contract. This will be dependent upon good contract Viable but management. Providers are unlikely to Governance with commercial data and any accommodation of and significant policy initiatives could incur additional costs. flexibility risks Also there is no of Last Resort” “Provider that is fully in control of BoP. Outsourcing option is unpopular with staff. Viable but Service users and carers are concerned Acceptability with about the threat to quality. This could be to significant mitigated by appropriate stakeholder stakeholders risks management. Nevertheless there is a future risk to staff terms and conditions. Whilst outsourcing could be financially viable, the market issues present significant risk to the Council. If some services are left Viable but in the Council the resources needed to with Financial implications manage and support these services will significant reduce the cost reduction benefit gained from a lower contract price. Also, the Council needs to consider how they can tap into savings. Overall Available but with significant risk due to market conditions Outsourcing is a viable option and this is reflected in the number of independently provided adult services across the country. There is a potential to reduce cost and ensure a financially sustainable service. However, this is not without significant risks and current experience within Poole would ward against this as a solution due to limited supply and potential quality issues. The Council will lose ultimate control of the service affecting, for example, the flexibility to implement new policy initiatives. Equally, the Council will not be able to generate income from this option and any savings made ultimately rely on the negotiations over contract value and terms. It is also likely that the service as a whole would have to be and ‘parcelled-up’ tendered in individual service offerings which increases the real risk of some niche, expensive services remaining in the Council. Option 2 - Continue with a remodelled in-house provision: In house provision guarantees service of last resort and could make effective use of the Viable but Council’s partners. However, financial Quality Qualitative with risks pressures may lead to a compromise in quality assessment through a reduction in service provision and staffing levels. In the current climate and given that the Cost Not viable service will be undergoing some
significant risks retain any additional savings or income generated outside the contract. Governance and flexibility Viable but with significant risks This will be dependent upon good contract management. Providers are unlikely to commercial data and any accommodation of policy initiatives could incur additional costs. Also there is no “Provider of Last Resort” that is fully in control of BoP. Acceptability to stakeholders Viable but with significant risks Outsourcing option is unpopular with staff. Service users and carers are concerned about the threat to quality. This could be mitigated by appropriate stakeholder management. Nevertheless there is a future risk to staff terms and conditions. Financial implications Viable but with significant Whilst outsourcing could be financially viable, the market issues present significant risk to the Council. If some services are left in the Council the resources needed to manage and support these services will reduce the cost reduction benefit gained from a lower contract price. Also, the Council needs to consider how they can tap into savings. Overall Available but with significant risk due to market conditions Outsourcing is a viable option and this is reflected in the number of independently provided adult services across the country. There is a potential to reduce cost and ensure a financially sustainable service. However, this is not without significant risks and current experience within Poole would ward against this as a solution due to limited supply and potential quality issues. The Council will lose ultimate control of the service affecting, for example, the flexibility to implement new policy initiatives. Equally, the Council will not be able to generate income from this option and any savings made ultimately rely on the negotiations over contract value and terms. It is also likely that the service as a whole would have to be ‘parcelled-up’ and tendered in individual service offerings which increases the real risk of some niche, expensive services remaining in the Council. Option 2 - Continue with a remodelled in-house provision: Qualitative assessment Quality Viable but with risks In house provision guarantees service of last resort and could make effective use of the Council’s partners. However, financial pressures may lead to a compromise in quality through a reduction in service provision and staffing levels. Cost Not viable In the current climate and given that the service will be undergoing some
att22183.docx