CBO Health Event: Submitting a Full Application
Download as PPT, PDF2 likes511 views
The Commissioning Better Outcomes (CBO) program aims to enhance the Social Impact Bond (SIB) market by improving the skills of commissioners, promoting prevention for vulnerable populations, and facilitating access to new funding for voluntary and community sector enterprises (VCSEs). Key components include the development of impactful proposals, transparent conflict management, and a structured timeline for feasibility studies and applications. The program emphasizes the importance of stakeholder engagement, thorough evaluation, and the sharing of learning to sustain long-term outcomes.
CBO Health Event: Submitting a Full Application
- 1. Commissioning Better Outcomes – Peer Learning Introduction – James Ronicle Senior Research Manager Ecorys
- 2. Commissioning Better Outcomes CBO programme Ambitions – Phil Messere – Funding Manager – Big Lottery Fund
- 3. Commissioning Better Outcomes Support to Commissioners – Tim Gray S&D Consultant to CBO
- 4. Commissioning Better Outcomes General Requirements – Phil Messere 11th February 2016
- 5. What is CBO Looking For? • CBO Aim: Growing the Market in SIBs • CBO Programme Objectives: – improved commissioner skills and confidence – prevention through VCSEs for those most in need – more (VCSE) partners accessing new funds – increased impactful sector learning
- 6. What will the CBO portfolio look like? • transformational ideas: – higher risk more impactful proposals – proven ideas with a good delivery record – new models of funding or delivery • a mix of different funding sizes with larger payments making a stronger contribution • adding to the Fund’s strategic interventions
- 7. Development Grants • CBO closed to DGs 31/12/15 • 62 DG awards made • DG procurement must reflect: – market value of technical support – level of technical staff required – at least 3 suppliers for any support of £10K+
- 8. Completing of Feasibility Work • Use most DG funding to test SIB feasibility. • Actively engage with beneficiaries and front line staff to target those most in need • Put in place arrangements for commissioner, VCSE, investor, evaluator engagement • Structures to sustain commissioner skills • Complete CBO feasibility work by 1/6/16 • Retain specialists to advise on your full app
- 9. Development Grant Reporting • The Fund measures progress on DGs against: – Agreed indicators – Additional terms – Funding draw down – Learning – At mid-point, end of feasibility and end of DG • Share learning via peer learning, feedback to CBO, networks and information sharing
- 10. Key Points for FA applications • Consider CBO aim and outcomes • The lead Commissioner should apply normally • Clear rationales are needed • All figures must be consistent and add up • Retain technical support post feasibility to help assessment • Certain items are ineligible for CBO payments • Manage conflicts • Take into account CBO timelines
- 11. Transparency - Conflicts of Interest • Multiple stakeholders generate multiple conflicts – Commissioners must manage these – Different experts to advise different parties – A provider cannot normally deliver and manage a SIB – CBO DG funding can’t pay for activities by an organisation that invests in the resulting proposition • CBO will not fund Full Award proposals that do not manage conflicts in a transparent way.
- 12. CBO Timelines • 01/06/16 – finish all CBO funded feasibility work • 31/07/16 – last date for CBO full applications • 31/08/16 – all CBO development grants to be closed • 30/11/16 – CBO fully committed in principle • 31/05/17 – final CBO awards confirmed • Mid 2022 – final SIB outcomes paid by CBO • 31/12/22 – final project evaluations published • 31/03/23 – CBO programme closes
- 14. Commissioning Better Outcomes - Evaluation James Ronicle
- 15. Evaluation Key Focus Extent to which CBO has met its aim of growing the SIB market, and what more Big Lottery & other stakeholders could do to meet this aim Challenges in developing SIBs & how these could be overcome Advantages & disadvantages of commissioning through a SIB, added value of using a SIB & how this varies in different contexts
- 16. Method
- 17. How do the local and national evaluations link together? SIB 3 National Evaluation SIB 2SIB 1 Outcomes data Local evaluation findings Deep Dive Outcomes data Local evaluation findings Case study Outcomes data Local evaluation findings
- 18. How can you get involved?
- 19. Online Community
- 20. How can you contact us / get more information? Email: CBO@ecorys.com Twitter: @CBOEvaluation Webpage: https://www.biglotteryfund.org.uk/~/link.aspx? _id=38B25B895A86492AAA548D4737DFE302&_z=z Blog: https://cboevaluation.wordpress.com/2015/07/15/how-to- develop-a-sib-in-health-3-lessons-from-our-learning-event/ Mailing List: Online Community: https://community.biglotteryfund.org.uk/uk- wide/england/commissioning-better- outcomes/default.aspx
- 21. Main Points for Discussion • Social Context • Financials and Metrics • Proposal and Intervention Management • Impactful Evaluation
- 23. Social Context Set out: •Theory of change - why a SIB? Other options? •How SIB can achieve success in this social policy and geographic area with this cohort? •What is similar to past practice and what is new? •How you incentivise most in need to participate? •How stakeholders are incentivised to work with cohort? •Clear referral paths and measurable distance trod? •Link with Fund strategic initiatives – e.g.: Ageing Better
- 24. Financials and Metrics Consider scenarios for success or failure, make sure you: • Only model one scenario for yes/no outcomes • Provide a range of scenarios for rates table based models • Incentivise all parties to maximise success • Social and learning impact as well as savings • Clear outcomes supported by robust data • Plan and cost independent data verification • Risk manage perverse incentives and attribution • Add up metrics and financials consistently • Check realism of interventions and savings • Balance risk and return so it feels fair to stakeholders • Plan realistic intervention costs and beneficiary drop out
- 25. Project Management • Key commissioner on board; embed skills • Retain experts in the social policy area • Effective, efficient project management • Openly procure delivery and management - OJEU • Regular detailed data analysis review • Empower project board to effect rapid change • Manage conflicts, risk transfer, procurement, state aid risks • Provide CBO with a clear picture of funds flow • Manage stakeholder engagement • Obtain independent verification of project evaluation • Apply evaluation techniques in a timely way • Disseminate learning in an impactful way • Timeline – collectively understood and manageable
Editor's Notes
- #16: Overall the evaluation is seeking to answer three key questions… We are also exploring how the answers to these questions varies between the different stakeholders involved…
- #17: The method can be split into two broad strands – evaluation strand and learning strand. Under the evaluation strand… Under the learning strand…
- #18: We’ve had a lot of questions asking about how the local SIB evaluations and this national evaluation link together. The short answer is the national evaluation is a meta-analysis, sitting on top and drawing together local activity. So we are building on, rather than replacing or duplicating, local evaluation activity. We will be drawing 3 main things from the local areas: - Outcomes data - Local evaluation findings - Our own qualitative research (Deep Dives & case studies)
- #19: User Reference Group: Group to ensure learning activities meet needs of users. Will invite when get successful full application, but if want to join contact us. Peer Learning: Facilitate discussions between smaller groups facing same issues – tele, Skype or f2f. Organic & do it as go along, but if have particular problem think will benefit from this contact us. Social Media & Blogging:
- #20: Main benefit reported by service providers (alongside additional investment), cited by over two thirds, but was also reported by more than half of commissioners and many investors. The innovation comes from several aspects: ‘Black box commissioning’ : SIB contracts focus on outcomes, not outputs, and so they tend to be less prescriptive about the support the service provider has to deliver. This enables service providers to be more innovative in the support they provide and adapt the support more easily. Adapting and responding to challenges: Service Providers are more easily able to adapt support. This was particularly noted in the Peterborough SIB, where the final delivery model was very different to that envisaged at the outset. This is facilitated by the improved contract management – as everyone’s interests are aligned there is a desire to move quickly to adapt the delivery model when it is not working. Investors compared this to a more traditional commissioner/provider contract, where there can be time-consuming contract change procedures which slow down this innovation. Commissioners can also test new interventions at minimum risk, as there is little or no payment unless the intervention succeeds. This was an explicit objective of the Manchester SIB.
- #21: User Reference Group: