1. Understanding Personalisation Implications for organisational development and capacity building in the VCS
Chris Dayson
March 2011

2. 1. About the research
Partnership between CRESR and a network of LIOs in South Yorkshire - funding provided by ESRC
Objectives:
improve LIO's understanding of personalisation
gather evidence about the opportunities and challenges arising from personalisation
identify examples of positive and innovative practice
get a better understanding about how to respond to personalisation more effectively

3. 1. About the research Research methodology:
a review of existing evidence
semi-structured research interviews with staff from LIOs and frontline TSOs (14 interviews)
engagement (via etc) with a wider sample of LIOs and frontline TSOs (20 orgs)
a learning event attended by more than 50 staff from LIOs and frontline TSOs

4. 2. The policy agenda Some reflections:
a national policy agenda but locally managed: progress tied-up in LA processes and strategies
what is the end-game for HMG/LAs?
A new way to design and deliver services?
Or delivery of the same services for less ££?
how will things play out in the face of public sector cuts?
remember: it is the outcome of a process of service transformation which might or might not include changes to the way activity is funded

5. 3. Research findings For TSOs personalisation is a series of:
threats - to services and organisational sustainability
opportunities - to improve, innovate, diversify…
Implications should be considered in two ways:
organisational development needs
the different types of challenges faced

6. 3. Research findings
Organisational development - three broad types of organisation:
fully developed
under developed and at risk
under developed but not at risk
Challenges:
environmental - external factors linked to policy development and implementation at a local level
operational - internal factors associated with transition to new models of funding and service provision

7. 3. Research findings Organisation type 1: environmental challenges
waiting for LAs to catch-up
wondering if personalisation is more myth that reality
Characterised by case A from the research

8. 3. Research findings
Case A provides a range of social care interventions for older people. In light of the move to more personalised services they have developed a range of chargeable services, such as a toe nail clipping drop-in, and targeted them at self funders (i.e. individuals with the means to pay themselves). Progress towards personalisation in case A's local authority has been slow, and individual budgets have not been rolled-out, but they hope these chargeable services will eventually be accessed by individual budget holders as an alternative to traditional day services.

9. 3. Research findings Organisation type 2: operational challenges
issues around finance, marketing, staffing…
cuts to block contracts could quickly threaten sustainability
Characterised by case B from the research

10. 3. Research findings
Case B provides support to people recovering from mental health conditions. The main service is funded through a block contract with the local authority but they have been told that this will be withdrawn once individual budgets have been rolled out. Case B does not know how many existing service users will have an individual budget so they have not been able to calculate the unit cost of future personalised provision or produce accurate financial forecasts. The organisation is therefore struggling to plan for the future and is concerned that it might have to close as the existing block contract accounts for more than 60 per cent of its annual income.

11. 3. Research findings
Organisation type 3: environmental and operational challenges
finance, marketing, staffing again an issue
but needs not as pressing - sustainability is not under threat as no block contracts
opportunities will not emerge if market is not developed sufficiently
Characterised by case C from the research

12. 3. Research findings
Case C is a small community organisation run by volunteers. They support older people at risk of social isolation through activities such as exercise classes, lunch clubs and day trips. A number of case C's existing and potential beneficiaries will have access to individual budgets but they do not have a clear picture of who they are or the types of services they would like. If they could identify these individual budget holders and their support needs case C might be able to support them to pool their budgets and develop new and responsive community level services.

13. 4. What does other research say?
Leadbeater and Bartlett (2008) argue:
the new environment created by personalisation will require a fundamental shift by many organisations in the ways they carry out their business
but understanding and preparedness within the sector varies considerably

14. 4. What does other research say?
Harlock (2010) suggests the implications will be threefold:
supporting choice so that service users understand their own needs and the options available to them
providing different services that respond to the needs of individual purchasers rather than the generic requirements of local authorities
providing services differently so that users become 'consumers' whose 'business' must be won in an increasingly competitive social care market

15. 4. What does other research say?
Needham (2010) identifies three key support needs for providers making the transition from wholesale to retail provision:
Business development
Market responsiveness
Financial planning

16. 5. Recommendations for LIOs
Three broad themes:
facilitating an improvement in the external environment in which personalisation is being developed
building the capacity of frontline TSOs to respond to personalisation
developing a more strategic approach to LIO activity in support of both of the above

17. 5. Recommendations for LIOs
Sixth months later and things have moved forward in some areas:
more joined up and focussed LIO activity around personalisation
national umbrella bodies being more proactive
But not in others:
local authority approaches to working with the sector still poor in many areas
local public sector bodies stymied by cuts being imposed by Central Government?

18. 6. Some reflections
These findings represent a start point in our understanding - this should improve over time
Personalisation policies currently focussed on health and social care
Personalisation within other areas of mainstream service provision is some way off
The full impact of personalisation on the sector may not be understood for a number of years

19. 6. Some reflections
LIOs will need to monitor the impacts on the organisations they support on an ongoing basis to ensure that their approach to supporting the sector remains appropriate, particularly as additional needs emerge

20. 7. Final thoughts
Important for TSOs to think about the implications of personalisation now:
what type of organisation are you?
what opportunities are there for you?
what challenges do you face?
what are your main support and development needs?
how can you improve the ways you work with the local authority, other service providers, and local infrastructure bodies?

21. 7. Final thoughts
There is no reason why personalisation shouldn't play to your organisations strengths
Don't forget to keep service users at the heart of everything you do

22. Find out more
Series of reports available on the CRESR website:
Paper in March issue of Voluntary Sector Review:
Other references:
Harlock, J. (2010) Personalisation: emerging implications for the voluntary and community sector. Voluntary Sector Review, vol 1, no 3, pp 371-8
Leadbeater, C. and Bartlett, J. (2008) Personal budgets: The impact on the third sector. London: Demos
Needham, C. (2010) Commissioning for personalization: from the fringes to the mainstream. London: Public Management and Policy Association

23. Understanding Personalisation Implications for organisational development and capacity building in the VCS
Chris Dayson
March 2011