As a first response, a survey within the Borough asked 2500 residents on which key areas they would like to see council tax spent. Having established that quality of the environment was the community’s top single concern, and that the Council needed to get on top of it, GYBC felt that their agenda for change was rooted in a clear mandate from voters.
Resources, however, were scarce. The problem would not be solved by a supply of cheap capital, for instance to expand the refuse collector fleet; what was needed was a sea change in service delivery methodology.
In the wake of this assessment Mark Barrow, who joined GYBC in October as Corporate Director (Environmental Policy), was seconded to a working group tasked with addressing the problems. It was recognized that there was a range of low cost services and that the previous CCT (compulsory competitive tendering) regime had removed much of the management capacity, and that there was headroom for reinvestment for service improvement. What the Council did not want was to have to go through cycles of allocating funds to match expectation.
The group consisted both of key cabinet and opposition members, thereby ensuring political ownership across the board so that, regardless of what happened at the polls, what was set in place would be sustainable in the long term.
Having agreed that continuing to provide the services themselves was not an option, the group considered private sector submissions alongside a hybrid model proposed by local facilities management specialist Norfolk County Services (NCS). NCS represented a unique combination of public ownership (the company is wholly owned by Norfolk County Council) with a strong commercial ethos and management practices typical of the private sector.
“We went into the evaluation process with no fixed idea of a particular model,” says Barrow, “but it rapidly became obvious that best solution was the private sector ethos married with public sector service delivery.”
“In terms of the areas we were reviewing,” he adds, “the service quality, experience and management capacity NCS offered clearly represented the best value for money,”
The model NCS proposal created a new company, called GYB Services (GYBS), which receives a block grant to deliver outcomes defined in appropriate Service Level Agreements. The range of services GYBS provides covers refuse collections, recycling, street cleaning, public and amenity building maintenance, grounds care, footway lighting, street furniture and engineering services.
Whereas each service used to have self-contained budgets, the new partnership arrangement offers the flexibility to manage the bottom line in the most efficient manner, as long as agreed outcomes are delivered.
More than anything it provides GYBS management with the ability to innovate, and to reinvest cost savings made through greater efficiency in service delivery wherever it was most needed. Any surplus is split 50:50 between GYBC and NCS.
This partnership approach was a groundbreaking initiative. Whilst examples existed of similar arrangements in specific services, the kind of joint partnership that GYBS represents for an extensive range of services was totally new.
Implementation
Partnership and transparency were at the heart of the concept, with focus on service outcomes, driving better value from budgets and redirection of resources.
Once reality of forming the partnership was established, the two parties set up a joint liaison board. The original plan had been to set up a joint venture, however the Audit Commission decided that it would represent self-procurement if GYBC were part of GYBS. This formalised the route of service delegation to GYBS. Barrow recalls that the Audit Commission was nervous of the model initially, as it tested their comfort zone and they had to seek advice from their national strategy team.
The liaison board was made up of the cabinet member for environment at GYBC, the leader of council, cabinet members from the County Council, the Managing Director of NCS, Mark Barrow and the Director of GYBS, Graham Jermyn who had been brought in to create the delivery vehicle utilising existing resources.
When developing the outcome and service level agreements Jermyn recalls, “The concept was groundbreaking, we could not go elsewhere and look at comparative models and recycle their ideas. Some of the methodology and constituent parts were there, but the key performance indicators, the combination of all the elements and configuration needed original development.”
GYB Services were initially heavily involved with formulation and shaping the action plan members came up with. Jermyn sees three key stages to the arrangement - initially get on with service delivery; then provide service improvement and development and subsequently provide evidence of improvements for perception change.
Both Jermyn and Barrow agree that it is also important to recognize just how central the motivation of the human resource, and their response to the challenges, was to the success of the partnership. “For example,” Barrow says, “When we explained to the refuse workforce how the new structure would work, that it was not about cheapness but about quality of service they were fully behind us. They realised this was not a cost cutting agenda, but an efficiency, best practice service-delivery agenda which they could engage with. This has empowered Graham to bring about change from within as the workforce has taken ownership of the quality service delivery.”
Remarkably, the team delivered the whole partnership by October 2003, the entire process of building the model, reviewing the market, consulting with staff and the mental progression having been completed in a twelve-month timeframe.
Initially reporting was set on six-weekly basis; subsequently this has been revised to three monthly intervals. Latterly the Borough Council has also adopted a ‘light touch’ with inspections having seen performance achievements aligned with the service level agreements.
An illustration of the non adversarial relationship is how electronic information is shared enabling performance and financial information to be accessed by both the Borough Council and GYBS at any time. This spirit of openness and transparency further reduces the need to get together frequently to evaluate results.
Without contracts getting in the way GYBS can focus on outcome. “We’re not continually having to review staff and resources and payment for this, payment for that, we can be focused on what we want to achieve,” Jermyn points out. “I do not think we could have been able to do it if it had been on a contractual basis. In the right framework the public sector can delivery extraordinary results.”
Barrow agrees and cites a couple of examples. “Being focused on service outcomes means that when the Borough talks to parish councils, we can discuss in very clear terms the aims we jointly need to achieve. We can raise performance at a reasonable cost. For instance, in last two years we have driven a shift from around 7% recycling to well over 20% now.”
“Also, take refuse collection. Moving from weekly black bag collection to fortnightly bin collection is a huge service transformation. We can point to the new service methodology, ie the private sector approach to flexibility, as delivering a resource surplus which we will be able to transfer to other areas. We can be total ‘open book’ with costs and say we’re going to achieve this to a neutral cost plan.”
Measurements
Some of the KPI measurement is straightforward, for example recycling volumes and % of missed bin collections; means of measuring street cleaning are quite new and the methodologies are constantly being refreshed in the light of outcome delivery. The raft of service levels are all outcome focused; take ground maintenance for instance - high quality grass is specified as needing to be kept at one height, whereas general amenity grassland surrounding parkland requires a different level of attention.
But there is also measurability in what Barrow refers to as “the softer stuff”, where he refers to reduction in public complaints contribution to local press. “We are now actually beginning to exceed expectations, doing things the public did not expect the council to do,” he comments.
GYBS is now also moving into more community services. There is no statutory responsibility to work with local business to promote recycling, yet, as Graham Jermyn points out, “The majority of waste comes from non-domestic sources. Our model has enabled us to develop a robust offer to the business community surrounding how they can collect and recycle business waste.”
These sort of ‘marginal’ activities, Mark Barrow claims, do not happen easily when you have commercial consideration in the way. It is one of the fundamental aspects that differentiate the GYBS agreement from the strictly private sector contractor scenario. “Something leaner, that is focused solely on the outcome and washes its face financially, stimulates new service delivery,” he emphasises.
The results are clearly impressive. GYBS is now delivering the outcomes and a raft of benchmarking that can demonstrate competitiveness without constantly having to go through the competitive tendering process. Residents’ perception of services being delivered has increased. The traffic light indicator system, used to monitor services, is providing strong evidence of not only results today, but also positive direction of travel over time. Improvements two subsequent inspectors have validated.
The arrangement is also contributing half of council efficiency savings called for under Sir Peter Gershon's review of public sector efficiency.
Barrow believes that the GYBS partnership model could easily be seen as a beacon for pathfinder status. ENCAMS (formerly Tidy Britain) regional director has been quoted as saying that it is an example of best practice that he would use as a paradigm to other authorities nationally.
The future
 Recently there has been closer working with the County Council to examine service cross overs. A senior employee from Norfolk County Council Transportation now attends GYBS board meetings, looking at ways to make their service delivery more seamless for the public.
Greater interaction with county is leading to greater understanding of what each does and to devolving some services, such as certain aspects of weed control, better delivered by the partnership. The Borough has introduced a programme of street closing to facilitate ‘deep cleans’ and works with the County Council to ensure gully emptying is carried out at the same time..
The same approach is being taken in outlying areas where the two organisations look to get complimentary teams into villages at the same time.
But Jermyn also sees opportunities to grow the business by generating income from non-borough council customers. Here profits can be produced, adding to the potential surplus from which the council taxpayers will be the ultimate beneficiaries.
For Mark Barrow, the man who drove the project initially and has played a pivotal role in the partnership’s evolution and success, there are new challenges. In March 2007 he moved to become Chief Executive at Newcastle-under-Lyme Council. Will he be looking at a similar arrangement for his new employer?
“Certainly,” he says, “there is already a great deal of interest in evaluating the concept, but regional variations in models like this are essential. In the heart of the midlands there is a different market with its own priorities and service delivery agenda. However, the principles and spirit of non-profit partnership working, and transparency with focus on service outcomes are transferable. We will have to wait and see.” |
