Scottish Government

(a) there is shared understanding about the outcomes we wish to achieve in the future.

• Do we have a comprehensive analysis of national policies and priorities, the plans of all relevant local agencies and single outcome agreements?
• Have we collected sound evidence to support the development of our commissioning activity, based on analysis of research, good practice and benchmarking information?
• Have we developed a clear, shared understanding of the outcomes we wish to achieve for people in this care group and sub-groups?
• Do we have a sound understanding of whole systems approaches to meeting needs, taking a broad approach across all relevant local supports and services, with links to locality and community planning?

(b) we have carried out a comprehensive assessment of needs, preferences and intended outcomes.

• Have we carried out a strategic needs assessment, using relevant national and local demographic, social and health data, including forecasts and trends?
• Are our assessments comprehensive, person centred and outcomes focused?
• Do our assessments identify the particular needs of individuals, families and communities who experience poverty, inequality and disadvantage?
• Do our assessments reflect cultural, gender and social diversity, including the needs of minority ethnic groups and groups who are hard to reach?
• Are our needs assessments informed by data which we have collected and analysed from care planning processes, as well as feedback from people who use services and their carers?
• Are our assessments informed by surveys of people who use services and their carers (using Talking Points/ UDSET, or other methods) and/or the findings of wider research on the aspirations, needs and wishes of people who use services and carers?
• Do our forecasts include long term forecasts of need and demand (looking 10-15 years ahead) as well as medium term (3-5 years ahead) and short term (1 year ahead)?
• Have we evaluated, analysed and summarised the information we have gathered and identified any major gaps in what we know?

(c) we have mapped and reviewed service provision to inform future commissioning.

• Have we mapped and reviewed service provision in the light of our collective assessment of people's needs and desired outcomes?
• Have we identified current and projected (short, medium and long term) unmet need, main gaps in services and any duplication of services provided in our locality?
• Have we gathered a wide range of stakeholder views on the range and quality of current service provision, and gaps in services?
• Have we a good understanding of market supply and demand and the factors likely to impact on this in the future?
• Have we collated evidence about the quality and performance of existing services (both in-house and externally purchased), based on the findings of the care regulator, our care planning processes, contract monitoring and feedback from people who use services and their carers?
• Have we identified provider strengths and weaknesses (including in-house provision), consulted with existing and potential providers, and identified opportunities for improvement?
• Have we analysed current and future provider capacity and identified gaps and potential over- capacity?

(d) with our strategic partners, we have fully analysed the range of options for achieving our agreed outcomes for this group of people and its sub-groups.

• Have we examined a broad range of alternatives for meeting the needs and desired outcomes for people who use services and their carers, taking into account:
• a range of different models of care and support?
• the findings of research?
• the benchmarking of inputs, outputs and outcomes with comparator organisations, and internally between different teams and units?
• evidence of what delivers the best outcomes in terms of quality and value for money?
• the scope for effective prevention and early intervention?
• evidence of good practice locally and elsewhere?
• Have we fully considered and made the most of the potential of technology, equipment and different housing options when deciding what our options are, in consultation with strategic partners?
• How can we demonstrate that our options are based on sound evidence for what works well and delivers good outcomes for people and for the wider community?
• Have we fully appraised all the options available to us, with a clear cost/benefit analysis of the range of options in terms of value for money and the outcomes we wish to achieve from the different models of care and support?
• Does our option appraisal include directly provided services as well as services we currently commission?
• Will the services we commission be able to adapt to changing needs and desired outcomes?
• Have we consulted widely when carrying out option appraisals and documented the findings of consultation?

(e) we have developed a sound analysis of the resources needed to support future commissioning of services.

• Have we developed a good, shared understanding of the costs of different types of intervention, support and care?
• Have we a clear analysis of the costs (including unit cost analysis) of the full range of services, supports and interventions?
• Have we developed good systems for internal and external benchmarking, with clear links to our analysis of market supply and demand?
• Have we a clear, objective analysis of financial and other resources (including buildings and accommodation) currently deployed across all agencies to meet the needs of the care group?
• Do we have a robust resource analysis to support future commissioning, including an analysis of future resource requirements?
• Have we agreed a set of realistic assumptions about future resource levels?
• Have we analysed the current and future workforce requirements across all relevant agencies and sectors associated with the options we have identified for future service provision?

(f) we have analysed the risks involved in implementing change or continuing with existing models and levels of service.

• Do we have models that allow us to forecast the impact of possible changes associated with different options, including continuing with the current level and mix of services?
• Is there a clear analysis of risks associated with the different commissioning options, including financial risks and the risks associated with failing to achieve our outcomes?
• Have we analysed relevant workforce risks?

• Analysis and recording of outcomes is well developed.
• There is comprehensive evidence to support decisions about future commissioning of services for adults, children and families, and criminal justice. This includes:
• person centred and outcomes focused needs assessments;
• analysis of market supply and demand;
• the findings of benchmarking and best value scrutiny;
• research and good practice, and
• information from care planning, as well as feedback from people who use services and their carers.
• There is a good understanding of the needs, preferences and desired outcomes of sub-groups within the community, including black and minority ethnic groups and those who are socially excluded or hard to reach.
• Data is reliable and there are good systems for improving data collection and data quality.
• Service mapping has been undertaken and there is a clear analysis of the range and quality of services and any service gaps or duplication.
• All relevant options for meeting future needs have been fully analysed, in terms of outcomes, costs, benefits and risks.
• There is a sound analysis of financial and other resource requirements and a good understanding of costs.

• Thinking on outcomes is poorly developed.
• Information systems are underdeveloped and there is limited sharing of information across partner agencies.
• There is little systematic analysis of the current and forecast needs of the care group and its sub-groups.
• There has been no benchmarking of services to inform future commissioning.
• Information from care planning and review systems is not collected and analysed to inform future commissioning.
• Feedback from people who use services and their carers is unsystematic and findings are not well analysed and collated.
• Decisions about future service commissioning are ad hoc and based on untested assumptions.
• There is a poor understanding of market supply and demand and the business environment needed to ensure service quality and sustainability.
• There is limited understanding of gaps and duplication in services.
• Staff do not fully understand unit costs and the costs of care packages and as a result the service allocates resources unfairly.
• Systems for identification and appraisal of options are poorly developed.
• No equality impact assessments exist, and policies are outdated.

(a) we have strong strategic partnerships that drive the strategic commissioning of services.

• Have we strong partnerships with strategic commissioning partners?
• Are partnership structures and appropriate governance arrangements in place to oversee the development and implementation of strategic commissioning?
• Is there a commonly understood and shared vision for the particular care group which commands the commitment of all partner agencies and other stakeholders?
• Does the shared vision include a commitment to personalised approaches that are person/child centred?
• Is there is a clear, unambiguous statement about the responsibility of the commissioning agencies for meeting the needs of the relevant care group, including areas of joint responsibility?
• Have we defined the roles of the partnership agencies, reaching clear agreements specifying what services we will commission jointly, and what will be commissioned by a lead agency on behalf of the partnership?
• Have we agreed what services we will provide directly and what we will procure externally, based on considerations of outcomes for people, quality and value for money?
• Have we established a framework for consultation and clear consultation processes with people who use services and their carers, and relevant local organisations, including providers?

(b) we have clear policies to guide strategic commissioning services.

• Is there an agreed set of policies, approved by elected members and implemented across all social work services, to ensure that a consistent approach is taken to strategic commissioning across all social work and jointly commissioned services?
• To what extent do our policies and procedures demonstrate compliance with relevant legislation and guidance, both in relation to national policies for different care groups and national legislation and guidance in areas such as best value?
• Do our commissioning policies reflect the principles of best value, equality, fairness and transparency?
• Do our policies and procedures set out the roles and responsibilities of social work services and our strategic partners, based on consultation and engagement with them?

(c) we have developed written commissioning strategies for the relevant care group and sub-groups within it.

• Have we agreed, consulted on and published our strategic plans and priorities for the relevant care group and sub-groups?
• Have our commissioning strategies been approved at all levels of the local governance/partnership structures, and subjected to equality impact assessment?
• Do our plans emphasise person/child centred approaches?
• Do plans set out how we will maximise opportunities for people to control the supports and services they need?
• Based on our analysis of options, have we consulted and agreed on our preferred models of intervention, support and care, demonstrating how these will achieve best value, meet forecast needs, and deliver desired outcomes?
• Have we published comprehensive written commissioning strategies for all relevant care groups in consultation with all stakeholders?
• How do our commissioning strategies address the needs of adults/children who require transitional services, and those whose needs cut across care group and agency boundaries?
• Do our commissioning strategies look forward at least 10-15 years, as well as containing detailed delivery plans for three years and one year ahead?
• Do our commissioning strategies and related implementation plans meet SMART criteria?
• At a whole systems level, have we maximised the contribution of all relevant local services, to achieve an optimal balance between promotion of health and well being, support for independence, prevention, early intervention and more intensive supports?
• Is a whole systems approach evident in all commissioning strategies, i.e. do we take account of their impact on the capacity of all partner agencies to meet the needs and achieve desired outcomes for the relevant care group and the whole community?
• Have all the relevant agencies made firm commitments to deploy resources effectively to deliver on commissioning strategies and support better outcomes for people?

Illustrations for Theme 2

• There are effective partnerships with a high level of engagement with key partner agencies.
• Joint commissioning of services takes place where this will deliver best outcomes.
• Partnership planning has a high involvement of people who use services and their carers and features consultation with all relevant stakeholders, including provider organisations.
• Providers are positive about their level of engagement in planning.
• Agreed written policies, focused on outcomes and best value, guide the strategic commissioning of services, and these have had equality impact assessments.
• Written commissioning strategies are in place for all the main care groups, and match community needs - including those of hard-to-reach groups. These are evidence based, with links to a wide range of information and analysis.
• Commissioning strategies set out what will be commissioned, available finances and show how purchasing intentions will achieve value for money.
• Commissioning strategies reflect whole systems thinking.There is a good balance between promoting health and well being, supporting independence, prevention, early intervention and providing more intensive supports.
• Active learning from good practice and ongoing benchmarking of services informs service commissioning, with a strong focus on outcomes.

• Partnerships are weak or uneven. Some of the main care groups or subgroups receive insufficient attention.
• Partnership working focuses on operational issues at the expense of strategic planning and commissioning.
• Key local agencies have not been engaged in planning and commissioning activity, although their contribution will be essential to achieving desired outcomes.
• Involvement of people who use services and their carers in partnership planning is variable, with major gaps.
• There is a low priority given to engaging positively with existing and potential providers and securing their commitment to strategic decisions about future services.
• The service has not produced written commissioning strategies or these are unfinished and there is uncertainty about the status of commissioning plans.
• There is an ad hoc approach taken to commissioning and it does not link well to service and financial planning.

(a) we have established effective leadership and management arrangements to oversee the implementation of our commissioning strategy.

• Have we the right membership on decision-making structures to ensure joint groups are able to make decisions to allow the implementation of the whole strategy to move forward effectively and on time?
• Do we ensure that we maintain a balance of effort directed to managing the implementation of the overall strategy rather than focusing mainly on the implementation of individual projects?
• Are there clear responsibilities and accountability for implementing service developments and service decommissioning, including jointly commissioned services and service developments?
• Have we established mechanisms to obtain the views of people who use services and their carers and representative organisations, including advocacy organisations to ensure that consultation is on-going during the different stages of strategy implementation?
• Have we agreed performance measures for the implementation and review of commissioning strategies, including targets, timescales and milestones, with clear accountability and reporting arrangements?
• Do we use our commissioning strategies and partnerships to drive innovation and improvement?
• Have we established project management arrangements for major service redesign and new service developments, with clear lines of accountability?
• Have we identified and put in place the financial management arrangements needed to support our delivery plans?
• Are contingency plans in place to deal with risks, taking account of likely impact on people who use services and their carers as well as the capacity of other relevant services?
• Do all implementation plans set out accountability for the management of risk, with links where appropriate to strategic risk management processes?

(b) the necessary financial and workforce planning arrangements are in place to support the implementation of joint strategic plans.

• Have we put in place jointly agreed financial plans to support the phased implementation of actions agreed in commissioning strategies within agreed timescales?
• Have we developed, consulted upon and published our purchasing intentions?
• Do we actively support business and financial planning by all relevant providers?
• Are the financial and other responsibilities of different agencies clearly spelled out and formally agreed?
• Are workforce plans and workforce development action plans in place (encompassing workforce planning across all agencies and sectors) to ensure the smooth and timely implementation of actions agreed in our plans and commissioning strategies?
• Have we established mechanisms to identify and deal with any major changes, including predicted trends, financial plans and other assumptions?

(c) our commissioning strategies are translated into effective delivery plans which support and guide implementation.

• Do we implement our commissioning strategies through delivery plans that meet SMART criteria?
• Have we systems in place for reporting on progress, identifying obstacles and delays and ensuring we take action to deal with these or to adjust delivery plans and timescales?
• Do we consult regularly with strategic partners and with current and potential providers to ensure that delivery plans are realistic and achievable within agreed timescales?
• Do delivery plans cover the whole system changes we have agreed, and not just look at individual service developments or small-scale projects?
• Can we demonstrate that our implementation arrangements have clear links to any risks we have analysed (at Theme 1) in terms of the impact on people who use services and their carers, as well as any financial risks or uncertainties?
• Have we put in place appropriate project management arrangements for any commissioning/decommissioning projects, clearly linked to any risks we have identified?
• Do our delivery plans include contingency plans to cover any significant areas of risk?
• Have we identified and facilitated the market conditions that will be critical to successful implementation, in consultation with partner agencies and current and potential providers?
• Have we consulted and taken action to make sure that any significant reconfiguration of services and/or major planned service developments can be implemented and sustained over the lifetime of the commissioning strategy?
• Have we found ways of making sure there is sufficient provider capacity, including in hard to reach areas and for hard to reach groups?
• Does an equality impact assessment inform our delivery plans?

(d) we have clear policies and procedures for purchasing and procurement.

• Do we have written and approved policies and procedures for procurement and contracting care and support services which:
• comply with all relevant legislation, directives, guidance and council financial regulations and standing orders?
• make clear links between procurement and the desired outcomes of our commissioning strategies and policies?
• reflect the distinctive needs of vulnerable individuals for whom services are to be purchased?
• prioritise best value and delivering outcomes for people who use services and their carers in ways which meet needs and preferences?
• identify an appropriate range of contracting mechanisms and provide a rationale for selecting different mechanisms, based on best value and desired outcomes for children and/or adults?
• set out the principles and rationale for selecting providers, including the use of in-house provision?
• How can we demonstrate that the emphasis in our specification of services is on desired outcomes, and not just inputs and outputs?
• Do we have formal agreements and joint policies and procedures to cover any joint procurement of services by partner agencies?

(e) we have effective procurement/purchasing of services and develop positive relationships with existing and potential providers in order to achieve the outcomes defined in commissioning strategies and at the individual level.

• In what ways do our procurement and contracting processes encourage providers to achieve desired outcomes for individuals and adopt personalised approaches in all service settings and how do we evidence this?
• Do we make sure all parts of the service consistently apply procurement policies and procedures?
• Do we have effective information systems to support service contracting?
• In what ways do our contracts and service level agreements promote provider flexibility and innovation in the way they respond to people's needs and preferences?
• Do contracting arrangements give sufficient weight to service continuity where this is the expressed preference of people who use services and their carers?
• Do we ensure that people affected by service tendering or re-design have good access to advocates and that we take account of their views when making decisions?
• Is there evidence of good communication and collaboration between commissioners and providers and a shared commitment to achieving agreed outcomes?
• Are there regular mechanisms and systems for consulting with providers and taking their views on board?
• Do we seek feedback from providers on their experiences of procurement and contracting processes?
• Do we actively manage and build provider capacity in line with the commissioning strategy and delivery plan?
• Do we encourage and promote provider learning and development, for example through offering access to joint training programmes?

Illustrations for Theme 3

• There is clear and visible leadership of the implementation of commissioning strategies. Responsibilities are clear and delivery plans meet SMART criteria.
• There is a culture of aspiring to excellence and promoting learning from and sharing of good practice.
• The service values provider expertise and this contributes to learning from good practice. It seeks opportunities to promote partnership and innovation.
• Commissioning and contracting staff receive appropriate training and there is staff capacity to carry out strategic commissioning and procurement.
• There is effective financial and workforce planning to support commissioning strategies.
• The service builds provider capacity to ensure the sustainability of services.
• There are fully compliant written policies and procedures for procurement and contracting of social care.
• An appropriate range of contracting mechanisms is used to achieve strategic objectives.
• Providers receive good written and up-to-date information about assessed needs and desired outcomes and relevant information about risks.
• There is good involvement of people who use services and advocates or representative bodies in activities such as preparing service specifications, establishing outcome measures, interviewing and selecting providers.

• Management arrangements for implementing commissioning strategies are weak and implementation plans are not SMART.
• There is insufficient capacity to carry out commissioning and procurement of social care services.
• Measurement of outcomes does not inform the implementation of commissioning plans.
• Financial plans do not link well to commissioning plans and the financial and workforce implications for different agencies are unclear.
• Providers have little or no information to guide their business planning and there are significant gaps in provider capacity for some groups or in some areas.
• Policies and procedures for procurement and contracting are not in place, or do not comply with current requirements.
• There is an incomplete central record of the number and volume of contracts and service level agreements and some providers do not have contracts or service level agreements.
• Providers do not routinely receive written information about assessed needs or desired outcomes. Risk assessments are not communicated and this exposes employees in provider organisations or the public to unnecessary risk.
• The service uses external providers on a spot purchase basis to fill gaps in directly provided service. Contract value and contract terms make it difficult or impossible to deliver sustainable, quality services.

(a) we have an evidence-based approach to monitoring the implementation of our commissioning strategy and related procurement activity.

• What systems have we implemented:
• for regular monitoring and review of progress in implementing the delivery plans for our commissioning strategy?
• for periodic major revision of the commissioning strategy?
• Do we regularly report progress in delivering our commissioning strategy using agreed performance measures and reporting arrangements, with a clear focus on the outcomes we are committed to achieving?
• Can we evidence that we regularly review the operation of market supply and demand and use the information to test assumptions built in to our commissioning strategy in order to identify what adjustments are needed?
• How do we evidence that strategic commissioning and procurement activity comply with agreed policies, procedures, legislation and guidance?

(b) we systematically monitor and review services.

• Can we show that when we review in-house and external services and contracts, we consult and involve people who use services and their carers? Do we record and take on board their views when improving services?
• How can we demonstrate that there are effective links between service monitoring and care management systems, in particular systems for reviewing individual care plans?
• Can we show that we make good links between service monitoring and care planning?
• How well do our monitoring and review systems inform us about how well providers (including in-house services) promote personalised approaches, innovation and flexibility in meeting preferences and needs?
• Can we evidence systems to bring together relevant data on finance, activity and outcomes of our services and contracts, and show that these are regularly analysed and reported?
• Do we liaise effectively with the care regulator to ensure that we avoid duplication between regulation and contract monitoring, and respond appropriately to any issues arising from regulation and inspection?
• Can we show that in monitoring services we make effective use of information held by other agencies?
• Can we show that we have an agreed schedule for reviewing contracts and service level agreements, and that we ensure that we regularly carry out, write up and report on reviews?
• Can we show that we scrutinise and report on the performance of in-house services as well as services purchased from external providers?
• How do monitoring systems build and promote continuous improvement and quality assurance by providers?
• Do we regularly bring service providers together to promote learning and improvement from service reviews?
• Can we evidence learning and improvement in the quality of services because of service monitoring and review?
• Do we take account of up-to-date equality impact assessments when monitoring and reviewing services?

(c) the frequency and level of review activity is proportionate to our risk analysis.

• Are review arrangements set out in delivery plans for our commissioning strategies, with clear links to our analysis of any risks and uncertainties?
• To what extent can we show that monitoring and review of our delivery plans is proportionate and focused on any risks we have identified in relation to outcomes for people who currently use services or people who will in the future?
• To what extent can we show that the level and frequency of review activity is proportionate to changing financial, workforce and other risks and uncertainties?
• Do we review and update our contingency plans in the light of changing circumstances which affect the needs and resources on which our delivery plans are based, and changing assessment of risks?

(d) we review the impact of our commissioning strategy and make any adjustments necessary.

• Can we show that we collate information from care planning and reviews of contracts or service level agreements, and use it to assess whether we are achieving agreed outcomes for the care group?
• Is there ongoing consultation with people who use services and their carers, partner agencies and other relevant stakeholders when reviewing the implementation of commissioning strategies?
• Can we show that we regularly review the overall impact of the strategy (using measures defined in our commissioning strategy), assess whether we are on target to achieve agreed outcomes and use this to inform the next stage of commissioning?
• Do we adjust commissioning strategies to take account of the findings of best value reviews?
• How do we make sure that our strategy implementation adheres to agreed targets and timescales?
• How do we make sure that we review changes in legislative requirements, national and local priorities and community needs in the light of new information?
• Can we show that we periodically review the effectiveness of our commissioning partnerships, including scrutiny and governance arrangements, to ensure these are fit for purpose?
• Can we demonstrate how the findings of service and strategy reviews inform successive stages of analysis and planning?

Illustrations for Theme 4

• The service makes sure it complies with commissioning and procurement policies.
• There are effective arrangements for the regular monitoring and review of all services.
• Service review processes have strong links to care planning.
• Contracts staff avoid duplication by consistently using inspection reports and data held by the care regulator.
• Existing and potential providers are involved in strategic reviews.
• Ongoing benchmarking of quality and costs across all sectors and across care groups helps ensure best value.
• The service uses performance and outcome measures to review the effectiveness of strategy implementation.
• Partners regularly review and update commissioning strategies and delivery plans, involving people who use services and providers.
• Review processes include updating risk assessments and strategic risk management plans.
• The service regularly reviews partnership working arrangements and ensures they are fit for purpose.

• Service monitoring is inconsistent with major gaps.
• There are poor links between service monitoring and care management.
• There are poor arrangements for consulting with people who use services and service reviews do not take account of their views.
• The service takes insufficient account of the findings or decisions of the care regulator.
• Providers frequently receive enquiries for information and visits which duplicate the activities of the care regulator.
• Provider liaison is poorly developed and communication with them is uneven or ad hoc.
• Partners are unable to measure progress against targets and milestones.
• The implementation of the commissioning strategy is not kept under review and there is a lack of clarity about what is to be achieved.
• Partnership arrangements do not work effectively, yet the service has not reviewed or adjusted these.